Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-20-1996 Planning Packet
PLANNCVG COM>nSSION MEETLNG TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20,1996, 7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COU'NCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Charles Kelley ATTENDANCE Applicants presenting proposals before the Commission are asked to move to the table at the front of the Chambers when their application is announced by the Chairman. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS 1. 8:00 p.m. #2107 John M. O'Sullivan, 3340 Shoreline Drive - Vacation of Public Road/Conditional Use PermitsA^ariance/Commercial Site Plan Review 2. 8:30 p.m. Proposed Zoning Amendment, Section 10.20, Subd. 3 - Enclosed Ice Arena as a Conditional Use - Continuation of Public Hearing of January 16, 1996 ACTION ITEMS - Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearinss. 3. '”#2105 Jon and Sally Mitchell I.^bedoff, 1101 West Femdale Road - Renewal Variances - Public Hearing 4. #2106 William and Laura Stoddard, 2605 Kelly Avenue - Variance - Public Hearing 5.fir.2109 Todd Smith, 1380 Arbor Street - Variances - Public Hearing 6. #2110 Joan Dayton, 2465 French Lake Road - Variances - Public Hearing 7.#2111 T. J. Bicker, 2440 Old Beach Road - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Sketch Plan Reviews 8. #2108 Norbert Johnson, 1181 Wildhurst Trail - Subdivision/Sketch Plan Review Planning Commission Comments 9. Repon by Planning Commission Representative attending Council Meeting of February 12,1996 (Elizabeth Hawn). 10 Other issues for discussion. Additional Items 11. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the January 16, 1996 meeting. 12. Planning Commission to select a representative to attend the March 11, 1996 meeting of the Council. Adjournment Public A ttendance Meeting D ate □ □ C ouncil Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1.. 2. S'T I St.2. » 7 C^>>^ f^h Ilf I ~k (/ (yjl I 0^.^ 3 I ^ 6 7 8 . /! kccCf— iYlyr/e. fnail<iu-r7.'^ 1 / 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. i ^sssm S:f !1! iS ■p» ii ii 33 SS "i 1?r !► $ m I I « 8 I <0 I a I -I § o, I > R. o’ B 3ana 9?^ I no n >o-a 5' « B n *- 01 3 M o'n 8 a A n•a*o3 ** S. ^ [|i» k o B-n a II ^ 2 u o B "1- ^ B « 0-0 ^ p O sin • >« ^ ii -n o U c 52 o B {• w> t/» 7?j* ntr 2 o a “‘as ^ ? o 2. |- i aI II S 8ua B-n V Ktr vO VO Ov 0n 8 UQ O«. tro § » o ff vO 'O OsII M 9 ocu V' ifB •ti o ”1 •Tln E* to Bz B’. o'IC/lrr Sw *TJ b’ 5. n 0 5nP S *TJ 1 00o P3 aa;r> K•5 Hrr-* L'fs' |ii opsSts’-^rJ ^ V i;c3s?^ ‘O 'O OV /■ To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Februar>* 14,1996 Subject:#2107 John O’Sullivan, 3340 Shoreline Drive - Vacation/Conditional Use Permits/Commercial Site Plan Review - Public Hearing Zoning District: B-1 Lot area = 66.298 s.f. (excludes County road right-of-way) Required area = 20.000 s.f. Application: Applicant seeks to vacate half of Mavarre Lane or 33' of unimproved dedicated right- of-way and to construct a multiple use facility on the B-1 zoned property consisting of a restaurant, convenience store, gas station and car wash. The B-1 Code does not address a multiple use facility and PUD zoning is not available in the Navarre business district. The following ordinances are pertinent to this review. Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.12 - Vacation of public street. 2.Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Review of structural coverage. Total lot area = 66,298 s.f. Allowed = 9,944.7 s.f. or 15% Proposed = 13,405 s.f. or 20.2% Variance = 3,460.3 s.f. or 5.2% 3.Section 10.40. Subd. 2 - Commercial site plan review required of Planning Commission and Council to permit issuance of building permit. 4. 5. Section 10.40, Subd. 3 - Review of permitted uses in retail and service business district, Section 10.40, Subd. 4 - Conditional uses. A. Motor fuel station. C. Restaurant-Class 1. 6.Section 10.40, Subd. 5 - Accessory uses. Incidentals - Any incidental repair or processing necessar>’ to conduct a permitted principal use, provided that the incidental use shall not exceed 30% of the floor space ot the principal building. Is car wash an accessoty' use to the principal use or is it a principal use? Zoning File #2107 Februar>' 14, 1996 Page 2 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. Section 10.40, Subd. 6 (B) - Lot \vidth. Required = 100' E.\isting at front yard = 60’ Proposed = 100' Secioa 10.40, Subd. 6 (C & D) - Yard requirements. Refer to Exhibit U, partog rs Mlorved at y setback from side street yard, I O' from side or rear yard adjacent to residentral lot line. Parking does not meet required side yard setback from side lot line adjacent to restdenual zone. Section 10 40 Subd. 6 (E) - Setback requirements. Structures must meet 35'setback from front, side line adjacent to street, rear and side yards adjacent to a residential zone. Required = 35' Car wash = 5’ Variance = 30' or 85.7% Section 10.40, Subd. 6 (G) - Building design and construction. It is not clear from the material received what the exterior finishes will be. Applicant should provide t e information at our meeting. Section 10.60 - Projects shall be subject to all special performance standards of this section. Section 10.61. Subd. 3 (A) - Applicant should be advised ot possible need for a ^ure variance to allowance for signage as there is only 100+ lineal feet of frontage. Applican would be limited to 100 s.f. for signage and should be addressed in the current commerce site plan review. Section 10.61. Subd. 5 (E) - Special setbacks for parking from side and rear yards adjacent to residential lot line. Parking is located 3’ from residential and should be 10*. 14. Section 10.61, Subd. 10 - Required off-street parking. Restaurant = 1 stall per each 80 s.f. of public floor area 2,160 s.f.- 80 = 27 spaces Convenience store = 2.500 s.f. - 150 s.f. = 17 spaces Required = 44 Proposed = 53 (3 handieap) Note: City does not credit parking spaces at pump island. Section 10 61 Subd. 18 (J) - The Code specifically requires that Council must approve more than two gas stations at an intersection. The intersection would have three. Removal ot the former Martin's Service Station and replacement with new use requires new City approval. i1 » iij jl OSAH- ___________J-si iiyjtL _ j 1946165-......• Jis. V..............................► ’34.66 •• • ♦ 4 33) 2664. GI RcS STORM SEWER DISTRICT BOUNDARY SCHOni OT^TRTrT pniiMnftOY HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOT r.PhirpM c:rn\/Trrc r»rr>*r.Ti«- • • . O^ ft / / .7/ Proposed Development at 340 Shoreline Drive, Navarre The purpose of this project is to build a sit down, family restaurant, 4300 square feet, with drive-thru food service. The fresh food and custard menu fits somewhere between a McDonald/Burger King concept and a Perkins/Baker's Square restaurant. The customer will order the food at one of the register order points. The food will be delivered by staff to the table where the customer is seated. The restaurant will contain seating for 99 customers We are going to combine this concept in the same building with an O'Sullivan C-Store. The restaurant and C-Store will utilize the same utilityA'estroom core of the building. Eight fueling points will be available under a full canopy. The brand of gasoline will be the same as the present O'Sullivans across the street. The store will offer a normal C-Store selection of products including coffee, cold drinks, bakery, roller grill products and cold sandwiches. A mini-tunnel service car wash will be built on the site. The equipment will inckxte a conveyor system to pull the car through the ninety (90) foot car wash. Most of the equipment will be touchless spray applicators with a "shaker- curtain" and quarter panel soft cloth rollers. This development exceeds the vehicle parking requirements for the proposed used. The development Is Phase I of a two stage development We will follow this request very shortly with a plan to develop the property to the adjacent north with a retail and office development. 4 Zoning File #2107 February 14, 1996 Page 3 16. Section 10.61, Subd. 11-17 - Specifically Subd. 17 (B & D) - It would appear that the proposed use would require a loading berth or loading area on site. This has not been addressed on site plan. List of Exhibits A-1-2 Applications B - Applicant's Addendum C - Plat Map D - Property OwTiers' List E - Legal Notice for Vacation F - Deed G - Gustafson Report 2/8/96 H - Oman Report I - Hardcover Inventoiy J - Floor Plan-Convenience Store K - Floor Plan-Restaurant L - News Article 1/28/96 M-1-2 Car Wash Specs and Plans N-1-4 Photos, Culver Restaurant Exterior and Interior O - Elevations Southwest P - RLS 1433 Q - Culver Menu R - Existing Survey and Topo S - E.xisting/Proposed Overlay Site Plan T - Proposed Site Plan U - Staff Sketch Review of Vacation Tne vacation application proposes vacation of 33' of Navarre Lane located within Tract A of RLS 1433. Applicant's addendum. Exhibit B. advises of plans to redevelop church property to the immediate north. It is not clear why applicant did not seek to vacate the entire right-of-way. The City learned in earlier reviews that the church structure encroaches 9' into the right-of-w'ay of Navarre Lane. Review Exhibits T and U. note the utilities within the 33' of right-of-way to be vacated. Municipal water lines and telephone lines are located within the right-of-way. Applicant shall grant easements over the utilities. Zoning File #2107 February 14, 1996 Page 4 The City would vacate the entire right-of-^v'ay. The City staff and applicant should deterge the boundary of the vacation at the northeast. In lieu of giving up the road nght-of-way, the City %vill ask for additional retention area in the stormwater pond proposed in the residential property to the northeast. It is necessarv' that the City seek out additional retention areas to store and treat runoff- before it enters into the designated wetlands within the area. The current stormwater lines dram directly into wetlands without providing treaunent. Review of Commercial Site Plan and Conditional Use Permits The B-1 property currently houses a motor fuel station with car repair. To the rear of the stahon there is an outdoor storage yard where the previous owner had stored vehicles for City. The maioritv of the eastern portion of the properly as it extends towards the designated w etland w as filled during 'the tornado of the early 60 ’s. Any new construction will require soil tenngs to determine design and type of foundation. The former use has been a low intensity use at this busy intersection. The new owner and applicant proposes the construction of a sit-dovvn restaurant of approximately 99 seat capacitv with drive-up window. The Culver restaurants can be found in Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa. The restaurant will be connected to a convenience store offering a similar selection of products as O’Sullivans across the street including coffee, cold drinks, bakery items, rojl-o-gn products and cold sandwiches. The convenience store will have eight fueling points under a ful canopy. In a separate building along the east lot line, a mini-tunnel senice car w^h at approximately 2,100 s.f is also proposed. All stmetures meet the required o5 setback ^^^ept for Ac car wash Aat will be located 5' from the rear lot line adjacent to the residential zone. Note the gas canopy meets the 35' setback from the street side lot line. fhe following issues must be resolved by both the City and applicant before the application can proceed for final action before the Council. l.and Use Review die permitted uses listed under Subdivision 3 and the conditional uses under Subdtvision 4. Both the convenience store and the restaurant would be considered permitted principal uses on a propeny The car wash is not listed but review Section 10.40, Subd. 5. is the car wash an accessory or principal use? Refer specincally to F entitled Incidentals. The principal structure consists of 5461 s.f 30% of that total area is 1,638.3 s.f. The car wash is 2,160 s.f. Are we dealing w^t^ or four principal uses on the single property? We would have an easier task tf the City had a commercial PUD Code for the Navarre area. Standards for a single pnncipal use on a property > be inadequate when dealing with multiple uses such as what is being proposed. The applicant would ask the City to consider the multiple use facility at O'Sullivans consisting of le con«n ”Le store, gas station, car repair and car wash. Parking and on-site traffic are major Zoning File #2107 Februarj' 14,1996 Page 5 problems for the site. During the review of the O’Sullivan project, the City decided against amending the Code to create standards for the multiple use but preferred to allow the area limitations of the property to restrict multiple uses and any expansion of those uses. The City recently reviewed an intensification in food serv ice at the convenience store at O’Sullivans and approved a walk-up window to serve customers at the exterior of the building. The propertv' consists of 66,000 s.f. Required area for the B-l zoning district is 20.000 s.f. for a principal use. One may argue that there is adequate area to serv’e three principal uses on the site. Review of Variances fhe car wash structure does not meet the required setback of 35’, proposed at 5’, Parking along the side lot line adjacent to the church propert>', a residentially zoned property, does not meet the required 10' setback. One might argue that the parking adjacent to the side street should meet the same 20’ setback as for front yard. The Code only references parking adjacent to residential and does not deal with a more restrictive standard for a side street yard. Parking can be as close as 3. Members are asked to review Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (A & B). A lot coverage variance will be required as property is less than 1.99 acres in area. It is shown at 20.2% where the Code would allow 15?^. The majority of the 33’ of area to be vacated will consist of utility easements. Note the dumpster enclosure would not be permitted within an easement area but parking and drives would be allowed. Note along the side lot line adjacent to the church property, extensive filling along that portion of the property will require a retaining wall. This may also be an issue in light of the existence ot utilities that may need to be accessed. The Code has requirements for landscape/yard/green areas. There is little of that shown on this busy site. Gradimi^Drainage Proposed and existing topography should be shown on one grading plan that should also include building locations, elevations and erosion control to be used during construction. One-third of the property’s drainage will drain to a proposed underground storm sewer to the residential property to the northeast. The retention pond will treat and retain runoff before it enters the DNR and Orono designated wetland just to the east of the subject propertv-. .Approximately nvo-thirds ot the surface runoff from the site will drain to the southeast comer and eventually to the same DNR wetland to the east No retention or treatment is provided. The current laws will not allow runoft from a commercial site to drain directly into a protected wetland. Drainage ponding calculations should be provided once the final extent of uses on the site have been resolved. J Zoning File #2107 February 14. 1996 Page 6 Sewer and Water Utilities Sewer and water mains are located vvithin Navarre Lane. The former services are probably inadequate to service the new uses and will require new connections. If the north side of Navarre Lane is to be vacated, there will be easements to be taken over the existing sewer and gas lines. Traffic - Interior and Exterior Review Exhibits T and U. the property is ser\ed by nvo accesses off Shoreline Drive. The most western one selves as the main entrance to the car wash that flows to the east along the east lot line and then eventually exits at the most ea-=t=*ni nirb cut. The drive-in window at the restaurant allows cars to enter at the most eastern access that will follow along a controlled lane that eventually exits at the most western access. The cross traffic activities at both curb cuts is of major concern. The parking shown along the side street lot line adjacent to the gas canopy or service area is of major concern. As already noted above, the types of uses proposed require loading areas. There are none shown on this site. The County has been asked to review the site plan to determine the need for additional area tor a right turn lane at the intersection and to comment on the proposed access locations. The Engineer strongly recommends that the County, City staff and applicant meet to discuss the many traffic concerns for this veiy busy site. Proposed Future Commercial Use of Church Property U? Notlb Applicant ’s addendum suggests that a retail and office development would be proposed for the property. The property is zoned LR-IC. The City considers a rezoning request of major import and rarely considers requests to rezone single properties. Members ot Council have voiced opposition to any rezoning of this propertv. Applicant should advise the Planning Commission on this matter as application is dependent upon additional retention and treatment area on the residential property to the northeast. Issues to be Resolved 1. How many uses can be supported on this property? 2. J. Will you grant variances for new development? What is vour recommendauon concerning a rezoning of the property to the immediate north? 4. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. ■ 'IC'$ A y 1 Amount Paid *. r-. ..-1. CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION i 1 Application # erP/ O'? Date Received / ^ (o PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Type of Application to be Filed Sr^GRT V(hlf^nC'A Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)-------------------------------— APPLICANT Name_____-O ^ b* Phone (home). Address [.,1 'J _________________Phone (work) ~ T - 0 7 jT— f-i’crC) r^fiDClv/ TA^ Zip__^^3^JZ^ I OWNER (if different than applicant) iNjrie ____________________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ A,.±‘ess CitN'Zip. Date Property Acquired---------------------------- I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application SI75.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ^ $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments f • /▼% 1 1* $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg * $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ’ $250.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplam Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more^ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75’ of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change fi-om original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS u , r n $250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $300.00 Vacation $200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision * $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) * $350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ’ $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District---------------—. Present Use of Property----------Residential Other (specify). 1 I REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property ONVTiers List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Surv ’ey (signed by a licensed surv'eyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (e.xisting and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCL^IENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Propert\- Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use /Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:___________________________Date_________________________ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature .vc^/1 j 1 /i 1 (CCi Date /A OWNER’S SIGNATURE The ovvner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entiy onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date Applicant must have ail submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled n.«.»ting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Applicstio** M #.4 a i .-»-», - Date Received Amount Paid »*♦ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION «m_wq 2 3340 Shoreline Drive Navarr^.WJ— bite Aaorcii —----:———Use PermitSite Address ________— Type of Application to be riled---------f7_i i ;_73 44UUt5b Munincipality #38 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ------------------------ applicant Name O'Sullivan’s. Phone (home). Address 2420 Shadywood Road Phone (worici (6121 471-0725 r;ty Navarre^ MN_____Zip 55392 ___ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_________________ Phone (home). _ Phone (work). Address City _ Zip. ^ .__, March, 1995 ____(month/year) with Cia> application $175.00 Residential Accessory Use ^ $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ” $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ^ $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ----$250.0^L^^A^^ ^ designated wetland or floodplain ------- Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore $l^!oo°Rei^a^ Fee (no change from original applicauon) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Applicauon Fee OTHER '^^“^^™^„eial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $300.00 Vacation $200.00 Easement Vacauon $100 00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision " $3^00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - sec Fee Schedule present use of PROPERTY Other f«;pecifvVcUarvice 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. required submittals 1. ____Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. . -------Cenified Propoty Own«* Us. of Depamnen. of -------must oboin this list. labeU and map from Hennepin t,ouni) f _ to _ “rai description to application if no. inclu^ on ____Topographic survey (existing and proposed con ) changes in elevation (grades). oersons with an interest u;—L“riXr=Jts.r;7.ri;;ir;»—--<»—2r=;:r i' « zrns».- persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUmED TO SUPPLY 30 FOR REPRODUCTION (U" X 17" OR SELLER FO^ ^ SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, pi submitted.) ■nic Aonlicant and Properqi Owner must sign Uus application. PleaM remember Uiat your Jplfrato U not complete if the above infoimauon has not been mcltide . Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Appli^ion is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:. ______— ------------------------ applicants SIGN^ i„formauon required or requested by the Zoning The applrcant Iternhy agre P (staff time not coveted by original fee payment) ''‘S^r^^IiaT^ns^ incurred in review of Uiis application, and certifies *al Ute ;;^:™urstpplieri" m.c and correct to die best of hisdier knowledge. c LxUc-.Date ( ^ ^ Applicant ’s signature _ OWNER'S SIGNATURE -mnlication and further authorized The oumer “y City 'uff- consultente. agents, commission members, "^cil m^bers for purposes of investigation and verification of Uus request ^ r vw iv\ r~ .i.jx L V -^ V^_Date _l/2i£—"'wner's signature _ applies, musl have all su^'mluah into ^e Piling Commission Jd Council. If an appUcan. is «">•>"'V"'"!! ,11 schmiulcd review lo h7e an audiorired agen. anend in your place and adv.se die B;rg“'’^a ofLTISge poor .0 die meelmg ' ail V.•!1» I ;i't}'*MM OATf 91/U/H f MTCH M« u r. HEMCPZN COUNTY PROPERTY INPORHAHON SYSTEM PROPERH ONNERS LIST '•f i ; ‘ i I; -r:-;ia I7-117-23 44 000« PROP AODR OSSaO.''- SHAOYNOOO RO OHMER NAME 6RACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE TAXPAYER NORTH CENTRAL CBA NAME/AOOR . 7240 UNIVERSITY AVE N E tllO PRIOLEY MN 55452 1 AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR SB 17-117-25 44 0009 02577 SHAOYNOOO RO HARCEL S DITTRICH MARCEL DITTRICH 2577 SHAOYNOOO RO MAYZATA m 55391 PROP AODR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER • NAME/AOOR 30 17-117-23 44 0032 00050 - AOORESS UNASSIGNEO GENE AND SHERYLL BLOCK GENE AND S^IERYLL BLOCK 250S BAYVIEN PLACE MAYZATA MN 55391 -*• PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 30 17-117-25 44 0060 05524 NAVARRE LA BRETT KALLONDUIST BRETT R HALLONQUIST 5524 NAVARRE LA NAYATA m 55591 » ,■ » / *: PROP AOOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER * NAHE/AOOR Sa 17-117-ES 44 0075 02SS4 SHAOYNOOO RO J i 0 ERICSON rIOHN C a BARBARA E ERICSON 1420 SHAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA HN 55S91 PROP AOOR : OlfCR NAHE . TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SB 17-117-2S 44 0078 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIGT4ED GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE GRACE BAPnST CHURCHyTUVARRE 2SB0 SHAOYNOOO RO ORONO m 55S91 I •J!.> 4 ',. V * 6 • ;• •■•i 'fi 5B 17-117-25 44 0007 02544 SHAOYNOOO RO GRACE OAPTISr CHURCH/NAVARRE GRACE OAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE 2500 SHAOYNOOO RO ORONO Ml 55591 50 17-117-25 44 0015 00030 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO NEMCPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 10/17/60 ST DEED 159140 SO 17-117-23 44 0033 02305 BAYVIEN PL R H STELLINO ETAL GENE H BLOCK 2305 BAYVIEN PLACE NAYZATA MN 55391 SB 17-117-23 44 0043 02344 OLIVE AVE J L CARLSON A H R CARLSON J L CARLSON AMR CARLSON 2344 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA Ml 55391 SB 17-117-23 44 0074 02334 SHAOYNOOO RO JOHN C A BARBARA E ERICSON JOHN A BARBARA ERICSON 1420 SHAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA HN 55391 SB 17-117-23 44 0084 02350 OLIVE AVE NANCY C RUST NANCY C NELSON 235d OLIVE AVE, HAY^TA HN BS391 REPORT NO. PI4S5401 PAGE 5E 3B 17-117-23 44 0008 OOOSB AOORESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO CONVEYED 2/8/82 ST DEED 141145 SB 17-117-23 44 0031 02275 BAYVIEN PL JAMES R ANDERSON JAMES R ANDERSON 2275 BAYVIEN PLACE MAYZATA Ml 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0059 03320 NAVARRE U AORIAMB L 0006E AORIANNE L DOOGE 3520 NAVARRE LA NAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-25 44 0064 02338 OLIVE AVE B A JAKUBIAK 2 L H JAKUBlAK BRIAN A JAKUBIAK 2SSB OLIVE AVE NAYZATA Ml 55391 SB 17-117-25 44 0077 03326 NAVARRE LA GRACE BAPTIST CtftffiCH/NAVARRE GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE 2iB0 SHADYHOOO RD ORONO Ml 55391 Si 17-117-23 44 0065 03340 SHORELINE OF: VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS INC VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS INC P 0 BOX 65 NAvARRE mi 55l92 >1 J ■ • $' • m li I » » H I I Yi. if ‘j*}' • ■ ‘ t \ ’ • ^ I • >0 t t • • *r‘‘ ■ Kl 'l'’ ' i u •: . 5*•J. J• t • f /.I .fv" .1 *«« ■ (ji 4: ''}*; r ' 1* ^^4 .•TP**' ; f t * 5 I» » *.< ■' RUN DAT! OVtS/H ,■?: ;.*:•■ i ■W . 14.# ’ i-^.j ,, ' * •. .'MTCH ' ’ '' M ‘X7-U7-2S 44 0094 OOOSa ' ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO M ■' OMCR NAME HENNERXN FORFEITED LAND * . TAXPAYER HEMCPZN FORFEITED LAND PROP ADDR ■r -K • V* .* ». U : ■ ; ;NAME/AOOR. \ ^ ' • # I 4^ * - • “! • •• . • / .i ' CMCII HMi TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR ;• .1 ^ PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE * TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR i ■ *1 !» •» « • . «• } 'HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNPORHATXQN SYSTEM PROPERTY OmERS LIST S8 17-117-ES A4 OOS^ 00038 ADDRESS UNASSXOCD CITY or ORONO CITY or ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55359 PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR .;V SB 17-117-23 44 0101 03360 SHORELINE OR LAC ROEHNEN LEROY A CAROL KOEHNEN 26020 VALLEYNOC' EXCELSIOR m 55331 « • ' M tO-117-25 n 0015 02445 SHAOYHOOD RD 1ST NATL BANK OF NAVARRE 1ST NATL BAM( OF NAVARRE CO ROAD 15 A CO ROAD 19 NAVARRE MN 55S92 > S • ‘ ' ' • * * j*' *4, ■ M < 20-117-2S 11 0039 DOOM ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO FRESHNATER FOUNDATION FRESMNATER FOUNDATION 725 CO RO « NAYZATA W4 55391 • ■ * . # /♦ • » . I 4 • f 1 ’.,.y *■ '■ I M • * p •T H--* ^ ' 1 . • f ■ »,.Vv •. -• .-..•I:vt. •. V „ .. v' » ■ • • :'l.r ^ it: > .» » % /?* ^ * • *• 56 17>117-2S 44 0102 02565 SHAOYHOOD RO S H SCHMIDT I S J SCHMIDT STEPHEN H SCHMIDT 2365 SHADYNOOO RO BOX 15 NAYZATA MN 55391 . 56 20-117-25 11 0024 03555 SHORELINE DR MCT COMPANY SUPER VALU STORES INC CORPORATE TAX DEPT PO BOX 990 MPLS MN 55440 TOTAL BATCH 504 00026 REPORT NO. PI455401 PAGE 55 56 17-117-25 44 0100 03362 SHORELINE OR GLASS IX PARTNERS GLASS IX PARTNERS 14600 26TH AVE N PLYMOUTH m 55447 36 20-117-25 11 0002 02420 SHADYNOOO RO VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS CO RD 15 A 19 NAVARRE m 55592 56 20-117-25 11 0034 02500 SHADYNOOO RO FRESHNATER FOUNDATION FRESHNATER FOUNDATION SPRIT» HILL CENTER 725 SIXTH AVE N NAYZATA m 55391 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AM ACCtMATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* 10 THE BEST OF MY KN0HLED6E AND BELIEF. date! r. . C$)K:j[L;lv^)Cri\-Crb ) • • • • A f . 1' \ iS I rv»» V i 1:.0 •'<9 *f r. Sr' A A* . I t ^ *•jv- ■■T* ■ ■ .I : N-' ' *'' i‘ ■ . *v: i‘^^;r ; ' ' / * . ■ ’.RUN 0A11 01/tl/MVtf;vVJ.; ■ '/ '>*,V'V’ •, :* ' * .•j\BATCH SOS J PROP AOOR OHNEi NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP AODR OHNER NAHE TA)0»AYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AODR OI««R NAHE TA>0»AYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AODR OHNER NAHE ' TAXPAYER ' NAm/AODR • . • •* PROP ADOR OWCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR ‘r • PROP AODR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAI«/ADDR r.-'- ■- I "‘'.i ,SB 17-117-ES 44 0004 02SB0 SHAOYHOOO RP GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH>^VARRE NORTH CENTRAL CBA 7240 UNIVERSITY AVE N E illO FRIDLEY Ifl 554S2 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATIQN SYSTEH PROPERTY 01««RS LIST SB 17-117-2S 44 OOSl 0227S BAYVIEH PL JAHES R ANDERSON JANES R ANDERSON 227S BAYVIEH PUCE HAYZATA Itl 55S91 SB 17-117-2S 44 0059 0SS20 NAVARRE U ADRIAIME L DODGE ADRIANNE L DODGE SS20 NAVARRE LA NAYZATA HN 55S9I SB 17-117-2S 44 0074 02SS4 SHADYNOOO RO JOHN C I BARBARA E ERICSON JOHN A BARBARA ERICSON 1420 SHAOYHOOO RO NAYZATA m 55S91 SB 17-117-2S 44 00B4 02S50 OLIVE AVE NANCY C RUST NANCY C NELSON 2S50 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA m 55S91 SB 17-117-2S 44 0099 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIGt^D CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY Hi 55S59 SB I7-117-2S 44 0007 02S44 SHAOYHOOO RO GRACE BAPTIST CHIRK:H>TUVARRE GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE 2SB0 SHAOYHOOO RO ORONO Hi 55S91 SB 17-117-23 44 0032 0003B ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO GENE AND SHERYLL BLOCK GENE AND SHERYLL BLOCK 2305 BAYVIEH PLACE HAYZATA HN 55391 3B 17-117-23 44 0040 03324 NAVARRE U BRETT HALLONQUIST BRETT K HALLONQUIST 3324 NAVARRE LA HAYATA HN 55391 3B 17-117-2S 44 0077 033^4 NAVARRE U GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE 23B0 SHAOYHOOO RO ORONO Hi 55391 SB 17-117-2S 44 0065 03340 SHORELINE DR V0YA6EUR SERVICE CENTERS INC V0YA6EUR SERVICE CENTERS INC P 0 bO>t 45 NAVARRE MN 55392 SB 17-117-23 44 0100 033B2 SHORELINE DR GLASS il PARTNERS GLASS 11 PARTNERS 14400 26TH AVE N PLYHOUTH HN 55447 REPORT N0« PI435401 P*OE 19SB 17-117-23 44 0009 02377 SHADYNOOO RO HARCEL S DITTRICH MARCEL DITTRICH 2377 SHAOYHOOO RD NAYZATA HN 55391 SB 17-117-23 44 0033 02305 BAYVIEH PL R H STELLIN6 ETAL GENE H BLOCK 2305 BAYVIEH PLACE HAYZATA Hi 55391 SB 17-117-23 44 0043 02344 OLIVE AVE J L CARLSON A H R CARlSON J L CARLSON A H R CARLSON 2344 OLIVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 SB 17-117-23 44 0078 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIGr€0 GRACE BAPTIST CIIURCH/NAVARRE GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE 23B0 SHADYNOPD RO ORONO MN 55391 SB 17-117-23 44 0094 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND SB 17-117-23 44 0101 03340 SHORELINE DR LAC KOEHNEN LEROY A CAROL KOEHNEN 24020 VALLEYNOOO EXCELSIOR Hi 55331 •:c ■y • Ml % • w V: •’k' •■J*- ■•" i\ ■ f .F’ ■"'• . ;V • . ■ " ? * ■ 1. • • :St‘,;iiiil MTl’ovtl/tiiii'sK'' '■s.' * / * X - . ^ O ' BATCH SOS r^i •• j tr HtMilPIN COUNTY PHOPERTY INPOWUnON SYSTEM PROPERTY 0»MERS LIST POOR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR .'!■ ■/ SO 17-117-ES 44 0102 OZSaS SHADYNOOO RO S H SCHNXDT A S J SCHMIDT STEPHEN N SCHMZOT 2SSB SMAOYNOOO RO BOX IS NAYUTA m 55391 in. f « t , Q : PROP AOOR 0»MER NAME TAXPAYER . NAME/AOOR U ‘ so CO-117-23 11 0017 02455 SHADYNOOO RO JARXBO INC JARXBO INC PO BOX 95 NAVARRE m S5S92 ;■ ■ •O' PROP AOOR OWCR NAME ; TAXPAYER O NAME/AOOR SO E0-117-2S 11 0039 OOOSS ADDRESS UNASSIGNED PRESHNATER FOUNDATION FRESHNATER FOUNDATION 725 CO RO 4 NAYZATA M4 55391 •..f - . • O • • •• o.• r> ». ' V* . I • • } . < • • ‘’t *. n / *• .* I if ^ ■ • • r V • -4 <, I. •f I* *» ’• . •♦ i* ‘ I • * i.'-: • •‘•V.sl. • T . ! . ♦ ' *. I * ^ * i *•'t • • ‘Vr f;-'. '• ..'.S’ -v'- I * 4 • t ; >• f i; • .• > • • I • • .4 • . . »> • I .•. . f. ’ ^ •• • • A , ■ ** . \ 4 - 30 20-117-2S 11 0002 02420 SNAOYHOOO RO V0YA6EUR SERVICE CENTERS VOYACEUR SERVICE CENTERS CO RO IS A 19 NAVARRE 104 55392 30 20-117-23 11 0024 03333 SHORELINE DR N6T COMPANY SUPER VALU STORES INC CORPORATE TAX DEPT PO BOX 990 MPLS »t4 55440 TOTAL BATCH 503 00025 REPORT NO. PI4SS401 PAGE to SO 20-117-23 11 0015 02445 SHADYNOOO RO 1ST NATL BAMC OF NAVARRE 1ST NATL BAFK OF NAVARRE CO ROAD 15 A CO ROAD 19 NAVARRE HN 55392 38 20-117-23 11 0034 02500 SHADYNOOO RO FRESHNATER FOUNDATION FRESHNATER FOUNDATION SPRING HILL CENTER 725 SIXTH AVE N NAYZATA MN 55391 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HErtCPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OP HY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE (r6') 1. • , 'U • • 1* r‘. . ■ Y i-O ■'% r:'-' %■ J( .•i» ■ • • • . • l(; ‘V ' f*,tO •A. - - 3'"' ’n-. i : •• . .* / ;*-y.»•** •r i . / / i<V •.I-. :V''- 'b t ;/.* I- *e. ‘ f# »k CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crjstal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (612)473-7357 Fax 473-0510 NOTICE The Planning Commission will hold a scheduled public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Tuesday. February 20, 1996 at 8:00 p.m. on the matter of John M. O'Sullivan's petition to vacate a portion of a public road known as Navarre Lane and legally described as follows: That part of Tract A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO 1433 described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly corner ot said Tract A; thence southeasterly along the northeasterly line of said Tract A, 33.08 feet, to the intersection with a line 33.00 feet southeasterly of and parallel with the northwesterly line of said Tract A; thence southwesterly and parallel with the northwesterly line of said Tract A, 279.64 feet; thence northwesterly to a point on the northwesterly line of said Tract A, 253.03 feet southwesterly of the most northerly comer of said Tract A; thence northeasterly along the nonhwesterly line of said Tract A. 253.03 feet to the point of beginning. The application also involves conditional use permits, a commercial site plan review and a side setback variance for construction of a Class II restaurant, convenience store, motor fuel station and car wash at the property located at 3340 Shoreline Drive. The restaurant with drive-in window, convenience store and motor fuel station will be contained in one structure. The car wash will be located in a second structure on the property. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at the specified time. Written comments are solicited. Plans are available in the City offices for review, by appointment. City of Orono By: Planning Commission I ^ 1 A . / / I £'c / jH Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator To be published the weeks of February 5 and February 12, 1996. i , t * ^ j/•w mortgage jgKPForm No. 43-M c> \ p s 5^I V om 3) -I m O X 5 I vO vOcn5 oS ^ ^ & (reserved tor mongage registry tax payment data) mc o 2: z ? rn n O® ?5 X- j;4r. .•< rn » ? ^ 2 Z W’zm o> MiUff'Davw Co.* Miwwipniii (10>3-ia) Uufmi C«»^«at Bliki (19W 04 V •on* 3 mortgage registry tax due HEREON: . 9n ‘^.oo s;|«MCn WtPC TmnC3 1»T1- . y- r mnC3 t V 0 r THIS INDENTURE. Made this.----- between VnyanPnr ‘inrvirp rpntprt -Inc .day of -----ess!!.. 19.2S.. * CQEpotalmn Steven M. Martin and Christopher J. Dunja] MortESEOt (Whether one or more,, and X^hether one or more,. under the laws of ----Minnesot a ITl^gor in hand paid by MortC^eel.^'^e^'n'^' whereof Minnesota, described as follows: su.. -33, snSf^s Hennepin. Part of me bo-da^ lines^f saKl land in Book 1853 of Deeds. Page 143. of the County of S" aTiSr Bo°ok irof"age 143. Document No. 2632442. 1C W 1Ccr 0^ 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene /Kndcrfik & ^1 Associates Engineers £i Architects February 8, 1996 Bonestroo. Roscnc. Andertik and Aisocates. me. is an Affirmmjve Action/E»*il Opportunity Employer Otto G Bonestroo. »t Robert W ’ove«>.* Joseph C. A-'oeriik. PE Mjrvin L Sorvalo. P E. Richard E- Turner. P E. Gtenn R Cook. P E. Thomas E. Noyes. P E. Rooert G. Schunicht. P E Susan M. EPertin. CPA * * Senior Consuftam Howard A. Sanford. PE. ke<th A. Gordon.. PE. Robert R. Pfef ferfe P E. Richard W Poster. PE David O Loskota. P E Robert C Russek. A.IA. Jerry A. Bourdoa P E. Mark A Hanson. P E. Mtcnaei T Rautmann. P E. Ted k Field. P E Thomas R. Anderson. A.I.A James R. Rosenmerkel. P.E. Dorsa«d C. Burgardt. P E. Thomas A. Syfko. P E. Frederic J. Sienborg. P E Ismae* Martirsei. P E. Michael P Rau, P E. Thomas W Peterson. P E. Michael C. LyrKh. P E James R. Maiand. P £ Jerry D. Peaiich. PE Scott J. Arganek. P.E. Kenneth P Ar*c*erson. PE. Mark R Rolfs. PE. Mark A Seip. PE. Gary W. Monen. P.E. Paul J. Garwsoa A.IA. Oarsiei J Edgerton. P E. A. Rick Schmidt PE. Dale A Grove. PM. Philip J. Casweu. PJL Mark C’. Wallis. P E. Mi>c d Jensen. PE L Phillip Gravel. PE Karen L Wiemen. P E. Gary D. Knstofiu. PE. Brian K. Gage. P E. F. Todd Foster. PM. Keith R Yapp T Oouglai J. Fersoit. hS Shawn O Gustafson. PC v.rviiia Olivier. PE. Kent J Wagner. PE Paul a Heuer. PE. John P. Gorder. PE. Dan O. Boyum. PE. Jeffrey J. Ehleftrsger. PX Joseph R. Rhein. PE Lee M. Manrv PX Charles A Erickson Leo M. Pawelsky Harlan M. Olson Agnes M. R«r>g James F. Engelhard! Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: O’Sullivan Site Plan File No. 139-2107 Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the survey and schematic design for the proposed commercial development located at the northeast comer of Shadywood Road (CSAH 19) and Shoreline Drive (CSAH 15) in Navarre. The development includes a 90 foot mini-tunnel car wash, a family restaurant with sit down and drive-thru food service, and an O Sullivan Convenience Store/gas station. The proposal includes a request to vacate the east half of the existing Navarre Une right-of-way. A second phase will be pursued soon to develop the adjacent church property with a retail and office development. There are several issues that need to be addressed relative to engineering matters, and added to the plan set. 1. Utilities: The existing sanitary sewer and water main to serve this property are located within the right-of-way for Navarre Lane. Services have been extended to the property, however it is likely that the size is inadequate and new service connections will be necessary. Plans and specifications should be prepared for the service line connections, with as-built plans provided to the City upon completion. 2. Grading; The topography shown on the survey is correct. A grading, drainage and ” erosion control plan should be prepared that shows both the existing and proposed contours, building locations and elevations, and erosion control measures to be used during construction. Detail-, should be provided for the proposed landscape/retaining wall shown along the northeast property line. The retaining wall should have a fence along the top if it e.xceeds a 3-foot height. It appears that the construction may exceed the property limits which will require easements from the adjacent property. 3. Drainage: The site drains naturally to DNR protected wetland basin #27-9 12W. The drainage plan for this development should include stormwater ponding to treat the runoff leaving the site. The parking lot should have storm sewer for proper drainage. Drainage and ponding calculations should be provided for our review. Some type of skimmer structure should be included at the pond outlet. A detail of the outlet structure and pond elevations should be shown on the plan. The plans should be 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636*4600 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth City of Orono Page -2- Februarv 8, 1996 submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review and approval. 4. Traffic: Our preliminary review raises numerous concerns about potential traffic, access, vehicle queue and internal circulation problems within the site. Hennepin County traffic engineers should review the site plan to determine the traffic impacts on eSAH 15 and 19, and the signalized intersection. Their review should include the proposed access locations, work within the existing right-of-way, and whether or not additional right-of-way is needed in this vicinity. After receiving comments from the County, we recommend a meeting with the developer be scheduled to discuss these subjects. 5. Easements: Utility easements will need to be provided for the existing water main, telephone cable and any other existing utilities located in that portion of Navarre Lane to be vacated. Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along the lot lines and 10 feet wide along the two County road right-of-ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all drainageways and ponding areas. 6. Parking Lot: The parking lot should be paved with concrete curb and gutter. The driving lanes within the parking lot should have a 9-ton pavement section for trucks. A geotechnical evaluation of the soils should be done in conjunction with the pavement design. Based on the existing soil conditions, the pavement section will likely require geotextile fabric. 7. Landscaping: There may be a need for a landscaped screen between the commercial development and the adjacent residential properties to the north and east. 8. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Axt-rn J). Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. / /• r\ Preliminary Plan Review Notes Address; 3340 Shoreline Dr. Owner; John O'Sullivan and Erwin Smith ■ V . :v. . ‘* Proposed project; Restaurant, convenience store and car wash Inspector. Lyle Oman, Building Official Note; This preliminary plan review is based on partial plans to reveal any major obsticals, complete plans will be rcquiied and rcveiwed for the issuance of a building permit. Restaurant: Occupancy classification; A-3 Occupant load; Dining area; 1584 sq. ft. @ 15 occupants per sq. ft. =105 Kitchen area; 1140 sq. ft. @ 200 occupants per sq. ft. = 5 Total= 110 Construction type; VN Location on property; acceptable Allowable area; acceptable Height and no. of stories; acceptable -Special requirements; Fire sprinkler system Convenience store Occupancy classification; M Occupant load; Store area; 1713 sq. ft. @ 30 occupants per sq. ft. = 57 Office area; 440 sq. ft. @ 100 occupants per sq. ft. = 4 Storage area; 584 sq. ft. @ 300 occupants per sq. ft. = 2 Total = 63 Construction type; VN Location on property; acceptable Allowable area; acceptable Height and no. of stories; acceptable -Special requirements; Fire sprinkler system r 1 . I Car wash building Occupancy classification; S-3 Occupant load; 2160 sq. ft. @ 200 occupants per sq. ft. = 10 Construction type; VN Allowable area; acceptable Height and no. of stories; acceptable -Special requirements; Exterior wall less than 20 ft. from property line must be of one hour construction, and openings must be protected less than 10 ft. from property line j:i . mi Gas pump canopy ~^ii^ «WP; r,?r TJ- -.-»Occupancy classification; S-3 Construction type; VN Occupant load; 4050 sq. ft. @ 200 sq. ft. per occupant = 20 -Special requirements; Motor vehicle fuel dispensing stations, including canopies and supports over pumps shall be of noncombustible fire retardant wood or of one hour construction and must have a clear unobstructed opening of not less than 13ft. 6 inches -No fire protection required SAC Determination The applicant is required to submit plans to Metropolitan Council Waste Water Services for actual determination SAC but SAC units are estimated as follows, Restaurant; Assuming fast food use, ( disposable paper plates, glasses and silverware) 88 seats @ 22 seats per SAC = 4 SAC units Store; 2500 sq. ft. @ 3000 sq. ft. per SAC =1 SAC unit Car wash; Estimated 170 washes per day at 50 gals per wash = 8500 gals per day 850C gals per day @ 274 gals per SAC = 31 SAC units Total SAC units = 36 @ $900.00 per SAC unit = $32400.00 % 4 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ hardcover calculation worksheet 75-250* 250-500' FKISTINC ZQK£ A. House _ Lcfifth Widdi B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X % % G. Other total HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in zone B ___X lOO - PpnpnsFD A. House Length Width X X B. Garage C. Driveway varies X X varies D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other total hardcover in zone AREA m ZONE ^ 127__S.F^ • » • 127 127 44^ S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. •/. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. 8 fiT___ A B A B I » t i # « I « 4k * « » «# <« % m % « # « w » « 5 •i -n ir « « M « 4» « 4s V •1 1 4» *4 More and more gasoline stations offer to fill you up when you stop to fill up your car « 4 14 "I 4 ♦ By ChristiM Arp« G«^ Memphis Commercial Appeal T t’s becoming easier to find a cook I on duty at a gas station than to find X a mechanic. That ’s because convenience stores that also sell gasoline are trying to lure customers inside with home- stvle foods, delicatessens or familiarm fast foods. And businesses that were basically gas stations with small conve nience sections are jumping on the bandwagon. “It’s not a trend, it’s an avalanche." said Harry Murphy, director of techni cal services for the Service Station Dealers of America. "Some companies are adding their own delis, ar.d others are going into partnerships with com panies lU^ McDonald ’s, Subway or Burger King." The trend is as hot in Mirmesota as it is in other parts of the country, said Greg Headrick, executive director of the Minnesota Service Station and Convenience Store Association. Murphy said oil companies have found they sell far more gasoline in units with convenience stores than in those with service bays. Cheaper labor “With service bays, you take in 20 cars in the morning and that ’s it," he said. "Cars are getting more technical, and equipment and training are expensive. Labor is easier and cheaper to get for convenience stores." Repair business is increasingly going to car dealers and businesses that provide specialized service for brakes, mufflers, transmissions or tune-ups, Murphy said. Convenience stores are turning to selling prepared food as sales of their most frequently purchased items slow. "In the long term, our largest cate- 6>I gories — cigarettes and beer — are not growing." said John Cooper, branded food manager for MAPCO Express, a Memphis. Term., chain. "Soft drinks are. but we need something else. The whole take-out, take-home food area is high-growth." During 1995, MAPCO teamed with Blimpie International, a submarine sandwich chain. Stations have real estate “The fast-feeders are interested in teaming with our industry because we have the real estate." Cooper said. Headrick said the move to fast food is driven by interest from both sides of the equation: “The vendors of fast food are looking to increase their market share, and our service stations- convenience stores have prime retail locations; it’s easier to incorporate fast food into one of those sites than to find a new site. And the food offers new traffic for service stations." Starting at 5 a.m., breakfast cus tomers file into At the Market No. 2 in Memphis. The companments of the large steam table are filled with scram bled eggs, grits and several kinds of breakfast meats. In addition, there’s a warming cabinet with ready-to-grab biscuit sandwiches. At noon, a stampede of workers from a nearby industrial park comes in for Bertha Jones’ home cooking. Every day she and two helpers prepare five or six entrees, a like number of vegeta bles, corn muffins and a couple of homemade desserts. /\nd the service is fast. ".Most of our customers only have 30 minutes for lunch, so they hit the pavement running," said Jim Sartain, owner. Sartain, who bought the store four months ago. kept the successful hot food operation just as it was. Previ ously he owned a convenience store that served cold food only. Different a/rangements “All the major convenience stores are offering more food," Sartain said. There are "all kinds of different arrangements" between the gas and food purveyors, Headrick said. Some gas-station owners are getting their own fast-food franchises. Some lease space to deli or fast food businesses, and some simply make deals with sup pliers and open their own delis. In the last year, McDonald ’s Corp. announced its intention to team with both Amoco Corp. and ChevTon Corp. in developing fast-food oudets as gas station/ convenience stores. “There aren ’t many McDonald's or Burger Kings (in gas stations) in Min- ' nesotayet, bht they’re coming," Head rick saicL You will find White Castle, Subway, Taco Bell and other outlets in service stations around the state now, he said. According to the National As sociation of Convenience Stores (NACS), prepared food accounted for 11.9 percent of all sales at convenience stores in 1994. That was up from 10.4 percent in 1992. "Convenience stores want a more diverse customer base,” said Stewart Small, communications and informa tion specialist for NACS. “It’s been mostly blue-collar males, ages 18 to 24, who come in for cigarettes or lottery tickets. To get a diverse customer, they must offer what those customers want, and prepared foods are the way to go." Headrick said that “what ’s coming now is ordering your food at the pump through the intercom. You go in to pay for gas and pick up your sandwich at the same time." — Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service. V • t § I ( f i| a j! "THE INNOVATORS" /k CONCERNED WITH CLEANUNESS SINCE 1932 January 26, 1996 John O’Sullivan PO Box 65 Navarre, MN 55392 Dear John: To follow through on our conversation today, I am enclosing a general brochure Jn oSr car wash packages. You will notice one of these three packages is the Maple Square Texaco, with which you re familiar. When I have the opportunity to meet with you and your partner Tuesday, February^6^ we can discuss these equipment layouts and a few others we have. I have also enclosed a layout which is very similar to the but does have a few modifications based on some of our . ments in the last couple of years. You mentioned you would probably be build ing in a 90 to 95 foot tunnel, which we find to be extremely beneficial in a frictionless or minimal friction system. The customized layout I am including would be an ideal wash 50 000 to 60,000 cars a year, which you feel you would be doing at your new location. That would be 150 to 170 cars a day. This equipment package uses approximately 45 to 50 gallons of water per car. I hope this information helps you for now. Sincerely yours, GRACE-LEE PRODUCTS ^ /Barry Gracemanlan \/ bj/jm Enclosed 2540 Second Street N.E., Minneapolis, MN 55418-3474 • TELEPHONE 612-379-2711 • FAX 612-789-6263 Ultra Lite Touch CAR WASH SYSTEMS BY GRACE-LEE T.M. Sealer Arch Ageni A«ii Junior Hodge High Pressure Arch Clear Coal Arch Front to Rear Milting Curtain wnh Attached Presoak Arch Oetait Gun Area Mumlnatad U (Sealer) Illuminated Ute Bar (Rust Inhibitor) Illuminated Lite Bar (Clear Coat) Illuminated Lite Bar (Undeibody Wash) Not to Scale ? •! t.r . Wl&iQKTiPnVKOICUSTUDwnnwS® g?^'5 \ r iu'U »• y'» >* :?>-j ■ %f- * '?■'vV* - i #5^ V><V. W ri-A, „ . Isiiwlw bfet: iii ■ j-'w-i, ^ \ ^ k. ■' ’p* •. > r ^! i >4>I . . iM (V , . ,A^-. ■::. ajl ' Sr' * « 'v‘ -j •V .’A^.'' *t Ctx. .w-TV**') .-<*r:‘ fim I • \Jk (•a ’ i i '* ’ I ^2? - ^ . «,3 a 7^ Vr"' n .T ■ikg mm^' '"lii t '?r t? ■ ):'t? r . • f> :. . P‘" m< ■ liTr': ■' I —r . ' ###l! ’Hiif 1=w -ja..-!>,., jB, 1 \ \ \ % i r. % % % i!rfpfiB|ii Jldr h'„,;y * 'HP^- & f If \ »■''//; ' ' ‘ * ’ ■ i •.* '' *• • «■ ' ■ ;.a- •. ■ •A. t ,: • "1^ hO 5 • i. ' •si I ' r ■ V • ■R 0^ & m r--#i •■apnl i u m 4,^. - ..vr- . r v^jrdi Eyr;l:Ml lf\ i^:^':.#, >r<‘ .,;■■■ ,1^ i,^- p” /■ <)'"■ ■'.'y .li-t^ r—V- 1- *>•''■'■ i’"'-p^..\ )' i ,•■ .•■•: ,i:.>i-'' •:. \ I •-. ■ f ■ •• r • ;* REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. . ••inU /, .f^;\ /y.; r \»0 vi» / / v<- v{'><V / / •i I'l'M a I MrF ;April Z3^ i97g. sh^H'n or^ at^um^cf O <ier)ofps iron rnonum^r%4^ O ef^noies JudMfmf ian^mmrk srf pvrsuarir io Torrens Cttre//0.I7OG5 j' :f -<0 ,'C'’ > I- ‘ !*•hST / \ *\ -<5^^ Kv j /• • •' / <£*4 w/ />»<• »f Sw*i. La^\ Cj j 9 ^cHon l7JTit^fhuy UT n^^'-% >"» Msf wfS^h P.P. ---- ‘ ’ »• \ / ..•5 ,0^' >.-A’ / V- <r / \ / ■ / -.. J >.. r / I i <» B tVCr L.ANP / Townsite of Langdon Park ili nl "'■■■' lu-iNV , llpi'f!^'? \ Vo ! |in,gdoh Park\ j j / / / /T / \ V '/ *1^ irA/f^r//lti0 b P Cc.Rt/.A7o./S ^ 0f- i/e*cniBd m B^ok /ST^ . — / ‘ *v ^ . -• /o'? ^ V V esr0ter mr Ofmvr, ^ * jS'i^ / \ 99tfi»n •Bxcpph'on i Htnifiim ‘>>"»"Tr'!/‘i^ ,.*••••*** s^.or VtiTI'i' <-ii ir t:.; . •> ^'•^^..•’jS »4f rTf/ . ,V ..• Exceph'on*:^ .V y "E/PPS ’Sovfft //nB Go¥^. /<>/ iiiili-- - ( Jsi y!. - '::; ‘| i : '■! ft i'-'i■;■ • ■: iily'-' ■ Uongdon filista. ) \ ^—Lmt A anctirs EJtirnTien Pork •‘y;'s>v! P*mf "f i'O WM • * 4 • . . ■ ' ■ i-- ''i/. ::4:j^/ :1; ^ ■■ ' i ■, : .sV;'---' '. .,. jivi.' ’ ,f :-.’S.'“.'--> ■ i| ■ v-vsiC';;; '■m.-f -ii.ilLl ■^\ ■! ‘ .' X " r ; V-‘ r . I ••* ..• V . •• V'^. ■- ■ ''ji] ■ ‘ , TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:February' 14,1996 SUBJECT: Zoning Amendments - Section 10.20, Subd. 3 - Indoor Ice /\rena as Conditional Use - Continuation of Public Hearing Staff has drafted an amendment for Planning Contmission's review, comment and action. Note the amendment has been narrowed in scope to specifically address an enclosed or indoor ice arena use on the school property. The criteria listed addresses the need to ensure that large indoor sports facilities are maintained on the school campus at the west side by Old Cry stal Bay Road and adjacent to the high school and other similar facilities. Members are asked to determine a suitable setback for the structure. Planning Commission may wish to discern between the impact of parking facilities used at all times of the day for all school functions and the arena structure. You may find it helpful to review the setback for other uses listed under the conditional use permit section. The setback recommended for school structures and other facilities is 50 ’. The other uses would require 100 or 150. The code would require that the use remain on propeity- owned by the school and that only a non-profit organization or school is to operate the facility. Members may w ish to review the conditional use section of code. Section 10.09. The review of all accessory' uses under this section of the code would be subject to this section and all requirements set forth in that section. Members may wish this added to the standards set forth in the amendment. Options of Action To approve or amend the proposed code amendment of Section 10.20, Subd. 3 S 10.20 SEC. 10.20. ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd I Purpose. Tlie "R-1 A" One Family Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of low density residential ^ limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developrnents may e a owe y con use permit. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any "R-IA" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. One family detached dwellings. B. Public owned parks and playgrounds. Municipal buildings.C. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R-1 A" One Family Residential District. no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Schools. Public schools and parochial or private schools which teach fifty square feet of playground space per pupil. 1.) Uses Accessory to a High School. A. Indoor Sports Facilities, such as ice jyenas, tennis facilities, field houses and gymnasiums. a. 1) All such facilities shall be located on iho safne parcel as the principal High School use to which they are accessory. ^'1 ^ ' I a.2) All such faeilitiesjball be located at least _ feet from any lot^n^Kw an abutting lot in an "R" district. a.^) All such facilities shall be owned and operated by the school, or by a non-profit organization^^ijer a land lease arrangement with the schoole-'^^ ^ j,i^ v>Ci 1k| fL.J J To; From: Date: Subject: J Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator February' 8. 1996 #2105 Jon and Sally Mitchell LebedofT, 1101 Wes» Femdale Road - Renewal Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA Application: Applicants have filed a renewal variance seeking approv al of multiple variances to permit construction of a new residence and the total removal of the existing residence. The original variance will expire on March 13, 1996. Brief Review Application Please refer to Exhibit H for the current application. The following variances are required: 1.Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) A. Area variance. Required = 87,120 s.f. Existing = 8,481 s.f. Variance = 78,639 s.f. or 90.2% B. C. D. Lot width Required = 200' At the 75’ setback = 58’ Variance = 142’ or 71% At the lakeshore measured in a straight line Variance = 128' or 64% West side lot line Required = 30’ Existing = 0’ Proposed = I ’ Variance = 29’ or 96.6% = 72’ East side lot line Required = 30’ Existing = 11.7’ Proposed = 11.7' Variance = 18.3’ or 61% Zoning File #2105 Februan.' 8, 1996 Page 2 E.Street setback Required = 50’ Existing = 46' Proposed = 43' Variance = 7’ or 15% Section 10.25, Subdivision 1 (B) A. Lakeshore setback from main lake Required = 75' E.xisting = 17' Proposed = 20' (31' for lakeside steps) Variance = 55' or 73.3% B.Setback from lagoon Existing = 75+' Proposed = 75+’ No variance required. Review Exhibit U (Application #1997 exhibit), the proposed structure shall not encroach average lakeshore setback line. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 A. 0-75’ setback area = 7,211.6 s.f. .Allowed = 0 s.f. E.xisting = 4,58^.4 s.f or 63.58% Proposed = 3,800.2 s.f or 52.6% B.75-250' setback area = 1,269.3 s.f Allowed = 317.33 s.f or 25% Existing = 1,269.3 s.f or 100% Preposed = 861.3 s.f. or 67.86% Variance = 544 s.f. or 42.8% C.Review of total hardcover on property Total area = 8,481 s.f Existing = 5,854.7 s.f or 69% Proposed = 4,661.5 s.f or 54.9% Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of structural coverage, Total lot area = 8,481 s.f Allowed = 1,500 s.f or 17.6% Existing = 2,513.8 s.f or 29.6% Proposed = 2,345 s.f or 27.6% I Zoning File #2105 Februarv 8, 1996 Page 3 List of Exhibits for Current Application A - Application A-1 Addendum B - Plat Map C - Certificate of Mailing and Propertv' Owners ’ List D - Kcs.>lution No. 3540 E - Orono Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2/22/995 F - Orono Council Meeting Minutes 3/13/95 G - DNR Letter 3 20/95 H - Reduced Surv'ev Not to Scale Exhibits from Application #1997 D - Description of Request E - Hardcover Statement F - Unique Property Conditions I - Adjacent Neighbors' Acknowledgement Forms J - Hardcover 0-75' K - Hardcover 75-250' N - Comparison of Existing and Proposed Building Envelopes O - Floor Plans P - Elevations T - Analysis of Areas of First and Second Floors U - Average Lakeshore Setback Line Description of Request Applicants seek approval of the same development plan submitted for the 1995 review. The application involves the removal of the existing residence and the construction of a new 38' x 60' two-story residence structure. Review E.xhibit P of the Exhibits from Application #1997, the maximum height of the structure to the top or peak of the roof will be 32'. The legal height based on the Orono Code is measured to the mean distance to peak of roof and is shown at 26+' (allowed 30'). The existing structure is 17’ from the shoreline and the proposed structure will be 20’. The original footprirt of the existing structure is 2,513.8 s.f The proposed structure is 2,345 s.f. The property is subject to a lakeshore setback from the lagoon to the north and main lake to the south. The structure will meet the required setback from the lagoon shoreline. The property is served with sewer and an on-site well located to the northeast side of residence. Access to the property is achieved via an easement through the property to the immediate north and east. Review Exhibit B. During the earlier review, the DNR had requested a minimum setback from the main lake of 25'. Review Exhibit G, Ceil Strauss has approved the 20' setback based on the drainage pattern of the property. Ms. Strauss advises that she will not change her position from the original review ot 1995 Zoning File #2105 Februarv 8, 1996 Page 4 and recommends approval of the application as proposed. Review Exhibit H, note the entire structure will be located out of the flood plain at 931.5 elevation. The new structure will be located r from the west side lot line and 11.7 from the east side lot line. The improvement will result in a 2% reduction in structural coverage. Hardship Statemenr Review applicants' hardship statement within Exhibits E and F of original Application #1997 and Resolution No. 3540, Exhibit D. They are reviewed as follows: 1. The property is . 19 acres and subject to two acre zoning standards. 2. The property is subject to lakeshore setbacks at both the north and south sides. j. 4. 5. 6. 7. The property is ser\ed with sewer. Total hardcover on the property ha.s h> en reduced form 69% to 54.9% and the structural footprint has been reduced lo8.8 s.f. or 2%. The property is further restricted by the location of the flood plain contour at 931.5 and limits the placement of the new residence to a more central location on the property. The improvement will be consistent with recent improvements of older properties within the West Femdale neighborhood. Per Ceil Strauss letter of Ma,v *- ^0, 1995, the DNR will allow a 20' setback from the main lake for new structu ’ as majority of drainage from the developed site will drain to the north where structure will meet the 75’ setback. Options of Action To either deny, approve or amend the renewal variance application. Any recommendation for approval must include the following conditions: 1, Upon application for a building permit, applicant shall provide final survey locating the approved structure at approved setbacks. The plans shall include a detailed grading and drainage plan to ensure no impact upon the flood plain of Lake Minnetonka. Erosion control shall be maintairied on the property until all disturbed areas are restored to natural gmundcover. 2. All hardcover scheduled for removal shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. This will include the patio areas iha^ e.xtend from the lakeside of the existing residence and gravel drive areas located witlii.i bo the 0-75' and 75-250’ setback areas. Isv Application it Q Date Received J - - <^ L> Amount Paid *izn. cC> CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 ^10'^ (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI20.00 (no change from original application) £ Variance for non-conforming structures S220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) r. •' ^-W> PROPERTY INFOR>LATION Site Address HOI West Forndale Poad^ Wayzata, MN 05391 Property Identificatio.. Number (P.l.D.) 02-117-23-43-0020 _______ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired December 1954___________________________^(monih/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property*: X residential ____other (specify)_______________________ Zoning District: LRlA_______________________________________________________ APPLICANT Phone (home ) (612) 377-3272 Name Jon and Sally Mitchell Lebedoff p^one(work ) (612^ 348-1970 Address: 1915 Irving Ave. So.____ City: Minneapolis , MN Zip: 554 03 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Estate cf Robert G. Mitchell Phone (home) (612) 47 3-1042 Phone (work) (612) 371-3262 Address:<^/° Robert G. Mitchell, JrCity: Minneapolis , .MN Zip: 55402 Lindquist & Vennum, 4200 IDS Center DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constiuctiou Cost $ 300,000 Describe request in detail: _______________________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARl.ANCES REQUIRED X Lot Area X Lot Width X Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:______________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the foUowinn informntinn must he submitted hv the application dgadltn? date iii order for vour appHcntion to he considered compIctCj. 1. J. — CenilT of o'™ofs wihin 150', bbels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 34S-3271). , • , ^ k Certificate of Surrey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/2 x 11 lor rcpi’oduction. ^ « • . Topocraphic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes m existing "" grade'are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/f x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8/2 x II ). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). ___ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ___ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember ^^at your nnniicatinn is not complete if the above information hns not been incluikd, APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ^ „ The applicant hereby agrees ;o provide all information required or requested ’’y ^onmg Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered °"Smal fee and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that information supplied is m^e^and correct^, the ^ knowledge. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Applicant's Signature / Jally Mitche](jl iLebedoff Jonathan G. Lebedoff Date ''t- <h(. aud agrees to this application and further entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, apnts. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verificat'on of this request. / 5-, flt£. Robert G.Mitchell, Jr. " ' Applicant must ha"vTafi"i ‘uU''i§5rfnto"‘A=“5?ty offices 25 days before the Pl^^ing Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the thir ‘ ? ^ A..nllennts must be present at all scheduled review meetings of Ihc Plann.ng Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled P['“' make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Bull g & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. LINDQUIST &VTNNUM rl.lp .S64Q2'22Q6 TU pncm : 612-371-3211 FAJt «t2-3n-3207 itCiwniMi 600 inw SnoT. Suni 212S DMBI, CouMAfiO 8Q2Q2-S4Q1 Twutmom: 303 573-5900 ATTOimtTt A t Law Rotot O. MAdKil, Ir^ Ei^ (€12)371-3262 A-/ January 16, 1996 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono P. O Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Re: Variance Extension 1101 West Femdale Road ./ , # /i •1 ' « 19a6 Dear Jeanne: Enclosed is a signed Variance Extension Application regarding the Mitchell house at 1101 West Femdale Road. Please note that the extension of time is for variances applied for and received in 1995. The reason for the new extension is that the Lebedoffs were unable to commeiKe construction of their new house at 1101 West Femdale Road because they did not sell their existing house in Minneapolis. They hope to sell their existing house in Minneapolis in the spring of 1996 and commence construction of the house at 1101 West Femdale Road in the summer of 1996, all pursuani to the variances granted by Orono to them in 1995. Thus, this is an extension of time rather than a different application. Please let me know what further we need to do. Thank you. Very truly yours, LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.L.L.P. Robert G. Mitchell, Jr. RGM/djh Enclosure cc: Mr. and Mrs. Jonathan G. Lebedoff EB0I:8697I1 I 0R\V # \ RMT or V. f ' v\& C W^5) Aho^22 (26)jtf/l II IIigiyiyii'Jo NO' ' '$'■ AP^HOt 0«!GIM\. rw iu*c Accc»o 10 ^CXW \ .V ^ .# i' >: w tiuci * (16) \ <ei (»ei .s> ! V •'..a" •.V ('9-\ ?_____—*y*13)m__T \ f r. \ \ pm: or / lOT I (23) ;«> tjo uji it. «" ,y .. V. (19) A 8^4 E.AKE (browns ('939 4fRj4^ 01-WVZ3-H3 ATFAOi iCST U»€ OF 10! 13 NOmM SMQKC COTtACl AC^tS ACCWINC !0 RCCORO FIA! J GOVT LOT ? CERTIFICATE OP HAILING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. ) CITY OF ORONO ) I, Jamie Bosma, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #2105, was mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 2nd day of February, 1996. Jamiey Bosma i .4< !:: HUN DATi ei/ii/fsu;-. -;} BATCH B04- ■ ■ *• • .* . ^ i• %:, •/; , . I : . SB 02-117-2S 45 0014 fj; ; niOP AODR I : ‘ OllOS fernoale rd h RALPH C BAGLEY RALPH C BAGLEY 1105 FERNDALE RO H HAYEATA MN 55591 I .ir.tr 0»t«R NAMi. TAXPAYER.•■••r; .;»!*{ . NAHE/AOOR i‘, lio 1'' ^4^ ' {• ’.!»' 02-: ’■ ;;;V AOOR ^ 01095 ' • il'^OItCR NAME / B.A K FOX ; TAXPAYER . ; t B C A MTHERINE M FOX NAHE/AOOR . 1095 H FERNOALE RO • NAYZATA m 117-25 45 0025 01095 ' FERNOALE RO N 55591 > H/.IV •; ..■piHrv tv . •* •• O't'' V-l|-;v . 'V U ’ • * ■ • ;y :/ uv "U; •. ’ ■». *v*-* V • ' j ‘i H> *'•'•: ■' i-‘; ■ '(,■■■ ■ 1 • ■•.»* ■ ■, ■ . > I .%* ' * V nvi ‘..:- %. • HimtPlH COUKTY PROPiRTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY QHNERS LIST i •\ . M ■» I. • *• , •• • , t0 *- .A REPORT NO. PX455A01.: » Y ... PACE 17, •'* *• I • ■ • •.. t • • * •I3S 02-117-25 45 0019 00050 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO RALPH C BAGLEY RALPH C BAGLEY 1105 FERNOALE RO H HAYZATA MN 55591 58 02-117-25 45 0020 01101 FERNOALE RO H ROBERT G MITCHELL ROBERT 6 MITCHELL 1101 H FERNOALE RD HAYZATA MN 55591 v;*? V ; . .1 1 . B » *• ..-s i i TOTAL UTCH 506 Q0QQ4 B «•I - , . *.' I . . ^ . i \: •. .S I’ J • * . . • • K .*• •H a i * 1 . . . ■ • t • •• . X • • • V; ‘ ' V' • '^VV.v'--7rf^ .• ? V X, !» * •. .1* •■• • Jv.-::• ^ ■ . ♦ ,••. *; ’■ ■. r•'.'.1 ’’j -Ui rj i ■i'i-i'L'i : '.lasiDfia p ;? • I© I CERTIFY THAV THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE Rl OF THE HENNEPIN C0U4TY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE OF HY KN0HLED6E AND BELIEF. ^ . i'lc'^5 by .1 DATE \l • . ■•. ' .i .•■ ■ ’.F* l }\ -.if’ m;,'!' r X /o o V-.. •A •A CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ 5 4Q A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONLNG CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 (B) AND 2 and SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) FILE NO. 1997 WHEREAS. Jon Lcbtdoff nnd Sally .Mitdldl Lebedoff (berdnafler "Iho applicants") have an interest in the property located at 1101 Femdale Ro.td West wttli.n the Ctty of Orono and legally described as follows: Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 902. Files of the_ Registrar of Titles. County of Hennepin. Minnesota (hereinafter "the property ); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to MunWpal Zoning Code Sectionl0.03. Subdivision 14 (C). Section 10.22. Subdivision I (B) and . and Ltion 10.23. Subdivision 6 (B) to permit constiuctton of a P"’’'''f’"'''™^“'';;,,,i,a't nroncrtv that is 8 481 s.f. in area where 87,120 s.f. or two acres ts required, on a .4 that melliires 58’ at the 75’ setback and 72’ measured in a stratght line at the lakeshore where a -00 S voL b equirerThe structure ,s to be located L from the west side lot line where “jO" setback is required and structure will be located 42.5' from the street lot line where . 50 leiback is requilel Per Section 10.22. Subdivisions 1 (B). the residence structure w II be located 20- front the main lake and 75' from the lagoon at I ^ 10 Siihulivision 2 hardcover within the 0-75 seinacK aica proposedi; 3 or 52‘.65'c where none is allowed and within the 75-«0- tardcover is proposed at 861.3 s.f. or 67.8% where 25% is allowed and and per Seetkm 10.03. Subdivision 14 (C) the new construetton will require a struct lovert^e variance proposed at 2.345 s.f. or 27.6% whe.'c 1,500 s.f is all-wed. Minnesota: N03V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FLNDLNGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File ^1997. Page 1 of 6 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 5 40— 3. The properly is located in the LR-IA Lakeshore Residential Zoning requiring two acres in area. The property consists of 8.431 s.f. or .194 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 22. 1990 aid re commended' approval of the variances as amended, based upon following unique findings and hardships. A. The properly is .19 acres and subject to 2 acre setback standards. n. The substandard parcel is subject to restrictive lakeshore setbacks at both the north and south sides. c. The property has been approved for sewer and assessed one sewer unit. O The buildins/structural footprint has been reduced 168 8 s.F and total hardcover on the property has been reduced from 69,. to 5-... E The structure cannot be moved closet to east lot line because of the 931.5 nL plain contour. The Orono Code does not allow excavations or rilling within the flood plain. i: The proposed improvement would be consistent with the recent improvements of older properties within the West Ferndale netgliboihoo . G Per Ceil Strauss' letter of March 20. 1995. the DNR will »H_ow a 20^ setbaek from the main lake for new construction because of the drainag pattern of the property. The Citv Council finds that the conditions e.xisting on this to it and do not apply generally to other properly n, this zoning ^ ■'laiiiiiie the variances would not adversely alfect trafFic con ittons. ^ •' j ■pose a lire hazard or other danger to neighboring property, woukl n m rcl Lve as a convenience to the applicant, but ts demonstrable hardship or difnculty, is necessary to P"f ^ ml right of the applicant; and wc uld be in keeping with the spirit and inten. Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 6 t I i CITY of ORONO ’/y RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COLTS'CIL NO.. 5.The Cilv Council has considered this application includ.ng the Hodings and Icotnl-ndations of the Planning Commission, reports by Ctty sl.aff. comment by r applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS D-,«;ed upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby c tn the^Municioal Zoning Code Sections listed above to permit the construction f,;i8 rr"o - C granting approval of a 78.639 s.f. or area variance. lakeshore setback varian. at the main lake of 55 ’ ora street seib.ack v.artance ot 7.5 or^ lakcsnor is allowed a hardcover variance wiihin ^ conditions: Structural coverage variance ol 845 s.f. or y-Vro, suojeci 1.Upon application for a building permit, applicant shall provide detailed grading •ind drainaue plans to ensure there is no impact upon the Hood plain ol Lake Minnetonka located at the 931.5 elevation. Erosion control shall be on the property until all disturbed areas are restored to natural giounduncr. MI hardcover scheduled for removal as shown on page 6 of this resolution shall be completed prior to the footing inspection tor the new construction. 3.Authorities cranted bv this variance run with the properly not with the applicants but are permissive onlv and must be e.xercised by applicant presenting a complete a SnTr a building permU wi.hin one year of .he date of Council approval, or this variance will e.xpire on that date (March 13. 199b).. Violation of or non-compliance w.ih any of the terns “ variance shall conslilule a viohuion ol Ihe roning code si .1 •■ lerminaie any auihoritv eranied herein, and .shall he pomshahle as a misrkn.c. Pace 3 of 6 fmmvnyv CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO._3 5 40—^ 5. T>.e u„.ers„nca ^ •'« :"o" .elution in tlte Cltain of Title of tlte properly . Adopted by the City Council ol the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the I3ih day of March. 1995. / Edward J. Cill^n. Jr., Mayor Estate of R^jeirt G. MitcheJ,! Mitchell Personal Representative STATE OI- MINNESOTA ) ) s .s. COUN TY OE HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this I3lh da> ot ,.„5 1,V nutvat^rsu:^:,:; Do;;i;y M. ..ainn, Mayor ana City CJcr. oHl.^ Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was exv.cu c City. LINDA S. VEE NOIABT PUBLIC-MINNES3TA HENNEPIN COUNTY My CORBiission E3toira-l»n.31.2000 Page 4 of 6 • . . i %4 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ^^ 0 8 5 4.Q STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this f *3 ~3ay of 199 5 before me a Notaiy Public wuhin and for said county. ^oing instrument, .^cbncwlcdgcd that he (they) executed the satne as his (their, free act and deed. ~ ROBBWaiiTCHBLJRli HENNEPIN COUNTY notary public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUN TY OF HENNEPIN ) On this J5 dav of A^-y/199^__before me a Noir ry .............................................. the lorcuoiug .nstrument. -a-;^ckuowledged that he (they) executed the satue as hts (the.r. act and deed. „„ •Personal Representative of the E-state of Robert G. Mitchell, deceas , beiv ’if of the Estate, MARY S. WILSON i NOTARY PUBUC • MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY llyConmo8&a)«i«idi.T J1.2000 taaSOaiOMl^ ORONO PLANNING COMNHSSION MEETING minutes for FEBRUARY 22, 1995 Nolan questioned the shed that encroaches a neighboring properpr^ Mabusth explained that often in these situations neiahbors resolve the problems on their otvn^ However, m this situation the City had sent a letter to p'erl advising him of the need to move the shed so this will be a requirement ot the Citv. Perl also has outside storage problems. Perl responded that he did not realize the shed was on neighboring property. He has already begun some of the propern' clean up. Mabusth also noted the need for applicant to connect to sewer as there is an increase in bedroom use. There were no comments from the public. Perl confirmed that he does not operate a business out of his home, Nolan asked about the shed, noting a neighbor's letter asking for the relocation of shed md requesting a bond to ensure it is completed, Mabusth responded that as a condition of approval of this application, the City would require a building permit for the shed and to move it withm his property to a conforming loca-' Nolan also commented on the sliding glass door on the second floor where a future deck may be constructed. Perl may need a variance to build the deck and he needs to be aware of this. Members suegested a board be used to close off the second floor patio door. Nolan noted the extensive exterior storage on the property and felt it was a problem. Peterson moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #1996 for Gregg Perl, 309 Westl^e Street, for a side setback variance with staff recommendations 1-5 in the memo dated February 15, 1995 and adding the deadline date of July 1995 for the removal of all exterior storage violations. Ayes 4, nays 1. Nolan objected to the sliding glass door on the second floor. He felt that if the Planning Commission had reviewed this application prior to construction, it would not have been approved with a sliding glEss door. (#7) #1997 SALLY AND JONATHAN LEBEDOFF - 1101 FERNDALE ROAD WEST - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:06-9:35 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Lebedofif were present. Attorney Bob Mitchell represented their application. Mabusth explained the applicants were seeking several variances to allow the reconstruction of a new two story residence. Applicants have submitted an amended plan with lakeshore access door/steps creating a 24 s.f increase in hardcover in the 0-75' setback area. 100% hardcover in the 75-250' setback area which has been reduced to 67.86%. Ceil Strauss of the DNR has as e that the residence be located 25' from the main lake. The comer of the existing residence is at while the applicants have proposed 20'. Strauss also suggested the applicant look at removing 8 ORONO planning comnussion nketing AONirTES FOR FEBRUARY 22.1995 / i\ vfahiicth thouaht there mav be some limitations to this request MI.CW1 «plii»d ih.t ihii IMS MiSuSit'S r.'» ici Sally and Jon Lebedoff are his sister and ,he garage and furnace basement in this home so all ^ fof a Vamily with two children. Mitchellroom. The house wiU have three bedrooms and tluee b^^^^^^ ^-'^hfod fot?m';”:.i m a"^“omes werf designed with the easting residence in place. Mabusth stated the City would have to require ^ ^^^^[^“Sust" agreed but added that he might talk with CeU Strauss p^r»the Cour^ 1 me^^ iflhe applicants would '"at because it would smith con-unented that the applicants had done a good job of bringing the residence in and up although she would like to see a smaller footpnnt. There were no comments from the public. Peterson commented that the 6re department would have accessibility and did not see a problem with the location of the residence. It was moved bv Schroeder, seconded by Peterson to approve SaTLebedoff at 1101 Femdale Road West for van^ces to less than the hardship of a small lot, noting the footpnnt of the proposed reside , ^ the he erisS^g residence and adding that the budding is to be moved “ '“Xt „n ^ they iSn Sl Ayes 3. nays 2. Nolan and Rowleue objeaed to approval of the application felt the footprint of the residence was too ambmous for the lot. ONO City COUNCIL _________________ _ ContiDLi®^) (SS - #19v2 - lanes and Ioann ^oi'da ” widl neighbors to pennon for ^ ^ ,h,r Mr Crosby The nearest point were sewer Mabusth eommented to ^ ,d and County Road 15. where ^ municipal sewer, b" the “ Btacherts Point Roan heading towaros can be picked up is 1°*^: “ ^ed w discharge into u - construcdon period ir miecror station could must be tot. he Waviata. Tr.e ce- u was noted tc I" uto “to S" «re.' ^.e paved roadway rjlnson repor-.ed June I was accepiabt— the fi^otit driveway. ^ ^ ^oposed instead ot c^^^ Mrs. lundt wanteu the ■ „%rehensive plan to Mr. Benso . reiterated the need fo , Hon ^3539 with the Planning ,,uour .oved, Ooetten 309 IVXSH^STBBET-VARIANCE Mr. Perl was not pr^ni. oftheCoundi. Staff will or not applicant is prese egg PERJ-9 309 WTSTLAKJia :>xrv^ ____or not applioont is prese..t. _ ,, ct-RNDALE ROAD oov sally and JONATHAN LEBED0F7,1101 PER. . v I^NCES - RESOLUTION «S40 f • A ^ hfr. Robert MitcheU represented me appucan. . Mahusth reported totto^^^^^^^^ r^StoTe S a 35% which both n^ _ aophcants seek a 90 ”, o ^ ^hack, located 1 / me property is ” » ™°^“^”“ucated a. a sub-standard side lot ^“‘^mrrS.'iai where 75 ’ is required. The where 10 is requir«i. pm'pe^ifalso encroached by the flood plant at 931. r = r,ir THE regular orono cmf COUNCIL (#10 - #1997 SaUy and JoSSTLebtdoff - Cononue^(#10 - #1997 baiiy anu ------------ • «;etback of 25’ from the main lake. By 70' from lagoon shoreline. ® hardcover in the 75-250’.hardcover in me / — ■' • h.acov„ ,000.. ____eoth.irk' an property, me inipruvc.*.w..- ^LL'®‘coutcll was a bener soludon. bu. did need confirmat.on ffom Dlk on their agreement to the :0 ’ lake setback.Ui^iv on uicu 0*0 ------------- Jabbonr moved. Keiley applicant with Staff continnanon ot DNR agre Nays 0. (#11) #.99S CRAIG WICKLUND. 3780 BAYSIDE ROAD - VARIANCES - resolution #3541 Mr & Mrs. Wicklund were present. Mhbuath reported that the residence is fimily. The Wicklunds wodd like to There is a wetland to The amended proposal "^^3' Ucj^, would receive credit for the the north. One unit ot sewer is avdable m ^ ^ i,, ^e,. The easement wetland. The 50' front/rear and aO requirri side ^b ^ „«ghbor, driveway through the *'‘^t^^vside and the possibility of micks ^Si^e^S .««^within his pmpeny and no. widen the easemm... damafiang uuj ---------- The appUcant is satisfied with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. > ___£lmmA%r AXIS —------— Goetten movetk KcUey seconded. .0 adopt “ conditions of the Planning Commission recomraenaanon. Ayes 4, STATE OF PHONE NO ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 5Sy(|„Q 772-7910 MAR 2 2 19* * March 20, 1995 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE: MITCHELL VARIANCE APPLICATION (CITY #1997), LAKE MINNETONKA - BROWNS BAY (27-133-28), CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Ms. Mabusth: I am responding to Bob Mitchell's March 14, 1995 letter (which you were copied on) and Mr. Mitchell's March 10, 1995 letter to the City Council. You and i discussed the original proposal for this site in a telephone conversation. At that time I noted that the existing nonconformities should be reduced. I specifically suggested that the house meet at least a 25 foot setback since it would then at least be out of the minimum "shore impact zone" required by the State. I also saw opportunities to replace portions of the existing gravel driveway area with a grass or vegetated strip. In addition, I agreed that some type of variance would be required to allow for a reasonable use of the property. After meeting with Mr. Bob Mitchell on 3/10/95 and learning more about the features of the site in question and neighboring properties, I can elaborate on my earlier verbal comments. The main DNR concern is that whatever the city approves involves an improvement over the existing situation and that the existing non conformities be reduced, i.e. that the house be set back more than the existing 17.5 feet and that the impervious surface be reduced. Since the city's structure setback requirement is 75 feet, the shore impact zone would be the area within 37.5 feet of the lake. Therefore, it is really the 37.5 foot setback that is at issue here rather than the State's 25 foot minimum. I agree that the house could not meet a 37.5 foot setback on this lot. While I prefer to see the house meet the State's 25 foot minimum setback (for lots of record that have adjoining lots with average setbacks of 25 feet or less), it is not essential since it is the city's shore impact zone of 37.5 feet that is the distance of concern. We will not object to a main lake setback that is increased to at least 20 to 25 feet, as long as the City Council finds that shifting the proposed house a few feet back towards the main lake would best meet the intent of the city's regulations. In particular, we understand that the main lake setback must be balanced with the lot line setback concerns and staying out of the floodplain. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Mitchell Variance (#1997) March 20, 1995 Page 2 In regards to the impervious surface issue, I understand that the current proposal involves some conversion of the gravel area to grass. I also understand that the drainage from the gravel area goes to a grassy low area off the property and infiltrates, and that it does not drain directly to the lagoon. In summary, the DNR will not object to the city granting variances for this site as long as the main lake setback is increased, the percentage of impervious surface is decreased and the other variance reguests are addressed in a balanced fashion. In addition, I suggest the city consider a condition for the variance approval that requires appropriate coloring of the proposed house, and landscaping, to help the house blend in with the natural surroundings when viewed from Brown's Bay. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist CCS c:Bob Mitchell Lake Minnetonka file 27-133-28 •V’P 7a <3a a\ \ • 9 J-s \ \ ^ • If f */D Description of Request Demolish existing house and build new two-story dwelling on existing foundation, except as noted on the survey. The variances applied for are necessary to build the new house requested by the Applicants. The proposed new house hardcover is 2369.5 square feet vs. 2513.8 square feet hardcover for the existing house (including canopy over front porch). The hardcover reduction for the new house is 144.3 feet (-5.7%). The roof line or canopy of the new house is 3.2 feet further back from Lake Minnetonka and the house remains more than 75 feet from the lagoon. There is a slight foundation line change on the driveway side for the garage. Two foundation jogs on the sides are being removed, in effect increasing the side lot setbacks. There will be removal of existing hardcover including portions of gravel driveway, sidewalk, front canopy, wood steps and patio block. The proposed new house is a two-story house to replace a one-story house to have adequate space for a family of two adults and two children (ages 11 and 14). The height of the house is 7’9" under the Orono height limit of 30 feet for a pitched roof, being 22 ’3" at the measuring point. In 1989, while Mr. Mitchell was living, a similar proposal was made. At that time, Ralph Bagley, the neighbor to the west, requested that some additional landscaping be done between the two houses. That additional landscaping was installed. In addition, the overhead power lines were placed underground to each of the two houses. The applicants know of no issues pending regarding any other neighbors. TTie hardship is as stated below. 1^97 Hardship 1. Per the January 18,1995 survey and hardcover computations (2 pages) attached, the present hardcover on the site is 5854.7 square feet. The existing house is without any basement or attic storage area and only has a one car carport. The lot is 8480.9 square feet in size. 2. The applicants can, and will if the building permit Is granted, reduce the existing hardcover from 5854.7 square feet (5854.7 / 8480.9 = 69.03%) to 4800.5 square feet (4800.5 / 8480.9 =* 56.60%), a reduction of 1054.2 square feet of hardcover (-12.43%). This will be accomplished by removing certain gravel driveway areas and walkways on the westerly, southerly and easterly sides of the site, and removing sidewalks, wood steps, patio block and some front canopy, and replacing the same with grass. 3. The neighbors on either side of this site, as well as other neighbors along this area of West Ferndale Road, have in the past few years made various changes, alterations, and additions to their properties in efforts to increase liveability. It is our understanding that when the city granted such requests, the test applied was minimal increases in hardcover and minimal reductions in required setbacks, or better. On the Mitchell site there would be a 1054.2 square foot reduction in hardcover and a slight increase in the size of the existing side setbacks in the process creating a more liveable dwelling. Unusual Property Conditions 1. 2. Area of small, old lots. Lake surrounds Bagley and Mitchell houses virtually on 3 sides. 3. 4. Land is low lying, sewered. New water well. The neighborhood houses have been gradually upgraded over the years by >1 each house having been improved similarly. This is the last house In the immediate area to need Improvement. ^■<1 • -:.K .'\0,\- • :u-*e-:SL‘2i3»:X-' • . •>.• .» ••. ^ » COY Off ORONO rf^— j •4^!'r^l F*»“ I,.' ••NA ■•i ‘t. ■; .. >wi^?Acknflyiedg6ment Form^ ^ *':• • i(»«) nf 1105 Ferndale Rd W» Wayzaba^ MN 5539- [print address] JAN 5 C 1S95 jrnnrovemeat or proposed use of the property located have reviewed the pto for P^°P° . Lan^i Application No. ------------• afnm Rd VL ,-r,« rhi? arimowiedccment, I (WC) am (wci not asked to I (me) undersiand that m extcuim^ - mc”ely to confirm for the City projec: or us: r:quir:s Council approval. \ 20 /99S Dai:i Prop:rty Own:r Date mmm mmmmmmmmmmrn mmmrnmmmmmm mrnmmmmmmmmmmmitimmmmM rnmmmmm •.• •• • • • •« M • . . * • •• ' * r* V* . *'•' *. *4^'iw--- ;.'.Vuviy_ -■*-,-u*:-7--- •* ?1 -U- i o ^ Adjacent Property Owner/ Ad r- q •'> .V.cknoidiMigement Fomi'-^' - 4<W|ve) B.r. & Katherine M._F 3 0 ■ [print namc(s^ FOX nf TQ95 W F^rndale Rd, Wayzaba , MN 55391 [print address] at -iim w Ferndale M— ^ ,•«» th;« flcknowled^^cment, * (we) aoD((are) not asked to Council that 1 (we) *w(ars) aware of ±e improvem.ni p project or use requires CouncU approval. y/vv z-h,- 1‘i'^s Property Owner b.^. Fox Date f (Lr^. S.S-, FoxProperty Owner Katherine M.Date/7 ***»»«**♦*»<'>^**’* .* i '.t .• . ' ••• • • •.... , ^ ^ I . • • . v« .•.• ,‘ s /»'•'•* * '• *. . .V. V ’-; ■ •* • • L6e&POff____________________ >' HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET EXISTING R4RDCQVER IN ZONE t A. House Z.7 Length Z4-.4 & B. Garage C. Dnvcway D. Sidewalk ’el X X X zn /.i ^•l • Other /d. d X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^S^S,4> - I PROPOSED HARDC0\TER IN ZONE_ A. House ______l£______ Length B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X X X X X X E. Paiio /Bggk -dTuu((u F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in zone A _ - B .*7^//. X 100 7S-250'25-500’500-1000'. Z' • '• td-.3 S.F. WklA 6-1 ^5’S.F. io.o 8 . //^. o S.F. 8 S.F. Zt.<j • 3^6- 8 ■S.F. SS )7^e?S.F. 8 S.F. •foz./ 8 /36.0 S.F. =.'Z d. ^S.F. Zd.Z 27^.5 S.F. I4-. 4-SS -?4./S.F. d!S S.F. So a./gS.o S.F. a S.F. S8 V4-.7 S.F. ► • • • ' 4S3iS.4-S.F. m ,' 7^// ,6.S.F. 72//. L. X 100 s A3.6&% ^a..Ct ; 1644>.S S.F. WtdOi . 7.C7 a tS3-4 S.F. 3!a ■ 3/<7 S.F. a S.F. a S.F. a S.F. a S.F. -a 2.G S.F. a S.F. 1\______S.F. a S.F. S.F. a S.F. a S.F. a • • • •- •S.F. A B 0*. Sa.Pr 38"^. 3- S.F. A 7lll.£» S.F. B ^ 71./1-6 a. I SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ • « • * hardcover calculation worksheet 25-500’500-1000’ K EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Lcofth X X X B. G«ee C. Driveway X X b. Sidewalic ^•7 X X E.X X F. Liwrilwnp* HuiJertaiii By Pleaiie X X X G. Other .TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ■*■ B PROPOSED hardco ver IN ZO^fE A. House Leofth Z X X X B. Garage C. Drivewa)X X D. Sidewalk • J X X E. Pauc/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastii X X X G. Other total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B zt 8B 34-3.3 S.F.• Widdi S.F.» =S.F.• s S.F.» <7^ S 2t./(.S.F.IL SSI S.F. /a S.F. 5^.5 iA\r?S.F. •• !• B 8.4>'s.F. m 3.4 S ______s.F.• • «'s.F. /. 7 M.2.53 34.4 34-B S.F. K. //. 5"s Z3. O ' s.F.J n.s a 6^. O [s.F. '"•XL ss _ S.F._ t “ 3 1” yZ2.9.3 S.F.A }"s.F.B J2A4.S X 100 a [_% 3t 310 S.F. Width 2.^7 vs.5.3 S.F. 2 «44 "s.F. »[s.F. a _S.F. 47^ 0_S.F. «[s.F. 3 9 S.F. C,a _ S.F. B S.F. s _ S.F. • S.F. a S.F. a av a ^ S«P• • ‘ ^ • •_S.F. Sift. 3 » . S.F.A E ” S.F.B xlOO - &ta.“ f. * • •••• 'i 5 i tn*m• •o ■ •« V $ 1V 1) 1 7 J^iO r r ■ ■ — ■■— ■ ■ • 1 m./li 1 1—------r\1=]o 1 *■—i7*tn--:::|: rpvi^ 1 ^p-E>r HV' •t=IP»r FU^fZ- F^L-.A3~-4 s ■«• ttTiV V + I :•> - ( • \y *• fe *v > 5^ -r UMPMIMKI — FT OBBK M.rX HWWHO*OMw Mrr fWMBBi • # \ ^1 0 4V-^‘ &> •^* 0 FL^^g. rLACH PT. PT iWX Lrr irc Lunixuai BROSPffi“’” PHONtlttaM7>12)1 •M I.1MTZATA Itm «f»rzm.iM taati iCTire'/f^ •V • <T' • • «»t'V f /X-6 — *f ’i -*■ ■'> ^55I5T^?lpSfc i*-^ E^evA^n^M ^EV. -FT. irr. im% LUnDOMHBR©S«~" Z\ ^•Lr^9 E t 1 e e e KI^HT It-rr—— • 0 • • - • • kPT. irr.lunDOMnBho&w^ Itiai 473^1231 Mi rWAYZATA ILm VICrZAlA.MM M3M TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator 4- FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:February 9,1996 SUBJECT: #2106 William and Laura Stoddard, 2605 Kelly Avenue - Variance Public Hearing 4 Zoning District: LR-IB Application: Applicants seek approval of a side setback variance to allow the reconstruction of a portion of an exterior wall of a guest house partially destroyed in a fire on November 29, 1995. Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B) - Side setback variance. Required = 10* E.xisting = 3.1' Variance = 6.9’ or 69% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Addendum E - Hardship Statement F - Neighbor's Acknowledgment Forms G - Floor Plan H - Approval Letter, 2585 Kelly Ave. I - Travelers Insurance Letter 1/23/96 J - Applicants' Request to be Placed on Council Agenda of 2/26/96 K - Photo of Original Structure L - Photo of Renovated Guest House M - Resolution #3455, Application #1942- 8/8/94 N - Survey Description of Request Applicant received approval of a conditional use permit for the guest house use that included m area :. The property is 1.68 acres in area and the code would require 1 acre for a principalvariance structure and an acre for the guest house. The original structure was two stories with a lower level r Zoning File #2106 February 10, 1996 Page 2 garage and an upper story that contained living areas. The structure did not contain a kitchen or a bath and could not function as an independent unit. Prior to *he reconstruction that included a bath and kitchen, applicant was required to file the conditional use permit for a guest house use. The review did not consider setback variances as all work was done within the existing building envelope and no structural improvements were proposed along the west side lot line. Unfortunately, the applicant was advised that before he could rebuild the west wall of the structure located 3.1' from the west side lot line that he would have to obtain a side setback variance. This has created major delays for applicant who wishes to proceed as quick as possible with the restoration. Review Exhibit J, applicant has asked to be placed on the next agenda of the Council. Review Exhibits D and G, as applicant advises there is no plan to expand on the building envelope but merely to replace the wall at the west side lot line and to replace interior walls damaged by smoke. Hardship Statement Review Exhibit E, hardships are as follows: 1.Major landscaping improvements were completed at the time of the renovation of the structure to relocate structure to the east would result in the loss of plantings and retaining walls. The movement of the structure to the east will result in the loss of mature trees and plantings. 3. The structure has existed in its current location for over thirty-five years. 4. Steep slopes to the east and south present additional limitations for new construction that would meet 10' side setback. 5. The foundation is in excellent shape and was not damaged by the fire, Options of Action To either approve or deny the application as proposed. 4 Application # Q-l Date RecciTcd ^ ^ Amount Paid ■ r-c At CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Applicadon Fee S220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original ^plication) Variance for non-conforming structures 0.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) f'. .i . ,.y —^I « Property Identification Number fP.I.D.) ‘^23'“ 002a _ A • • • ^ • t V J _ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ J ^Attach legal description to api^ication if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired _____nPf^lL (month/year) I (do)(^ n^ also own th? adjacent parcels of land. Present use ot property: residential ___other (specify) Zoning District: ______________ applicapst Name T n Phone (home) •\ \)i/L\A/^ ^TOOP/^PO Phone (work) X’^C OPo/l/O_________Zip: .rrJi'/Address: O()0^ j{^LL t /fuL Citv: 0’>'VNER (if different than applicant) Name_____ C _______ Address: Phone (home) Phone (work)_ City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: fi^PAfAry r rA A f ikVAAro/j li Ajo pfL va Lot Area (attach additional sheets if necessan^) j, r^/) RED ! A y. Lot Width ___Hardcover j___^Lot Coverage Setback:Front .^Side Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unmual property conditions meventing ■r /^f/ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUB\UTTALS 1. 2. 3. All of the fniinwin^ information mmt jiPPiKation qtaqiing vnnr apnli>ntinn to be considered <;QmpktSI ^ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, la^ls ^ must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certincte of Suncy (signed by a calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/r x 11 ^S'^papWc survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any clmges in existing , ginTe^ proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/." x 11 for lepi^uct^oa \/ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8/2 x 1 ). T7 List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of an. persons vou wish notified of this application. 5. Additional items as may be requested by City start. Th^ A?p^l^Cft ^'iroper(f otwffuft^l^'^hifltpifcation. Please remember *^1^ me Appiicani oiiu y if the abovp !«fnrinaHoii has not been in<?lqdsd*application is not complete i| tne apo>.^ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ThTwpll^ Lreb^^agrees"^ provide all information required or requested by the Zoiung information supplied is true t^d correct to the beaofhisaiCT knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date / • ?' The owner herebv acknowledges and agrees to this application and further „ ^tiy onto the property by City staff, consultant, agents, Commtsston memoers, and Counctl mOTbers for purposes of i/vestigation and veriftcatton ot thts request. Owner's Signature Date & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. • 1 laJN OATI 01/11/9*HiltSPiN COUNTy PPOPCRTY INFOmAnOH SYSTEH PROPERTY OmERS LISTv: BATCH SOS I ■ PROP AODR OMER NAIC TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR r- SS tO-117-ES 11 0007 0E540 KELLY AVE RXRK K NELSON RXRR K NELSON EB40 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR 111 55SS1 ' k j J PROP Am CHNER NANE .L v;.V TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR • » 4 4 \ N • Si tO-117-tS lA 0019 0X5*5 KELLY AVE EVERETT J SCmOEOER E J SCNROEOER E545 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR m 55SS1 '• .. ^ yj * hnP AOM.♦* fUtCII MMH TAXPAYER Su NAHE/AODR ■ <.‘v .! '.I 56 E0-U7-ZS lA 002Z OEMS KELLY AVE N J STOODARO A L C STODDARD NXLLIAH J A UURA C STODDARD EADS KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR HN 55551 ■ i -s •. M. •/. Q|‘iA - >♦ . •»* • ■ I*. . i • " i • > I ' * .*• **f.' *•*r y;* *. » • A . * • ' ? * ' • ' . . . . . . . i&l* *p:v: r ui- . .’i- % .j t. • •' ; • ! 4 . • •Ot: • •• 5 ; • * / • *• ’V * » . •* * .•W •.' • ii •• *. •' . .1* » >* . f. ■'> ■ ■ ^ • t. i t REPORT NO. PXA55A01 PACE E858 E0>117-E5 11 005002525 SHADYNOOO RO 0EAM4A H LEACH CLAIR ROOD 2215 KEr*«X» NAY NAYZATA m 55591 $8 EO-117-25 14 0018 02420 KELLY AVE GINGER L PRITCHARD GINGER L SCOTT 2420 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR HN 55551 . '•ii . :?/i • '5,'. y •’}.. , i , J. . ,. . , • ;i Vr ; ■ *4 • • •, I ■ I ; >\4 : 'V. •' if: ■■‘V • ♦ Si E0-117-XS 14 00X0 02565 KELLY AVE ALEOA C SURCN ALEDA C SURCH 2585 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR Itl 55SS1 Si 20-117-XS 14 00X1 0X567 KELLY AVE LEONORA R KITCHELL HRS D P mrCHELL X567 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55SSl li• ' V/ ’ * V*. * ^»«• >> • • *r*»'* I 4 i- , V 'vl r ?ry-lIh. i ii!| ‘i- • „• • i, •. r-i -i-- I' 1: 56 X0-117-XS 14 00X4 02625 KELLY AVE KURT NEJEECHLESA ET AL KURT 1 CHRISTA NEJEECHLESA 2625 KELLY AV EXCELSIOR m 55551 t tOTAL BATCH ■w-tii'.'- ; ^ I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE^ REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEA88 THIS DATE ON THE RkOROS 111OF THE HENTSPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF HY KNQNLED6E AND BELIEF. DATE ’i:-r't:; ■... '■ I.' • r ^ I* . i i'V ■ l - y’'t\y V ‘ ■ f ■ 4. a •. • *i3V-t.“. ':;yVti‘ '^,1] jW /■„!} ••/Vy.'jiS-i'-.;' J j.» •; • hi' ..Ji'y, ■ .r.:.. M '-'e William J. Stoddard January 9, 1996 7t . Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Zoning Department City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Subject:Request to repair sections of Guest House recently damaged by fire at 2605 Kelly Avenue Dear Jeanne: Per our recent n^eting we understand an updated variance is required prior to granting us permission- to repair our guest house da,.iaged by a fire started by a new refrigerator November 29, 1995. Enclosed with this letter, please find our variance application, hardship statement, and a recent photo (complete with in-laws) of the structure. Please let us know prior to the planning commission meeting if more information is required. In summary, we would like to repair it as it was prior to the fire with no modifications anticipated. The majority of the structure is fine, although smoke damage will require all new interior siding (exterior is fine on about 80% of the building), and the foundation appears to be in fine shape on the portion most heavily affected by the fire. We were very appreciative of Orono granting us the variance, CUP and building permits last year for the improvements. The guest house was a wonderful plaoe for my family, friends and neighbors to utilize. It was the focal point of our summer outdoor activities and parties. Almost too good to be true. Please grant us the updated permit to repair it. We would be most appreciative for it. We look forward to discussing this further with you. 2605 Kelly Avenue Orono. Minnesota 55331 Telephone: (612)471 -8088 Fax: (612) 471 -08SS ^ # m'- • <* w January 9,1996 //Ve^ Subject:Hardship Statement to repair sections of Guest House recently damaged by fire at 2605 Kelly Avenue Wc were granted a variance and conditional use permit (CUP) about 1 1/2 years ago for updating our guest house and subsequently spent tens of thousands of dollars on the stnicturc and over one hundred thousand dollars on landscaping the adjoining structure with shrubs, trees, boulder walls, a pond with three waterfalls and a bridge. To now be required to re-locate the structure approximately six feet further west to conform to the 10 foot side setback code would be in contrast to your recent approval and cost us well over two hundred fifty thousand dollars. In addition, the guest house has been in the same location for over thirty-five years, and the east and portions of the south side slope significantly. Mature trees also cover the property whereby total guest house relocation would certainly cause damage to. f We would like to repair it as it was prior to the fire with no modifications anticipated. The majority of the structure is fine, although smoke damage will require all new interior siding (exterior is fine on about 80% of the building), and the foundation appears to be in fine shape on the portion most heavily affected by the fire. William & Laura Stoddard ___i T 7 / ! i ^ ••' «-•’ I (we) Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form Lzo IOO/IA )^(Tt(/<!lCof 2r97 Kci.6 A [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. 4 ''T? ~1 n Cf^ roperty Owner Datqfy / 2' / U Lf DateProperty Owner I (we)k)(; • y N ^[print name(s)] nf K<?LC', /^(A? [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ^Ox also referred to as Land Use Application No.-------------. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the impi ‘ '* neiehbor's project or use requires Council approval.THi /oniZClUMJ ,1 Property Owner /‘//i'C //^ A Property Owner yiii Hou aj. !/n /' r If you have any information that may lO) Application, please submit your comments U ^ ^ ^ prior to the scheduled meeting date. Z) Ji/Cfj ^ d Use ’iLC ) days Sl6> T7> 1 6. LIVING AREA :T^ • • • ^. \ f i .> * •* •- *• Bill SLoddard 2605 Kelly Ave Orono. MN Scale: 1/4 r0' DroFt D«ate: 1/0/96 »»:♦>»:Repa1r/nep1 ace exterior wal1 .y »»:♦>»:•»»:♦»:♦>» New Wall: 2x4 walls w1LH B/Q FipeTat-sd gyp . bd . MAIN FLOOR 4 r 1 * J ' i 3 — ' •rl 6Ti *. f . ! ^ *^ A 1 *..4 ' *'• . ■'V To whom it may concern: We would like to encourage the Orono City Council to approve Bill Stoddard's request to rebuild the guest house on his property at 2605 Kelly Avenue. Bill and his new wife. Laura, have done a renarkable job of upgrading and improving their "buildings and grounds" since moving in about three years ago. After they conoleted their-reaodeling of the old guest house last year they graciously agreed to our request to "borrow" their house for three nights. Our daughter was getting married in rate October an her fiance's parents were coming from Marblehead. Massachusetts. Our house was full, the out-of-town wedding party members were staying at a B S B in Excelsior-and we wlshea to have Scott's .parents stay close enough for us to spend extra tine with then. The Stoddard guest house was the answer to our prayers. The lack of guest accomodations in our area is a difficult problem. Here was the perfect solution and we were and are very grateful to the Stoddards. Having such generous, friendly people as neighbors has been wonderful. We are glad the Stoddards want to rebuild. Having a lovely new guest house in our neighborhood will prove to be advantageous to everyone--- especially those of us needing that extra bedroom-every now and t en.. Sincerely, 2585 Kelly Avenue Orono ^ . %t % WW «W*Ww •••«■•• Tiravclcgrinsurance idThivtiorjGroupT" MtNNEM’GUSnaDCfTKX Traw«l»ra kaumnc* 646S Wqoatt Bouta¥«rd P.0.60x35Mnrieapois. MN S5M0003S January 23, 1996 Hr. and Mrs. HilliaB Stoddard 2605 Kelly Avenue Orono, MN 55305 VTA FAX AMP MAIL File No.: Insured: D/L: SR07045 Stoddard lT/28/95 J r ••• Dear Mr. Stoddard: The purpose of this letter is to infora you of the results of the Fire Loss Investigation Analysis Report provided to us by Investigative/Loss Control Services. As you know, we had investigator Jeffrey L. washinger of that firm investigate the loss site to atteapt to Ucterainc the actual cause of the fire to your carriage house. Mr. Washinger*s conclusxons are as follows. Most importantly, Mr. Washinger did determine that the fire in your carriage house was of an accidental nature. His report indicates that the fire originated along the central portion of the north wall conaon to the kitchen area of the structure. Mr. Washinger*s report goes on to indicate that based on the total destruction of the refrigerator, he considers it a strong indication that the fire was likely caucxsd by that refrigerator. Our problem at this point is that there is not enough of Uik refrigerator left to do an accurate analysis to determine the specific problem with it. Mr. Waehlnger analyzed the burn patterns to support conclusions regarding the fire starting in or around refrigerator. his the Due to the almost total amd complete destruction of the refrigerator unit, Mr. Washingcr was not able to conclude the exact failure mode. He does indicate that the fire flow patterns emanating away from the refrigerator do lend support to the theory of primary fire occurrence beginning in that area. At this time, we are in discussions with Mr. Mashlnger as well as Travelers Insurance Company Engineering personnel to determine if there is enough evidence left to do an actual analysis of the remaining refrigerator parts. HQMl OfficeOno lowDr Scuare Hartford. CT C6183 i -2- TO; Kr. and Mrs. ttilliaa Stodda rd RE: SR07045 ite. washinger'e raport doas not giva any indication of a sacondary cauae of loss. Thara doaa not appaar to have baan anv problem with either the conatruction of the carriage house in qeneral or more specifically, the mechanical components of 4-^ earring** house, including heating, venti|.ation, electrical, plumbing, etc. At this point in time, although there is not a direct and specific linlc to the refrigerator, it appears to be Mr. WMhinger's conclusion that all other possible causes of the fire have been ruled out. It should also be noted hers that both myself as a representative of Travelers insurance Company as well as Mr. Ton Muedahl do concur with the findings of Mr. Washinger. with regards to the settlement of your dwelling claim, we do intend to be issuing payment in the very near future. Please call me if you have any questions, Sincerely, SmithGrego Claim Adjuster GKS:dgf i 1 ♦ rOTPL PHGE.003 I, SrndJurJ January 9,1995 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Zoning Department City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 I? .7 ► ac-f • V, // cv .v . §pmH90rv ^ : • '.V» •W-’ Subject:Request to be placed on City Council Agenda to repair sections of Guest House damaged by fire at 2605 Kelly Avenue Dear Jeanne: This is a formal request to be placed on the February 26, 1996 agenda for the Orono City Council for purposes of obtaining an updated variance so that we may be able to repair wall sections on our Guest House recently damaged by fire. We look forward to confirming this with you. Sincerely, 2605 Kelly Avenue Orono. Minnesota 55331 Telephone: (6!2) 471-KOSS Fax: (612) 471-0888 0 \ '• -r.rV'* • >*.;«-'•■ • ■'■■• ■'" "■-.- ■ .....-. ‘-.. ■• — ■-------"-- %'*i____ _ • 'I : • I ^-'■; I ■i e^’ *r .v^A-W ^ :wl «'t f . t u ^ •* (>u- > -* . • *mI . , ^w- •mI.;V €•• * * .. •r.VLUr.i.'it iis' m I '5»- fix- ^ ' ■•' 'd(f '<F': 7:1? • , ir - ^ V? \ •Aii? 3 • • »> 1 . Overall front view of guesthouse. • ; f *t fc ^ Interior view of guesthouse. 'ifc ^ rA CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 3 4 5 5NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 3 (A) FILE NO. 1942 WHEREAS, William J. Stoddard (hereinafter the "applicant") is the 6wner of the property located at 2605 Kelly Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: ,Townsite of Langdon Park Lot 5, Block 5, including adjoining vacated 34’ of Kelly Avenue. City of Orono, Hennepin County, Muinesota (hereinafter the property ); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to allow the continued use of a residence structure as a guest house on the property and an area variance as property consists of 73,008 s.f. or 1.68 acres where 87,120 s.f. or 2 acres is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1942. 2.The oroperty is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 73,008 s.f. or 1.68 acre. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 18, 1994 and recommended approval of the conditional use permit and variance as propose , based on the following unique findings and hardships: a.There is no immediately adjacent lands available for applicant to ^cqu^e in order to meet the area standard for a second residential unit per the LR- THANSFER ENTERED HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPA ycr SE»ViCES IB area standard. Page 1 of 5 SEP 16 t994 DEPUTY r ! r K CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 9455NO. 4. 5. b.Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (A) (1). the lot meets 80% of required lot width at 125’ (required 140’) for development and use as a single family residential unit. c.Sewer and water is available to the property and there is adequate capacity to serve the second residential unit. d.The second residential structure has existed on the property for over 40 years. e.The City has received no negative comments from the adjacent residential properties that would receive the most impact from the intensification in use of the structure. f.The applicant has advised in writing that the structure shall be used solely for his guests or visiting members of his family and shall never be used for rental purposes. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessaty to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of tlie Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow a guest house use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely afTect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, no; will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and other parties and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF Tlffi f COUNCIL NO O ^ Q CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit and variance per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 3 (A) for the existing guest apartment above the detached garage to be served by sewer and water and grants an area variance of 14,112 s.f. or .32 acres, subject to the following conditions: 1.The City in granting this conditional use permit and area variance to allow the continued use of the second residential structure on the property for guest house use does not purport an inherent right to subdivide this property at a future date. The existing LR-IB zoning district requires a minimum of 2 acres in area and 140 ’ of lot width. The property consists of 1.68 acres and measures 125 ’ in width. 2.The residential structure may never be used for rental purposes but shall be for the exclusive use of occupants of principal structure, guests or hired help. 3.The applicant is hereby advised that a fire wall separation must be provided between lower level garage and first floor level guest apartment. 4.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit withm one year of the date of Council approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (August 8, 1995). 5.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6.The undersigned applicant has read, understoocT and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heiis, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 ~iian 11 I —.-j. ^— CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. S 4 5 5__£_ Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of August. 1994, ATTEST: A.r^j ! Edward J. Callahan Mayor Propcrty/Owncr STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of August, 1994 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of ° Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Qa'rt/r^J Notary Public Page 4 of 5 il. --...rtlBfcnj-antonr-. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 4 5 5_____ On this day of 199before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally ad6eared ------ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of ss. , 199___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County. personally appeared ---------------------------—^---------------- known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, an acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 resolution # S 4 5 5 i>‘L STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO I Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk of the City of Orono. Hennepin County. Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on August 8 _ _ _ _ _ _^9^4_ _ _. and that the same is a true and“correct copy of said resolution was duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set ray hand and seal this loth . day of _ _ _ _August_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 19^^- -• allin. City Clerk (SEAL) P OPHAM HAIK SCHNOSmCH KAUrMAN, ltd . IMCCWOIMO THC law PfIACTiCff Of Mason , finwica ft lawncncs , Kmri y S. Ornct«'ILIATM DCMVCfl. COVOAAOO tcl ao3-A»s-iaoo Miami . rcoAiOA tcl tOS-BSO-OOSO Suits 3300 222 SOUTH Ninth Stbckt Minneapolis . Minnesota 53402-3330 Tel OI2-333-4SOO • Fax 612-334-OSSS • CUtliO. C nima tcl oi ibbi •tisiaci LCi^tia, OCC ma («t Til 01 I4B-341 •4tlC4tf WACMiMOTOM. O C. Tcl ao2 sac Booo CAfllllE L. ftAlELLA DIUCTDIAL (SIS) 394-2SM •TurraART. occmamt Tcl oi I4B-7 I 1-12343 August 29, 1995 Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Our File Number 3643.047 Dear Dorothy: Enclosed is the original recorded Resolution No. 3455 (File No. 1942) recorded as Document No. 6467024. Should you have any comments or questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours. Ltaiu foik Carrie L. Bazclla Legal Assistant CLB/ts Enclosure WG 30 357/22092843 8/29/95 , KELLY AVENUE « 5". TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administeator DATE:February 12,1996 SUBJECT: #2109 Todd Smith, 1380 Arbor Street - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR>1B Application: Applicant seeks approval of side, rear and lot coverage variances to allow applicant to proceed with completing 10 ’xl4' enclosed three season porch. A stop work order was posted when the building inspector discovered the reconstruction in process. Ihe following ordinances are pertinent for this review: 1.Section 10.28, Subd. 5(B) A. Side setback variance Required = 30' Proposed = 12.3' Variance = 1 7.7 or 59% B.Rear setback variance Required = 50' Proposed =10' Variance = 40' or 80%. 2.Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C) - Review of structural coverage. Total lot area = approximately 5,506.2 s.f. Allowed = 825.9 s.f. or 15% Existing =- 1,763 s.f. or 32% Proposed = 1,763 s.f. or 32% (49 s.f. of area that extends beyond original roof line of residence) Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Addendum E - Hardcover Statement F - Neighbor's Acknowledgment Form G - Survey for Application #681, 1982 Variance Review H - Elevations I - Current Survey f L- Zoning File #2109 February 12,1996 Page 2 Description of Request As part of the major renovation of the older residence, the applicant wishes to enclose a former roofed patio that was partially framed. Applicant has provided a photo of the origin^ structure for Planning Commission's review. Portions of the patio »hat was not covered by the origmal roof line approximately 3 l/2’xl4 ’ was roofed with a translucent plastic panel. The applicant plans to reconstruct a three season porch within the exact are i. The porch will remain at 10x14. The original cement slab will be enclosed. There is no change in the lot coverage facts as the roofed patio area has also been included in the strucmral inventory. Review Exhibit G, in 1982 the former owner received approval of front, side and rear setback variances that allowed a 10’x30 ’ addition to the south side of the existing residence providing additional bedroom and living room area. The main issue for that review was that the property was still served by an on-site septic system. The property is now served by sewer. Note the survey of 1982 does not show the roofed paiio area. The improvement was made some time after 1982. Applicant’s addendum. Exhibit D, confums that structure was in place at the time of their purchase five vears ago. As already noted, we have photos of the former roofed patio. Issues for Consideration 1.The code does not distinguish between a roofed patio or three season porch as it relates to structural coverage and setback controls. What of the intensification of the mass of strucnire or the visual impact on adjacent properties? 2.The three season porch now becomes part of the principal structure. Should the porch area be trimmed back to the area beneath the original roof line (6 l/2'xl4')7 3.Will the deck have to be altered again to provide access to the well? How is access to be achieved when the next well problem arises? 4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Hardship Statement - refer to Exhibit E They are reviewed as follows: 1 'fhe lot is 5,506.2 s.f. and subject to 2 acre zoning standards. 2. The lot was created and residence constructed prior to zoning requirements. 3, There is no adjacent lands available to combine with property. i Zoning File #2109 February 12,1996 Page 3 4. The residence is served with sewer. 5. A large open space park exists to the immediate north of property, Options of Action To either deny, approve or amend the current proposal. ^^0 9 Application # Cli Date Received" ^ Amount Paid ^ ^. A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _ . ^ Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 PFr ^ P ^ ' ^ (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.0^ ^ After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) A fm PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address /4gBng- Property Identification ^ <-.iber (P.I.D.) ASerra^ription io appUcauon if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired U - f/_uaie rropcriy n»-4uiiv.«------^----aj-------------;----——- I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: _^i_residential -----pother (specify).. Zoning District: (month/year) APPLICANT Name f iT~hi Address: y SfiO AC.<^eg.----£E1 Phone (home) Phone (work) ur,^*{c>rrO City:Zip:_SSlZlJL OWNER (if different than applicant) Name______________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:.City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ^ Estimated Construction Cost S_______ t If. / ^ ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ /<' Setback:Front Lot Width A' Side Hardcover Lot Coverage X Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) .. A oncHiP/nFSCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS ^t^cn™ i^due har^ or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:.----------------------------- ^'attach additional sheets if necessary) \ \4 i 1 --------- T ■ t “ * ^ A L^. i REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following informarion must be submitted bv the aDPllcatlon dfltt-lfl order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners %vithin 150*, labels and plat map (>’ou must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department ot Finance, A-603. Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/: x 11 for reproduction. ‘^npngnphir iiir and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8*/j" x 11 tor reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy fi'/i' x 11"). List of the legal names (include martal status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yauT variance application is not complete if the above informarion has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of hi, ! .r knowledge. Date /" 2-— / C» OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Z 2* —7 C: Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at aU scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, ple^e make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 I 1 •.* :l \ »40 • I 1 <• ^ I L '5 P '21^ ir. ~L'ib^a 1 ‘^* US. ucar « «Ti 5 (93) US. En? XA g‘3 "3' 3.1 1ft ^0 ■ '* L_l_ L, ?i*.4lt*?2 ■'R ^ .5 — '.O ■ 3 iTv ;A;"r» P'^ ^ ^ ^ MiNNklUN^A_______^ I i'! "T3 50 a'“- u9 I v ^ •Q ^. H ^iiii =-■ T45"^ |i^- '43^ * NUO OISUL 140 _ 2 '0 '‘^s (33)2.'(33) * S a S' (30 ® N i6v-I If (22) 3 «'“-|3C)J \5r.6i i ffl/ (23) -7 “i> W,o 140 35 *J W 143. MTKA" ^ 4 (25) p/^ j ■ nil jf- 135.56 9 iM.SS 5 (26) a/ i a‘''-^*^ar" 11B.9 IQ > iVr^—t:-----Tz ~3 (44) •s( '8) 05) 8( '6;|' )7) (97) , ------n7T “ ■ a(56)’.> (57) M—r^sX PROS'-ty - Ml r t ‘-^®° 1^ (50 2 : ........... (5-'/g 0 (55) '.ITS- - r»'-5. I iV 3 « ■ 1 nr- I l\ Is s JS| •-(90)=n 1 «0 87 ^ eo;^(e4)/ .. Jt/ 4)>(^>r> id5 r^./.e/4 12:^ TOWiWI. /^,'. A>: Soi^ (20(20-^ . ^ ,•?/\ ^ ^ <$ l=!----.W' L (5)^ (3)...o.:/S ■'•'• *-^5 - 9> . ■..•i('.XO' A ("^, 5/ • » •'' V > »'• 10-117- PMP AOM (J:.; C onner name .TAXPAYER ? V'‘. 'f .\ , \ ' % ■;* OOOS6 Zl 11 0002 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO MCLEOD CNTY REG RAIL AUTH DAKOTA RAIL INC NAME/AODR . 25 ADAMS ST N ■i . -u '. )I HUTCHINSON m 55350 % ( . '-V. ■ ■ r* ’ ' . >■ ■ ' ' 'f SO''10-117-25 31 0050»I :-A:\ . f POOP AOOR 01S9S RRONN RO S . jOHNER NMC “rP P I L'MLEY I ; . I TAXPAYER PHILIP KALEY * NAME/AOOR 1595 0R0»M RO S NAYZATA MN 55591 > ^.1 ■ ^ L ! 1 v-t f.-: 1 •• * I* Vt ■1. • • ♦ • *• V;.V •i ■■, ' ‘ 1 V 50 ' 10-117-25 51 0054 • 015AS ARBOR ST J E SUTHERLAND A J GUNION J E SUTHERLAND > 4045 NAIN ST E • HAPLE PLAIN m I PROP ADOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER ‘ NAME/AOOR 55359 O ^ . '4{ PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER ,• - -I/AODR : d:- - '*'50 10-117-25 51 0101 01555 BR(»t4 RO S CITY OP ORONO CITY OP ORONO BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55525 • ‘ . V ;yy \'' L»., .i\Sl-a.*' * : ,;ru ,Vj L ; •w:. ■? • j • f •. . tKE»tCPlN COUNTY PROPERTY SNFORHAnON SYSTEM PROPERTY OWERS LIST 58 10-X17-25 51 0040 01575 BRONN RD S J E FRICKSTAO ADA MOEN J E FRICKSTAO ADA MOEN 1375 BROMI RO S NAYZATA MN 55391 50 10-117-25 31 0052 01555 ARBOR ST 6 C PETERSON A J H PETERSON GREGORY A JULIANNE PETERSON 1355 ARBOR ST NAYZATA Ftl 55591 58 10-117-25 51 0055 01305 ARBOR ST E A LIBATiqUE ET AL H/L' EST ENRIGUE LIBATIRUE BOX 159 1505 ARBOR ST CRYSTAL BAY tt4 55525 I mm v; ‘ • ‘ * • i ' V '•* ' ‘ • ^ . 4 1 >V /Iw‘' t * V 47 5 . • •I TOTAL BATCH.• ( r 002 00010 REPORT NO PAGE 50 10-117-25 51 0049 01500 ARBim ST T H A K S SMITH TOOO N A KRISTEN S SMITH 1500 ARBOR ST NAYZATA MN 55591 50 10-117-25 31 0055 01500 BRIAR ST P BONNAN A B BONMAN PAUL A BARBARA BONMAN 5450 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA m 55591 50 10-117-25 51 0054 02140 NORTH SHORE OR DORIS I EISENKRAMER DORIS I EISErXRAMER 2140 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA m 55391 : * > !4' ,r • i; ^ » ♦ *. • ■ i«v f * I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION» TO THE BEST OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. •. -V. - ■;? 4■ A- • J. ir-vl■r?:, ^^4 • i; 'V .f.i. J51! / i* ‘jjm G) « ,, ..•ff X «• *:St '^' Kf V A,' . • •• V.'* •«:|5; ’ C//Lcr\ y /O^sTt^ ^:-ii: -vr ' u ^ ^ __co^ffr—0£Kjy^-^-O-f- ♦..T ij|f - D ------ ^ - - ' - - - / / ri.l^«JU,\j^ f>„ra^ _^„fc_£j^_Ar‘*j/.-t_<^.A/ . l^cJt ^»^<- -h c<.j^ i^<.tl^t(^i-. (^.-^ AiA- _____________5 <X».yA/W -------- . -O ctcM^*^ r-ti--cwy _Ar.^t^J/-C^— _ . f ^^> —wt— • ------ , I.CcL/^ Vi. <^tsf c3^yz^ cx/So. V-— ___ ro«-'f • So 4 e-l^ r-<___T^ -V-L-K^e-f- 0._^— iff- _/^- Aour«.-^ - /?re t/Ub^-il^— . Or/.'A A. ^ I. / I % .if ^ / . * j.% \Ll» )J§""t^i>^i^ - ------------- 'hflJ 'h 1‘jvt IJ _y-t^^j^cv^Lr^ ^lA/ijh^ , jZ"l ■£ kv >A g^^ /A. /A C_^-70-r<.6>_-5-- ^ A \ '-rU. S.^ .=»A:y 4/,j^. A»«s«-. /t-ty T 2kc(.f.e/ /4e. AW-V ■A . <;/kt'^ syJt'rf A^-— (y'»^y'jj^li<^S_"{^Cti^ y^cl<^----Sl_ I ^ ilC <5 9^Af A^t.*/^^____A__ __/‘S' iV C £ .^. 4S-- _ -^7^ C*^0 |^_^_ r n.e_ ^A */__ —/-g <2?^?/f^-i ------------------------------------------------------ I , h»« -.i— ------ -• i ^ 1 i \ m *^m ST huy^J-^-^yJ 5* , 442 _.<^ ------------------^*/<rt-r5 ---^V ^ W-- t4?_'S^dStklh:^__S_ .77^ /s a/o^^ V^urr-^^ 7y^ . y n/c>'f~._Sy'i • • • • • ft •w V « • %• • .• • •1 ----------!■■ .1. m 1 •1 •«».. • $ •\ • » ? • • J •• • »•• ^ i L-•••^. 0 • •L •• ••#.• • • • ► I |-» •,•• # i 1 . ••.. •• . ‘ \ . 7 J Adjacent Property diiraei^’Actaiowled^^ Form >• I I (we)ptu>vc-VC^rAC) of [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located _____________ also referred to as Land Use Application No.-----------— I (we) understand that n executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not “ked o declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the Lity Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. ‘r. P»peny Owner Date Af/ L DateProperty Owner ...............................................................................................................*******.................................................................................................................................................................. I (we)~n^uA 'dm [print name(s)]4 print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located /"S80 ________ also referred to as Land Use Application No.-------------. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (^) not ^ked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to conlirm for the Ci y Council ttot I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbors project or use requires Council approval. 5 '^X h i / • ^ * 4 /■ Property Owner Date Property Owner Date Cllj prior to the scheduled meeting date. ir-.t V *VA« ^ ^exhibit #6 81 *\:rY»jy ror ?‘i. |-^S3. Tr.r^. .Mnnoolr. Cn-.My, Klrr.-rr^^ < 4 y». yy to to 4 • 'li. 0 ;;' ‘1,^V i ^ Auju /t'tft/jz J; A r < ' 4 /♦ r /r n$a ^ rr. f # L i L VV ^ • /0*t- ':C^ mA l, :^rkvlti*;-*i,^p.,^ -^f*5wc4r I, of *]’•' -'J*' '•; w-^'r.co rx.uff.weilt«r:/ fu. H■‘C-^ ■ijrthcik.nt c«.-n»ra ;■:" rn«^ot 4 >h«n« u,»ty '•I'.r..* V.. rr.n^ra ..r / ;*nrf.;. ..Irsf,/ tr,u *..,3t Iin.. o- /T <-«rr..,r lornt'ftr. of jn ’•:. '«!••'• '>f t*. -. ... J.r,r,r ^r,o '«<i3t ;irw o'- cn*' '^.f i », ,’ '■''■'••'** *»f crt.i lotj Usunrv «r .u r,j„,,rr ...• u";rr .v-,..^ •■'■ ‘".•‘-••"iv. »r.u «.,., l-'(/rnv^T^n'f or cf.rrr«o»,.-..nti. * ' ° ''® u> ehow othor /V' I £'*‘»loi Uito j o t I" *• :<c* 4-7-*»7 Iron Titrkur ;.T.:t.. n. Co!fl,. K,4^:.t-j;«5J ^*•.2 uri'l i’lAnnor £or.r, lA‘<i*f Klnr.osot<i . • ♦■ • •*• *• •- •“ »•• ••*. . % • •-% ’ tr * ^ ’*• - • • 5 •* V fc '* • . I t ,*•vO ^ '.'m - i ^ f//» -‘^ Vili'* »••'''■ *51’^5-: . ! ‘‘ 4f:li I' '■ii i- '!1 f'’-- |‘^i' !•'’' I'i i' ' ■ f' ■ .: d'' ; ■#'.>• a. --f ' If. • .i • ^ i ■•} V'- r ■ :f tI '.‘-.. ''■ '■! ; 'V^-i! ;{<:.j£ ••*; ;<•/'*• ^ . Si .U),4!^:'■'., '!i; - ntl;:*- ■ •: • i;i < • « ^ • ji* ■ •. •’• Ep w'l if ' A. Vi ;• * w' ' e . ' ■ • ! v I ! . *•' 4’ V • • *I • <'.’•• V ;'* I . :%V IHfi.- /O^f. *W MM71 I 1^ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR TODD SMITH IN LOT 4, BLOCK 1. MARKVILLE HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA 60’ LJD2 LU > < IDC CN 60' LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: That part of Lot 4. Block 1. Markville, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 4; thence East along the North line of said lot to a point equidistant front the Northwest and Northeast corners of said Lot 4; thence Southwesterly to a point in the South line of said Lot 4 equidistant from the Southwest and Southeast corners of said lot; thence West along the South line of said Lot 4 to the Southwest corner of said lot; thence North along the West line of said Lot 4 to the point of beginning. • o: denotes iron marker Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. Date of the original survey was 4-7-82. Additional field work was done on 1-11-.96. This survey intends to show the boundarie*. of the above described property, and the location of an existing house thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. i 'il:-1; \ \W Coins k C.roshhu., Isc.1 hereby certify that this sur .ey was prepared by me or under my direct super vision. and thai I ani a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota Mark S. Cronberg Minnesota License Numln'r 127S5 I%.yp4-7*a2 A0mt9 SCALE 1***3^' ion NO 96 ’009 6 006 Gregory C. Peterson 1355 Arbor St. Wayzata MN 55391 (612) 475-3261 February 7, 1996 Orono Planning Commission City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: Land Use Application #2109 Todd Smith Family, 1380 Arbor St, Crystal Bay Dear Planning Commission Members My wife and I wish to express 100% support for the project that Todd Smith is proposing for his property across the street and down a few houses from our home. Other commitments prevent us from being at the meeting personally; however, we hope this letter of support will be acceptable to the Commission. The Smith ’s have already done wonderful things and worked very hard to improve their property and now seek to make this cha ge to enhance their living arrangements. The changes will be an improvement for their home, and will be a great irnprovernem for our small neighborhood and for Orono itself. Crystal Bay is unique in Orono, since the lot sizes are quite small and all the properties were develop^ prior to any aggressive zoning regulation. We agree that plans to develop in neighborhoods such as ours or Navarre should be looked at for suitability to the property and to the surroundings. We believe the Smith ’s plans satisfy any concerns that might be raised, especially since the framework for the design already exists. We believe good neighbors such as tfie Smith ’s should be encouraged in their desire to improve their home, because such improvement benefits the immediate neighborho(^ and Orono as a whole. Please look at the plans carefully and then give your unanimous recommendation to the City Council for their plan to be accepted. Thank you for this opportunity to express supped for Todd ’s plan. Gregory and Jullanne Peterson To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Adminis^-ator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator February 14, 1996 #2110 Joan Da>lon, 2465 French Lake Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-l B (The property is located within the shoreland of a Natural Environment lake, French Lake South Basin.) Application: Applicant seeks approval of additions to the south or lakeside ot the existing residence requiring lakeshore setback variances trom French Lak^ Tf!!,. structure is located within 150’ from the Natural Environment lake. The OH\\L ot French Lake South Basin is at 930. Additions involve an expansion of a family room area and a new three season porch at the southeast comer of the residence. The new structural improvements total approximately 346 s.f. The following ordinances are pertinent to this review. Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.56, Subdivision 7 (A) - Natural Environment lake. French Lake South Basin at 930 elevation. Both the sewage lagoon ar.d North Basin of French Lake have been reclassified as wetland areas. The entire north shoreline of this property is subject to on y a 26’ setback and not a 150’ setback as shown by applicant ’s surveyor. 2. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) - The required structural setback for a Natural Environment lake is 150’. Existing = Tl'/z’* Proposed family room addition - 88’ Proposed three season porch = 86+’ Variance = 64 ’ or 42.6% *In 1983 at the time of the construction of the residence, there was no established OHWL for French Lake South Basin. Setbacks were merely staked from waterline by surveyors. It wasn ’t until 1992 with the adoption of the Shoreland Regulations that an OHWL was established for French Lake South Basin. 3. Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L) - Hardcover review. A. 0-75’ setback area = 149.406 s.t. Allowed = 0 Existing = 2.447.5 s.l. or 1.6%* ♦Hardcover facts have been determined by including the 0-75’ setback area of the three properties owned by Mr. Davlon. The lots are not legally combi ;':ed under one homestead. Zoning File #2110 February 14, 1996 Page 2 A-1. 0-75' setback area of homestead parcel (Lot 2). Area = 26,290 s.f. Existing and proposed hardcover = 2.447.5 s.t. or 9.3% B.75-250' setback area = 146.612 s.f.* Allowed = 36,653 s.f. or 25% Existing = 18,9"^5 s.f. or 12.94% Proposed = 18,975 s.f. or 12.94% No change proposed.* ' *This includes the areas in the 75-250’ setback area of Lots 1, 2 and 3. ♦■'346 s.f. of hardcover now changes from deck hardcover to enclosed principal structure additions. B-1.Hardcover review for Lot 2 only. Area = 64.985 s.f. Allowed = 16,246.25 s.f. or 25% Existing and proposed = 18,975 s.f. or 29.1% Variance = 2,728.75 s.f. or 4.1% List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E-1 E-2 F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - N - O - P - Q - Application Addendum Plat Map Property Owners’ List Hardcover Inventory', 0-75' Hardcover Inventory, 75-250’ Hardcover Plan Existing Plan South Elevation/Section Floor Plan Modification for Three Season Porch Survey Landscape Plan Septic Map Permit Record Permit Application for Deck Deck Plan Map Locating Defined Wetland (original North Basin of French Lake) Zoning File #2110 February 14,1996 Page 3 Review of Application ces and technically hardcover variances for nd 150' setback area of French Lake, South :e in 1983, the 75' setback from French Lake Applicant seeks approval of lakeshore setback structural additions to be installed between the Basin. At the time of the construction of the res was the required setback. Note the entire structure is located within the 75-150' setback area resulting in approximately 6,444 s.f. ot non-contorming structural hardcover. The proposed improvement will result in structural additions of 346 s.f placed over an existing deck, review Exhibits K and P. As entire structure is located within the 75-150' setback area, any addition proposed for this residence would require both setback and hardcover approvals. Please note all non-structural improvements, such as grade-level patios, landscaping with plastic, paving for roadway, etc., would be allowed in the 75-150' setback area. Once again review Exhibit K and now Q. Applicant's sur\ eyor originally designated 150' setback from the north shoreline of the North Basin of French Lake. Members may remember the amendment that reclassified French Lake North Basin to a wetland now requiring only a 26' setback from the 930.5 elevation. Applicant's hardcover and legal building envelopes should be redefined. Note applicant's hardcover facts reveal that the area of both Lots 1, 2 and 3 have been considered. The properties are not legally combined. It is not clear what applicant's intention is for the use of the property in the future. Note that there is 29.1% hardcover in the 75-250' zone if Lot 2 or applicant's homestead parcel is only considered. A 4.1% excess of hardco\er e.xists in the 75-150 setback area of Lot 2. Review Exhibits K and N, the City has no record of issuing a permit for the detached garage that encroaches within both Lots 2 and *3. Applicant's architect advised that he determined the structure was probably built soon after the residence in 1983. Note the slight encroachment of the existing residence and portions of deck. In 1983 and 1986. the 75' setback would have been determined from the actual water level of the South Basin as the OHWL was not established at that lime. There is approximately 37.5 s.f of principal structure and 40 s. f of the lakeside deck within the 0-75’ setback area. The additions will have no impact on adjacent residences but will provide applicant with expansion room for the family room and dining area. The additions will not extend beyond the existing three season porch lakeside addition. Review of Hardships Please refer to E.xhibit B. The hardships are reviewed as follows; Zoning File #2110 Februar)' 14, 1996 Page 4 1. J. 4. 5. 6. 7. The home was built prior to the Shoreland Regulations approved by the City in 1992. The structure was built in 1983/1984. The original residence structure conformed to all pertinent Shoreland Regulations at that time. The entire residence structure is located within the 75-1 5vT setback area where no structural hardcover is allowed. The entire structure is non-conforming. Based on the peninsular shape of the Dayton propertv' and as a result of the new Shoreland Regulations that redefined what was once a wetland to a Natural Environment lake, the majority of diy buildable area is unbuildable. The improvements will not result in new structural hardcover as all additions or expansions will be placed over existing structure or deck. The applicants cannot expand upon their residence without obtaining a variance as a result of the new Shoreland Regulations. The property is unique based on the irregular or peninsular shape and for the fact that a recent ordinance amendment reclassified 6,444 s.f. of residence structure non- conforming requiring special consideration. Issues for Consideration 1. 3. How shall the City and applicant resolve issue of detached garage constructed without a building permit that encroaches within Lot 3? Applicant may apply for the legal combination of Lots 2 and 3 or consider a .subdivision of a lot line rearrangement. Once the land use matter is resolved, applicant should obtain an after-the-fact building permit. How shall applicant's property be recognized ... as Lot 2 or combined Lots 1 and 2 or combined Lots 1, 2 and 3? Applicant's hardcover facts should be amended to include the more generous 75-250' setback area along north shore line and to decide what lots shall make up the homestead parcel. If applicant chooses to maintain Lot 2 as single homestead, should additional hardcover improvements be removed within the 75-250' setback area where a 4.1% excess exists. 4. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. Options of Action To either deny, approve or amend the current proposal Isv AppHcstion # ^l/C) Date Received // ^0 ! Amount Paid . CITY OF ORONO - VARLANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI20.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S220 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) —I U PROPERTY INFORMATION _ ^ i Site Address )K_r —^^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) V J ^ v . crvev H^crrintion to aDolication if not included on required survey. Property Identitication iNumcsr ------— Anach legal description to application if nm included on requtred survey. Date Property Acquired -------------------------------------------------------- I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of • _ r____V* r»»ci.Hpnfinl Other (Present use of property: X residential Zoning District: other (specify). Phone rhnme'> Vifo \------- Phone (work)________________ r^: O^o^o_________Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Ntime Address: ^City:, Phone rhnme'i ------ Phone (work)_________________ _________ Zip: -g'-g-yU description of request Estoated Condon Cori Describe request in detail: ^------------ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area —Lot Width Setback:Front Side X Hardcover X Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) (attach additionsil sheets if necessory) k REQUIRED SUBMITT.\LS AH of the following informarion must he submitted bv the application deadline_date_in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. J. 4. 5. 6. /. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property OuTiers List of ovvrers within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Cenificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/'i" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy ZVi" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy VA" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). .As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. .Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLIC.ANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature ^0 (X/Y^.lOiliA Date -2.5 OWNER'S SIGNATURH The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entrv onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date 1- 2.5 L Applicant must have ^11 submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to anend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 1-26-96 ? 7 MS8cR e Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle, Ltd. Architecture, Interior Design and Urban Design 119 North and Street Minneapolis MN 55401.142.0 612 375.0336 phone 612342.2216 lax Dear City Of O/on'"-: Our clients Robert and Joan Dayton are applying for a Shoreland setback variance for their residence at One French Lake Road. Orono. The purpose of this letter is to provide a history of the property and to establish a case for hardship that will allow the City to grant their request. The home was built in 1984. At that time the structure conformed to the 75’ wetland setback- In 1992 French Lake was reclassified as a “Natural Environment Lake* which increased the setback to 150*. This adjustment placed the entire home within the 150’ setback. The entire home is now a nonconforming structure. Also due to the peninsula shape of the Dayton's property less than 5% of the original 5.2 acres is now buildable as a result of the zoning reclassification. The expansion planned by the Dayton’s is quite modest. They would like to change the existing screen porch to a year round room (no floor area added) , add a new screen porch along the south side of the existing garage (140 sf of new area) and to expand their family room (100 jf of new area). None of these changes push the house closer to the lake. No hard cover is added to the site, because the expanded rooms are replacing decks, patios or planted gardens with plastic liners. The Dayton’s feel this request is very reasonable and causes no additional burden to the environment. The case for hard ship is in fact the ordinance itself. The reclassification has deemed the property virtually unbuildable and allows the Daytons no expansion opportunities without a variance. Ordinances traditionally work best when they pre date construction and when the geography is very predictable and regular. Ordinances are problematic when they post-date construction and the land shapes are highly irregular. As we all know the Dayton predicament is a classic case when a well intended mandated ordinance cannot account for all the nuances encountered in the real world, thus we entrust our city governments to provide a common sense resolution. Sincerely Garth Rockcastle EjujI Opportunity Employer RUH BATE 01/2S/H•i'' “J ^.r* BATCH 607 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORHATXQN SYSTEH PROPERTY OFMERS LIST...4 ■,v;i ;••■ -.V • • . : f PtW AOOH ^ yONNEII HAHE /taxpayer HAHE/AOOR \ 'M OS-117-25 3S 0001 000S04:<< ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HEWCPIN FORFEITED UNO S-U-90 ST DEED 0173561 v' • I, . '■ • . » ** OV : > V f PROP AODR V ONNER NAHE • TAXPAYER t NAHE/AOOR M 09«117-23 11 0007 OOOM - ADDRESS UNASSIO^D CITY OF ORONO cm OF ORONO SS5 SROMI RO CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 PROP ADDR ^ CMIER NAHE TAXPAYER • i NAHE/AODR •i' I•^r^ ^V r < : SO 10-117-23 22 0002 00045 NXLLOH DR S 0 A A A E ANDERSON DllBERT A ANDERSON 045 S NXUOM OR NAYZATA MN 55391 ; . ; v*'-' ■ : K i r • . • f ♦ PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR ■ r ^ B • •p' 30 10-117-23 22 0011 02205 FRENCH LAKE RO R H LANOIS ATE LANOIS RICHARO H LANDIS 2205 FRENCH LAKE NAYZATA m 55391 . 9 I'' PROP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER * NAHE/ADDR r, • { 1 j SO 10-117-23 22 0015 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO R H LANDIS ATE LAI4D1S RICHARD H LANOIS 2205 FRENCH LAKE NAYZATA MN 55391 *■ , ♦ •% ; PROP ADDR / ONNER NAHE * TAXPAYER >. NAHE/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 507 QQ015 * ' ; 4 i i f • *6 • * I ^ 4 . ( t r. • • • * ♦ I • •• ' so 04-117-23 44 7004 ' 02601 RAINEY RO RAINEY HANNAN ANDERSON RAINEY HATMAH ANDERSON 130 CROVELANO TER MPLS m 55403 30 09-117-2S 14 0001 01100 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S R J GU04IT I F H GRAHAM ROBERT GUtUT/FRANCES GRAHAM 1100 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO S NAYZATA m 55391 30 10-117-23 22 0009 02465 FRENCH LAKE RO ROBERT J • JOAN L DAYTON ROBERT J A JOAN L DAYTON 1 FRENCH LAKE RO NAYZATA MN 55391 SO 10-117-23 22 0013 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIOffO ROBERT J A JOAN L DAYTON ROBERT J A JOAN L DAYTON 1 FRENCH LAKE RO NAYZATA MN 55391 30 10-117-23 22 0017 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO RAJ DAYTON ROBERT J A JOAN L OAYTON 1 FRENCH LAKE RO NAYZATA m 55391 REPORT NO. P14S5401 pAge S4 r 30 09-117-2S 11 0004 02465 FRENCH LAKE RO RAJ OAYTON ROBERT 'j A JOAN L DAYTON 1 FRENCH LAKE RO NAYZATA MN 55391 3B 09-117-23 14 0004 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGECD R J A J L DAYTON ROBERT J OAYTON 1 FRENCH LAKE RO NAYZATA m 55391 SO 10-117-23 22 0010 02355 FRENCH LAKE RD RAJ DAYTON ROBERT J A JOAN L OAYTON 1 FRENCH L«KE RO NAYZATA M4 55391 SB 10-117-23 22 0014 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO RAJ DAYTON ROBERT J A JOAN L DAYTON 1 FRENCH LAKE RO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 23 0005 OOOSO ADDRESS U4ASS1G4IE0 L H HILSON A E ADAMS HIL30N L H NILSON A E ADAMS HILSON 1209 FRENCH CREEK OR NAYZATA 55391 i V%p *' . •_ ; f - y .. V.M > i \/ ‘i ■ •• » .. mV ■ ' * -t .M « • B • ;.*»* . ^ • -- - -- -..J• » I'*--.EL • ' ' ,..., •. .p.r 'Vt v'• ' • .J V. *•# • V* ■■■ -f. . RUN OAH 01/ta/H• ■U BATCH 507 D1/U7M. V • , •; ' *. .^4; - /“Ts h r* /,» ' .-J HOiCPXN COUNTY PROPERTY XNPORHATION' SVSTEH PROPERTY 0»MERS LIST I • T^'j- ti'; • ' •••i ;rv' ” ■7 r» /' •• \ •. •••: -^-r VC • ^ f «!• •• v -< * * • 1 . \ .. . •• V .'■•• • I ,:T> ■ ■'•■,,-V.'*: ■ i'' V A-j-*-' ■ • . -V »■•’:•,v' v;'; . ■ V ''A- “-K* w'.-. -t! , • • , • . T .1*. ,.• . ■ ■ •• .'* 'V • ^ ‘ ’ ■ • * *• \ ' ; ‘ * A-' 4 , ' • * I * * ’ t * * •' V? i ‘.xyv • •^r ..• '•• •• rv* '-'■j V- .* . ‘ * .V . •• . l*.,v •••',; 1- • >>■- • At. •'H ■' ’ * I V-,,: . 4. - 2 • , • : . .*•. 1 I ‘ .* ' * *. ’ *• *. > .* • •,l < . . •■•■ I ! • , * ■ '1* • REPORT NO. Pt455401 PAGE SBf ,V.'•V* . . 4* •« t •* I .................. .V /V »A,b. « ;■* « / • V.-- \ 9 ' •■'•■ .-'v . i • V V •• I ■• ■*.■•'. . I ' '-rfr ..■•■ . '-.V 'C, , ■••. .• '?:• ;v-,; •■ *' . ^ \ , • * - * T*. •\ V ^ ■ , V ■ ' iV. . • • % • I • 1 f 9 o ' % •ii.v . . ■ -»• > V'. ' . •• V 'i.r • r ' • ' *'•* ■ • 1 •J' ,* • W . ■ >. % • > ‘f • . V" ; v:; - f ‘ :• •V: i‘\> 1 •»i.*4t' m4>. Z CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATZON OF ZNFORHATION AS ZT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEMCPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATI0N> TO THE BEST OF HY KN0HLED6E AND BELIEF. d*t4 9(»^U/ (i'fo)* ■ • I • • X • ’ • f* * • 'I-.•,,v r/ - V •>. . • - A 4* . ■ J« • • * . .A I 4.- ‘.'-r ‘ . r. , V -.V • 7 *'.H. • V.Vi^V • . ir ■ *A> • 4 . ' •' i * .*••• ■* A • V 1 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET - I SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) (O-^75-250'250-500'500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ‘ ^______ X Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck 1 »X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - B X 100 = PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X id Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B X 100 = S.F.■ i S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. il^S.F. S.F.5 1 S.F. S.F.rr-y. '» y;! ] S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F, 1 I S.F, l.'S /O ------------------S.F. r^) S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B % t^O £>tAAJAE S.F.S.F.S.F. S.F. B2A S.F. 4 1 Cf?•SP S.F. S.F. ^'Z.P S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. -^<L'2-4 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A V4CPj 6m!.-S.F. B % 184 S.F. S.F. 444^S.F. Cd>A-l^4ir«AU^ 4>i-<r S.F. Totau S.F. 4lip •SP S.F. S.F. 'h'lO S.F. S.F. S.F. ^F-epo6£0) S.F. ^£>4o S.F. CpeooCfeD]) S.F. S.F. S.F. r.F. A l46? j6,|2-S.F. B n1 ik h !I!SI'll I n’r t. I 'I-41)y y A ■•' S n gI cr C/3 a £ fD 3 I o S' 8-^ O S- CD *a E* ►—* EJ. O O QP s? K> a (D p3S2.^ S' o S Oo CD w ««2 «J9 96 09:55 FAX 91 Gl2 542 2216 M S i F ia 001 001 wVlW I/AW fr A JnfonnjJ Djnin|_ ___] j Expanded Pan'j^/Service Informo] Living '■^-^Ai^ASjeiON -tJr TV—-f ■& {Ca~<a wm>x /^M&tsjCcO fV^~ /5 4od? s.r'. Dayton Residence Remodel MS&R Architects Scheme D Option January 3, 199d paa ‘?./?9i> ,.— .^- - ,_ ,,, - -»-, ,~.n . A. U {%rlfn3 It..«? ■ J *!|j| »' U M ^ *^ ■** ^ ' i * . !|l|l| If ‘^1(11. t M.H v.‘ -t • !. BfidHITHlS "~f"* Robert Payton L« • «M mw A¥tMut Iiowfi—It. mxmnw ISag"eo-T«*e % '* •* DIMCTXM . . I * ♦ 5* / •'*.H’4r• • • ) V--; - '... I V t-.v- • / • « • • A. INSPECTION RECORD DATE !-----PUMPOUT RECORD locationSKETCH TJijiQ _m_2m V___ rouol lAM/'c------rvATC^-. n*i I r»w« \ \ ,6'’' y: \ \ 4 \ \ \ \/ /Oft > J / C-CONFORMING 5S - I » • • ’ i . *• • • .1 A • #•." ; .1* «•T I*3^ .•f •I >- ; ^ ci • * ,;/ .••.■■ i- • •% • .* ‘ V 1 • t • ^ ‘•- 'i.• • r ? V • %*• * •** •’*. j •. '."■■V* •'. .:. r .♦ « ^ • \.» %• jk •V •; K- PERMIT RECORD H permit No. '7^ Date /i'JS-S'^ Type of Permit "Kjl^ckynCj^ /r7-7/)-!T3 •7n/^ji-Z-g-V __UhAP f ^ y f ^----'?/h^-- 7-5 S'S'‘/-^5 -7^/3 7-/7-W ^ {joJ-<. f ^ t ^ — --------- /n.Ql 'jU J6-J13-% _ 'S-ztj-'?/^/i^l (Lt6^i^. •7///7Z c. c 1//• 3-P^by- mi\s //-.7-7? L. fv* • V • -i CITY OK OKONO liUlLOIHC rCJtMIT AITMCATIOMl«.nbii ^®T ( 0QB5i. i-lr*4«tui, : fin,4 o^t. * *'•' • **<••'*>. ry,.4«n >-mc • » 1 ««t r«f CUf «• £44^ *.* I tt0t bm lidmr tm b«« •#» cit* ^ ^** A40V1I 1VFOVJIATIOS HL2T BiJI CC^ilT^!!D b£POiLA 9LAM an/1t~u •<• I itM-f '*•;•'•“"• '<•' •!! .*J..,. wiii*; i'?:* * ‘'‘“•* ••••I.-.,. • ................... ‘t-c* Kj^r C^^*C£ VAa CATC CONO US£ OAT£ h'/(W7 tor aa£a 7. V^iwTH C/L»^T h t'hOf^t.iO t£TttACA:» ffiC»4T «L.L£,_„‘^ ___in__ » / / - »<£Aa LL 0£ y (p^ I LAA£ no / ACCCS3 Ci-A»ui.7^ ACOCTi City Cty tl4t# 6ATer#n Ti::5iS(7i7^7r" £Al*ti/9 li ti 7S^17T?7 gr:iisti A cc-.r ^ Site ACD«e1:> _ hy^a , •* lAr, FfiOJ»t«TY jO£M i#*CaTiO>4 »«0 ^ ffl 1------ — _______ 11 irmi .NL tH . ^y#; M w JtDiVl^iOH, y i'tc».\ ifi-ktc' y. i»'noA«| wl« ,A^ C*n»Uwti«« ►.*«»■ t^nOA«| CONST Ty»-C LJilCii.O itUi, ^oy/y Lil*mat0O CcAtifuwitOA VftloAtion J^nLL !,NI^5 Car stalls ATT Cf NuWttNO^ LlOmCCmS St^r.c f;/.Tf »-MOrS»StJ USi COo^tLiC AF» pATf ^•'A ». . / CLAL'.«I •<w«»TiON REMARKS ‘'lRMiT ►LES U.DG PCHf/iT *lT^ ctatc fee PUiN ncviE.v CaC Oiahoe SCWtHUNir PARK riE KRALTY OTMtn total Due 4.00 ' t M ..........a«m«□n A^... '««44 Dn m 9*.^^ *$m mtmouf s m M«t«riITTL 2'^* V*^4c» •OK«««%rf n M n • *«A^t «• «/lMil«,l D • rc.tUn,. ,,,„ ,'■ .qr*** tu .l„ Atl *wk tn (triri ........- .......... -iJi. ;:;.::;‘.;;‘i:cvr..:::... A»|M«ty|« - ■ .r/l ■» *•P' S:*’ V; //; .‘V 4;»* .. * 4 • , \ ■ ; >-i.' c Cr ^ C ^ hV, \A *»f I \ i V I ; •I .•! » ■ ;. '!: .•* • ■•'!••.•!■ . rr|' \ \ ’)Ir { I* * •>*• i '» i *: ! i n I . » TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:February 12, 1996 SUBJECT: #2111 Terrance J. Bieker, 2440 Old Beach Road - Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Application: Applicant has filed a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a permanent dock at the residential properU'. The permanent dock is subject to review and possible permitting by the Department of Natural Resources and Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.55, Subd. 9(B-3) - Permanent docks and other similrr structures require a conditional use permit from the City. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Shoreline of Lafayette Bay - Location of Dredged Channel E - Resolution Approving Dredging and Filling Project for the West Shore Lafayette Bay Association 6/29/78 F - DNR Permit for Dredging Project G - Gustafson Report 2/12/96 H - DNR Report 2/6/96 1 - Building Plan for Dock J - Floor Plan of Dock K - Survey Description of Application Review E.xhibits I, J and K, applicant proposes the installation of a 24' length permanent dock to be placed 21' from the extended north side lot line and 102' from the e.xtended south lot line. Applicant also proposes a canopy structure over one of the slips. All canopy structures are to be approved by the LMCD. Zoning File #2111 Februar>’ 12,1996 Page 2 Review Exhibit H. applicant originally submitted a dock plan showing 6’ extensions from the main 4' dock. Note the amended plan shows all sections retaining a 4' width. Tlie amended plans show the t-section parallel to the shoreline as being permanent. The DNR will still require a permit tor the amended dock. Review Exhibit G, Gustafson's comments are limited to the structural design ol the dock and asks that the following information be prov ided by applicant: 1, Provide a center support for decking due to the 4’ span. 2. Verification of soil conditions to determine if the 1 O' into kike bottom is going to be adequate. 3. 5"x6" stringers to be corrected to 2"x6". A resident of the Old Beach Road neighborhood (West Shore Lafayette Bay Association) advised staff that all docks installed at the nine residential properties that make up the association were not to exceed a 30' length and that it was their understanding that the City was to enforce tWs requirement. Staff advised the owner that the City does not enforce design standards for residential docks nor did we get into issues involving navigation. The home owners concern was that a 50' wide channel was dredged in 1978 30' from the shoreline. Residents vvere not to install docks that would restrict the 50' wide navigable channel (refer to Exhibit D). Stafl advised tlie home owner to contact the applicant and to advise Bieker of the standards for dock structures informally agreed to by the nine residents. Mr Bieker has submitted an amended plan showing the maximum dock length at 24'. The original plan submitted with the application showed a 38' length. The nine property owners would be well advised to develop private covenants filed in the chain of title of each of the properties as a means to alert future property owners of these guidehnes for dock construction. StafYhas enclosed a copy of the resolution approving the dredging and filling project of 1978 (Exhibit E). A major concern of the City for that review was the issue of u-eatment of spoils from dredging that was placed on the Fresh Water Biological Institute propertv- to the west side of Old Beach Road. The conditions of the resolution do not suggest an attempt on the part of the City to control dock lengths for the nine property owners nor does the original DNR permit, Exhibit F. Both the DNR and LMCD will require a permit for the permanent dock. It is not clear yet as of this writing whether the Watershed District will also require a permit but Ceil Strauss of the DNR has advised that she feels that Watershed Districts should review applicant's dock plans. 1 Zoning File #2111 Februar>' 12, 1996 Page 3 Staff Recommendation To approve the City granting a building permit for the construcuon of the ^ ^ Terrance J. Bieker and Jeanne-Marie Varga at the residential property located at 2440 Old Beach Road subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. Applicant's construction plans to be amended to show center support for decking and 2”x6'* stringers replace 5**x6** shown on plans. Applicant to provide verification of soil conditions to determine if the 10 depth is adequate for piers. Before building permit can be issued by the City of Orono for the construction of the permanent dock the following must be submitted to the City: A.Written confirmation from LMCD of approval of dock location and construction plan. B. C. DNR permit. Permit from the MCWD if required or if not written confirmation that Watershed District does not require a review. J4. S').4 » 1 ( Application if • -4fr .. .u CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Date Received Amount Paid PROPERTY LOCATION /,-,/» Site Address j?»yVO (DiJf Ef4<^ __- CPsCo^L-------^ Type of Applirntinn to be Filed t Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) JU - ~ ^06>CS APPLICANT______ _ Name / . ^. o Phone rhome) 3CT> • 3<^g J Phone (woric) Jfeg • /JoQ ) Address o(J Ao Citv Q/t^^ *•Zip_J^21L OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address Citv Zip AcquiredDate Pro^ -- -. - , _______________ I (^)(j3on5) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) X FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 75.00 For each variance request \vith CUP application ^ $175.00 Residential Accessory Use YAAC,A $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) j A/iis-t $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplam Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75’ of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS , r n $250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $300.00 Vacation $200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ~ $350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ~ $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District —------------------ Present Use of Property . ;y__ Residential Other (specify). REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail.1. ^ uescnoc request m aeiaii. i Certified Property 0%vners List of owners within 350', labels and^lat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department ot Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). 4. ^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed sur\'eyor) - refer to handout for survey information. . 5 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ^ 6. ^ Topographic surv’ey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades).changes in elevation (graaesj. . . • 7 List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest m the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 8. Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). . __I__attach a seoar 'S, ^ v-onsirutuun --------------^ ^ 9. As an addendum to this rpplication, please anach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified ot this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE FOR REPRODUCTION (U’ X 17 ” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Propertv Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:------------------------- ----------------- APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ^ u u 7 The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zomng Administrator, ae^ees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by onginal fee payment) and/or unusual “expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s signature Date ^C> The owner herebv acknowledges and agrees to this appltcation and ftinher authonzed reasonable entrv into the property by City suff. consultants, agents, cotnmisston members, and Council members lor ^ses of investigation and verification of this request. * C />) . ------ rinle - ? (tOwner's signature ---------///-^ ----------------------------------------------------------- . 1- .rsf must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Applican Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at r""i! i^rriiew meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a iheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this cha.nge prior to the meeting. »: .* V. *—•' • »» r- ^ M \ i -\__:« ^ « <b'^iS' 'LT'"’to ^gatLSi * 9. ( 8) ‘ C!3)'>% jd sM*£f 3 *C * • ejn.c? 1 C^) * !**>? »*.i' (Z*) / =\t •••'/:'• % . \ ^• M »> -\ T • *r. »r t iMrirn W ' ■ t(28) 9M 15 / (16) ' / ^ /I :rr iS ------j h^' 1 * ) :3) 0 ' sU/ (28) 2 I •. 9* 3 3 /(IS) ^iT wAwNU \ ••• -Sb, (20) I 3 -o.,:’*1 •• f? t) » )r ' *T ^ \a n ?L1 -i------. Tr^.5‘s:5C :•»■* r.- f ' n y V.0' / -o' (9) { (10) •** * •• .'.■■% Ml lun at^ky*tTO'«ri .v\ ;. <.' ; ^• • I ..., .RUN OAH 1, • ;• ■■O ;.- BATCH Ml ■ ’ • ■■' • 'NErmEPXN COUNTY PROPERTY INFOOUnON SYSTEM PROPERTY OWCRS LIST* ’*mOP AOM CMCII HAHE TAXPAYER : HAHE/AOOR Sa tl-117-ES ZZ 0002 02420 OtO BEACH RD M A a MHNANN HALTER A A KTTY T ROHNANN 2420 OLD BEACH ROAD HAYZATA m 555YI o u PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SB 21-117-2S 22 0005 02400 OLD BEACH RO S B A D L LIEPSCHULTZ 8T1VEN A DEANN LXEF8CHULTZ 2400 OLD BEACH RO HAYZATA Ifl 55S91 f .{ TROP AOOR QHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AODR SB 21-117-2S 22 OOXB 02B01 OLD BEACH RO R D BKRMAN A J D SHERMAN KIRK* 0/JACqUELINE 0 SHERMAN 2505 OLD BEACH RO HAYZATA m 55S9X V PROP AOOR OHNER HAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR B2 1A-XX7-2S SS 0028 02SX4 OLD BEACH RD 0 A TRUDELL A C A TRUOELL DAVID A TRUDELL 2SX4 OLD BEACH RD HAYZATA MN 55S9X : .i’* V ,gi** ... f 1 >•* \ CT‘ • • tV ! •. *> ■ • *.«• * * s . ‘1 . :• .r*V * ■ . I • A . 5 -4 ’ .I * i- • * • "vf--; REPORT NQ« PI4S540I PAGE iSB 2X-XX7-2S 22 OOOS 02440 OLD BEACH RO T J BIEKER A J H VARGA T J BIEKER A U M VARGA 2440 OLD BEACH RD HAYZATA MN 55S9X SB 2I-I17-IS 22 0004 024B0 OLD BEACH RD N N A R A HOOARES MICHAEL M A KATHY A HOOARES 24B0 OLD BEACH RO HAYZATA MN 5559X . . -fU■ • 36 21-117-23 22 0016 02625 OLD BEACH RO E H BLANCH CO LTD PTNSHP E H BLANCH CO LTD PTNSHP 3500 N BOTH ST MPLS HN 55631 3B 21-117-23 22 0017 02655 CLO BEACH RO L LUNOBUIST A 0 LUNOquiST LARRY A DONNA MAE LUOQUXST 2655 OLD BEACH RO HAYZATA MH 55391 . . eO u* :|o •• • %>; 58 21-117-23 22 0019 ' 02535 OLO BEACH RO T H A A A COOUTE THOMAS H A ALICIA A COOUTE 2535 OLO BEACH RO NAYZATA HN 55391 B2 16-117-23 33 0026 02315 OLO BEACH RD R M ADAMS ARB ADAMS RICHARD M A KATHLEEN B ADAMS 2315 OLO BEACH RD HAYZATA m 55391 .. '.Is-: ' .• i. •*.-e'; 'I- • * • /? . TOTAL BATCH BOX 000X0 . V 6 •.' ' 1*. I CERTIFY that THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE ME»tCPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF MY KNCMUD6C AND BEUEF. DATE *. ^ - .'- •■ *j| • •’ '■• '***. “* * ' * J.»l . }"--!'*••, • ^-• . - . . -:.-'- '-r . •• ■ V j\vy ,-:t-.%\ ■ w - I . • • - • ■** * ScKULf-l& .'I'->-•-<•/.■?.• > . 4^:;' ' ■'• •/ ..♦r^ ^ • • • • • . -;• •...• •rf. • •% *•.*“ •, * -. . - . > • »•» r---* .•.T>-->-- -I-.; \ •«, • > • -• * -i j ,.r.'-4 %*•% « n> 'i>-\ u;> •*>. > • <►. .' * «».• • ♦'’i • 4 >* i* t ^ ji /« • 4 Alf RESOLUTION NO. 9/^ A RESOLUnON APPROVING CERTAIN DREDGING AND SPOILS DISPOSAL FOR THE WEST SHORE LAFAYETTE BAY ASSOCIATION WHEREAS, tb« Citj of Orono Is a tminlclpol corporation orgaalsod and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WiEREAS, the City Council Is concerned at>oot die probXsas ®^^**ted by unregulated dredging In and adjacent to Minnetonka, ^dilch probleois affect the I^ke and all the property adjacent thereto; WHEREAS, the City Council Is concerned that penmnent structures and artificial obstructions located In wetlands, lakes, dralnageways, and on property adjacent thereto may adversely affect the natural resources, open space, drainage patterns and wildlife habitat of the City; and WHEREAS, because of the above noted concerns and for the protection of the health, safety and general welfare of tha citizens of Orono, the dty Council has established and adopted regulations providing for strict control of dredging in and adjacent to lake and strict control of filling or alteration of wetlands, narahas, dralnageways and land adjacent thereto; and WHEREAS, the Planning Coimisslon and City Council have reviewed at length an appliestirm by the West Shore Lafayette Bay Association for certain maintenance dredging of a channel in l<afay*tte Bay, I^ke Minnetonka, and for placement of dredged materials upon land occupied by the Fresh Water Biological Institute. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact: 1. The channel dredging is located in Lafayette Bay, Lake Minnetonka, as shown on Exhibit A attached. 2* The channel dredging is required to maintain riparian access to nine residential properties within the City of Orono. 3. xhe channel to be maintained was previously dredged under proper state permits. wmm .^eaelutiea So. Page 2 .-r •. • •. , , V* ... . •\- ' 'n »■/ ..» z.y^ % ^, • 4 4. ‘ The dredging will only reaxive ollc from within the existing . channel and will not affect the hard lake bottom. 5. The dredging will be done according to the conditions of the WNDHR permit No. 78-6325 attached hereto as Exhibit B. 6. The dredge spoils will be deposited on property owned by the Fresh Water Biological Research Foundatim as shown on Ochibit C attached. 7. The Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District has determiaed that the disposal site is dry land and not wetland or marsh land. 8. The spoils disposal will be a settling basin b^iind earthen dikes as noted on Exhibit D attached and as regulated by MPCR state disposal system permit (application attached as Exhibit E). 9. The effltient from the disposal area will be contained within the large FWBI wetlands and the wetlands water quality will be daily monitored by FWBI staff as a research experiment as noted on Exhibit F attached. # AND, BE IT FURTHERMORE RESOLVED, that based upon the above noted findings of fact, the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby grant to the West Shore LaFayette Bay Association a Conditional Use Permit for dredging and spoils disposal subject to the following conditions: s * • 1. Dlkh construction shall be subject to a building permit, which permit may be isstxed by staff upon receipt of permits by the MCWD and MPCA and upon payment of the building permit fee. 2. Dike Construction shall be sxibject to the approval of the City engineer prior to the start of any dredging. 3. 4. The culvert under Old Beach Road (between the FVBI marsh and Lake Minnetonka) shall be sealed to the satisfaction of the City engineer prior to the start of any dredging. Dredging may not begin until receipt by the City of permits from th«r MNDNR and MCWD and imtil at least 24-hour notice be given Co the City inspector. ■ii • 0• - I- '«* ' ■ ***«k3[ ’■;•» , • « • -n' • ,> N- » .1! •-"•a. • •* WktV . ‘f' - ' ->-4-• ^ -a, *• •- 1 «•* :^ - j4J ' <{^ K** < . • -M '^'T: ■;3iS V# rif. f ir-0 *Ti.; :pu; • J/» 'A- *>■ , » '. • v/ • -''•4 i .. k *?■ '»♦’ A >' * i-j • }' !-♦- -i-'t . !'•*«' -vf : ”. I .V* tm • * . ' r •< ' * *,S--------'-•^ 1 - ,•* ’■*'t • ■'« -*• -v^ 4 ., '9 i.^,j, '. »t'> *• ' -' ' ^ . i ' *^ * . -f“ ’, • ,,..- , T>‘. ■:' , • ' % •* •-?* ^'' ^;7 • Hr'v5?•' • M V " A V*|^p r.-'r.?••* -,*'• Btge 3 5. 6. TJJwii coBStrucelon of the dike, a sign shall be erected at the applicant*! cost on the disposal site, visible from Old Beach RMd «pd ft a location acceptable to the City Inspector, vhlch sign shall be as follows; Size; Material: Legend; no less than 3* high by 5* long on posts at least 6' high, wood or metal with white painted surface and red, black or blue letters. Vest Shore LsFayette Bay Association Fresh Water Biological Institute RESEARCH FRO TECT (Larger letters) ’ Effects of Dredgl^ & Nutrient Release Permits granted by: Minnesota Dept, of Natural Resources Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnehaha Creek Watershed District City of Orono Prior to the start of dredging, the FWBI shall sample the waters -of LsFayette Bay and the FWBI marsh for turbidity and for nutrient levels and shall submit a report of same to the City. 7. During the dredging operation, the FWBI shall dally mmltor turbidity of LaFayette Bay water and shall submit weekly reports of same to the City. 8. Prior to discharge of marsh water to the lake, the PWBl ahall monitor the concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus and dissolved organic carbon in the ^iIBI marsh, shall weekly submit reports of same to the City, and shall prohibit discharge of marsh water to LaFayette Bay until concentration levels are eqxial to or lower than LaFayette Bay levels. 9» After completion of the dredging and release of the marsh water to LaFayette Bay, the PWBI shall prepare a comprehensive report Incltsdlng conclusions gained from the study and shall submit same to the City, the MKDNR and the MPCA. 10. If, at any time during the dredging operation, the nutrient levels In the marsh water or outlet to LaFayette Bay rise to a point determined by the City to be detrimental to Lake Minnetonka, the City reserves the right to enforce a stop work order prohibiting further dredging activity until the nutrient levels are reduced. . ti• «r'«tfr^-i*-*j'*»' «?/-- > - » ■ . V ->.V ji^Vf; w i «*<»^la3ii■ --y - • .‘^ > -.V -f;'1^^:V: .\y: • .*.,<C< V • f •■ •••. •I..'.»<V4 . . -» • • .»••- .■/-•%''.'Vii-' 'vi?^- *' _ .••. .4^. »% •4; ‘#-'•V^*• •“ / ‘ % i'"' ' " : x*"lin;- • I •-■; •'*•*•'• ;i. i. '>«*wr’•''.'. ’ MMltttioll Ko. ,r*8« 4 ., . . .> ^ ^ll.-1I|pOB'coapletioB of tbo d. edging end release or evaporation of Ij^oanded nmtera, the disposal site shall be reeontoured and landscaped. Including removal of the dike, sodding, seeding and tree or sfand> planting to prsrrent erosion and to return the area ■ to a natural state, which landscaping shall be at the applicant's cost and for which the applicant shall post with the City a letter of credit for $3,000.00 to ensure performance. If.'Iha Vest Shore InFayette Bay Association and the Fresh Vater ' Biological Institute shall review this Resolution and agree to the conditions contained herein prior to this permit being ; .. effective, %«hlch agreement shall be Indicated by execution of this agreement in the spaces provided. f.- *• ^ 4 • * ^ »i' V- >ir4:4;4i \* Earl Sween, Ghairman Vest LsFayette Bay Association J. M. Wood, Director Fresh Water Biological Institute this Resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on 192^the day of William B. Van Nest, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk/Administrator t I 4 1. • x4 a' a { i h t •d K •Vb I r STATEOFMINNeSOTA “ , OCPARTMENr OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATERS. SOILS AND MINERALS CmiviniN OlHct BuUdwv*. St. Paul. MiiwMMia, S5101 nAfUf>rr gg •6INTHCMATTCnoPTMCAPPtiCATiONOP- VEST SHORE UIKtZTtZ BAT ASSOCXATIOIII iwaPCnMrrTOCMAMOiTNf counsi.cufiMWT.ORCiionscriONa* tJtimjettm Lake Minn«tonk« Baimapla c«mmv. PERMITA • WlUri« IS Hifissy apuwTf o Sis 109w 9ma mm tmm bMlt ol •utaiwiti mS In Hit §mm fh isifliilliii, ir« • pan by miMtSSIOii ^ tllf plpPpM Of nOfk«t ftFlS ^440 l^njtd noikfli It th§ pmrnitxmm.VsjzatSf MN« 25391 _ • reaova silt and earthen naterlals froa Lafajctce Bay* Lake Minnetonka to elevation 924.5 SLD In the liqiroveBent of 2600* of existing channel all aa deacrlbed on application' and plana eubolttedp Shoreline channela shall extend not sK>re> than 50* vatervard from the NOKVL and approach channels 500* and 200* respectively^ shall not be laore than 50* In width. * • rROseitrvoESCSiBeOM: part of SR%, Sec. 16 and part of NW); , Sec. 21^ T.11.7R, R.23V lor the purpoM of navigation Inproveaent. ThapWwAitrV'MtdiwkiMt lath* leaeMiMfCENCSACanO SPECIAL PROVISIONS: GENERAL PROVISIONS Hennepin COUWTY 1.TMs pvfTMt h omhf mmj $h^ net ril«M tlw pmrmitun from •ciy Uibiliiy or obligation innowd by Minnmeo SctiHi^ f foUiinf tnpr««e ■rrd thoM mmain in fores lubiocl to oil oondrtiont end limi 2. X SPECIAL reOVlSIONS I.lUllwiKOd I IPM Deccaber 30, 1978 u. Ihor^torOp m% nunbon of tjIncMt tlw 974n3 S.Ta.D. by th« opplabon ol bw*umn« sttar ncvvMicn. In CBM rt#«ts or in or ei *ny pubikfy owNnad lands or Impr t ol all or amtiaHtiaa i y. rarHdniMlIntv iiiibit ioirdy.Hotjo^iityiiiattba off>rid»y or ouvwMlfVa M Monrif of •lO I or Inoyrrad by ihr S iota ol Ml f or on aceownt ol any iii adr i ilthno from not ba •I dv parrr^nat or mrf ol lU afpanaa* amployaa^ or Aonuariort ralaung to arry fwatiar haraoraJar. TMa pwmsi iKaa M*oopb«o or loi^tmf owy layal ligbna or rtpH of action of any par eon ot/sar tKan tha aiata agairoi thm parmstwa, itt lo otfi or Inyjry ranrruof from my mxft act or omnason. or aaastoopoio ar Isoduof any ka«al tfm pooWwao^ iii agantt« ampioraaa, or ooniractorf for alatabon ol or faskira aa comply aaik ol laar. Pks ARaHss raiailP a. per^ioo ol #0 oaaMi '<^rir.;Trrrt! • II «i u«a Ola ol ifta ol* ba tha doty of dta parv?wi«a# to daiamarta oorr illoni of daa pamaL ♦ >Anya« (..eeuiotrociad lor xf wtdoaiag naj^i from ««orli aoiKoruadby iHiaparmii pMbfac I iia larii and laft 2-12-1996 11:29AM FPCltl EO ESTPuO * A:B;LOC 612 636 1311 P. I 1/1 Bonestroo MJm Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects •o/ictroa. Anoe- * A5so«!«tJ. I"< If (« Acliorr'eau« OOCOftwMV UnotCytr Otto vi »onei:fo«. f £. fc^♦rt W. P E • l.^<•ph C. Arviefl#!'. f f Marvin L. E.t. flC^^d L Twrf>er. P E, g^cnn Qqqk, p i. Tnom*« f. MOTCt. P.C. Robert C. Ichun*€ht PC. S4ASW1 M. CbeHb*. C PA.-* • Seruor Consult jnt HOwJ/d A ^ f fOfd, PI north A Gordon^ PI Pohorf P. PfeTfert*. PI pich»rd w Fojitf P e. DavfdO loiUdta P E. C. A.UA jerry A. 9ouroon P E. Marn A PI M*«hA«i T. PEL Ted K. Flew. P £ Thomjd R. Anderson. A LA, A. Rick Schmidt. P £. Jjmes R Pojenmerkel. P C. Dele A Grove. P t Oor^eW C Cur^dt. PI Philip J C^»M^eU. P.I. Ma<3^eei C Ltnch P £ RHen A. 0»gc. P.E jOfv»ei R Mji^ndL P£ F Todd Poster P.f jerry D Pertiich. PC ICelth R. Tdpp, PC. Scow J Argenek. P t- Oouqiei J •crH>it. p f. Keiv^eth P. AndetJOA. PL Shewn 0 Gu?tefion. PE Mere R. Roirj. pc. Mere a. set^. p C. Qory W Morten. PC. Pau4 X A l-A Oen«ei J (dgerton. PC Febniaiv 12, 1996 Tnomjf A Syfkc. PL frtaertc J Stenborg, P £ MertMvt. P L Michdti P. RXU. P E. Thomei Peterson. PC Mere 9 gPeHis. P L Milet B Jenien. P L L Pn»ii»0 P t Lireh L wiemefi. f E Gary D PE Cecuio OHviCf. PL Kent J. we^r^er. pj Pe«( O. Heuer P E. P. CorOcf. PC Dan O. Boyom. P.L Jeffrey X CHerlnoT'’* P L Joseph P Rhein. P.C. Lee M Mann. P £ Chenei .e ErictJon Leo U. PewcUky N«r*3n ML OttOA Aenei M. Rlnp jMhec P Enpoihardt Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Bo-\ 66 Crystal Day, Minnesota 55323 Re: Bieker Permanent Dock File No. 139-2111 Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the plan submitted for the Terrance Bieker permanent dock application at 2440 Old Beach Road. Wc have the following comments which are limited to the structt, •'I design of the dock. 1. Itovide center support for decking due to the 4’ to 6’ span. Verify soil conditions to determine if the " 10' into lake bottom " dimension L- jlJ^cQuate. 3. iTie " 5" X 6" wingers " looks like an error, it should probably be 2" .x 6". Plea,se contact me at this office if yon have, any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, .4NDERUK A; ASSOCIATES. INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 \X/est Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MM 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 H PHONE NO. STATE Of ^^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106^^ 772-7910 February 6, 1995 & Ms. Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE:TERRANCE J. BIEKER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION (CITY #2??n: PE^^T DOCK, LAKE MINNETONKA - LAFAYETTE BAY (27- 133-25), CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Ms. Mabusth: or are seasonal structures. You are also advised that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District may require approval for the proposed permanent dock, as currently configured. I am including a brochure that summarizes what can be done without a DNR permit with the Bieker's copy of this letter. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, C - '7"T Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist CCS c:Terrance Bieker, 2440 Old Beach Road (with enclosure) Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Orono Shoreland File AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 7^/7*€-e K'^ 1 , <0 4VV* Id 4 j..- •“» • ? •k 3 ^ ^ I't^a (-S'J^ I I I I ^ ^%Jb- ^ '* , 1 I — ^*-----------------------------,.^ ,-M» •—r-T- , r 1 paan ni n rpath Rnan ORONO, MN 55391 368-3082 A ijH X 5 c f f ^ A f/ '10 93 ill Si 'I'il!i! M ^•Och >*ooef II « Zc * — V •-« a »• O 9 ^ c « «* • • • • t a O— v«CX*«-^Of- 2»2:SS'5 •i?s; ^ C ils s ixi 1 • a CXSSSa-.- a ^ 3 «aa -%a ao a m i:" * *\l i So2,;{2i. «?;i3n ^r> » • » CgJS * 2-S ••a — « V a a a* a a n 0* ;*i-: * u ij : i a ^ • aa # a o« *• a ft* e •• 9 ^ ^ ^ a a. r a 9 a a 2 a a a a a a 0^9 r-o r a ^ O •• 1 *-#*Oa — a a a a 9 a ft* ^ a •• a* V •• o # a «r ^ a *t aa #• a : i \i — a •^ft* o a ^ a a ^ ^ a — ft* ‘»-Sj-‘5x is-: a -•a • 1 • •2i:g52 a 9 #• — % a M a w' fti-.j* *sli ■» Ik* • i a«•» * a a ■ • • •- a • ■% -> 9k •!r-- a /• a c r. a >■^2 its€km a A ^ i Ijs m *m ^■0 f-a 32 C3D 2 n^i>QioS H0"0 Hoff'"•< »rt<2 |£is ip|2 5! *33 “S Hm 31 3}-< GO Mm7Zm 33 w ft isi t>*fed o 3 P a. - /</ - f-6 Dock and Lift Service February 14, 1996 City of Qrono Atten: Jeanne MabuFt:h re: Conditional use permit #2111 for Terrence Bieker As per discussion with Sean Gustafson on February 13, 1996, we have revised the construction plans for the dock, to his specifications. Twenty (20) copies are enclosed. John Latterner r '3 uL ' yyC - f'c Terry Bicker Construction plan i n 'T^ h_^ u jO c* r ^ (L L ^ rm a^i\ v L ^ 'f ^^ g- g. t -^ril ! ^ / n Cj ~l~ c lo <L cL / t' £- >■) / /^ 7r hr O'CHI f,-hy> ^yt r 'ti* I <s_L Uj^ y\ Ti ^ c c ^ I I I clJtlI G.J y' . ^ In C c U1 tcf t cV , I W-4 i FEE!-Ii>l'??to 10:i7 CPEEI llnTEPSHEt'E124710tJ?2 P.Oi 01 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT WATEHSHCO BOUNDARY <L \ LA Gray Freshwater Center, Navarre 2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 37 Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 Phone; 612/471-0599 Fax: 612/471-0662 \-r ^LAKE MMNrrONICA / J- ■QARO OF liAMGWS: Jo^n E. Thomas. Prcs’dfnt. Pamela G Bit«t, \4ice Prfsident. Maniva S. Hartlifi. Sccicury, Thomas W. laBounty. Treasurer; Montca Gross, C Woodrow Love: Thomac Maple. Jr. n j'’ Fcbiuary 20, 1996 Nfr. John Latternet Dock & Lift Service 27950 Sinitlitown Road Excelsior MN 55331 Dear Mr Laltemer. Your advice to the Minnehaha CicekAVatershed District (District) concerning installation of a permanent dock on Lake Minnetonka for the Terry T^iekcr residence, 2440 Old Beach Rd , Oiono, has been reviewed for possible permit requirements. Upon review of thi.s dock plan you state that there will be no shoreline alteration, addition oftill in the lloodplain or lake bottom dredging. In the absence of these conditions for the dock installation, the District requires no permit for this dock installation Tliank you for vcrif>'ing your plan with the District District Diieclor cc Ms Jcamie Mabuslh y City of Orono Planning Department ^7}- Alan Wilcutt, Lake Minnetonka Conservation Distiict W- 7033 OistticI Director Eugene R. SUommen, Assistant District Director Suzanne fa. Weedman TOTmL P.OI 1 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Februarj' 14,1996 #2108 - Norben Johnson, 1181 Wildhurst Trail - Sketch Plan Review for Proposed Five Lot Subdivision Zoning District: LR-IB Total area = 7 acres Application: Applicant has filed a sketch plan for a five lot subdivision of a seven acre parcel located within the LR-1B zoning district. The purpose of the review is to consider the five lot plan that includes a private road with cul-de-sac. Members shall review the pertinent sections of the Subdivision and Zoning Codes to determine whether the subdivision conforms to requirements of the Code. The following ordinances are pertinent to the review: Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 11. Subdivisions 6, 7 and 8 - Purpose of sketch plan review. 2 Back lot/front lot ordinance. Exhibit G. J.Section 10.24 - LR-IB zoning district standards. 4. Section 10.56 - Specific sections are as follows: A. Subdivision 3 - Definitions 2 and 3 - Bluff and bluff impact zone. B. Subdivision 16 (C) (1) - Structure.! setback from top of bluff. C. Subdivision 16 (C) (3) - Allowed improvements within bluff impact zone, D. Subdivision 16 (G) - Steep slopes. E. F. G. H. Subdivision 16 (J) - Topographic alterations/grading and filling. Subdivision 16 (K) (1-5) - Stormwater management. Subdivision 16 (L) - Hardcover limitations. Subdivision 18 (A-D) - Subdivision/platting provisions. Zoning File #2108 February 14, 1996 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - Application Location Map Sewer As-Built 2' Contour Map from Earlier Subdivision Review City Topographic Map Engineer's Sketch of Proposed Drainage Easement over Lots 2 and 3 Back Lot/Front Lot Ordinance Gustafson Report 2/6/96 Gustafson Sketch of Road Layout (Option B, Page 2, Gustafson Report) Staff Sketch Sketch Plan of Five Lot Subdivision Review of Proposed Plan Access to the subdivision shall be via Wildhurst Trail. The City has reviewed the proposed location of the access and finds no problem with the sighting distance. The private road is shown at a 66 width with 120' diameter. The Code would require only a 50' wide road and 100' diameter cul-de- sac. All lots but Lot 3 have conforming access. Lot 3 is shown as a back lot with a 20' driveway easement extending from cul-de-sac to south lot line of Lot 3. If Lot 3 is tound to meet criteria that would allow a back lot with subdivision, an access corridor must be redefined at a 30' wide outlot and lot area of 3 must be increased to two acres. Setbacks of a back lot are to meet 150% of the resular setbacks for the zoning district; front 52.5' (150%/35') and side 15' (150%/10'). There would be adequate area to meet the back lot area requirements but each lot would be reduced to one acre m area. No matter what final configuration is proposed with the formal subdivision application, applicant's surveyor must complete a 2' topographic plan to determine the location of any bluff impact zones and define a 30' setback from the top of bluff. Review Comments 1.Drainage/Grading Plan. Refer to Exhibits D and E, there are two major drainageways within the seven acre parcel. Refer to the north, specifically Lots 3 and 4. There is a major ravine that intersects the property at the north. Refer to Exhibit F, in an earlier subdivision review the Engineer recommended a 50' drainage easement along the southern portion and at the northeit comer to be extended to a 75* width. Per Section 10.55, Subdivision 15 (A) (2), "For properties served by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least one-half acre of land not within the protected area 1 Zoning File #2108 February' 14,1996 Page 3 is included in one contiguous parcel and both murucipal sewer and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area." In the final plat. Lot 3 must be assured of */j acre dry contiguous building site to the east of the ravine and the access drive must not encroach the ravine area. Major portions of this property drains to the south and east through Lot 5 to a less dramatic ravine area that drains under W'iMhurst Trail to a low/wetland area that eventually drains to the lake. As the Engineer's report notes. E.xhibit H, both drainageways have a high potential for erosion. The City will require storm water ponding to reduce the runoff flows and velocities leaving the site. The applicant must provide drainage and ponding calculations that should include a skimmer structure at pond outlet. This information must be submitted with the preliminary plat application. The City Engineer recommends that the grading and drainage plans be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review at the time the preliminary plan is submitted to the City. Grading plans submitted with the formal application must include existing and proposed 2’ contours. The plans must include the following: - Erosion control. Building pad locations and elevations. Location of bluff impact zone and required setback from defined top of bluff. Temporary erosion control during construction. There are no designated wetlands within the seven acre property. The major ravine and drainage way at the northern portion of the property was never designated on the City's wetland maps. Utilities. Sanitary sewer is available to this property'. Water service will be provided by on site wells. Refer to Exhibit C, sanitary' sewer w ill be extended approximately 310' north to the intersection of Wildhurst and the private road. The Engineer has asked the City to consider three options concerning current access and sewer to the seven acre site and future service to landlocked properties to the west and north of the subject property. Refer to Exhibits B and I, the Engineer recommends that the southern portions of unimproved Garden Lane be vacated and replatted within the seven ..ere parcel providing direct access to the undeveloped parcels to the north and west via newly realigned Garden Lane. Sewer easements can be extended to the western boundaries of the property so that future sewer service can be extended from the west lot line. Refer to Exhibits 11. 1, J-1 and J-2. staff has sketched access scenarios based on City Engineer's report. E.xhibit I shows Garden Lane realigned extended to west boundary (to meet Lot 3 west lot line), J-1 shows a private road outlot with future extension to west along with sewer easement. Lot 3 is defined as a back lot with sewer and access provided in 30' Zoning File #2108 Februan' 14. 1996 Page 4 outlot. J-2 shows private roaH outlot with extensions of sewer easement to west. Aci css to Lot 3 is v'ia drive'vav through extrusion outlot and unimproved Garden Lane. Stwer *s provided via 20’ easement along shared lot lines. Planning Commission to provide direction on the following: 1.Shall a sewer easement be designated to west lot line to ser\e undeveloped Tonkaview lots to west and north? Should access road be redefined as Garden Lane, a public road, providing access to undeveloped Tonkaview lots or should the roadway remain as a private road with a tuture extension outlot to Garden Lane? 3.Kow is north lot or Lot 3 to achieve legal access? WiU it meet criteria set forth in back Jot/front lot ordinance for creation of a back lot in a subdivision or should access b«* provided from unimproved Garden Lane along the west bcundarv via an extension outlet of the private road? a.Street/Fasement. The Engineer's report notes concern with the steepness of the elevations requiring extensive excavation. The individual driveway locations should be located as many of the driveways will be placed within the same steep grades. Plans must include storm sewer. In the orieinal Heaihercroft plat, the subject property was platted with 10' drainage and utihr. cements along all exterior lot lines. The City will ask for a dedication of drai" ^e and utility easements at 5' width along all internal lot lines and 10' along the proposed road right-of-way. The City will ask for drainage easements over all retention areas, drainageways and storm sewers. U is not certain if applicant will be asked to prov ide otT-site storm sewer improvements. During an earlier subdivision review in the late 80's, many neighbors along Wildhurst Trail voiced concern with runoff from development increasing the erosion that was taking place at both the V est and east sides of Wildhurst Trail. Applicant is being asked to retain runoit md reduce velocities of the runoff. The normal standards for treatment and retention mav be intensified if off-site improvement is not to be required. Planning Commission memoers will be asked to address the following issues for applicant in his preparation for tne filing of preliminary subdivision application: 1 Should sewer easement be taken to west lot line? Zoning File #2108 February 14. 1996 Page 5 Shall road servicing five lot plat be dedicated as a public road providing principal access to undeveloped Tonkavievv properties to north and west or should the road remain private with a future extension outlot to unimproved Garden Lane? Access to the undeveloped Tonkaview lots to remain via platted Garden Lane. How shall access be provided to Lot 3? a.Will you approve the platting of a back lot? Will access be provided via a private drivewo; - commencing at the extension outlot to the w est boundary of property and then through ummproved Garden Lane to the west lot line of Lot 3? Or should access road of plat be a public road e.xtending to west boundarv of Lot 3 within unimproved Garden Lane? Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. '1 f ^ ii3r! ' -r: w* iC ^ ii •4 * ^ AppUcatioo # «=^/ Date I eceiYcd / Araoimt Paid A CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION /ji n n WA^rT^ 'To//^/ UUlOffURiT 7(?. Propcrt>' Identification Number (PID) Please check one • Property ____abstract or Attach legal description to application. 0 I torrens? APPLICANT ^ ^ ^ Name MfiR/'S?-r Ta ........... ahh.... J s--^ MfiiRlori A P > yg y Phone (home) -/JvT/ ' City /w r^-n. . ms Zip J^hone (work)------------- OW'NER (if different than applicant) Name________________________________________ Address Cit\-Zip Phone (home) Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District / 1 2 Acres Dty Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify) _______ PROPOSAL H Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) l/^ Subdivision for New Building Sites _ Existing Units _ New Units Total Units Number of Building Sites Proposed Gross Densitv' Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) / /Units per lJ__Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ TiJj^I».11 Bin fiiiMP-i •Wi]A [•111114* V* [•i*]iiir» RYlin •raH'lMrtliKt]Blilfl inm [•Illilil raoiwnfw mm mm W*r»M4» • *rtM4«Mra mm psUlij iK-V^VivJ •wmw*•T*lk!iM[* •T«iyiMra KIiIiTiil [•llWIll* MilliliKlTi •in:iir4«B*] [•K*Hi WmIjiILMW l*T4C«E P.r.T*K«r»i FiFI il fiin. f4lT* f:¥«FiTlliiT»Tl>/4«rtBTimYt] r t. : r, 1^ {> .l.s'l'»i 4.' n;.i ‘'X < i';fi •' < m: Vliit'!?! .- ,'frt •, I » r -1»*’ *W ■»* ■ Its- i’ :i "V- I'. * M *. <' X ' ’I’'-1^, I ■j-'g" rS® '%|f ■!‘ :‘M r' •'■■■f-! V m> 1/h"’ M t?tv!;'-r,-■ jI'-u- >, >fc. Uxta I'5 !V,v : ■'.; !,i i;;;:|.; , }a V ' - ti ic. ■. ’-''ll ii f'* if^'K’iMiE '. ’4 -' i /V\’ • V . I I... Ulii • •! -‘ *,■..’Jr-• -‘: f-V ..••• *■ '• ./ I PRELIMINARY PLAT For: Arnold Soskin ---------- '' M* I \\\ V ' '■ xh' OJJ^__ ^ '> ■:'/vi'-v>,'lc. '''^1 \ \;:fM ,-i 1 J^Fl;/ K /M 'y s?v* Notes: 1. N.G.V.D.Vertical Dafam. 2. 2 foot contour interval, 3. 1 acre minimum lot size. ^.Q£2^ Denotes proposed elevation. 5. Denotes direction of drainage. 6. Lot areas and distances are scaled. ' / y c if* / ' *' ^ Xiiik'/yy y ■yyy/i // / ■„ >'/// / /' • / .‘Jiyks i ///-'/// S in I \ \ I >s? :iI!l • I • I ' ^ I / /S- ' ' I ' ,'7 ■• I 1 I \ Lot 2. Block 1, HEATHERCROFT, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (A\ca» 1.00 ac*€i) r /■ / . N Scale •• 1"- /oo Rank - I herebj ctrfiR ftio! fh/s plan,survey or report tvos prepared by rnt or uneftr my ohreef supervision and that ! arn a duly fftiisUrtd Land Surveyor under Iht laws of H'>t Sta/t o f Minnesota. Doled this /cy*4 of , J9 br .Paie. ~ Jnh hln S6-13i MiCZC^^ , Ri^islralion do. .82/3 £.Q. QUO f SONS j INC. l.AMO GuRVCYORS 95GO LCKindhn Avc. tJ. Circle. Pinto , Mn. 35014 HI. 7BS-555G . PRELIMINARY PLAT For: Arnold Soskin •# 4'‘T ji o O /v 1. N.G.V.D.vertical Oafn^n. 2. 2 foot contour interval. 3^ 1 acre minimu® lot sue. a./g7aP Denotes proposed elevation. 5* Denotes direction of drainage. 6* Lot areas and distances are scaled. • 5'r . 1 • i-*-. / . nrnn fThh-/n m % ;■ '■ r..i ‘ / i I 4' Fm/nm CL?- • ‘ : ' - i ' / ■ '' !• I il -fpei 1 .' // //<*/* ''''•' •'!' /7 Lot 2. Block 1. HEATHERCROFT. Hennepin County. Minnesota. (Ar*»» It* *‘•'4 N T Scak‘ 8cok^------ Po4tI Pa4mJob No.Mm.Rttiiifraiion a/o. £.C?. QUO f SONS i INC. LAUD Sueveroes Circle Pmer.j Mn. S50I4 nt. 18C-5554___________ fW-o\ ®’'^e ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AIM ordinance to amend the municipal zoning CODE AND SUBDIVISION CODE BY DEFINING ' standards for THE CREATION AND USE OF LOTS WfflCH DO NOT ABUT A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROAD the CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SFCTION 1 Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.02 and Municipal Subdivision Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 2 are each hereby amended by adding the following defimtions: ■I/^t-Back- - A lot typically separated from a public or private toad by another lot and which gains access to the public or private road via a narrow corridor. Such a separated considered to be a "bade lot" w hen the corridor is platted as an outlot. A sep^ated ot is considered to be a 'flag lot" when the corridor is platted as part of the lot. Whra *e corridor is merely an easement over another lot. the separated lot« considered to be an "easement back lot". -Lot-Front' - A lot abuctmg a public or private road, across which an outlot has been platted for access to a back lot. SECTION 2. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 is amended by adding Subdivision 27 which shall read as follows: Subd. 27. Special Stanoards for Back Lats Created as defined in this section which were created as part of a subdivision pieliininary subdivision approval after Janua^ 1. special requirements in addition to the standards required m Section 11.31. Subdivisio 5 of the Orono Subdivision Code: A.Dimensional standards lor back lots shall be as follows. 1 Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement. Lot width measured parallel to the front or street street yard setback line of a lakeshore back lot, or “ setback line of a nonlaiteshore back lot, shall m district width requirement. The street yard or ^ back lot will be a yard starting where the narrow corridor ends and the lot begins. X e sltS the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the line, and at the street yard setback line. *>- ^ B. 3.The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150% of the zoning district front yard requirement. 4.The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shall be 150% of the zoning district yard requirements. The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shall meet the zoning district lakeshore yard requirements. Dimensional standards for front lots. A front lot created as part of a front/back lot division shall meet all zomng district area, width and setback standards, except that the required side yard of the front let adjacent to the access outlot shall be equivalent to tiie side street yard requirement for that zoning district. C. Access requirements. 1.Access outlots snail be 30’ minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. 2.In approving front/back lot divisions, the City may require that both front lot and back lot share a driveN^ay access within the access outlot if Council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street wUl be a potential safety hazard. 3.Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10 ’ from the side or rear 1 : ILnes of adjacent lots. 4.No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot. 5.No access outlot may be planed abutting an adjacent access outlot except when the intent is to combine the two access outlots for creation of a public or private road meeting City standards. D. Screening requirements. 1.Driveways constructed in access outlots shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion of the City, at all points to the rear of the required street yard of the front lot, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yard of adjacent lots. 9 • The street yard of the back lot shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion of the City, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yards of adjacent lots. E.Standards for accessory structures. Accei :ory structures shall adhere to all requirements of the zoning code, with the following additional requirements: 1.Accessory struemres within a back lot shall be allowed no closer than 10’ to a neighboring property’s side or rear yard. Accessory struemres siiill not be allowed within the required street yard of a back lot nor within the required rear yard of a front lot which abuts the street ya^d of a back lot. 3.No accessory smicmre shall be allowed within an access outlot. SECTION 3. Orono Municipal Code Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 is hereby deleted and the following language substimted in its place: i * Subdivision 5. Double frontage lots, access to lots, and front/back lot divisions. A.Double frontage lots. Double frontage and reversed frontage lots shall be avoided except where necessary to provide separation of rcsidentia development from traffic arterials or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. B.Access from any arterial roadway. Lots shall not, in 'cneral, access exclusively from an arterial roadway. Where driveway a^ces-. fro anv arterial roadway may be necessary for several a«ljoi^g • ‘ Council may require that such lots be served by a combined ^cc-ss dr in order to limit possible traffic hazard on such roadway. P^eWclei driveways shall be designed and arranged so as to avoid requirmg vehicles to back into traffic on any arterial roadway. C. creation of an outlot to provide access from the back lot , ^ private road. Such outlot shall not be allowed as “‘Xre to either the back or front lots. Front/back lot subdivisions shaU adhere the following standards: 1.Applicability. a.Front/back lot divisions may be used when existing property dimensions are narrow and deep, such that lot width does not allow for a side-by-side lot split, but acreage is adequate to provide a "front lot" and a back lot without requiring an area variance when the area of the outlet access corridor is excluded. b.Front/back lot divisions may be used for individual "lot splits", but may not be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is merely a convenience to the developer rather than supponed by unique site factors. c.A front/back lot division shall not be allowed when any existing residence on a neighboring property abutting the proposed access outlot is located nearer its affected side lot line than a distance equivalent to the zoning district required front yard depth. 2. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: a. b. Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement, Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot line at the street yard setback line of a lakeshore back lot, or at the rear of the front yard setback line of a nonlakeshore back lot, shall meet the zoning district width requirement. The street yard or front yard for any back lot will be a yard starting where the narrow access outlot corridor ends and the lot begins. Lakeshore back lots shall meet the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback line and at the street yard setback line. c.The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150% of the zoning district front yard requirement. d.The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shall be 150% of the zoning district yard requirements The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shall meet the zoning district lakeshore yard requirements. tv 4 3. 5. Dimensional standards for front lots. A front lot created as part of a front/back lot division shall meet all zoning district area, width and setback standards, except that the required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlot shall be equivalent to the side street yard requirement for that zoning district. 4, Access requirements: a.Access outlots shall be 30 ’ minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. b.In approving front/back lot divisions, the City may require that both front lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access outlot if Council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. c.Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10’ from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. d.No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot. e.No access outlot may be platted abutting an adjacent outlot except when the intent is to combine the two access outlots for creation of a public or private road meeting City standards. Screening requirements and accessory structure standards. Front/back lot subdivisions shall be designed in a manner such that the screening requirements and accessory structure standards of Section 10.03, Suodivision 27 can be met. The requirements and standards of this section shall apply only to those front/back lot divisions which receive preliminary plat approval after January 1, 1994. SECTION 4. Adoption and publication. This ordinance shall be published m the Pioneer and the Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication. t i Adopted by the City Coudc U of Orono, Minnesota on this . 1993, by a vote of __ayes and___nays. day of t* . I Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk r> Q I L 1/1 Bonestroo l^osene vS Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects February 6, 1996 Bonestroo. Rosene. Af>Otfllk and Assooetes. me. It an Affirmacive ActtorVCqual Opportunity Employer Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Ciystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Howard A Sanford. P.E. Keith A. Gordon.. P.E. RoOert R. Pfefferie. P E. Richard W. Foster. P E Oavid O. Loskota. P E RoOert C. Russek. AI A. Jerry A. Bourdoa P E. Mark A. Hansoa P E. Michael T. Rautmarwi. P E. Ted K. Field. P.E. Thomas R. Arsderson. A.I.A. r Jamei R Rosenmerkei. P E. I I ^^^onald C Burgardt. P.E Thomas A Syfko. P£. I \ Frederic J. Stenborg. P E. Ismael Martinex. PX Miciwel P. Rau. P.E Otto Q. Bonestroo. PX Robert W. Roserse. P.E.* Joseph C. Andentk. PI. Marvin L Sorvala. P E. Richard E. Turner. PE. GJenn R. Cook. PX Thomas E. Noyes. PX Robert G. Schunicht. P E. Susan M. Eberlin. CP.A* * Senior Consultant Thomas W. Peterson. P E. Michael C. L> nch. PX James R. Maland. PX Jerry D. PertXKh. P E. Scott J. Arganek. P E. Kenneth P. Artderson. P E. MarkR Rolfs. PX Mark A Seip. PX Gary W. Morien. P E. Paul J. Gannoa AI.A Daniel J. Edgerton. PX A. Rick Schmidt. PX Dale A Grove. PX Philip J. Caswell. PX Mark O. Wallis. PX Miles B. Jensen. P f, L Phillip Gravel. PX Karen L Wiemeri. PX Gary D. Krlstofitz. PE. Brtan K. Gage. P X F. Todd Foster. P X Keith R. Yapp. P X Oouglaf J. Benoit. PX Shawn O. Gustafson. PX Ceciiio Olivier. PX Kent J. Wagner. PX Paul a Heuer. PX John P. Gorder. PX Dan O. Boyum. PX Jeffrey J. Ehleringef. PX Joseph X Rhem. PX lee M Mann. PX Charles A ErlcUon Leo M. PawelsKy Harlan M. Olson Agrses M Ring James F. Engeihardf Re: Norbert Johnson Sketch Plan File No. 139-2108 Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the sketch plan prepared for Norbert Johnson on the proposed five lot subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1. Heathercroft, located west of Wildhurst Trail in the west half of Section 7. There arc several issues that need to be addressed relative to engineering matters and included with the plan. 1. Utilities: Sanitary sewer will need to be extended north along Wildhurst Trail approximately 310 feet to the centerline of the proposed street and then northwesterly to the end of the cul- de-sac. Plans and specifications should be prepared for the sanitary sewer, sewer service to Lot 3, and street reconstruction for Wildhurst Trail, with as-built plans provided to the City upxin completion. As this sanitary sewer and street will be owned and maintained by the City, we recommend that the design, bidding and construction be done by the City with assessments levied to the development. 2. Street: The proposed street location appears acceptable. The grades leading up to the cul-de- sac will be steep and may require a considerable amount of excavation. The driveway locations will need to be looked at closely as they too will have steep grades. Plans should be prepared for the street and storm sewer construction. 3. Grading: The topography shown on the survey is not adequate or correct. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan should be prepared that shows both the existing and proposed contours, building pad locations and elevations, and erosion control measures to be used during construction. 4. Drainage: There arc two major drainageways running through the property. One is located at the northern end of the site which drains northeasterly through Lots 4 and 3. The other is located at the southern end of the site which drains easterly through Lot 5. Both drainageways have a very high potential for erosion. The drainage plan for this subdivision should include stormwater ponding to reduce the runoff flows and velocities leaving the site. Drainage and ponding calculations should be provided for our review. Some type of skimmer structure may need to be included at the pond outlct(s). A detail of the outlet structure and pond elevations should be shown on the plan. The plans should be submitted lO the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review and approval. There does not appear to be any wetlands or. this portion of Saga Hill. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth City of Orono Page-2- Februaty 8,1996 5. Easements: The ejdsting drainage and utility easements shown on the survey are appropriate. Additional drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the proposed roadway right-of-way. Drainage easements should be provided across all drainageways and ponding areas. The proposed right-ot-way coulc^e reduced to a 50-foot width for the street and a 100-foot diameter at the cul-de-sac. The proposed 20-foot driveway easement to Lot 3 should be 30 feet wide and should also be described as a utility easement for the purposes of a sewer service to Lot 3. 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate ot the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required, unless the plans will be prepared by the City. 7. Service to adjacent lots: There are several planning issues to consider with the review this subdivision. The planning commission should discuss options for providing sewer service and/or -:rcet access to the undeveloped lots within the Tonkaview subdivision along Garden Lane, ihese are shown as existing lots 60, 61, 62, 63. 90. 91, 92, 93 and 94 on the attached sketch. _ ^ • • • t __f ^ A. A, A M o.^ ♦ ^ 1 ^ ^ IT ^ ^ / l ■ II I Cm ¥ 'll 111 n ^ Ihese are shown as existing lots ou, oi, oz, o:>. w. yi, y:> uu u.v — Although Garden Lane has previously been platted to serve these lots, there are other options to consider. It appears that the sanitary sewer through Mr. Johnson’s property would be the most efficient way to serve these lots. There are three options to consider which warrant additional study: A -- Approve the Johnson subdivision as proposed and construct Garden Lane in the future to ^ access the Tonkaview lots. Sewer service can be provided from Tonkaview Lane, however a considerable length of existing sewer must be replaced at greater depths. /2- Plat a through street across the Johnson subdivision up to Garden Une. Vacate Garden • Lane south of this alignment. Sewer service can be provided from Wildhurst Lane through the Johnson subdivision. Approve the Johnson subdivision as proposed and construct Garden Lane in the future to access the Tonkaview lots. Provide service to these lots by extending th, sewer from the end of the Johnson cul-de-sac. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC, Shawn D. Gustafson. P.E. « &0' (I) HlOHVfEW V IV 9 7 -•• « ► lit* It (33) =(32) » •' a(34) 8 . \ (31) ^ . »vr.9 tt a M 1 «M.t FWIT or lOT » S (19)- ^.., .■^■^=%ae^HERCROFT * tmLa.' • I _—-~_V / • ,* « M V ■ _ v.:t ^ ^ • - •*“■■' -■ L5) • '• - C rt V n n) (45) . gg * N »t V «•' ?«.l ^(57)i I /C / /'« i—-^sc —g- aafl I I-.------a Jb T nfli^ ;S • M /'/>•I'i:‘ICARiENS an______ 41.99 5 ^ % .%• I ^ Cfi *W H «w(27) 10 1110 »/ ■<» (37) J »o vSJ®.v-;.*!*-- • V * * (36) V3 / ( *5);*iri a ,••• A_»\n« «4*t JW.ll — . , _ V/.'W • A'9/^a if/ / \' (27) , 4.' ii Jk ^ .XA ^rlSi;!&l"l' -r \ ~ ■ \ . • • V '>«-..* ”•*- V-\ . r r *'rrr'- ‘ *^ •* •‘’.' •. v>.V t ••• ri: • .•«* » ». »■»*»,..>^ ,^^}^_.*^ '• .* •JT"* ’ J^rK V‘*•vr •'.NjCv:? -.»%• -.Xrl •-.ViJ. 4 «k.* » •,.«^. 'f?: V: •t-H .■Lt^U- • * »rr«;Vi •.*’•■•: .. ^ **rr*^r .'ri? :t;r :•«••: :-t3«: *•'ii-r%Li*x»i *1 •«. ^, .jji*,. ...«;>/-.:.v\i:;':i^C3^2;^ rir.•:**.•, m ;iVv;ii:iii:, 'Wai « i ** I i-'.Wis:--* f.’j’Kslir*? ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 16.1996 ROU, The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following mernbers present: Acting Chair Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, and Elizabeth Hawn. Steve Peterson, Janice Berg and Candace Rowlette, who recently submitted Iict resignation, were absent. The following represented the City Staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Council member Jabbour was present. Acting Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING (#1) #2094 RODNEY A. CRAWFORD, 4705 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VACATION OF UNIMPROVED PUBLIC ROAD - 7:00-7:07 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was represented by Phyllis Atchinson. Mabusth reported that the application was for the vacation of Lake Street to the lakeside of applicant's residential lot. Lake Street as platted in Ifff is not shown on recent plat maps. Staff displayed a copy of a 1960's plat map where Lake Street was shown. The County confirmed for staff that Lake Street had not been vacated. The road was originally platted at a 20' width to the west of subject property, and the County will correct plat maps to reflect platted right of way. The specific portion being request^ for vacation is at the lake side portion of the property, and the vacation is a condition of a sale. Mabusth noted that the street serves no public purpose. The City wll ask for 20' wide easement to be retained over the dead end sewer manhole. 10' to either side, to be extended 20' to west. Mrs. Atchinson was given a copy of a sketch of the easement and a copy of an access and utility easement to be completed prior to filing of vacation resolution at the County, fliis application will be on the January 22 Council agenda. There were no public comments. Schroeder received confirmation from those in attendance that there was no other public interest in the vacation application. It was also noted that the DNR had no problem with the vacation. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of the vacation application subject to a 20’ easement over the sewer line and manhole within the unimproved right-of- way. Vote: Aves 4, Navs 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16. 1996 (#2) #2101 JEFF BOWEN, CHARLES HONMEYER, AND KEN ROLLAND, 4119, 4125, AND 4127 OAK STREET - PRELfMINARV SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRNAGEMENT AND VACATION OF UNIMPROVED PUBLIC ROADS - 7:30-7:38 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants we e present, Mabusth reported that the application is for a lot line rearrangement of 15 lots to make 3 conforming lots. Lot 2 is slightly under 1 acre but will be brought into conformance. Mabusth commented that the vacation will not involve all of Oak Street as a public access will be maintained to ravine area at lake. The applicants will dedicate 10’ of additional right-of-way for Linden Avenue for a total of 40'. A 30' corridor will be platted to the Knight property. The division and vacation application will still provide public access to the Knight property. Mabusth noted that there would be an easement taken over all utility lines located within public right of way to be vacated. A blanket easement would be taken for Oak Street and Park Avenue. There would be a shared access for lots 1 and 2 at Linden Avenue requiring an address change to Linden Avenue. Lot 3 would still access from Oak Street maintaining the same address. Mabusth said the applicants had followed the directives ^ven by the Planning Commission during the sketch plan review. The applicants noted that they had met with City Staff and Engineer to ensure that all requirements were met. There were no public comments. Smith asked if the drainage easement and dedication of utility easements were located. Mabusth said they had. and the applicants were familiar with the process. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2102 for the proposed vacation and lot line rearrangement with the following conditions: 1) Applicant to grant a drainage easement over the drainageway that runs from the north to the south over portions of vacated Clyde Place and portions of the proposed residential lots. Drainage easement to extend over vacated portion of Oak Street and culverts that run under gravel drive. 2) Lots 1 and 2 shall access properties via a shared drive at Linden Avenue. Oak Street addresses are to be reassigned to a Linden Avenue address. 3) Applicants to dedicate utility easements over all utilities located either within dedicated right-of-way or outside of vacated right-of-ways. 4) Drainage and utility easements 5' wide adjacent to all internal lot lines and 10' wide along all exterior lot lines to be omitted along shoreline, i-ot 2 was noted to now meet the one acre requirement. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ----------------am i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16. 1996 <#3) M096 DIANE AND KEVIN HOLMES/ORCHARD PARK FARM, INC, 555/5S5 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - 8:30-8:36 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a lot line rearrangement in the 5 acre zoning district, which will bring the Holmes' property into conformity. The two acre homestead will aci.i'ire three acres from the larger parcel. There are no easements over the wetlands at this tim*.- as well as no designated wetlands within the homestead property. The larger parcel hau no principal structure but did contain accessory structures. The accessory structure will now be located within a lot that contains a residence. Mabusth said drainage flows to a culvert to the east under Stubbs Bay Road. The application should be allowed via a simple metes and bounds division, but a 10* drainage and utility easement will be obtained for the 5 acre parcel with a 20' dedication along south lot line for drainage* >ay. There no public comments. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2096 with the condition that prior to the application being scheduled before the Council for approval, the applicants' surveyor shall provide an amended survey including signature lines for all property owners, mayor, clerk, and date of Council approval. The applicants are also to grant road and utility easements over 33’ of right-of-way of Stubbs Bay Road along east side of all three parcels. The applicants noted that they understood the conditions. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#4) #2099 LOREN BRUEGGEMANN, 372 WESTLAKE STREET - SUBDIVISION OF A REPLAT AND VARIANCES - 8:36-9:14 !\M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted The applicants, Loren Brueggemann and Dean Maeser, along with attorney, Mr. Proveau, were present. Gaffron reported that the sketch plan was reviewed this past fall. The application is for a request to rearrange or replat 3 lots of record totaling 1.99 acres into two building sites of approximately one acre each. This property is located at the end of Westlake Street. Gaffron reviewed that property to the south is in the 1 acre zoning, and to the west and north is 2 acre zoning. The neighboring properties consist of lots smaller than the 2-acre requirement, with several at .7 acres and 1.4 acres. ^ . r — — MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#4 - #2099 Loren Brueggemann - Continued) Gaffi*on continued explaining that the property consists of a single house and two cabins. Westlake Street is sewered, and said property has been provided with one unit and assessed for same. The house overlaps Lots 10 and 11. A storage building is within Lot 11. The two cabins are mainly in Lot 12. A septic system is currently being used on the property serving all 3 dwellings. There are separate tax statements for each lot, but historically, the property has been used as a single lot. There is a single driveway, septic, well, and one owner resulting in the City viewing this as a single site. A 20' corridor is proposed as access for the easterly proposed parcel. The existing house and cabins are to be removed and one home is proposed in that area. The proposed new home would meet the 75 ’ setback. The flag lot proposal creates a front/back lot configuration . Because the code requires a 30' outlot of. 14 acre, the front lot (Lot 1) would be .76 acre, and lot 2 would be 1.09 acres. The outlot acreage is not to be counted in the total acre^e. 150% of acreage, or 3 acres, is required for the backlot This would result in a 65-70% variance. The front lot, where 2 acres is required, would be about 3/4 acre, and would also need a large lot area variance. Both proposed lots meet the required lot width measured at the lakeshore and at the 75* setback line. The platted alley south of the 2 lots has not been vacated, hence, not all of the shoreline is attributable to the lots. The backlot. Lot 2, requires 150% of the 30' side setback or 45’. The required 50' setback for Lot 1 from the access outlot creates a narrow building envelope requiring side setback variances for a minimal 30-35 ’ wide house. Gaffron reported that the hardcover standards are nearly met by the proposal. Lot 1 hardcover is proposed at 28.8% requiring a variance, but lot 2 hardcover is proposed at 20.5%, where the requirement is 25%. The hardcover numbers as listed in the submitted information are different due to lack of an outlot. For the entire site, the overall hardcover with the driveway would be at 35%. While this "overall hardcover" standard is not in the code, the DNR recommends 25%. Orono’s standard of 25% in the 75-250' zone is nearly met. Gaffron said there are conceptual problems with the subdivision itself The memo lists 12 examples of how the existing situation is nonconforming. With the nonconformities and the historical use of the property. Staff noted that none of the 3 existing lots conform in area, width, or setback, and individually could not be built upon. The lot line rearrangement to 2 sites would not meet code. The proposal is defined as a Class 2 Subdivision. Based on the factors listed in the memo where it is shown that an increase in density could not be allowed, Gaffron said Staff* could not recommend approval of this proposal. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission to look at the neighborhood and the consistency in zoning within that neighborhood. f ■ WT—•• -• — — - MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#4 - #2099 Loren Brueggemann - Continued) The Attorney representing Mr. Brueggemann reported that Dean Maeser purchased the property 10 years ago and has mainly used the property commercially with the cabin rental. Provcau said the memo relating the history and problems associated with the property are correctly laid out, but it is his opinion that history needs to come into play, particularly with the 3 lot plat, which is now non-conforming, and how the lots were used. Proveau asked the Commission to deal with the justification for the need for variances. He believes the fects show a reasonable use of the land, and the plan alleviates problems with the current use. Proveau noted that sewering would eliminate the non-conforming septic system. The change in use would bring the property to more conformity as residential. Proveau said the majority of the lot line setbacks would be met as well as most of the code requirements. Proveau said the proposal would allow the owner to make reasonable use of the property. Proveau commented that the proposal would be in character with the neighborhood. He noted the average lot size in the area to be about 3/4 acre Proveau said there are two sewer stubs installed at the end of the street to which the two new residences could be connected. He took issue with the undue hardship if the City considers the variances. Proveau noted that the statutes allow for variances for reasonable use of a property, and questioned who had the burden of showing reasonable use He noted the problems were not created by the applicant, but existed before his purchase of the home, noting the use as a commercial marina years ago. There were no public comments. Hawn said the Council was asked to look at rezoning similar areas and had declined, and chose to deal with particular proposals individually. Hawn also noted that, although there are two sewer stubs, only one is authorized. The Council had looked at the potential of three lots and the non-conforming use over the 10 years and declined the additional sewer units, advising the Planning Commission that there would be a need to find compeling reasons to make any changes. Smith asked for clarification on nearby properties where two lots were combined. Gaflfron noted in the Bichanich site, a few lots to the north, there were two existing lots with buildings, one without septic. When the two were combined, a side setback variance was required even after creation of a 1.4 acre parcel. That particular proposal was not a rebuild but an addition to existing residence. It was noted that all the .7 acre parcels in the area existed before the code was established. Gaffron said to tear down and rebuild on any of them, it would require variances to lot area, lot width, setbacks, and possibly hardcover for each of those 0.7 acre lots. Smith indicated that with the added impact of back lot requirements, it is diftkult to approve a second lot from applicant's site. Lindquist concurred, opining that the direction was ckar. pr— MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16,1996 (#4 - #2099 Loren Brueggemann - Continued) Schroeder agreed with Smith and Lindquist. Gafiron commented that the cabins were curremly rented. He added that the Council had given direction some time ago allowing a fair period of time, two years, to continue the cabin rental with no need to temporarily connect to sewer, but with the main house sewer connection required, which has not been done. Scinoeder said the hardships do not merit the number of variances r^uested. Proveau sud that Maeser expressed concern with the sewer hookup issue. He noted that the financial benefits of cabin rental were significant to Maeser*s ability to owning the property. Proveau said if the sale of the property were to fall through, Maeser would request the cabin be hooked up to sewer. Proveau asked that options be considered to en^le Maeser to homestead the property noting that the code was the cause in the decline of the market value of the property. Lindquist responded that he had a problem with splitting up a 2-acre parcel in the 2 acre zoning district. Smith suggested the possibility of purchasing additional property from the owner to the north. Gaflfron said there was probably not enough land to do that; but with one lot only, a portion right be sold to that neighbor to increase his lot size. Brueggemann said the feasibility of a sale of any land to or from the neighbor to the north was slim. Gaffron said the neighborhood redevelopment process, by which two lots would be purchased together to create a more conforming single building site, is a slow process. Mabusth noted that even if the area was re-zoned to 1 acre, variances would still be required. There would still be the need for a total of 2-1/2 acres including the outlot, ret^ting in a half acre shortage. Schroeder asked the applicants if they would prefer the application be voted on or tabled. Brueggemann inquired about a joint session between the Council and Planning Commission to discuss the sketch plan. Gaffron said the application had not been discussed in the joint session though it was previously suggested that a discussion ensue regarding the sketch plan. Gaffron informed the applicant of the 60 day time frame for review of any application, and noted that the applicant needed to agree to tabling the application or the Planning Commission would have to vote on it now. Brueggemann asked that the application be voted on and carried forward to the Council. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to deny approval of Application #2099 as the hardships do not justify the variances required for the subdivision as outlined in the memo. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. r 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#5) PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT, ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10JO, SUBD. 3 (A, C, E, AND F) - 9:14-9:36 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Gaffion reported that the Planning Commission is being asked to review the compatibility and suitability of specific conditional uses as to their impact on the adjacent residential zones. The Planning Commission also would need to decide if there is a need to provide additional performance standards or to eliminate specific uses to protect and ensure the integrity of Orono's residential districts. Gaffion noted that the Rl A zoning allows a number of uses via conditional use permits in residential uses. Gaffion said the amendment proposal for Section 10.20, Subd. 3(A), regarding %hool use, is whether to amend it to include a number of possible accessory uses associated with school use. Setback requirements may need to be set for various non-residential uses occurring in the residential zone. He noted that all residential zones refer to the Rl A standards. Schroeder noted that amendments are normally looked at in work sessions and asked what public interest there was in the amendment. A member of the public reported concern with the enclosed hockey arena discussed elsewhere on the agenda, noting the difference from a tennis court or open playing field, and the need for at least 10 acres for such a large building, where the plot is only 4 acres. The desire was for the land to remain "green " Schroeder asked if the speaker had been present during that discussion. The speaker said he had not been informed of it. Gaffion commented that the sketch plan review of the ice arena required no notification as no action is taken on a sketch plan application It is the time for the applicant to gain feedback from the Commission on the proposal as to its viability. The plan is not discussed in detail during a sketch plan review. Gaffion noted the public meeting scheduled for January 24, Wednesday, regarding the ice arena. Schroeder informed the audience that he was delighted that they were here in regards to the arena as the Planning Commissioners were very interested in what they had to say. He noted that the neighbors were to be notified of the upcoming meeting by the Boosters. A pereon asked if the developers of the arena were a private party desiring to use public land. Schroeder informed the person that it was a charitable, non-profit organization, who would have a lease with the Orono School District to lease the land in order to build the arena. ' r. L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#5 - Propcsed Zoning Amendment - Continued) The question of sewering arose. It was reported that a sewer connection would be needed for practicality, which would require an amendment to the Orono Comprehensive Plan. An amendment is being proposed, including the school property as well as other areas. A question as to the funding was asked. The audience was informed that 2-1/2 million dollars would be needed to build the arena and would come from donations. A person asked if the road improvements could be paid for by the public. Schroeder informed the person that the Orono Boosters would be responsible for any road improvements necessary. A question arose as to the suitability of the arena for the property in regards to setbacks. Schroeder said the setbacks are not being discussed at this time, but there would be specific standard performances to be met. Gaffron added that ultimately, there would be the need to discuss the standards, and the Commission needs to define when that discussion will occur, especially in view of the interest by the public. Schroeder moved to table the amendment discussion to a work session. A neighbor of the property under discussion commented that the issue goes way beyond the idea of green grass but also to lights and noise associated with such a project. Engebretson, president of the Orono Boosters, commented that the plan was in a sketch plan review at this point, but he welcomed knowing now if there were any major implications to hinder the project. Engebretson noted the neighborhood meeting was scheduled to enable the Boosters to determine if the project was realistic. The outcome of the neighboihood meeting would then be relayed to the City. Schroeder asked if there was any concern with the greenhouse portion of the amendment. Gafifron read the section of the ordinance regarding greenhouses, informed the Commissioners of the greenhouse operations in the City and their historic "good neighbor" characteristic, and noted Staffs concern regarding the lack of large buildings being accountable in the table set forth to determine sizes of accessory structures in relation to the size of lots. The table is being considered for amendment on tonight's agenda. Gaffron said this item may need to be discussed regarding reasonable performance standards for such uses. Steve Kelley of Kelley Nursery said he was in attendance because of his concern over changes to the amendment regarding greenhouses. Gaffron noted Kelley's "good neighbor" status and the lack of complaints regarding his business. The audience was asked to leave their names and addresses if they were interested in being notified of an upcoming work session on the amendment. 8 '*1 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#S - Proposed Zoning Amendment - Continued) Engebretson reminded the public of the upcoming meeting regarding the arena. Smith asked what prompted the agenda hem regarding the amendment. Galiron said the issue, perhaps, goes back to the Orono Baseball Association proposal for ball fields md the need to determine if they are not strictly associated with the school, how they fit in with the residential zoning. Then, with the additional proposal for an ice arena, these two issues prompted the need to look at a possible amendment. Mabusth advised that if the school was to come in and apply for a conditional use permit for an ice arena, it could be done under the school umbrella. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table the proposed zoning code amendment to allow for a work session to discuss all the items prior to approval of any arena construction. He noted the need for approval of a conditional use permit for an araia. Schroeder said interested parties would be notified of the work session. It was fiirthw noted that a pubi.c nearing would be scheduled prior to any vote on an ice arena. Smith commented that the neighboring area would be given notice of the public hearing. Schroeder also noted that the non-profit organization is holding the neighborhood meeting and that is separate from a public hearing, which would be held in the future. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#6) PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT, MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBD. 9 (C) - 9:36-9:50 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Schroeder commented that this proposed zoning amendment is in regards to oversized accessory structures. He asked if the ice arena would be affected. Gaffion siud no, noting that the arena is not an "accessory" structure unless the school came in with the application. Schroeder e.\plained that the tabic that refers to the allowable sizes of accessory structures does not relate to properties over 9 acres. Gaffion reported on the code as it presently is written and the table regarding accessory structure sizes. For any accessory structure over 1000 s.f, there used to be a need for a variance until the current code was established. Exhibit C, Gaffion explained, lays out the proposal to expand the table relating structure size limits to lot size for properties over 10 acres. Option #1 is based on lot area percentage, where Option 2 is generated by additional increments of square footage with additional acreage. Gaffion asked the Planning Commission to make a comparison of the two and decide on the appropriate measure or suggest other alternatives. The buffer stipulation requires more land surrounding a larger building. i j- L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#6 - Proposed Zoning Amendment • Continued) I asked how many applications have been looked at which would be afFccted by . this am endment. Gaf&on said there have been 2-3 applications which might not have required variances if a complete table had originally been adopted. He noted many permit applications have met the table standards and did not need a v.-riance. Gaf&on said the result of an amendment would be a reduction in the number of variance applications. Lindquist said the problem he sees that if a structure was over 3000 s.f, it still could be objectionable and should be reviewed. Hawn said if Uie chart was followed and a building was over 3000 s.f, it would be hard to enviaon what people are designing. Hawn said she would like to look at it case by case. Gafifron commented that today at 10 acres, the largest building would be 3000 s.f, and asked if she was suggesting stopping at that point for large building parcels Hawn a^ed if it meant more structures or larger buildings. Gafliron said he was rcfemng to individual buildings. Hawn said if the Commission has only looked at 2-3 applications, they should continue to review others. Lindquist agreed. Schroeder asked if the Staff felt they were overburdened by this limitation. Both Mabusth and Gaf&on said that was not the case, that the number of variances is minimal. Hawn said if it was a matter of more accessory structures, she would see no problem with expanding the tables. Gaf&on commented that with the current code people do not Imow what to expect when there is a desire for larger buildings. Schroeder s^d he would like to ask these applications to come before the Commission as variances. Lindquist noted that these buildings have been approved in the past, and the Commission would just like to look at what is proposed. Schroeder also noted the need to look at the hardships and recommended that the Council be advised the Planning Commission docs not see a need to revise the tables. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to leave the zoning code as it is presently based on the few applications affected and the desire to review larger buildings regardless of acreage. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 1 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#7) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 6 - MUSA BOUNDARY REVISIONS - 9:50-10:03 P.M. The MUSA revisions involve expansion of areas within Orono that cm be sewer^. Gafifron reported that the MUSA boundary lines established by the City Me required to be approved by Met Council. The City Council is looking at sewering certain neighborhoods to include Bayridge, Fox Hill, Weber Hills, Bracketts Point. Edgewood Hills, East Long Lake, North Long Lake including Long Lake Boulevard, and Lakeview Temce, and some additional properties. One individual property abuting the current MUSA line is included in the request located at the north end of Hackberry, as well as all of the currently non- MUSA Orono school property that is not wetland The MUSA line d^ignated in 1980 currently goes through the school cafeteria, 750* north ot the section line. The proposal would aUow the entire school facility to be within the MUSA boundary, as well as the hockey arena site and other school lands. In order for changes to be made to the MUSA boundary, a public hearing is r^inred, along with an application to the Met Council. Review by the Planning Commission, along with public comments, will be forwarded with a recommendation to the Council. Gaffron reported that the last change to the MUSA boundary was in 1993. At that time, the Nettles* property and the Orono sewer plant property were added. In 1992, the north Stubbs Bay area, including Cygnet Place, was added. The current look of the MUSA boundary is a disjointed series of **islands'* resulting from past and present plans to sewering existing neighborhoods, but not new developments. There will be no change m the zoning density. The MUSA revisions are intended only to solve existing problems. Karen Zebek, 2905 CoRd 6, asked where CoRd 6 was in relation to the map showing the MUSA boundary. Gaffron showed her on the map. noting the hockey arena site, which will be included in the school property MUSA amendment. Lindquist asked what the requirements were for each area to be included in the amendment. Gafifron said Staff met with all ten neighborhoods. Many wished to have sewer brought to their properties Others did not, probably due to the high cost of sewering. A few of these likely will respond, according to Gafifron, but need time to organize. He noted that the City Council felt all ten neighborhoods should be added to the MUSA. r 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16,1996 (#7 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 6 - Continued) Schroeder asked why the single property was added to the amendment. Gaflfron ^d it was a specific request by the property owner. The owner wanted to have the option of upgrading if his septic failed. There is a sewer stub directed at the property now, but the property is not within the MUSA. This owner would pay the normal connection charge involved. Gafiron added that the City is also asking for an additional 50 units to meet future requests such as this one. This would allow a comprehensive plan lastmg for a couple years rather than the need for a 3-month review every time an individual request is received. Schroeder asked what the Met Council does. Gaffron said the Met Council looks at regional development issues such as sewer capacity, as well as unrelated items such as housing plans, density, existing and proposed traffic and transportation plans. The Met Council has 60 days in which to take final action on the application. Council Member Jabbour remarked that this amendment was a good idea and was a icsult of the City's Shoreland Management Program dealing with the issue**, -f nonconformity with 3' separation requirements. He noted there are as many as 600 Jiouses in the City, who may have to upgrade their systems. The amendment should help solve so of their problem in a comprehensive way. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of the MUSA Boundary Revision, Comprehensive Plan Amendment #6. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Lili McMillan asked if the amendment was approved, if there was a time deadline for sewer installation. She was informed that there currently is no set schedule. The North Long Lake area is the number one priority with Orono Orchard, where McMillan resides, in the number two priority spot. It was noted that no interest fi^om her neighborhood has been shown at this time. When the Long Lake area sewering is complete, the City will inquire as to the interest in the Orono Orchard neighborhood. ACTION ITEMS (#8) #2088 STEPHEN GARDINER, 3770 BAYSIDE ROAD - VACATION OF UNIMPROVED PUBLIC ROAD - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:07-7:16 P.M. Mr. Gardiner was present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#8 - #2088 Stephen Gardiner - Continued) Mabusth reported that the vacation application was separated from the variance application. Mabusth said she was told by the homeowners' association president, Lee Harrin, that a letter was sent to each Plannning Commissioner advising of their decision to have no claim of interest in the right-of-way to be vacated. Members of the Planning Commission reported that they had not received any such letter. Gardiner showed Mabusth an agreement signed by Harrin as representative for the homeowners giving up all rights of the alley way. Gardiner provided a copy of the agreement. Gardiner noted that the garage would be modified or destroyed to ensure its distance of 15' from the property line. Schroeder asked if it was critical for the applicants to receive approval from the homeowners' association. Mabusth said it was important for Gardiner and Stephens in order to develop realistic improvement plans. Mabusth also commented on the question of any legal claim by the property owner to the north and east on the vacated right of way as that property was not part of the original Ottoville plat. Mabusth also noted that Gopher i has been alerted, and applicant staked out the alleyway for the utility companies to review. Confirmation of the location of any utilities is necessary before the vacation can be approved. Hawn noted that the dispersal is completed by the County, and it is their final responsibility and not the City. Mabusth agreed. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2088 for vacation of 30' alleys as oiginally dedicated in the plat of Ottoville Lake Minnetonka subject to the vacation petition not being scheduled before the Council until the City has received a report from the utility companies confirming whether utilities are located within the unimproved public right-of-way. If utilities exist, applicant is to provide easements over all existing utilities. The applicant's surveyor is to provide a complete legal description for the vacation of the 30' alley for the official resolution of the City. Gardiner noted his understanding of the conditions set forth. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#9) #2095 STEPHEN M. ENGLAND, 3855 CHERRY AVENUE - RENEWAL VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:16-7:17 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#9 - #2095 Stephen England - Continued) Mabusth reported that the application is a second renewal for a lot area variance. The applicant had plaimed on building in 1995. In order to build on the property locaied in the 1/2 acre zoning district, an area variance in required. Let width requirement is met. The original application was filed in 1993. There have been no code changes that would impact this application nor has applicant made any changes since that original application. The applicant is aware that he must meet all other standards for development. The applicant had no additional comments. There were no public comments. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2095 for a second renewal variance. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#10) #2097 PATRICIA A. GUTTORMSON. 3315 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VARIANCES. PUBLIC HEARING - 7:17-7:24 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the application is two fold, the first part involves structural improvements made to the foundation of the 2-story garage located within the 0-75* setback area. The improvement involves the replacement of the masonry block foundation and repouring the cement floor. The contractor had obtained a building permit but soon found the need for total replacement. The Building Inspector informed the contractor that a variance would be required. Mabusth reported that the applicant ’ 'so seeks approval of variances for the replacement of a deck located in the 0-75* setback area and in fi^ont of the average lakeshore setback line. There are hardcover excesses in both the 0-75* and 75-250* setback areas. The lot coverage is at 16.1%. With the new deck, the coverage is proposed at 14.6%. Hardcover will be reduced in both districts with a reduction of 172 s.f or 2.19% in the 0-75* zone and 130 s.f or 4.6% in the 75-250* zone. There will no longer be an excess of hardcover in the 75-250* zone. The applicant had nothing to add to the comments made by Mabusth. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16. 1996 (#10 - #2097 Patricia Guttormson - Continued) Smith asked if the contractor completed the woric and didn't realize the need for the variance. It was noted that the work was completed by a family member. Mabusth said a permit had been received for the repairs. In order to approve the structural repairs, however, a varii^nce was needed. Smith said if the application had originally come before the Commissiori. the Commission would more than likely ask for the structure to be moved back away from the shoreline. Schroeder responded that there is no place in which to move the structure, adding that there are no increases in structural amount, and the application wiU result in meeting the lOt coverage requirement. Mabusth commented that the applicant was asked to consider removing paving improvemerns The addendum notes that there is no parking on the road The applicant needs off-street parking space and requested not having to remove the paving. There were no public comments. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2097 for lakeshore setback, rear setback, hardcover, and lakeshore setback variances due to the hardships set forth in the hardship statement and due to improvements made towards meeting requirements. The approval includes the notation of the hardcover reduction as noted which must be completed prior to the footing inspection for deck improvement. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#11) #2098 KARI AND PAUL ROMPORTL, 4101 HIGHWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBUC BEARING - 10:11-10:37 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicams, along with their representative, Stu Hoam, were present. Gaffion reported having received neighborhood letters regarding the application, "^e house to the west has been for sale. That owner voiced indifference to the application. Other neighbors were in favor of the application. The owner, Eva Theobald, is not in good health. Her realtor reported that she is in agreement with the application and has sold the property to the Romportl ’s contingent on application approval. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#11- #2098 Kari and Paul Romportl - Continued) Gafifron reported that the neighborhood is made up of small lots. This lot is 40* wide at the road and SO' wide at the lakeshore. The lot is in the 1 acre zoning, where 140’ is the required minimum width The property is 8550 s.f, or 1/5 acre, with an average width of 45'. The existing house is located down slope from the street. The required street setback is 30', with the proposed setback 25', and existing at 75'. The side setback requirement is 10'. The proposed side setback is 8' at the northeast side and 6.8-7.1' on the southwest side. The lot coverage allows for 15% or a minimum of 1500 s.f, which would be 17.5%. It now exists at 690 s.f, or 8%. The proposed coverage is 1795 s.f, or 21%. Hardcover of 25% is allowed in the 75-250' zone, but now exists at 29.7%, and is proposed at 46%. No hardcover is proposed in the 0-75' zone. Gafiron noted that the code section regarding sloping lots which might allow a building some additional height and a lesser street setback, where the slope exceeds 25%, would not be met by this proposd, therefore, requiring a variance. Gafiron posed the question to the Planning Commission regarding how they view a small lot with a small house, and upon total replacemem, requiring street and side setback variances, hardcover variance, and lot coverage variances. Gafiron noted that the Planning Commission has normally looked at these situations as opportunities to meet standards. He asked if the standards should be held to in this instance, citing the need to find justification to allow the different variances. Hoarn, the designer of the project, commented that the ori^nal house was not suitable for remodeling. He said he tried to give good spacing from adjacent buildings and setback from the lakeshore, while still gaining off-street parking, since there is little parking available on Highwood. Horn said the layout of the house within the 25% slope allotment was not very probable. Horn said the design could be altered to gain the necessary 10' separation ffom the garage on the adjacent lot. Horn said the drainage could be re-routed if necessary. Gafiron said the City Engineer should look at the situation. A neighbor, Al Seran, was said to be under the impression that the existing catch basin was on his own property. Gafiron said there was no problem with the swale. He noted that Al Seran had recently rebuih his home. It was noted that the width of the house would need to be no more than 26* wide in order to meet the 10' side setbacks at the midpoint of the lot. The design is for a 25* wide house. The deck could be brought out and the garage brought in to meet side setback standards. Gafiron said elimination of the deck and porch would enable the property to nearly meet the lot coverage requirement. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#11 - #2098 Kari and Paul Romportl - Continued) Lindquist asked if Hoam had looked at reducing the size of the proposed house. Hoam said he would look at the calculations. He noted there was no garage on the property at this time, but h was a necessary feature. Hoam said he has proposal to build under the garage, and possibly under the driveway using spancrete floors. A bridgeway is also possible to allow for more water absorption. It was noted that the code considers that hardcover. Smith said she visited the property and agreed with the need to meet the 10* side setback for safety reasons. She felt the proposal was too intensive for ‘he lot and was concerned with the drainage issue. Hoam asked for guideline numbers to assist him in any redesigning. Gaffron said 1500 s.f, or 17.5%, would be allowed for lot coverage, noting a 300 s.f gap from the design as it now stands. Schroeder said he understood that the lot was a hard^p but the proposal was too much for the lot. Smith said it would take some change but not alot. Schroeder emphasized keeping to the 1500 s.f lot coverage amount and the 10' side setback requirement. Horn commerned that with a minimum sized garage, it would leave less amount for the gar^e area. Hawn asked about the condition of the adjacent house. Kari Romportl said the house was in good shape but was all located within the 0- 75* zone. Gaflfron noted that a potential buyer is considering adding on to that property. The design of the house is for 3 levels, though actually considered a 2-story but the bedrooms being reversed. Gaffron again suggested eliminating the deck and porch. The applicants asked and were told that the hardcover on the neighboring property was thought to be in the range of near 50%. Lindquist asked if it was possible to redesign the house to meet the 1500 s.f requirement. Hoam said the hardcover could be reduced in the driveway area, if it was changed to 20' instead of the 25', and would still allow for off-street parking. Schroeder asked if it was possible to meet the 10' side setback. Horn said he thought it was possible. Gaffron noted that the design was close to meeting it at this time. Horn said the hardcover would be increased if he pulled the house forward to meet the 10' side setback requirement. Smith said she would be willing to work on the side setback variance if the applicants were willing to work on the lot coverage amount. Horn said he would come back with a modified plan. L ■ m*--* - —- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16. 1996 (#11- #2098 Kari and Paul Romportl - Continued) Schroedcr moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2098. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#12) #2100 ROBERT AND DEBRA EDMUNDS, 1030 TONKAWA ROAD - VARlANCE/CONDinONAL USE PERMIT - PUBUC BEARING - 10:37-10:49 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Architect, Blake Bichanich, represented the applicants. Mabusth commented that houses on both sides of this property were of recent construction. The suucture on this property will be removed and new construction is proposed. The property is in the 1-acre zoning distria and meets the area requirement at 1-1/2 acres. The lot width, however, is not met at 101', where 140' is the standard, requiring a variance. A conditional use permit is also required for the filling of550 to 600 cubic yards of fill to create a walkout. The fill will come fi'oro the excavation of an attached two story garage. The use of the fill is to remedy the runoff from property to north and create a stable building site. 550 cubic yards of fill will be used to prepare and fill the building pad. Mabusth reported that there is a concern with drainage as the construction to the north has impacted this property. Drainage swales are planned along the sides of the house. Boulder walls, originally proposed over 4' in height, will now be amended not to exceed 4'. It was noted that the proposal will meet the hardcover requirements. Bichanich said the cutting of elevations at north side lot line will allow for access to the lower level storage of garage. The two retaining walls will be buih to direct runoff so as not to disturb the existing drainage. Bichanich said the creation of a full walkout on the north and lake sides will alleviate the water and drainage problem. On the other side, fill will be brought in and retaining wall built to hold water fi-om entering property to south. This will direct the water back in on the lot to naturally flow to the lake. Hawn inquired what will be done to disburse the water as there was alot of water to channel. Bichanich said he would contour it down to the 75' line to allow ninoffito fan out at lakeshore. Lindquist asked how the new design sits on the lot in comparison to the existing house. Bichanich said the main floor of the existing house sits lower than the lowest level of the proposed house. • icp'Zitcrj MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16.1996 (#12 > #2100 Robert and Debra Edmunds - Continued) Schroeder inquired about the side setbacks. Bichankh said the side setbacks were at 10'. Mabustfa said all side setbacks would be met. She added that the lot width variance is required because the existing house is being tom down and new construction is replacing it. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2100 for lot width variance and CUP for fill to create walkout with recommendations 1*3 as stipulated in the Staff memo. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#13) #2102 HOWARD AND ELIZABETH MCMILLAN, 1275 LYMAN AVENUE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE • PUBLIC HEARING - 10:49-11:05 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the conditional use permit and variance application involves the excavation of a pond within a designated City wetland. The pond is proposed at. 12S acres, and the spoils from excavation will be used in the filling of a steep bank. The bank has been sustained by a retaining wall that is failing, and severe erosion is taking place. A letter from the City Engineer confirms that the proposed slope of bank will meet standards of DNR. A letter from a neighboring property owner favors the proposal. The fx-operty is located in the Orono Orchards Highlands plat approved in 1975. Mabusth said the City did not obtain a flowage and conservation easement over the wetland within applicant's property. The original wetland is appro.ximated at the 958' elevation. Recent wetland testing has revealed a type 3 wetland immediately adjacent to the 958' between the 958' and 960' elevations. Type 1 wetlands are also present. Mabusth reported that applicants have submitted an amended pond drawing. The Engineer said the 12' of rise in 100' is acceptable for the restored bank and found little potential for erosion. Mabusth asked that the wetland be defined at the 958' elevation to include the newly defined type 3 wetland to the west of the 958' ele\ ation. She also noted that the type 1 wetlands must also be protected. Corp of Engineer and MCWD approval is also required. Mabusth said Engineer Gustafson has approved the seeding of a prairie restoration mix similar to the Mn/DOT mix, which would ?Jso be used in disturbed areas of wetland and upland areas. L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#13 - #2102 Howard and Elizabeth McMillan - Continued) Howard McMillan said it was their attempt to combat in a non-toxic way the elimination of the purple looseleaf in the non-excavadon areas. He said they were trying to redevdop canals and create a normal natural state. Lili McMiDan noted the approval of the project by their neighbors to the east and west. She also said the MCWD has been notified but still need to contact the Corp of Engineers. Schroeder read nto the minutes a letter from a neighbor, E. Paul Pesak, approving the plan. Schroeder informed the applicants of the Planning Commissions' standard for a natural setting around the pond area. Mabusth said the Engineer has cited the plan as an excellent example of providing transidonal areas within the irregular shoreline and graduated slopes. Smith reiterated the desire of the Commission to not have any "pretty pond" applications and to meet performance standards. Lindquist noted that the application is in line with this standa: J with the use of prairie restoration mix and the designed slope. Howard McMillan commented that he realized the 3-5' depth is normal to create a wildlife habitat. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2102 for a CUP/variance allowing for an open water area with a conservation easement and conditions 1-S as stipulated in the Staff memo. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#14) #2104 B. SCOTT BALL, 1065 WEST FERNDALE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 11:05-11:15 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The i^plicant was represented by George Stkkney. Gaffron recalled the Bail application from several rnomhs ago regarding the installation of bay windows in the existing house. The applicants have decided, and now propose, that the best option is to remove the existing house and driveway and build a new home. Stickney informed the Commission on the transformation from remodeling to a new home. He not^ that the proposal would now orient the house well on the lot. It was noted how the average lakeshore line on the property swings in towards the home. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16. 1996 (#14 - #2104 B. Scott Ball - Continued) Gafi&on continued that the proposal calls for lot area, lot width, and aven^ lakeshore setback variances. The property consists of.88 acres in the 2-acre zoning district. The property does not meet the 200' lot width requirement with 180' width and 163’ at the 75' line. The 75' setback is met. The proposal is for a conforming 30' side setback. The hardcover needs to be ac^usted sli^tly to meet the 25% limit. Gafifron reponed that the existing house is located all in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed house would be located with a slight encroachment of that line but has no impact on lake views eigoyed by the neighboring properties. Gaffion noted that the new plan has not yet been reviewed by the City Engineer. The garage proposed at 938' would need to contoured to the 940* elevation. Three feet of fill would be required to the basonent level to bring the elevation from 932.5 ’ to 935’ to meet the flood plain requirements. The fill would need to come up to the driveway. GaffixHi said the City files show a historic concern with the drainage to the neighboring property to the east. This will be reviewed by the Engineer so as not to impact the neighbors. Gaffion said the Engineer’s review will occur prior to the application going before the Council.. Stickney noted that there was very little slope or elevation change to the proposal. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2104 with the hardcover meeting the 25% allowed, the drainage and grading plans to be reviewed and approved by the Engineer prior to final Council action. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#15) #2103 ORONO HOCKEY BOOSTERS^ INC.. 1025 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH - CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW Mabusth noted that the agenda item was for conceptual review not requiring any action. Present were Mark Engebretson, president of the ()rono Hockey Boosters, and Ted Rozeboom, architect for the ice arena. The land under consideration for the ice arena is a 4.4 acre parcel owned by the school district. The school district has not legally combined all of their owned parcels and have buildings and uses that expand from one parcel to another. A lease period of35-55 years is proposed with an option to purchase at any time. Mabusth said the major issue for this application is a land use matter as there is no exact fit for this use within the City code. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETir>lG HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#15 * #2103 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) The 2^>pIicatioii proposes a 160'x240* enclosed ice arena located 50* from the west lot line, 50* from the north, and 150'+ from either the south or east lot lines. A 130 stall parking lot is proposed to the south of the arena. The property is in a residential zone. The parking lot wUI be subject to residential setbacks. It’s location 20’ from the front line, typical of commercial properties, will require a variance. Height of the building is also an issue. Fuashed grade heights are proposed at 28’ at the west lot line, 41.5’ at the east, 35.5’ at the south, and 41' to the north. Mabusth clarified these were peak heights and not mean heights, although, a height variance will be required. Another issue with the application is the lack of sewer. The sewer question should, however, be resolved by permit time in April when construction is to begin. Mabusth said the City should be in receipt of Met Council’s position by March. Lindquist asked if plans work out as now set forth, a sewer connection should be made. Mabusth said this is unknown at this point. Gaflfron said there is a 60 day time frame for a yes or no answer, but it could be extended. Mabusth said the City could know if the land has been approved for sewer within 4 months. A variance for a holding tank is being requested if the need should arise. When asked by Lindquist if the holding tank would be done, Engebretson said he did not know. Due to the high cost, Engebretson said the start date would probably be delayed. Smith inquired of the cost. Engebretson said in terms of the total cost of the project, it was not major. Mabusth said, according} to Gafiron and Weekman, it was impossible to locate septic on the site and additional testing may be required on the school property. It was agreed that the proposed use would not occur without sewer service. Mabusth inquired about the cost of the facility, it's funding, and lease option, which required a 90% of funds to allow construction to begin. Engebretson said the total budget for the project was slated at 2-1/2 million dollars, complete, on the school district property, consisting of an Olympic size sheet of ice. The arena would open with a reserve of $100,000. The operating feasibility was considered to be the least of concerns for the Boosters. Engebretson reported that the cost estimate for the ice arena included the parking and paving improvements. Engebretson said the arena could be opened at a cost of 2 million dollars with some interior work needing completion. wi‘«iVTapcir- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#15 - #2103 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) Eogebretson said the fund raising has taken twice as long as expected but has been a good effort. The fund is catching up to where it was projected to be at this time. The funds are from private donations but the municipalities and school districts will be asked for donations. Donations and pledges are at 1.3 million with aide of Mound hockey and with continuing with pre-package pledges through a bank, the funds should hit the 2 miUion dollar mark according to Engebretson. The school district is requiring a demonstratable funding of 90%, and Engebretson said he sees no problem with meeting that e?q>ectation. Schroeder asked when the 90% mark was expect^ to be met and was informed by Engebretson, April, 1996. Schroeder also asked the cost of operating. Engebretson said operating would be at $145,000 year with a $100,000 capital reserve. The costs would be recouped through the sale of ice time from 3 high school teams, the Orono program, community activities, ^ate sharpening and concessions. Engebretson said the revenues are fairly reliable. Hawn asked if the arena would operate on a year round basis. Eng^retson said the mechanical equipment is sized for year around use, but the program's budget is based on a 6 month ice use. The remaining 6 month use would be for other community uses of the 100*.x200' concrete floor. The budget expenses are based over a 12 month period with the budget income over a 6 month period. Lindquist asked if other Olympic size sheets were built recently. Engebretson said the 200'xl00* is standard and arenas are being expanded to Olympic size. There is a new Olympic size single sheet in Lakeville, which is comparable, according to Eng^retson, but with Orono's being a better design. Engebretson did not know if Lakeville was meeting their budget numbers. Smith asked what the arena would do for the community that was not being done today. Engebretson said the indoor ice would provide ice time that is now not available. Staggering growth in the girls hockey program is one need for the arena. Figuring skating is also a growing interest. With these two programs and the high school hockey, other uses get shut out of ice time. There is no opportunity now for handicap use, and recreational use is disappearing with the large demand for ice from youth and hockey programs. Engebretson said the Orono Boosters could have used 300 additional hours this year. Schroeder inquired about the facility in Delano and whether it was being fiilly utilized. Engebretson said it was being fully used. There is a half allocation with Mound after the high school and 140 hours with Wayzata. 50 hours were obtained by Blake. All of the ice time has been sold according to Engebretson. He added that past problems for Delano was the heavy debt load and that has been corrected with the high demand for indoor ice. He noted the cost two years ago was at $90 an hour for ice time and is now at $ 125/hour. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#15 - #2103 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) Schroeder asked if the Boosters would be operating at a surplus and what would happen to the surplus. Engebretson said the projections are for selling all ice in prime time at $125/hour with SIOO.OOO from net, $20,000 from skate sharpening, and $100,000 from advertising for a $220,000 revenue per year. With a $ 150,000 operating cost and a $100,000 surplus, the $60,000-70,000 would allow tor building maintenance and be reinvested into the program. The money would help to buy down the participation cost. Engd)retson said if there was true surplus, the Boosters would like to give the money away. Lindquist asked if there would be preferential treatment to Orono residents. Engebretson said the cost would be the same to all participants Smith asked if the use would be on a first come-first served basis or by coinract. Engebretson said there would be an annual contract up front for prime time use The time would then be allocated between games and scrimmages. The two biggest buyers of ice time would be the school and Orono hockey use. Smith also asked if there was projected ice time allocated for other uses, such as handicap. Engebretson said there would be more time available during prime time than the association itself needed. He added that it was hard to predict the amount of time that would be needed by the ^rls* league. Smith asked what would occur if it was found that the financial situation was not working, whether it would revert to school or city ownership. Engebretson said he did not know but could not imagine the project failing. He noted the number of ice hours used by the different programs, the ne^ now for additional time, and operating with a $100,000 reserve as reasons for its predicted viability. Eng^retson was asked whtt effect the arena would have at the Pond and at the Delano rink. Engebretson said it would allow other towns to have ice time available noting the shortage as it is now. Engebretson also added that the arena would be operating without a debt load beyond the operating co:>t, which would distinguish it from other rinks. Hawn noted that the school was currently buying ice time at the pond at cost, which is $30 less an hour. She asked why the school would be willing to pay premium rate when they currently do not have to pay that price. Engebretson said there was a shortage of space at the pond, no bus service to the pond, and with the need for girls' league expansion, the school was willing and prepared to budget for the additional cost. Engebretson was asked if there were any for-profit ice arenas. He said there were, and they tended to be more grandiose. L, MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#15 - #2103 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) During public comments, George Stickney, who is on the fund rai^ng committee for the project, reported on the need for ice time and the effort being made to make the arena debt free. Stickney said he was totally in favor of the rink. Mabusth asked the architect, Ted Rozeboom, to elaborate on the building itself Ma^sth commented that the exterior finish of the ice arena was similar to that of the City &ctlity. Rozeboom said the palate had changed but was vernacular with the institutions as to its long term dundnKty with the use of masonry and oversized brick or stone, possibly Kasota stone. There will be a vertical difference compared to the metal seamed roof used on the City facility. Bowstring trusses will be reflective of the rolling hills in the area. On an economical standpoint, the building will fit in with some conformities. Midxisth asked Rozdx)om to elaborate on the floor plan. Rozeboom said there were 3-4 has*c components: the Olympic size sheet of ice; a south-facing entry loW^ using a concentration of windows and glass and sitting 2-1/2' to 3' higher than the ice; a public restroom, concession, and suministrative office portion with a meeting room of 1000 s.f. overlooking the rink. T»iere will be seating for 800. The building will be placed into the hillside and curved and pushed into the hill on the west to minimize the height. Without the use of alot of windows, Rozeboom said the brkk selection was very important. The 4 locker rooms, with two shared toilet facilities, will be located on the east side beyond the trussed area along with the mechanical and Zamboiu rooms. Rozeboom noted the difficulty in working with and costs associated with the soils, but said the site was g< Mabusth noted the importance of keeping any noisy activities away firom the existing residential along west lot line. Engebretson confirmed that the active areas will be away from the residences. Lindquist asked if any comments have been received from residents on the west side of the property. Engebretson said no. Mabusth noted the information meeting scheduled by applicants for residents on Wednesday, January 24, 7:30 p.m , in the Council Chambers. Schroeder asked if there was the ability to change from a non-profit status to a for-profit status. Engebretson said there was not adding that a non-profit organization is exempt from paying real estate taxes. L. minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#15 - #2103 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) Schroedo* asked Mabusth to enlighten the applicant to what the City will be looking at. Mabusth said a memo has been written informing the applicant on what the City looks at citing examples of height and other variances, the need for the parking lot to be moved out of the street setback, site constraints, as well as performance standards that ail applicants are obliged to follow, which are included in E.xhibit L. Mabusth said, although there are no designated wetlands on the site, there are 2 wetland basins, and this becomes of issue noting the parking lot is located within one of the basins. The wetlands ate classified as "unintentional” as they were created over the years by land alterations on the school property. Mabusth said if the applicant complies with certain standards of the Corp of Engineers and MCWD, there may not be any need to mitigate on the site. Mabusth said the key problem is getting sewer approved for the property. The permit is before the Met Council for their approval. It is Staff and Planning Commission's job to inform applicant of code requirements and potential for variance during this planning process. Lindquist said he was interested in what the neighbors had to say on the subject noting the importance in listening to their concerns. The upcoming meeting will aid in answering this interest. Engebretson said the Boosters are also imerested in the neighbors' concerns. It is their intent to identify and keep track of each piece of the process and to make sure ail parties are aware of and kept up with the process. Engrebretson said the agreement and assistance of all is necessary for this project to be successful. Lirufquist said he is supportive of the project and felt the height and parking issues could be resolved. His main concerns are with the sewering and the neighbors' viewpoints. Schroedcr agreed with Lindquist. He wanted to make sure the project is not a financial burden noting it to be the larger:! t'uilding in Orono. Engebretson noted the size of the school building and the reason w i<y it was placed near the building. Schroeder said the lease would be up to the Council and ae School Board to deal with. Mabusth asked Engebretson to elaborate on the Orono Hockey Association group. Engrebretson said the group is made up of parents and guardians of children who skate. The Orono Boosters, Inc., is a non-profit organization made up of those members. The Orono Sports Facilities, Inc., is made up of the youth program, which promotes the project. Mabusth reiterated that the rink would be used 6 months out of the year. Engebretson said that was the initial projection. If it becomes possible to run the arena year round, this might be done, but the association wished to make a conservative prediction. Mabusth said the hours of operation should be included in the application. 1 I I i • • T^41NUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#15 - #2103 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) Smhh said her calculations for parking with 800 seatii^ and 130 parking stalls would result in 8 people in a car and asked how this parking issue would be resolved. Engd>retson said the school has told the association that the school parking could be used during home high school games. Permission for this school parking use will be part of the lease. The length of the walk to the arena was noted. Rozd>oom said the district was considering a connecting walk. Mabusth said the Engineer would like to see a connecting drive. Lindquist said the application should state where the other parking stalls will be located. Engebretson said he viewed the solution as better than what is normally found with high schools, but he will ad ’ress the situation. Mabusth said Staff will give the applicant a checkoff list. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#16) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11.1995 No representative was present at that meeting. Mabusth informed the Commissioners that the Council reaffirmed the denial resolution for the Callen application, approved the Oberhauser application for the lot line rearrangement with the request for final development plan The application was »abled as Oberhauser was not able to post a security for removal of the structures. The application would be rescheduled before the CouncU when the two boarded up structures have been removed. (#17) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Schroeder commented that the perception that the job of Planning Comimssionw and attendance at meetings has become more difficult, exemplified by the recent resignatitm of Candace Rowlettc. He suggested a notion of using alternates to solve the problem with obtaining a quorum noting that Rowlette would be a good candidate for that position Commission discussed the need to also protect the applicants and the City and the desire to preserve element of continuity. Jabbour asked that the Commissioners try to work through the problem. He noted the harmony in the group and the need to attract people of quality. The need to set a date for a work session to discuss the amendment regarding the ice arena was brought up. It was decided to trim the amendment request down to the school use only. Mabusth noted that there was a request originally to write the amendment on a broader scope. She said she would seek further clarification on this matter. Schroeder felt that the school use only should be reviewed at this time. i fi-J --I*.-« “J? .W* - .-'’-■K-'cvr-ii T^.rrpn." ' t'.TTT • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16.1996 (#17* Other Items for Discussion - Continued) Hawn suggested looking at standards for commercial uses when considering the amendment Mabusth agreed that this was a good point to consider. Smith noted that they were not working with huge developments in this area. Hawn said she was concerned that a situation arise for a proposed use to residential area that would meet the code but not be a desired use. Smith noted the need to set case-by>case standard performances now. Schroeder adted if it was possible for these uses to come into an area and build with a permit. It was noted that they would be all conditional uses. Schroeder said if this was possible, then there would be a problem. Gaflron said it was a matter of consistency. Schroeder said it is difficult to develop performance standards when they are not famihar with a use. Schroeder asked how the code could be amended to allow for the arena. The arena would need to be accessory to the school use. Mabusth said the school will not apply for the application based on the stipulations setforth in the agreement to lease. Lindquist said the Commission needs to look at the merits for each conditional use. ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#18) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 20,1995 MEETING Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 20, 1995. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#19) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE FEBRUARY 12,1996 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Elizabeth Hawn will attend the February 12, 1995 Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to adjourn at 11:32 p.m. Charles Schroeder, Acting Chair Person •9 n iwiin *• Mnr> t«al uwmI ifeMM kt <.<mm fata* * *ik hhA Mf aw • m* apwa *« <w <a m (a**** ft* iwa »• aa» wK i awHaai wte* A* d**i ataa a i*' >» wlw* a kaf** •* kM««K Mara Ana# *An mm Us aa«a Aw ate Aw* tawaaaa aAt* M twMe ta ada* a ta* ai^a*B giWMWB wau AcanawiaML VDMtai.r»fii>AA|tanfkata*«ta. i«w ^i«l>' M.«V*tafa Aw I owe*# frm*M K S<>ti ietaal W«> n> taM fta te lata « * ta ta<#teaaia#ttalta«aaa#taata**a> aaaa n* I* *• hca fta for ta fwaai ^ M TIa aaahar «f kai* aay la tawaii atm • ALWiifli -------j-' *ap A* Itawta* af ta ca» «f Ona aai > ^ ta talta to tana atati ftn in a ta «>iaiii« mm laa jWwdMBA ear #taA*^ taataiaaaia mm *ta taw waa; ta (tmpBf wmwwiaii aa> l« ta iiui il tai ymt kanwr tatar wate taa Mjmam ta Aaw aq araaai ta abaa ad) fta* m* «tar taemta* a ta> aa^ «<#«* a at m taa artaw afprtad hdea ndiwtf aty tat tataoa natitag ta fraprm Wt m m aaif a ttar fp teaaaa wak aait |a»*aiB«ntd *aman m m ac A*«yr m ymm ttanta >« lead al taa <m m mt) ataf Htanq itai *aa priwitaa • ataaiBury tatd) , ta W« a«rtl ta( wa otaai Mi* DM ta kaata a a*k a at ta *ta tviaami ii w ta ta am liana* aaaM at ta ctwaa lacri ancn#m «* ta ft.*nnv ant am maanmt .w tat nanat nTwata ta a'^nt ta tarvn >,• ta) Aa* ■■* ta taaaa wa Aaa* #a* ta AaAa omat Am ata* vnaadf raiiiiia wiut am v> at a'Antr «• taw at‘« a riw Wh pta a M ta aa> a taatalir) Aaly »« Aaa « porfen I* ta mnmmt tal ■ ■vttaaaary tad) M tattaata tacwmaia aab ahi anaBuid ifraaaa h a *tat I* taa a* ta am Mta Am a aatm tad by ta tat rfttaao tta taaBarafta b** I la* baa Mt waita ta ta faebaaan Aaab fta *a>ypaate» a pat ta a .^pti'niaMi I taafta tea *f ta bad ta ta pwipnta tatabya icn i am»^jr^?srjnri.v.-Si3i .........