HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-1996 Planning PacketPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 19%, 7:00 P.M.
2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - J. Diann Goetten
ATTENDANCE
Applicants presenting proposals before the Commission are asked to move to
the table at the front of the Chambers vi^hen their application is announced by
the Chairman.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS
1.7:00 p.m. #2170 Larry H. Nelson, 3335 Crystal Bay Road - Subdivision of a Lot
Line Rearrangement - Public Hearing
2.8:00 p.m. Zoning Amendment - Section 10.44, Subdivisions 3 and 4 and Section
10.45, Subdivision 4 - B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District and
B-6, Highway Commercial District - Public Hearing
ACTION ITEMS - Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public
hearings.
3. #2169 Michael Renard, 1185 Tonkawa Road - Renewal Variance - Public Hearing
4.#2159 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road - Variances - Continuation of
Public Hearing
5.
6.
#2168 Todd and Donna Rooke, 4190 Highwood Road - Variance - Public Hearing
#2171 Minnegasco, a division of Noram Energy Corporation, 530 Old Crystal Bay Road
North - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing
7.
8.
#2172 Gerald and Nancy Bloms, 4195 Forest Lake Drive - Variance - Public Hearing
#2173 Bennett Charles Downey, 2675 Shadywood Road - After-the-Fact Variance/
Variance - Public Hearing
9.#2177 Bob Melamed, 2005 Sugarwod Drive - Request to Waive Requirement of Sugar
Woods Covenant
i
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1996, 7:00 P.M.
Flaiiiiing Commissioc C<«imeiits
10. Report of Planning Commission representative attending Council meeting of September
9, 1996.
11 . Other issues for discussion.
12. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the August 19, 1996 meeting.
13. Planning Commission to select a representative to attend the Council meeting of October
14, 1996.
Adjournment
Public Attendance
Meetinc D ate
C ouncil
^ Planning C ommission
Park C ommission
Other
Please rll out the information
REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
NAME (please print)ADDRESS
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME OR NUMBER
1.Sex, A*-<~
3.
4.
5.
6.
1. ''OVt> IZcpck 2M
(,">0 1 --------------^A>/&SV Ci
SL___|/yar> O li Gh|/W*/ 3**;
7..
8..
9..
10..
11..
12..
13.
14.
15._
091395.4
Ig
I a |o
“ S
3 3
8*0
iST. 5.
3
(D0)
Q
L•r
i
!►
lii
ON U*
%
Nl
•<4
< 09 O O-I 2
si
I'"
= 8
Oi
t/)c•to
?
2.
o
43
w
n
90n
*C
3'
(/)c(M
to L»
li
I?
|.s«g,
•<
14
ON-J
c«
S’
too.
>
S'•Jl
TJ
%
<to
I
*t.
»4
N»
?
toK
R•<
w
o
o
UN
•no
D
3.n«
<to
sn
?
2
O*
X2*-*
I'
14
~J ON
^ 00
i’-l
• era
&. to
5* &
i.|:
?» o
2 v:
S’? 13
a I
i|era 3 #-•
o'p
UN
OE
nc>
t/^g.
09
»<
99
o
c.
H
8.
Q.
to
i.
I
s
f
14
U*
NO
90o
o.
<
6{
5 ‘
S
0
1I
SnI
?s2 S
X 9
§ I <§ §
c
g.
09
3n
S'
K
O5
90otoO.
<to
snj
oo
2
cto
o*9
O
%
14
ON
NO
2
S’
isa
00u*
s'
S’13era O
VN
i I
<■to
»ca
99as
to
$
2.to
g
0
1
i
S
to■I
S'
Ia
I
I
I
gn
T>
2.
01
0
S’
9
g1C_
a
•o
2
O*
00
8
*o
2
09 ^ N• O o
• fc 2-
”t>s*< < 9os; t
§ § « a ^ 3I 4k "
Is?
?g:§ a 1.5
5* ? t/j-•a & "I?sc 2 <
§ |i' « I®09 Ui
^ K
g ^
K 4k
o § c;- a
w
*4
8
T3
2
eo
«4o
v:
1 ^ § ?2, C4
• UJ 5> ui
^ n
g’-'^
X C
§ a
Otoc.
i/ic
2
o'9
C/)n
oPmo
•0
Sr
n
s
0155
o
'Xs
<a
:?
C/)
0 E r ^ii .ISi
I S K
E rk'O
■|i
•!
B3
____ qI
I- ^ il ^ 11 3 S
Is
= « 5?
I ^Ito
la
S 2a. <
nm
no5n
rs•o
I
H
K*
S,
So,
S > 5 < ,*< y,
? wj 5.
5 w C3
. PI c
gSi|-:s
I
5
to
ro
/
To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Admimstrator
Date:September 8, 1996
Subject:#2170 Larry H. Nelson, 3335 Crystal Bay Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line
Rearrangement, Class I - Public Hearing
Zoning District: LR-IC
Application: Applicant seeks approval of a lot line rearrangement involving applicants
homestead parcel and adjacent railroad property to south. The deeds between
the former property owner and railroad were executed in July of 1980. The
following ordinances are pertinent for this review':
1.Section 11.03, Definition 66 (A) (1-3) - Subdivision may be completed
as a Class I division.
2. Section 11.10, Subdivision 10 (A) - Class I subdivision requirements.
List of Exhibits
A -
B -
C -
D -
h -
F -
Application
Plat Map
Property Owners List
iransfer Deed from Burlington Northern, Inc.-July 23, 1980
Warranty Deed to Larry H. Nelson
Survey/Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement
Review of Application
The applicant and new owner of property has filed a subdivision application with Ae City in
order to complete the process begun back in July of 1980. The owner in 1980 failed to file
the required subdivision application with the City and as a result, the real estate taxes have
never been adjusted nor does the Hennepin County Plat Map reflect the division, refer to
Exhibit B.
A title company has been working with the applicant and Cit\* to complete the filing of the
subdivision application. Burlington Northern no longer owns the railroad line. The current
owner, Rail America (formerly Dakota Rail), has received copies of the legal notice and staff
memo. It is not clear whether the tide company has been in contact with Rail Ainenca.
Zoning File #2170
Sqjtembcr 8, 1996
Page 2
Staff has talked v^^th Robin Ripley of Rail America and asked her to contact the Cit>' pricr to
the Planning Commission meeting if the company has any questions or concerns. The deed
of 1980 has been recorded (refer to Exhibit D) and the legal description on the Warranty Deed
transferring property to Mr. Nelson also reflects the new legal (Exhibit E, Page 2).
Review Exhibit F, portions of the existing residence and detached garage are located within the
railroad right-of-way. The subdivision will bring all structures within the homestead parcel,
although an accessoiy ’ shed and additional retaining walls not shown on survey are still located
within railroad right-of-way. The subdivision will add 901 s.f. to the severely substandard
parcel at 5,500 s.f. or .13 acre.
Staff Recommendation
To approve the subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for Larry H. Nelson involving the
property located at 3335 Crystal Bay Road and the property originally owned by Burlington
Northern and now Rail America, subject to the condition that applicant ’s surveyor provide an
amended survey designating Lot 7, "Wallace's Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach
as Parcel A and Parcel B providing the description of the portion to be divided from the
railroad prop>erty as described on the survey. Exhibit F.
rt
»i
li a
V ,-j
•S'-y
Application # ____
Date Received 5^-/4’ -
Amount Paid tr-t)
CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
PROPERTY LOCATION ^ ^ .
Siteaddress 3355" /<J
Prooertv Identificat Num6cr (PID) _
Please check one - Property abstract or
Attach legal description to application.
torrens?
APPLICANT .
Name
Address .^>:?3 ^Ay Xa
C\\s u)A^x/9^r^ '
Phone (home) ^ 7/-
Zip ^3P/ Phone (work) //fi"
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name ___________
Address
City __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
Acres Dry Land
Acres Wet Land
Acres Total, all parcels
Residential; no. of units_[
Other (specify)________
PROPOSAL
______ Division for Tax Purposes
Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites)
Subdivision for New Building Sites
INumber of Building Sites _____ Existing Units
____New Units
Total Units1
Proposed Gross Density
Minimum Lot Size
Proposed Use (check)
Units per ___Acres
Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land
Residential
Other (specify) ________
»1
'<4 A
i
V'
MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below.
2. Completed application form.
3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey.
4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-602
Govt Center 348-3271).
5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application.
2^ing Official's Signature _____________________________________— ---------------------—--------------------
MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION
1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable).
2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat.
3. Title opinion.
4. Easements, covenants, etc.
5. E>evelopen Agreement and Letter of Credit.
Zoning Official's Signature ___________________________ . . Date_------------------------------------------—
IfiUlS
I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply)
A. Application Base Fees:
_____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II A III) $250.00 ----------
_____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 J ----------
Subdivision Application (Class 1 & II) $350.00 ----------
_____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lo: (Class III A all non-residential) ----------
_____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 ----------
_____ Legal Review and Filing:
_____Subdivision only $75.00 ----------
_____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 ----------
Park Fees (to be determined per Section II 62) ----------
Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) ----------
Renewal ofClass I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) ----------
Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) ----------
_____ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) ----------
B. Special Improvement Fees:
Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; ____ !•**■ ft- a -50 = $-------- _____
Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 = $--------- ----------
Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 ----------
_____ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/snib ----------
____ Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub ----------
Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 ----------
On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications)
$50.00/per lot x _____new lots ----------
C. Flexible Application Fees/Mi' Fees
Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) ----------
Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 ----------
_____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit ----------
TTie applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney,
Planning Commission ^d Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional tees established by
Owner's Signature Date
and Council If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent anend m your
place and to advise the Building A Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
RUN DATE W/IZ/H 6ATCH SQi HENTSPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LISTPROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER
NAME/AODR
PROP ADOR
ONNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/AODR
PROP ADOR
ONNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/AODR
PROP AODR
ONNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/AODR
PROP AODR
ONNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/AODR
PROP AODR
ONNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/AODR
50 17-117-25 A1 OOOA021A0 KENHOOO NAY S P DIMMICK A 0 DimiCK STAR A TRIBUI4E EMP CREDIT UN
425 PORTLAND AVE
MPLS MN S5460
50 17-117-25 41 0007
00050 ADDRESS UNASSIGICD
CAL ROOD
CLAIR ROOD
2215 KENMCXXI NAY
NAYZATA MN 55591
50 17-117-25 41 0017
05515 CRYSTAL DAY RO
PATRICIA A GUTTORMSON
PATRICIA A GUTTORMSON
5515 CRYSTAL BAY RO
NAYZATA HN 55591
50 17-117-25 41 0020
05555 CRYSTAL DAY RO
LARRY H NELSON
LARRY H NELSON
5555 CRYSTAL BAY RO
NAYZATA MN 55591
50 17-117-25 41 0025
05549 CRYSTAL BAY RO
N L A L 0 PASCinCE
NARREN L t LUCILLE D PASCM^E
14441 VILLAGE NOOOS OR
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55547
50 17-117-25 41 0026
00050 ADDRESS UNASSIGf4E0
HELEN M THOMPSON
CLAIR ROOD
2215 KENNOOD NAY
NAYZATA MN 55591
50 17-117-25 41 000500050 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEOC I L ROODCLAIR ROOD
2215 RENMOOO MAY
NAYZATA MN 55591
50 17-117-25 41 0015
05295 CRYSTAL BAY RD
MARK C ZAGARIA
MARK C ZAGARIA
1526 21ST AVE N E
ROCHESTER MN 55906
50 17-117-25 41 0010
05525 CRYSTAL DAY RO
D M STANTON i B L STANTON
DENNIS M t BEOCY L STANTON
5525 CRYSTAL BAY RO
NAYZATA MN 55591
50 17-117-25 41 0021
05559 CRYSTAL BAY RO
DONALD J STOYKE
DONALD J STOYKE
5559 CRYSTAL BAY RO
NAYZATA MN 55591
50 17-117-25 41 0024
05555 CRYSTAL BAY RD
JOHN E KUST
JOHN KUST
5555 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD
NAYZATA MN 55591
50 17-117-25 h4 0016
05565 CRYSTAL BAY RO
J R LOFRANO ETAL
J R LO FRANO
5565 CRYSTAL BAY RD
NAYZATA MN 55591
REPORT NO. PI45S401 PAGE 1750 17-117-25 41 000600050 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEOCAL ROODCLAIR ROOD
2215 KErtOOO NAY
NAYZATA MN 55591
50 17-117-25 41 0016
05509 CRYSTAL BAY RD
V N MELIN A K P HELIN
V NILLIAM A KATHLEEN P MELIN
5509 CRYSTAL BAY RO
ORONO MN 55591
50 17-117-25 41 0019
05529 CRYSTAL BAY RO
MICHAEL J FINLEY
MICHAEL J/PATRICK M FINLEY
5529 CRYSTAL BAY RD
NAYZATA m 55591
I'O
f’vl
50 17-117-25 41 0022
05545 CRYSTAL BAY RD
JATttS N OGLANO
JAMES N OGLANO
5545 CRYSTAL BAY RD
NAYZATA MN 55591
^'\j)
4
50 17-117-25 41 0025
05559 CRYSTAL BAY RO
JOHN A ROBIN JR
JOHN A RODIN JR
5559 CRYSTAL BAY RD
NAYZATA MN 55591
58 17-117-25 44 0017
05569 CRYSTAL BAY RD
PAUL C HAGEN
PAUL C HAGEN
5569 CRYSTAL BAY RO
NAYZATA MN 55591
RUN DATE 08/12/96 BATCH 506 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OFMERS LISTPROP AOOR
ONNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAHE/AOOR
S8 I7-117-2S 44 0057 02215 REIORXn NAY
H X RIEFFER ASA KXEFFER
MXTCHELL X KXEFER
2215 KENNOOO NAY
NAYZATA MN 55391
PROP ADDR
OMCR NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/AOOR
SO 17-117-23 44 0110
03290 NAVARRE LA
CHARALAMPOS MARINOS
CHARALAMPOS MARINOS
17600 SUSAN U
MUMETONKA MN 55345
: -%
¥
I-
REPOIT NO. PX435401 PACE 1838 17-117-23 44 010403240 NAVARRE U
CLAIR T A LYNN 0 ROOD
CLAIR A LYN4 ROOD
2215 RENHOOO HAY
NAYZATA HN SSS91
38 17-117-23 44 0109
03286 NAVARRE LA
GRACE MARIE OAHL
GRACE MARIE DAHL
P 0 BOX 222
NACONIA tt4 55387
A
TOTAL BATCH 506 00022 • I
• •
(
\
9
/<
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 DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST
OF MY KNOHLEOCE AND BELIEF
DATE
i/
-j ^ V -s. V ^ •-.-f.. >T ^ ilt: ' I -i ’*' 1 .'t f ' '■(■'•’ -«3'''*rf'’y''\t* •*'••*V s i^ ,'•(••. •.- .-• • • .• ■ *i^i‘' • 45'ii
Iff
1978758
ii
QTfltKlurllii^l• mrpur^n u^f%dtr th^Uumof tks SlaU <»A DtUwtrfe ----------------------- . part^ of tho firH pari, andJoAgt. __________of iko Co^aip •/ . HennepinoooomdpoFt,mnd Stoio •/^-.Min«e ‘eoti 1™ * I
ISItneiiCit* TKat Uts »ai*l tmrtp of tho firOt fari, <» oonoltloration of tho outa •/...^One
^.JDQlUt...($i.OQ)..nad.pthtr “ - jt. DOLL4KS,
to aim hamd paid by tho mid p>trluo of tho ootomd port, tho rotoipi odiortef U horrby aekmoudodgtd, dooo
horohy Orami, Bargain, QuUkolaim, ti^ Conooy unto tho oaid pmrtioo of tho ooc^*nd part as Joint tomaskU
and nM as tonanlo In oommon, tkslr otodgno, f%« ourtfit'or of oaid partiso, and tho heUs and aooigno of tho
oarvitfor, Formn., all tho traoi or paroot of land 'ying and bolng tn tho Co**niy of ____
_H.enf**P^n ----- ------... ond state of Minnesota, dooerihod as follours, to-Mrii!
That pert of CovtmaenL Lot 6, Section 17, TovneMp 117 North,
Heogc 23 Veet of the 5th Principel Heridlen, deecrlbed ee
foliowi: Beginning et the noet Southerly corner of Lot 7, **Vellece'e
Addltlo to the Vlllege of Kinnctonke Beech", thence on en eeeuaed beering
eeid Lot 7 to the noet
e dletence of 16.67
of North 54 Eeet along the Southeeaterly line of
Eeeterly corner of aej^d Lot 7; thence South 29 Eeet _ _ _ _ _
feet; thence South 5B Weet to eo Intereectlon with e line bearing South 29^
Eeet through the point of beginning;
beginning.
thence North 29 Weet Co the point of -
State Deed Tex: $4
C. V. niEO ROT RTQ. Q
AUG I mt
b- ^Jv^ucLu^
’ i
l^bc Bnb lo l7B(b l(c #amr, Togolhtr wUK all tho horoditamonto end appurtonanoot tKoromnto
Monging or In anyuioo apportaining, to tho oaid pati^oM____of tho oooond port, iKtir aooigno, tho fun>
rieor of oaid parties and tho heirs and aooigno of Ht o survioor, Forovor, tho oaid partUo of tho oooond
part taking ao Joint tenants and not as tenants in oonotnon,.
iPn OfCSlimonp ttlfjcrrof, 7*/»r *««!>/ (\irf>or<i(fou ftt$m rantfd thrae
prrmrttfa !•* hr rxrt lift it itt Ua rorf>*»rtil r ftutitf hijfts Vlci
Frrmutrut unit ita ABBigtaiit 8«cr«tBr/
and ita rur/mr»ilr smt It* hr hrrritniu nffixrtt this 23rd dotj
of July ./.v80.
_____JltriLlHCTDIl N0RTHERH..1NC •__________
m4 ■9 ^ #I'*-'-
r.V
'.mi
14V?
Kenedy
!to ViceIts Vice. . . . .r#
______
ito____
Ta aoomarone
V*. -•'■•>/ «v.' t -■ % t’‘OO w P % B
"fet
BKii
_____1f<
• *E
fi
i
EXHIBIT PAGE.OF PAGES
Incltvidusf lid to Indlyiduil til
I •.6000488
V'
'i.’. .
’«o ■
CO Tit
S 2:^
No drlinqiirnt (axrs an^! tr^.isfcr rnlcrntl, C’crlirirat4?
( ) not required
No delinquent (axes an^ t^.isfer
of Real Kstato Value ( fil<^
Certificate of Real EsUtyValue r
.19
rATfiJCK H. oi.r7^?n,;.T.:'“:\r ''L.:.
MOV 2 3 1992 County Auditor
•>0 CO
I—•
OOJ:!
12-
2 Deputy
. rrnnr’-.'Farof^oc?.
•1 6000488
. C V-'
lU LU
LIJ U.u.
§TATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON; $
O -i? Lt'X»:'4:"? ;CC' r2 W
"J r*-'iVi04;f::? COH ?5 00
^ 2^l0"22i: 4? f£.01)64j:3 DOC ri6 •»
5 Date:CD
November 2 .19_92
(reserved for recording data)
For VALUABLE CON.SIDEIIATION, Alice Lorraine Hose
(mariiai
hereby convey (s) and warrant (s) to Larry H, Nelson
^ real property in
i 'Cv
Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows:
S? SEE ATTAaiED EXHIBIT
. Grantor (s). ^
, Grantee (s). //
X
IY\
'V
Vu
• ^
THE SELLLR CLRTH'IEG THAT
•t>|E SELLER DOES NOT KNOW
’OF ANY WELLS ON THE
VpESCniDED PROPERTY
Ilf mort ipaev it needed, conimut on bocii)
together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions:
Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and federal regulations; Restrictions
. relating to use or improves®nt of the property without effective forfeiture^
provisions; Reservation of any mineral rights by the State of Minnesota; Utility and
drainage easements which do not interfere with existing improvements.
t
Alice Lorraine Moss
I l« . t I ;| 11* *r
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF Hennepin
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this —— day of —^
Alice Lorraine Moss ___________7
' nota r im^^sta ^^ DANm
' J - ^ WANOEMK f
notary PUBUC-MlNNtSOTA
' 1 MENNEPIHCOUtnY
My Coriim. Cxp. 01/14/38
' 1
' ►
' I
, Grantor (s).
I Tins INSTRUMENT WAS DRAfTEOBV (NAME AND ADDRESS)
I
First Security Title
319 BARRY AVENUE SO. #101
WAYZATA. MN 55391
I HF92-6066
I FST 82626
■ 79323
I
------iiowATuas or firson taking acknowlbdomsnt
T«« 8utim«nti for tli# r««l prop*ri» d#^rlb#4 In thU Inetfumonl should
b« Mill lo (Includf nomt ■iid odditw of Or«nU«):
CASH
Loan No.
Grantees: Larry H. Nelson
3335 Crystal Bay Road
Uayzata, MN 55391
EXHIBIT
1
Lot 1, "Wallace's Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach." ALSO: That part of
Government Lot 6, Section 17, Township 117 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principa.1
Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at the most Southerly comer of Lot 7,
"Hallckce's Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach"; thence on eui assumed bearing
of North 54 degrees East edong the Southeeisterly line of said Lot 7 to the most
Easterly comer of said Lot 7; thence South 29 degrees East a distance of 16.67 feet;
thence South 50 degrees West to an intersection with a line bearing South 29 degrees
East through the point of beginning; thence North 29 degrees West to the point of
beginning.
I
I •
I
I
‘ !
MtITf SMB
PROPOSED LOT COMBINATION
Certificate of Survey
for Larry Nelson
in Lot 7, ••Wallaces Addition to the village of Minnetonka Beach"
and in Gov*t. Lot 6, Section 6-117-23
Hennepin County, Minnesota
I - ■■
'13^ '
I
NOTE: PART OF GOV'T. LOT 6
TO BE ADDED TO LOT 7,"WALL
ACES ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE
OF MINNETONKA BEACH"
Existinq Leqal Description
Lot 7, ••Wallace's Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach." ALSO: That part of
Government Lot 6, Section 17, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the Sth Princ
iple Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at the most Southerly corner of Lot
7, "Wallace's Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach"; thence on an assumed
hearing of North 54 degrees East along the Southeasterlv line of said Lot 7 to the
most Easterly corner of said Lot 7; thence South 29 degrees East a distance of
16.67 feet; thence South 56 degrees We.st to an intersection with a lino bearing
south 29 degrees East through the point of beginning; thence North 29 degrees West
to the point of beginning.
This survey shows the location of all existing buildings and visible "hardcover"
in relation to the boundaries of the above described property. It does not pur
port to show any other improvements or encroachments.
•: Iron marker found
o: Iron marker set
Bearings shown are based
on an assumed datum.
COHIN & CKUMil W., iNC.
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super
vision, and that 1 am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
V •k 11' • ' I 'i; I
-i: ; iui
Mark S. Gronl>erg Minnesota License Number 12755
DATE th30-9Z
/0*-
SCALE = 20'
)UH NO 9^-292
TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM: Michael P. Gaifiron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator
DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 11,1996
Zoning Code Amendment - Sections 10.44. Subd. 3-5 and 10.45, Subd. 4;
B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District and B-6 Highway Commercial Distnct
Public Hearing
List of Exhibits
A - Proposed Amendment
B - Existing B-5, B-6 Code Sections; 10.44. Subd. 3-4-5 and 10.45, Subd. 4
C - Section 10.61, Subds. 4-10: Parking Performance Standards
D - Lord Fletchers/Navarre Parking Lot Agreement
E - Map of existing B-5 zones and uses
Suminary of Proposed Amendment
On August 26th the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 149,2nd Series, rezoning the Grace Baptist
Church property from LR-IC residential to B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District. As part
of Planning Commission's review prior to that rezoning. Planning Commission suggested that cemm
uses allowed in the B-5 District may no longer be appropriate. These included "tobacco shop^ as
a permitted use, and "home and garden equipment rental", "kennels", and "off street parking as
conditional uses.
Council directed staff to proceed with such an amendment of the B-5 District, and al^ directed that
the B-6 conditional uses should be amended at the same time, to eliminate " drive-thru restaurant
from the list of allowed conditional uses.
B-5 Revisions
The B-5 District is intended to "provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or pertorm
a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which busine^es are not high
traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover . /Because of the
location of the B-5 District as contemplated in the area known as Navarre in the City, tte uses ^e
limited in order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the ftiture generatton of traffic for that
property in that use district since there is already a traffic pr^lem in Navarre".
The permitted uses in the B-5 District include both service and retail businesses, the majority of
which are typically low traffic volume and typically niil 24 hour uses.
Memo - Zoning Amendment
September 11,1996
Page 2
The current list of conditional uses in B-5 includes some uses which may involve ^gher traffic
volumes, or somewhat more intensive use than the permitted uses. For instance, a "candy, ice cream,
popcorn, nuts, frozen dessens. soft drinks store" such as the Dairy' Queen, has a more intense use ot
the parking lot and drive-thru, and has perhaps more lighting than most of the per^tted retail uses.
Also in the list of B-5 conditional uses is "home and garden equipment rental" which h^ potential
for needing fenced storage areas and may involve the operation of engines with the incidental noise
and odor concerns. B-5 also lists "kennels" as a conditional use. which has the potential for
disrupting a neighborhood due to noise levels and possibly odors.
Planning Commission suggested that ’’tobacco shop” be removed from the list of permitted uses,
possibly due to the perception that such a business is no longer in vogue nor appropriate for a t^i y
^tting' It can certainly be argued that a tobacco shop would not inherently be a bad neighbor .
One could perhaps argue that a tobacco shop should fall into the same category and zoning district
as a liquor store, and in fact both tobacco shops and liquor stores are permitted uses in B-1 and B-3.
Planning Commission suggested that both ’’home and garden equipment rental and kennels
be eliminated from the B-5 District. Neither of these uses currently exist on property zoned B-5
hence no existing business would become nonconforming due to this amendment. Note^t
"kennels" are a conditional use in the B-4 district, so this use would not be entirely eliminated from
Navarre.
"Home and garden equipm.ent rental", however, is only allowed in the B-5 zone, hence eliminatmg
it would leave no place for this ty pe of business to occur in the City. It is therefore noteworthy that
we have two such businesses already operating in Navarre: Navarre True Vdue Hardware and
Minnetonka A-1 Rental, both in B-1 zoning. The B-1 zone lists "hardware store as a ^mitted
but not "equipment rental". Minnetonka Rental has been at this location since prior to 1971. and that
site has been zoned commercial since 1955. Cne can conclude that, since there is no record that
Minnetonka Rental was ever advised to file for a "non-conforming use CUP , the City has long
considered Minnetonka Rental as a conforming use in the B-1 district.
Off-Street Parking
Planning Commission also suggested that "off-street parking" be eliminated in the B-5 District
A concern was expressed by former Planning Commission Chairman Peterson that parking areas m
ftTeS met wLTm^y or may not be a"oblm° In LtSSnlwra^dt'lb hal
had an agreement with Orono to use up to 60 spaces in the Navarre munictpal parking lot which is
zoned B-1 (See Exhibit D).
I
Memo - Zoning Amendment
September 11,1996
Page 3
The current B-5 lists off-street parking as a conditional use, but specifically in reference to ffituatiODS
where the off-street parking in a B-5 District is serving a principal use OH an adiaCCnt lot which
happens to be a different "R" district. The current off street parking language in 10.44, Subd. 4(B)
could be amended by making it clear that such parking shall only be allowed when it ser\es a
permitted principal use which is on an abutting lot in another B or 1 District.
All commercial uses normally require some off-street parking, hence staff would suggest that rather
than eliminating it. off-street parking should be added to the list of B-5 ■acccssorY USCSZ- This is not
uncommon in municipal zoning codes. It could then be further limited by only allowing it when
accessory' to a permitted or conditional use located on the same lot or on an abutting commercial lot.
The impact of these changes would be to prohibit parking on a B-5 property that serves a use other
than:
1) the principal use on the same B-5 property as the parking, or
2) the principal use on an adjacent B-5 or B-1.2,3,4 or 6 or "I" property
The changes would not impact the agreement with Fletcher’s, since that lot is not zoned B-5. It
would, however, prohibit such parking agreements on any property zoned B-5, and no variance could
be granted since that would be a "use" variance which by state statute is not possible.
B-6 Revision
In reviewing the B-6 Highway Business District standards during the Highway 12 moratorium study.
Council concluded that the existing B-6 Highway Business District permitted uses (offices, banks
and financial institutions, libraries, motels and hotels, and Class I "sit-down" restaurants) are
appropriate B-6 uses. The B-6 District also defines all of the above noted uses as conditional uses
when they have a drive-thru operation. Council felt that drive-thru type restaurants would not be
appropriate for the B-u zone, hence the proposed amendment would list only offices, banks and
financial institutions, libraries, motels and hotels as allowed conditional uses. This eliminates drive-
thru restaurants from being established in the B-6 District.
Issues for Consideration
1. Are the proposed zoning district use changes appropriate? \\hat is the City s moti\ation for
making these changes?
2. Are there other uses which should be added or deleted within the B-5 and B-6 Districts?
3. Will any of the proposed changes have a negative impact on existing businesses or uses?
4. Could the goal of the proposed changes be accomplished by placing more restriction.'; on
them as conditional uses in B-5, rather than eliminating them from B-5?
0 .
i
Memo - Zoning Amendment
September 11,19%
Page 4
Staff Recommendation
it occurs to staff that this again is potentially a "piecemeal" review of our co^ercial zoning
districts, and staff would urge that a more thorough review of existing land and ftitine
commerciaL residential needs be conducted as part of a more comprehensive study of zomng in the
Navarre area.
None of the proposed amendments result in a conflict with the Comprehensive Han. and no
Comprehensive Plan Amendment is necessary in order to adopt the proposed changes. Further, s^t
is unaware of any existing uses in the B-5 or B-6 zones w hich would become non-contorming due
to the proposed changes.
Planning Commission should identify the specific reason for each ot the proposed use changes, and
determine whether any negative impacts will result from the changes. This will not only provide a
basis for a recommendation to Council, but will assist staff in future interpretation of the code when
attempting to determine whether a specific use is similar in scope or character to one of the listed
uses.
Options for Action
1. Recommend approval per the attached draft ordinance.
2. Recommend approval with revisions or partial approval
3. Table for further information or discussion.
4.Other.
I
5,.
ORDINANCE NO._____, SECOND SERIES
an ordinance amending sections 10.44 AND 10.45 OF THE ORONO ZONING
CODE BY ADDING, DELETING OR AMENDING CERTAIN PERMITTED AND
CONDITIONAL USES WITHIN THE B-5 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS
DISl*CT AND B-6 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
The Citv Council of Orono ordains as follows:
ScctioQ 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.44, Subd. 3 is hereby amended by dekiLng
the following use from the list of allowable permitted uses within the B-5 District:
"U. Tobacco shop.”
Section 2. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.44, Subd. 4 (A) is hereby amended by
deleting the following uses from the list of uses allowed within the B-5 Limited Business
District via a conditional use permit:
"6. Home and garden equipment rental."
"8. Kennels."
Section 3. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.44, Subd. 4 (B) is hereby amended as
follows:
"B. Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street
parking abuts on a lot which is in another "B" or "I" District and is in the same
ownership as the land in the "B” or "I" District and subject to those conditions as set
forth in Section 10.61, Subd. 4 and other such conditions as found necessary by the
Council. <^nrh parking shall only be allowed when it serves an allowed PrincipaLuSS
on »hf! iihiining lo* in anothe r "B" or "1" DlStnct."
Section 4. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.44. Subd. 5 is hereby amended by adding the
following item to the list of permitted accessory uses:
"H. Off-street parking, when accessory to an allowed principal use and located
on the same lot as, or on a lot abutting, that principal use.
1♦ J
ii
i
i
Section 5. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.45, Subd. 4 is hereby deleted and the
following language substituted in its place:
-Subd. 4. Relationship with Chapter 10.53 Planned Unit Development Other
types of commercial uses and mixed use developments may be applied for through
the planned unit development process. Applications that include commercial uses
within the Highway 12 corridor shall assume the B-6 District as the underlying
zoning district.
Subd. 4.1. Conditional Uses.
A. Within anv B-6 Highway Business District no structure or land shall be
used for one of the following uses except by conditional use permit:
1. The following uses when such use includes a drive-thru condition:
a. OtTices (business and professional).
b. Banks and financial institutions.
c. Libraries.
d. Motels and hoteb."
Section 6. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and
The Laker newspapers and become effective immediately upon publication.
Adopted by the City Council of Orono. Minnesota on this
1996 by a vote of___ayes and ___
day of
navs.
AT TEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin. City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor
C
S 10.43
lot line.
F. tencir^. wuctcyn. « - -• ----------
Professional Business Distr\t abuts a^^R" District along the side
or rear lot line, a fence or\compacy§vergreen hedge not less than
50% opaque nor less than sixVeet^n height (no less than three
feet nor higher than four feet\di^ent to street) shall be erected
along the abutting lines except ^thin the required front yard.
Fenc i Whereva^ a "3-4" Office and
G. Building D^igi\and Construction. See Section
10.40, Subdivision 6, Subpar^raph
H. Draina^. No land \jall be developed and no use
shall be permitted tha^results in runoff causing floods,
erosion, or deposits^ adjacent prop^ies. . ^ ite and drainage
plans shall be sub^ted by the applf^n. in sucn detail as
reauired by the Codrtcil and those plans shall be reviewed by the
City Engineer befie^e submission to the Pl^^ning Commission and
Council ^for appM^l. Such runoff may be required to be properly
channeled intojf latural water course,
other publiqiCacilities. Any change in gra^affecting J^^^or
runoff whe^r onto adjacent property or otherwise mu;>t be in
complianc^ith the Surface Water Management
r'onsiste^ with Other applicable regulations ^
orovisi^is and subject to the approval of other ageVfc^es having
jurisdj^ction over the area affected by the drainage.
I.
*2 stories or
tion 10.75
Height. No structure or building shall exceed
thirty feet in height except as provided in
SEC. 10.44. B-5 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT.
SMbd 1 Purpose. The "B-5" Limited Neighborhood
Business District 'is Intended to provide a
hhat suDolv commodities or perform a service primarily
residents^in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not
S!ch t?alfio generators and do not necessitate - "“i^'^T/t^iltrSr
of^hardcover. The district may adjoin reside lal districts or
other business districts which are subject tc
controls. The district shall have immediate .
highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of t
••B-5" District as contemplated in the
City, the uses are limited in order to limit the - - that
area and to limit the future generation of ^ traffic
property in that use district since there is al. r .dy a traffic
problem in Navarre.
ore restrictive
ess to adequate
location of the
Navarre in the
dcover in that
ORONO CC 347 (4-1-84)
I
s 10.44
Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building
review.
Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any -
District, no structure or land shall be used excep
following uses or uses deemed similar by the Counc
A.
B.
C.
D.
ITw •
F.
Municipal buildings.
Offices.
Clinics.
Art and school supply store
Book and magazine store.
Office supply store.
estate office.
G. Banks, loan company, insurance company.real
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
Barbership, beauty shop.
Camera and photograph supply store
Locksmith.
Hobby shop.
Gift store.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
Glassware and potterv
Antique store.
Jewelry store.
Watch repair.
Library.
Museum.
S.
T.
U.
V.w.
Record shop.
Music store.
Tobacco shop.
Galleries.
Pet shop.
Subd. 4. Conditional Use.
a Within anv "B-5" Limited Business District, no
^htll be used for one of the following uses structure or land shall oe usea
except by conditional use permit:
1. Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen
d^ksserts, soft drink store.cesser , Drycleaning store.
3. Tailor shop.
4 Pressing and shoe shine shop.
5* Laundry and cleaning pick-up stations.
s'. Horae and garden equipment rental.
7. Veterinary clinic.
Kennels.8
ORONO CC 348 (4-1-84)
I
s 10.44
B. Off-Street Parking. Off-street
orincipal site of the off-street parking abuts on a
land in the "3" or "I" District and subject to those
set°forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 4 and other such conditions
as found necsssary by th6 Council.
C. Public Service Structures. Including, but not
to electri' transmission lines in buildings such as
telephone eicha'^^^^ booster or pressure stations, elevated
tanks, lift stations and electric power substa ions.
c.ihH s Accessory Uses. Within any "B-5" Limited
Neighborhood Business District, the following uses shall be
permitted accessory uses:
A Garages, Etc. Private garages, off-street
parking and ^-^|"93tP-!^'s?^niras^regui2tedin ‘^Jh?rchapter.
c Temoorary Buildings. Buildings temporarily
D. Landscaping. Decorative landscaping features.
E. Fences. Fences, as regulated
p Incidentals. Any incidental repair or
^hafthi^lnri^nral^se
the principal building.G. Public Telephone Booths.
Subd. 6.Area, Heig
and Design Requirements.
A.Area. The
square feet.
B.Lot Width.
feet.
C.Front Yards.
feet.
D.Rear Yards.
feet; side yarn --
yard adjacent to street shall be 10 teet.
nearer than 35 lee/to'Jl' Hne
^i^H£'Slu^T^?bhtu “rle« than^% slot” loS
line.
ORONO CC 349 (4-1-84)
1
S 10.45
SECTION 10.45 B-6 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 2. Application. ^eviewed^by
IhriounSirL/ref.rrfd « l“h“?l.nnin. Commission for review.
<?nhf^ 3 Permitted Uses. Within any "B-6" Highway
Business District, no structure or
one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the councrx.
a. Offices (business and professional).
B. Banks and financial institutions.
C. Libraries.
D. Motels, and hotels.
E. Restaurants (Class I).
T1 \ S
subd. 4. Relationship with Chapter 10.53 ^J]gg
Development. Other typ_es_ of 1 aA -
developj ient? mL'f^fal uses
Collidor4f;t^ssume the B-6 District as the
underlying zoning district.
(•/^''Conditional Use
A. Within any -B-6- Highway es
structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses
except by conditional use permit:
t-i'/
1. Any business listed as a permitted use in the
zone that includes a drive-thru condition.
citHri ^ Accessory Uses. Within any "B-6" Highway
Business District t^e^ricwLg uses shall be permitted accessory
uses:
A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "B-1
Business District.
ORONO CC 351-1
Ordinance 67, 2nd Series
Adopted; 5-8-89
k|
\
i • « • •
s 10.61
sum of four sqvJ^^e feet per front foot of building^^g^us one square
foot per front r^ot of property not occupied building. No
individual sign su^^ce shall exceed 100 squar^^eet.
Source:
Effect!
nicipal Code
Date: 9-14-67
"B-1"
more
D. "B-1"
, "B-2" and "B-4" Distr
than two feet above the
principal building nor shall
feet from any property line
feet may project two feet
principal building.
-2" and^-4": Height. Within the
±s, T\sr siqn shall extend in height
hi^ba^r outside wall or parapet of any
anp*^ign be located closer than ten
-.-cept^hat any sign over ten square
nto any Inquired yard area from the
Source :^^^rdinance No. 172
Ef fectiv^Date: 1-1-75
"B-3" and "I": Height. WitH^any "B-3" or "I"
District, nq>?ign shall extend in height moreN^^n six feet in
heiqht abov^the highest outside wall or parapet o^^ny principal
buildinq.J^o sign shall be located closer than ten ^
prooerty^ine except that any sign exceeding ten squa^feet may
proje<^^only two feet into the yard area__f£om_^^nj^__bu£ldin^
Subd 4. Purpose of Off-Street Parking and Loading
Requirements. ‘Regulation of off-street parking and loading spaces
in this Chanter is to alleviate or prevent congestion of the public
right-of-way and so to promote the safety and general welfare of
the public by establishing minimum requirements for off-street
parking, loading and unloading from motor vehicles in accordance
with the utilization of various parcels of land and structures.
All applications for an occupancy certificate in ell districts
shall be accompanied by a site plan drawn to scale and ‘dimensioned
indicating the location of off-street parking and loading spaces in
compliance with the following requirements:
Source; Municipal Code
Effective Date; 9-14-67
A Application of Parking Rules All Districts. In
off-street parking facilities in all use districts.
Source: Ordinance No. 172
Effective Date: 1-1-75
B Parking Requirements Waived for Building Under
Construction on Sepce"'!’®'^ 1'*' Structure or uses for which a
building permit has been Issued prior to September 14, 1967, but
ORONO CC 382 (4-1-84)
L..
s 10.61
for which work has not been completed shall be
hereinafter stated parkin, requirements if structure 1, stat
within six months after September 16, 1967, and continues to
completion.
C. Existing Parking Not to be Reduced. Off-street
oarkina spaces and loading spaces existing on September 14. ^7,
Ihairnot be reduced in number unless said numher exceeds the
requirements set forth herein for a similar new use.
fabrication exclu'sive of hallways, utility space, storage areas
Other than warehousing.
facility shall be counted as one seat for the purpose o.
determining required parking.
F Size of Parking Spaces. Each parking space
s"p%« s\“u ‘”b\" ^irved*%‘drqfat*efy ‘b";"««sV for
sqX‘“f"e\"t^^of rtlra^g^^ an!
maneuvering area including access drives.
G. Commercial Vehicle Parking.
l^-'\hV%^rkTng"%%'''pa^°senVer"^"uVom^bT^^^ motor vehicle over
fnriQ aross caoacitv and no commercially licensed trailer
Ihan C parked or ='ored in a residential distr ict except when
iehfire-ma7^b?^parked%r"tr^dJ
Iliess'^o^rV^to^ resTdtntial structures be used pP®”accessoty nor for open air parking for business
home occupation permitted for that property.
parking in the“'"R"7istJlcts°'shall''b7on thrsamt lot as the
principal building.
Subd 5 Setbacks for Parking. Required
parking in ail districts shall meet the following setback
requirements:
ORONO CC 383 (4-1-84)
ttSM
I
s 10.61
A. "R" Districts. Within all "R" Districts all
vehicles normally owned or kept by the occupants on the premises
must have a garage stall or open parking space on the
nrinciDal use served. Garage stalls accessory to residential
structures^may be located anywhere on the lot other than *
vard area except that such garages may be located to «ithin ten
feet of an interior side lot line and to within ten teet of a rear
Lt line subject to Section 10.03. Open parking spaces on lots
must have a location other than a w^fthin'^tirfeet of anoarkinq may be located in a rear yard to within ten teec oc an
interio^r side lot line and to within ten feet of a rear lot line.
Source: Municipal Code
Effective Date: 9-14-67
B "B" Districts. Within the
oarkinq may not be allowed in any required yard or
ui'i-hin <-he "B-1" "B-3" and "B-4" Districts parking spaces
i;“iiur■
be the same as required for the R District.
Source: Ordinance No. 172
Effective Date: 1-1-75
In d V ’sU c "!', Then': off-street parting shall .be not
less than ten feet from said lot lines.
ciiK/^ Joint Parking. Required parking facilitiesSubd. 6. „ „ Districts may be located
requirements for each use and provided.
A. The proposed joint parking space is within
thirty feet of the use it will serve.
a The applicant(s) shall show that there is no
rorf 1TuUd\n7s'f- "^h^ch" join?" usV”o"f ‘’o?l-s?ree\"parking
facilities IS drawn legal instrument approved by
«;• ’.r'c"
cLrl said instrument may be a three or more party agreement
including the City.
ORONO CC 384 (4-1-R4)
S 10.61
iiitffiiliftilNo such parking facilities at its closest
more than 100 feet from the premises nor more than 300 feet from
the principal use or building served.
Subd. 8. Storage Prohibited. Required
parking space in all districts shall not be
storage of goods or for the storage of vehicles which are
inoperable, for lease, rent or sale.
Subd. 9. Design and Maintenance of Parking Areas.
A. Access. Parking areas shall be designed so as
to provide an adequate means of access to a public
Said driveway access shall not exceed thirty feet in width at the
public walk center line and shall be so o«
aVc?ss“oV/‘d^i7er;s"'and SVlT^/“o\^ a
public street.
B Fractional Spaces. When the determining of the
number of required off-street parking spaces results in a fraction,
each fraction of one-half or more shall constitute another space.
C. Signs. Signs located in any parking area
necessary for orderly operation of traffic movement shall be in
addition to accessory signs otherwise permitted.
D. Surfacing. All of the area intended to be
utilized for parking space and driveways for four or more vehicles
shall be surfaced with material to control dust and drainage.
E. Lighting. If lighting is provided it shall be
accomplished in such a manner as to have no direct source of light
visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent land.
F Curbing. All open off-street parking areas
designed to have’head-in parking along any lot line shall
tire^ bumper or curb of adequate height and properly located to
ensut^th^t no part of any car -111 project beyond the required
setbacks.
A. Single Family Dwelling. Two per dwelling unit.
b! Multiple Dwelling. Two per dwelling unit.
ORONO CC 385 (4-1-84)
I
A
s 10.61
C. Motel, Motor Hotel, Motor Court or Hotel. Four
spaces plus at least one parking space for each guest room provided
in the design of the building.
D. School, High School Through College. At least
one parking space for each seven students based on design capacity
plus one for each three classrooms.
E. Churches, Auditoriums, Undertaking
Establishments. At least one parking space for each four seats
based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall.
F. Theater, Athletic Field. At least one parking
space for each six seats of design capacity.
G, Community Center, Post Office, YMCA, YWCA,
Physical Cultural Studio, Pool Halls, Libraries, Private Clubs,
Lodges, Museums. Ten spaces plus one for each 300 square feet or
floor area in excess of 2,000 square feet of floor space in the
principal structure.
H. Hospital. At least one parking space for each
three hospital beds.
I. Golf Courses, Country Clubs, Tennis Club, Public
Swimming Pools. Twenty spaces plus one for each 300 square feet in
excess of 1,000 square feet of floor space in the principal
structure. , _ _ -nnJ Day Nurseries. Four plus one for each 500
square feet in excess of 1,000 square feet of floor space in the
principal structure.
Source: Municipal Code
Effective Date: 9-14-67
K. Office Buildings and Professional Offices,
Banks, Savings Institutions. At least one parking space for each
200 square feet of floor area.
Source: Ordinance No. 172
Effective Date: 1-1-75
L Drive-In Establishments. At least one parking
space for each fifteen square feet of floor area in the building.
M. Bowling Alley. At least six parking spaces for
each alley.
N, Motor Service Stations. At least three off-
street parking spaces plus two additional off-street parking spaces
for each service ^g^ail Sales and Service Establishments. At
least one off-st*reet parking space for each 150 square feet of net
floor area.
ORONO CC 386 (3-1-84)
s 10.61
p. Restaurants, Cafes, Bars, Taverns, Night Clubs.
At least one for each 80 square feet of public floor area.
Q. Furniture Store, Appliance Store, Warehouse
Under 15,000 Square Feet of Floor Area, Auto Sales, Grainhouses,
Kennels and Studios. At least one parking space for each 500
square feet in excess of the first 500 square feet of floor area in
the principal structure.
R. Auto Repair-Major, Bus Terminals, Taxi
Terminals, Boat and Marine Sales and Service, Bottling Companies,
Shop for Trade (employing six people^or less), Garden
parking^ spaces, plus one additional space for each 800 square
of floor*area over 1,000 feet, including warehousing and all
outside sales and storage area related to the sales and service
functions.
S. Skating Rinks, Ski Areas, Dance Hall, Public
Auction House, and Similar Recreational Uses. At least fifteen
Qff-street parking spaces, plus one additional space for each 30
square feet of floor area over 1,000 square feet.
T. Manufacturing, Fabrication or Processing of a
Product or Material. At least four off-street parking spaces, plus
one additional space for each 800 square feet of building. One
additional off-street parking space shall be provided for each
2,500 square feet or fraction thereof of land devoted to outside
storage.
Subd. 11. Application of Loading Ru^^s to All Districts.
The regulations and r^uirements regarding o^-street loading and
space Ihall be spired for /fraction of less than one-
half.
Subd. 12. Locatii\ o^Loading Berths. All loading
r!“ht^-o^^*iay‘'\in^s!®\°o%d?nl^”th\''^hfn no'^t“^^
requirement bordering a street^
Subd. 13. Size Load\ng Berths. Unless otherwise
specified the first berth inquired \iall not be less than 12 feet
in width, and 25 feet in^ength. AS^itional berths shall be as
specified, but not lesjT than 12 fe^ in width and 25 feet
iLgth, all loading bq/ths shall main\in a height of 14 feet or
more.
Subd 14.^^Access to Loading BeXhs. Each loading berth
shall be locatid ^th appropriate means of W®ss to public street
or alley in a mai/er which will least interf^e with traffic.
ORONO CC 387 (4-1-84)
k
COUNCIL MEETING
»> :
mat 1996
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO
DATE: May 10, 1996
ITEM NO.:/cX
Department Approval:
Name Ron Moorse
Title City Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Citv Administrator ’s Report
Item Description: Lord Fletcher's Request for Ure ot Public Parkmg Lot
Lord Fletcher's restaurant has requested use of a portion of the City's public parking lot in Navarre
to orovide parking for restaurant staff on weekends during the summer. This is sinular to the truest
approved in 1995. The arrangement generally worked well in 1995. There were a small number o
problems that were addressed quickly by Lord Fletcher's when they were made aware of them.
TTie one problem area to be monitored most closely is to ensure the adjacent retail businesses have
sufficient parking at all times. There was a problem with this one evening last summer when the lot
was used simultaneously for overflow parking by another business.
In discussing this problem with Brian Windschitl, Assistant Manager at Lord Fletcher's, he indicated
he would k«p communication channels open with the vanous adjacent business owners to address
any concerns related to parking.
In 1995 Lord Fletcher's requested 40-50 parking spaces. In 1996 they indicate the average use
would be between 40 and 60 spaces but initially requested authonzation to use up to 75 spaces.
Staff is more comfortable with a maximum of 60 spaces vs. 75 spaces. After discussmg this
with Mr. Windschitl. he indicated the maximum of 60 spaces would be acceptable.
The conditions agreed to by Lord Fletcher's and recommended by staff are as follows:
1.The lot will be used Friday nights. Saturday nights and Sundays.
2.The lot will be used only for staff parking and not customer parking.
3.Associates will leave the lot quickly after their shifts and will be careful about
noise when leaving.
4. The shuttle buses will use only County Roads 15 and 51 and no residential
streets.
All vehicles will be out of the lot by 2.00 a.m.
If
Request for Council Action continued
P^e 2 of 2
May 10, 1996
Lord Fletcher's Request for Use of Public Parking Lot
6.Lord Fletcher’s wll maintain commurucation channels with the adjacent business
owners to ensure against a lack of parking for those businesses.
7.Lord Fletcher's will do additional patching of the lot as directed by the Public
Works Director and will periodically clean up litter from the grass areas on the
north and west sides of the parking lot.
8. Lord Fletcher’s will use a maximum of 60 spaces.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to authorize Lord Fletcher’s to use the public parking lot in Navarre with conditions
as determined by Council.
Isv
I
Cord Clctchcrs
o A « e •>4 r T o
May 8, 1996
City of Orono
2710 Kelley Parkway
Orono, Minnesota 55356
Dear Sirs;
Please accept thig letter as our request for use of the Orono Municipal lot in Navarre. We
would like to use the lot on Friday and Saturday from 3;00 pm and later, and on Sunday from
1:00 pm and later from Memorial weekend through Labor day weekend. We would also request
usage on the July 4 holiday weekend. The lot would be used for our associates only,
approximately a maximum of seventy-five cars. The lot would not be advertised for our guests
use. We would use the rear portion of the lot, as shown on the enclosed diagram. No loitering
would be allowed and Lord Fletchers will maintain the lot by sweeping, patching and marking it.
We will also clean the surrounding landscaped areas.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Any questions, please feel free to contact
me at 471-8513.
Cordially,
Lord Fletcher’s on Lake Minnetonka
Brian Windschitl
Assistant General Manager
BLW/sah
cc: Alan Bell
I
Lounge Hardware Store Restaurant
In
\r
§
t
'■t-
ii
Mod
1
969.5
0,
V
fh(4;
973.9 O O
V
Ch
J ^
/
1
rn
Map E-3
X 976.7’
/975.
ir
sU
X 982.5
970.7
X 960.1
i2i->3
o r
../
976.4
QJ
^ r
S
980.'^<6
y
.4^'
C?“vx
\
968.3
152.500 \
9 X
. .«)it ■
\949.3 X
"y / I . o
5tS
sSy cf
///
S^ s<?
'>W
969.2 967
<y
E-4
960.7
/
968.7
/
973.9
972.
2380 ShadyH'Ood Road
(Proposed Bank/Office Building)
961.4
J2---------------- ,
X 961.2
X 961.6
f'
/
»\959.4
X 958.8
» 959.0
/
960.3
/ “
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator
September 11, 1996
#2169 - Michael Renard, 1185 Tonkavva Road - Renewal Variance - Public
Hearing
- I
Zoning District:LR-IB
Total lot area = 28,405 s.f.
Application: Applicant seeks approval of a third renewal variance to permit construction of
a two stoiy addition to the east side of the existing residence. This is the
current owner's second request for a variance, the original two were granted to
the original owner by the City in 1989 and 1990. The following ordinances are
pertinent for this review:
1.
2.
Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback encroachment
Allowed = 0 ’
Proposed = 4' (compare Exhibit G and I, new survey confirmed addition
will encroach another 2‘/j' beyond average lakeshore setback line)
Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Hardcover variance.
75-250' setback area * 22,827 s.f.
Allowed = 5,707 s.f. or 25%
Existing = 5,516 s.f. or 24.1%
Proposed = 5,995 s.f. or 26.2%
Approved by Council in 1991 = 5,829 s.f. or 25.5% (based on removal
of 168 s.f. of detached shed area)
Amended proposed = 5,827 s.f. or 25.5% (5,995 s.f - 168 s.f)
Variance = 120 s.f or .5%
List of Exhibits
A - Application
B - Plat Map
C - Property Owners List
D - Neighbors Acknowledgement Forms
E - Resolution No. 3053, Approving 1991 Renewal Application
F - Original Survey/Site Plan
G - Original Sketch of Average Lakeshore Setback
H - Original Floor Plans
I - New Survey/Site Plan
J - Side Elevation
K - Street Elevation
Zoning File #2169
September 11, 1996
Page 2
L - Lake Elevation
M - Second Floor Plan
N - Lower Level Floor Plan
Review of Application
This is the first renewal variance application filed by the current owner. The original variance
was granted to the applicant in 1991. The former ovvner had presented two variance
applications proposing the same size two story addition to the east side of the residence. The
current application involves minor changes. A new survey places the addition 4’ in front of
the average lakeshorc setback where the original lakeshore setback survey for the earlier
reviews was determined to be approximately l‘/a'. The current survey has more accurately
defined the encroachment that results in a 2‘/i' further expansion beyond the lakeshore setback
line. Members are asked to stand at the appro.ximate Ic .ation of the addition and note the view
windows of the adjacent residences. WTien standing at the lakeshore setback of the proposed
addition, it is difficult to note any encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line. The
encroachment is minor and will have no visual impact upon the adjacent residences.
Applicant ’s hardcover facts, proposed at 5,995 s.f, do not reflect the removal of the 168 s.f.
of detached structure. There is nothing to suggest that the Council will change from its
original approval in 1991. Staff has adjusted hardcover at 5,827 s.f. or 25.5%.
There are slight changes in the floor plans of the current proposal from the original proposals
presented to the City. Compare Exhibits F and H with I through N, the 2' e.xtension into the
lakeshore yard in the original proposal involved a lower level enclosed porch with an upper
level balcony where the current proposal involves a 2' two stor>' bay addition. The lower level
plan still provides new living room/dining area with an expanded formal entry. The upper
level consists of a master bedroom suite.
In the 1991 application, the City considered reductions in the generous paved area adjacent to
residence but soon realized the need for a backout area for safe access to County road and also
noted the location of the retaining wall surrounding paved area.
Members may review the resolution of 1991, Exhibit E. Staff would recommend the adoption
of the findings and conditions set forth in that resolution, although members may wish to
amend or add additional conditions.
Options of Action
To either amend or adopt the findings and conditions of Resolution No. 3053.
-----------
• I
Application #} f
Date Receired /i'- >.
Amount Paid
CITY OF OROiNO - V a RLA iNCE APPLICATION .
laitial Application Fee $220.00
(SSO.OO per each additional variance)
Renc\%’al Variance Fee $120.00 /»
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY LVFORMATION
SiteAddress___// 5 5* TojkAjfA R<i.
1.0?
3 C^>) Ac., \
-7% /4//>*J
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) oF-//?•--;?g--/3 -
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Dale PropertvAcquired_______Z?/**_____________________________
I (do) (ao n^ also o^^•n the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of property: y residential ___^other (specify)__________
Zoning District: ___________________________________
(month^car)
APPLICANT
Name ///izJ'iA
Address: //S5* 'T^yJ/CAuiA- /<«L
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name ____________________
Citv:
Phone (home )
Phone (work) ______
_________Zip: s'^-^S6
Phone (homeX
Phone (work)_
Address:Citv:Zip:.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S___________
Describe request in detail: P-
/
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARI.ANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area ___Lot Width
Setback:Front Side
Hardcover
Rear
Lot Coverage
Average Lakeshore
X’ Other (specify) ^C ticu Ja I ______
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code.requirements: •cs't
A/\S) ^Axfho^ ea'P ^ MjA'Jt. znAcfT/ Ajrjakhyni^_____ <9"f f AoAJ<- 7^/^/^ 4J.
/
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
REQUIRED ^SUB>UTT.\LS
All of the foliowing information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in
order for votfr application to be considered complete:
1.
2.
j.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Completed Application Form
Certified Propert>- Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you
must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin Count>- Depanment of
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 ‘/i" x 11" for
reproduction.
Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in e.xisting
grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11" for reproduction.
Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11").
L'st 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 owncr(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 Cit\' 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.
APPLICANT S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff lime 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.
Date S ^Applicant's Signature
OWTS’ER’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 y
Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 ..ays before the Planning
Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held c v <r ‘hird Monday of each
month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled revie. mee ings of the Planning
Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend 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
RUN BATE Oa/SS/H BATCH 502raOR AOOR OtCR NAME TAXPAYER
NAHE/AOOR
PROP ADOR
0»tCR NAME
TAXPAYER
NAHE/AOOR
PROP AOOR
ONNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/AOOR
SB 0B-117-2S 13 0004 01105 TGMRANA RO JOHN 0 MILLER A WIFE
JOHN 0 MILLER
5000 UNIVERSITY AVE N E
MPLS MN 55421
SB 08-117-23 13 0006
01140 TONKANA RD
R A K KYLE
RICHARD A KATHLEEN KYLE
1140 TONKAMA ROAD
LONG LAKE MN 55354
38 00-117-23 13 0017
01185 TOtlCANA RD
M T RENARO AOS RENARO
H T RENARO ADS RENARO
1185 TONKANA RO
LONG LAKE MN 55354
HEMCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY IhVORHATIQN SYSTEM PROPERTY OrOCRS LIST38 08-117-23 15 000401180 TONKANA RO R E EN6EBRETS0N ET AL
RICHARD E EN6E0RETS0N
1180 TOTKAHA *;0
LONG LAKE N4 55354
38 08-117-23 13 0004
01120 TONKANA RO
J A A BENDT
JOHN G A ANNE L BENDT
1120 TOrCCAHA RO
LONG LAKE MN 55354
38 08-117-23 13 0018
01205 Ta«AitA RO
THOMAS H SMITH A NIFE
THOMAS H SMITH
1205 TONKANA RO
LONG LAKE MN 55354
REPORT NO. P14SS401PAGE 4SB 08-117-23 IS 0007 01140 TONtANA RO R K HOLLAND A E aiLLIVAN
RANOY HOLLAND/ERIC SULLIVAN
1140 TONKANA RO
LONG LAKE MN 55354
38 00-117-23 15 0014
01145 TONKANA RO
0 O ADAMS ARK ADAfS
DANIEL OSCAR ADAMS
ROXAFM K ADAMS
1145 T0I4CAHA RO
LONG LAKE m 55354
TOTAL BATCH 502 00008
I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS 0/TE ON THE RECORDS
OF THE HENNEPIN COtWTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST
OF HY KNONLEOGE AND BELIEF.
DATE a
* \ 1!tTV
t\ •
V..
ni. .'r
^ ^ rv
f f 'iV*. • .7.V
w I ^ I
v>
r"''>
sr-^
%
/'' .< j j
t,Jw~«
Adjacent Property Owners’^^cknowledgement Form
I (we)
[prim name(s)] [print address]
have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located
at //8S 1^'w7iS»4j»- /2/ also referred to as Land Use Application No.________.
I (we) understand that in e.xecuting 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.
Property Owner Date
Property Owner Date
******♦♦♦♦•*♦•••*••*****♦**•*****************************************'*********
I (we)Qm A.l/hrus of kA
[print name(s)][print address]
have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located
at //$S also referred to as Land Use Applica.ion No.________.
I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) uot 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 impro\ement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s
project or use requires Council approval.
Property Owner Date
Property Owner Date
If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use
Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days
prior to the scheduled meeting date.
/O o\
A
r
x>
i:^iV''cr
ClTYofORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO_____305 3
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2,
PILE #1699
ffHEREAS, Michael Renard (hereinafter "the applicant")
is the owner of the property located at 1185 Tonkawa Road within
the City of Orono-(hereinafter "City") and legally described as
Tract B, Registered Land Survey #853, Hennepin County, Minnesota
(hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a
variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1
(B) to allow construction of an addition to the existing
residence located 1-1/2' in front of the average lakeshore
setback line and a variance to Section 10,22, Subdivision 2
seeking approval of a hardcover variance within the 75-250'
setback area of 122 s.f. or .5% over the allowed hardcover of
5,707 s.f. or 25%.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
Orono, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1.
2.
This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1699.
The property is located in the LR-IB, Single Family
Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 1 acre
in area. The property consists of 28,405 s.f. or .65
acres.
3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this renewal
application on November 18. 1991, and recommended
approval of the average lakeshore setback variance and
hardcover variance of .5% within the 75-250' setback
area based upon the following findings:
A.The encroachment of the average lakeshore setback
is minimal at 1-1/2' and will have no negative
impact on the lake views of the ad ja ^ent
residences.
B.There is no hardcover in the 0-75' setback area on
the property.
Page 1 of 4
//o o
^ i.
■A i > ■' ' A
CITY of ORONO
•/RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. _ _305 3
C.The proposed total area or size of the residence
structure is consistent with the size and area of
surrounding residences on adjacent lots of similar
size.
D.The existing bituminous drive and backout apron
are required to maintain safe access to the
adjacent County road.
4.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 variances would not adversely affect
traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard
or other danger to neighboring property; would not
merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or
difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial
property right of the applicant; and would be in
keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code
and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
5.The City Council has considered this application
including the findings and recommendations of the
Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by
the applicant and the effect of the variances on the
health, safety and welfare of the community.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the
Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning
Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) that would approve the
average lakeshore setback variance of 1-1/2' for the proposed
addition and approves a hardcover variance to allow 5,829 s.f. or
25.5% hardcover within the 75-250' setback area, subject to the
following conditions:
1.Applicant shall remove a shed consisting of 168 s.f.
within the 75-250' setback area. Such removal to be
confirmed by the Building Inspector at the time of the
footing inspection for the new addition.
Page 2 of 4
CITY of OHOXO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. _ _3053
2.
3.
At;*:hr*'It^.es granted by this resolution run with the
property not with the applicant, but are permisyive
only and must be exercised by application for a
building permit within one year of the date of Council
approval, or this variance will expire on that date
(December 9, 1992).
Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms
and conditions of this variance shall constitute a
violation of the zoning code, shall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be
punishable as a misdemeanor.
The undersigned applicant has read, understood and
hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on
behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns,
hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in
the chain of title of the property.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono,
Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of December,
199/
4.
Barbara A, Peterson, Mayor
Property Owner(s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
ss.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on
this 9th day of December, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson 6 Dorothy
M. Halim, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota
municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf
of the City.
1 . LINDA S. VEE
1 notary public - Minnesota
^ HENNEPIN COUNTY
My commission expires 9-l2>96
J.
Notary Public
Page 3 of 4
//Q'O
A
%
V> .A ^ 4*' ' : > U ^
GITYofOROXO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 3053
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) 8S.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of rx^fl «»»•» A <»■-199/
before me a Notar
appeared
y Public within and for said county, personally
_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _T fCunot'ti_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
eSoI^SgSgSf.
‘‘SmSSmw^.
liV NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this /C ^ day of />1 «-i _ _ _ _ _, 1995» before me
a Notary Public w^-thin and for said County, personally appeared
Ocbor^lh. A"t^’ riA rA known to me to Le the~_____ ^ ^ § _M * - ^ J ^ T _____________________________________________________________________________
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.
CO‘'^Fnission
Page 4 of 4
RESOLUTION #305?
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 _ _ _ _ _December 9_ _ _ _ _ _ , 19 91 , 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 sat my hfind and seal this
10th
(SEAL)
CITT OF ORONO
mm USE FILIHG IHFORHATIOH
Prepared By: Carol Hastings, Secretary
to Nancy E. Husnik, Legal Assistant
Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd.
May 12, 1992
The following is a recap of the resolutions submitted to this office
which have been filed with the Hennepin County Recorder’s Office. The
resolutions are enclosed.
RESOLUTION
(enel.>
3026 ^encl.l
3072 (end.)
3086 (end.)
3088 (enc1.>
3089 (encl.^
3095 (encl.>
3096 (end.)
3108 (end.)
APPLICANT'S
F
Judd. Thomas A.
Craiobank Associates
Davton. Judson M.
Gibbs. Edwin & Tracee
MacMillan. Whitnev & Betty
Citv of Orono
Pansier. David
Brantinqham. Henry
Eisinoer. Howard F.
DATE
FILED
04-29-92
04-29-92
04-29-92
04-29-92
04-29-92
04-29-92
04-29-92
04-29-92
04-29-92
DOCUMENT
3ER_
5905857fA>
5905858(A)
5905849fA)
5905854(A)
5905856(A)
5905855(A)
5905848(A)
59Q5850(A1
5905853(A)
The following enclosed resolutions were submitted to us for filing with
Hennepin County. These are for torrens property and arc not accepted for
filing:
Resolution No. 3053
Resolution No. 3065
Resolution No. 3071
Resolution No. 3106
Michael Renard
Christopher J. Smith
C. Arnold Carlson and Darlow Madge
Lawrence W. & Arliss A. Gadbaw
35NEH
SSjJHr • *mi;-:'C
• •
m
■
A
'i- '
li
p/ *'1
f-P-
}'= li,.{•yrJ
'i rA
/ art P -r
•
0 . tel I
mi
fffrfrilj
^ v
l^'r ► :i.', i^l
!A i:
-"'V<-» i> {
i!'
h'M
:<■»'. r •
^«ir.
'fl'b, .
• pI •'. -II
V :•■ ______1_____
4 -------— — — rrrT-arr. — ‘ -T.-r—pism^• i-
y^V j* ;
: \'Mr» • » •
L*« . ‘i
m#J>
• 1
1
S*.
i^-1* ‘i‘ ‘ --,_ifcm_r.T.‘ "‘....mi’-r.
i ‘. » ' ; .
■-
'^■\V- w
ilfffHi
il:Ni!ss
MM
SF'ji
K 1:1
h\'
S' - .
h fipm
iii':
T r • • •
i-- : •:
vA ; i.-.•*, «
vi -1'
k'--:* / *•
♦ - J
/'^'k
.!
I.
• i
I
«t
t;'>v^
• t
\
I •
I
Ii-V
ftoot;.- friA^TUo \'-o*k->;■
r : :•
if f •’ *■■••*?I * « »• M »
:■ ■ i>;i"TjljSj jJ .-it'i- 15-/,
-. : iS' ''.«4'life I
i^i:-IKt-".'!
iimmf|
M*.r /
— •! * M-
ir
• • M. ...
» - ^
\
•^s!
•. •
r^u ^it
M
I Va
I
U
i.< -•.
t
UIVIN6 MU K
L
1 .
►r 0 • r*^ ..♦ .
\
%'
\,
4--i
MM
V ’ ^«»«} *•
I;:
•1 n
iff U ■
•ni:
»
\
X
.V
7 . tiutt
f' ■
li'
|:«S
•I » - ? •rti
'4
PtMUlt p«>M
i:mw§kaf
r*
:<V : ^
z
.w' ‘■■i^ '^ ^ -_piA^;ri
1 -'imz.-.O-r d--:-... t
• '-'TT'*
I •', I* ,j'
/-
fti
w*
i
.4;
■ \
■o
I *.
1! r
r^o
I.
.)
....... .......... z".
1
-N
ih
.1
li
i'
• «4- ».«•
!.
SIS
tJ.irj f I/S'/ecca3-6 j M •3-<H ■ iI&-6
f\l ,-Vr
/hi ^ Jn;« 'i**'
'
...
)4i-
/i'f :<J
fa
^
«
r •J^'.!
I f
\
f!
► ^
• •*
/g =»
• • ••
r:--•... ••
■* » * •• •
• «.« « •«
A;1
. ____o»»ff
••***■ •
Vinyl SltJinx^
\
i I
• a •
i t/li
LJ
DESIGN
\:•|i U •♦' I8W8CC^irj 3*6 7
IS-6
''ii’;’i -I 1
•ir*
y; •'
• - »;
\;>
MAIN ^1
bcoU '/y'W
MM • •> •
2-OA1..'
;
2 35 ^ cs
—/ • f
1* ••
'f 1
.e t
.,.. ■»$
AGES Lcus lOM .eoi
P. 0. BOX tl3'S(VAXZATA, MN 55301
I
\
u
1 1 • •ELEVATIONS5>c<i /e ^,? K fVi'/•.V.■i ■;
____ f»t»^Sfo*«C • ’ •
•v
LAKE
v*o 1-6ae ir 6-G 3-0 *(-o 3-0
V
\
mp
JCStCCl
'I
o
BATH
•^ESZi
'ji
\
-»-8
• I
vmKjri
»I
S
4 <?•A
5-<o
4* - • •‘5-*^ ■••• *? • •• ./* r .n«-
3
DW
----a-
4
CL^
■r • — T- - —
V... V___
1
b* ^MASTKI*
P.(-T'ROCM
!- - ui ■ -
€
1^
fVilccI iBHca
• i
12-0 3-0 /V-'/2-0 2-2
4
f •
---+
.. V__V—
\30SHCOIIr4 ;30SKCI~:.‘ V;.:ai.ri.l y in. |i ?''30S‘/CC/IJ 0'. .j. .
. LIVING
2 • // Ailcfo !T
/
Pitnk^ui
un //* ,
A1 •» f« / i% • 1h
r ** Ic'lU ••f be lokv .A •
>1 —t.-*.
I
y
»s
--itj r; *t •*
|i“ ^
-. _ 1 t
*>’
• ■» • ,
i* ♦ ' ••
oed bta »y»i y. . \L':»»w4
V'tr.
I vii Hcccssftd ,. Micio
,1 MecesvtrJ
/
\
d)-.
\
dI nTng
rco
..n '■■■pT
r.. .■;••• -., \
.»,l ».1 • -.-1
i m •• *'•
/
O'
/5>\
.>
. 1
To:Chair Lindquist and Oronc Planning Commission Membeib
City Administrator Moorse
From:
Date:
Subject:
Michael P. Gafifron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator
September 11, 1996
#2159 James & Joann Jundt. 1400 Bracketts Point Road - Variance - Continuation
of Public Hearing - Rev ised Proposal
This item was tabled without discussion at the August 19 meeting at the applicant's request. The
applicants have revised the application by proposing to remove the boat house rather than reconstruct
it. The review should focus on the proposed stairway, retaining wall and grotto restoration.
: j?'
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
473-7357
ZONING HLE #2159
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION
DATE OF NOTICE: August 20, 1996
TO;James and Joann Jundt
1400 Bracketts point Road
VVavzata. MN 55391
COPIES: Kraus-Anderson Construction
Midwest Division
P.O. Box 158
Circle Pines, MN 55014
.Attn: Scott Crawford
Tom Crosby
Faegre & Benson
2200 Norw-est Center
90 South 7th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances
DATE OF MEETING: 08/19/96 VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AtJAINST
Planning Commission recommends the following:
Tabled for reasons noted below.
NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
Tabled at applicants' request.
Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as;
Planning Commission, Monday, September 16, 1996; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m.
If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available
from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission.
TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse. City Administrator
FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning Sc Zoning Administrator
DATE:August 14, 1996
SUBJECT; #2 159 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road - Variances
Public Hearing
Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 2 acres, unsewered.
Application: Request for lakeshore setback variance and 0-75' hardcover variances tor restoration
of existing boat house, grotto and lakeshore stairway system.
List of Exhibits
A - Application
B - Plat Map
C - Property Owners List
D - Survey/Site Plan
E - Site Plan Enlargement
F - Construction Plans
G - Hardcover Calculations
H - Photos
I - Floodplain and Wetlands Management codes re: nonconformities
Summary of Request
Directly east of the residence and at the shoreline of this property exist the following amenities:
Limestone rock stairway leading down the lakeshore bank; a second, narrower
stairway also exists approximately 100' north.
Circa 1930 "boat house", approximately 12'xl2 ‘ used for storage only
Retaining wall and underground "grotto" room, approximately 12’xl6' plus
5'x6' entry.
Applicants propose to do restoration work on the two stairways, interior cosmetic remodeling of the
grotto, repair of the adjacent retaining wall and major renovation of the boat house.
Discussion
The stairway directly east of the house is on^ of four stairway systems that provide access to the east
shoreline of the property, which is approximately 650’ in length. The other stairway systems include
a stairway to the dock at the southeast comer of the property; a short segment of stairs centrally
ry pc-
I
■4
#2159-Jundt
August 14. 1996
Page 2
located just above the shoreline and about 150* south of the boat house; and a narrow stairv\'ay
traversing the slope approximately 100* north of the boat house, and which is virtually hidden and
unused at this time but also proposed for renovation.
The work proposed on the stairways is relatively minor in nature, and includes leveling and resetting
the existing stair slabs, plus replacing the existing metal handrails with a new decorative cast
aluminum handrail. The hidden stairway further north is also proposed to be leveled and reset. It
appears that with some minor work near the shoreline the northerly stair system would connect to
the flat terrace area on which the boat house is located (see Exhibit E).
Secondly, applicants propose to make major repairs to the existing "boat house". This structure is
in poor condition, likely due to a failing (or lacking) foundation. The proposed work includes:
- replacement of existing shingle roof with new cedar shakes and new eyebrow
window'
replace and modify virtually all existing windows and doors
- replumb existing structural frame and reclad with new clapboard siding
- pour a new concrete floor
- add a new concrete step
After discussion with the Building Inspections Department, it would appear to staff that this structure
is being virtually rebuilt from the ground up, absent saving the interior framing. This building is
actually not a "boat house" in the sense that it would shelter a boat, but is merely a small storage
building. It has no apparent architectural significance. City codes regarding such non-conforming
structures limit the degree of allowable repairs to 50% of the building’s value at the time it became
non-conforming (1975 or earlier). I this case the needed structural work would api^ar to
substantially exceed its current and former value (old City assessor's records do not even list this
building, much less establish a value for it).
The grotto structure is of a somewhat different character, how ever. It is essentially an underground
room, built into the hillside and faced with a rock retaining wall. Its ftmction has not been discussed
bv the applicants but the work proposed for it is mainly cosmetic, including.
adding stucco interior wall and ceiling panels
adding a decorative light fixture
- restoration of existing wood doors
restoration of the existing stone retaining wall
I
#2159-Jundt
August 14, 1996
Page 3
Hardcover
Applicants' hardcover calculation worksheet indicates that the vast majority ot hardcover in th: 0-75
zone (including the east shoreline and west shoreline ot the propertv ’) is in the public roads and
driveway entrances. The existing stairways, boat house, etc. account for less than 1% of the 0-75
zone.
The hardcover calculations also include some entries which are confusing, such as showing an
additional 250 s.f. of driveway, as well as varying numbers for patio deck, pathways and additional
retaining wall. It is not clear from the plans where these hardcover increases are intended to take
place. Applicants or their representative should clarify the hardcover calculations. Statf has left a
message with the project manager requesting clarification of the hardcover calculations.
Issues for Discussion
1.Given that the Shoreland Ordinance does not specifically limit the number of 4’ wide
stairways that can be placed on a property, but realizing that more than one such stairway per
property may constitute excess hardcover, does Planning Commission have a concern about
the number of stairway systems serving this property?
Since the existing stairways traverse the slope at an angle rather than running directly to the
lake, does Planning Commission feel there is any justification to have applicant reroute the
stairways more directly to the lake? Or, is the potential visual impact of direct stairways
lessened by allowing them to angle through the wooded shoreline?
Is there sufficient hardship demonstrated to justify the nearly total reconstruction of the
12'xl2’ boat house, given its deteriorated condition and lack of architectural significance?
Are the mainly cosmetic changes to the grotto area and restoration of the adjacent rock
retaining wall of any significant visual impact?
\\hile applicants have not proposed removal of any vegetation related to this project, what
veizetative screening might be appropriate to add. if any, to mitigate the impacts of the
retaining wall (or the boat house if proved)?
WTiat specific hardcover increases are proposed? Are they justified by hardship? Is there any
hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone that can be removed to result in no hardcover increase?
J
1
1
#2159-Jundt
August 14, 1996
Page 4
Staff Recommendation
If Planning Commission finds that the restoration of the sta.nvay above the boat house/grotto and
restoration of the stairway to the north are justified by hardship, perhaps for both safety and to
provide reasonable access to the lakeshore. then a recommendation for approval of the stairway
restoration would be appropriate.
It is staffs opinion that it would be difficult to make the necessary findings of hardship to justify
allowing the existing 12'xl2’ "boat house" to be restored. Please review the nonconformities section
of the Floodplain and Wetlands Management ordinance (Exhibit I) which applies to those areas less
than 15' from the lake. Section 10.55~ Subd. 26(B) states that "no structural alteration or addition
to any nonconforming structure over the life of the «:tructure shall exceed 50% of its value at the time
of its*becoming a nonconforming use ..." The existing structure has been nonco^orming since at
least 1975 or before, and the proposed construction will certainly exceed 50% of its former value.
Finally, if Planning Commission finds that the cosmetic changes to the grotto and the restoration of
the adjacent retaining wall are supported by adequate hardships, then a recommendation tor approval
may be appropriate. Planning Commission should address whether hardcover removals are
necessary.
Options for Action
1. Recommend approval as proposed.
2. Recommend approval with conditions.
3. Recommend partial approval.
4. Table for further information.
5. Recommend denial, stating reasons.
6.Other.
E ■
Application # ^ I ^ ^
Date Received ^ —^C~'
AJiount Paid !C 0 •
CITY OF ORONO - VARLANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee S220.00
(S50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee S120.00 ^ ^
(no change from original application) ^ -v
GTM A-
Variance for non-confonning stncnires
.After-the-Fact Fees (Double application
PROPERTY r^FORMATION
Site .Address 1400 Bracketts Point ?cad
Procerr.' Identification Number (P.I.D.)—3-OQQ l
Amch kgal' description to appiication if not included on required surrey.
Date Property Acquired '-larcri 1992 --------------------------------------------—
I (do) (do nori also ov,-n tnc adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of property: •< residential -----^other (spec. ,).
Zoning District:
applicant Kraus-Anderson Construction
_____Conpany, .Midwest Division
Phone (home).
Address:____P.O. Box 153
Phonefwork^ (612) 78 6-7711__
Citv! Circle Pines______—5‘^flilA
OWTsTR (if different than applicant)
Name James and Joa nn Jundt
Phone rhome^ (6121 473~9524
Phone (work)___
1400 Bracketts Point Pcad_ City:_Qr2ca Zip: S=S391
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S.
Describe request in detail: Rescoration vacrit to
'".M .con. ^ri1f ('•■mro ffi.Ut Prtriaili
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARLANCES required
Lot .Area _Lot Width
X Setback:Front Side
Hardcover
Rear
Lot Coverage
Average Lakeshore
Other (specify)
HinndHlP/DESCRIPTION OF LTNTJSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
**^cribe^mdue hardshio or oractical difficulty or unusual proFcny conditions preventing
co"X.cr"^i zoning- Code reguiremenls: BcaUiouse. ^Gcocto_^ -
Stone Petaining Wall are in dairaced, broken and unsafe condition ano pa
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
required SUB iVOTT a LS
-•v
•>'I
crihmirtprl hvThe aoi^Tcatl0nT3eadlin'e'dateJn XU r>f the fnllnwing infnrmanon sunminea g ,iy«F ayyu------si-i*
order for vour apolication to be cf>n^idered coropietej.
1.
7
X
j.
Comoleted Acolication Form
Certifed Procer-.- O^vT.crs List of o^v^tcrs vvithin 150’, hoels ond plat map (you
must obtain 'this list, labtis iod map com Henncpm Counr.- Dtpartmtnt ot
Fin3PCw Oov*t Owiic^r, —^ 1)*
Lruncato of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and mciude hardcover
calculations as requL-ed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S-: x 11 for
Topocaoidc'sur.ev (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in e.xisting
S^'are orcccsed. In addinon, provide one (1) copy 3'/f x II" tor reproduction
Sketc-es or plans of rlcor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8.i x 11 ).
List of the iLal names (mciude marital status) of all persons with an mterest m
the prooerr/ 'this would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owmer(s).
Is aTTddendum 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 starf. (Ph
ITEMS HAVE BEEN PRE-.TOUSLY SL-3MITITD TO -reE Cm OF OROiO.
me ,5^ant and Prope.-ry Owner must sign .Ms appiication ""cMd^rT
P.
6.
7.
8. X
The ADDlicant ana rroccrcy wwi.ca -s-*-------. • i
annlica.t-'n I< no, comole.e if the above informatinn ha; hpr beep
Tte’eMklu Lre^^i^ees*^ provide all L-nbrmation required or requesteo by the ZoMg
AdmlVstrator agrees to' pav additional fees (staff ti.-ne not covered by ongmal tee
"crultatlt expenses incurred in review of this application and cert.fies that the
information supplied is truecorrect to the oest of his’her knowledge.
Applicant's Signature
true ^a correct to oic ucat.
Date
Tne owner herebv acknowledges and agrees to diis appiication and firther au&onzes
entrv onto the ptooen;.- by Cir.- staff, consultants, agents. Commisston members, an
members for purposes of investigation and venfication oi this request.
Owner's Signatur Date
i iv,n, r,.Kt have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Pluming
CorLssion Meetina. Planning Commission Meetings ate heid on the third °
„on'* AoDlicants' must be present at all scheduled review meetmgs of the
r ‘^inn and Council If an acpiicam is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, p
^raTgemel 10 ^:^ authotked agent anend n yom place and to advise Me Butldmg
& Zoning Office of this cnange prior to the meeting.
S
I
■ ft
UUli DATE 0S/2A/1SIOATCII 00^iiimtPiu coumy vnoi'ERn luronitAUon SYstrii pnoPERiy omens iisr Ktl'UHl IIU.PACES8 11-117-25 52 0009
I.
PROP ADOR 0««R IIAIIE TAXPAYER tIAME/AOOR OlAOO DRACKETIS POItlT ROJ R JUMDT I tlARY J JUttOT JAMES R JWlOr BOX 1CRYSTAL DAY III 55525
PROP AOOR
OIIIER tttllG
TAXPAYER
IIAIIE/ADOR
30 11-117-25 52 0017
01500 ORACKETTS POINT RO
GEORGE S PltlSDURY ET AL
GEORGE S PILISOURY
AOOO FIRST DANK PLACE
MPLS »tl 55'»02
PROP AOOR
OIICR HAMC
TAXPAYER
IIAIC/AOOR
50 11-117-25 55 0001
01420 ORACKETTS POINT RO
J R JOHOT a H J JOIIOT
JAMES R JUIOT
OOX 1
CRYSTAL DAY It! 55525
PROP ADOR
OiaiER NAME
TAXPAYER
MAIIE/AODR
50 11-117-25 55 0006
01500 ORACKETTS POINT RO
MARTHA S a A LACHLAN REEO
MARTHA S a A LACHLAN REEO
1500 ORACKETTS POINT RO
HAYZATA III 555H
58 11-117-25 52 00100126S DRACKETIS POINT RO MICHAEL E LYNN III a HITE MICHAEL a JORJA LYltl 111 1265 ORACKETTS POINT HAYZATA III 55591 50 11-117-21 52 0011Ol'iZO ORAU.tilS POINT RO J R JUIIDT a M J JUMOT JAMES n JVJNOT BOX 1CRYSTAL DAY fH 55525 •50 11-117-25 52 0010
01220 DRACKEMS POINT RO
ELLA P CROSOY
ELLA P CROSOY
1220 ORACKETTS POINT RO
HAYZATA It! 55591
30 11-117-25 52 0019
01200 ORAEKETTS POINT RO
JOHN S PILISOURY JR ET AL
JOIHI S PILISOURY JR
4000 FIRST DANK PLACE
MPLS III 55402
*^Li
38 11-117-25 35 0004
01450 ORACKETTS POINT RO
MARTHA S a A LACHLAN REEO
MARTHA S a A LACHLAN RCCO
1500 ORACKETIS POINT RO
HAYZATA III 55591
30 11-117-25 55 0005
01400 ORACKETTS POINT RO
R a L HEADRICK
ROGER L a lYial C HTAORICK
1400 ORACKETTS POINT RO
HAYZATA III 55591
Total datch 004 00010
T rroTtrv THAT THE TACTS REORTSENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE ANO TRUE
Stmslm.nw ?r «s tt .prE»n. i.us ohe
or THE HCtniEPlN COUNIY OEPARlMEIir OF PROPERIY TAXATION, TO Tilt BEST
OF MY KNOMLEOGE AND BELIEF.
DATE • •
{■') C< 1
It)5
i,)
(•;
nmf 4
^iV/rv/'' 1 ! '"'A/////A \/ A \I\V ;i
// //\; 'A ;; • 11!
i/ ;n : V /('■ :Wr
J » • I •
• > I I I t
^ i/i r-
r^
t/1
,V|t a “ro rt oes
Vt# fTo.g.
o
Ei o 2 z o
X
I
0
1
Z) —< zO
rn
tDCO o
sPX m > Sen z F|- o
0:0mmc;s
z
00 m
z z ^
ajcD^
*PS
m
"8i
0 -«T1
ZOmQ ;o mmU1 2)
0
-H
^ 2Tn l /%o^i^m
/ AN
.■^ 2
LA)
CD 5
'"•m
0 z? »o
Om
2:
p“i;:d
>
=^gO X) U3
9 3=S8
o
rM
O
s
Oo
?xc:
- < —I
2i/>
o
z
2
oozo:om
01
11"
8§Sj!l5§fe-
3g§™
;a _iO
O fc c S 2- O
5S2|
5s:s^gwo
O Cl —<
I
u 2 z
-i) >
go‘^
C
mOS
3n^>§
rn tr> _4
I Og8
;u i) uj
in-JI'Itz CJ u
in • I-
•x‘8^"
;;: O f n
I') X
? 9 ^^sy0=»>0
i°s
•f. ^z8 = 3
1/1 , ^
nj '
m
iz :*! At z orn
°^c-
y z 'x ’
m^in
aj ^ zJ
S c~i z 9mO
*f i/.5 ala
2: 2SiR
mi/i
-i' :*
.* •^^- C L|
i-
)
4
%
■n
r
setback ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)
HARDCOVER C.\LCULATI0N WORKSHEET
250-500'-5j 75-250’
EXISTING HARDCOVER TN ZONE
A. House Boat x
Lenfth Width
B. Garage
X
X
X
C. Driveway (Public)
D. Sidewalk (Stone Steos)
X
X
X
X
E. Patio/Deck
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plasnc
G. Other
X
X
X
A
TOTAL HARDCOV'ER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
21.557.5 B 130,834 X 100
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A. House Boa±____________ *
L^nsth V^ldth
X
X
X
B. Garage
C. Driveway (Public)
D. Sidewalk (Stone Steps)
E. Patio/Deck
Pathways
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G. Other Retaining Wall
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOT.AL PROPERTY .AREA IN ZONE
21,939 B 130,834 X 100 «
13
500-1000*
196 S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
20.591 S.F.
S.F.
525— S.F.
S.F.
245.5 S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
21,557.5 SF.
130,834 S.F.
16.47 %
196 S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
20,591 S.F.
250 S.F.
525 S.F.
S.F.
187
160
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
21,939 S.F,
130,834 S.F,
16.76 /O
.A
B
A
B
^, »
■^Iv.
r- ¥T
'•T
stfV- ••■’• -Tii' -y'^-
.^-*
'
w ^ ^ ^
-#4
7* ■'
kl'r^
2*fI
* *'-«*i - ■*•'
ry
O
txy
O'<n
<%«'r»«'4
<o
o>
oc
i. ^
=Sk.
L
=?rr?y. i>-v ..jdL
• • -g^ /^ m. J
L'ast Shorolino
'Juiidt Hesidcr.ee - 1996)
ili:
5.V' <t'-
!Zxist.incT
(Jui jcit Ro
m \ mr «
, • • 'i i
' r.. >V.3*:^ .. «7
.^Tr|
-- ^ Vi-** -t P • * f
. . ■ ia
i ' I ^
^ •
/
i
fr, i
-M
iWiWWr «t»N' i
■ ’ V . .V i
■'J'f ‘.v'
:T'
■> ■ <y>
Wf - : ■ - !
■ o.
^ \
- •'4* - ‘ •
V- ^ '. - .* • •
^ V ' '
^''■ - .;. •- . : . .\- 1
'\V • - • • Vl_
y-
.'•« . -
_■».
—>■<
1- ^
.. ./-I**r.Vi
' M- * ■■#'
i^^Tr . 2.
. *: 'f
' /<'-
t-
* ^-0^
I ^
^ ' ’ 9.■ i iT.*
• ^ . it
— %
1. ^
•^^5" Tv-
V>'^. '
V> • .*.
■''rp^:*'r#r.#-> .»<•
mf
.. -•
- - ‘S '
-m>" ^
, / f ' k
*•.
' ’r
■ >*V
, ?%•
‘ » i.> v ,
“-1-V ’ '5T
ili
■ \ 'J&^;
S'.
hAiMt-:
, - i?—
*’ ’ (1*-. ?j3SX'wiOii'-
\m^. .'r.
• •trijr'
I
f »
r
o- o
5 rl
f#
2 <
i *J
'v- V ^-'2
■
ry=' ':
'■ f
•/ ^
V ,
' '■1
- '•^'i -^. ^
. -J. *
7
• r 1-': .. r# . .'*,
>- .■ -^'?,;rr,#SMil
ii< »
... /- >V.
. n.
^ .
■tiv•'W
I • V
m- r.
^ t*
>< rr>
'■ *->!■
!■ fV'.fiii>
\
- ; . »'. • '‘:-.-''*^V-:5iKv.vt‘ / <•'
:.. <- ^ '> • ■ ■ . •* ■•■’ •: •■ . t>.>
■ I->:istir
H (Juiidt
tBC9DE3B3u!n
■it*
I->:isting Boathouse - Scutii Elevation
(Jundt Residence - 1996;
?jRS3awgc«V^.^ :
‘•■7;fe?'-'
.’ 'C <
“■ *^.•>.* ' • ■ :zJ
-r .'■
' -•# ■; -' ■ ■ ■
- • ^ /
ffi >
W
^istLng Bcathcusc/East Sherd mo
(v-‘undt ."tesidor.co - 1996)
•,-w^, m.->-
': ,W '■ '
• V.
1'4
?rl''
ft '> ••
'’‘xV-
■S'*'
«<^ .f.
,< ", .V ./*• a . • ^
I • ^ .»^ ♦ "jA '
• ' *• J - '
t ;
/NtKV-
.* .4^ ' %^ itL •. fti*‘ Ir '"I# j
J
s 10.55
Subd. 26. Non-conforniing Uses. A structure or the use
of a structure or premises which was lawful before the passage or
amendment of this Section but wnich is not in conformity with the
provisions of this Section may be continued subject to the
following conditions;
A. No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged
or altered in a way which increases its non-conformity.
3. No structural alteration or addition to any non-
conforming structure over the life of the structure shall exceed 50
percent of its value at the time of its becoming a non-conforming
us^, unless the structure is permanently changed to a conforming
use or unless the alteration or addition would substantially reduce
potential flood damages for the entire structure.
C Any alteration or addition to any non-conforming
use which would ‘result in substantially increasing Its flood damage
potential shall be protected in accordance with Subdivision 14,
Subparagraph E of this Section.
D If such use is discontinued for twelve
consecutive months, any future use of the
conform to this Section. The assessor shall notify
Administrator in writing of instances or non-conforming uses which
have been discontinued for a period of twelve months.
E. If any non-conforming use is destroyed by any
means, including* floods, to an extent of 50 J
assessed value, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity
with the provisions of this Section. However, the City issue a
conditional use permit for reconstruction if the use
outside the floodway and, upon the reconstruction, is adequately
flood proofed, elevated or otherwise protected in conformity with
this Section.
F Uses or adjuncts thereof which are or become
nuisances shall not be entitled to continue as non-conforming uses.
G Except as provided in Subparagraph E above, any
use which has been permitted as a conditional use shall not be
considered as a non-conforming use.
H. Non-conforming uses located in the Floodway
District shall be eliminated or brought into conformity with the
standards contained in this Section within a reasonable
time as determined by the City, after a hearing for each sue
conforming use. The Council shall make its determination upon the
basis of^the normal useful life of any improvement upon the
premises. In addition, the monetary value of any competitive
Sdvantaqe derived by the operation of such non-conforming use, by
rtTsr^lt the Ti ini tat ion on establishment of competing businesses
7
ORONO CC 375 (4-1-84)
L0.55
irged
non-
5d 50
:ming
:ming
»duce
rming
mage
1 14,
e 1 ve
shall
>ning
«;hich
f any
f its
rmity
sue a
:a ted
ately
with
‘Come
uses.
, any
3t be
5dway
n the
od of
non-
n the
1 the
itive
e, by
esses
S 10.5S
as a result of this Section, ^„t°Srterm1.n*a\i^in*of use
losses resulting from the requirement o£ ter
undsr this Section.
The flood plain designation on Subd. 27. Amendments. The r xo ^ plain areas
the official maps shall not e in error and that
unless it can be shown that ^ the regional flood and is
the area is at or above the e nlain Special exceptions to
contiguous to lands outside t e ^ commissioner of Natural Resources
this rule may be permitted measures, lands are adequatelyi?\e determines thst '^hj°“gh other mea^su^^^^^^^ section
4°end^entrrthe^ o^^flcial %"^o
Wot “^cUg^^ irt^VSLl maps also require prior approval
by the Federal Insurance Administratio .
subd. 28. s“oticn''shairbrheld°to “be
:?S^^^“rt°qulrfmen?rL^d“ril be U
the City and shall not b®/*®'"®'! ® “s The boundaries of the
Other powers granted by State ^ ^y scaling distances on
Flood Plain Districts shall be determ as to the exact
the official maps. Where gtrict as shown on the official
location of the boundaries to be a conflict between a
maps, as f°t ®xample where there the
mapped boundary and /.t®_;tation based on elevations on the
shall make the "'^tessary interp t t person contesting the
reaional (100-year) flood profile aiven a reasonable
location of the district b°“ndary submit technical
opportunity to present his case to
evidence if he so desires.
subd. 29. Abrogation °/3®®'^”ro\\“e^''o''r Tm%ir
not intended by this Section,tjs^ lasement, covenants °-^^®®f
existing ordinancer r g . this Section imposes grea
?e%\Vi^c?^.^nrthero:ls^-s “Srt^^^^^^
Subd. 30. Warning and /lood^plain d^istticts
section does imply that areasfre® f
or land uses permitted wi section shall not create
flooding or flood damages. Thi . employee thereof for anyon the part of ^b®J^tty °r any officerjr^ ^P ^y
lec^si^n^^wfully made thereunder.
Source: Ordinance No. 213
Effective Date: 1—11“79
ORONO CC
376
(4-1-84)
1-34)
::
TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator
DATE;September 9, 1996
SUBJECT; #2168 Todd and Donna Rooke, 4190 Highwood Road - Variances - Public Hearing
Zoning District: LR>1B
Lot area = 11,994 s.f. or .275 acres.
Application: Applicants seek approval of a hardcover variance within the 75-250’ setback area to
permit construction of a 12'xl6' main level deck at the west side of the residence. The following
ordinances are pertinent for this review:
1.Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C) - Review of structural coverage.
Total lot area = 11,994 s.f.
Allowed “ 1,799.6 s.f. or 15%
Existing = 1,370 s.f. or 11.4%
Proposed = *1,562 s.f. or 13.07%
♦Shed = 105 s.f., house = 1,265 s.f, proposed deck = 192 s.f
2.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover.
A. 75-250' setback area = 4,775 s.f
Allowed = 1,194 s.f or 25%
Existing = 2,626 s.f or 55%
Proposed = 2,626 s.f or 55%
No change is proposed.
B 250-500' setback area = 7,220 s.f
Allowed = 2,166 s.f or 30%
Existing = 574 s.f or 8%
No change is proposed.
C.Total hardcover
Proposed = 3,200 s.f or 26.6%
3.Section 10.25. Subd. 6(B) - Review of side setback.
Required = 10'
Proposed = 10.5'
No variance required.
Zoning File #2168
September 9, 1996
Page 2
aring
reato
►wing
List of Exhibits
A - Application
B - Applicants' Addendum
C - Plat Map
D - Property OwTiers List
E - Floor Plan
F - Survey
G - Staff Sketch/Possible Alternative for Garage
H - Topographic Map
Review of Application
Review Exhibits E and F, applicants propose a 12'xl6' main level deck to be installed over an
existing aggregate patio area at the northwest comer of residence. The addition of 192 s.f. of deck
area still falls within the allow'ed total area of stmctural coverage for the property, proposed at 13.07.
Existing hardcover in the 75-250' setback area is at 55%. 192 s.f. of hardcover improvement
becomes more permanent. No additions or reductions in hardcover are proposed within the 75-250'
setback area. The structure meets all required setbacks of the LR-IB Zoning District.
Refer to Exhibit B, applicants note the proposed deck is really a replacement deck. The former deck
was unsafe and has been removed. Applicants further note the proposed deck is smaller than the
previous deck.
The applicants’ addendum also seeks direction from the City regarding the placement of a future
garage on the property. On your inspection review development along the north side of Highvvood
Road. You will note one single stall attached garage "Jid another single stall detached garage. None
of the substandard properties along the north side can support a double stall garage. Applicants'
property is even more restricted by the severely sloping topography to the west (review Exhibit H).
The only portion of the property that could support a garage with access from Highwood Road is the
eastern portion. Applicants may be able to construct a single stall attached garage at the southeast
comer of the residence. Refer to Exhibit G, a 10'x20’ single stall garage could be placed over
portions of the existing residence, 8' wide stoop and 18' of existing drive. Such an addition would
require side, street and hardcover variances.
Refer to Exhibit H, applicants’ residence lot is the most western of the properties served by the cul-
de-sac road. Any future variance application for a single stall garage must provide detailed
information on existing improvements within Highwood Road. Applicants may need to provide
additional guardrails at end of public road. The City Engineer and Public Works Department will
have to work with applicants to ensure safe use of both applicants' revised drive and public right-of-
way for back out maneuvering. Applicants should be advised that there is no guarantee that the
required variances would be approved by a future Council.
Zoning File #2168
September 9,1996
Page 3
Sfafement of Hardship - Refer to Exhibit B
1.Applicants note the limited size of propertv’ and inability to acquire additional land in 75-250*
setback area.
2.1,364 s.f. of hardcover improvements within the 75-250' setback area consists of retaining
walls, exposed aggregate and rock over plastic. The majority of the improvements are
located within the west yard where the topography is at its steepest. Landscape plastic and
aggregate rock help to reduce erosion.
3.
4.
5.
The structure meets all required setbacks.
Structural coverage on the property will not exceed the allowed 15%.
The proposed deck is smaller than deck that existed on the west side of residence,
Issues for Consideration
1.Should existing or proposed hardcover improvements within the 75-250' setback be removed
or reduced in area?
2. Other issues raised by Planning Commission.
Options of Action
To approve as proposed or amended. Applicants to provide an amended surv ’ey locating main level
deck with building permit application.
As for the applicants' request for conceptual direction concerning a proposed funire garage, a single
stall attached garage may be feasible and that portions of the garage would have to be located within
the existing residence structure. Structural coverage would not be of issue as applicants have 238
s.f. of structural improvements available. The single stall garage must encroach any closer to the
east side lot line at 3.5'. The City would have to consider side, street and hardcover (75-250')
variances but there is no guarantee of future approval.
1
t •Application ( 6 S'
Date Received 7 - ^ ~ f'G
Amount Paid ^ J?. 'z 6 -Oci
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $220.00 a n
($50.00 per each additional variance) I«1
Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 '
(no change from original application) •
Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
•' 1
*^1 V •
i ^
4
»
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Site Address U - h , Ir •* >• ^ I V
Propcrt>' Identification Number (P.I.D.).
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Property Acquired----------------------------------^(month/year)
I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.
Present um of property" X. residential ___other (specify)
Zoning District;_____________________________________
APPLICANT
Name i ^ ^ ^u ^ r-
Address: \ '1 <- M.- -‘x..,V
Phone (home ) V 7 2 M
_____ Phone (work )
Cit\': ihfeS ___________Zio: ^ ^ Ui
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name_______m -f'
Phone (home)
Phone (work)_
Address:Cirv':Zip:
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Describe request in detail: ___
Estimated Construction Cost $
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area ___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 propert>' conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ------------------------------------------------—
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
1
i
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
All of the following information must be submitted bv the applicarion decline date in
ordtr for vour application to be considgred complete:
2.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Completed Application Form
Certified Property Owners List of o\^"ners within 150', labels and plat map (you
must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of
Finance, A-603, Govi Center, 348-3271).
Certificate 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 e.xisting
grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11" for reproduction.
Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/i" 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.
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 atid correct to the best of his/her knowledge.
X Applicant's Signature Date // -
OWNER'S SIGNATURE
The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable
entry onto the property' by CipJ^'^aff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council
members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request.
/^^Owner's Signature Date
Applicant must have all submittals into ihe City offices 25 days^efore the Planning
Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on theUhifa 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 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
Attachement 1
for
4190 Highwood Road Variance Request
(TJ)•c^
ii
t:/ ;-- - ^ . .
A--r..*
J
- w
Wc have a mo part request. It would be acceptable if the>’ require separate variances to
be executed independently. Both parts relate to hard cover.
PartL
The replacement of the deck on the West side of our house. The replacement deck is
plaimed to be considerably smaller, ho^^•ever it would not affect the hard cover from the
perspective that underneath the deck is exposed aggregate. The replacement costs are
approximately $700.00. The deck was not safe for anyone to walk on since the day we
purchased the house. See attachment 2
Part n.
We are looking for a recommendation from the city as to the location and size of a garage
which could be placed on our lot, wliether it be attached or detachted would not matter.
mMi DAfe 07/WMBATCH SOIPROP AOOR CSMER HME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR Sa 07-117-2S AS 0007 0A201 NORTH SHORE OR B H MEITZEL-MARTWETT BETTY H MEITZEL-HARITCTT 4201 NORTH SHORE DR HOUEI »fl 55S64
PROP AOOR
OfCR NANE
TAXPAYER
NAHE/AOOR
SB 07-117-2S 4S 0010
04199 NORTH SHORE OR
UNITED CH HOSP ASSH
FAIRVIEH HOOP ASSN
2S12 4TH ST S
MPLS MN 554S4
PROP AOOR
QMNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/AOOR
SB 07-117-23 44 0021
04175 HIQHHOOO RD
MERLIN L HALVERSON
MERLIN L HALVERSON
4175 HIOHMOOD RD
MOUND HN 55364
PROP AOOR
ONNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAHE/AOOR
SB 07-117-23 44 0024
04190 HIGHHOOO RD
T A i D M ROOKE
TODD A DONNA ROOKE
4190 HXGHHOOD RD
MOUND MN 55364
PROP AOOR
OHNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADDR
SB 07-117-23 44 0027
04166 HIGMkIOOO RO
HAL DEVAAN
HERBERT A LORETTA DEVAAN
17605 SUSAN DR
Hlrt4ET0^KA MN 55345
PROP AOOR
ONNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/AOOR
SB 07-117-23 44 0044
04175 NORTH SHORE OR
ANN MARIE MAXFIELD
ANN M MAXFIELD
4175 NORTH SHORE DR
HOUND MN 55364
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY IHfCXHUTTON SYSTTH PROPERTY OHNERS LISTSB 07-117-23 43 OOOB 04203 NORTH SHORE DR F G HAHTERA ACL HAHTERA FREDERICK HAHTERA 4203 N ^iORE DR MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-2S 43 0011
04199 NORTH SHORE DR
UNITED CM J!OSP ASSN
FAIRVIEH COMMUNITY MOSPITAL
2312 SO 6TH ST
MPLS MN 55454
3B 07-117-23 44 0022
04195 HIGHHOOD RO
M A FI^t<EY A S J FINNEY
MARK A SARA FirPlEY
4195 HIGHHOOD RO
MOUND MN 55364
30 07-117-23 44 0025
04182 HIGHHOOD RO
AF24-LOUISE RESSLER
AF9I-LCUISE RESSLER
344 GRAY ST
UKENCCD CO 00226
38 07-117-23 44 0028
04150 HIGlUr^OO RO
TC»« B GRArroSTRAfD
TONI B GRANDSTRAND
4150 HIGHHOOD RO
0R0T40 M 53364
38 07-117-23 44 0045
00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ANN MARIE MAXFIELD
AIM M MAXFIELD
4175 NORTH SHORE DR
MOUND MN 55364
REPORT NO. PI4S5401 PAGE 1SB D7-117-2S 4S 0009 OOOSB ADDRESS WASSIQNAB UNITED CH HOSP ASSN FAIRVxEM HOSP A^2312 6TH ST S WLS MN 55454
3B 07-117-23 43 0012
0003B ADDRESS UNASSIGNCO
HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND
CITY OF ORONO
PART OF ROAD
SO 156925 9/5/BO
SB 07-117-23 44 0023
00038 ADDRESS U4ASSIGNE0
JULIUS C IIALLUN
FAIRVIEH IWSPITAL ASSN
2312 S 6TH ST
MPLS MN 55454
i i? I
5 V '''^ I /
'“■K-
58 07-117-23 44
04174 HIGHHOOD
H B DEVAAN ALE
G D DEVAAN A J T
4174 HIGHHOOD RD
MOUND MN 55364
0026
RO
DEVAAN
THACKER
> $
30 07-117-23 44 0043
00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
A.*^tl MARIE MAXFIELD
ANN M MAXFIELD
4175 NORTH SHORE OR
MOUND m 55364
38 07-117-23 44 0046
04191 riORTi: SHORE OR
LILIA;4 Ai40ERSOe4
LILIAN AKOERSOt4
4191 NORTH SHORE DR
MOUND MN 55364
«UN DATE 07/M/9A MTCN SOI ICfOKPIM CCUMTV PNOKRTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNEf» LIST REPORT NO. PfiSfMl PAGE 2 APROP AOORTAXPAYER
NAME/AOOR
50 07-117-23 A4 DOTS 00030 AOORESS UNASSIGTCD HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF OMMO
STREET
A/V70 ST DEED 134053
30 07-117-23 44 000301535 HlOMXXi U ERICK 6 A UURIE S CELMS
ERICK G A LALHUE S CELMS
1535 NICNMOOO LA
MOUND m 55344
Total oAttH 501 0QQ20
N * <V
m-
r ^
/- : ’A
L-' 7
■ U ' *-• V. f I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESErJTEO ARE Af^ ACCURATE ANO TRUE
REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS
OF THE IIE^»«PIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST
OF MY KNONLEDGE ANO BELIEF, . , J • ' ^ •
.T/a^lmt. M mki)DATE
rr
r a' h, u-»f
'•■•<-■'■•
: M
/i*.- ■• •“ • •.5
r
r “•
nv'.
f ^I 7
PccK
^ •
, .i
7>.o
U'
» '1
* *1
#
- <
1
!••' ^ V J
1 4/ r l-l<7
r \\\
. ~rj
h \\V M £X!>r.^«- pccK
?ro?dS^s> i>€^^
-i • ■
•V
^■r
w
•‘ i ,r
v-r ■
I
X-^
i X
\"*\J
V
To:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Conunission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator
Date:September 10, 1996
Subject:#2171 Minnegasco, a division of NorAm Energy 530 Old Crystal Bay Road
North - Renewal Conditional Use Permit - Public Heanng
• T 10Q«; thf. rin-cranted a one year conditional use permit to allow Minnegasco
AppUcation: n C . 8 ^ ^.^^zer providing an additional g^
r^ouree to the nolvest Lake Minnetonka area, Mi.megaseo had gm^
asked for a five vear extension (original live year CUP issued in IWU).
Applicant has filed for an additional one year extet^.on with^he hope^of
peimancnt withdrawal from the facility in the spnng of 1998. The tollowing
ordinances are pertinent for the current review:
oThJ^^d -S-er
months.
Required setbacks:
A. Street setback adjacent to residential zone
Required = 75'
Proposed = 75'+
B Rear setback
Required = 30’
Setback from rear/east property line = 100
Required side yard setback (1‘/. times the height of the tank at
approximately 15')
sST^sefback adjacent to residential used portion of industrial
property = 40' from tank to truck location
Residential used structure on subject property is over -60 fr
proposed operation.
Section 10.61. Subdivision 5 (C) - Vehicle parking areas must meet 5'
side and rear setbacks and 20' street setback.
/
Load
Zoning File #2171
September 10, 1996
Page 2
Section 10.50, Subdivision 5 (1) - Outdoor storage fencing is required for
proposed use.
A. Minimum fence height
Required * 5*
Existing = 8'
B. Type of fence
Required = 50% opaque
Proposed = 50-100% opaque (fencing consists of cyclone fence
with wind screen defined as open tyjje)
List of Exhibits
Application
Applicant's Addendum
List of Projects
Plat Map
Property Owners List
Cook Letter 12/26/95
Description of Portable Vaporizer
Resolution No. 3663, Approved 1/8/96
Planning Commission Minutes 10/20/95
Merger Information on NorAm with Houston Industries
Location Map
Site Plan
Elevation
uik at
neet 5'
Review of Current Application
Minnegasco has filed for an extension of one year to permit continued use of the portable
vaporizer at the temporary facility in Orono's light industrial park for 1996/97. During the
1995/96 review, the City advised applicant that they were to seek a more permanent solution
to address the gas supply needs of the northwest Lake Minnetonka area. Review Exhibits B
and C, Mr. Pilon's letter notes that several of the projects listed in the 1995 review have either
been completed or commenced, specifically plans to reinforce gas distribution mains along
County' Road 6 with the upcoming County road improvements. Pilon advises that additional
gas supplies &om Northern Natural Gas Company have been requested at an increased delivery
pressure at their Minnetrista delivery point. He notes also that Northern Natural Gas expects
to have additional gas supplies at higher pressures available in the 1997/1998 heating season.
Zoning File #2171
September 10, 1996
Page 3
It is their pkn to remove the gas vaporizer and restore the site during the spring of 1998,
noting that if the vaporizer is still required after the 1997/98 heating season, they will work
with the City and surrounding communities to find a new location for the vaporizer unit. Refer
to E.xhibit J, applicant has submitted additional information on the merging of NorAm with
Houston Industries to be completed at the end of the first quarter of 1997.
Usage levels of the vaporizer are reviewed as follows:
'92-93 season 3 times
'93/94 season 4 times
'94/95 season 3 times with 3 standbys
'95/96 season 19 times
During the last review, the Police Chief and a representative of Fire Department advised staff
of their concern with their lack of knowledge of the operation and potential danger should a
mishap occur. The Fire Department lacking any knowledge of the operation would not be able
to provide adequate coverage should a mishap occur. The Police Chief has been present at one
of the early morning hour fillings and advised staff that it was conducted under adequate
supervision and noted no problem with the operation. In the past year as with the previous
five years, we can report no mishaps or traffic problems. Although applicant seeks to extend
the temporary use of the vaporizer until the winter of 1997/98, Council may only wish to grant
a one year conditional use permit during the phase out period of this operation.
Options of Action
Planning Commission may adopt the findings and conditions of the previous resolution, refer
to Exhibit H. Members may also wish to make a recommendation as to the duration of the
permit whether it should be granted for one year or until the spring of 1998. If the permit is
extended to the spring of 1998, applicant must be placed on notice that the City will approve
no further extensions.
-f. 1 i Application #i/7/
.1 id ^ Date Received
^Amount Paid /^Cf. eXJ
fi-*m
MGC #1126
OUP)
CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION
PROPERTY LOCATION
Site Address 530 ni.n CRYSTAL BAY ROAD
T%-pe of Application to be Filed CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RENE^
Property Identification Number (P.l.D.)----33-118-23 13 OOli---------
‘^^w'^negasco, a division of NorAa Ener&i^ PiiqW (work)----
TtLj 1 tv Ml - MN ZiP 5 5 A AQ— L 163Address 700 Linden Av W. Box 1165 __ -----MinncapQIi&i i:xix
612-321-5426
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name vci capital, inc
Phone (home)
A,LHr>.cc 2765 '/AYZATA BLVD Citv
Phoneiworki 612-476-2637_____
ORONO_______ Zip
Date Property Acquired---------------------------
I (do) (do not) also owr-n the adjacent parcels ot land.
(month/ycar)
FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS -
S 75.00 For each variance request wth CUP application
' SI75.00 Residential Accessoiy Use
5250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.)
5225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments
” S200.00 Duple-' Credi'yBldg
” S300.00 Comi„crcia’ Industrial Use
” $250.00 Land Alteration ^ •
Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplam
Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more
Grading, seaw-all, retaining walls within 75’ of lakeshore
XX
PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule
$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application)
After-ihe-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee
OTHER APPLICATIONS , r %
5250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant tees)
5300.00 Vacation
5200.00 Easement Vacation
$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision
“ $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - reter to fee schedule)
$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
$100.00 Appeals
Other - see Fee Schedule
PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY
Present Zoning District INDUSTRli^-----
Present Use of Property---------Residennal XX Other (♦spprify'^ INDUSTRIAL
I
2.
3.
4.
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
Comcletcd Application Form.
Describe ^uest 350-, labels and plat map (you
lisu labels and map fatn Hennepin County Dep«m«nt of
information. i:f nnt included on required survey.
l"“:r? r srrsi..
persons you %vish notified of this application.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
^ -w • — — ^
YOU ARE
sX™” (S™n .0 scale dtawlngs of all documents, plans, etc. to be
submitted.)
Certif.cat.on by Clerical Department that Land Use Appli^ion is complete.
Initials of Clerical Staff. —-------------- ^
—“ “information supplied is true and corrw
.A.pplicant's signa'
Date oj'^-
OWNER’S signature ^ . . ^oolication and further authorized
•n.e owner ci^ staff, consultants, agents, cotnmiss.on members,
"d c“t.l rmbers for p^ses of invest.gauon and verification of
Date
eSing & Zooing Office of this change pnor to the meeung.
ta
t,
i.
imnneg
iMEffGY COMFMY
August 22, 1996 USJ
• i
fc*» . . • J,
Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth
Building and Zoning Administrator
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Orono, Minnesota 553232-0066
Re: Conditional Use Permit Renewal
Parcel 33 - 113 - 23 - 13 0011
530 Old Crystal Bay Road
Orono, Minnesota
Dear Ms. Mabusth:
In my letter of October 25, 1995, requesting a five year extension
of our conditional use permit for the operation of a portable
Iiq\iifi0d natural gas vaporizer at the site along Old Crystal Bay
Road, I stated that our plan was to use the vaporizer for two to
five years as a backup until we completed a project along Hennepin
County Road 6. At that time the application was amended to require
an annual renewal with an update on projects.
Since writing that letter several critical details have emerged.
The list of projects that I included have been completed or are
under construction. In October, 1995, Minnegasco purchased a
sophisticated computer program for modeling portions of our natural
gas distribution system. In January, 1996 a system expansion and
modeling team composed of senior engineers, supervisors and gas
supply managers was formed to study areas using the new modeling
prograun. The system that supplies natural gas to the Orono area
was among the first to be modeled. The modeling showed that we not
only have pressure problems but also supply problems as well.
Minnegasco plans to reinforce the Orono area from the west with
additional gas distribution mains along County Road 6. Other
orojects are also being developed. (See attached list.) These
projects are expected to be completed over the next three years.
Minnegasco has requested additional natural gas supplies from
Northern Natural Gas Company at an increased delivery pressure at
our Minnetrista delivery point. Northern Natural Gas expects to
have additional gas supplies at a higher pressure available to us
for the 1997-1998 heating season.
Projects currently being developed in other areas of our system
will also have an impact on the Orono area. A reinforcement and
operating pressure increase along County Road 10 in New Hope and
Plymouth will indirectly provide additional pressure to one of the
main system supply points at County Roads 6 and 101.
700 West Linden Avenue
P.O. Box 1 IGo
Minnenr>oli.s. MN 5.>I40-1 Ifo
•m
i
IT
WEST MINNETONKA AREA REINFORCEMENT PROJECTS
Increase operating pressure in pipeline frOTi delivery point in
Minnetrista along County Road 6 to Townline Road.
Install new 8" pipeline from Townline Road to old Crystal Bay Road.
Install 6" pipeline along County Road 110 to parallel an existing
4" pipeline.
Install new 8" pipeline from Old Crystal Bay Road and County Road
6 to County Road 6 and County Road 101.
The expected cost of these projects is $2,500,000.
I
f'-tiS. V RUN DATE Oa/Zl/M•?-‘‘'^?fROR AOOR *,Q»R€R NAM 'iTJWAYIi/nmc /aoorft .
l‘!®
PROP AOM '
*^-p»f«R NAME
'SWXPAYER ‘
|frMME/4RPR
K ■ .
•'is* • ' • ■ .
• • •■ •• •
W AROR •
‘*^2 OfMIR HMC
STAXPAYER :•4tS'T'
&
M /SS-1IS-2S 12 0002 027M KELLEY PKHY COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTN NAfICZA HILDA H/C 014 TKANSIT A REAL ESTATE S H STREET LEVEL HC OOVERNNEHT CENTER
»
Tv r •sa ss-iia-2s is ooii
02741 HAYZATA SLVD N
VEDA INC ETAL
VEDA INC
PO OOK S7S
tOHQ LAKE m S5S54
Sa SS-110-2S U 0014
0272S HAYZATA OLVO H
VEDA INC
VEDA INC
PO aOK S75 .
LONO LAKE m S5S54
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATIQN SYSTEH PMPtRTY Q»t€RS LISTsa SS-11S-2S 12 oooa02745 KELLEY PKHY NILLGN PROPERTIES HILLOM PROPERTIES C/0 ALBERT B YN6VE 1021 IDAHO AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY fH 55427
la 35-11S-23 13 0012
00450 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N
VEDA INC
VCI CAPITAL INC
PO BOX 375
LONG LAKE NN 55354
30 33-110-23 13 0015
02405 HAYZATA BLVO H
HASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC INO
HASHIN6TQN SCIENTIFIC IND
P 0 BOX 340
LONO LAKE Hi 55354
I' / H IREPORT NO. PI435401PAGE 21 ^
.Vv"
PROP ADOR
f, 0*#«R NAHE
K J-i;«TAXPAYER^/Aoop
tA. •• .T-.-
t ■ * # • . • S , ^ •
50 53-110-23 24 0001
00545 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N
ROBERT N HAGNER ETAL
ROBERT HAGNER
545 OLD crystal BAY RO N
I^ONG LAKE NN 55354
¥ •
,» ¥
• » t N •*
•/#» ■ .V ■
^ ‘ V'■**
l.-J- ' •*•
i’iW
se 53-U8-23 13 OOOE 0EAR7 HAYZATA RLVD M DUANE R JACOaS DUAIC R JACOBS ZA05 ^AVZATA CLVC LONG IP/.E S53S4
38 33-118-25 IS 0013
02A0S NAYZirA 8LV0 H
VEDA INC
VEDA INC
PO BOX 375
LONG LAKE m brSSA
38 55-118-23 21 0002
00A85 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N
SCHOOL DIST NO 11
ANOKA-HE(MEPIN Z S D NO 11
11299 HANSON BLVO N H
COON RAPIDS MN S5933
' ft % r* *wy ■ ■■■ii
58 33-118-23 29 0002
00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO
JOANN R FROST TRUSTEE
J0AM4 R FROST TRUSTEE
S21 N HXLLON OR
LONO LAKE MN 55356
TOTAL BATCH 508 00011
I CERTIFY THAT THE FACIS REPRECCNTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS
OF THE HE^tCPIN COUNTY OEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATIffJ, TO THE BEST
OF HY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF.
DATE
■ r:'rP
■ .. ■ • .. • -,V I' i*i..
1^ I Bonestroo
Rosene
Ancterlik &
I Associates
Engineers & Architects
Bm tewoo tosenc. Antterm Jnd AuociMs. u
Otto G te«wsfroe P E
Robert W Rosene ?E.*
^epn C Anderti*. p E
Marvir L SorvM P E
fficnjrb E Turner. P E.
Qicnn R. Cook. P E.
Thomas E. ^toyes. P E
Robert a Schumcrw. P E
Sus^ M Ebeiiin. C P A*
* Scn«of Consultant
December 26. 1995
NowarO A Sanforo. P E
Keith A Gorbon.. PE
Rooe«^ R Pfefterie. P E
Rtchard M* Foster. PE
Davto O. Lostota. P E
Robert C Russet. A i.A
Jerry A BourOon P E
Mark A. Hanson. P E
Mtchaei T Rautmarm. P E
Ted K Field. P1
Thomas R. Anderson, A f A
James R. Rosenmerkel. P E
Dorsaid C. Burgarot. P E
Thomas A Syfko. P E.
Frederic J Stenborg. P E
srr^ae» Marttnez. PE
Michae' P R lu P E
Thomas 'JV Peterson. PE
,n Afftmiatfve AcbdfVtdual Opportunity Employer
Michael C- lynch. PE
James R Matand. P E.
Jerry O PeftKSCh. Pf.
Scott J A/ganet. PE.
Kermecn P Anderson. P
Mare R. Rolfs. P E.
Mare A Se«o P E
Gary dr Monen. P £.
Pam J Gannon. A.lA
Dante* X Edgerton. P E.
A. Rick Schmidt. P C.
Dale A Grove. P I.
Philip J CasweR. P t
Mark O Waiiis. P E
Miles B. Jensen. P E
L Phillip Gravel. PI
Karen L ^JIFlemen, P E
Gary O KmtQtiti. Pi
Bnan K Gage. P E
F Todd Foster. PE
Keen t. vapp. p £.
Douglas J. Senoit. P E.
Shawn O Gustafson. PE
CecHio Olivier P E
kerf J A'agner P E
Paul G Hewer. Pf
John P Gorder. P f.
Oan O. Boyum. P E.
Jeffrey J Ehfennger. PI
Joseph R. Rhein. P E.
Lee M. Marm. PE
Chanes A. Enckson
Leo M. Paweisty
Harlan M C»scn
Agnes M R<ng
James F Engc>^ard!
Ms. Jeanne Mabusth
City of Orono
P.6. Box 66
Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066
» 1
•>.
i^r .—•j
Re: Liquified Natural Gas Site
Old Crystal Bay Road & TH 12
File 139-gen
!
DEC 2 £% «• w
Dear Jeanne;
The liquified natural gas collection site on Old Cry stal Bay Road south of TH 12 should be
reviewed for any potential hazard to the surrounding neighborhood as discussed. The Police and
Fire Departments need to be aware of this location and protection procedures if an emergency
condition occurs.
The Gas Company should be requested to provide location, history and accident information on
other sites. The continued operation of the site should be based on a review ot all factors by the
Cities Emergency Service group.
If you have any questions please contact this office.
Sincerely.
BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. LNC.
:x7
Glenn R. Cook
GRC:rb
2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636*4600
(5
DESCRIPTION OF THE PORTABLE LNG EQUIPMENT A PROCESS
Minneaasco desires to provide a stand-by supply of natural gas that
will orecludrsupply problems in the Orono area during extreme cold
periods Thirstand-by supply involves using » BortfIs l.puid
natural gas (LNG) vaporizer to inject gas into the distribution
sysZm during periods of high demands under extreme cod
conditions. The need for the equipment is temporary, however, it
will be necessary for three to five years.
Minnegasco’s portable LNG Jther°an°LNG tamker°
?^r;rpoi-iVeV SeU^s ^"a%:;^^''Ya;’f%;\^h%°rNG^ r.n'^Tr ‘^o^;
^Slds7d"e°'^;aV wht'ch is connecte^ to bi
svstem Before cold weather strikes, the LNG
brought to the site. Minnegasco oVeconnections. The vaporizing process will begin before 5.00 a.m.
and be complete about 9:00 a.m. When tne ’* '“T’the iitedisconnections are made, and the l-NG tanl<eT ’s driven off the si^^^
The vaporizer remains on site to be utilized in the next cold
weather.
During operations Minnegasco employees will be on
Sse. Security patrols will visit the site at irregular intervals.
There will be very little noise generated by this equipment
5I?ono sitL Any nc > . will be much less than tne noise caused by
passing traffic on wid Crystal Bay Road.
The Dortable vaporizer was used in Spring Park during the
heating season. The equipment is currently Minnegasco s
Dakota Station. Dakota Station is Minnegasco s large LNG facility
located on 11500 12th Ave. S. in Burnsville.
CITYof <»ONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 3 6 6 3 ^
PER MUMCIPAL ZONTSG CODE
SECTION 10.50, SUBDIVISION 3 (A-7)
HLENO. 2087
LO. B,oc. 1, van Dale Addi.ion, Hennep.n County, Minnesota (here,natter
the "propem-”). and
t. oiii^ fnr a renewal application for a conditionai
WHEREAS, the applies has Subdivision 3 lA-7) to permit an
^^en’ir^;.-"Xlt uscTa pXhle hpuid natu;al gas vaponaer for five years
________ ,rr<n V.. eUa TitV CoUncU Of
Minnesota;
sow, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
fcndlngs
This application was reviewed as Zoning File =2087.
The property is located in the Industnal Zoning District
iUC -- .
r u nmnn Planning Commission reviewed ttie
ap;iic"%ro?-='and 're'contntended approval based upon the foP.ov.ng
f.ndings;
The proposed use is a permined conditional use within the Industnai
Zonir.g District.
The existing use has been found to ',‘^ha«'beS^ materially
public health, safety or general weliar and has not had
fnjurious to properties or progenies because of I's
a negauve impact on the the last four wtnte.
United schedule of use wuhm the wtnte. monin
seasons.
Page 1 of 4
i
• . « %
/y
CITYof ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 8 6 6 3____
c.
In 1990 the Citv etamed a conditional use permit tor nve years for the
levd of use and found there were no repons of any demment proposed 1 there
'^dmce of deorec.at.on of the surrounding property values and that the
^ r.hn facilitv since 1992 has been conducted in keeping wth tne
“menf t'd “^^nef of the Zotung Code and Comprehensive
Management Plan of the City.
The City CouncU has
recommendations safety and
by the applicant and tne cnect c. inc
welfare of the community
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
3.ed upon one or
S-dr^era^crali Hner^ Corporation
Cnh"± oSerTf.^ sIS^^Tt'o
1.
cold winter months.
,t Shall be .He responsibility of the o VC th^Ci.^
^frf4;1” use permtt shall be null and void.
Tne applicant shaU be responsible for the complete restoration of the site at the
time the proposed use is to be discontinued.
This temporary conditional use permit is q{ Orono \vithin
Applicant must resolve permanent service ^leeas
that period of time as there is no guarantee that J ^ ^ ^,3^^
condLnal use permit for an extension ot the use at this location. PP
Pase 2 of 4
i
i
*<•
ATTEST;
GITYof OROXO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO 3 683
shall be resDonsibie for ads-isiog the City prior to the oeadlme of thts cond.t.onal
use oermit' as to the status of the improvement project along County Road 6.
If it ts found that the supply needs of the area are not met and that the use ot
a ponable liquid aas vaporiaer ts stUl needed to sere e the cotnmumty that the
Ciw will ask applicant to seek a more suitable location for tins potentially
hazardous facility
Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this
resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code,
terminate any authonty granted herein, and shall be punishable
misdemeanor.
The undersigned representative of Minnegasco. a division of Noram Ener^
Corporation'and the ovvner of VCI Capital. Inc have read, understooa and
Lebv agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of Mmnegasco and
VCI Capital. Inc., its successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of
this resolution in the Chau* of Title of the property
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of January, 1996.
/ / /.'
Dorothy Nl. ^^aUTn, City’ Clerk Edward J Ca^han, Jr., Mayor
/
SI.H5n^prescr.j.,ve'of VCI Capi.aiT.nc
Page 3 of 4
&A
CITYof ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ^ ^ ^ 3______
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY >vas acknowledged before me ™ jhi* <iay of
“oZ'a “ora “al'cn'oran^'^d'aid^ oxe'cmed'on behalf
of the City.
JAMIE L BOSMA
NOTAflYPUBUC-MINNESCTA Si
HENKEPIN COUNTY )
MyCcmnwssion£n>«« J»t 31,M00 IV Notary Public
state of MINNESOT.A. )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
) ss
.. n^a . r / 19Q(ie before me a Notaiy Public within and for said
On this XL 0^__hrhc^iJU-------' ^ r yarn m / X,o
S.rr^^e^sify ^berin^d rJho eycurk .^■rore^^m.n.men:, and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free ac. and de .
CAROLE A. HASEMAN »
NOTARY PUBUC-MINNESOTA »
HSINEPtN COUNTY K
My Comtnuion Eniifcs Jan. 31. 2^00 ^
Qrf 'rJ.’, 0
NOT.ARY PUBLIC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
r. H «HW nf Ju.vu.n.x.— 199k defore me a Notary Public within and for said
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as ms (their) i ee ac
orgggigggjgggggZggXSBBBKBBBXeStStBg^
JAMIE L BOSMA S
Jf
-r-r
J/Mvm; ouonnn
NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA S
r.y HENNEPIN COUNTY
^ ‘/vCar;n"Won£xcires Jaa31.2000 \
f) r/u
NOT.*UlV PLELIC '
j /t
Pace 4 of 4
»
#
4
VfTN^JTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETCs’G HELD ON NOVEMBER 20. 1995
(#11- #2086 Robert and Janice Callan - Continued)
Peterson moved. Smith seconded, to deny approval for application #2086 as it was his
on to denv all wetland applications Smith said she saw no compehng beneSt to
S°"his step and saw ,he tme advantage in keeping the wetland as ,t now ecsts Be^
Vote Ayes 3. Peterson. Smith, Berg; Nays 2. Hawn. Lmdquut. Motion passed
for denial.
Smith said she saw the drainage benefits as comparing apples to oranges.
Berg said she saw the application as being for aesthetical rather than environment.-!
reasons
Georae Strcknev commented that the Planning Comm.ss.on has approved a *aiu^g pond
lew’here and here. Peterson responded that this area .s a designated wetland. Mabusth
said the pond Stickney was referring to was a type 1 wetland.
i*?n87 MINNEGASCO, 530 OLD CRV’STAL BAY ROAD - RENEWAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING - 11:00-11:07 P.M.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication w ere noted
The Applicants were present Representing Minnegasco were Rick PUon and Jerry
Kallstrom.
Peterson asked the applicants why a permanent fct could not
County postponed the CoRd 6 project and asked the gas company to do the ^e. It
possiWe that a permanent solution could be scheduled for ne« year but has asked for
renew al of 5 year permit instead of asking for a 2-year extension.
P,lon said the existing feeder is west of Townline Road, and the low P««ure syst^'S
east of Townline. The purpose to to bring gas from the high to the ow are
and present an independent leg.
Lindquist asked if this would eliminate the need for the facility'. Pilon said it would and
needed one >ear to verify that.
f«Tto" octtd
area He said the project is an insurance plan to ensure gas outages do not occu .
lyyj, *+ tunes in tuiki J luiis-o lit ^ .......................- -
there has been any complaints or concerns. Mabusth said there has been none.
25
(#12 - #2087 Minnegasco - Continued)
There were no public cornments.
Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application «087 as submined with *e
conduon that if the lease if not renewed, the vaporizer could not remam^ Won noted that
the lease with the lajidowtier is bejig renewed on a vear-by-year basis. Vote Ayes 5,
Navs 0.
(#13) #2089 RlCa.\RD MILLER, 4520 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCES -
PUBLIC HfLARLNG - 11:07-11:15 P.IVI.
The Certificate of Mailing ard Affidavit of PubUcation were noted
The Applicant was present.
Gaiiron repotted that the application is for lot area and width variances for the existin^g lot
the front lot width is 4% short at 287 ’ where 300* is required, Gaffron noted the 5 acre
zoning was created in 1975 when a majority of the residents indicated they preterred 5
acre zoning to maintain the large lot sizes, Gafiron said there are very few small vacant
lots in this zone.
would come from CoRd 6, Septic testing has been done, and a site is available for a 5
bedroom home, Gaffiron pointed out the likely building site.
Gaffron questioned if the City does not grant the variances, does the ow.-r have any
reasonable use of the property. He noted that the assessor has giver the property a lower
value compared to buildable Iocs Miller has paid 55,000 in taxes over 20 years.
Gaffron asked if constructing a residence on this 3-1/2 acres dry buildable (6, acre tot )
lot would change the character of the neighborhood Gaffron commented that w | ®
owner bought the property, the property conformed to the code ot 1 acre zoning. er
noted he is considering building on or selling the lot, and when the vana*ice is approvea,
may cause the taxes to increase.
Peterson commented that the codes do change but noted the uniqueness of this property.
MiUer said the homes and lots going towards CoRd 6 and Hwy 12 from his property are
smaller.
26
‘>41.
Energy CORP.
T. Milton Honea
Chairmi^n of tne Board. President and
Chief Executive Officer
Mtnifvfc,
iL
August 12,19%Ti
'3 //
\ %
< I
Dear Public Official,
Permit me to apologize for this informal communique, but 1 felt, in this case, immediacy
was more important thcin sU’Ie.
I wanted to advise vou that Nor Am Energy Corp., which serv'es your area through one
of our subsidiar\' companies, has received a proposal from Houston Indi^tries
"klcorporated toVquire the stock of Nor Am and merge our companies. Our Board of
Directors has evaluated this proposal and unanimously voted to accept the offer and
submit it to NorAm stockholders for approval. This was announced on Monday,
August 12.
Although I don't anticipate this consolidation of companies will affect, in any way, the
service we are privileged to provide your community, 1 wanted you to have the details
of this proposed merger. I have taken the liberty to enclose with this letter a copy of the
press release announcing this event. I have adso included fact sheets and other data for
your information.
The local gas distribution compiuues, which are NorAm subsidiaries, will retain their
separate identities and organizations. This combination offers excellent potential for
enhancing customer service and for providing a wide range of new value-added
service.
The information I have included provides significant details on all aspects of this
proposed consolidation. If you would like additional formation, please contact ou^
loccd representative. VVe will keep you informed of significant events as we proceed.
Cordiedlv,
end.
1600 SMITH STREET • P.O. BOX 2628 • HOUSTON. TEXAS 77252-2628 • PHONE 713/654-5931
A
*
/
£?
r;* 1
J J
' *
I ?i
i 1
News Release
Contacts:
Houston Industries Inc.
Dan Bulla (investors), 713-207-3120
Sandy Fruhman (media), '^13-207-3123
For release:
August 12,1996
NorAm Energy
Randy Burkhalter (investors), 713-654-7502
Ellen Orsbum (media), 713-654-5930
Houston Industries Incorporated Announces
Agreement to Acquire NorAm Energy Corp.
Houston, August 12-Houston Industries Incorporated (NYSE: HOU) and NorAm
Energy Corp" (NYSE: NAE) today announced that they have signed a definitive
agreement for Houston Industries to acquire NorAm Energy in a transaction valued at
$3.8 billion (consisting of $1.4 billion of debt and preferred stock assumed by Houston
Industries and $2.4 billion for common stock). The combined enterprise will have a
total market capitalization of approximately $14.3 billion.
Under the terms of the agreement, which has been approved by the boards of directors
of both Houston Industries and NorAm Energy, Houston Industries will pay $16.00
for each NorAm common share outstanding, 50% of which will be paid in cash and
50% in Houston Industries common stock. After closing, four NorAm Board members
will join the Houston Industries Board of Directors. The acquisition is subject to
shareholder approval of both companies and various regulatory approvals.
The proposed transaction combines NorAm Energy, the nation ’s third largest natural
gas utility serving 2.7 million customers in six states, with Houston Industries, a
holding company involved in the electric utility and unregulated energy businesses in
the United States and in foreign markets. The corporate offices will remain in
Houston, where both companies are currently headquartered, and Don Jordan will
continue as Chairman and CEO of Houston Industries.
Houston Industries’ regulated subsidiary, Houston Lighting <Sc Power Company, is the
nation's ninth-largest electric utility in terms of kilowatt-hour sales. Its service
territory includes ^ht City of Houston and surrounding commumties with a total of
1.5 million customers. HI Energy, Houston Industries' principal unregulated
subsidiary, pursues foreign utility privatizations and the development of unregulated
power generation projects, primarily in foreign markets. It has projects and interests
in Argentina, Brazil, and India.
NorAm brings a growing, well-respected wholesale gas and electricity trading
business, significant mid-stream gas assets in the form of interstate pipelines,
gathering, and storage, and the nation’s third largest gas distribution operation. One
of its distribution divisions, Entex, serves metropolitan Houston, in addition to
communities in Louisiana and Mississippi, and has approximately 600,000 customers
in common with HL&P. NorAm also has a leading position in retail energy services
and an emerging presence in Mexico and Latin America.
The acquisition of NorAm Energy positions Houston Industries to be a national
wholesale and retail energy services leader with extensive gas and electric capabilities.
The combined entity will be well-equipped to meet the evolving needs of customers,
offering innovative products and efficient service throughout a broad region of the
country.
"Market and regulator^' forces are changing the industry landscape to a more
competitive environment. In addition, the electricity and natural gas markets are
converging, and customers are demanding additional products and services. This
acquisition will substantially strengthen Houston Industries' strategic position given
these rapid changes in the industry," said Don Jordan.
"We see several strategic benefits to this acquisition," continued Jordan. ' First, it
combines Houston Industries' electric market knowledge with NorAm Energy’s
wholesale gas and electricity trading operations and skills, which will help propel the
combined company forward in the converging wholesale energy markets. Second, it
positions the combined company to provide the bundled gas and electric products'and
services customers are increasingly demanding. Third, it helps establish Houston
Industries’ broad national energy presence and offers the opportunity for improved
efficiency across all of our operations. Fourth, it gives us access to 3.6 million
customers, 2.1 million more than we had previously.’’
Jordan added, "This combination presents exciting new opportunities for our
emplo_ ees as we enter the na -»! e is distribution and transmission businesses for the
first time, expand into whoi^.uie gas and electric marketing, and extend our
international position."
Milt Honea, Chairman, President, and CEO of NorAm Energy said, "This transaction
is a natural fit that will benefit our shareholders, customers and employees. Our
companies have a shared vision, common geographical areas, and complementary
skills and assets. Our shareholders benefit from the value created by the combination-
the increased access to Houston Industries' experience and skills in the electric power
industry, Houston Industries financial strength, and our complementary international
development interests. Our customers benefit from the combined company’s
enhanced ability to offer a broad array of products and services, particularly in
electricity. Finally, the combination will provide greater opportunities for our
employees as the combined company continues to expand iis wholesale, retail, and
international presence."
I
t
"The combination of HL&P emd Entex under one owner offers excellent potential for
enhancing local customer service and for providing a wide range of new value-added
services/' Jordan said. "At the same time, we intend to continue the efforts already
underway to increaise the opportunity to move gas from west to east across the Mid-
Continent region where NorAm Gas Tr<insmission and Mississippi River Transmission
are strategically located."
"Houston Industries plans to expand many of the retail services offered by NorAm
Energy throughout its gas and electric distribution operations. NorAm has been a
leader in developing new value-added services for residential and small business
customers such as appliance repair and preventive maintenance contracts and home
security system sales and monitoring, as well as services for other utilities and retail
marketers.'
In addition to serv'ing more than 2.7 million households in six states through its Entex,
Arkla, and Minnegasco gas distribution divisions, NorAm Energy is a major natural
gas pipeline and energy marketer, providing supply, gathering, storage, cind
transportation of natural gas and wholesale electric serv'ices through its NorAm
Trading and Transportation Group (NTTG). NTTG includes NorAm Energy Services
group (NES), a leading natural gas and electric wholesale trader. In the first six
months of 1^96, NES traded over 2.5 Bcf per day of natural gas and almost 450
thousand MWh of electricity. NTTG's interstate pipeline system consists of NorAm
Gas Transmission and Mississippi River Transmission. In addition, NTTG operates
gathering n«®.ets in Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas through NorAm Field
Services. i NorAm Energy Management provides unregulated retail energy services to
industrial and large commercial customers. Through NorAm Energy's wide-ranging
gas activities, it handles over 5 Bcf per day of natural gas. In addition to its corporate
office in Houston, NorAm Energy has offices in Shreveport, Louisiana; Little Rock,
Arkansas; Boulder, Colorado; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Minneapolis, Mirmesota; St. Louis,
Missouri; Williamsburg, Virginia; Midland, Michigan; and Miami, Florida.
Subject to the approval process, the transaction is expected to be completed by the end
of the first quarter of 1997.
■f
Selected Financial Data
Year-end 1995
Revenues
($ Millions)
Net income from
continuing operations
($ Millions)
Total assets
($ Millions)
Earnings per share from
continuing operatic^
(Dollars)
Dividends per share
(Dollars)
Average shares
outstanding (Millions)
Houston Industries
3,730
397
11,820
1.60
1.50
48.3
Nor Am Energy
2,965
3,666
0.47
0.28
123.9
###
1
1
I
i
^ «• t
t
*■
■iA.
Nor Am Energy Corp.
Factsheet
1995
Nor Am Energj’ Corp. (NYSE: NAE), is the nation ’s third largest natural
gas utility serving over 2.7 million customers through its Entex. Arkla and Minnegasco
distribution divisions. It is also the largest in the United States in number of
communities serv'ed with a total of 1,300.
NorAm s two interstate pipelines. Nor Am Gas Transmission (NGT) and IVIississippi
River Transmission (MRT), together form one of the nation ’s largest pipeline
networks with approximately 8,600 miles of pipeline moving natural gas from the vast
mid-continent supply regions to on-system markets and to pipelines serving the densely
populated Northeast and midwest markets.
NorAm Field Services (NFS) operates approximately 3,500 miles of gathering
pipelines moving in excess of 2()0 billion cubic feet (Bcty of natural gas per year. These
lines are connected to over 3,900 wells and reserves of 36 trillion cubic feet of gas in
major producing fields in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Texas.
NorAm Energy Services (NES) provides wholesale energy marketing services
including the non-regulated rebundling of gas supply, storage, transportation and other
services, as well as electric power marketing.
NorAm Energy Management (NEM) is the company ’s retail energy supplier,
providing total energy portfolios to industrial and large commercial consumers. This
retail marketing effort generated 169.7 Bcf of gas sales in 1995. This group also
provides other energy services such as performance contracting, risk and energy
management as weii as services targeted to the residential consumers.
Selected Financial Data
(millions of dollars!1995 1994
Annual Revenues $2,964.7 $2,857.9
Operating Income 287.3 264.9
Eamings-Continuing Operations 65.5 51.3
Total Assets 3,666.0 3,561.5
(per share data)
Earnings S 0.47 $ 0.33
Dividends 0.28 0.28
Stock Price;
High 9 9
Low 5 1/8 5 1/4
Close 8 7/8 5 3/8
Ave. Common Shares Outstanding 123.9 million 122.4 million
Employees 6,600
i
HOUSTON INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED
FACT SHEET
(Year-end 1995)
Houston Industries Incorporated (HI) is a holding company with $118 billion in assets and
annual revenues of $3.7 billion HI is involved in the electric utility and unregulated power businesses
in the U.S. and in foreign markets Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P), a regulated
electric utility, is Hi’s oldest and largest subsidiary' Hi’s business strategy is to remain in the energy
and energy services industries and to pursue opportunities with the potential for greater growth and
risk-adjusted returns than could be achieved in the regulated utility industry alone.
Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) is the nation’s ninth-largest electric utility
in terms of sales which, in 1995, exceeded 61 billion kilowatt-hours. HL&P serv'es more than 1.5
million customers in a 5,000 square-mile area along the Texas Gulf Coast that has a population
exceeding 3.7 million. Firm peak demand in 1995 was 11,419 megawatts.
Houston Industries Energy, Inc. (HI Energy) pursues foreign utility privatizations and the
development of unregulated power generation projects. HI Energy has operations in the U S.,
Argentina and Brazil, and projects under construction in Argentina and India.
Selected Financial Drta
($ Millions)
Revenues;1995 1994
HI Consolidated
HL&P
$ 3.730.2
3,680.3
$ 3,754.1
3,746.1
Income from Continuing Ooerations •
HI Consolidated
HL&P
397 4
451.0
424.0
453.2
Total Assets:11,819.6 11,403.1
I
•
Geographic locations of combined businesses
of NorAm Energy Corp. and Houston Industries Incorporated
(Not shown are additional operations in South America.^ •
M- ^ J ‘1 'i ' y
H
^ r*’"'—y WiiliamstxjrgV/
' Jj
I 4
Houston
r«e Office)
m- •
• . • •
y -
"i _': >r
•■ .f'V'j: i
‘V ♦. •■
• • *• •
. • V' -u.-
::
NorAm Divisions
3 Minnegasco
A Arkla
•Entex
NGT
MRT
.Ct-'.U
1*
.•'I
Houston Lighting i
& Power Subsidiary';
of Houston Industries
incorporated Area|
of Service. '4
m
4
f. '. * V
{
Mramg
A NORUlW ineRGY COMPAMY
iMinnesota Contacts For NorAm Energy Corp.
A1 Swintek
800 LaSalle Avenue, FI. 11
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612/321-4799
Ame Hendrickson
800 LaSalle Avenue, FI. 11
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612/321-5375
Roger Schoeb
2400 North Riverfront Drive
Mankato, MN 56001
1-800-245-2377
SOOLaSaUeAvenue.n 11
P.O.Box 59038
Minneapolis. MN 55459-0038
1
.(i
i
I
f
^1.
I
nrao>r
omm
01
<
01o
n
7
o
S
7
•I
O
:
ro
<
a
01
>I
‘n
/
0
5r
lA V NmA
n» li
!^
c>U> psu |v<cf __
--------------------
1 !
Ill1^
I
■)
■$'
-3
7^
‘'■•••,1.9
^ .*. I jK.ti
**•
•f
\
r-
%
ii
O
Cdr'w
r
!2:o
o
N
M
2
zwo
IX!no
7.
9
To;Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator i
From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Adminisfrator I
Date:September 9, 1996
%
Subject:#2172 Gerald and Nancy Bloms, 4195 Forest Lake Drive - Variance - Public
Hearing
ZoaiDg District: LR-IB
Lot area = 15,832 s.f.
Application: Applicants seek approval of a structural coverage variance that would permit
construction of a main level deck addition at the southwest comer of residence.
The following ordinances are pertinent for this review:
1.Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Structural coverage variance,
Total lot area = 15,832 s.f.
Allowed = 2,375 s.f. or 15%
Existing = 2,500 s.f. or 15.7%*
Proposed = 2,668 s.f or 16.8%
Variance = 293 s.f or 1.8%
Increase of structural coverage = 168 s.f. or 1.1%
•Includes 60 s.f of shed area.
2.Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover.
Allowed = 4,749.6 s.f or 30%
E.xisting = 3,760 s.f or 23.7%
Proposed = 3,928 s.f. or 24.8%
No variance required.
List of Exhibits
A -
B -
C -
D -
E -
F -
G -
H -
1 -
Application
Plat Map
Property Owners List
Survey/Site Plan
Hardcover Inventory
Elevation
Hoor Plan
Stair/Foundation Plan
Deck/Foundation Plan
Zoning File #2172
September 9, 1996
Page 2
Review of Application
The Bloms received approval of an area variance that allowed the residential development of
the last remaining undeveloped lot within the Forest Arms Countr>' Club Addition in 1983.
The applicants have now filed for a structural coverage variance to permit construction of an
approximate 12' x 14.6' deck at the southwest comer of the existing residence. The deck will
be an addiUon to the existing deck to the rear of the residence and will meet the required 30*
rear setback for the principal stmeture in the one acre zoning district. The 6’ x 10' shed (not
shown on survey or included in hardcover facts) has been included in the hardcover and
stmctural coverage facts.
Statement of Hardship
The applicants ask the Commission members to review the surrounding properties developed
in the 1970's. They note far more coverage on the older developed properties than on their
property. The only variance sought by applicants is for structural coverage involving an
increase of 168 s.f. or 1.1%.
Issues for Consideration
1. Should either existing or proposed stmctural improvements be reduced in area?
2. Other issues raised by Planning Commission members,
Options of Action
To approve as proposed or amended.
Any recommendation of approval must include a condition that applicant provide an amended
survey locating deck addition and detached shed in rear yard upon application for a building
permit.
I
Application # 7.2^
Date ReceiTcd" S/eZJ /¥Z
Amount Paid c/v
Crr\' OF ORONO - variance application
Initial Application Fee S220.00 a »
(S50.00 per each additional variance) oM w ^
Renewal Variance Fee SI 20.00 gf
(no change from original application) # 3 •- -
Variance for non-conforming structuies S220.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
&4 -
’J
property INFOB lMATION ^ / A ^
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_
• I j______iAttach legal description to application if not included on tequired survey,
Date Propert>- Acquired -------------------------------''* —1------------------------------—---------------------------— .
I (do) (do not) also own the ^acent parcels of land.
Present use of property: ^^idential -----pother (specify)
Zoning District:__----------------------------------------
-a Nrnn, e/omS _(.orio
_ City:_^2£f2^----
Phone Ihomel
^
_ Zip: y_
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name _____________________
Phone (home).
Phone (work)_
.Address:Cit\':Zip:,
description of REQUEST. ^ Estimated Cpnstmction Cost S-----.
request in detail: On fn decfL -4 (^OArJES
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
L^KJK i
Lot Width Hardcover X^Lot Coverage
Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore
_ Other (specify)
harhshi P/DESCRIPTION of UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
d S lue h^ship or practicai difftculty or tutusual property conditions preventmg
compliance with Zoning Code requirements:. --------------
(attach additional sheets it necessar>')
1
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
appHcatiotL • ~
1.
•7
J.
3.
6.
7.
8.
Finance A-603, Govt Center, j 48-j 271). j . j
Crmf,c;« of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor -d me ude hardcover
calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/= x 11 for
?0TO^'-^nrvev (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing
S= P.-posed. In addition, provide one (I) copy SW x I tor «P;o«rctroa
Sketches 0. plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy x 11 ).
Us, of the leual names (include marital status) of all persons vvath an interest m
the nropeiTv. ’This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not currem owner(s).
As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate ist o any o er
persons you wish notified of tiiis application.
Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
■nie Aoolicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remern'oer Xnai
nnniicatir- complete if the above i^orination hw not been .ncimled.
^PLIC^^ herebv^r^es to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
information supplied is true and correct to the best of hisAier knowledg .
Applicant’s Signature Date
^T!!^er\ereby tl^edges and agrees to this applicauon and “““cd
entry onto the property by City staff, consuitants. agents. Cotnrmsnon memoers, and Co
members for purposes of investigation and venncation ot this request.
/Innui, Clr'T n.a,e
Applicant must have all sCbmitr^s into the City offices 25 days
Commission .Meeting. Planning Commission .Meetmgs are held on the thrrf Mo -
Annlkants must be present at aU scheduled review meetmgs of the Plan^
Ommissioo and CounciL If an appUcant is unable to attend a B>^ding
make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend m your place aid to advise m.
iu Tuning CfScc of this c>*ange prior to the meeting.
i|
M II OOOS041M FOREST LAKE OR L L fiOLOEN « T 0 OOLDEN LYIM L I nHOTNV 0 OOLDEN 41M FOREST LAKE OR NOLMD m S5SA4
7OWCR NAME
;>TM»Ayfi|
d'' HANE/AOOR
St 07-117-ES 11 OOOi
04171 FOREST LAKE OR
T t S TNEXSEN
THOMAS J TNEISCN
417S FOREST U OR
HOUND m SSS44
;i 0««R NAME
TAKRAYER
V HMC/AOOR
• *
M 07-117>ES 12 U021
04210 FOREST LAKE OR
RODERT E NENSL ETAL
ROMRT E HENZEL
4210 FOREST LAKE OR
NOIMD m S51A4
FROR AOOR.
OM«R NAME
TANRAVER
HAME/AODR
SO 07*117-23 13 0072
OlOOS LINDEN U
ROBERT P KINO
ROOERT P KINO
lOOS LINDEN LA
HOLKO m 65364
V*
iRROR AOOR
i‘.'0»f«R NANO
>r-
^TAHRAYER
< NAME/AOOt
SO 07-117-23 14 0017
01041 NORTH ARM OR
SALLY A RHYLICK
SALLY A RHYLXCK
104f NORTH ARM OR
MOUND MN 66364
• V..' ;•
fi
NIMCPZN COUNTY PROPERTY INFOiOUTIQN SYSTEM PROPERTY OMCRS LISTSO 07-117-2S 11 0004 00770 FOREST ARMS U C JAMES LANCE ETAL C JAMES I RUTN A LANCE 770 FOREST ARMS LANE MOUND MN 55364
SO 07-117-23 11 0007
04155 FOREST LAKE OR
FREDERICK J YOUNC
FREDERICK J YOUNC
4155 FOREST LAKE DR
ORONO MN 55364
30 07-117-23 12 0026
04215 FOREST LAKE OR
JOHN 0 LOUCNLIN ETAL
JOHN LOUCNLIN
4215 FOREST LAKE OR
MOUND m 55364
SO 07-117-2S IS 007S
01015 LINDEN LA
T J ERIKSMOEN A M M SAPA
THORA J ERIKSMOEN
NARY M SAPA
1015 LINDEN U
MOUND MN 55S64
SO 07-117-2S 14 0020
01015 NORTH ARM OR
R A L CCMRAO
RONALD C CONRAD
1015 NORTH ARM OR
MOUND m 65364
mREPORT NO. RX4SI401 * PAGf 54SO 07-117-23 11 0005 04175 FOREST LAKE OR 0 L BLOMS A N L BLOMS CERALO A NANCY BLOMS 4175 FOREST LAKE DRmound m 55364 -‘■If.*:j; - '''-s'• V » :.T,v -..I:.- . f
SB 07-117-23 12 0020
00765 FOREST AWS LA
NERBERT 8 OLSON ETAL
HERBERT A JUDY OLSON
765 FOREST ARM LANE
MOUND m 55364
A:x'i -yi
i ••• / ; .>
SB 07-117-2S 12 0027
04205 FOREST LAKE OR
JEROME 0 LEMIRE
JERRY LEMIRE
4205 FOREST LAKE OR
MOUND N« 55364
SB 07-117-2S IS 0074
01027 LINDEN U
L R A C L HITHAM
LANRENCE R A CHERYL L NXTHAN
1027 LINDEN LA
MOUND MN 55364
TOTAL BATCH 507 00O14
%JK4I BATf Ot/Zt/H
K«^ ry I
■.^^'' ,1'N'* • • * .•' V* * ■' *
Ai-.^J C-Vi...- Jr'.i*;., .. •• ■
•■'••#•? ••'i:. • r:j-. . V« • '. •• f.
,ar
Li'.i11m
** * • #****•
•*vISMCPXN COUHTY PROPERTY ira^ORHinON SYSTTH PROPERH CMCRS UST PAOE i ' •
■ P w
i*i *#
• • ir • yw'w^
ii'i %:
■ ‘ i IL' ■• % ■• f!.’> It'; ' *»
* / •
■I
• iD
':'.'»1,^' : ■■ ‘ ' Vl -iM,-
■ir'Vr'
\ M 1 *s*w • * ^ » p * < * * ” ' L
• * <•>'i
X 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 DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST
OF NY KNONLE06E AND BELIEF.
DATE
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
FOR: C^'SRALD 4 ATANCY BLOMS U
Vis
E.QAMST LAkfe: '^
95>4#
cic<JI»
... .............
#-•> T' - ' VI* •
* N ' ♦ ^ > 4
i— loCr-'
N
942 •- ~/69.00 - -
becK 'A'ao.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 6, BLOCK 3, FOREST ARMS COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION,
ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, HENNEPIN
COUNTY, MINNESOTA
o Denotes iron monument
□ Denotes offset steke
X 000.0 Denotes existing eiev.
(000.0 ) Denotes Proposed elev.
Denotes surface drainage
Proposed garage floor elev.- ^77 /7
Proposed lowest floor elev. - 97^ O
Proposed top of foundation elev. - 977. &
BENCH MARK:
/0.oi /VC^.
4. 973.i5
DEMARS • GABRIEL
LAND SURVEYORS, LNC.
3030 Harper Lane No.
Plymouth MN 55441
Phone: (612) 559-0008
I hereby certify that this it a true and correct representation of a su^ey of
the boundariei of the above described land and of the location of all buildings,
if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land.
As surveyed by me this
Minn. Reg. No.
File No.
3110 -A
Book - Page
//3 - Z4'
Scale
I
I • •ir ••\
f
* *
■J •
-*
t-j
Bloiiis Property
\
Lot Size 106 X 165=17490/2=
135x 105=14175/2=
8745
7087
25%
15832 sq. ft.
3958 sq. ft.3o/S~~ 7 S’c ^
House & garage
Driveway
Existing deck
l^xisting patio
addition to deck
2100
1120
340
140
3700
168
i
386S ^-7r .. .*
i
This should meet the hard cover rules for with a 1000 ft. of the lake,
t • /I
4-
1 I
• i
■tus’Lua^«r Co., 330 11th Ave So., Hopkins Kn.
u Aug 08 17:55:04 1996
s materials in this deck will cost $2513.61
Vi^
55343, Phone # 938-2741 Fax i
44
S-
17 ..- -^
)
* ^
U/'
.(Tc[
Justus-Luab«r Co., 330 11th Avs So., Hopkins Kn. 5S343, Phono # 938-2741
Thu Aug 08 17:55:04 1996
Dmck. Layout
Fax. •i
'To
C-oii 'STAttcTJJe o
■I
'V
Justus Lumber Co.. 330 11th Ave So., Hopkins Ha. 55343. Phoas i 93S-2741
Thu Au^ 08 17:55:04 1996
Dseh Dimensions for Deck 3
Fax i
t
i
ۥ 6"
DecK 3!
„ I Q M 3' 9”- -'
6’ 6"
P/'St;
I
i
ustus Luab«r Co., 330 11th Avo So., Hopkins Kn. 55343, Phono • 938^2741 Fax #
'hu Aug 08 17:55:04 1996
>sck Dimensions for Deck 1
V ?y
14 ’ 6
2' 6"- ->
L_ _Decs 1.
f/♦'ll
L.
!* i
/•
TO:
*,
Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM:
DATE:
Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator
September 12, 1996
SUBJECT: #2173 Bennett C. (Chuck) DowTiey / Gary Hegenes, 2675 Shady^^•ood Road
Variance - Public Hearing
Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre, sewered.
Application: Request for after-the-fact 75-250' hardcover variance for construction of gazebo by
previous owner, and a 75-250' hardcover variance for construction of a proposed second story deck.
Lbt of Exhibits
A - Application
B - Plat Map
C - Property Owners List
D - 1996 Survey
E - SubmittedHardcover Calculations
F - Proposed Deck
G - 8/22/96 Letter to Applicant
H - Staff Hardcover Analysis 1985-86/1990/1996
I - 1985-86 Survey w/Hardcover
J- 1990 Staff Hardcover Sketch
K - 1985-86 Application Excerpts
L - 1990 Application Excerpts
Dbcussion
Mr. Downey this week completed the sale of this property to Gary Hegenes. Unbeknownst to Mr.
Downey when he bought the property from Rolla Martin in 1993, was a hardcover issue left
unresolved due to Martin's withdrawal of a 1990 variance request for an addition. Consequently,
Mr. Downey is requesting an after-the-fact hardcover variance to resolve this issue, accompanied
by a request from Mr. Hegenes for approval of a 3'xlO' second story deck addition.
Hardcover History
In 1985 Mr. Martin proposed a tennis court on the property, but after discussions with staff, he
concluded that he could not show' adequate hardship, and he withdrew that application. Note that
in 1985, the City did not require a hardcover worksheet, and accepted the surveyor's hardcover
numbers of 7,800 s.f. hardcover in the 75-250' zone which the surveyor indicated contained an area
of 29,100 s.t., yielding 26.8% hardcover including a driveway serving the neighboring property.
#
j
Zoning File #2173
September 12, 1996
Page 2
In 1986 Martin applied for and received approval for an additional 90 s.f. of hardcover to construct
a room addition at the south end of the house. Total approved hardcover was 7,890 s.f./29,100 s.f.
= 27.1%.
In 1990 Martin requested a further hardcover variance fit an addition to the north side of the house.
In reviewing that application, staff found that a 120 s.f gazebo had been built near the garage since
1986 without a permit, and 240 s.f of new rock and plastic and 2,750 s.f of rock with permeable
fabric had been placed in the 75-250’ zone. During 1990. staff and Council were debating whether
or not fabric-lined landscape beds should be considered hardcover.
Before the 1990 hardcover variance application was brought before the Planning Commission, Mr.
Martin withdrew it because he was planning to sell his house. This left unresolved the issue of
hardcover increases apparently done without approvals, and staff flagged the file to allow no future
building piermits to be issued until the hardcover issue was resolved.
In 1991 the City Council concluded that landscape areas lined with fabric would be considered
hardcover, and they have been since that time.
Mr. Downey purchased the property from Martin in 1993, but never requested any building permits
and remained unaware of the hardcover issue until this summer, when Mr. Hegenes asked staff if
there were any irregularities on the property and he w as at that time told of the unresolved hardcover
problem. Staff met with Mr. Hegenes and Mr. Downey and concluded that to resolve the issue, Mr.
Downey would file an application for hardcover variance, and Mr. Hegenes was advised that he
should include his deck proposal with this application.
Applicant's surveyor (the same surv'eyor used by Mr. Martin in his previous applications) has
currently calculated the 75-250' hardcover at 8,205 s.f, excluding the entire 10'xl80' shared
driveway. Additionally, he calculates the 75-250’ area as 29,600 s.f, i.e. 500 s.f larger than was
reported in 1985. Under current methods of calculation (excluding the 1,800 s.f shared/neighboring
driveway from both sides of the hardcover calculation):
Approved hardcover in 1986 was 6,090 s.f or 21.9%
Existing hardcover in 1990 was 7,239 s.f or 26.0%
Existing hardcover in 1996 is 8,205 s.f or 29.5%.
The proposed deck is shown in Exhibit F, intended to connect the existing square second-story deck
(drawn in by staff since it w as omitted from the 1996 surv'ey) with the other decks on the west side
of the house. To match and connect the two e.xisting decks, the new deck will be approximately 10’
long by 3.5 feet wide.
Zoning File #2173
September 12,1996
Page 3
Staff Recomosendation
Staff recommends as follows:
1. Applicant to remove 248 s.f. rock and plastic adjacent to garage.
2. Applicant to remove 320 s.f. of gravel parking area adjacent to driveway.
3.
4.
Applicant to remove 920 s.f. of rock and plastic near driveway and fence.
Applicant to remove any fabric or plastic from landscape area at southerly comer of
house (this shows up in 1990 staff review as hardcover; is not shown on the 1996
survey but still has edging and may still be hardcovered)
5.City to grant after the fact approval for existing gazebo and associated decks:
> Applicant to obtain a building permit for said gazebo and decks and
Inspection Department to review their constmction
No penalty fees should be due since this work was completed by previous
owner
6. City to approve proposed 3.5'xlO ’ second story deck addition which will add
appro.ximately 35 s.f. of hardcover. Applicant to obtain a permit for this deck prior
to construction.
7.Final 75-250' hardcover as calculated under cuixent methods equals 8,205-1,488+35
= 6,752 s.f. or 24.3%. This brings the property into conformity under our current
method of calculating hardcover although it is approximately 662 s.f more than was
approved in 1986.
Options for Action
1. Recommend approval per staff recommendation.
2. Recommend approval with additional or revised conditions,
3.Table for further information.
4. Recommend denial (state reasons).
5.Other.
Application M 2/ y
Date Received S- - - 9 6
Amount Paid
CITY OF ORONO - VARLANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee S220.00 # m
(S50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee SI20.00
(no change from original application) ^ '■ - •
Variance for non-conforming structures S220.00 rv
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY rSTOR>lATION
Site Address ^1/75' /^c;aq_________ :---------
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /1 7 5 3
« t 1 t _ •___*____- ______________I!____.k!_____I11
7 elOfe
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Propertv' Acquired l^iS' ^ 3 __________________________^(month/year)
I (do) (?o'nk f) also own the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of propertv” ^ residential ___pother (specify)^___________________——.
Zoning District: Ll2 - \ G>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLICANT . Phone (home).
Name ■•cr _____Phone(work)_
Address: ~> v" —Zip:
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name______________________
Phone (home)
Phone (work)
Address:Cit\”Zip:_.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S________
Describe request in detail: UAeoctiv;* U—2liZ
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area ___Lot Width
Setback:Front Side
Hardcover
Rear
Lot Coverage
Average Lakeshore
y/ Other (specify) Anrs ^J/n' 2.*'-^ ^
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual propert>- conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements: co to ------—
-Vo "tsL
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
I'
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
All of the following information must be submitted bv
order for vour application to ht considered complete:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Completed Application Form
Certified ProperU' Owners List of owners wit
must obtain this list, labels and map from
Finance. A-603. Govt Center, 348-3271).
Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed
calculations as required. In addition, prov
reproduction.
Topographic sur\-ey (existing and proposed eU
grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (
Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views
List of the legal names (include marital statu:
the property. This would include name(s) of;
As an addendum to this application, please
persons you wish notified of this application.
Additional items as may be requested by City aum.
City of Orono
P.O. Box tt
OB/27/% IO:3S:t8
liM USE APPLICATION
1 • 220.00 220.00
SUBTOTALm
TUTAL SAL£
AECEIse
OfiNBE
CLEAKt 01 TRANSI 2269
220.00
0.00
220.00
220.00
0.00
The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour
variance application is not complete if the above information 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 his/her knowledge.
Applicant ’s Signature Cj Date ff G
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
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 all scheduled review meetings of the Planning
Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend 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
j
I I
>UN DATE Oa/Xi/M •ATOI BOA HE»#€P1N cownr raOPERTY XNPORHATXON SYSTTH PHOPIRTV OMSRS LISTPWP AOOR OMCR name TAXPAYER
NAHE/ADOR
5® 21-117-25 25 OOlf 02A90 PHEASAm' RO H J A 6 R PUDIL HICMAEL J A 6AIL R PUDIL
2490 PHEASANT RO
EXCELSIOR HN 55551
PROP AOOR
OMNER NAHE
TAXPAYER
NAHE/AOOR
50 21-117-25 25 0022
02440 PHEASANT RO
L R JERP8AX A L H JERPBAX
LLOVO JERPOAK/LINOA JERPBAK
2440 PHEASANT RO
EXCELSIOR MN 55351
PROP AOOR
QIOCR NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/AOOR
50 21-117-25 24 0044
02400 SNAOYHOOO RO
VERTOI E TIACUA ETAL
VERNON e TUKUA
2400 SHAOYHOOO RO
EXCELSIOR m 55331
PROP AOOR
OHNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/AOOR
SO 21-117-25 24 0055
02495 SHAOYHOCX) RO
TOOO A ROOIDEAU
TOOO ROOIOEAU
2495 SMAOVNOOD RO
EXCELSIOR MN 55551
REPORT NO. PI455401 PAGE 1550 21-117-25 25 002002400 PHEASANT RO R P OOLLIPF JR ETAL
ROGER P OOLLIFF JR
2400 PfCASNIT RO
E>CELSIOR MM 55351
SO 21-117-25 25 0021 02470 PHEASANT RO RAYMONO E JOHNSON
RAY E JOHNSON
444 FEIH40ALE RO H
HAYZATA MN 55391
30 21-117-25 25 0025
02455 SHAOYHOOO RO
T J HAOOEN A J M JONTCON
T J HAOOEN A J M JOHNSON
2455 SHAOYHOOO RO
EXCELSIOR MN 55551
50 21-117-25 25 0050
02405 SHAOYHOOO RO
R H OROHN ANN BR0H4
RICHARD N A MARION H ORQIM
2405 SHAOYNOOO RO S
EXCELSIOR m 55551 u.
50 21-117-25 24 0052
02470 MAPLERIOGE LA
P A A LITTLE IV
PHILIP IV A AMANOA S LITTLE
2470 MAPLERIO(% LA
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
38 21-117-23 24 0053
02475 SHAOYNOOO RO
0 C OOMNEY ABA DCMCY
BEIMETT C A BETTY A OOHNEY
2475 SHAOYNOOO RO
EXCELSIOR FM 55551 I ... • ryr
I
38 21-117-25 24 0054
02495 SHAOYNOOO RO
S 0 I B A PAULSON
STEPHEN A BOTHAINA PAULSON
2495 SHAOYNOOO RO
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
TOTAL BATCH £04 OOQll
Cl!,. J)
1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRCSEHTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
DATE
AK •
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
CHUCK DOWNEY
OF TRACT A, R. L. S. NO. 1453
HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA
LEGAL OESCmPTiON OF PREMISES:
Tr«ct A. Registered Land Survey Mo. 1453, files of
Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin.
This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above
described property, and the location of an existing house and
all visible -Hardcover- thpreon. It does not purport to show any
other laproveaents or eocrtachnenis.
u : Irun oaiker
Bearings shown are based upon an assuoed datum.
• -vrott Rivtsxn;HAH IWRinKlS
VNtS
> Coffin & Gronberg , INC.
<'2 ! 'iM.ii' \\uum • 1 >'0^ I Iks M\
i-i: tvinT
I ht-r*1n uTlil) Ih4l was pfriuu-J In nviv undit tnt JinM suprf-
visMin. xn«l (Kit I i4K J dulv rr^istni-d C n il I iipiwvi in*11 ami undtt
llw i4 Ihr Sutr of Minnrwiii
Kiark S. CiunKty Stmnrwiu Uernsr \umKvl2rsS
HAlf
(>20^
IMII
9-4-96
KMIWII
%352 I
S VA ^
_ .......hangover CALCULATlUi\.VVOi<K5.^1:.J
'^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ ^ 25-SQO’500-1000’ .
*1
EXISTING H^DCOVER IN ZONE
use S.F.t .«< m
/>
Length Wid'ik
%
X
X
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
mi
B. Garage
C. Driveway
S.F.
X
X S3 .
S.F.
S.F.
D. Sidewalk X jr^.’.gTa
X ________ . '
60 S.F.
S.F.
*' • * •
E. Patio/Dcck X
X .1
S.F.
S.F.
%
r.i
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic.
Or Fabric •
G. Other
X
X
ZiOt
m
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.. ^
/-s i-S.F.
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A Si O B /^9o^
^S.F.
« «X 100
S.F.
23
proposed hardcover in ZONE
A.- House
Length Width .
X
X
X
B. Garage
C. Driveway
>/ X T-f
I »
X
X
r'
D. Sidewjdk .X
X
• /E. Paiio/Dcck
V-*r
L F. La.ndscape
X
X
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
X
X
X
G. Other
total HARDCOVER IN ZONE
total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A ■ _____:------------
B
*• •
S.F.
83 S.F.
n »
s
*• •i •■rt’T.
m S.F.
.A■*
u ■
S.F.
t S..F..
••• ••
-• «S.F.
•-
S3 -S.F.-
t ••S.F.
i •
S.F.
w
s;f.
«• S.F.
S.F.
• ^
1 •••
S.F.
-•• S.F.
““- —S.F.
X 100 %
^ 4 W
%• .••»«
• ^
A
B
U 2
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’
HARDCOVER CALCULATlO^VUiUvitiElL i
25-500’500-1000’
EXISTING HARDCOVTR IN ZONE
A. House
m %
rfu>NT
Lcnjih WidOi
l£^3o _
X
X
X
4/6
« •
B. Garage
C. Driveway t la cK'fa
^ ra a. f
X
X
D. Sidewalk
E. Patio/Deck AylA/to IHCrljiL X
X
43
3to
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
Ito^ * '•S.F.
• •
»•
F. Landscape
Underlain
•By Plastic,
Or Fabric • 5” J a. ^
G. Other /4^7
X
X
i-i
. X « •• •^7
S.F.
S.F.-
•
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.I .• j «
*r
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A BZOS -r B 2J/600 X 100
T//4A^4>
B20S S.F
2%€OCt S.F.
27.'72 %
A
B
PRQPQSEb.HARpCOVFR IN ZONE .• StAclraa r^t'zv' •’ n,
A. House . ______________ , X r /a^ c c < fS tdOO SA/J^r._______
. Unjth WiJih
B. Garage
C. Driveway
D. Sidewalk
E. Patto/Deck
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
. X A^a T /A>- c c< /tf — ..............
Wid’Ji
X _______
X _______
X
X
X
X
X
X -
X
X
X
X
G. Olher
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A ________^______ '*• B _
S.F. ^
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.P.
► f
S.F.
’ S.F.
X 100 -
A
B«
. . • • •r ■ :.a 14 •.
i.,.-
■■■ M'i ■ A
ClTYof ORONO
Municipal Officfs
Street Address:
2750 Kelley ParKv^ay
Orono, M.1 55356
MalTing Address:
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay. MN 55323 CC55
August 22, 1996
Chuck DoNvney
2675 Shadywood Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Re: Gazebo/hardcover issue, 2675 Shad>-\vood Road
Dear Mr. Doyvney:
As ^^•e discussed briefly this week, an unresolved issue regarding hardcover and the gazebo on your
property at 2675 Shadywood Road resulted in the City's position that no permits will be issued until
the gazebo/hardcover issue is resolved.
A summary of the histor>' of this is as follows:
1.Former owner Rolla Martin was approved for an addition to the house in 1986. That
approval granted a hardcover variance to allow 27.1% (7,890 s.f.) hardcover in the
75-250' zone.
2.Jn May 1990 Martin applied for a hardcover variance to construct another addition
(kitchen expaLn'sion)......... ... •
J.Staffs 1990 hardcover review'for that application found a total of 9,019 s.f. of
existing hardcover, of which approximately 750 s.f w as landscape fabric which may
have been considered non-hardcover when installed prior to 1990, but certainly was
considered as hardcover in 1990. Discounting this 750 s.f, in 1990 the property
still was at a 75-250' hardcover level of 8,269 s.f or 28.4%, i.e. more than allowed
in the 1986 approval.
4.Part of this increase was also due to the gazebo built above the retaining wall planter
area between the wings of the house. This was built without a permit (which it likely
did not require because it was slightly under the 120 s.f permit threshold in effect at
that time). However, it was located less than the required 10' setback from the house
and constituted excess hardcover, hence it was called out as an issue during the
1990 variance application review.
Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510
Chuck Dovt-ney
August 22,1996
Page 2
5.Martin then asked for the application to be tabled before it was reviewed by the
Planning Contmission, because he decided to sell the house. He never re-opened the
application and the issues of the excess hardcover and gazebo setback were never
resolved.
At this point I suggest the following course of action:
a. Have the surveyor (presumably Gronberg, who has all the basic work done in prior
surveys) do a hardcover w orksheet for the site to confirm the level of hardcover in 1996.
b. If 75-250 ’ hardcover is over 7,890 s.f, your options are:
1. Remove the excess hardcover, QE.
2. Apply for a hardcover variance, i.e. re-a:tivate Martin's application.
c. If 75-250' hardcover is 7,890 s.f. or less, then the only issue is whether the gazebo is at
least 10* from the house. It would be appropriate for the Building Inspector to review^
w hether the gazebo might be considered as part of the house structure, which would negate
this issue. If, however, he considers it as a separate accessor}' building, it must meet the 10'
setback. If it doesn ’t, your options are:
1. Move it to a legal location that meets 10',_QK
2. .‘^pply for a structure-to-structure setback variance
Fm enclosing the documentation on this issue, and will be pleased to answer any further questions
you may have. This issue must be resolved before we will issue any further building permits for the
property.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Gaffron
Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator
End.
cc: Lyle Oman, Building Official
Permit No.
_js:iif___
permit record
Date
/O'
• •
Type of Permit;
Cu. Ht/uy nfi
35^-7 5^-M- 77 A/^ 1.1
'7-/7 \.
•
' - ----- m ^-"' fe^
- 1'^ r)0 ' ^““
_____________
am. f/
1996 HARDCOVER REVIEW - 2675 SHADYWOOD ROAD
Iism
75-250* Area
Approved
1986
Staff Calculation Surv eyor Update
1990 1996
Used 29,100 sf Used 29,100 sf 29,600 sf
(All include area of neighbor's driveway)
House 2824 sf 2830 sf
Decks 860 sf 810 sf
Gazebo (& etc.)120 sf 550 sf
Walkways 828 sf 835 sf
Retaining walls 50 sf 67 sf
Driveway (excl. all of 1800 sf shared
and i.eighbor-o' y portions) See #2 below 1557 sf 1605 sf
Graveled driveway -320 sf
Stepping Stones 10 sf 20 sf
Landscaoe areas w/fabric or plastic 99Q.af 1168 sf
Total 75-250' Hardcover 7890 sf 7239 sf 8205 sf
Analysis:
1. Per current practice, exclude 1800 sf shared/neighbor driveway portion from zone area:
75-250' zone = 29,600 sf - 1800 sf = 27,800 sf
2. 1986 Hardcover Approval included 1800 sf of drivew ay in easement
3. Equate 1986 Hardcover approval per current exclusio.i method:
7890 sf approved - 1800 sf exclusion = 6090 sf / 27,800 sf = 21.9%
4. 1990 Existing Hardcover = 7239 sf / 27,800 sf = 26.0%
5. 1996 Existing hardcover = 8205 sf / 27,800 sf = 29.5%
Staff Recommended Removals:
A. Remove 248 sf rock & plastic adjacent to garage
B. Remove 320 sf gravel parking area adjacent to driveway
C. Remove 920 sf rock & plastic near driveway and fence
D. Add approx. 35 sf associated with proposed 3.5'xlO' deck
75-250' removals = 1488 sf additions =35 sf net= 8205-1488+35 = 6752 sf / 27,800 = 24.3%
The recommended removals will result in this property again becoming conforming under the
current methods of hardcover calculation.
Certificate 0f Survey
for Rolla Martin T Tract A, Registered Land Survey No.
Hennepin County, Minnesota ias3
r»ri.co*
27% .
Zone.
• 0* 0-75
jS-iso
4 re a
tb.zootsf.//.
Z9,IOOisjY/
^ Thttc 13 cvrrenilf a ^mall vpadcn 3>Jc\Mlk iX
■fh^ 0 ’7$/oof eo/tc, buft3 ^04*n^ /o 6c ecnto'/cd
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct
representation of ^ survey of the boundaries of
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1453, files
•45 ?u ^?9^strar of Titles. County 0i Hennepin, and of
HQ the location of all buildings, if any thereon, and
the proposed location of a proposed tennis court./
It does not purport to show any other improve-
I ments or encroachments.CD
^ COFFIN S GRONBERG, INC.
^ Mark S. Gronberg Reg.^N^o. 12755
Gordon R. Coffin Reg. No. 6064
Engineers and Land Surveyors
Long Lake, Minnesota
‘70C3O'*-78^)0 i-:(.
= 27./
Scale
Date
0
1 inch 30 feet
September 7, 1985
Iron marker
2 3
C'I #1023
oc-*:-
Certificatcuf Survey
for Ro 11 a Martin^ Tract A, Registered Land Survey No.
Hennepin County. Minnesota 1453
........
.'Mr1.: .1 c.. :•
S*
S4
\
O*
Zl% .
. ^ilihng
Hjrdcogtt
leooi^/^ •jszso z % tooi
^ 7hcrc tscurrcn/ff a tjinall yioodtif siJev^lk Ly.
4hc. Ou5/ooi ka/fc, ^o4n^ /<» Ac tcnlovcJ
in<»
piCepcNt
A^inoAJ
±^0 s.^.
(c^fAPU&TTt^
70co-^ 7S^o
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct
_f\ representation of a survey of the bou/idaries of
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1453, files
mS^ of R<?gistrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, and of /
location of all buildings, if any thereon, and/of
^ the proposed location of a proposed tennis court./
It does .not purport to show any other improve
ments or encroachments.
COFFIN & GRONBERG. INC.
^ ments or encroachments.
CT ^
%
Mark S. Gionberg Reg. No. 12755
.Gordon R. Coffin Reg. No. 6064
Engineers and Land Surveyors
Long Lake, Minnesota
Scale
Date
0
1 inch s.30 feet
September 7, 1905
Iron marker
X
*#
#1023 ?
.V u
Of:- k'^
A- i V
I CITY
I OF
I ORONO
City of OROIVO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITvIiic^cilil^ HAS BEEN
—I^ROFIIMEDNO. 2006
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
A VARIANCE TO
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2
PILE #1023
WHEREAS, Rolla and Nancy Martin (hereinafter "the
applicants") arc the owners of the property located at 2675 Shadywood
Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally
described as follows:
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1453, files of Registrar of
Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a
variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to
permit the construction of a room addition which will increase hard
cover in the 75-250* lalceshore setback zone from 26.8% to 27.1% where
a maximum of 25% hardcover is normally allowed.
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1023.
2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore
Residential Zoning District.
3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on
May 19, 1986, and recommended approval of the proposed variance
based upon the following findings;
A) Applicant has 0% hardcover in the 0-75* setback zone.
B) No existing hardcover on the property is readily
available for concurrent removal as a tradeoff.
4. The City Council has considered this application including
the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission,
reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect
of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
Page 1 of 3
Ir: CITY
Ik.pf ,
I ORONO
City of OROI^pTi.?i BEEi^
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COl|^SD0p|[^£Q
NO. 2006
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 property; would
not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is
necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the
applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of
the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
CONCLOSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22,
Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of a room addition which will
increase hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone from 26.8% to 27.1%
where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The maximum allowable hardcover on this property is 7,890
square feet or 27.1%. The applicant is advised that any future
improvements of the property which would result in additional
hardcover will not be approved, and might be approved only with
concurrent removals of existing hardcover.
•
2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property
not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be
exercised by application for a building permit within one year of
the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on
. that date (June 9, 1987).
3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and
conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the
zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted
herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby
agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself,
his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording
of th’s resolution in the chain of title of the property.
1986.
ATTEST:
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of June,
/'iJ^othy iallin,/City Clerk Mary C.
Tim Ad
Proper^w Owners ~
Paqe 2 of 3
^ 1/
Tot
rroBs
Planning Con«ni»i»ion Keeba^^
Michael P. Gaffron# ,
Aaalstant Planning 4 Zoning AdniniatraloP
Dat«s May 14, 1996
Subjectt 91023 Bella 4 Nancy Martin, 2675 Shaducod Road
Variance
Soniim Olatrlct ~ l*R-lfl
Application - Hardcover variance to construct a bedr
List of Exhibits
addition
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Application
Plat Map
Property C%/ners List
Survey _
Plans, Elevations of Proposed Addition
Existlna l»-75* Hardcover - 0%
Proposed 0-75* Hardcover » 01
Existing 75-250* Hardcover - 26.8%
Proposed 75-250* Hardcover • 27.11
The applicants are requesting to construct «
which wj 11 increase the 75-250* hardcover from 26.9%
27.1% proposed. The existing 0-75* ^ ^driveway
cover on the property is mainly in the
and concrete patio areas with decks over. slthoueh no trade-
ia fairly minor, only 90 square feet or
oti 1. pi;opo.«d, U . ^ra,!c-cff were requ^^
area would be to remove a 6.5* x 1« section o4 »-• r
backup apron.
Staff recommendH approval of the variance as proposed
MimiTBS OP TUB BBCUUUt OROMO CCJMCZL KBBTXI*G U&£' JUMB f» Iflf
#1022 SCBALl* continued
Counci1member Prahm steteU thet he foil they snould
table the matter in consideration of Attorney HcKinnon'.^
request to avoid the potentiality of a leqal case.
It was moved by CounciInember Prahm« seconded by
CounciImembcr Hammorel# to table this siatter until the
June 23rd Council meeting. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0.
Staff war instructed to inform the neighbors that action
will v^aken on June 23rd with or without their
rcpreseritation.
i^^ROLLA 4 NANCY NARTIM
2?^SBADYNOOO ROAD
VARIAMCB
RESOLOTION #2006
Rolla 4 Nancy Martin were present for this smtter. Mr.
Martin reviewed the proposed plan to construct a bedroom
addition which would increase the hardcover in the 7S"
2S0* area by 0.3%. Ke noted the the existing decking,
which was included in the hardcover does net have
plastic under it.
It was moved by Counci lir.cmber Katnmcrol, seconded by
CounciImembor Grabck, tc adopt Resolution #2006
approving the hardcover variance. Motion, Ayes 4» Nays
0.
Ii027 MRS. PHILLIP PIU.SBURY
1700 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD
VAR lAtiCE
Present representing the applic'*: t were Attorney Steve
Ptlaum, Architect William Scott, an'i Landscape Designer
Damon Farber.
City Administrator nernh.'^fdson explained the i equ'^st ir>r
n 2-1/2* height ''ariance for a 6* high section of brick
wall that is adjacent to Bracketts Point Road and Ct^
Rd. 15.
D.imon Farber stated that the reason for tlie 6* wal l i''
mainly for aesthetic purposes «ns well ."js health an'
saf«*.y. !lo stated that the corner is busy, dangerous,
and noisy. He noted that their preference Is to b'
conalstant i.e. entire wall 1-1/2* or entlr*' wall **
height .
j* t c V' c r f 1 a u m po i n r -j out » h *• ^ n : : i. y * •
variance w.'s needed not inu ili.it in r.ore ‘ ►'ey*
construct the 6* wall without a v.iri.T':.'*. *.'t ’n.l tl».’’
11 .a f f 1 c ca n b«* hen r d »r t ho h«-»u se w i t a w*. r»>Ir • ; •
wo I 1 bo r.i'rn. In .lddlt1»»n, vohiclo w) rhj,
directly in f h o ,h u ?. o at r i »i h t . Mr- r. f .i t 't r }* .•
1
I
To:Plarninq Con ’ir.iRsion Choirman Kelley
Orono Planning Coirnussion Memhera
City Administrator Bernhardson
rroa:Michael P, Caffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator
Date:Kay IS, 1990
Subject: #1523 Pol la Martin - 2675 Shadywood Road -
Variance - Public Hearing
Zoning District ~ LR>1B, Single family lakeshore residential, 1
acre, sewexed.
Application - Request for hardcover variance to allow
construction of a kitchen room expansion in the area of an
existing open deck.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Application
Plat Hap
Property Owners List
Survey
Room Layout
Resolution #2006, Previous Variance Approval.
Pertinent Facts -
1.Applicants propose to construct a 6' x 16' expansion of
their kitchen area. This will be located in an area already
hardcovered with a deck.
2.The proposed addition is approximately 96' from the
shoreline. There is no hardcover in the 0-75' zone, except
for a series of 1' x 1' stepping stones. Hardcover in the
70-250' zone was approved at 27.1% in 1986. The proposed
addition does not increase the hardcover percentage on the
property. However, some additions of hardcover since 1986 happear to result in a slight increase above the approved
percentage (see below).
Discussion -
The proposed addition has no impact on the percentage of
hardcover on the pioperty, but is brought as a variance
beca’ise it technically is a change in the nature of existing
hardcover .
""he prc'fosed addition does not require an averaO'^ 1 . ashore
variance, and will not have any effect or t!re
reinhhr>tine picperties nor on the quantity or qtiality of
iiin-ofi" to la^.e hiinnetcnka. The addition meets all required
5-er I'cu. kr .
1
•__A______— •
1
Zoning File 11523
May 16, 1990
Page 2 of 3
A room addition was approved in 1986, increasing hardcover
from 26.8% to 27.1%. Staff's site inspection of 5/17/90
indicated that since the 1986 variance approvalr a few
improvements to the property have occurred which have
increased hardcover.
These include: > 240 s.f. area of rock and plastic for
boat trailer parking next to the garage
(It is unclear whether this was included
in the original 1986 calculation* and a
hardcover breakdown was apparently not
done with that application).
- Approximately 750 s.f. of landscape
areas with permeable fabric* which
likely were approved by staff in 1986
(if they were ever discussed).
Permeable fabric has since been deemed
as hardcover by the City Council*
although staff is on record as
disagreeing with this determination.
- A screened gazebo of approximately 120
s.f. (size not verified) located next to
the garage* closer than the required 10*
setback to the structure. This gazebo*
if actually less than 120 s.f. in area*
would not require a building permit but
would be required to meet hardcover
regulations and the 10* structure-to-
structure setback requirements.
Because the hardcover was not reviewed in detail in 1986* it
is difficult to account for each square foot previously
indicted by applicants surveyor. However* a current review
of the survey and a detailed survey of existing vs. previous
hardcover calculated using the same basis* indicates that
hardcover has increased from 27.1% to 28.4%* if the
pcrmeabl.* fabric landscape areas are ignored.
Staff Recommendation
Given that the proposed addition does not increase
hardcover, has no impact on neighboring properties* and
moots all required setbacks, there would appear to be
siibsantial justification for granting the necessary
x.w..^n9 file ilS23
Hay 16, 1990
Page 3 of 3
Isv
hardcover with the gaiebo, and the concern about required
setbacks for that gazebo. Planning Ccmmission may wish to
ask for more review of that gazebo structure, i.e., is it
large enough to have required a permit, can it be moved to
meet the required 10' setback, and is there justification to
•IXow the apparent 1.3% hardcover increase since 196$ that
is partially attributable to that gazebo?
I » .
'T>*'•’ <w r.V) *7rvir>
r.^' : : /2-.^3Cc»0
.' .r^ V' , -^ /*'. •^roo
xr* ^ i.
12' ^ *2 Cr /e^- T<^^3
/^2 2 - 6/^4,
~ )2 O
24.7C»^
2^7.|00 /-Avc^
JrJ
(/^JCHAiiC"^ )2Z '“/o' /Ji',’fr.>\fic'ir'_ tariv/fVo^'*^
US«’ t'»,)'=*'^
n/-^L'<o'/r(^
}lou_, Q /s.sxg.r
0 I8.-5X 20.-7
Z^.Cr>'ZO,J
0 ?» >"6/2.
• ^
“* ? V/ •*# ^
•/'/ Z.>'/L.z
U •■* Z.72X5T
■'■' s.r ''/!/
r) /o.c. '-v
•<- / > 7
•>. l ^" tbi
'0•
- - >-
;T)/ ?;, > c; / >_= 7^
*/ \ •>- 7C»
• ss?
^ r7^>A - .•*•
viv'i'.irtk - /zo
QtfO
I
N
J
Qj}Vx ” /^ •* '^/ V* Sj C ^VX/c^*y
,,-. » r- .*t V '**•«
• »' V
s?«>J O/JC.
^ X 2.0
H X^O ^ ’(0 .
•■/x/o' * V’-^D ‘■(y>’i3^
= )l(j>
= I^IZ
.>v.-X ?.o]>
g::5
.*
, -r/ciut r;.
fO^^H ' ft : w *#»c.^VO
jAV
7 *2. X2 r
»■? x*LS
2> /dyrC..
L\*^T/JOy-T^
/.AU'k<: o /(yuo ^
\
-TTV'r' ‘7 3'-* :: '^C>/ >i-z .7
/pc^ \f 'i r^''« •‘ /e l^» Vf^
^ /-'"r^. o^<*4 *"
2//"7
9(9/9 '/■
/. *
')0!') too ■- 30/;'; ■' .
/
^ i./ '% •
^ . y . V ' - V .
X i Vv.-' *-2'~
>fC/ -V ^c/ <•
- ■' " '■ I __ ^ %
•7X/J r
2 y 2-'- '
,'-0
55"
f7T%
V
^ V-^0
>/2.C-' or /j j^i7“ o^i^r-.:'
ii^v-r ptfi yt^Ou ■/>'■ fJ//C-r - -
^ m
L>"
> I
* m
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD HAY 21, 1990
ZONING FILE tl522-NORDLIE CONTINUED
Gaffron estinatec that 600 s.f.
be removed.
of hardcover would have to
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was r.oved by Bellows, seconded by Hanson, to recommend
^ooroval of the hardcover variance provided that hardco%*er in the
250-500 ’ zones remains the same and that hardcover xn
75-250' zone not exceed a may mu"i of 35%. Motion, Ayes-
5*, Nays-0, Cohen abstained. Motion passed.
#1523 ROLLA M-\RTIN
2675 SHADYWOOD ROAD
VARIANCE « r. wPUBLIC HEARING 8:56 P.M. TO 8:57 P.M.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ A I %
has
W../W . .... -- -- - - - - - .
Gaffron stated that the applicant xs
requested that this matter be tabled.
selling his home and
It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Kelley, to table
application #1523. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0. Motion passed.
#1524 TRINITY PRE-SCilOOL
2060 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
w^es^ley^ Ann^Hai^ ?^®"School Program Director,
present.
was
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
dulv noted.
Mabusth briefly reviewed the information pertaining to this
appiication.
Kelley asRed wheth«^r the building has fire sprinklers and
smoke detectors.
!nci an afternoon pro3rar, that there be no need for aodrtional
Planning Commission review.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was the conse.nsus of the Planning Commission that the
pXov3irs3w0f^Gnc6Q« ,
y.s. flallcuist stated that the State did not require a fence
- 12 -
i
CITY OP ORONO
p. O. Box 66
Crystal Bay# KN 55323
473-7357
ZONING FILE *1523
NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Date of Notice: June 15# 1990
TO: Rolla Martin
2675 Shadywood Road
Excelsior# MN 55331
COPIES TO:
type op APPLICATION: Variance
VOTE: 6 For 0 AgainstDATE OP KBSTING: May 21, 1990
Planning CoomLissioD recoinmends the following:
Tabled for reasons noted below
NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
Tabled at applicant's request due to potential sale of residence.
Please contact staff to discuss the outstanding issues of the screen
porch and excessive hardcover over and above that which was approved in
1986.
Isv
—
fOor^'N s-n'-.irT
To:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Mcmbci
Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator
From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator
Date:September 11, 1996
Subject:#2177 - Lakewood Development, 2005 Sugarsvood Dnve - Request to Var>‘
from Development Standards of Sugar Woods Planned Residential Development
Zoning District: R-IA
Total lot area = 36,555 s.f. (1 unit per acrc-33 acres per 25 units)
Application: Applicant has filed an application seeking to waive the requirements or standards
of the covenants of the Sugar Woods Development. The first involves the
encroachment of the 30' side protected area by a driveway and backout apron.
The driveway installation will involve the installation of 3' to 4 ’ high retaining
•walls in west side yard There is e <tensive filling proposed in the front and east
side protected corridor. The access drive is shown in a curved alignment where
the covenants require a straight alignment from the plat road through the 50*
protected corridor. The following is a review of the development standards for
the Sugar Woods Planned Residential Development:
1.Review of hardcover. All construction and improvements are limited to
80% hardcover improvements within the area of the building envelope
defmed by the 50' front and rear and 30' side setbacks. The area of the
driveway intersecting the front setback area is to be included in the
hardcover calculations, refer to Exhibit D-1-2.
Hardcover is as follows:
Building envelope area app* dmated by staff = 13,524 s.f.
Proposed = 6,319 s.f or 46.7% (allowed = 80%)
Review of structural coverage.
Allowed = 6,534 s.f or 15%
Proposed = 3,672 s.f or 8.4%
3. Structure meets all required setbacks.
List of Exhibits
A - Application
B - Addendum
C - Location Map
D-l-2 Fact Sheet/Sugar Woods Covenants
i—..
fL
Zoning File #2177
September 11,1996
Page 2
E -
F -
G -
H -
I -
J -
K -
Hardcover Review
Survev/Site Plan
Street Elevatiop
West Side Elevation
Site Plan-2007 Sugaru-ood Drive
Letter from Sidney Rebers. Rebers Construction Representing Architectural
Review Committee for Sugar Woods
Landscape Plan
Rev iew of Application
A special review procedure has been established by the City in dealing with requests of owners
who arc unable to meet the special standards agreed upon by both City and developer for the
Planned Residential Development of the Sugar Woods subdivision. Members are asked to
familiarize yourself with those standards outlined in Exhibit D-1-2.
The Lakewood Development application involves the following:
1.A request ^o % ar>' from standard that would require a straight aligrunent of the
drive within the front 50 ’ setback area. Driveways cannot exceed a width of 20'.
Lakewood proposes a 13-14’ width at the street but the roadway is curved
through the 50' setback area where the covenants call for a straight alignment
from the plat road.
Request to encroach within the required 30’ west side yard setback/protected
area. The backout pad and portion of entrance drive encroach 17' info the
setback area and the 3-4' retaining wall approximately 21‘/2*. The retaining wall
within the east yard encroaches 28'. There is no confirmation as to the type of
wall to be installed. The landscape plan (Exhibit K) nor elevations (Exhibits G
and K) provide any detail.
Extensive filling is proposed within the side and front protected corridors
involving the removal of the trees. The covenants minimize filling within
protected corridors to final grades immediately adjacent to residences and front
access to residence.
Planning Commission members are advised that the requests of residents of Sugar Woods to
vary from the covenants are not charged a fee by the City. Because of this, applicants are
asked to provide all the necessary' information and present their special request to the Planning
Conuiiission and staff You are asked to review the exhibits and to specifically »”cfer to
applicant's addendum Exhibit B.
Zoning File #2177
September 11, 1996
Page 3
Council has approved an abbreviated review process for all such requests whereby the Planning
Commission shall assume the sole responsibility for the review and final recommendation
regarding these special requests. Each applicant shall have the right of appeal before the
Council of all decisions of the Planning Commission. In other words, should the application
be denied or a tie 3-3 vote occur, the applicant would have the option to then proceed before
the Council. This is brought to the Council as an appeal and will involve a payment of a fee.
The application would be placed on the Council agenda for the following Monday, September
23rd.
The immediate neighbors have received notice of Lakewood Development’s request.
Some of the limiting site conditions noted in previous review aie as follows:
1. The shape or limited area of a building envelope.
2. The unique or mature trees within a building envelope or front street setback
area where drivewav will encroach.
J.The topography o ' the building envelope.
4. Desire to place home within a building pad so as to minimize impact on
adjacent properties.
Staff Comments
1.Filling as proposed in front and side protected corridors cannot be allowed. House can
be moved further south if flatter elevations are desired at entrance to residence.
2.Backout apron can be reduced from 32’ to 25'. Retaining walls can be moved further
east. Walls m west corridor are shown 8' from side lot line.
3.Members should inspect mature trees at west front yard in approximate location of
access drive. Staff recommends a curved road to minimize tree removal. Developer
should work with staff to minimize tree removal.
Options of Action
To deny or approve as proposed or amended.
i
yy
§
Application # <2. f 1 ^
Date Received ?-• V -•
.-‘i.
CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION
Amount Paid
P.e.
\/^PROPERTY LOCATION
Site Address - ^_________________________________
Type of Application to be Filed
Properu Identification Number (P.I.D.)
applicant
Name JiCL^ecOOC
Address
Phone (home)
LOPti^T Phone (work)
yTATR City iJZip
OW'NER (if different than applicant)
Name Hi5: ______
Address_________________
Phone (home).
Phone (\vork)_
City Zip,
Date Property Acquired (montli'year)
I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.
FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS -
______$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application
______$175.00 Residential Accessory ’ Use
______$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.)
______$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments
______$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg
it ______$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use
$250.00 Land Alteration
____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain
____ 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-ihe-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee
OTHER APPLICATIONS
_____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultan* 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).
c Cl-Jt
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
3.
)C
Completed Application Form.
Describe request rirdetail.
Certified Property Owners List of ovsners within fabels arrd plat map (vn..
must obtain this list. labels and mop frorn H'*~nepin County Qf
Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271V '
Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for suney
information. Inr S'SLOdh'0^
description to application if not included on requirea sur\ey.»;?6^tf^/^^^^^
Topographic survey- (existing 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 REQURED TO SUTPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS 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 Property 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
The applicant hereby agree, 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 e.xpenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the
information supplied is true^d correc^to the best of hjs/her knowledge.
Applicant’s signature /Date
OMTSER’S SIGNATURE
The owner 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 purposes of ipvestmati^ and verification of this request.
Owner's signature Date f
Applicant must have aU submittals into the Cit) offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting.
Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Mond.iv of each month. Applicants n»ust be present at
all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a
scheduled meeting, 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.
LAKEWOOD DEVELOPMENT INC.
1212 EAST WAYZATA BCHA.EVARD. WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391
(612) 473-2588 • FAX (612) 476^)465
September 6, 1996
^ f %•
- 1
City of Orono .• j
Orono Planning Commission
PO Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
r*
*
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The purpose of this letter is to describe the reasons why we
are requesting an amendment to the residential development
restrictions for Sugar Woods. We have acquired the lot
whose address is 2005 Sugar Woods Drive and have looked
carefully at the options available to us to construct a home
that will be in keeping with the neighborhood and respectful
of the topography and forestation. For the reasons I will
describe, we find it necessary to apply for an amendment
that will permit us to construct the home entirely within
the building envelope, but in such a manner as to utilize a
side loaded garage and driveway.
The topography of the building envelope is sloping right to
left across the front of the lot in such a fashion that if
we were to ise a front loaded garage that came within the
building and environmental envelope entirely, we would be
forced to have a very steep and unsafe driveway. In
addition, the garage floor elevation would be several feet
below that of the m.ain floor of the residence, necessitating
the use of several steps. Lastly, we would have to remove
not only more trees, but much larger maple trees if the
driveway was to come in within the building envelope. By
bringing the driveway in at a gentle slope, as you can see
on the enclosed site plan, we can save all of the bigger
trees and will only have to remove approximately twelve
maple trees that are six inches or larger outside of the
building envelope.
As you can see on the proposed site plan, the side yard
between the driveway of our proposed residence and the
neighbor to the west will be planted with eight foot tall ox
taller Black Hills spruce. There are no evergreens in the
area between these two homes and our eight foot high
evergreens will provide a very substantial screen. By
permitting us to construct the driveway within the
environmental restricted area we will remove fewer smaller
trees, have a substantial evergreen screen to the neighbor
1
(■*
\
N 1/2 SEC.34,T.n8,
1*".'^^.“ •«r*''jgTM *' |~J I '| Ii % H ^
\ 8 -o'
' * --
; , 32 j81 b'===S.v "’';'1i^,'
U_-=----------------------------------.•^f'o' i-<-----------^ I 9
-i, r - .// /!Is 'Av ;:^.Ji!
l£00
________VH-I,4CC or c
VICL4CC or L0«
SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET TO BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION WITHIN
THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OP
SUGAR WOODS SUBDIVISION
In addition to the plans» specifications and information
requested in the Orono Building Permit Application packets the
following is required by special resolution of the Orono City
Council of all applicants seeking to obtain a building permit
within the Sugar Woods subdivision:
1.
2.
3.
Your site plan must designate the Specific Building Setback
Area for your lot.
A) front 50’, rear 50' and side 40' for Lots 1 through
A, Block 1; and
B) front 50', rear 50' and side 30' for all other lots
in Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Per Orono resolution #2652, each lot shall be served by a
single driveway/one curb cut at a 20* maximum allowed width.
The driveway width shall be measured parallel to the loop
road, Sugarwood Drive. The portion of the drive located
within the front/street setback area shall be placed in a
straight alignment from the loop road and shall not be
curved.
An inventory of all hardcover on the lot must accompany
each application (see worksheet attached. Attachment A).
All hardcover improvements on each lot shall be within the
buildincT pad defined as that portion of the lot that is not
within the building setback area (exception: the driveway
leading to Sugarwoods Drive located within the front
building setback area, retaining walls and similar land
scaping structures that may be built within the front
building setback area). The hardcover improvements for each
lot shall not exceed 80% of the area of the building pad for
each lot. The hardcover areas of each lot shall include the
surface area on the ground of each of the following
improvements on the lot (the inventory shall include allowed
improvements within the front/street setback area):
A) Footprint of each and every structural improvement
on the lot, including each house, garage, accessory
building, porch and covered walkway;
B) All wooden decks and boardwalks regardless of the
spacing between the planks on the surface;
C) All driveways and parking areas that are paved or
graveled;
E) All walkways and patios that are covered
asphalt, concrete, paving blocks (regardless of the
space in between the blocks), or covered with gravel,
rock or woodchips upon an underliner (whether the
underliner is impervious or not), but not those
walkways that are dirt, grass or gravel, rock or
woodchips without an underliner;
4
5.
6.
7.
F, Each and every landscaped area with an underliner
(whether the underliner is impervious or not),
regardless of whether the area is covered with
woodchips, stones, dirt or plants;
h
Any swimming pool or wading pool;
H) Any tennis court covered with concrete, asphalt or
but not any tennis court covered with grass.
Coverage. Per Ordinance 80, 2nd Series adopted February
26, 1990, the total combined footprint areas of all
principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of
the^ 1 acre average density at 6,534 sf. The following shall
be included in calculation of lot coverage by structures:
a)
b)
c)
all roofed structures which extend more than 6'
above grade level;
tennis courts, patios, decks and all similar open
structures when partially or fully enclosed by
fences, railings or walls which extend more than
6' above grade level ( if any portion of such
structure extends more than 6' above grade level,
the entire structure shall count towards lot
coverage);
pools, including pool basin and associated deck or
patio areas, regardless of whether such pool
basin, deck or patio is enclosed with a fence.
All lots shall be provided with a functional means or method
of backing out. The City will not approve the backing out
of motorized vehicJes onto S» jarwood Drive.
For all applicants who find they cannot meet the required
standards for development within the .<^ugar Hoods Planned
Residential Development, please 7efer to Attachment B for
special directions.
Written confirmation from Rebers Construction that the
building plans and site plan have been approved by the
Architectural Review Committee for Sugar Woods.
At the time a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a new
dwelling within the subdivision of Sugar Woods, the City has
agreed to execute and deliver to the owner of each lot a partial
release of subdivider's agreement for that lot. Upon the
recordation of such partial release of subdividcr's agreement,
the Registrar of Titles is authorized and instructed to remove
from the Certificate of Title for the lot, the memorial of this
inst:rume.. c and the memorial of the partial release of
subdivid.*A ' s agreement.
Please contact the Building and Zoning Department (473-7357)
if you nave any questions concerning the directives listed above.
Prior *\o any site preparation , tree cutting, land
alterations or construction, the Buxlding Setback Area must be'
defined on the site with plastic or wooden snow fencing. This
fencing must remain on the site until a representa tive of the
Orono Building Department provides written confirmation that
fencing may be removed.
I
• *- tJB-je'-uA-Y
•
P- -i^yif,^A>r>f/-ro
- 4»! y.Al-«
« •
4 y
4
I>
^‘U d>
7^_ <z^
^317
SEP 9 -'’■'
'S'^-
ii ■‘53 ^X!iuy.c.^^ fjiy'4 ^4 •
B*- J
574-3 4
^ ^>\H\ PC* :
1 ( 0 Uj J!^ > lt>‘t/>^ 4
^5 4
■Kr’-
3^/^5'''5 4
•?, ^ /7»9^
I hereby csrt?ry th?t this p ’r-., speciflcelicn, or
report W55 prepared by r.o cr vrc’rr r.'.y direct
super/ioi^n tl'3t I cm a c.i/ R?vir.i.e.cd
Arc!;‘.i'::t ur.der ll.s l-v;s of tae Scale of
• »r
S* . C
Rsg. NaJS^^J^^Jslif^Rsg. No
€U(Zfk^ O^iJcilonef
'UOHS PKt
Wa4»
^x/1
% -
3 "
!
i
R
t
<
•p •)! -o) 0 i 0 T J. n OS
#2l 77
aamm
VO
suRvr FOB: SrtlAfe/^ g KOPPELMAt^ * [Ni
V.9}^
'••••I Wapos
/ f
Cone. Our&
ORN£
yjtv
i g.B4BOC
ID1B.S7
>'
i
\i
I .'•^■
^*1 :U-
y :S n®fii3 iU
\ ii:v^l* I ■' W'''^
\ Ir J vtC\:‘
I 'Is
J
:
iO^A3
:
«C3 x£
I'OTi u al-^«kia^H"r-..-'
? *
I
I
X.1 3^"Cb//c
®^VOOc/
1029.
Lrtr L, n ■ c. ;■;cp 4. i : i T- NO . v.';• ► . . *
«
September 12,1996
Rebers Construction Company
3525 Webster Avenue South
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Planning Comniis>ion
City of Orono
Orono, MN 55323
Ladies und Gentlemen:
*
I have revievKed the site plan b) I.ckev/i-,od Development, Inc. for
Lot 3, block 2, Suganvo»)d *.
Said site plan needs the approval of the neighbors to the west, Nick and Nan Simons. It
would be my suggestion tltat the diiveway from the street to the area west of tlic garage
be aligned between the 12 inch ash and the 10 inch bassvvood.
Respectfully,
Rcbets-^*^
Rebers Construction
SR.mgl
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR AUGUST 19,1996
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date \vith the following members
present Chair Dale Lindquist, Ste\ e Peterson, Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, Elizabeth
Hawn, and William Stoddard Charles Schroeder was absent The following represented
the City Staff Assistant Zoning and Planning Administrator Michael Gaffron, and
Recorder Sherry Frost. Council members Jabbour and Goetten, along with Mayor
Callahan, were present Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 7:00 p m
SCHEDUl ED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS
(HI) #2158 JOHN O SULLIVAN/GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH PROPERTY, 2380
SHADYWOOD ROAD - REZONLNG - PUBLIC HEARING 7:00-7:45 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing w ere noted
John O’SuUivan, Erwin Smith, and Dan Clausen of the North Conservative Baptist
Conference were present
Gaffron reported that the applicant has an option to purchase the 1.7 acre parcel own^ by
the church. The parcel is being considered fbr rezoning from LR-IC to B-5 commercial
consisting of limited neighborhood businesses. The conceptual plan is for light retail and
office in a 2-story building, to include a bank with drive-thru, with stormwater retention
pond on the property and vacation of a portion of Navarre Lane. At this time, the
Planning Commission is to consider the rezoning issue and not the use itself Gaffron
asked the Commission to consider five general issues for discussion; 1) Does the
proposed rezoning fit with Orono's Comprehensive Plan for the Navarre business district?
2) If not, should the City consider a rezoning request absent a comprehensive zoning
"needs" review of the Navarre area? 3) Is B-5 the appropriate district for the proposed
uses? 4) Are the proposed uses appropriate for this location, adjacent to an existing single
family neighborhood'’ and 5) If the property is rezoned, and if the parcel is ultimately sold
to anotner developer, are all of the aillowed uses in the B-5 zone appropriate for this
location?
Gaffron cited some of the background and history of rezoning in the Navarre area. The
last rezoning occurred in 1983 Gaffron said it was Staffs opinion that a comprehensive
review of the Navarre area should be conducted before rezoning a specific site, but a
specific application is before the Commission for review and is asking for consideration.
1
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996
(# I - #2158 John O'Sullivan/Grace Baptist Church Property - Rezoning - Continued)
The ate location is at the comer of ShadyAvood Road and County Road 15. An adjacent
comer is being redeveloped in B-1 zoning One acre residential is located to the east
along with a wetland area, all part of the Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association
There is 1/2 acre single family residential zoning to the north of the proposed site To the
across Shadywood is another commercial area of B*1 zoning.
Gaffron read the purpose of the B-5 District as defined in the Zoning Code:
"The B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District is intended to provide
a district for businesses that supply commodities or pertorm a service primarily
for readents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not
high traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover.
The District may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are
subject to more restrictive controls.
The District shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public
sanitary sewer Because of the location of the B-5 District as contemplated
in the area knowTi as Navarre in the City of Orono, the uses are limited in
order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the future generation of
traffic for that property in that use district since there is already a traflSc problem
in Navarre."
Gaffron said it could be argued that there is no traffic problem in Navarre but
acknowledged that it was indeed busy. Gaffron then read the list of permitted uses and
conditional uses within both the B-5 and LR-IC zoning districts.
Gaffron reported on the potential uses of the site other than for the use as proposed.
These were noted as a church and other conditional uses, plus residential to include single
family and duplex. The site is of a size which would allow as many as 6 dwelling units in
three duplex structures.
Gaffron said Staff does agree that for the uses proposed by the applicant, the B-5 district
is the best zoning fit. Gaffron reported that the Staff recommendations include a
comprehensive study of the zoning and land use in the Navarre area before arbitrarily
rezoning a parcel at the request of a developer He noted, however, that since a study has
not been initiated by Council, and ^ven the applicant's request to redevelop the site and
his need of immediate rezoning, the Planning Commission is being requested to review the
request for rezoning, its appropriateness to the area, and under what conditions
NflNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996
(#1 - #2158 John O'Sullivan/Grace Baptist Church Property »Rezoning - Continued)
O Sullivan said he considered the neighborhood, the intense use on adjacent properties,
and the allowed uses in each district to determine that the best fit is B-5 commercial. He
continued that he found no offensive uses among those permitted in B-5 and noted they
were uses that generated low traffic
O'Sullivan reported that he held two public tent meetings the end of June He notified all
property owners within 600’ of the site, which is two times what is required by law, and
also went door to door in a half mile square vicinity 80 people, including 2 Planning
Commissioners, attended the meetings The comments received by O'Sullivan were
favorable to the concept noting there would be no infringement on the neighborhood.
Petitions were available and were signed by almost all of those in attendance All but a
couple of people supported the concept. O'Sullivan also provided drawings of the plans
and a petition in his nearby store in mid-July. He received 200 signatures of which the
majority showed a telephone prefix of 471, which is that of the Navarre area O’Sullivan
said he also spoke w ith about 80 business owners and received signatures of those
favoring the concept Only 5 or 6 were said to not voice favor but asked questions about
the proposal Only one of the opposed was an Orono resident.
O Sullivan concluded that the B-5 was a great fit between the busier B-1 business district
and the residential zoning He noted that no one adamantly opposed the project. The
most concern was that of tearing down a church O’Sullivan said the purchase option was
soon to expire, and a decision needs to be made soon on whether to continue pursuing the
property General plans have been made but a comprehensive plan is awaiting the
rezoning issue decision. O'Sullivan said he has received numerous inquiries regarding the
space to include realty offices, insurance, and floral shop He, at this point, is unable to go
any further in the application until the rezoning is decided O'Sullivan noted that he owns
two of the adjoining parcels and sees the joint development as an opportunity for the
future of the area
Peterson said he attended the neighborhood meeting and noted those in attendance were
for the concept, who said they were tired of seeing the empty building Peterson said the
City does not change zoning without alot of thought but feels the concept would fit in the
comprehensive plan of the City. He felt the question was whether the City should look at
one parcel versus the long range plans for the Navarre area, noting there was no plan to
do so at this time Peterson felt if the application was in regards to another location, it
would go through the long range analysis, but he sees this property as unique and lends
itself to its own development within the neighborhood. Peterson said he would like to see
the property rezoned to B-5 but would like ',o change some of the wording within the B-5
description and allowed uses now in the zoning code, i.e. removal of tobacco shops.
Peterson asked if there is anyone who is opposed to the project?
Lindquist opened the meeting to a public hearing and asked for comment.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996
(# I - #2158 John O’SulUvan/Grace Baptist Church Property - Rezoning - Continued)
John Ericson, 1620 Shadywood, and owner of 2 lots located to the north of the proposed
site on CoRd 19, said he had no problem with the plan but was concerned with a parking
lot abutting his property and the traffic from the businesses. Ericson said he acquired his
lots five years ago and was told by the County that they would not allow any more curb
cuts off of CoRd 19 for homes His access was said to have to come from Olive Avenue.
Ericson noted that the current church property has two curb cuts, and if he was not
allowed any curb cuts, neither should this property be allowed any additional curb cuts.
Ericson said there would be alot of traffic generated by the site with short term traffic
coming in and out Ericson is concerned with the narrow residential streets behind the site
and asked the Council to consider where the residential should begin and stop He
questioned whether he should build any houses on the lots. Ericson was concerned with
people taking shortcuts through the adjoining neighborhoods to get to the propos^ site
and would like to see the roads improved. He said he had no problem with what is being
proposed with controls noting it was better than what is there now.
Janet Roshar of the nearby vet clinic said the area needs a face lift, and she is in favor of
the plans.
Janet Simons, in insurance sales the past 11 years, said the proposal would be a wonderful
advancement to the area, and she would like to relocate into the proposed building.
Jay Richards, 3243 Casco Circle, said he has dealt with O'Sullivan and Smith as
businessmen over the last 22 years and viewed them as good people. He would like to
encourage them to keep their standards, which he views as higher than those in the area at
this time.
Gaffron passed around a letter from Robyn and Brett Hallonquist, which was read into the
minutes, voicing their approval of the plans
Smith asked O’Sullivan what kind of retail businesses he saw as being located in the
building. O'Sullivan gave an example of a flower shop, a gift and card shop, person^
services. He said he has not yet put out any notices in the marketplace but has received
inquiries from realty houses and insurance agents, which would be good businesses for the
ighborhood and fit in the B-5 zoning, adding that these uses did not generate highnet
traffic. O'Sullivan informed Smith that there would be no 24 hour businesses.
Smith asked O'Sullivan to comment on the residential traffic. A bike/hike trail was noted.
O’Sullivan said there would be no direct outlet to Navarre Lane or Olive Avenue as the ^
traffic pattern is designed to keep away from the residential area. Peterson noted that this
was the subject of the only question at the public meetings.
minutes of the orono planning commission meeting held on august 19, 1996(# I . #2 1S8 John O'Sumvan/Grace Baptist Church Property - Rezoning - Continued)
with a conditional use of off-street parking.
Hnwn said she saw the issue as whether to approve the B-5 as it stands and encoun^e the
building in the neighborhood,
asking to change the zoning.
Stoddard contmented on a concept brought fo^ard last month °f » "
Xa^did co“^ ^wa^d^'WoS,‘.^ is
open to reviewing the permitted use.
Peterson said he sees the development as a catalyst for redevelopment of the Navarre area.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996
(#1 - #2158 John O’Sullivan/Grace Baptist Church Property - Rezoning - Continued)
Smith asked O'Sullivan what kind of energy was in the area regarding redevelopment,
noting the need for funding, and whether a revitalization of the area was realistic
O'Sullivan said he couldn't speak for others but saw improvements made in businesses
cause other businesses to get involved or become lost O’Sullivan said it was a matter of
individuals parting with funds He noted Berg’s involvement in redevelopment projects^
The need for special financing and problems with absentee l^dlords were noted. Smith
said she was not encouraged that there would be any beautification plans occurring
without special financing available.
Janet Simons reported that O’Sullivan, Rick Bloomquist of Rick ’s Super Valu, and herself
got together and purchased holiday banners prior to getting any support from others in the
area. They then sent out mailings and raised several thousand dollars Simons said this
shows a commitment by the business owners and their support She noted that such
initiatives do get the ball rolling towards improvements in the area
Peterson moved. Berg seconded, to approve the rezoning of the property at 2380
Shadywood Road to B-5 as stated with the condition that the B-5 uses be amended to
delete tobacco shops under permitted uses and kennels, home and garden rental, and oflf-
street parking under conditional uses
Gafiron asked to review the existing B-5 areas in Navarre. This includes a block where a
Dairy Queen, a vet clinic, and Lowells Auto Parts; an office building, and B-5 to the west
with a furniture store and a service station. With only those B-5 districts, Gaffron said the
suggested amendment to the B-5 would appear to not adversely affect those businesses
already in place which was a concern to him He asked that off-street parking be defined
as there is a need for parking in the B-5 but serving some other primary use. Su^estions
were of no unauthorized parking and no "for sale" parking allowed Peterson said he
feared Lord Fletchers would use the lot for parking on weekends creating more traffic to
the area which Peterson would like to keep down. Gaffron recommended that the
Commission recommend to Council that an amendment to the B-5 zone be pursued as a
separate application from the rezoning. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. The rezoning issue will be
before the Council at the meeting of August 26, 1996.
(#2) #2155 NANCY KRAUSE AND DAN HANDLIN, 3860 NORTH SHORE
DRIVE AND CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION OF A I.OT LINE
REARRANGEMENT - PUBLIC HEARING 7:45-7:50 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted
The Applicants were present.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 19%
(#2 - #2155 Nancy Krause and Dan Handlin - Continued)
Gaflfron reported that the application is a request for approval of a subdivision ot a^-
owned tax forfeit parcel The parcel includes wetlands and once held a hft station^ ^
pplicants found that their driveway access is partially withm this tax-forfeit parcel The
ppUcants went forw ard w ith their purchase of the property in spite ot the encroachment
after receiving conceptual approval from the Council for convey ance of a portion of the
property to the County for resale to the property owner The portion to be transfeir^ is
20’ wide and 100’ deep Gaffron reported that this would have no impact on the City s
infrastructure and recommends approval
a
a
The applicants said it is their desire to own their driveway. They will be moving it slightly
to stay within their new boundaries
Smith asked if there were any costs to the City Gaffron said all costs would be at the
applicants' expense.
There were no public comments.
Hawn moved. Smith seconded to recommend approval of Application #2155 per Staff
recommendation to include conditions 1 and 2 Vote Ayes 6, Nays 0
OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - (REGISTERED LAND SURVEY) -
PUBLIC HEARING 7:50-7:54 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Eastmans were present
Gaffron reported that the application was a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement to
allow for the Eastman’s to acquire a portion of Lakeview Golf Course to accommodate a
garage addition to the rear of the Eastman house, which requires a 50' setback. Lakeview
Golf Course is in favor of selling the land and would suffer no negative jmpact . This
proposal would add 7800 s f to the Eastman property. There is generally drainage across
this portion of the land, but Gaffron said nothing suggests any need for a drainage
easement as it can be channeled on the Golf Course property. Gaffron said Staff
recommends approval as proposed.
The applicant had no comments to add.
There were no public comments.
MfNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996
(#3 - #2156 Michael and Theresa Eastman/Lakeview Golf Course - Continued)
Berg moved, Hax^ii seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2156. Vote; Ayes
6, Nays 0.
ACTION ITEMS
(#4) #2151 JOHN AND JANICE HURD, 2795 CASCO POINT ROAD -
VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:54-8:09 P.M.
Janice Hurd was present, along with architect, Charles Coombs.
Lindquist review ed the application for Staff and reported that changes were made to the
original application after review at a previous Planning Commission. The house was
moved back 8' from the original plan to accommodate concerns by the neighbors over the
average lakeshore setback The housv projection will still be 4-5' in front of this line. No
structural coverage or lot area variances are required A hardcover variance fo. 400 s f in
the 0-75 ’ zone is required for the existing boat house Hardcover in the 75-250' setback
meets the allowed at 3292 s f proposed. The 250-500' setback area allows 30% or 2241
s f The original proposal was for 45.7% or 3414 s.f The amended proposal is at 2912
s.f or 38 9®/o for a 671.7 s f or 8.9^o variance 320 s.f of driveway improvement is
located in the Casco Point right-of-way.
Peterson clarified that the isaies at hand are the hardcover in the 250-500' setback and the
average lakeshore setback.
Gaffron reported that a letter from neighbors, Ken and Elaine Erickson, arrived today.
Peterson read the letter into the minutes. The Erickson's favored the changes made to the
house placement, had no objection to the boat house, and had only a possible objection to
the portion of the house laying in area beyond their home's projection. Hurd said this
projection area is their kitchen eating area. Without that area, the home would have to be
widened which would make it lay closer to the Grundeen's. Hurd also noted that the
existing house in this same area is a 2-story and the proposed is a single story with a
walkout under grade. Stoddard asked if this projection of the house can be seen from the
neighboring property. Coombs said the look of the projection was softened and did not
believe it had anv affect. He noted that the Grundeen's were in favor of the changes made.
In public comments, Todd Thielmann, 2799 Casco Point Road, located two houses to the
left of the Hurd's, said the neighbors had met with the Hurd's. Thielmann said he and the
Grundeen's liked the new softened look. An imaginary line was drawn from their homes
to establish a boundary by which the homes would keep within in order to control any
leapfrog effect. Thielmann informed Peterson he is in favor of the application with the
changes made.
8
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996
(#4 - #2151 John and Janice Hurd - Continued)
Peterson reviewed the variances required of hardcover in the 250-500 ^tback and
average lakeshore setback He noted his own view' of being consistent m not voting for
average lakeshore setbacks as a matter of principle The application was tabled from the
last Planning Commission meeting in order to respond to the concerns of the neighbors.
This seems to have been rectified by the adjustments made in the plan to eliminate any
leapfrog effect Peterson commented that the boat house is in excellent condition and
seems appropriate to allow it to renuun.
Stoddard was informed by Coombs that the new placement of the home will be held to a
line from the Thielmann's home and recorded on a survey Thielmann acknowledged that
the approval should include the survey.
Smith said she did have a concern over the lakeshore setback. Hurd said the home now
exists much further into the setback If the home was moved back any further, it would
create an even deeper tunnel effect
Coombs said he believed the Grundeen's home would be remodeled at some point. With
the drawing of the imagi nary line, it would keep their home within that setback also.
Stoddard moved. Hawn seconded, to recommend approval as submitted with the addition
of the survey line included in the approval. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 1, Peterson, due to the
principle of the average lakeshore setback. Lindquist did not participate in the vote as he
conducted the review.
(#5) #2159 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD -
VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:09-8:10 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2159 at the request of the
applicants Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. Berg was not in the chambers at the time of the vote.
(#6) #2160 DAVID DOTZENROTH, 3225 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCES
PUBLIC HEARING 8:10-8:40 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19. 1996
(#6 - #2160 David Dotzenroth - Continued)
Gaflfron reported that the application is for side and street setback variances for an
addition to the rear of the garage. The lot area, lot xvidth, and hardcover allowances are
all conforming The corners of the garage are at 4 4* and 7 4* from the side lot line where
10 ’ is normal With the proposed 750 s f footprint, the required setback is increased to
15 ’ The garage is now 1-2’ from the street lot line and the concrete slab extends out over
that The addition w ould include a roof change from a low pitch to a 12 12 pitch The
purpose of the addition is for storage The proposal shows an end load or possibly a side
door to allow for backing up into the property This would allow the off-street parking to
be out of the right-of-way. Gaffron said Staff bebcv’cs it would be more appropriate to
have a side door configuration but noted it would add hardcover with the driveway apron
for parking This might have an impact on the trees on the wooded property Gaffron
added that the code for doors facing the street requires a 30’ setback. This relates to busy
streets which is not the case in this situation. He noted there is no other option for
parking under the current layout as the garage is against the lot line.
Dotzenroth reported that he has lived in the area for 43 years owning several homes.
Letters from the neighbors noted approval of his application. Dotzenroth said the front
exposed doors and concrete apron allows for a parking area for guests He noted that the
property in the circle now owned by the City was once owned by his family. Dotzenroth
said if the road was improved, it would not infringe on the neighbors but to the park only.
Douenroth said if he changed the doors to face the east, it might cause problems in the
winter time He added that a 30’ setback would require the probable elimination of a
hickory and black walnut tree If pushed any further back, it would also take out a 4'
maple Dotzenroth said there is no traffic problem in the area noting the dwd end street.
Although he does not park on the concrete apron, his guests do, and this aids in keeping
cars out of the park area He said he is not in favor of trailers and brush being within the
park as there now exists. Dotzenroth added that the expansion would allow the roof to be
in the same style as his 1882 Victorian home and give him options for storage.
Lindquist asked if there was a problem with keeping within the 1000 s.f. limit. Dotzenroth
said the expansion is not much over that amount, and his benefit is in gaining the 12:12
pitch. Gaffron asked if the jarage could be reduced 6" in length, which w ould keep the
garage within the 1000 s. * Doizenroth said this could be done.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996
(#6 - #2160 David Doizenroth - Continued)
Smith asked what the use of the addition was for and who would construct it. Dotzenroth
said the expansion would allow his vehicles to be stored within and noted that he would
contract out for the work Smith asked what the time frame would be for the home
completion, garage, and yard cleanup Dotzenroth said the home was started last year,
and he is in the process of finishing the roof and walkw ay He thought the home w-ould be
completed in a couple months The yard should be cleaned up of construction material at
that time Dotzenroth said the garage would be done after the home and all should be
completed by spring of 1997 He said all of the work including landscaping will be done
within the time frame of the one year variance allotment
Hawn asked if the entry to the side could be accomplished without destroying the black
walnut tree Dotzenroth said he has not measured it, and it would be close. She asked
about the 3-car garage but 2-car design. Dotzenroth said two stalls are tandem.
Berg asked if Dotzenroth intended on keeping the sheds on the property Dotzenroth said
one of the sheds would be eliminated.
Smith asked Dotzenroth for his choice of either the garage pulled back with a side apron
or a steeper gabled roof Dotzenroth preferred the roof Smith asked if this was allowed,
if Dotzenroth would be willing to orient the garage per the Staff recommendation.
Dotzenroth said he would be looking at ice slides. Gaffron noted that this concern could
be eliminated by redesigning the peak of the roof and showed Dotzenroth a sketch how
that could be accomplished
The issue of the garage entry was discussed. Lindquist said the side entry was a matter of
safety. Dotzenroth did not think this made a difference with the road being at the end of
the point Smith said it would improve the safety, not only for traffic, but for egress onto
Casco Point and provide parking safety Dotzenroth asked if he had the door for access
but be allowed two on the side. Smith said this would defeat what the Commission was
trying to accomplish.
Hawn said she was concerned with a variance allowing the garage so close to the roadway
when this would not be allowed for others. She does not find the situation to be so unique
as to compel approval of the resolution when there is another solution for side entry. She
had no problem tvith the steeper roof Smith agreed that the steeper roof would all
right. Dotzenroth said he would like to measure the distances to see what effect it would
have on the black walnut trees.
There were no public comments.
Lindquist said he preferred the side door entry. Dotzenroth asked if he could keep the
concrete apron for guest parking
MINilTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996
(#6 - #2160 David Dotzenroth - Continued)
Stoddard said he was in favor of the roof line to restore the Victorian look. He not^ the
side entry would add about 4% to hardcover. Dotzenroth said he was concerned with
addition^ hardcover and prefers green
Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of the garage addition with the
of the addition to be maintained below the 1000 s f limit The steeper gabled roof
was recommended for approval The garage doors are to be oriented to the east and
require a new driveway construction The apron in the right-of-way is to be eliminated.
The exterior construction of the house is to be completed before the garage is begun.
Gaffron noted that the permit is for two years, one year for the exterior and one year for
interior completion. Vote Ayes 6, Na>'S 0.
Dotzenroth was informed that the existing concrete with doors could not remain. Smith
said it was a matter of safety. Hawn noted that cars could still pull in without the concrete
there but the concern of the Commission was for cars being in the roadway Mrs.
Dotzenroth asked if gravel could be placed where the apron now exists Gaffron said
gravel constitutes hardcover and grass pavers also were considered hardcover.
Gaffron said the application would be before the Council at their September 9 meeting.
Gaffron informed Dotzenroth that the proposal would be needed prior to the meeting.
Peterson noted that Dotzenroth would have one year from the approval of the variance by
the Council to complete the work.
(#7) #2161 JAMES AND MELISSA EASLEY, 4105 HIGHWOOD ROAD -
VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:40-9:05 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicants were present, along with their Architect, Sarah Susanka.
Gaffron reported that the property located on Highwood Road is about 40 wide. The
proposal is to tear down the existing garage, which is located 2' from the right-of-way,
and remove the parking area and stairway dowm to the house. It wnll be replaced with a
garage within 3 ’ of the side lot line and 25-30 ’ from the street with parking in front of the
garage. The future conceptual plan is to attach the garage to the house with a walkway
vestibule The garage and house are to be 3 levels each.
Gaffron noted a height issue with the proposed garage The defined height is 26' and that
of the house only 19', though 26' from low point to peak. The garage is considered an
accessory structure and by definition cannot be of greater height than the house.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996
(#7 - #2161 James and Melissa Easley - Continued)
The side setback is proposed at 3' where 10' is required by code The reason for this
setback variance is twofold; 1) to add to the drainage by extension of the garage wall to
channel drainage past the house, and 2) there are mature trees on the other side. It was
noted that there is a 30' setback required for the garage doors facing the street.
A lot coverage variance is required The existing structures are 16.8%, or 1401 s.f,
where 15% is allowed The proposal is for 19 7?o, or 1646 s.f Gaflron noted that the
zoning allows for 1500 s.f regardless of the lot size Calculations have not been done for
the conceptual new house and may be found to be less than the existing lot coverage.
There will be no change in the hardcover in the 0-75' setback. Existing hardcover is at
23.3%, which includes the house and deck The hardcover in the 75-250' setback is at
38.1%, proposed at 40.8%, where 25% is allowed.
Gaffiron reported that the City Engineer has reviewed the proposal. By channeling the
drainage from the garage roof and driveway. Cook was said to feel this would protect the
house. Drainage from the street currently travels along a 4-hou5e area. Gaffron said
drainage is a concern in the neighborhood, and curb and gutter and retention pond are
future issues to be considered.
Gaffron asked the Commission to consider the relation of the garage and house, the need
for 3-stories, and the view from the lake from a height standpoint at about 50' from lowest
to highest points Gaffron noted that a typical 2-story walkout would present a height
range of42-45'. Lindquist commented that the problem with the garage was the need to
go down 2 stories
Architect Susanka raised the issue of the "office space" being considered as part of the
garage. When the house is rebuilt in several years, the applicants would need to reside in
the garage. Susanka asked if there would be a problem with that as the applicants would
not invest heavily into the property if it was not allowed. She also asked about
requirements of the planned house in order to gauge what the City would allow. Susanka
said the upper story of the garage would have 5-6' sidewalls to allow a person to stand in
it but to have minimal impact.
TiiTNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996
(#7 - #2161 James and Melissa Easley - Continued)
Lindquist responded that this would then become a problem w ith a tear down Gaffron
said the garage would then become the principal structure The time frame would be
review ed but Gaffron said it could likely be w orked out Lindquist inquired if plumbing
was added, would it remain once the house was rebuilt The applicant said it would
possibly be used as a mother-in-law apartment Gaffron referred to the connection >vith
the breezeway Susanka said the plans were not totally formulated as they were only
gathering information at this time Gaffron related scenarios of the space being heated, all
one structure, or if a separate structure, or as a bedroom, and the requirement for a CUP.
Lindquist was informed that the time frame for the completion of the house was 4-5 years.
Lindquist sugg ested completing the garage and then making a decision on the remainder
of the concept.
Melissa Easley noted the hazardous cornlition of the garage as it now stands and concerns
for safety and drainage. James Easley also reported a problem with the retaining walls.
Lindquist asked what they would like approved at this meeting and Melissa Easley said to
build a garage
Stoddard asked what the issues were ccr.ceming the retaining walls Gaffron said the
existing wali condition is poor The idea for the proposal would solve drainage by
drawing it past the house. There has been no suggestion as to how high they should be as
of yet, but Gaffron said the Engineer thought the solution may work.
Hawn commented that the small lots require smaller houses and would like to see the
square footage keep to the 1500 s f allowed She asked the applicants to keep this in
mind when considering the large garage as it would be included in that calculation.
Susanka said the garage is not large at 22x21 and includes a stairway to the house. She
said they looked at an outside stairway but were concerned with water. Susanka said it
was not the intention of the applicants to have a large house Gaffron said the existing
house is at about 1000 s f Susanka said the new structure would be close in size to what
exists noting her specialty in working with smaller sized homes.
Stoddard asked the applicants to work with Staff regarding the pros of connecting the
garage and house, which would be better than having a separate structure. Gaffron said
the building inspector would review it. Susanka was told it would be okay to meet with
Staff to discuss the issues
Stoddard asked how the planned house and garage would fit in with the neighborhood.
Susanka said some of the homes are taller. Gaffron informed Smith that the peak would
compare to those in the neighborhood. The Theobald house to the east was noted to be
the lowest home. Melissa Easley said they were trying not to create a change to the style
of the neighborhood and their home would be similar to that of Theobald.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996
(#6 - #2161 James and Melissa Easley - Continued)
There were no public comments
Lindquist commented that there were a number of variances with the size of the lot but
agreed that the proposal was an improvement.
Cffion noted the 3' side setback was an essential minimum with a 2' overh^ and the
drip line !• from the lot line He also noted the uniqueness of the proposal due to the
dririnage Gaffron said a fire wall would be required, but there would be a 10-11
separation from the neighbor's garage.
Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2161 as
prised Smith noted that the garage space for office, plumbing, and living space
Lt^ng considered in this proposal Hawn asked if it would be used for business The
appUcants said the use of the office terminology was only due to a lack of knowing what
to^l the space Stoddard noted that the height variance could result m being more
intense Vote Ayes 6, Nays 0
Susanka informed the Planning Commission that she has worked with many different staff
from other cities and has found Gaffron to be excellent to work with and very
(#S) #2163 LARRY AND SHARON GEHL, 1825 CONCORDIA STREET-
VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:05-9:13 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicants were present.
Gaffron reported that an addition to the house has begun in the 75-250 ’ setback, but the
applicants propose a second story deck above the existing one story screen porch, which
encroaches the 0-75' by 12' and would change the roof pitch of the porch to being flat but
with a deck and railing above it. This would add height past the average lakeshore
setback line and past the 75 ’ line. Gaffron also noted the existing grade level deck. The
average lakeshore setback line was said to be in line with the house and possibly behind
the setback with the survey line as shown. Gaffron said there are also shrubs with rock
and plastic which normally would be removed within the 0-75' setback. A sidewalk has
been taken out in the 0-75' area.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMXOSSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996
(#8 - #2163 Larry and Sharon Gehl - Continued)
The applicants reported that their neighbors were in favor of the proposal Larry Gehl
said the roof line was to be at a slight angle He noted that a leaking roof was the
initiative behind the project, and they are attempting to gain more light into the house by
dropping the roof line The same footprint will be used as the existing porch Gehl said
the neighbor to his right v gain a better view as a result of the improvement With the
trees on the property, views are limited, Stoddard said when the views are limited, the
average lakeshore setback is a mute issue
Sharon Gehl said the proposal w ould result in a better utilization of their space. She
would like to see the deck remain for egress into the house Gehl said she was willing to
remove the plastic, as she has already removed about half of it around the house Gehl
also noted that the sidewalk from the lakeshore halfway up to the house was removed.
Gehl said it was not their intent to add to hardcover.
Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2163 with the condition that
the remainder of the plastic be removed. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Peterson, who noted the
project was good but it was a matter of principle regarding the average lakeshore setback.
Gehl was advised to speak with John Gerhardson after inquiring about standing water in
the fire lane adjacent to his property.
(#9) #2164 DOUGLAS J. OLSON, 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD -
VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:14-9:26 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was represented by Architect, Bill Michels.
Gaffion reported that the proposal was for hardcover variances for two sides in the 0-75'
setback, the 75-250' hardcover, lakeshore setback, and average lakeshore setback for an
addition to the existing house. The addition is mostly located away from the lakeshore
side of the house. The roof pitch would be changed to a 12; 12. A minor room addition in
the center part of the house would add another story and be much higher than that which
exists today. A portion of the roof pitch change is located in the 0-75 ’ setback. The entire
house is located within the average lakeshore setback due to its location on a point. There
is considerable vegetation between this house and the next house to the west. The
hardcover in the 0-75' setback exists at 9.1% and will not change The change is the
redefinition of the roof The hardcover exists at 31% in the 75-250 ’ zone. The applicant
proposes removals in the driveway resulting in an island effect and a reduction of 217 s.f.
to 30.25% Structural coverage would increase from 7.7% to 8.0%.
L
MINXrrES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONCVASSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996
(#9 - #2164 Douglas Olson - Continued)
Stoddard noted that the driveway is used to serve others. Gaffron said the calculations do
not include the area of driveway easements.
Michels reported that the roof pitch was changing from a gabled to a hip roof The roof
would slope away even with the increased height and would result in beinp lower as it
starts lower.
Lindquist noted that the Plarming Commission has reviewed several proposals and asked if
this proposal would actually move forward Michels was not sure He did note that this
plan was more refined and scaled back in scope. The home would change in square
footage by 30%. Michels said they would like to begin construction soon He noted the
tradeoff of driveway w ith the addition of hardcover adding that there may be room for
more removal. Lindquist commented that a major reduction has already been
accomplished on the property Stoddard said the applicant informed him of the removals
made in the pool area already He also commented that he was not concerned with the
average lakeshore setback as this was a lot on a point.
There were no public comments.
Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2164 as submitted. Vote:
Ayes 5, Nays 1, Peterson, the principle of the average lakeshore setback.
(#10) #2166 JANET KIERNAN, 1491 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCES -
PUBLIC HEARING 9:15>10:03 P.M.
fhe Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present, along with Architect, Maureen Stratton, and Attorney, Allen
Chnsty.
Gaffion passed out the neighborhood acknowledgment forms recently received expressing
approval of the application.
Gaffion reported that the application request is for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore
setback, side setback, and hardcover variances for both the 0-75' and 75-250' setbacks for
construction of additions to the existing residence A street setback variance is also
required for expansion of the existing detached garage. The driveway will be relocated.
The garage is located on a triangular piece of property of which the ownership
background has been unclear.
i
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996
(#10 - #2166 Janet KJem»n - Continued)
Kieman said the abstract refers to the triangular piece as a part cf the old road bed. The
past owfuer applied for o>vnership of said parcel which had been condemned Real estate
attorney Christy informed the Planning Commission of the background of the parcel and
the tracking of documentation to ownership to Kieman. These documents were provided
to Gaflfron.
Gaffron reported there are several factors requiring variances for this proposed
construction including the large driveway, the addition encroaching the 75' setback and
average lakeshore setback, and the issue of location of neighboring homes related to this
propcr»'^ The average lakeshore setback line is technically located through the middle of
the house, althougli from a practical standpoint, there is no view to disrupt The changes
to the roof lines and existing rooms in house are partially located within the 0-75' and
within the required 30' side setback The change is mainly in the roof line and not in
structure.
The hardcover in the 0-75' setback is proposed at 6% with removal of a fireplace, patio,
and sidewalk and addition of a semi-circular patio area The proposal results in a net
reduction of 54 s f Gatfron questioned whether a further reduction could be made. The
applicants piopose a 75-230' setback area reduction from 27 5®o to 26.8%, however, the
reduction is a result of taking less than 100% credit for the proposed "grass pavers".
Gaffron noted that no application using grass pavers has been followed through in Orono,
Once grass pavers are driven on, they are considered hardcover. Gaffron asked the
Commission to consider whether this reduction should be credited.
Gaffron reported other changes to hardcover. A major portion of the driveway next to the
house will be removed The driveway will be relocated to the side of the garage providing
a safer access Dave Zetterstrom of Hennepin County said the new location was an
excellent site. This would add hardcover, however, next to the neighbor’s serpentine wall.
It also presents concern for drainage
The survey shows the garage addition would be located at a 10.7' street setback with the
addition of two stalls The code requires a 15' setback for a garage such as this that
exceeds 750 s f. Gaffron said options include reducing the proposal down to three stalls
or offsetting the garage to the east
Kieman stud the property is in need of major renovation. Her goal is to improve the
property, and she is willing to make compromises.
MNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996
(#10 - #2166 Janet Kieman - Continued)
Peterson inquired about the number of bedrooms with the current septic site. Kieman said
the 4 bedrooms are more than adequate, and she would not use the recreation room as a
bedroom Gaffron informed Lindquist that the septic system was in conformance and
functioning correctly It might, howev er, be too small for the number of bedrooms There
had been a guess on the percolation rate when the system was originally built Gaffron
iK>ted that the property is in one of the designated "hot spots" for sew ering
Stoddard commented that the proposal was a great improvement to the property. He
questioned the size of the terrace and its use He also voiced concern with the location of
the garage addition proposed at a 10* setback noting the steepness of the road at that
point He asked the applicant to consider bringing the garage addition back in on the
property
Lindquist asked if Kieman would consider scaling the garage back to a 3-car garage.
Kieman said she would prefer to do an offset by bringing it forward. Gaffron said a 4-1/2’
offset is needed to meet the 15' setback as long as the garage is kept less than 1000 s.f
Kieman said she would keep the garage size within the 1000 s f
Lindquist asked about a reduction to the patio area located in the 0-75* zone. Lindquist
informed Smith that there was only the patio in which to reduce the hardcover in this
zone. Stratton said they would be willing to reduce the size of the patio and asked for
direction Lindquist said, ideally, the patio would not exist Stratton responded with the
access to the lake, the patio could not be completely eliminated She noted that the stairs
has been taken out Lindquist said he would recommend extending the patio no further
than what now exists.
Stoddard asked about the columns being proposed Stratton said they were within the
footprint and were taking out walls.
Kieman informed the Commission that a sidewalk was removed and another set of stairs
on the other side of the house was also being removed.
Mayor Callahan asked where the sewer is proposed to be located on the property and
neighborhood Gaffron said it likely will cross the property. Callahan noted that there
were drawings for both behind the house and along the lakeshore and consideration should
be made for the two together Gaflron said there is some flexibility on where it can go,
and he would review it with Engineer Cook. Callahan asked that he also consider an
easement if need be. Lindquist asked Kieman if she understood what they were referring
to, and she said she did.
f
J
MINUTES OF THE ORONO FLAMMING COMNflSSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996
(#10 - #2166 Janet Kieman - Continued)
Stoddard asked where the City was regarding the County's planned improvements to
CoRd 15. Callahan said it in a state of active consideration noting the different
viewpoints taken amongst Council members
Lindquist asked for the size of the patio to be considered Kieman asked that it be large
enough to accommodate a table and chairs Stratton said it is currently proposed at 24'
across and 18' out from the house Gaffron reviewed the hardcover in the 0-75' setback
and suggested cutting the size of the patio in halt. Kieman and Stratton agreed to limit the
Me of the patio to 240 s f
Smith asked about the plan for the gazebo Kieman said she would like to do it in the
future. The placement was unknown, but Kieman was informed that it should not
encroach the septic system drainfield
Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2166 with the following changes
and conditions; The garage will be offset with a minimum of 1 5' setback from CoRd 15.
TiKr patio will be reduced in size to 240 s f The property will not be allowed to have
more than 4 bedrooms until such time as sewering is complete. The Planning Commission
advised that no more structural coverage would be allowed in the 0-75' setback zone as
the property has reached its maximum limit.
Gaffron noted that the change in hardcover in the 0-75' setback would result in a 3.9%
variance He also informed the applicant that the drainage and grading plans and location
of the sewer would be required before the application would go before the Council.
Gaffron said he would provide what information they had in-house, and this request
should not hold back the proposal
Vote Ayes 5, Nays 1, Peterson, principle of average lakeshore setback, concern with
trading a fireplace and minor landscaping for major structure in the 0-75' setback, and
noted the property was at the point of no additional structural coverage.
(#11) #2167 ALLEN AND JUDY SCHEFERS, •'2540" CASCO POINT ROAD -
VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:03-10:08 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was represented by Loren Brueggeroann.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
\ffiETING HELD ON AUGUST 19.1996
(#11 - #2167 Allen and Judy Schefcrs - Continued)
Gaffron noted the elusiveness of the application with the steady stream of changes made
from the original proposal He reported that the original house was planned within the
flood plain and with the lowest floor level below the Regulatory Flo<^ Protection
Elevation (RFPE) The 75-250' hardcover was also proposed at about 32% where only
25% is allowed The lot is vacant, and a new house is now proposed for which there is no
justification for hardcover variances. The house has now been raised to the required
935.5’ elevation and out of the flood plain With the changes to the location, the size of
the house, and the driveway, the house now will meet the 25® o hardcover The only
request remaining is for a CLT* for fill importation in excess of 100 cubic yards It would
require 300-400 cubic yards of fill for this proposal Gaffron noted there is also no
defined average lakeshore setback to meet as there is no house to the south. The house
will be located some distance back from the 0-75' setback The hardcover in the 75-250'
setback is proposed at 24 97®/o Gaflron said the plan is realistic He said the fill would
require around 30 truck loads. Documentation by a survey showing hardcover
calculations will be required
Peterson noted that the normal precautions would be required regarding fill such as road
clean up.
Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the request for a CUP for fill in excess of
100 cubic yards with the inclusion of a surv ey. Vote Ayes 5, Nays 0. Hawn was absent
from the vote
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#12) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE
ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12.1996
No report was given
(#13) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JULY 22,
1996 MEETING
Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of July 22, 1996. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. Hawn was not present for the vote.
(#14) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO
ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9.1996
Stoddard will attend the September 9, 1996 meeting of the Council
NflNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996
(#15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Peterson reported that he has tendered Ws reagnation effective immediately due to a job
relocation. He extended his appreciation for the support he has rweived Callahan
informed Peterson that he was sorry to see him go a^ thaiJced him for his service.
ADJOURNMENT
Lindquist adjourned the meeting at 10; 10 p m.
Dale Lindquist, Chair Person