The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-22-1995 Planning PacketORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith and Charles Nolan, Jr. Candace Row'lette arrived at 8:42 p.m Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Lin Vee represented Staff The meeting was called to order by Chair Schroeder at 7:03 p m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING (#1) 7:00 P.M. #1995 FRANK KOKESH, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 7:03-7:57 P.M. The Applicant was represented by his attorney, Larry Berg of Fredrikson and Byron. Robert Hare and Patty Napier of Burnet Realty were also representatives of the property. Mabusth explained this application is for a subdivision of the property along previously platted lot lines that were legally combined. Since this is a 5 acre zoning district, this 9.9 acre parcel would never be brought before the City again tor subdivision. The City will ask for dedication of road rights-of-way and a flowage and conservation easement over the designated wetland. Easements and dedications for the remaining 22 acre parcel will be considered at a later time. The total dedication of 66' of right-of-way road easement of Watertown Road at one section creates an unbuildable triangular piece of property to the south which could either be legally combined with the homestead parcel on the northern side of the road or combined with adjacent properties on the southern side of Watertown Road. Staff reviewed the 1989 ordinance amendment that dealt with oversized accessory structures. At the time the larger riding arena and indoor bam were constructed, there were no limits on the size or number of oversized accessory structures on a property. In 1989, the two stmctures became non- conforming with the oversized accessory stmcture ordinance amendment, not as a result of the current subdivision application. A major issue for the review of this 9.9 acre parcel (8.41 dry buildable acres) is the 6 horse allowance per current code. What other use could be allowed for these oversized accessory structures if not the keeping of horses? When the Kokeshes purchased the 9.9 acre property in 1968, the code stated that a stock farm had to have 10 acres and Section 10.03 would allow an increase of 2." V .‘•itJ'out the need for a conditional use permit review. In 1985, variances were granted for the ev'tr cial use of the property and a conditional use permit was granted for the riding stable and instruction. In 1975 there were 20 horses and in 1985 there were 25 horses, which was legal as the Kokeshes owned 31.2 contiguous acres. Based on 29 dry buildable acres, the code would have allowed 27 horses. The 1968, 1975 and current code are basically the same as for the classifying of a farm at 10 acres. The applicant is looking for direction regarding the keeping of horses on the property. The two oversized accessory structures can legally remain. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 Larry Berg, attorney for the applicant, presented a timeline of the history of the property. He noted that Council permitted the 9 91 acre parcel under consideration to maintain a 25 horse level of use years before the properties were legally combined In 1986 the City asked the Kokeshes to combine the parcels because he proposed to build a loafing shed which made one of the other parcels non- compliant The combination would eliminate this problem as well as give some tax benefits. Berg did not think that building the loafing shed put one of the parcels out of compliance. Berg noted this property has been considered a farm for a very long time. He added that the Last Straw Farm was a 9.91 acre parcel in 1957 with 27 horses Orono has always had laws that allowed farms to continue to be farms The Kokeshes are asking that the historic use of the property be permitted to continue, referring to the historic property lines and level of horse use. Peterson asked if this were a farm if it was taxed as Green Acres by Hennepin County. Napier did not think it was. Peterson noted it was not a traditional farm as it did not meet the full 10 acres and was not taxed as such Schroeder asked what the intention was of Mr Kokesh by creating this subdivision Berg responded that he would like to sell his property. A prospective buyer has indicated they do not want to own more than the 9 9 acre parcel which consists of the oversized accessory buildings and a home. Schroeder asked what Mr. Kokesh intended to do with the remaining 22 acres. Berg responded that he intends to sell that also, possibly in two parcels Schroeder suggested that development of the 22 acres could result in 4 lots in this 5 acre zone. Berg stated there was no intention to pursue development at this time, simply to divide off the 9.9 acre paicel and use as it has always been used. Berg expressed his view that the historic use of the property should be grandfathered in as it has continued since 1957. Mabusth did not consider this a "grandfather" situation. Berg reiterated that prior to 1986 and the combination of the property, the Planning Commission and Council approved a 25 horse level of use. Peterson did not agree with the idea that because the use existed since 19' that it should be grandfathered in and continue. Many changes have taken place since that time regarding the code. Smith asked how the future owners intended to use the property. Napier responded that it would be used for boarding, training, lessons - similar to the way the Kokeshes have used the property. No tack shops or horse shows are proposed. Schroeder noted the use is consistent with neighboring properties. Mabusth explained that based on current ordinances regarding the dry buildable acreage, 6 horses would be allowed. Three acres are required for the first horse and one acre for each additional horse. This is a reflection of grazing . areas needed for horses. If the area requirement could not be met, a variance would be brought before Council to decide that the horses would not need the pasture area. Mabusth commented that in the 1985 review, 25 horses were recorded for the 31.2 acres. During the 1985 review, the applicant advised the City that in 1975 there were 20 horses on the 9.9 acres. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22,1995 i Berg stated that if only 6 horses were allowed on this property, the improvements made to the property do not function for a use that small He thought this may be considered a taking of the property Smith asked if there was an opportunity to increase the acreage to 10 acres. Berg responded there was a practical problem with bank mortgages for 10+ acre parcels Pfct''r:on asked how many other properties in Orono have 9 9 acres with 27 horses. Napier respciiaed that right across the street there was a 4.S acre parcel with 18 horses on it. Mabusth responded she would have this reviewed. Napier noted that there were eight parcels with horses from the 3700 block up to 4100 Watertown Road She commented that the profile of a typical buyer would be someone who maintains horses indoors with some rotations outside There are 17 stalls in this state-of-the-art bam Some of the stalls also have partitions which have been removed allowing space for 20 horses. Mabusth asked Planning Commission members if they felt the horse use at an intense level was more like a non-conforming use and should be considered as a conditional use permit. Members agreed. There were no comments from the public. Smith asked if there was any precedence in other areas of the City. Mabusth thought there were some area variances for the keeping of horses on 2-3 acre parcels. Peterson noted that at the time of the sale of a property, the grandfather rule does not apply. Berg responded that the oversized structures became non-conforming in 1989 and are being allowed to remain. Jabbour asked how many horses had been kept on the property over the last 24 months. Napier responded that because the Kokeshes are moving their business to Florida, there have been 10-12 horses on the property. Jabbour indicated that if a non-conforming use was moving from a legal conforming use to a legal non-conforming use and the use was discontinued for a maximum of 12 months, the use could not be continued. Jabbour also asked about the driveway for the northern lot. Mabusth explained that the review was not being done at this time on that parcel because this application is only for a division along an existing lot line. Berg did not feel that the historic use of the property should be affected if there were fewer horses on the property at one time than another. Mabusth explained that clearly the code addresses the number of animal units allowed based on area. Because this property is under consideration for a subdivision, the City looks at it differently. The City recognizes there is a problem with the oversized accessory structures. In the 1989 code amendment, there was nothing that stated the oversized structures would have to be removed. However, if there were any structural repairs it would have to be brought before the Council as a vanance. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 Berg reiterated that the last time this property was before the City, this level of intense horse use was permitted This was many months before the City contacted the owner regarding combination of the parcels for a totally different issue Schroeder felt that Council would have considered use of the entire 31 acres even though the variance was granted on the 9 9 acre parcel Smith noted the environmental impact of 25 horses on this small parcel of land containing a designated wetland. She also expressed concern over waste removal. Schroeder suggested the City Attorney review this issue to consider if the City did Dfil permit this continued use if it would constitute a taking of the property. Smith asked if the potential buyer had a number of horses to be kept on the property in mind. Napier thought the maximum number would be the number of stalls available in the bam. Hare explained that additional land is too valuable to add to the 9.9 acre parcel. After much research and consideration of septic sites, grade, topography, cul-de-sacs, etc it was found that two sites on the 22 acre parcel would work best Nolan thou^t the more horses that could be put on a property, the more valuable it would be. He questioned the marketability of mortgages for property over 10 acres. Schroeder agreed. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Nolan, to table Application #1995 to permit the applicant further time to look at a more appropriate level of horse use on this 9.9 acre parcel and directed Staff to have the City Attorney review the application regarding the "taking" issue. Ayes 4, nays 0. ACTION ITEMS (#2) #1990 ROBERT W. CARLSON, 710 GANDER ROAD - VACATION OF EASEMENT CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:57-8:01 P.M. Robert Hare was present representing Robert Carlson. Mabusth explained this application was for a vacation of an easement that was granted to the MWee in 1975 and she questioned the method used to designate the easement on the plat. The City has no interest in the easement. The MWCC has released their interest in the easement which has been recorded in the Chain of Title of the property. The City still wishes to retain a drainage easement over that portion of the property that encroaches the designated wetland and a 10' drainage and utility easement at the north and south lot lines. Mabusth noted these signed easements must be granted to the City as a condition of Council's final approval. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Nolan, to approve Application #1990 for Robert Carlson's vacation of easement at 710 Gander Road. Ayes 4, nays 0. ORONO PLANNING COM MISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 (#3) #1992 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1420 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:01-8:40 P.M. Scott Crawford of Kraus Anderson represented the applicants. Mabusth reviewed the application noting this property has been before the Planning Commission for review several times She explained the need for variances for the structural repair of a greenhouse and existing garage and a variance and conditional use permit for the repair of retaining walls that support an underground opening into the greenhouse located in the 0-75' setback area The comprehensive improvements application also involves the reinstallation of 6' high brick walls along the side lot line and along the front street setback The walls are 50-^' from the street yard meeting the required setback. Another issue is a paved path located in the 0-75' setback area that was not calculated in the original hardcover review The applicant has installed a 4' path instead of the 8' path and this request has also been included in current application On the original plans there was also a 12' grassed access drive tl <tt was to have an underliner of gravel to be covered with grass, which would not be considered hardcover A 10' paved path has been installed instead which now adds hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone and requires variance approval Peterson questioned how the applicants could be allowed to install the path in the 0-75' zone when it was not approved on the original plan. Crawford commented that the path was installed in the "heat of construction" to service the pool and terrace area The portions of the path in the 75-250' setback area are not a hardcover problem. Crawford questioned if the entire path would need to be removed or just the portion in the 0-75' setback area. Schroeder questioned the amount of hardcover in the 0-75' setback area Mabusth responded that 21,557 s.f or 16 47% was approved in earlier reviews. The additional 4' paved walkway, 10' paved drive and retaining wall repairs in the 0-75' zone brings the property to 16.76% hardcover in the 0- 75' setback area. He did not object to the walkway but did question the drive. Other members agreed Peterson commented that in the 1993 review members questioned the foundation of the greenhouse and were told that no further improvements were planned. Crawford responded they were not planned at that time Peterson asked if there were any other violations staff had observed since previous approvals had been granted. Mabusth responded that the Building Inspector works very closely with Crawford and was not aware of any other violations. Smith asked Crawford if there were any other improvements planned for this property in the near future Crawford responded that there has been some discussion of restoration/structural repaii of the caretaker house. Variances would be required for a side setback and repair to an oversized accessory structure ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22,1995 Smith confirmed the retaining walls were to be repaired with no changes. Nolan asked the purpose of the underground walkway and retaining wall. Crawford explained it was the entrance to the root cellar and basement of the greenhouse and the only outside access to the greenhouse Schroeder asked why the grass drive did not work. Crawford responded that service and maintenance vehicles that would use the drive would cause it to continually require grass replacement It would be used to access the back areas of the home including the gardens, tennis courts and pool Peterson asked why the grass had not been tom up over the years as repairs had been done on a regular basis. Crawford responded the pool was located in a different area. Mabusth reiterated Peterson's comments that much of the hardcover in the 0-75' zone was approved because of the fact that there was only about 17% in the 75-250’ zone. Nolan noted that only necessary items, not items of convenience, should be considered for the 0-75' zone. He agreed with the walking path and retaining wall but questioned the drive. Schroeder asked if other options had been considered for the 10' drive such as two asphalt paths with grass between Mabusth asked about the possibility of connecting a drive to the main driveway instead of using another curb cut She did not feel members were convinced there was a hardship to support a variance for the portion of the drive in the 0-75' zone. Smith asked about the septic system issue. Mabusth stated a date is required for the installation of a new septic system since the study on areas to be considered for sewer has been completed and the Bracketts Point area will not be sewered. She asked that Crawford submit a written statement with a date indicated for installation Crawford responded that the owners were reviewing information regarding sewer and septic and may petition the City for sewer. Mabusth noted that sewer to this property would require a Comp Plan Amendment and would take a long time. There were no comments from the public. Nolan moved, Peterson seconded, to deny Application #1992 as proposed. Discussion continued regarding the proposed variances. Nolan commented that if the 10' drive were removed from the 0-75' zone, there would be no need for a variance for the drive. He did not object to the remaining variances. Peterson commented that the Planning Commission has denied repair of boathouses in the lakeshore protected area and the greenhouse repair is a similar situation. Mabusth noted the uniqueness of the property and the hardship for the retaining wall at the greenhouse being the only grade level access. Schroeder would prefer to see the drive connect to the niain driveway rather than use the 0-75' zone. Mabusth indicated an amended plan would be necessary showing there was no increase in hardcover as a result of road paving in the 0-75' area. The applicant could choose to put the drive into grass or connect to the main driveway. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 Nolan amended his motion. Smith seconded, to approve Application #1992 for James and Joann Jundt for property located at 1420 Bracketts Point Road conditioned upon the removal of the 250 s.f of increased hardcover as a result of the 10' paved drive in the 0-75' setback area and that it be restored to its pre-existing grassed condition. The applicant will provide an amended plan to be presented to Council Ayes 4, nays 0. (#4) #1993 CALVIN C. KORTH, 900 DAKOTA AVENUE - APPEALS - PUBLIC HEARING This application has been withdrawn by the applicant There was no one present to discuss the application Candy Rowlette arrived at 8;42 p.m. (#5) #1994 ROBERT WOLFF. 4450 FOREST LAKE LANDING • VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:47-8:54 P.M. Mr and Mrs Wolff were present Midxjsth explained that the applicants have received variance approvals, per Application #1945, for a 10'xl4' three season porch addition. ARer reconsidering the improvements, they are now proposing a 5' x 26' addition of the upper level and a matching extension to the lake of the existing deck. This results in an additional 105 s f of hardcover. The applicant discussed the proposed changes Nolan asked if the applicant would consider replacing the concrete pad with stepping stones and grass. Wolff indicated he would. There were no public comments. Nolan moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #1994 for Robert Wolf, 4450 Forest Lake Landing, subject to the removal of the entire concrete pad up to steps and replacing it with stepping stones or something comparable and the removal of plastic underliner on the south side of the house. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#6) #1996 GREGG PERL - 309 WESTLAKE STREET VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:55 -9:05 P.M. Gregg Perl was present. Mabusth explained that since the 1987 application additional property has been acquired and has already been legally combined. In 1987 Perl received approval of a side and rear setback variance. The current application involves the expansion of the upper level at the southwest comer. The roof line has been expanded in the substandard side setback requiring variance approval. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22,1995 Nolan questioned the shed that encroaches a neighboring property Mabusth explained that often in these situations neighbors resolve the problems on their own. However, in this situation the City had sent a letter to Perl advising him of the need to move the shed so this will be a requirement of the City. Perl also has outside storage problems. Perl re^nded that he did not realize the shed was on neighboring property He has already begun some of the property clean up. Mabusth also noted the need for applicant to connect to sewer as there is an increase in bedroom use. There were no comments from the public Perl confirmed that he does not operate a business out of his home. Nolan asked about the shed, noting a neighbor's letter asking for the relocation of shed and requesting a bond to ensure it is completed. Mabusth responded that as a condition of approval of this application, the City would require a building permit for the shed and to move it within his property to a conforming location. Nolan also commented on the sliding glass door on the second floor where a future deck may be constructed. Perl may need a variance to build the deck and he needs to be aware of this. Members suggested a board be used to close off the second floor patio door. Nolan noted the extensive exterior storage on the property and felt it was a problem. Peterson moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #1996 for Gregg Perl, 309 Westlake Street, for a side setback variance with staff recommendations 1-5 in the memo dated February IS, 1995 and adding the deadline date of July 1995 for the removal of all exterior storage violations. Ayes 4, nays 1 Nolan objected to the sliding glass door on the second floor. He felt that if the Planning Commission had reviewed this application prior to construction, it would not have been approved with a sliding glass door. (#7) #1997 SALLY AND JONATHAN LEBEDOFF - 1101 FERNDALE ROAD WEST - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:06-9:35 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Lebedoff were present. Attorney Bob Mitchell represented their application. Mabusth explained the applicants were seeking several variances to allow the reconstruction of a new two story residence. Applicants have submitted an amended plan with lakeshore access door/steps creating a 24 s.f increase in hardcover in the 0-75' setback area. 100% hardcover existed in the 75-250' setback area which has been reduced to 67.86%. Ceil Strauss of the DNR has asked that the residence be located 25' from the main lak^J The comer of the existing residence is at 17' while the applicants have proposed 20'. StrausL also suggested the applicant look at removing 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 additional hardcover (gravel). Mabusth thought there may be some limitations to this request because of the shared drive and turnaround also used by neighbor to west. If the structure is moved back an additional 5' (proposed at 20') from the main lake, there will be encroachment in the 75' zone from the lagoon. Mabusth noted this lot is very small and asked Planning Commission members to consider if the proposed residence was too ambitious for the lot. Nolan asked what the proposed living space would be Mitchell confirmed that approximately 4600 s f of living space and garage area were proposed. Nolan thought the proposed residence was too ambitious for the property and that a 4600 s f home was a fairly good-sized home Rowiette agreed that since this is basically like starting over, even though there are major reductions in hardcover, the footprint seemed overly ambitious for this small but buildable lot. Mitchell explained that this home was his father's residence purchased and developed in the 19S0's. Sallv and Jon Lebedoff are his sister and brother-in-law. Mitchell noted that there is no attic or basement in this home so all storage is within the main house, including the garage and furnace room. The house will have three bedrooms and three baths for a family with two children. Mitchell described the development of this neighborhood noting this is one of the last houses in the neighborhood to be improved. The adjacent homes were designed with the existing residence in place Mabusth stated the City would have to require the 25' setback the DNR is requesting. Mitchell agreed but added that he might talk with Ceil Strauss prior to the Council meeting. Mabusth asked if the applicants would consider moving the home a little further from the north lot line as only 1' exists at the north lot line. Mitchell responded that they did not want to do that because it would push the residence closer to the neighbor’s garage blocking all southern light exposure to the kitchen. Smith commented that the applicants had done a good job of bringing the residence in and up although she would like to see a smaller footprint. There were no comments from the public. Peterson commented that the fire department would have accessibility and did not see a problem with the location of the residence. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Peterson, to approve Application #1997 for Jonathan and Sally Lebedoff at 1101 Femdale Road West for variances to construct a new residence, recognizing the hardship of a small lot, noting the footprint of the proposed residence is considerably less than the existing residence and adding that the building is to be moved an additional 5' back from the main lake. Ayes 3, nays 2. Nolan and Rowiette objected to approval of the application because they felt the footprint of the residence was too ambitious for the lot. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 (#8) #1998 CRAIG WICKLUND, 3780 BAYSIDE ROAD • VARIANCES • PUBLIC HEARING - 9:35-10:03 P.M. Mr. and Mrs Craig Wicklund and Jo Haislett were present for the anplication review. Mabusth explained that the applicant proposes to take down the existing structures and rebuild a new residence with an attached garage The property consists of 16 acres in a 2 acre zone. The applicant seeks approval of a lot area, lot width and front setback variances Hardships listed were the location of trees, well, elevations and drainage issues. Mabusth reminded members that the well only needs to be located 3' from the principal structure. She asked if the well should be considered as a hardship noting it is in the middle of the building envelope. Wicklund commented that he was more concerned about existing trees and drainage than the well. He felt water falling on the south and west sides of the lot has to travel completely around the house. He added that internal w ater problems could result if the house were pushed further back from the front lot line. He noted a natural knoll on the lot that seems to be the natural building site which is where the existing house is located. Nolan commented that drain tile could b(» -r. issue. He noted that with demolition of the existing home, regrading will be required and it would not make any difference to move the home. An appropriate grading plan could achieve the desired results. He did not see the well as a hardship. He thought the trees on the west would be lost eventually because the residence would still come under the tree drip line. Public comments were made by Christine and Gary Valerius, 3750 Bayside Road, neighbors to the east of the subject property They wanted to be sure there were no trees removed between the two properties. They were also concerned about the driveway because the existing driveway has an easement over their property. A portion of the driveway encroaches the Steve Gardiner property at 3780 Bayside Road Schroeder read a letter submitted by Steve Gardiner Gardiner requested that construction trucks do not drive past the entrance to 3780 Bayside Road. Mabusth suggested the applicant discuss the existing and continued location of the drive with Mr. Gardiner. Neither Nolan or Rowlette objected to the lot width or lot area variances. They did not see the hardship for the front setback variance. Even by removing the shed, they felt the tree would be lost. Wicklund did not think the tree would be lost with the house in its present location. Wicklund stated he wanted the house located as proposed because it is the "spirit of the lot" to have the house positioned close to the existing location. They did not want to add any additional hardcover by rearranging the house plan and adding a driveway. He added that about 1/3 of the lot is wetland and 1/3 is wooded Smith added that she also thought the house should be located back further from the front lot line. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 Nolan commented that there was only about a 2* variation in elevations on the property. Appropriate grading and drainage plans would be important, Rowlette added that drainage runs down Landmark Drive. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Rowlette, to deny Application #1998 on the basis that there is not sufficient hardship for the front setback variance. Wicklund asked for clarification as to what his options would be Schroeder responded that the motion could be amended, tabled or sent to Council as a denial and Council would act on it as they see fit. If it were tabled, revisions could be made to the application and then brought back before the Planning Commission at the April meeting. Mrs. Wicklund asked if the Planning Commission were also denying the lot area variance. Schroeder responded that the>' were not but had to consider the application in its entirety. Members would be in favor of the lot area and lot width variance portions. She asked then if they moved the proposed house back to the 50' setback if the application would be approved. Nolan responded he would be willing to amend his motion under those circumstances. He would not be willing to compromise on the amount of the 50* setback because he did not see a sufficient hardship. Haislett asked about the easement that had existed since 1911 and if it were possible to avoid using it. Mabusth responded that a driveway could be installed as their own and not use the curb cut of Gardiner. Wicklund requested that his tq)plication be amended to exclude the request for a front street setback variance. Nolan withdrew his motion, It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Smith to approve Application #1998 for Craig Wicklund at 3780 Bayside Road for lot area and lot width variances for the construction of a new residence. Ayes 5, nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#9) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13,1995 Members noted written report of Candace Rowlette. (#10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION There was no additional discussion. ,1^1. lUa 'T-.l -----• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22,1995 ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#11) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 17,1995 MEETING It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of Januar>' 17, 1995. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#12) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 6,1995 AND JANUARY 20, 1995 PLANNING WORKSHOPS It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the Work Sessions on Domestic Abuse Shelters held on January 6, 1995 and January 20, 1995. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#13) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE FEBRUARY 13,1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Charles Nolan will attend the March 13, 1995 meeting of the Council ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved, Peterson seconded, to adjourn at 10;06 p.m. Charles Schroeder, Chair Person I • • .i- •* % •- • ■: -V —----------------------- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1995, 7:00 P.M. 27S0 KELLEY PARKWAY - COLTSCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Gabriel Jabbour ATIENDANCE ^ AppUcants presentinj proposals before the Conmussioo are asked to moTe to the table at the front of the Chambers when their appUcatioo is announced by the Chairman. ^ SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARES'GVPLBLIC EVFORVLATION MEETING 1. 7;C0p.m. -1995 Frank Kokesh. 4100 Watertown Road - Preliminary Subdivision. Class I. ACTION ITEMS ^ ^ ^ . . Review of these items will commence prior to or before scheduled pubUc hearings. 2. #1990 Robert W. Carlson. 710 Gander Road - Vacation of Easement - Continuation of Public Hearing. 3.#1992 James and Joann Jundt, 1420 Brackens Point Road - Conditional Use Permit/Vaxiancss - Public Hearing. 4. #1993 Calvin C. Korth. 900 Dakota Avenue - Appeals - Public Hearing. 3. #1994 Robert Wolff. 4450 Forest Lake Landhg - Variances - Public Hearing. 6. 7. #1996 Gregg Perl. 309 Westlake Street - Variance - Public Hearing. #1997 Sally and Jonathan Lebedoff. 1101 Femdale Road West - Variances Hearing. - PubUc 8. #1998 Craig Wicklund, 3780 Bayside Road - Variances - Public Hearing. Planning Commission Comments 9. Repon by Planning Commission Representative attending Council Meeting of February 13. 1993. 10. Other issues for discussion. Additional Items 11. Pianrung Commission approval of minutes of the January 17, 1995 meeting. 12. Planning Commission approval of minutes of January 6, 1995 and January 20, 1995 planning workshops. 13. Planning Commission to select a representative to attend the March 13. 1995 meeting of the Council. Adjournment t J !► 1 /. To:Chair Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: February 16, 1995 #1995 Frank Kokesh/Robert Hare, 4100 Watertown Road - Qass I Subdivision - 7:00 p.m. Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1A requiring 5 acres of dry buildable land (if divided by wetlands. 2 acres must be in a contiguous arrangement) Total area = 31.2 acres Parcel A = 9.91 acres (8.41 acres dry, 1.5 acres wet) Parcel B = 22+ acres Division shall create two parcels along previously divided lot lines and will not create three parcels as shown on current survey. Parcels B and C reflect a future plat and shall remain as one parcel with this division. Putinent Ordinances 1. 2. 3. 4. Section 11.03, Definition 66 (A) (2) - Class I Subdivision. Division of properties previously combined for tax purposes and which currently meet all required area ^ width standards. The City must ask for dedication of road rights-of-way and protective easements over wetlands with this division as property would never be subject to further division. Section 10.03, Subdivision 18 - Stock farms. Allowed number of horses is based on the number of horses maintained on property as of January 1, 1975. The code would allow a 25% increase over that number. Additional horses would require a conditional use perm’t Ap^licaiif recorded in a 1985 land use review that 20 horses were maintained on property in 1975 (applicant did not own entire 31 acres at that time) and in the 1985 review, 25 horses were mainuined on the 31 acre property. Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (M) would have allowed 27 horses based on the total dry area of property at 29.2 acres. Proposed 8.41 acres would allow 6 horses (first horse = 3 acres plus 1 acre for each additional horse). Section 10.03, Subdivision 18 - Structural setback for all structures housing animals. Required = 150’ All existing structures well exceed the 150’ setback from lot lines. Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (L) - Conditional use permit for farm use. Required area =10+ acres Proposed = 9.9 acres The property can no longer be considered a farm. Zoning FUc #1995 February 16, 1995 Page 2 5.Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (P) - Outdoor riding arena. Required = 75’ from all lot lines and 100’ from nearest residence E.\isting arena located to the south of the pole shed or indoor riding arena meets all required setbacks. 6.Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 - Accessory buildings. A. Accessory structures op remaining parcel with no principal structure now become non-conforming. It will be necessary to determine a date for removal if parcel is not opened to residential development within a reasonable period of time - the City normally grants a year ’s time from final subdivision approval date. B Area restrictions for 9-*- acre property: 1) Maximum footprint of oversized accessory structure Allowed = 3,000 s.f. Arena = 10,267.1 s.f. (variance 7,267.1 s.f.) Bam = 4,249.6 s.f. (variance 1,249.6 s.f.) 9+ acre parcel allowed one oversized accessory structure. The property will have two. Total allowed area of accessory struemres on 9+ acre parcel: Allowed — 6,(XX) s.f. Existing = 14,516.7 s.f. Variance = 8,516.7 s.f. List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - N - O - P - Q - Application Addendum Plat Map Property Owners List Air Photos of Facility Weekman Memo, 2/7/95 Septic Site Plan Septic Notice to Owner/Applicant Staff letter to Owner, 6/11/86 Original Configuration of Legal Parcels Large Aerial Photo Resolution No. 1894 Approving Application #995, 12/9/85 Planning Commission Minutes, 11/18/85 Council Minutes, 12/9/85 Staff Sketch Wetlands Map Preliminary Plan Zoning File #1995 February 16, 1995 Page 3 Review of Applicatioo The applicants purchased the original 9+ acre pared in 1968 and through the late 1970 ’s, approximately *77-*78, completed the purchase of the total property. The properties were never legally combined until 1986 at the request of staff, when a proposed addition to an accessory structure would not have met the required 150 setback from an existing lot line. Refer to Exhibits I and J. The bam and indoor riding arena were constructed in approximately 1968-71. There have been stmctural improvements including an addition to the arena structure -all completed prior to the City’s current accessory code amendment of 1989 that established limits for the area of an oversized accessory structure and the total area for accessory structures on a property. At the time the two oversized struemres were installed on the 9+ acre parcel, the code had no limits on size or the number of accessory structures allowed on a given parcel. All existing improvements meet the required setbacks from all lot lines of the 9.9 acre parcel. Please review Exhibits F, G and H. Weekman notes the existing septic system is non- conforming as drainfield has less than 3 ’ vertical separation from the seasonal water table. As with all property owners, the applicant and owner ate placed on notice of the need to make the necessary repairs by February 7, 1997 or before that date if the current system fails. Applicant has provided additional septic testing for a pritKipal and alternate site. It has been reviewed and approved by Weekman. Refer to Exhibits C., O and Q, note the 9.9 acre parcel extends to the south side of Watertown Road. The preliminary survey does not reflect additional acreage to the ^uth. The property line extends to the center line of Orchard Park Road at the east. Portions of the southern property line extend not only to the center line of Watertown Road but include the entire right-of-way in certain areas as shown on plat map and staff sketch. The City will ask for the dedication of right-of-way for both roads. As applicant proposes a metes and bounds division, this must be accomplished with the granting of an easement. It is not clear whether the surveyor has deducted the area of the public roadways from the lot area calculations. Based on staffs review, we would determine that the areas of the parcels include the dedicated right-of-ways. An amended survey must be submitted prior to Council’s review reflecting adjusted lot areas and parcel on south side of Watertown Road. Refer to Exhibit P, 9+ acre parcel has a 1.5 acre designated wetland along east lot line. The City will ask for a flowage and conservation easement over the entire area. Designated wetlands shown in the larger parcel can be dedicated at the time of a future platting. The Park Commission reviewed the subdivision at their February meeting. As we are dividing the original homestead parcel from the larger undeveloped portion of the property, there Zoning File #1995 February 16, 1995 Page 4 will be no park dedication fees due with the current division. The future subdivision of 22 acres will be subject to a park dedication fee. Refer to Exhibit B, applicants’ addendum seeks special consideration for the boarding of horses on the 9+ acre parcel. Both the bam and riding arena are in excellent condition. Applicant seeks special consideration concerning the continued use of the property for ^ boarding of animals over the number allowed under Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (M) (Animals) that would only allow 6 horses on the property based on the 8.41 acres of dry land. Issues to be Resolved 1 Dedication of road and wetland areas. Applicant may best be advised to finalize division with a plat so that dedications can be completed with simple dedication language on the plat mylar rather than the creation of long metes and bounds descriptions. The smaller parcel to the south side would be designated as an ouUot. With the dedication of roadways, this parcel will now have a separate PID. The substandard outlot will be formally recognized as an unbuildable lot and may be offered for sale to adjacent landowners on the south side or legally combined with the homestead parcel on the north side. As for the right-of-way adjacent to the 22 acre parcel, if the property is platted the dedication can be completed with the current division and, if not, set aside for a later platting of the property. 2. Accessory structure code/non-conforming structures. Applicants must be advised of the fumre need to remove the nonconforming struemres on the 22 acre parcel containing no residence. The City normdly recommends a year from the date of final subdivision approval. Planning Commission should establish a date and include in formal recommendation. As already noted above, the oversized accessory structures were legally constructed with the required building permits and per a zoning code that had no limits on the area of structures or the number on a property. The two oversized accessory structures became non-conforming in 1989 with the passage of the code amendment and not as a result of this proposed division. The oversized accessory structure table refers to a maximum allowance up to 9+ acres. If the parcel remained at 31.2 acres, the structures are still non-conforming. In early discussions with the applicant, there was the issue of whether the City would require the removal of the bam and arena as a condition of subdivision approval. In the review of the former and current codes, the proposed subdivision would appear to have no impact on the conformity of the accessory structures. What is the Planning Commission ’s position on this matter? a. b. Zoning File #1995 Fcbniary 16, 1995 Page 5 3.Request by applicant to allow the continued boarding of horses. Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (M) - Animals would allow the keeping of 6 horses based on the 8.41 acres of dry land. As already noted above, the property now at 9.9 acres does not qualify- for farm use and is no longer subject to the special allowances of Section 10.03, Subdivision 18 offered applicants in the 1985 review. If a future owner is not allowed to maintain a horse boarding operation at a greater number than 6 horses at this facility, what other uses could be made of the oversized accessory structures? The Planmng Commission cannot make a formal recommendation on this matter but may provide conccpmal direction for Council ’s consideration concerning a fiinire variance application if horse boarding use over 6 an imal units is requested. Staff Recommendation To recommend approval of the Class I subdivision application of Frank Kokesh and Robert Hare for the property located at 4100 Watertown Road finding that all standards of die RR-IA zoning district and septic codes have been satisfied. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.Applicant to provide an amended survey prior to scheduling the subdivision application before the Council providing adjusted area calculations for Parcel A and to include parcel to the south side now created with the dedication of road rights-of-way. 2.Dedication of Orchard Park Road and Watertown Road right-of-ways as specified above in staff memo. 3.Flowage and conservation easement to be taken over designated wetland within Parcel A. The designated wetlands within the larger 22 acre parcel to be dedicated at the time of a future plat. 4.Formal recognition of the two large oversized accessory strucnires as non conforming struemres and to further advise a future property owner that any major strucniral repairs or alterations of these structures will require variance approvals. 5.The owner/applicant may be best advised to complete the Class I suMivision via a formal plat based on the dedication of wetland, dedication of road rights-of-way and the creation of the smaller parcel on the south side of Watertown Road. 6.In approving this division, the City will no longer permit the following associated activities conducted at the properly when it consisted of 31+ acres: Zoning File #1995 February 16, 1995 Page 6 a.Breeding and smd services. b.Brokerage of horses for those other than owners of property c.Riding lessons. d.Horse shows. e.Tack catalog sales. 7. 8. 9. 10. If a future owner wishes to maintain more than 6 horses on this property for either private or public use, a variance application will be required. The propeny now found to be less than ten acres can no longer qualify for additional animal units under Section 10.03, Subdivision 18. Accessory structures on 22 acre parcel must be removed within one year from the date of Council ’s final approval if a building permit for construction of a residence structure has not been issued to new owner. The smaller parcel on south side of Watertown Road created with the dedication of right-of-way for road shall be deemed an unbuildable lot suitable for combination with adjacent properties or to be legally combined with homestead lot to north. A ^ w*»w**w PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 4100 Watertown Road Orono IProperty-Identification Nui^iber (P.I.D;) Please check one — Property ^ _ abstract or 3111R23140007 X torrens? ! Attach legal description to application Phone (home) Q6R~0375 476-3652 APPLICANT Nane Robert Hare or Frank Kokesh_ _ _ _ Phone (work) . 315 East Lake Street citvt Hayzata Zip: 55391 I -r-Addressi OWNER (if different than applicant) Frank Kokesh Phone (heme) Name Phone'(work) 557-0433 1 Address: ^100 Watertown Pd (attach list if more than cnej Citv: ^'ap^e Zip:____5 5 35 Q EXISTING LAND USE Nimber of Tax Parcels Development Size •^1 . Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Totals all parcels jfriit, .. • •• • wi / ? wnwMu/ Present Use (check) ... .. .. Residential; no. of units Other (specify) : / . # > • •Present Zoning District 5 Acre I PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes 1 Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building siv.es) Subdivision for New Building Si-es Number of Building Sites:1 7 Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) Units per Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential (Rural) Other (specify)____ •J MINIMOM material NECTSS^Y 2*. P?eliminary^Plat o/^o^Jnersnust obtain %^\^VCA of Finance A-602.Covt Center. 348-3271). at-.r»ii cation, please attach a-separate list ..of- any ^---------- - - * i certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Pl.t Appllcat.cn ie !“!irS«icial'a Slgnature_. ---------------- -----------^rzrr ______ ________________—-------------------------------------------------------------- . %^ sever and water assessinenrs; • Irr^iy'oi^S?- ;c“es Of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, ' *1';..ter of Credit,c Developers Agreement ana Let^-e a. ♦- <-v>*4- Final Plat Application is complete _____________ -■■°!!!^rrrcEr.==3=rr FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & m) subdivision of a Lot Preliminary Review^Class^& II Subdivision) $200.00 300.00 300.00 5^^ « & all non-residential)Preliminary Review rcrass m 325.00 + 25.00/Lot M^^is^’iny fegiror^'englnee^ing charges) 175.00 Renewal of Preliminary subdivision Application Renewal of Final Subdivision 150.00 100.00 Applicant's Signature Civnsr * s S—^natnrs i—————^ ^vjo -.-c'icar-t must have ail submittals into the^City^c£fi«s^^^^ 5Ti?--ing Commission /^^oJJ|ants°^ust be present at all schec^^le- -•---d Mcndav of eacn montn. rapplicanus r raunc'1. If applican----s :;.7Z;w meeuimgs_ =f.tne^^la^.ing^^^^^ Wayzata Office 315 East Lake Street Wavzata. MN 55391 612 473-3000 Fax 612/473-3932 January 27, 1995 City of Orono Uld Crystal Bay Road Long Lake, MN 55356 U cs- • 5 Ot;% } j \ t Re: 4100 Watertown Road Frank and Sue Kokesh Property To Whom It May Concern: In 1968 Frank and Sue Kokesh purchased an approximate 10 acre farmstead at 4100 Watertown Road...a property that had been used for years by the previous owners for boarding horses. This prior use was significant for the Kokesh’s, since their intention was to continue having the property for the purpose of boarding horses When they took title, many of Ae bmldings that existed were in a serious state of deterioration, not to mention beii^ an eye^ sore, and so over the next ten years, they removed a 15’ x 50 ’ building, a 12 x 18 ’ milk house, a 12’ x 18 ’ tool shed, 2 com cribs and a 20 ’ x 20 ’ milk bam. In order to not only enhance the curb appeal of the property, but also provide for the facilities necessary to a viable hoi .e operation in this climate, an indoor arena was built in 1969, and an addition to the bam a few years later. For the past 25 plus years, the Kokesh’s have owned and operated a successful horse boarding facility. The grounds continue to be impeccably main taine d with four board fencing and a gated entrance. They have now chosen to pursue their horse business in Florida and are offering the property for sale. In the few short weeks of being on the market, there has been si^iific^t interest in the parcel containing the original homestead and buildings. It is a facility that has been admired for years. . .for its location, its charm, the state of the art bam and the indoor arena which provides boarders an opportunity for year round enjoyment of their sport. As agents for the Kokesh’s in their absence, we are requesting that the City permit the existing buildings on the 9.91 acre parcel to be separated fi'om the adjacent acreage that was purchased at a later time, and restored to the original parcel and boundaries that it was in 1968, wth a continued use for boarding horses. It is extremely important that this occur to preserve the highest and best use of the farm. A very slight percentage of horse enthusiasts are financially capable of purchasing such a large parcel of land as the 31.2 acres in the City of Orono. This request certainly appears to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the community, consistent wiA other surrounding operations within a mile distance of this address and within the Forward - 2 IT Page - 2 1 ’^..1 Qi^ current 5 acre zoning district. There are several partes interested in purchasing this original parcel, but are on hold pending an opinion from the City Any deviations from the above request would clearly result ui the property being devalued and ultimately creating a hardship to the Kokesh s Your time and consideration of this matter are greatly appreciated. Yours uruiy, Patty-papier (4^3603) t /ia! - Robert Hare (476-3652) BURNET REALTY 315 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 RUN DATE 01/25/95 BATCH 50APROP AOOR OMCR NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR OI«CR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OMCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR r r ISrtCPXN COUNTY PROPERTY INTORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY CMCRS LIST50 51>118-2S At 0005 0A005 NATERTOItl RO C P OALE ACL PAULSON CHRISTOPHER F'OALE CERZ L PAULSON A06S NATERTOHN RO HAPLE PLAIN HN 55559 50 51-110-25 91 0012 09025 HAnRTONN RO J S A P 0 RICE JEROHE STANLEY RICE 9025 HATERT(»M RO HAPLE PLAIN m 55559 50 52-110-25 25 0007 00900 ORCHARD PARK RO RCHFLO BANK/TRST CO TRUSTEE DEXTER A JEMaFER ANDREHS 900 ORCHARD PARK RO ORONO HN 55559 TOTAL BATCH 509 00027 50 51-110-25 91 09195 NATERTOM« RO H R A H E PLAMC SALLY Piam 527 NORTH CARRINGTON BUFFALO NY 82059 50 51-110-25 92 0015 09590 CHXPPEHA LA L E HARTINEAU/J H HARTINEAU LARRY E A JEAN H HARTINEAU 9590 CHIPPEHA U HAPLE plain HN 55559 58 52-110-25 25 0008 00990 ORCHARD PARK RO ROBERT J A LORRAINE E ROOEN ROBERT J A LORRAINE E ROOEN 990 ORCHARD PARK RO LONG LAKE HN 55559 REPORT NO. PI955901 PAGE 25 .'••T . • t,*; *50 51-110-25 91 001109115 HATERTOm RO MICHAEL R A HARY E PLANK HICHAEL PLANK 527 NORTH CARRINGTON BUFFALO NY 02059 50 52-110-25 25 0005 00500 OMCHARO PARK RO T F AOAHS A J L NEAVER THOHAS F AOAHS 500 ORCHARO PARK RO LONG LAKE 55559 50 52-110-25 52 0002' 05900 NATERTOHN RO ORCHARO PARK FARM INC ORCHARO PARK FARM INC 5900 NATERT0M4 RO HAPLE PLAIN HN 55559 • '-v* • - I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURAH AND TRltt REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF HY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE /■U-fS ' • ft-''• * ■ \ • *4*9 10' . • r. *■. » • • • ' • •,-V • J • 9 i Y * 0 •. J ^ ' 4,‘;' ' . r ■V ** ,>-■ V . * >. . *. ‘-i ■•M}r • •’' V -. * >' ■ * 9 >' •ST|,\ .y*y. lC’,a..• ••• ■' f .• '1 .V 9.: . y V .{• i ••i.VVv't • Jr . ► RUN DATE 01/25/9SBATCH 5MPROP ABOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR OI«4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR r PROP ADOR OHTCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR r HENNEPXN COUNTY PROPERTY INTORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY QltlERS LISTSB Sl-llB-25 11 OOOS 0074S ORCHARO PARR RD L A ANDERSON ISM VOGEL L A ANDERSON ASM VOGEL 745 ORCHARO PARR RO LONG LAKE MN 55355 5B 31-118-23 11 OOOi 00415 ORCHARO PARR RO R A A LANG KEVIN M LANG 415 ORCHARO PARK RD LONG LAKE MN 55354 36 31-118-23 12 0013 04235 SIXTH AVE N H AND S HYATT HILLIAM 0 HYATT 4235 N 4TH AVE LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 31-118-23 13 0013 04300 HATERTOHN RO JAMES JAY JOHNSON A HIFE JAMES JAY JOHNSON 4300 HATERTOHN RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 I * SS Sl-ne-23 14 0002 00525 ORCHARO PARK RO R J NEESTRANO ET AL RANOAU J NEESTRANO 525 ORCHARO PARK RO LONG LAKE MN 55555 30 31-118-23 41 0001 04040 HATERT0IO4 RO T R A C H SHIEJA THOMAS R/CHRXSTXNE M SMXEJA 4040 HATERTCPtI RO MAPLE PUXN MN 55559 •i 38 31-118-23 11 0004 04185 SIXTH AVE N BRIAN L GRUIS BRIAN L GRUIS 4185 4TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 31-118-23 12 0005 04285 SIXTH AVE N CHARLES E LARSON CHARLES E LARSON 4285 4TN AVE NO LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 31-118-23 12 0015 04220 SIXTH AVE N RAJ HArOlING JR ROBERT C i JULIE HAltHNO^JR 4220 CTY RO NO 4 LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 31-118-23 13 0015 04225 HATERTOHN RO JAMES R PADOON JAMES R PADOON 4225 HATERTOHN RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 14 0003 00505 ORCHARO PARK RD 0 r KOKESH A P J BENSON 0 F KOKESH A P J BENSON 505 ORCHARO PARK RO LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 31-118-23 41 0003 04045 HATERTOHN RO EARL N DORN ETAL EARL N DORN 4045 HATERTOHN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 REPORT m. PI435481 PA« 2238 31-118-23 11 0005 00445 ORCHARO PARK RO JAM PIOGEONJOHN G A MAGDALEN H PIOGEON 10912 GLEN HILOING LA BLOOMINGTON MN 55431 38 31-118-23 12 0012 04225 SIXTH AVf N H A MUELLER A P 0 MUELLER HILLIAM A A PEGGY A MUELLER BOX 3 LONG LAKE m 55354 38 31-118-23 13 0012 04220 HATERTOHN RO R AND J HYATT ROBERT J HYATT 4220 HATERTOHN ROAD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 14 0001 00585 ORCHARD PARK RO DAN THOMAS DONNELL 0 A HENRIETA THOMAS 585 ORCHARD PARK RD LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 31-118-23 14 0007 04100 HATERTOHN RD FRANK KOKESH ET AL FRANK KOKESH 4100 HATERTOHN RO MAPLE PUIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 41 0004 04105 HATERTOHN RD 0 GIGUERE A A GIGUERE PAMMALEE MARIE SAHCHUK 4105 HATERTOHN RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 f. »t 'p.^ i f t • < flj0 *v:V, . i V /*V i * { ‘ ^ . 9 • % V;'‘ • ,. v, , • I V 0 ^U • • • I *9 m ‘ 'V 'f • ■f r • • i ' • i ^ P. - W \ • • ^ ^ ^ - .* ’» » I ip I Xo" ' 4* * / 9 ' r * • :‘VVr'>. c Ip : 'v: V-. : . » • * r • • . . #1*- «. , I • r • K- >-c-r 1^ ‘ * • f -'‘^' ". ":'T Vsr-^'' »• ^ #€Lii> r'9^ m - /'rr:r-", %> ;_ ^«-‘. <1#^ ' ,,tA ^«-?ry ",vVTft ‘ ■ ' • < ^ • V , '• ^ : •'T-r- t 1,‘^v 4s;- i .f . r^r4'"' '‘i Ir ^ * ' I iJ •At'j k \\ ^. '■'' * - I • > •• . -. " '' ■'' ■ ,.R, ’4)!. '.•. %■■■ ■> ,>"■ ' ”' ^.^,*■ VV’'vi :#if « '#'. . . ..^. ' ■ • • *- . ■•s ‘ I ‘ y-^^J -itw ■- .4T- /'■• • 'll* "■•^' I iwsi.- ipjjjjjjijttiiiwi nuHuuiiiriiiiili^ & TO: FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager DATE: February 7, 1995 SUBJECT: Application #1995, Frank Kokesh - Septic Review • in 1Q78 snd uDsnidcd in 1981 is not f^iiling, but h^s a high The existmg inventory card shows the system is Conforming, but that the potenual for failure. In 1 1983 Michael Gaffron noted that drainage tuns across the soils are poor due to wetness^ observed until inspections in to r^h potential for failure due to problems obsened m 1991 and 1993. SOU borings ^ ihe drainfield to 7 or a^t the time the system fails, whichever comes system must ^ primary and alternate sites have been identiried. first. Due to the T^SToom resiS^wi* an additional bathroom in the bam. City approval. necessary. Based on the above information, this site is suitable for subdivision. !€'•«*•% •.• ' 4^* * • *-. • ''»-A v1 f/Mi rn^mm eses»srr«v ?H-im m ww nm'^mm Wy' - ■' ■■ ■■ >; *i’-;. I m-yr- rp^::? ,'.Ki;;' ’. I V. O •. • :• ■ x'v ■;;.-'..4\ mm ;^>Wm > ' i-n. s * . •>- mm mM K;4^-, IP M :fm ■ JlV'f Si «ii i;';<-?2 M pMQii Piiritelii mmmM.Mmmm hm *M\ I* *' ; CITY OF ORONO SEPTIC SYSTEM APPROVAL CITY of ORONO PMtOdkcBasM CryttBi Bay, Miwi—<i S53234»M LOCATION: OWNER: 41QQ Watertown Rd. Frank Kokesh GENERAL CONTRACTOR;SEPTIC CONTRACTOR: SITE EVALUATOR: A-P Testing report DATE: January 30, 199^ . Approved your on-site system design as of February 1. 1995 The City of Orono has____-------—----------— ^ (date)(approvcd-<iisapprovcu) . .. . Due to the fact that the existing systemwith the following ^---------------- conforming, repairs must be made by February 7. 1997 or when the s^ero fails, whichever comes first. The system is designed for a 4 bedroom home plus the use of a bathroom in the barn. Any additional plumbing additions or changes i" V«ge wi^effi^re^,re^w niust .enclosed. NOTICE TO INSTALLERS: Any chinges to th. approved plana specs must have prior approval of the Inspector (473-7357). Call for inspections 24 hours m advance. NO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OF ANY KIND (cars, trucks, rnoving render them of t Jt^drainfield sites either before or after system constnicuon. Compaction of unusable prohibiting the timely completion and or limiting the long term use o e pr p A site copy will be avaUable at the City Of.lces for the septic contractor. CITY OF ORONO SlepheifWi^™. On-site Systenis Manager * telephone - 473-7357 • IAX-47WI5I0 ^ W ^ i " r r• • - f*-s . ^ • - •»**•'» V* ‘/ry.. • • ,»-4 , '♦• 1^ % -.-k. ^ r.« k ORONO 4100 M^pl* Plaia# Bat Dms Nr. lokMbi GlTYof ORONOJmm 11« 1904 99399 I ^ .• Na ara ia racal^t of yoar plaaa to eoaatract a aaall V preparty yea aev eaa at 4100 Matarteini Bead, iNiara tha aM raeaatly rated. Xa raaiaviaf tba plat aap. tha fact eaaa to liaht that . year fear larya eeatiyaeaa pareala haaa aet baaa layally cei^inad far tarn i* parpeaaa aad raaala aa 4 aaparata taa pareala (aaa plat aap attached). *.*t Yhia craataa aeoa preblaBa. in thati ■r ' •• 9 3* Oreae*a SoBiay Cede deaa net a lie* aapaaalen ef er additioaa to •siBtinf aeeaaaery atraetaraa on a preparty where there la ee priaeipal realdeace. Hhaa tha raaidaaea at 4100 waa raeowed# the # . aeeaaaery boildlaya en that property baeaaa nca-confereiaf. 3. 9ha tentnf Cede alao raeolraa that a herae bara or atable eaet be <''^| at laaat 190* frea all property liaaa. ^ With tba 4 aaparata pareala ee-^j they aaiat today* tha bara addition woald not .Boat the ifo*^*^' tha aaat lot.liae.of pareal .Sl^O-XSiia.OOOO. ’ ^ra^.ia^e{aiBpla;aelBtiea*feadrthat ia to$^aiy^^aBbi_„ pareala iinto^litaa parcel.*..■-,Thia4Woold^aaalt4iJi^year4reeaiwiJMrc ,r^atete«aat.on;^ property jrather/then,4 Jk^ll.do aot^liawaiyoajwool ’ k.<“jrr*tarallj.diffaraaca in .yoar«tetal«taaaa«^yen aifht.waatito«eeitf' %wiehad tOjaelX^off < If yo«!doB*t ,wi 44).^ raqaiSeveatytoppaIwiehad to'iaellVeff eaa ___________ _ ^ If /Vply to' the City Coeaell for a .wariaaea*'altheo^'X do^’that'tUa tm . • of raqooat weald pat a fawerabla raapoaae. _ . rt> • • Plaeao eoatact urn at year eenwaaiaaea to diacaaa yeor’optibaa ao^wb ' eaa raaolwa thia ia a tiaaly aaaaar. Oiaearaly* / Nichael P. Gaffrd^ Aeaiataat Soaiap hdaiaiatraterNPC/tla Baeloaura •vasiKK: a xonaio • «t>tw7 1 ^ A*’ • #* ** w -. vy f' •v.v;‘ | . .i. AMMmATiai A mtflCI - 4TMSft . • »v •u; •- 4 • • , ‘V • • . ■ ;r'Vvi;v<; ' i ''r . fieucwaan-amiM » A ie« •-^'AvVw?' m h/km ^ J V . V 1-^ r .'/•#• ••»-»w M Q :% ■y<! •J I \f •f^ $0 •> • X5 -.. . --------- - isi» 0) o» L. E^.** *• * ‘ *V » ' • • 4 :' A t * ^ • ^ »• *•* 'S^V/v.;tl.i(lK^-’‘^*it:^. if ^.*.« • f1 wim m#tr» 5»S.l^'•*> A M«ll MkmcAu / •!*! ^•7 ► *' . •‘•^ / •i* - • v< • •• • %w.• • •. ' /> ; ••«• •>;•• *. • <•. . . •0 •* *• • •. *• #• •- . *1"^ . • •• .# # ) ^ ‘.-i , • •■>•#< V-' : - . -^. K>- [RMI m i ^r ':4^: •r'"- r-t- T. 'i •.> * • ‘‘ r • ' •. "I** - ■ ' * ■*'■*'••’.:■? D / " ••ttf"eo®w* &J ni \ac^ Vf > • 1. rjt ‘5 ., ' ’^O nm yi:7^ *• « ■>JiH •• / • i Will '^'V' 'i.iv ''*' .. ' rr • ^ ;V',.V bViL t 1 • • h , ./ ^ i A MWI • kimmtM* / » 9 ^ m m »•u ( V CITY IiI ORONOL M city of ORONO resolution of the city council NO.1894 A RESOLOTIOH GRAMTIHG A VARIANCE TO municipal zoning code municipal zoning code SECTION 10.20r SJfflDIMSIOH 3 (P) PILbQ994^ WHEREAS. U0!^Slwrt'oC^*'Rold'’w^ the^Ci^? Vrllonl The west 316.50 feet of 1/2^ of *the^East "l*/V of \he S*’®theast W4 of section 31, Township^lie, Range 23 lying North tirttt cen-ter l?ne) of the Minnea^polia and Watertown Road, (hereinafter "property")? and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application for a variance to permit thT“e%n\ of ^Imestic animals *o/„,«Totfa1 ‘i.rptrrm\%‘’to section 10.27, Subdivision 1 <^ %rot.«tt f« the boarding of gtrsiV^ttnfa'rtrhtrtVs fnd"?Sstructi J in the riding of horses per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (F). Minnesota: NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #994. 2. The property is located in the RR-IA Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The property contains approximately 35 acres in area. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed application^on November 18, 1985, and co^ercial variance to allow the keeping of Jsfon fu), and Recommended approval of a conditional ^ riding stablecontinued use of applicant's property for public ridi g use based on the following findings: A) Applicant's principal residence is located on a 35 acre site. B) NO other variances are sought to ®7o^estieiection 10.27, subdivision 4 (A) - keeping of domesti animals. 1 fyf — L- * # city of OROINO CITY OF ORQNa resolution of the city council NO.1894 C) The proposed level of use is compatible with surrounding “'hobby farm" neighborhood.5 acre D) The property has been used as proposed in this review for over 15 yeais and has not resulted in any harm to the publics’ safety or welfare. 5 The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this 5. Tne ^eiry uoun apply generally to other property are district* that granting the variance ‘”'°?d’'^L^rdverlelv affett traffic conditions, light, air nor n!se a ?Le h“ard or other danger to neighboring properties, :rcessarj ro^f/l/vYa''te V d" m^sTraiTe 1,aVdst^p^^"^d\7^^^^^^ is irnt-td -ou^:d-b%-^\eVp-nTv‘jti -- Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the cxty- 6 The City Council finds that granting a conditional use to allow a pubUc riding stable will not be detrimental to the health safety or general welfare of the public, would not ad ve?«lv a«ect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will ®use”of theproperty values and that the proposed level of use or ^ne property^will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of th Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CXINCLOSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS ni-«no Citv Based upon one or more of the above finding^ s«,,t,lonBased upon one or more or tne aoove - rnnncil hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code section ?S.27? SubLvisiln 4 (A) to allow the keeping of ,^5 a«ntf S commercial purposes and per Section 10.20, Subdivision in-iicant's ;?Sp«trf«“plb''lic%idi°nrstable use subject to the following conditions, ®”'P^°^n?o'’n^?hlll not applicants to assist in the commercial horse operation shall not exceed the level of 5 employees ||tab\^ish level ofwhich large assembly permitting process shall establish temporary employees 2. Riding lessons are to be provided by members of applicant s family. 3. Horses maintained on property shall not exceed the number allowed per Section 10.27 Subdivision 4 (A). 4. Applicant shall renew conditional use permit annually until Council specifies otherwise. Pace 2 cf 4 b CITY OF of^orAaX City of ORONO resolution of the city council NO. 1894_ _ _ _ _ _ « 1,4-hr.rit’rfs oranted by the conditional use permit run with th.> property not lith the owner and are permissive only. 6. Viol.tion of or „cn-co».plian z’i!’a\*l”u?o™a\"ically terminate any authority grant., herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The “evolution and on behalf of himself, SI^hLrl ‘«cc:«orfan1 assigns “ hereby agrees to the recording tl;?s r;so?urion in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the orono City Council on this 9th day of December, 1985. ! •••. B^i^er,' Mayor > Page 3 of 4 • \ L CITY OF ORONCV city of ORONO resolution of the city council NO. 1894 TOESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) day of yAuirUS.T' he (they) executed the .am. asIl:a%/ulln?r'and «\'o«re^^ tLt he (they) executed the aae, a. his (their) free act and deed. "x-=sv \NOTARY PUBLIC • **^«^*‘ \iuu^ //. /f^7 my commission expires STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) #On this !fc? a No before me (Jrially,»ry pJlKic withTn a?d for^STteyT-pTrsdSTl ly appeared .... ’'jerr„e?°et"r^e ‘nt!persCn^ de^rib^^d in and who execuced the h"is Snd acJtnowledged that he (they) executed the same as his ^asa m ^ ^ ^ aj ^(their) free act and deed. >/ NOTARY PUBLIC /"/ /fe7 c:.-MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 1 tw MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HEID NOVEMBER 18, 1985. PAGE 8 #993 TONKA that approval of the request would create a visible change of use because the clientele from a transmission shop differs from a gas station. He noted that he would like the property cleaned up. There were no other persons present regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Callahan, to recommend denial of request #993 Tonka Transmission to amend the permit dated May 9, 198 3, maintaining only 10 parking stalls, and in addition requiring the removal of gas tanks not in MotiL, Ayes 4, Nays 1. McDonald voted nay stating that the city should review alternatives to removing the gas tanks. #994 PRANK KOKESH .4100 WATERTOWN ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARIHG explained the request use permit to permit the continued use of applicants 35 site^ for the boarding of horses, rental of horses and instruction i horse back riding; and a variance to permit applicants' t: continue with the keeping of domestic animals for comjnercia purposes. Attorney Lou Oberhauser was present for this matter, representing tne applicants. Mr. & Mrs. Earl Dorn, 4045 Watertown Road, were present for this matter. Mr. Dorn voiced his irritation applicants' ref usal to appear at these meetings. that the applic ints' have committed a misdemeanor of fense. He noted that hi i main purpose of attending was the city to app -y their ordinances fairly. ”® the Commission that he has requested a copy of Scott County public stable ordinance. Ms. Plank, 4145 Watertown Road, was P^®sent and stated she was concerned about applicants' plans for ^^® property recently acquired by applicant, and what tne conditional use permit included# Mr. Oberhauser stated that the applicants have ® expand the operation and that their request for a conditional permit is to permit the existing level of use. Mr. Dorn stated that applicf.nts' commercial operation has created 100% more traffic. Kelley felt that riding lessons should be limited to family members only. MIHOnS OP THE PLANNIliG COMMISSIOH MEETIHG HELD NOVEMBER 18, 1985. PAGE 9 §994 mm KOKESH continued , . ^ ^ ^Oberhauser stated that applicants' would need some employees to train and work the horses in addition to stable persons, although the actual number of employees needed was unknown to him. Planning Commission felt that the number of employees should be limited to a maximum of ten people. There were no more comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by McDonald, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to staff's recommendations and conditions, amending the following conditions: . ., -1. Applicant to apply for a Home Occupation License tor tack sales. 2. Any changes or addition^: in use or intensification of approved uses should be reviewed with the City so that staff can determine if a new permit is required. Conditional Use Permit to be reviewed yearly. 4. Number of outside personnel be limited to ten. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Planning Commission tabled this matter until the December 16, 1985 meeting. ZONING AMENDMENT APPROVAL OP MINUTES* ^ ^It was moved by McDonald, seconded by Goetten, to approve the Minutes of the October 21, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. COUNCIL MEETING REPRESENTATIVE Paul Taylor was appointed to represent the Planning Commission at the December 9, 1985 Council meeting. ADJOUR]IT lls55 PM ^ ^ . __It was moved by McDonald, seconded by Goetten, to adgourn tne Planning Commission meeting at 11:55 PM. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETlIfG HELD DECEMBER 9, 1985 n #988 JAMES E. that they would like the survey include the location of the house to the south. to It was moved by CounciImember Kammerel, seconded by CounciImember Adams, to table this matter until the January 13» 1986 meeting in order to amend the resolution incorporating the 20' setback between homes and pending a survey with location of adjacent house to the south. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. ^^^^RANK KOKESH 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #1894 Administrator Bernhardson explained the request for a conditional use permit for a public riding stable. Representing the applicant’s was their attorney, Lou Oberhauser. He noted that the applicant has never rented horses to the public and has had a maximum of 5 full-time employees. He stated that applicant felt that review of the condtional use permit annually was unnecessary. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Planning Commission recommended annual review in order for the city to keep tabs cn the operation. It was moved by Counci Imember Frahm, seconded by Mayor Butler, to adopt Resolution #1894 approving the conditional use permit and variance for a public riding stable subject to the following conditions: 1. The total number of full and part time employees hired by the applicant's to assist in the commercial horse operation shall not exceed the level-of 5 employees except for events covered by a Special Events permit. 2. Horses maintained on property shall not exceed the number allowed per Section 10.27 Subd. 4(A). Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT CONTRACTOR'S ESTIMATE #5 A.R.I. CONTRACTING I^ moved by Mayor Butler, seconded by Councilmember Frahm, to approve the Request for Payment #5 from a.r.x. Contracting Inc. in the amount of $35,887.89 for Bay Sanitary Sewer improvements. Motion, Ayes 5, Y 0. •y ^M*? ' r — j* &.J %4» r !✓**m <».•&O •r«»»?• ac ••%- 4 T.A* £4*£« i •5 %'§f•% S r • r. o i •' « - v/ North lino of t of tho E. 1/4 of --=\:£ ._•S 89*-:5'4-i o sr ^5"TT" t c *• 4 t' :* ’*• ’S- j* : i • ••» *,£ ..*4 c* Stz 31 €4 *€ # • A 9.91 TOTAL AC 8.4 li DRY AC » * f#*"7 • -1": BARN . «• • P •’■’.3 ) r HOUSE POLE SHED -’*f. • r ^ 4^ 6t: —*'>^=!5r IZ^ • *•. ** # ^ •-■4 i^. r m ^ I «•tr* tm .\£X.S-!N3 :rA.*>.£.:5 •*C £' 5L-T.: :rcTEM ;.C':at.o% OHc^fi a:::-: • *: N-ofiMA^o*4Ppov.:£c 04^£.-. N 8 9‘- 4* 4 IMI «2«a.# /:-;V ‘ iwjn w m -\fc- t^?•»-^4Jk^ " }':::3 Kr" r-: I -‘/j i .v^ tMk •r-i..- '». . ’rr'iJV' *n 30>Z c. 7: 0 m (A X s 1% s2 Io < 5 *^ 30O Oz > Z O ^ s !§ Scr s Z > 30< <nc 09 O < c7) 5z o E CO CO S’ CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #1990 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: January 20, 1995 TO: Robert W. Carlson 235 Lakeview Avenue Lone Lake. MN 55356 COPIES: RRH & Company 900 2nd Avenue South 1100 International Centre Minneapolis, MN 55402 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Vacation DATE OF MEETING: 01/17/95 VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST The Planning Commission recommended tabling all action on your vacation petition until either the applicant or an authorized representative would be able to represent the application before the Planning Commission. In an attempt to save any further delays in the finalization of this vacation, we have enclosed a copy of a drainage easement that must be dedicated over that portion of the drainage and utility easement that encroaches the designated wetland within the propeny. Please note that portion of the 10’ drainage and utility easement at the north lot line aiKl south lot line is not to be vacated. Please contact my office if you have any further questions concerning the information discussed above. Your application will be rescheduled before the Planning Commission at their February 22nd (Wednesday) meeting. Please note that meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you are unable to attend the February 22nd meeting, please see that an authorized representative attends in your place. It would also be very helpful in the review of this application if you could obtain a written confirmation from the Fredriksen and Byron law firm that they have completed the filing of the release documents of the easement executed by the MWCC. To:Chair Schrocder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:January 9. 1995 Subject:#1990 Robert Carlson, 710 Gander Road - Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easement - Public Hearing Zoning INstnct: RR-IB Area of property = 2 acres Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.12 - Vacation of Streets, Utilities, etc. Application: Applicant petitions for the vacation of a 35 wide drainage and utility easement dedicated on the plat of Foxwood Second Addition. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has released and terminated any interest in the original sewer easement granted to the MWCC in April of 1975. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Property Owners’ List C - Plat Map D - MWCC Easement Recent Termination of Sanitary Sewer EasementE - F - Plat of Foxwood Second Addition G -Staff Sketch of Easements to Remain Once Vacation is Completed Review of Request . j -i- Applicant has filed a petition seeking the vacation of a 35’ wide drainage and utility easement dedicated in the plat of Foxwood Secoixl Addition (approved in December of 1989). The surveyor for the subdivision advised applicant that the City Attorney for Orono required that the MWCC easement be shown on the plat as a drainage and utility easement. In reviewing the subdivision file, there is no reference as to the existence of the easement nor is there recording of any written discussion noting the existence of the easement. There is nothing in the exchanges between staff and the City Attorney that would have suggest^ conditioning approval on the easement being shown on the final plat. The easement certainly wouldn t have been designated as a drainage and utility easement but rather as a utility easement with the document number of the easement recorded on the plat. Review Exhibits B and E, the MWCC has released all interest in the easement. The original release agreement was sent to the law firm of Fredrikson & Byron for filing against the Chain of Title of the property. It is not clear whether this has been completed by either the applicant or the current owner. The City sees no public interest being served by the existence of the easement. We recommend that the 35’ drainage and utility easement be vacated and that easements be retained as shown on the staff sketch. Exhibit G. Applicant should advise if the document releasing the easement by the MWCC has been filed. Isv CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND US PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ~7^Q Type of Application to be Filed Ninnbcr (Pl-D ) .fitH • applicant (home) ___ ^ CaWi ^ Phoir (work) A/tHnx^ p-ff U*lLLyU»> A^City ____Zip *9 5~5!T4 fiatfuilk^ Phone {w<wk)__3<<7-?^__^7. ... nC/V Ca«.*fM DatcPrgnfiaxAcquired______^^ I (do) (^o n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. (monih/year) fees - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $ 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application $125.00 Residential Accessor/ Use $200.00 Institutional (church, :.hool, c^c.) $175.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration ^ . Grading and filling - designated wetiand or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls wiQiin 75’ of lakeshore CITt CF Li^uNu k to i : Im *m i t L I JL.tr?>«Wtto Wf I Akib » I *Tf * :/ ri ! 175. ^ f • rf ;i ri . A W WW f I f r c\i VA am..... Ji.,„ k 1 to I I — t UM.fk V'i * ^—. *, 1... A 4 r. A 4 T f 7C- 1 I w < sj229^0 cm kOl r. PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule ^ $100.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) Afier-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee i -7 ..• Atm./ to OTHER APPLICATIONS , , r ,n _____ S200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation- /•7S~S<in5]00^sement Vacation 5^700*^Easement Vacation With Subdivision $300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District \B Present Use of Property _2i_ Residential WClCC4.%t^ . 0±er (specify). . 'il V. r, y * „ ^•«REQUIRED SUBxMITTALS1. ' Completed Application Form.2. Describe request in detail.r. dertified Property Owners List of owners within 350’ (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center. 348-3271). ^Plat Map. •- - -•if <_ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surv'eyor) - refer to handout for survey infennation.o'c. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survev.•' r\v Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land^ alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (Lnclude marital sams) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of.applicant(s)’ if»not current owner(s). 9. ’ • ^ 0 Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 10. >'' As an addendum to this application; please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE 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 O’vner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date ___ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred uusvjew of thri^application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/htir knowledge. Applicant’s signamre Date 9(/ OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City-st^, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investig^ion an<f 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 aU 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 & Zkining Office of this change prior to the meeting. 4 « J V C ‘v.r *.**»*• « * RUN DATE «'S , *' • V ' •mlATCM 501 .•^V ‘.TAXDAVeA •• •v^.. NM«/AWW ■J>:i , Aom ; OM«R NAHi ; TAXPAYIA NAW/AOOR HEmEPXN COUNTY PIIO^IITY INTOllHAriON SYSnil MOPCRTY OMNEAS LIST *. •/ ■ k t • » 4 ONNCA NAHC TAXFAYft NAHE/AOra • »r k *» ADDA ONNEA HAHE TAXPAYEA NAME/AMA , *Vr.y •» V PAOP ADDA !. 0»t«A NAME - TAXPAYEA , •?NAHE/ADOA ■r'-? 1i> «k: i .. K,f \ • I « •• • .- ^ V.K ^ ^. i . • I s.< »r i *.••■ ». r’m • •Sa OA-117-23 AS 9003 02*75 rOK ST P J SLOCUH I E E CILLIGAN OCTEA SLOCUH < ERIN CILLXCAN 2*75 MW ST m 555*1 M 04-117-25 45 0015 02730 RAINSV ao HARK e FCX * HARY-SrUART FOX HARK 6 FOX 2730 RAI»;cY RO NAYZATA MN 55391 50 OA-117-23 A3 0019 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO RAINEY HANNAH ANDERSON RAINEY HAIMAH ANDERSON 136 OtOVELAND TER HOLS 104 55A03 36 0A>117-23 A3 0022 00036 ADDRESS UNASSlGNED OEIOaS F K15R.IN OEWaS F Rura.iN PO 60X 655 NAYZATA HN 55591 36 OA-117-25 AA 0005 00710 GANDER RO R R N A CO R06ERT • ANGELLA CARLSON 235 LAKEVIEN AVE LONG LAKE m 5535A 56 OA*117-23 A3 02*25 FOK ST DAE PETERSON DAVID E PCTERWM 2*25 FOK STREET NAYZATA 2M 55391 36 OA-117-25 A5 001* 02*90 RAINEY RO N N SMITH A C 6 SMITH H H SMITH A C 6 SMITH 2*90 RAINEY RO NAYZATA M4 55591 36 OA-117-23 A3 0020 00*50 GANDER RO J H S EQUITIES INC J H S EQUITIES INC A60* PARK GLEN RO MPLS HN 5541* 36 OA-117-23 AA 0002 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO P E ECKERLINE/H A ECKERLINE PETER E ECKERLINE 2555 FOX ST ORONO HN 55591 TOTAL 6ATCH i t. •* A F *PCPOKT NO.PI^SS^DLftI« «M-nr-ts oou 02MS PAXNrr iO K $ D $ S VICXCPHAN t $COTT VTaCEPrUH 9USAN S VXCRCRHAN EMS UXNiY m NAYZATA m SSSYl N A OA-117-23 A3 0016 ADDRESS UMASSX6NE0 RAINEY NAM4AH ANDERSON RAINEY NAMMN ANDEIgON 136 GMJVELANO TER MPLS Ml 55A03 '•* » t 36 6A-117>» A3 6021 00730 GANDER RO C K ROOSEVELT/V 0 ROOSEVELT C K ROOSSVELT/V 0 ROOSEVELT 2**5 FOX ST NAYZATA Ml 55591 36 OA-117-23 AA 0004 02*01 RAINEY RO RAINEY HAMIAH ANDERSON RAINEY HANNAH ANDERSON 156 GROVSLANO TER MPLS HN 55A03 *•I r, I • / ’ • ’ i > • • li ! 9 •I I I 4 !* I * ^ # V .. * \J 4 SOI 00013 * 9 • • . . ‘/v * ‘ k 9 t * L V ' » . V ‘ % 4 •/* •' \• - M’. »; * ‘ • k *. I •* . • • * : . • 4 ^' ' f • •' ■ . f ■ • * * •- . . A ^ *• ‘1 •• -ft • «• # • •• • AA- i % . ■ *• ■ ,4 . - • •■ -.1 , * .» • •• 1 « «Ai^ . • i 31V« o ’ ^ . *iinM ONV 19Q3>On AM iO iSM 3NX Oi *N0X1VXVA JO iNSUMJlO AINOOO NU3MI3N IMI JO snoolil MX NO lira SnU SVfMJt XX SV NOXXfMWJNX iO NOUVlN3S3«d» MMX ONV BifMraOM MT 3MV OUN3S3MJM SX3VJ MX XVNX AiUMBD I c \ '-J . / •• • ' - # r- . . , * .Ai... •» \ » % ' ■ *\i * « « M -4' •r-• . 1 « « •• ‘ * . .. ^ • •40 ' . t • • . < • ■ «# * *• * • •• .• •. m . * ! . i ■ ‘ n ^ • •• i. \ .•’'i-JV• \ • • ' •* • . n .1•. ■V ■ ►. ;• <. 1 ,‘4 . ^ •* ■ ••t 39Vd TO«SS«Id *ON XMOdaM »:t *»> r •V # V w. . ♦ i .;i : xsxi svarM) uvadoiM NIXSAS NOIIVNMOJNI AXM3dO)M AiNOOD NldaNN3N ’ k ^ i ** . r • > t % * ; \ ’X •. > • /■r ■ i'* •• •, tf* jA. :•!?); i‘r. ■ I >■: 1i% • • • • A' ;' ' ♦i • r* ! • • • . s.'.‘ V; ;,.', ... ' ' W- •.!:; •• ■( -jit- •1 • Ilf ■■■■• - MOXWh'jrt ; ■■•n'.M4/w/it ixvo imi-j.&'J ' 'Jt v .:':iu-4r?iJl ;• . M,« •. -• DATE 12/22/9A• '' :-r r.- ^Q.v'!'t*TCM m V* I:• ht • * 1. **,, >. - ’ V•vLi-i*O’-'*!'' , ' V^ ’ .• * It '.I ii -V* x& .yr*f « • » 4 * 4 . • ^ '»• ;•’- . ^ • -^rr.Sj’r • • ; $•{ s - •*f i- ' • •• :; • *• . W»* 'f’ • ■•1 •i *r' .V^..X.,'l>';w' J • I•j • - * t- W V. \ •}. t: y. V Vj)- «••''i‘- •' ■■f'it'y f • >< 1 i .* , * I ■rv'Sltr.:.« f«NNC91N COUNTY fSOPCITY XNFOnUTXON SYSTEM raOPEITY OMCES UST 9'r V 'E.t • l''. : /•Kratr MO. mss^QiOMi Si >. j*• • •( ■. t . •* • • • i •* *.v , -vfV V »..*••■ , • •*% -' I-... -■:; • 1 ' , *.* ^; - • *• ai' •s. . u* .V ♦' > -’*• ‘ ■ " ^ ■ f • •• ^ f % . . • i *• ^ r * t • ’• V r 1 * fV* •* ; . • ‘ ■ V . ' -* * '* .' ’.* • .• I ■ ;t \ 4 A • 4 .f« ♦ ^‘"S ‘‘Jj ^ .*'• >V*‘^It • T > ^^ • I ^ \ ^ • r. ’ *4 • . # # ,/m (j,,. ...: .' _ t ^4 f •># - : t ' 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS HEFHESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION Of INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECOROS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARtMENT Of PROPERTY TAXATIONt TO THE REST , v OF HY KNOHLEKE AND DEUEF. li. ' k .* DATE • »« ' •» r • , »• lit-•,f » t . .* t .t.. *i i .* f , . " ij« V kOT 21 ■^ lOT 10 •i 4 12 ^ • |A A 1 lA ■tl • •■ iM'li't V <2 • *«rif« »6 iT 1 ^ * 1 wW ™ A V lA %F? J kiV A iS hlS’Wt FOX n.^**T-**r*T : ir“P'’Mr.:rr. • •«ir Mii* it * "•'** ^ „ , » anj hetw«»*r **. *^1^1*11 .itkI P. , ^u^- %nd of th# rcuntt* !l*'?inri'ir .»n ! o'' '*1, r»^rti*^r. of th« first part, ancl the w\r*:n. V*>iTrf5tnri, ^tstrmrlv the »ietropoH^sn Sewer Pcerc*. ^ ironstltuted .K:rnr** of the V.etropol it.%e Coaticil created oreanlsed uursuant to •♦inneaote Lews Chapter r«rtv nf rn^ seco*^*^ per^; wiTvrssmf. That the said partiv* * * the fir^t part, iv. cocisi CIO ration of Ono Dollar and other food and valuable eonaideratiofi to thei!^ in hand paid hf the tasd party cf th# aeccnd part* the receipt ««herecf is hereby ectnoiiledfed* do hereby Ctreiit# betfain. Sell* Comey and 'Warrant to eaid party of the eeeeed part* the eeeee»nte eltuete in Hennepin County* Ninneeebe* deecribed ae felleM* to-eiti A )S foot perpetual •aeeeent for eenitnry folloirlnf deacribei C Lot 11* Auditen beMieteloii bo. AM* aceerdlnf to the ^ on file end bf reentd ib tiM effiee of the befleter m€ , Nennepin Ceenty# Mibbeeetb. rde ?ald p««p«taal mmmmtmt tala* 17.S fast aa aMb alia aC tha fo&Xaaia* daaeribatf liaa* mM aai4 aaawaiy aaaat mttaa aaaaana kata* M.« faat oa aacli aida aC aai4 faila d««erlb«d M folAaaat ilaaiaf 4aacrifeai liaa. taUI Uaa is t 4 ra Connmctn* at tiM Marthattt ewinw af tha tovtlMaat Ovartar of Sactioa 4» ToMMhi* iiT« aBaia !>• thane* aeiitli aa aa *sa< baariaa of Sooth • Softoao* IT aiaotoa. SS ■■coo*o Baat al< tha Coat liaa aC aai4 taathaaat Ooartor a diataaoa of «0t.S4 fontT thaaea tjatfc tf 48f*aaa* IS aiirataa* *S aaeoaia Waat 4<)«.43 faati thaaoa taoth S3 dattoas* 02 aiaiitas, IS <48.22 faati thaaaa taatli 2 daftaaa, M aiaotaa* 17 <03.21 f*o». thaaaa «sa«li SO «sfcaaa, 14 ainataa, 00 aaaaate vast 71.79 faati thaaea leath 2t da*iaaa» 21 aiaataa* 20 aaaaaia vast 290.00 faati thaaaa aaatiaaa Soath 25 da«raaa. 21 aiaataa* 20 ••eonda Waat lll.dd faati thaaea Oaath 11 daaroaa* 44 aiaataa, 39 seeand* Waat 110.04 faati thaaea South 7 Oafraaa, IS aiaataa• 12 sacoiida Baat 102.2S faat aad thaia taxalnatin*. Said tenporary eonotruetlon aaaeaant aaalias Dactwbar 11. 1270. ■tata Taa purausat to MS* 207.22 Doc. No. 1138926 Piled 5-7-75 \ \ . I:; thr *ir! i.,irticR of the fivnt. p«rt hov#' set their hands the dav and vear first above %#rlttrn. In rr<^‘ eve i* of : kU'- u.h-H^ur^ '^tJLy Dennis f. Kuifilln ' STATr nr MirPIESOTA ) ) COuriTY OF lir.MNF-PItJ ) On this tc dav of 1^75, before -«e. a :?otary Pub^^ic, within and for said County» personally aopeared Dennis f« Kurt] in and Barbara B* Kurlin^ husband and wife# to m known to be the persons described in and who esecuted the fore^oinB tnatnewnt and acknowledged that they executed the sune as their free act and deed. UJt t .u Notary NwNlie THIS IHSTPUHCNT WS DRATTID BY Pobert A. Hillatroo 1710 Soo Line Bldg. ruleapo 11 s« Minnesota SS402 • 1 y. ^4- . MCUS ENG/CONST FAX NC. 61F22S2136 P. 02 B release and TERNINATrON O? SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that th« undarsl^ned, successor in intersst to ths Metropolitan Watte Control CorjAlstlon« being the holder and owner of an easement dated April lo« 197S and recorded May 7, 1979 as Ooeunent No. 113S92S in the ofHca of the Registrar of Titles, in end for Hennepin County, Minnesota, covering the prenises lying and being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, which preniees are described as Lot 3, Block 1, Foxwocd second Addition, according to the records on file and oC record in the office of the Register of Deeds, Hennepin County, Minnesota, in consideration of the sum of One Dollar and othar g30d and valuable conslderatlcn to it in hand paid, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby releases and terminates that certain easement as described below between the owners cf said property and tht Metropolitan wasta Control Commission, a duly constituted agency of the Metropolitan Council created and organized pursuant to Minnesota Laws 1975, Chapter 13, Minnesota Statutes $^73,503, to wit: Lot 2, Block 1, Poxvood second Addition was previously part of Lot 11, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 229 upon which ths following easement was acquired by Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Description of Easement: perp«£ai;n« ier sanitary^ x-.v -ITAVV|Mn% ,iAd e^K^eot tesperary eenstmeUen !Sevtr m \ ^ ^':/ils 'and \ Hennepin county» _____ sajid ' - - des y.' [ to .the rtoerda star of Deeds • ! { fitt on each side of the fellenfiag -------------------^^----------------- oenktnetioA eaieMM being Ccnoe&eii i «t U m liortheaii eener of the feutheast QuitUr of seotiea 4# TOwtuhlp’t^7/IU]we III thence teeth on on ssceMd bearlog bf teeth ,9iMreeSf>if ftlhe«e9» |3 etcefids tail sionf s« OS ptoonds Heat lioiauUSf IS se.oeadi Vest sMlnptssr 17 seoeeds Bast' ttiputes I 01 feoQSds West ^ _________ . stnetss* SO seconds ^st ^ ^ .. thenee^^it/iee semth Ss degrees* S3 lanuus* so■flcofids. Hest'lS3;44 fedtI thence sooth is decrees* 44 sdnutes* 30 peeonds beet 330«I4 feeti thence South 7 OMroet* II einuttSf 19 etcoods post 309*ii feet and there teminatlng* hi;*- . f * • • Said tei^erary conitruction eesoaent oxpirea oaeember 31* 1974* 0 TMs'COQveyaaoe if frcai ItaU Deed Tan pursuant to mSA 317.3 2 JAN- 4-S5 WED 9:2S ENG/CCKST FAX NO.I • %lf w WITNESS wTiER£or, th« undersign^ cauie^thl* t to bo duly Bxocutod this day of , yTtl^ne^agraanent 19 Jf. APPROVED AS TO FORK:Matropolltan council, a public corporation and political Bufcdivialon of tha stata, Succasaor toKatropolltan Waata control Its ' _ C)?Air Its General Kanaaar STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ) aa. day of 192^,bafora »aOn tha _ _ _ __ ^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ notary publ^ ,wltl^ and jfor "aid County, pa^aonaliy^ _ _ _-,_ _ _. raapaadrivaiv nariad In tha foraqoing inatrunant. and that laid Katropolltan Council, a public corporation and political aubdivlalon of the Stata, succesaor to tha Metropolitan Waata control coauniaslon, by authority of ita Board of Ccrunia a loners and said Board of Conaisaionera acKnevledgad said instrument to be the free act and daed of eaid Katropolltan Council. 5l ANNE MAJETIC h””^ notary ■ UINNS90TA ' DAKOTA COUNTY ^ytjggU^MATiOS.--------------MlXMCSOrA beiTM ta, m Jeanne X. Matrons, Licanse No. 68615 Metropolitan Council/Wastewater Services - (612) 229-2108 230 East Fifth Street Hears Park Centre x St. Paul, mi S5105 Ci*’*''* L‘-^ . .... t D1138926.con V V \j>\jiu oi_ovyiML/ MUUI I 1/1I ■I FEET UMENT 7s»c/ upon an oszamoe/ </a/um T)ramo(je f vhliff casomenh ahoMn fh«s '• -1'-* s'I_=JL ______l3tL_..-_?L ____ V:-: T * , ^eiw 600 Aet in ¥/iM andodlolnino ioi dnc^, Ond \ * 6e/no io oo/kef tn Midih and adjoimno block, lines ‘. vn(ci5 oiher^ist MicoAa/ on fktptih (> N N ) V !•.. C ■»,o / ' '• c l/ V 1 c: o 2 ,0***'* Oy 0/ V/ 0\ A«rW'i i. k ^mn IK e«4«iii (deT4«v>; I COUIIIY, HIHHESOTA Minnesota Laws of 1969, this plat has been approved this day of . 19 OERHARO 11. LARSOH. IIErillEPIN COUNTY SURVEYOR lEPlH COUNTY. .HIHNE.SOTA • • within plat of fOXWOOD SECOND ADDITION was filed for record in this office this ! ick H. I R. DAN CARLSON, REGISTRAR OF TITLES day of To:Chair Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:February 9, 1995 Subject:#1992 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road - Conditional Use Permit/Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 2 acres in area. The property consists of 13.8 acres. Pertinent Ordinances 1.Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 - Conditional use permit required for restoration of retaining walls within lakeshore protected area. 2.Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A) - Retaining walls supporting underground entrance to greenhouse to be replaced ai approximate 6’ height and arc located within the 0-75’ setback area. Required = 75’ Existing = 45’ Proposed = 45’ 3.Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2) - Variance to oversized accessory structure code. Allowed = 3,000 s.f. Existing = 5,478 s.f. Proposed = 5,478 s.f. (59 ’ x 26’ greenhouse addition* to be restored consists of 1,534 s.f.) * Greenhouse addition is located 50+’ from public road and 80 ’ from side lot line. Variance required as major strucniral improvements are proposed for a major part of the oversized accessory structure. 4.Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (E) - Accessory struemre in excess of 750 s.f. major structural improvements are proposed. Structure is located at a substandard setback. Required — 15’ from side lot line Existing - 0’ Pro\>v>':eiJ • O’* Sin;;ts;.re is located 50+’ from public road i *1 Zoning File #1992 February 9, 1995 Page 2 5.Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area. 0-75’ setback area = 130,834 s.f. Existing = 21,557.5 s.f. or 16.47% Proposed = 21,939 s.f. or 16.76%* ♦ 250 s.f. of 10’ service drive originally proposed as a grassed drive. 160 s.f. of a paved 4 ’ walkway accessing to lakeside deck at southeast comer of property. 30 s.f. of retaining wall to be repaired and not included in original hardcover facts. 75-250’ setback area = 317,893 s.f. Existing = 49,923 s.f. or 15.7% Proposed = 55,163 s.f. or 17.35% Increase results with 5,240 s.f. of new service drive hardcover (original grassed drive). List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - Application Plat Map Property Owners ’ List Description of Request Hardcover Inventory, 0-75’ Hardcover Inventory, 75-250' Resolution No. 3343, File #1868 Elevations-Garage/West Elevations Wall and Greenhouse Elevations-North and South Greenhouse Original Survey for Application #1867 Reflecting Path to Dock Area Resolution No. 3342, File #1867 Floor Plan-Greenhouse and Garage Survey/Site Plan Reflecting New and Existing Hardcover Improvements Review of Previous Application In October of 1993, applicant received approval of three comprehensive land use applications dealing with caretaker apartment within the principal structure (#1966), h^cover improvements within the 0-75’ setback area involving a third access stairs with lakeside deck (#1967) and conditional use permit and variance application involving the large accessory structure on the property dealing with a conditional use permit for the use of an existing guest house apartment and a variance to the existing oversized accessory structure (#1968). In April of 1994, the City granted variances (Application #1907) for the repair of existing access paths within the 0-75’ setback area on the east shoreline. Zoning File #1992 February 9, 1995 Page 3 The current application involves major structural repairs to the 59 x 26 greenhouse addition connected to the oversized accessory structure totaling 1,534 s.f. in area. The existing foundation shall be retained and the upper portions of the structure to be replaced with a new aluminum and glass upper structure. The existing brick foundation shall be repointed and new brick veneer placed over existing masonry walls on the south side of greenhouse structure. The structure shall be approximately the same height. As already noted above in the facmal findings, the greenhouse addition is located 50+’ from the public road and 80 ’ from the side lot line and meets the required setbacks. The oversized accessory structure was formally recognized by the City in October of 1993, review Exhibit G. The detached accessory garage at the east lot line shall also sustain major structural repairs consisting of a new roof, new doors, replacement of wood facia and rafter tails. The walls running along the east and south lot lines shall also be repaired or replaced. The walls located within the side yard (50’ in from the street) are 6’ in height and would not require approval of a variance. The entrance walls located 50+’ from street and at 6’ in height will also not require variance approvals. The application also involves the reconstruction of a retaining wall at the underground entrance to the greenhouse located within the 0-75’ setback area where no strucmres are allowed. The wall supports the banks of an underground tunnel that accesses beneath the greenhouse. Retaining walls are proposed at 30 s.f. reflecting no change in hardcover. The .29% increase in the 0-75’ hardcover inventory reflects the 30 s.f. of retaining wall not included in original calculations, a driveway originally proposed as a grassed drive at 12" width (refer to Exhibit M) at 250 s.f. and 160 s.f. of a pathway providing access to the lakeside deck/stair structure approved in 1993, refer to Exhibit J. The survey/site plan of 1993 revealed the path but hardcover facts never reflected the new hardcover proposed originally at an 8 ’ width. Statement of Hardship The hardships set forth in the resolutions for Applications #1867 and #1868 are applicable for the current review. Issues for Consideration 1.The original survey for Application #1867 reflected an 8 ’ paved path to the dock at the east shoreline, portions of which are located within the 0-75’ setback area. Does this information have an impact on your recommendation? Zoning File #1992 February 9, 1995 Page 4 2. 3. 4. The original survey reflected a 12’ grassed service drive with gravel bed beneath, portion!^ Qf which were located within the 0”75 setback of the west shoreline. The grassed drive as proposed would not have been considered hardcover. The drive has been installed at a 10’ width, relocated and has been paved with asphalt. Does this information have an impact on your recommendation? The greenhouse addition portion of the oversized accessory structure meets all required setbacks of the LR-IA zoning district and accessory structure code. None of the structural improvements involve complete reconstruction of either the greenhouse or detached garage. Any recommendation of approval must include the following conditions. Applicant to provide written confirmation of a date when the new septic system serving principal structure and detached caretaker residence is to be installed. The Bracketts Point neighborhood was reviewed by staff during the recent septic moratorium for the purpose of determining future septic capacity and need for sewer. The Bracketts Point neighborhood was found to have adequate and suitable areas for septic expansion and was classified as the lowest of the defined 10 "hot spots" as to the need for sewer. The applicant agreed to install new septic system once the City had resolved the issue of potential sewering of the 1. area. 2. If the removal of hardcover improvements will be required as a condition of approval, removals must be completed prior to City’s issuance of building permit for restoration of structures. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $200.00 g a ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SKX3.00 (no change from original application) • • — Variance for non-confomiing structures $200.00 After-lhe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INTORNLATION Site AHrire-ss 14P0 Bracketts Point Roarl, Organ A o o, oi r-w \ UA I t Wi »- • »»C lJtu2vvCCu,w * MN FiFiriqi VJL Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 11-117-23-32-002^--------- Attach legal description to application if not mcluded on required survey Date Property Acquired March 1992------------------------------------ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential _other (specify). Zoning District: I u. i — t (month/year) r.-,VA ri.'w ’ toi r. Ol/. Phone612-786-7711 (Office) Phone(work)_________________ Pirrlo Pinoe ZiP. q mi 1 A ^^^^^^^(^^us-Anderson Construction OWNER (if different than applicant) —612-471-0299 Isfanje James and Joann Jundt_________ Phone (work). ---------- Address:2200 Huntington Point Road City: Wayzata ----- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST EspiedConsmKnonC^S ISO, 000.00 Describe request indetaU: See Attached Exhibit and Sketches 0^-----^----- Zip: 55391 (attach additional sheets if necessary) , r r-zn'A-n Lx t i k.'»£.*::A;rr rc'iTTrrt Wl < A wu f '.V}/"rA w W WV VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width X Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear X CwVA. V f i ? “ iTyV' X t -zr,’ Ti a VV' aLot Coverage^-, vn/ -‘ScBOfO cool iiOl JC Average Lakeshore 02/C Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDmONS structure, oarage and brick retaining wall are deteriorac^o- - - dangerous and need to be replaced or ^paire^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 4^I. 1. 2. 3. 4. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All nf. h. fnllnwing must tp ■>» «>■« aPPlicatiBH ^MdliW inQrto fnr your annlirat^nn to h* considerg<l CQinpl^tet CeSfie^Prop^'ltJ of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from — SStepm S Department of Finance. A-603. Govt Center. 348-3271). * Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). . • , j u “^Cenificate of Survey (signed by a ----calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 A x 11 for * TopompSc (existing and proposed elevations)jf any c^ges S^ade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 ‘A" x 11 for rep^uction • X Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8 A ^ ” List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an mterest m the oroperty This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As L 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. ^THESE ITEMS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF ORONO. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please .nnlicAfinn i, not co mnlrtc if the abovf inforiMtum nin ImB mtMci L Th/appltont tereby^agre^ provide all infonnation required or requested by the Zonii® agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee pa^enO a"c?— expensW incurred in review of this application and cemf.es that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Applicant’s Signature Date /* mo^r^e^y Mto^edges and agrees to this applicaUon and fitter TT die property by Ciqr smff. consultants, agenc. Commission members, and Conned members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date iiisr «c “■ tx'-"srs 'S’ arty ats." to have an authorized agent anend in your place and to advise the Buildmg & Zonmg this change prior to the meeting. 8 RUN OAU 06/24/9S liEinEPlIl COUMTY PROPERTY IMfORtttTIOtl SYSTEM PROPERTY OMTERS LIST REPORT MO. P1 hSS401 PACE 12BATCH 004PROP AOOR 0«KR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SB 11-117-25 52 OOOR 01400 BRACKETTS POINT RD J P, JUNOT A MARY J JUNOT JAMES R JUNOT BOX 1 CRYSTAL BAY IBI 55525 5S 11-117-25 52 0010 01245 BRACKETTS POItIT RO MICHAEL E LYNN III I HITE MICHAEL A JORJA LYttI III 1245 BRACKETTS POINT HAYZATA »tl 55551 5B 11-117-25 52 0011 01420 BRACKETTS POINT RO J R JUNOT A M J JUNOT JAMES R JUNOT BOX 1 CRYSTAL BAY Itl 55525 . PROP AOOR OtCR NAME TAXPAYER NAIC/AOOR 50 11-117-25 52 0017 01500 BRACKETTS POINT RO GEORGE S PILLSBURY ET AL GEORGE S PILLSBURY 4000 PIRST BA»A( PLACE MPLS MN 55402 5B 11-117-25 52 0018 01220 BRACKETTS POINT RD ELLA P CROSBY ELLA P CROSBY 1220 BRACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA rtl 55591 58 11-117-25 52 0019 01200 BRACKETTS POINT RO JOIRl S PILLSBURY JR ET AL JOHN S PILLSBURY JR | 4000 FIRST BAIK PLACE ^li»l MPLS ttl 55402 PROP AOOR OtJCR NAME TAXPAYER lUME/AOOR 50 11-117-25 55 0001 01420 BRACKETTS POINT RO J R JUNOT A M J JUEttT JAMES R JUNOT BOX 1 CRYSTAL BAY It! 55525 50 11-117-25 55 0004 01450 BRACKETTS POINT RD MARTHA S A A LACHLAN REEO MARTHA S A A LACHLAN REEO 1500 BRACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA l«l 55591 58 11-117-25 55 0005 01480 BRACKETTS POINT RD R A L HEADRICK ROGER L A LYltl C HEADRICK 1400 BRACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA Itl 55591 PROP AOOR OHtCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 58 11-117-25 55 0004 01500 BRACKETTS POINT RD MARTHA S A A LACHLAN REED MARTHA S A A LACHLAN REED 1500 BRACKETTS POINT RD HAYZATA III 55591 TOTAL BATCH 004 00010 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS RCPRESEHTED ARE AN ACCURATE AlH TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST 0F HY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATE > • I I •• I.. •T ■1 QQ9 d OTY OF ORONO VARIANCE APPLICATION EXHIBIT A 1420 Bracketts Point Road Orono, MN DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST 1) Repair and rebuild existing stone wall at tunnel that connects to existing Greenhouse. 2) Construct a new Greenhouse structure on existing foundation and rebuild existing brick wall at Garage Service Court Area. 3) Repair and rebuild existing garage on existing foundation and repair existing brick retaining wall that runs east and west on property. hardcovt ;r calculation worksheet RCLEONE) 7S-210' 25o00 500-1000' EXISTING hardcover IN ZONE A. House B o ai____________ Lcogca Widiii X X X B. Garage C. Driveway (Public)X X D. Sidewalk (Stone Stepj)X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL H.\RDC0VER LN ZONE total = B nn «T4 x 100 PpnPOfnLP H^nnrnvER IN ZONE A. House Boa_t____________ Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway (P u b 1 i c)^X X D. Sidewalk (Stone Ste^s)X X E. Patio/DcckPathways X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Otor Retaining Wall total hardcover in zone TOTAL PRO^PEgRTY AREA IN ZONE ^ 130; 334 , jgo 196 S.F. S.F. a S.F. -S.F. S.F. ?n S91 S.F. S.F. 525 S.F. s S.F. 245.5 S.F. S.F. S.F. *S.F. *S.F. St S.F. cl,357.5 S.F. 130.834 S.F. *1fi 47 % 196 S.F. S.F. a S.F. ja S.F. S.F. 20.591 S.F. 250 S.F. 525 S.F. s S.F. 187 S.F. l60“S.F. S.F. S.F. s S.F. 30 S.F. 21.939 S.F. 130.83T S.F. 3S " leT;7G % 4* . ^m F ..•X J * j A B 3 —— H-*uj »e. W ,H (> 13 i i • •• * • «V • hardcover calculation worksheet 75-250 ’ ' 25-500 ’ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 ’ EXISTING TTARDCQV TP'B in ZONE A. House _____________ Lesftli Caretaker's House WUHh X X X B. Garage ____________ Caretaker's Garage C. Driveway _____________ D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X X X X G. Other ^®nnis Court total hardcover in ZONE total property area in zone ^ ^33 , ,00 ppnpnSFP p^pnrnVFR IN ZONE A. House _____________* Length rarotaker’s House x Widdi B. Garage ----------Caretaker's barage C. Driveway ------------------- D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X G. Od.er Tennis Court total hardcover in zone total rropery ^area in zone ^ 3^^ -33 ^ ,00 . 500-1000* 8,386 s.F. 5,884 S.F. ________S.F. S.F. ^9 1.400 S.F. 822 - _ fl?7 S.F. S.F. 229 S.F. 150 S.F. 1,600 S.F. 305 “ S.F. a’' a L i /r S.F. S.F. S.F. 7.320 S.F. S.F. ______S.F. 15.7 % A B 8.386 S.F. 5.084 ^S.F. S.F. 23,8271/S.F. 5.540^ S.F. — 229^ S.F. 150 >5.F. 1,600 ^S.F. aub^s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 7,320/s.F. 55,163 S.F. -------------S.F. ~ 17.35^^" A B 13 (S CITY of ORONO resolution of the city council o ^ «5 "-J “ - ■-NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT „cT,oS TO SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (C-2) FILE NO. 1868 tvuTrnPiS James R Jundt and M. Ioann Jundt (hereinafter the -applicants") are the owners^rop^tiy iocated at 1400 Bracketts Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as. Refer to Exhibit A attached hereto (hereinafter "property"); and WTfFREAS the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a conditional J'^lffo^^.iow fuhrior^‘(0« “-t rppr:^LXT:?S :x in arXt:oiTa1.r^i. o-^cd acceU stmctnre would be allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE U RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1868. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application on I^d recommended'approval of the conditional use per^t and vanance as proposed based on ±e following hardships or unique findings. The property consists of 13.8 acres and can easily support a seco residential unit. Paae 1 of 5 r«aWM CITY of ORONO resolution of the cmr council NO. b.Stnicture docs not meet the required side yard setback but the nature of the structure and the uniqueness of this property would suggest that even if subdivided in the future, it is unlikely that this structure would remain as a principal structure. c.The subject structure has existed for over fifty years. 4.The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the continued use of the guest house will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not appiy 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 served as a convenience to the applicants, 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. 6.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the affect of the proposed use on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit to allow the continued use of the guest house structure as it exis« and to approve a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C-2) recognizing the guest house is approximately 2,478 s.f. in excess of the allowed area for an oversized accessory structure, subject to the following conditions: Pag-2 of 5 i30S C ’tt 'rm CITY of ORONO RESOLLTION OF THE CFTY COUNCIL NO. 1.Guest house sinicrure and/or caretaker apartment shall never be used for rental pulses but shall continue to serve the owners* employees and nonpaymg guests. 2.Anolicams are herebv advised that if portions of the guest house stmcture located "niard side yard setback - co..ide^ for sTucrura. improvement that these improvemehts ».ll requme City approval. 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of to msnlu kin shall constimte a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically etoMK any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolu'tion and on behalf of tomselves their ^ hereby agree to the recording of this resolution m the cham of title ot tne property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 11th day of October, 1993. ATTEST: /Dorothy NT iTallin, City Clerklorothy Edward J. Calla^, Jr., Mayor ■fi ProrTerty Owner(s)y Page 3 of 5 SOOl CITY of ORONO resolution of the city council NO. STATE OF MINNESOT.A ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. ™ wcS:! St;-,”™. ^ •“ ■“ ■“ ™"“ ” behalf of the City. HENNEPIN_COUNT^ STATE OFMINNESOTA ) / f/iz. Notary Public )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Onthis . 199 before me a Notary Public wlTnand for said O^na. ,,-:.-s.ll/appeared^wiaunandfbrsai^o-^.r-^^^^ fdrcgomg u^cnun^riid (£ey) same ^ ac. and dc«i. JAMIE L EOSMA NCHMY nJ6UC4«NN€S0Ift HENNEPIN COUNTY MyComm.Ei8i«l2-1»^Notary^bi STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ^ of-.199 rotary Pi^lic wiihinand and w/e«" d^he foUg^^^ ^S:d«d‘°d:^' h1Xy™tuSriho sa.e as ^ (dteir, act »d ^d. . / JEAN 0. SCANLON OTAfTPUmC > COMMISStOr JANUAIY 31,JANUAIY 31.2000 -------- Notary_^blic j/lJ Page 4 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. STATE OF MINNESOT.A ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) dav of 199 before me a No ary act and deed. notary public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENT^EPIN ) , 199 before me a Notary On this________________ oirhin and for said county, | known to me to oc —— ------ (thaW) free dacknowledged that he (they) executed the same as lus ( ) ^"blic svithinardforsaidcoW. ’ftX'die persoc(s) descnbed m ana "uC exMumd the foregoing instrument, an act and deed. notary pubuc Page 5 of 5 ft* CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. Exhibit A rrciT £l •yii. U>t3 I &r.d d.\ Orcr.o Point; j T . _ Q ifi ?«%rrtrfififeti*nt of Orono point v*.d Alfo: th^t P«-t of ® rA th* ftUow tU^ti ^ In th* c*nt«rlln« of Ini described line. Northwesterly comer h««« ,«uth.nv »icn« 0^ L/j- he^.rftT^—— fAAf • th^nct aouthw^flterly on aseid centerline e dxsterxe of 5 feet. ^ terjentlei curve to the r*.ght .^_iy tenaent to seld lest ter.ce ol 169..38 ieet; on e described curve e ® oi <Afj.72 feet e dlsteacetenaentiel cur.*e to >.he ri^t e r de- ot 11S.25 feet; thence i^^h^nte westerly neKlr.a er. scribed c^irve e dlsts.nce of 107.3 * 2;:^ o£ 79.3 «ale of 44 dearees 42 there terrinetlni; aub- Tsct S 'ei^rd^SSe^e^oS Sy ^092586; ^ .*^1 r^n*m* Avenue na seid Center Avenue wasAlso that pert of vecetsd ^ Reer^engeesnt o£ Orono dedlceted to the pabllc f S^J^Jion of the northerly Point, lylna Point sr.d northerly of llr.e of l>3t 4. aeia „,-t llrjs of aeld U»t 4 e line drewn westerly ig2 29 feet northerly frca e i^Ar.t on seld west f of the westerly the southwest corner of eeld ’ flrjuth»-**y of eeld ebove de- helf of veceted Center Avenue “J^It'i^Vof the westerly scribed perpendlouler line; of the westerly ex- htlf of veceted Center Avenue southerly of t.«i=n 01 tho r.«rih«ly U"? .U« ol eald ^ line drawn easterly at riant '1'' g ’!:7on o said west- vacated Center Ave^ f!i? eastc-'** of^he following de- erly lia* with a line orawn 10 feet of said Cen ser Ibed line: Jr^JSthrrly the northwesterly ter Aver.ue distant 558.9S a*x-i aeld centerline a comer of said U)t 5: J;*®®” of the line being ds- dlatance of 5 feet to the **tan2^tlal curve to the «rtb.d: th«« .out(M.««rly ‘*1 163-9 <«»•rUiii altii » rsdlus dl 221..H leei » 41»xt_o ait. •aid line there endlrj. . — CITY of ORONO resolltion of the city council NO. ____________ • % stcrnn S-e s: tM;., lin. drew to Win*- «iSide Unee of Mid ioroe. J^ven ^ described m .ol- the centerline ol \m the centerline o£ eeid ^•‘"**',^^*4jlows: BefiirJiina •- * point ^ * , £ northwest comer o. eeld enue distent 583.95 feet °Rte?!tr.e of a&ld Center Avenue U)t 6; thence sLtherly and eouthweeterly elonj % dister.oe of 5 feet, tne^ . . radius of 221.17 feet a dis- t&niential curve to ^-j«uester’y tendent to lest said tance of 169.38 feet; .outhiieeterly alond ®. tial curve to the i^nt io last said curve a ^--9.25 fe«ti •outhwe.wrly^^^ ^ MT,ce of 107..^ .«.. WWW ^ dnt«c. of 19. 1 y tangent to *«ev - 7 , -- -"’'.e 007 50 'ee** thence southwesterly along a t^entl idistance of 107.oO -ee». tne ^ distance of 19.7 e-i-ve to tho left curve • «««««feet: tfeence coutherly tment tc leet^e . w 6.e feet: thence 53.9 feet: theiwe icutb- erW ?»i«n"tc l«t'd.ecrlb^ i'JUlu. r;‘?ri'?i« tnlSS^Uon -Ith the centerline of eeld Bor- 5;r Ave.tue. and eail line there ending. fmmiXA I ’Atnm Vv t wtdw in I fvcra)r|i ^ rp ?i f V^ A\ ^5\ VJ»I ?V V 0 II M '2: t-' <;\ I—Io ■2; II s I 1 rrrra±* ^ pn -4^ >C> V 3 Oiz- |£X2 l5i v.;> ,^'- ■ ,;J {■f'\ l)D H L -0 C'67 \ ' N V ^ / "iiO /. [\ \' • ' ■s\\ nQ^ncTyiTii a, >W *N .-•r DOCK fe Ag^‘» pwiri^. (W%7 • 0-' — ^ ^ ^ \<> iww ewO^uTW-V. ' ' s_ ’V^'j UArlt' ^ ' \ ' ' . ^ . \ \ /wc' • :‘ m v': :V. '•'. ■ ■ .-!■" It ii-Kup^ • *y\ I i-’n''') . yT • ‘I .• V6^.';: :v;, r.\ I . /. •• • • ' ; '' V- • rry . /'v ■s s V\ ^ckr Vdd^ < ».\%u ‘m:|no .f* ’ .•-V7?; !v<^v(«,’nf •/i r / i'-! f\,'//: ::• / ‘ *•:vv ,r.;^ rj ^ fiM. V * OTrtMti V « «* ' . :•' bi#< fj • / r,.u,, ^EA'2 % r-i'c/: .••f' 3^- '..//, I » »'l !/•iv: \a !. /'V- Wm »’ M \ [ i * V .■'K.. ••• . r • •»^/J - i .* J. : ./,.^V V ?. H. ,t**. * • •* , • • * # . • • V -•.* • fffoyi-1- •.' ^ri ^>f) yr-,rr • .; . • V - ■ TT r *•** .* * ^ rr ■y- •I7 \ 6tM/';; /.-'r r. «. c.• IM*.’.. r V / .v**^•. ■ *’■, 'f '"• • •• .;• ■ t.' ^ jr '.» / • r ► • • • i M *•y7 ' *' V ^rj I •. V w*•.* • . •'*•... •~v a;> *. V * / / *•. ' /'/.■/:/ .<!V•:■•; -'’v:i:;- -4. ; ;‘f" ♦ .>-V ! J. I' ', • ».•• • #, :’ ' =■•' •'. •*i*t'* ** *v i 't •..* * * ’••. ;< .* . . » *' >■; .-.i' .• •■ F..‘ ’ •* .■ j*' .*.'•■<• ‘• *• \* ■• ‘ •■ ■., . *•• • • ' u • • . *■ ..7j .•■ 1! . ■•*• •• .• i ••.*•,• : ' v V.- .Ci'-***' ......* ■.-• '• *• .' • • .;-f .. i*'*- ,?. : • •.. !' . r*. “ • .V .. V-. . V .* ■ *••• : • u- •*.. • - » ‘ r-4.V. ’•.“•v.VJ / / : A V * f / X / ‘ / n V 7s- ' r I I /I • I . /..•••I \/i : /. *' 1- ' ' ■ t,M * I •. I' . '••* ' • - • * ».v m UV ll.* Ir . ' ' i*. 1 ’ • • . . Y- ' •. . 1' . : • V *^!' • Vi '• . •■ . 'V • ' ' • \ (* ..• • • *. • I • .• .“.•V I Y • *K CITY of ORONO resolution of the cmr council NO. _____ €'// A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SL1BDIVISIONS 1 (B) AND 2 FILE #1867 WHEREAS James R. Jundt and M. Joann Jundt (hereinafter "the applic^ts") own„s 0 a. 1400 BraCcns Poln: Road wiU^ U,c Co, of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Refer to Exhibit A attached hereto (hereinafter "the property ); and WHEREAS the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal zoning coda Section 10.22; m with landing declc to be 'oeatri 2 fr ^ ,21 s.f. or .55% exists and where total resulting “ “ 7^^^^ where no such hardcover is aliowed.hardcover is now proposed at 9PO.P s.r. or ./*♦/« wus* NOW, THEREFORE, BE tT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File irl867. The property is located in the LR-IA, Zoning District requiring 2 acres in area The property consists of 13.8 acres. Jr The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on 1993. and recommended approval of the variances as proposed based upo following findings: Page 1 of 5 r«aMOIOi«>«* % >•--1^/ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO- ---------------------- A. 4. 5. B. C. (F). 114 s.f. ^ new hardcover results with the installation of the lakeside deck. The lakeside deck will not be used for recreation or entertainment but will serve as a storage area for dock sections during winter months, house an irrigation smicmre and a 6 ’ light post for safety and security purposes. Entire property has over 1,600 lineal feet of shoreline. The east shored “o iL^ feet has steep lakeshore banks requiring an access stans. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on tlm property to P““'“ to it^ do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district, that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic condiuons, h^. to TOt Lse a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would nW i^ly Live as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to all«vn« « hardship or difficulty: is necessary to preserve a wbst^ right of the appUcam: and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this appUcation including the recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City s^- by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the atave findings, the Orono Ci^ grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, stature instruction of an access stair. 4’x4' landing at the 0-75- “fback rse“^« f0« decfuu’t Lui be located 2’ from d« shoreline, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 CITY of ORONO resolution of the city council NO. _L_____J_______ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. isxr..“» from extended lot lines into lake. from residential properties. sections of Ote code. Any sm^mral rep«rs » d«se structures must be approved by the City. Authorities eranted by this variance run with the property not with4e »PP*‘^’ w only and must be exercised by applicaUon for a buUdmg p^LTwTtTrye^ of dte date of Council approval, or diis vanance wdl expire on that date (October lit 1994). VtolaUon of or non-compliance with any of the terms and resolution shall constimte a violation of the loning code, shall aummat-cally m^te any authority granted herein, and shaU be punishable as anusdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree ^ of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, hwby agree to the recording of this resolution m the cham of uUe of the property. Page 3 of 5 rr■M0S^«l»v« CITY of ORONO RESOLimON OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. • '__------------- Adorned by the Orono City Couneil on this Uth day of October. 1993. ________ Edward J. Callah^ri, Jr.,Mavor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged tafore me on to To7o^no: rii™ ‘nstmmeras executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 «0«UCS ^n’rm CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ______ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this / 'dav of f , 199*/^ before me a Notary PubUcwi.hinandforsaidcoun:y,^rsc« the foregoing inamimcni. and Tcknowledged that he (they) executed the same aa his (thetr) ftee act and deed. JAMIE L 60SMA NOTARY PU5UC-M.SNES0TA h£NN£?;N CCU.VTY My Ccr..u £jc:fes 12-19-97 C\l NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of OchL , 199 ■tp^a^Ngt^ Public withinandfor said [he foregoing instrument, and'Icknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (*eir) tree act and deed. OCl tv—(Z) > (L^Cs^ NOTAR^r 9UBUC Page 5 of 5 IwMOl CITY of ORONO resolution of the city council Exhibit: A NO. f nrzroTgrtrp r,C csrvTcyg c;;?VTy=:L-i Lota *-nd *S, ot Oror.o Point; Also* wt oi Uta 9 10. Roarranaesont of Orono Point and i«ut dear-'bed lino: Ccasenclng at a po*n- .ntha cantor it... o* MS.95 i«t northerly troa the Korttweeterly ec^r (if t/j- ' 5.e*ren£e=er.t ot Orono Point! thence eoutheriy elohi «U iiUritie^ 01ot«o. of 5 feet! Td?.- t«!£enf.el curve to the rUht with » redlue of 2.1.1- .eet * die -Arf^ f* ’P9 la faat: thence eouthwaatarly tanaent to aaicl laat AT-ai*. r-* 44 di^fffeea 42 ttlnutea to the riaht a diatance of '»*3 i'ruore of Lake Minnetonka and tr.ere to i^rdS^Wenue e. Opened by Oocunent no. 2092S89: Alao pert of vacated Center Avenue as eaid Center Avenue was ?fthe Put-Ue in the pUi of Rnerrewenent of Poi-- 'yina southerly of the westerly er.eneion of the UTi''of ‘ut 4. •ew.toerren.^t of Or^ TSSld Lot'line of Lit 4. eaid searrangeaen^ ^ ? - i^tn?frca a point on a^ia iwm ^ uAfttftrW the eouth^aat comer of said Lot 4; also that JJ**- ^ ih^ve di^ half o: vaeCaitod Onter Avenuo lying w^atorly ecrtbed pen«ndlouUr line! end eloo thet “*fJ;!Ty ... hiif of !^»t»-l Center Avenue lyln* northerly . ««lon of the northerly line of .eld .iS^of «ld aL line dr%vm ewtcrly at rlgnt angUa waat- vacated Center Avanue fron the point of Ir.tersectXJ . J. ^ erly line with a line drawn 10 feet easterly of ^n- acrtbed line: Cocnencing at a ter Averue diata.tt 563.96 feet northerly froa the comer of eaid Lot 5; thence eouthsriy alon^ l^S^^bSini de- dletar.ee of 5 feet to the cJrij JtL^. With a radius of 221.17 feet a dlstar.se of 189.30 feet, anc said lir.e there ending... ^ r»«MQ) >w0ws • • • • CITY of ORONO resolution of the city council NO. 1 «I Also xLr,r.^0.m Averue aa lati dtdicaled wef ■n-.*-. PTt oi i”“L»rr»KS«t ot Orooo Point and across of Ut ® ‘ ,y aaid center Avenue and a which lies between Avenue at right ar.glee to the line drawn drawn f £„# the point of intersection of aide lines of said Avenue with a line deecribevi ae fol- I the cntTline center line of said Center Av-lowe; Eeatnnlng at a point in Rortbweet comer oi caid •nue distant 588.95 interline of aaid Center Avenue U>t 5; thence southerly and ecuthweeierly along a a dlstajnce oi 5 feet, m of 2^^ 17 £wt A dto* I tanont'to iMt »«ld ' ! di««e. ot'i '«K'^-*i;iSro£““”72''f»t“ SutssTofcurve to the right with a raaiue of 440.7^. xeet a « TjTt! TXi tilTr’JTol tSTJiit*: »3.» r*”- erli UMent to loot d««erll»<i ^o«?-?ri-?:ravt: tnr.:sn;i :s:tM *«s bo. der Ave-nue, and sail line there ending. 4 fmrnVm^nOnm V. TO;Chair Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE; SUBJECT: February 14, 1995 #1993 Calvin Charles Korth, 900 Dakota Avenue - Appeal of Zoning Administrator ’s Interpretation of the Code - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA , Total area of property approximately .7 acres (zoning distnct requires 2 acres). Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.06, Subd. 3(B-la) - Applicant has appealed the Zoning Administrator ’s interpretation of the code tliat would require applicant to obtain a conditional use permit for maintaining a single pygmy goat on the residential property. Applicant claims that City made a prior decision in an earlier conditional use permit review that classified his goat as a pet and not a domestic farm animal. Section 10.23, Subd. 4(A) - Conditional use permit required for the keeping of animals. Section 10.20, Subd. 3(M) - Keeping of domestic animals for noncommercial purposes. Minimum of 1 acre in aggregate exclusive of 1 acre for the principal structure must be available for each animal unit. Section 10.02, Definition 5 - Animal unit. The following animals constitute one animal unit equivalency: 1 cow or steer, 1 horse, donkey or burro, 3 sheep. In an earlier conditional use permit application for applicant in 1985, the goat was deemed similar to the sheep for umt determination. Three sheep make up one animal unit. Applicant proposes one goat. Section 5.36, Subd. 2(C) - It is unlawful for a person to construct, keep, maintain a kennel structure for one or more dogs without a valid residential or commercial kennel license, except that kennel structure used for not more than two dogs over six months of age need not be licensed if said kennel structure is located in a side or rear yard and is not less than 30 away from any property line. The kennel is located on property to the east and is approximately 4-5 ’ from neighbors ’ extended side lot line. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicant ’s Addendum C - Certificate of Mailing D - Plat Map E - List of Property Owners Zoning File #1993 February 14, 1995 Page 2 F - Hearing Notice G - Survey H - Staff Letters to Owner and Applicant 1(1-7) - Packet of Exhibits for the Review of Application #976: (1) Location Map, (2) Memo to Council, (3) Applicant ’s Addendum, (4) Samples of Letters from Neighbors, (5) PC Minutes Public Hearing 10/21/85, (6) Resolution #1883 Approving Conditional Use Permit, (7) News Article - Pioneer 11/19/85 Brief Review of Application #976, 1985 Conditional Use Permit Applicant filed a conditional use permit for maintaining Billie Jean, his pet pygmy goat, while renting a unit in the Bay Shore Townhomes in Navarre, refer to Exhibit I-l. Applicant kept pet within residence and only tethered him in the outside yard when at home. The majority of neighbors in attendance found that the goat presented no problems for them and encouraged the City to grant Mr. Korth the conditional use permit. The area standard was not considered m issue since goat did not graze in the yard area but was considered a house pet and fed special food. There were affidavits from veterinarians and professors at University confirming the goat presented no potential health hazard. Staff would be happy to respond to any questions Planning Commission Members may have concerning the review of this application but in reviewing Resolution #1883, Exhibit 1-6, the conditional use permit was granted by the City for the keeping of a single goat in the LR-1C Zoning District. The City did not address the need for the area variance but specifically granted approval subject to the condition that the City would reserve the right to review and/or modify the conditional use permit if at any time in the future, the maintenance of the pygmy goat is found to be detrimental to the health, safety and public welfare of Orono citizens. The conditional use permit was written specifically for the maintaining of the single pygmy goat based on the fmding that the goat would be maintained as a household pet. Review of Current Application The City has received several complaints involving the subject property concerning baricing dogs (#2) maintained by the owner of the property. The Orono police have bwn working with the owner to attempt to alleviate the problem for the neighbors. The beleating of the pygmy goat is a concern of an adjacent neighbor (south) who receives the most impact from the outdoor kennel where goal is maintained. This is especially objectionable in the summer months when windows are open. Review Exhibit G, note the kennel is approximately 5’ from the extended side lot line. Section 5.36. Subd. 2(C) would require a minimum 30’ setback from the side or rear yard. The entire outdoor 17 ’xl7 ’ kennel is located within the property to the east. It is staffs understanding that the owner has received permission from Mr. Pearce to maintain the kennel in its present location. Zoning File #1993 February 14, 1995 Page 3 Applicant’s addendum. Exhibit B, advises that Billie Jean is maintained in the kennel in both the summer and winter months. Although house trained, it is iK)t clear whether Billie Jean is ever allowed to enter residence where Mr. Korth is a renter. The applicant plans to bring the exhibits noted in his addendum to your meeting. The staff will have available to applicant a video player so Planning Commission Members may view the video tape. Issues for Consideration 1.In 1985 the City approved a conditional use permit for the keeping of the goat at the residential property. There was never any doubt that there was a need for the conditional use permit. The property is in the LR-IA Zoning District and the code requires a conditional use permit for the keeping of domestic animals such as the pygmy goat. The area variance was not addressed because applicant maintained goat as a household pet. Do members concur that the directives of the code require applicant to obtain a conditional use permit? 2.The goat is no longer maintained as a household pet but is treated more as a dog and kept in a rear yard kennel. If kennel was relocated on applicant’s property and met the 30 ’ setback from rear and side lot lines, the maintenance of the goat on the .7 acre parcel be more acceptable? Would an area variance need to be addressed with the current application? Why can’t pet be maintained within residence as before? The only objection received from the adjacent residence is the crying or bleating of the pet when owner is not home. 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation Staff asks that applicant file a conditional use permit if pygmy goat is to be maintained on the residential property located at 900 Dakota Avenue. If applicant withdraws appeal application before presenting the appeal before the Council, staff may credit unused fees paid for the appeal against the conditional use permit application. The Planning Commission should provide the following directives to applicant and owner concerning other issues raised during the review of the appeal: 1.The need to relocate kennel on residential property maintaining a 30 ’ setback from the adjacent side lot lines and rear lot line. If applicant and the owner have permission to maintain the kennel on the Pearce property, the kennel must be relocated to meet a minimum 30 ’ setback from the adjacent properties as required by code. Zoning File #1993 Febniary 14, 1995 Page 4 2.Maintenance of goat - will it be necessary to maintain Billie Jean within the residence during the evening hours when applicant is home? This should be discussed in more detail. 3.Will Planning Commission Members approve a conditional use permit for the maintenance of the goat as it is presently proposed within the Dakota Avenue neighborhood? / :/r / ■•■'‘'•''S' CL../ e^ „, O.O.NO. o«nM. *»-'“™"- PROPER’^ LOCATION ^ _ l"mrnc3don Number (P.I.D.) ^ ^ Ifii A PboDc (hoDoe)_H22i£3i91— Pbone (u/nrlf't - ritv Q vq ^v O ___________Zip PhOOC (hnnv*^ L/l I pbonc (work)__f£2l^_i^i£f— r^_ OoN. ---- Zip.^ili££_ OWNER (iMiff'«M *“ ’ mm- ('/^ ' --■ " S -Address f WoHdo ^Sra?“o"tr±rS^ parcels-^fl^ wi* CUP application --------^l'*5 00 Residential Accessory Use —S200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ---------$175.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $150.00 Duplex Crcdit/Bldg ---------$250 00 Commercial/Industnal Use PRD/PID - see Fee Sctedule application) other Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) — S'’^0.00 Vacation — fit "SnLithSubdivis^ -----isoo 00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to f« $300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amen ■'V S100.00 Appeals ' Other - see Fee Schedule present use of property Present Zoning District __(month/year) Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify). ary Jf Flt^^ Ut-.-L c i:ao2vvu\jo Ijl it.<i Jk'l* 71 1VV ‘ •.» .ft- ‘tr ■90 cool hOi y; vi/ *► UiCK htii V % Do cook4^r ■■’»»• 1 t KciAi^k. n^v Pi*vcju \ c*jt)^REQUIRED SUBMITTALS I. V Completed Application Form. V Descnbe request in detail. ------- Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’ (you can obtain this list from Hc^m County Department of Finance, A-603. Government Center, 348-3271). 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. ( Locj^ Kt Ki (rC) ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital sams) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ——. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE 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. Cer^cation by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:___________ Date APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Admimstrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, aixl certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant ’s signature D*v:e _.Dl[ab OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized 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 signamre Date ApplicMt must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Comimssion 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 qtplicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Timing Office of this change prior to the meeting. 6 DATE:Friday, Fdjruary 10.1995 TO:City of Orono • FROM:Cal Korth SUBJECT:House Pet Billie Jean Korfi, Nigerian Dwarf Goat TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Billie Jean, at 17" high and 40 lbs, is the smallest household pet in my Oiono neighborhood. She lives in a dog ketmel, which is surrounded by a dog fence and keeps wann during the udnter m an insulated dog house. She is house trained and has never ventured ftom ouryari Billie has been my friend and pet since her birth more than a half dozen years ago. After coinpl^ts fiom a chronic mmplaming nci^boT included Billie, your Orono Police "staked out" Billie and found no basis for a noise complaint. To more objectively explain her definition as a household pet, I am going to present the following: pTp<gt written testimony fiom a domestic pet/!ivestock Veterinarian. ly fiom the executive director of the Hennepin County 1) 2)Experi written t Humane Society. -Mamitii 3) 4) Excerpts from a national Nigerian Dwarf magazine . The Pioneer weddy newsp^ier story in which a prior Orono council legally defined her as a pet A 10 minute home video starring Billie Jean Korth, produced for a Pet Food Warehouse pet video contest Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Calvin ChaiiCS Korth 900 Dakota Avenue ■ * I * •v m __g.6 - //-g^3 7) O O / ff- (2. L<^JJL^ 3?' /0<3/7 9__------------------------------------------------— ^ V I . -1 /y'.«/»^rp—(S-gbaA.^----J 0 J 3£ ______P if-(0 /) ^c/uiiSdcr Huv— ^jLuJUg 3 5*^ 7 / <^ —AiLg ------------- L^ery^— 33 gg ?^9> - ;i fr - 3.-^ ;i/g-^ -S A'i«=> lin^~Uj y ^}L^. ^ _£-4<aA<<js. ^ D <* g 0(3 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE 3. 4. applications: property located at 1420 Bracketts Point 1. 4fi992 James and Joann Jun ’ . variance to allow the restoration of Road, seek approval of a protected area where no such structures or “i^d'se^Lc^^^ lakeshore residential zoning distnct. #1993 Calvin C. Korth who ^ interpretation of the code that would filed an appeal of the -j, requiring a conditional use permit for classify a pygmy goat as ^ nroperty It is the applicant’s position that the goat irno. have%.cial a.ea needs nor requires a special sheUer. #1994 Roben Wolff, the »nd an variance decks that will require an average lakeshore setback Se and a tarLover variance within the 75-:50- setback area. #1996 Gregg Perl, the owner “f ,'*’* taprovraem”completed within a #1997 Sally and ^ ^/Kt tto wo”d area. All oersons wUhing to be heard wUl appear at this meeting. Written comments ate solicited. piL^ Se avaUable in the City Offices for review, by appomtment. City of Orono Bv: Planning Commission 4fSne A. Mabusih Building & Zoning Admimstrator To be published the week of February 6, 1995. 5. *• irOAL DLSCR \ PrION 1^. U 3, Blo<U, JOHNSTONS RLARRANGtrAEMT OF ALBEE& LONG LAKLE ADD ITION/, +0 \Ut iftftrtled pU^ Ahcreof, Henntpin Coont^, ^A{^nes^Ta. ^<50 (Mk^m /\uf Cot \c^ CLi^cC , AAN Mill?' <^/C M S3 iTca T*V^AJ fY.yr>**'\ \iM\ (-riAi'irfM'i/Mi ■ I' ‘I •M.f ij’vii:i m<i3if ••|s I .. _____i \ I * w •« %'lACD |P4Csl .] • Pf opoieJ Aildifion LX> G»*'‘ k W R \ \2-:N \ V ^ 1 ^ M.0 '"lTo “M I. ■i I40.09-- ’ » .* . ;'-Tv‘ . GENERAL NOTES Denotes iron monument Denotes cross chiseled In concrete Denotes existing spot elevation Denotes proposed spot elevotion <-------- Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour lines denotes proposed features Solid contour lines denotes existing features 1939.7 Proposed top of foundation elevation ' Proposed basement floor elevation ~ Proposed garage floor elevation * BENCHMARK; ALL-METRO LAND PURVEYORS 2340 Daniels Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Ph: 475-1433 I hsriby csrtify Ihot this survey, plan or report was prsporsd by ns or untfsr my dirtcl supervision ond that X om o duly Rsgistsrsd Land Surveyor under Ihs lows ot the Slate of Minnesota. DATE ihilsi.REG. NO.noz^ SCALE 1“ ^30' FILE NO. S(>oio-A H- O O'K CITYof ORONO ft 7 Municipal Offices /StTMt Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55355 Mailing Address: P 0. Bos 66 Crystal Bay. ‘AN 55323-C065 July 29. 1994 David Lundbcrg 900 Dakota Avenue Long Lake. MN 55356 RE: Goat Dear Mr. Lundbcrg: It has come to the attention of the City through complaints that you are keeping a goat on your property at 900 Dakota Avenue. This letter is to inform you that keeping farm animals in a residential zone requires a conditional use permit from the City. However, to qualify for a conditional use permit, the Orono Municipal Code requires a minimum of 2 acres for the keeping of animals and it appears from our records that your property is approximately .7 acres. Bruce Vang, Orono Field Inspector, has also informed me of your encroachment onto the Pearce propertv to the east of yours. As per his conversation with you, storage sheds require a buildmg permit and must meet setbacks. It appears that your shed, fence and clothesline poles arc on the Pearce property. Therefore, the Citv must require you to remove all encroachments on the Pearce property and remove the goat before August 15. 1994. If this deadline is not met, the City will mitiace legal action. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, L'de Oman Building Official cc; Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Admimstrator Bruce L. Vang. Field Inspector D. J. Goman, Community Service Officer William & Barbara Pearce. 1485 County Road 6, Long Lake, MN 55356 Enc. Orono Municipal Code Section 10.20, Subd. 3M LO/lsv Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 o o/ • * ^ ^ !i’^ '. ^ ^ * X (Tj CITY of ORONO V-O tatOnctBosM Crmal Bm MtaMMM 5S3XMI066 n: November 30, 1994 Mr. Calvin Korth 900 Dakota Avenue Long Lake. Minnesota 55356 Re: Conditional Use Permit Dear Mr. Konh: X rsrrcirrrjTJ: Citv is requiring vou to submit the complete application before December 22, 19^. Also you fail to meet the deadline, the City wUl proceed with legal action. I made copies of your previous conditional use permit file as you requested. You may pick them up along with your video tape at any time. Sincerely, Building Official LO/ch cc: Jean.v \ Mabusth, Build'mg & Zoning Administrator Bn-wC L. ' ang. Field Inspector TELEPHONE-47J.T3S7 • FAX-473^1510 SJ/2SEG. __'v r_ ••• ' L'.i •“ 0) /‘'X V. ** • ■ ■■ hZ, f*ni « liiaft i/ / '.aO ■ti’ •' V.' ,•..•/•/‘A .♦ • ># / ( •» . ^''»/vero4 ’='*1 » . f ft • . *T • •• • ^ -.Vv. =••* '••*-• ••' VA- ••.............. • -• «• • I•• * 4* *' *1*/^ ; ' ‘1 •<v*•• . : '*•:•/ \ M .• •• *• •% • • >•. i • • ^ . ■• u •• t » '• #••*\ \• •••\*r. • - }-- i-fi to* i - ' * * r •»’ ' •*'•' •-.. - •-..1 .! •. •■■.;;-...'.x - I' : r . . l»ir r: ’Ay • ' •' H tM..j-. •. •• ••.,' /.<^. -'itr ji • - - I.-.[???•■¥• ’■"••*': ■ I -'^V. fe'JWf. .............^ •••■---..■ i- ■■ •.—: j,.—'-' ' ...2*-, -\ -~\ 'r. ■r 1 i,l^a•n^*.^^lJl..;J.:;.•.•.•.. ......rj/l- -- # M • * **l» ■ • » ••••• •%/ *« • • * •• •C.\...... \ Ayt'. •• f % ii Tot Mayor Butler Mark E. Bcrnhardaon* City AdP«ir.ihtrator Orono Councj1 MueLcrs Jeanne A. Matusth* Zonir.q Administrator Oatot November 4« 198S Subjacti *976 Calvin Korth« HIS Lyric Avenue - Conditional Use lermit/Varianrc > Resolution Zoning District - lk>1c>1 Area of Lot - 1/3 to i/2 Acre- Application - Conditional Use Permit to keep pet <|c«.t Pertiocfit Ordinance • Section 10.2U, nut.Jivision i (Ki Required Area for I animal unit - 2 acres (1 iicit* for residenre/i tor 1 ani^>al unit! 3 shewp • 1 animal unit (nvart ut <-quivai«.*nt ) List of Bshibits Exhibit A - Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit U c u i: p Exhibit o • Exhibit il Application Plait M«jp Prcfior^y Owm-ru I.ist Appl 1 c.;nt *H A«ifii.*ii*2tait> Seven Frc»n. I«ei TfChiee Huibier':; Previous taeic|hbor bi*t t« r New:«paiper AitiCa*.*n The appliCaint expiairiu i r* Inn tli.if |n« keepu the 9oat within hib hofne# T!ie <}Oaii it* of out:.i«l«< leubh only when applicant ib at home. Mr. Korth in ^w.ire tbajt a n«;iqhbor has complained ol the preoencff of the c|i«ut in the ne i cjliborhooti. In re* sponce to this clainip he has iru*iu. .*d suppott ietter:; from 9 of the 12 *ebidences and promises to brirq in trie tenth. Mr. Korth hafi suomitted audit ion., a itcM.-spoi^f newspaper articles that recoid other incidents in surroondifigiMinlcipallties. Pigmy goats were classified as house pets. An Mr»» Kbrtb Clnimn they arc no bigger than german shephnrdp golden labrndorn/«ntCo and n lot less noisy. They are kept and treated as house petn#'" The applicant has submitted 2 names for members to call if they wish confirmation on the classification as house pet. Staff has received conf i ruiat i on icom th«« Cedar Per Veterinary Clinic that "Billy* do^*s not requin* npeciai vaccinations or innoculataons. Dr. Bi i i DeBoid of the linivemity of Minnesotans Large Animal Clinic stated that vuccin.it ions foi itftanus and "over eating" disease arc recommended for goats maintained an farm animals but in this case would not be applicable. The City dealt with a similar aiiilirMtion on French Lake Hoad this summer, in that application a m.ibaek variance was sought for the unin.al tarn tu house 2 pet goats. The two acre area standard was satisfied. In this case the airea standard of 2 acres cannot be satibfled. I Zoning #97^ UovonbGr 4# 19bS Pago 2 of 2 Ihff Planning Comrission was afik^a to consioor the* following issue i;: 1. Does tho fact that the goat is claHsifiecl as a ^house per* ty a veterinarian or pet shop owner have- any l>earmg on this review? Your ordinances specifically discuss th«? keeping cf such aniina*s or at least simiiar aniatals (sheep vs goatsK Heview definition of aniir.als and Section l(i*2*s fjndi vision 3(K)* 2m Does the fact that the goat is .Tiaintamed as ti house pet have any bearing on your liecissicn r.4ikir.(i? 3. Does the fact that Korth is a renter fiot at: owner hav«* any hearing on your decision making? 4m The complaint calls reflected owners* te*ar that ^he keeping of the goat would diminish the profi-rty vaiues of the area • is this a valid concern ir* light o! th«« neigniiCirhocd and develo|»t*d density? The Planning Commission could iir.d little validity in the specific complaints of the neighbor!, -n ^ight o! the siany supportive neighbors In attendance at the meetir. i. felt that the fact that Korth is a rent«.-r st«ould have i;o huarinti in their decision making. The permit wot la hi* granted to .Vr. Korth for the keeping of ••isiliy" only. Any ciiange ir. nu:nht.*rs or Kind wqua U necessitate a new permit* Planning Consiission Reeo—endation To approve a conditional use permit for Caivin Korth to keep a pigmy goat riamed ■*UiAly* as a house pel within his residence located at 3CLS Lyric Avenue based on the following findibgsi* » * *»* rrw'/’ V,', 1* The pet as maintained as a house IlMSedvyithin^xisting resicU«nce* * ' *#!>«»• 2. Area requirements per Section 10*20« Subdivision 3 (K) are not applicable in this application. f 3. Surroundinci neighbors have all submitted written statements approving the kr*c*ping of the goat by applicant. 4.The keeping of the goat creates no potential health hasards for neighborhood or community. The enclos'd rosolutAOn haj. been drafted to include the findings and conditions of the Pianr inq Co.mmi j!»ion recoinn.i*ndat ion. WU/iZ, ^ Whan Zt ftoy Obr^stt.: or,3 p #976 7/21/S5 Z tmenivvi *r. ir3p«<ti5r. :r^?kUrQ Z t*s ir. v&a:«uor. of Ctaap or<ii»kRC* SMCt^or. r^.2'. x IK. the 7arl«ir.t I kMp «r. •»!.*«: in visUtisr. of Z .raeritar/: iratzatod by m of ry r.eiihbc/fs ir. the S.i/*hif* sjadivzsior. of tr?no. locitod sr. t*» oIJ !;bv«rr« thettor s;t«. Z isr.'t t v if. violktior. of ?.*io irs:r.^.ce as tcrdti^ «»r by it‘s act'jkl ir.*.«r.t. !'V pet iS 4r. Afrisor. ^/tV “toit. H; v*i^ U«ir;!« throurjh a •tor*. He !tts ratular pbi*si«»: ctvcv. yps ^ « r*-- vvienr-rur.. s*» is ter* ir. a konMl*i»iide t»M He spwnsis tin oits;>.* SRly rf«r. T ar. at htr«. and dor in; these perivas ne is t*.-tri»?rt»i or. *. •.•«r.ty fact lor'i Ivush ir. ry b»CK •.•ard. rarviy it tethures 'jT. 4 fift«-r. luash ir. the frtr.t yard, oriy if : ar. ajta:at- it the fror.t y*rd -tth hy*'. I occafit^illy tuV.c hi.-, for are.7.d the ros.itirrliccc or. a si* fer^t I*A*.th.. He m 1&.js acurJs. eaxaraoZe to the Saartinn of a *is^. for e.<*Tlfe. .He ir. r.o ««j> r»a>.oi o&v of the Ovitsise property ir. ar.y r«*,v.«r *.;<• ij:*.-'.ti.: «i.to“«»l3 rcf'sffi to it. crdi.'a.*xe a&aia io. He ioas not :»v.ae. .-.it fu« ;i tcur;.tt <»t « p.t. store arid feJ to Mr. ir.si» hic V/.Tr^ri ira..!*; fious*.-. hiliy 'ic»»t ^orth’ clearly is i*r. axotic h: jsa p^t. 4r.i f*’»Oilci he corAnxrio ir. *str tore context a ;^rrot. tropical fisf4. oats ar.d 'X»:t or ot;er arc*, not ir. tie cor.ttwt with eOMS. st'jefs, hjrs*.*s. 'jwr>eys. ur.r..r. shi»i: and fowl, the* ^iir»j of the ordirar.ow« Silly is *4 ir.cV:S *.ill the with/rs af#d 'a.*i^rji appro«u.-ately forty pourissr smllur tfer. :y r»f*t rieiatior ’s Zb support ry clairt Z a.t incljdiny tt« foli-vw;*#;: Letters frar. tv© fo*r*.‘r neizlirirs of rirx* ir. F»>.-r. ^airiv who ne’e fa-.iliar wtth .ty yiat and rtt fur hi.t CT.titv life years^. Sever, letters fror. r*/ irarrcr.t ric-i7h.!»r5 ;r. lw.ysMrc. A note ts rm fron the duvelsper cf eys*.ire. who helped .tie solicit the letttfs. ir.dieaunQ her supTw>rt and surpert of two other neiTMorr Z haven't tear, able to nake mrtaet vath. Zhis represents a najority of the residents of Seyshire. ar© if raccesary t will obtain the other si7»tir<c. qivina m ap|.iOval by ter. of ti«*Ive hews. Photostats of four different Rcwspaper stories, all lndlati.*»] the aocepta.nei.* of p/<T'V oosts as house pets. A picture of Billy on his leash in the front and tack yard. Zr. addition. Z uffar these two rcfcdrunecs as eixerts who would clasify !£r*a^4 ?yj:y seats as house pets: Karen BrirA. OMnsr ar. Bsllee. vetarinsrian the Place Qsdv Pet Clirae 9odm»ter. Hi Minrsapolis Z’d be happy ts brin; aryona fran the city of Orono over to ny house and show thr« Billy and his hone. cal Korth IL ^ #0 7 6 X Vi 4 rusiduRt gC thtt Bftvs!u.r6 town hant aevvIopireRt xr. teens, or. the sit* of yf»t snee v«s the :av»rrtt drivs'i*. thMtsr. I HD of 4r. 4tfr;en.n p/yr/ goot house pet ounL<>i bv Hr. Cfe Ksrth. end residing st 3i!S Lyric Avitnue in Oeyshir*. Ttm pet IS causing ns prohlens, eppuers ts be well tslMi care. I an in favr.*’ of allowint; hir. to nrain. rwinsF .ddrwg .*76Vt-> / Trtnt _£L^.z«_-—air______________date %: }* (« ■'i-i*tiitfrrfMSjli ■;» « #976 V23/1S TO Gbl Karth lived in • eoMnhaiii that shared th» cant huildmi lAth ffon 1911 thcoueh thi Stmar of IMS. 0uru)9 tho last tio yaars he fod an atnean pirPV Toat house pet. This pot t«s ahselutely no prablon us the nei«;haDrhoee. Gdin l^airte eaty pet efftetols wuro aieire of Billy the untiro tuv hu was kept an their City. BiUy i«s eetremly popular tdth out tin younj rtuldnm. Zn feet, they stall ask about him fron tune to tu« sinou h» mvud. ler. North even had a birthday party for Rally whes he tumud one yuer old. He umtud ell tl» nebjhtaDrs* children and had bathdey hutn. anio. fevora. «tc. iemt cf tin yeisvi <]uastJ bRwiht Bally a rvueutst. naviano fron epplcs mkI oafTOts X eonsader at ■» wry entertainanr ard anfonwitiu; [art of my children's early ecueotaon to hove boon ussoeaatod with Usin jr.iral. X'n sure la is an attribute to hu: new nuiqhSBrhuxi os Sineercly. 4* Y'-* « ’ A * k.e l»•w 4 I______^ / Mxmrres or tub rMNNiiio coMNissxoii mbbtinc held octubkh 21. i9is. back 7 llot«t Planning ConAisbivn nciutcr Couttvn arrived at t!us point in tno nvetin^. •9S» cbobck b. JOUMSOM 345 OLD CBYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH VARIANCE - SECOND REVXBf Chairman Callahan explained tl:o variance application requoat to construct a 1520 square foot polo barn for storage of Vehicles and equipmont. George Johnson was present for this matter and seated his intended use for the preposert pole was was to store collectibles. B»ovod by HcDcnald. seconded iiy Sime* to recomnend approval of tlie variance request subj«*ct to start's recoiumendations. Motion. Ayes. S« Kays 1. Kelley voted nay stating he felt it was too bici, in excess of the allowed 1000 square tout building. •972 SHAVER/TBARSB lOtO MEST PERNDALB VARIANCE PUBLIC BBAEXNC 9il9 - 9*29 PM The certificate of trialling aral aft iiiav it oj publication was noted. The purpose of the public heai ing «a: .o «.*' nsuler the request to permit construct ion cl a dock os. a lot tstat '"annot sustain a principal structure. Jin Shaver and Jonn J. Taylor, r.^presentir.g .Mr. Tearse, were present for this matter. Kelley noted City Attorney Kadiu's nwmo regarding his opinioti in this matter that **Thi’ prop-srty owner dues havw the necessary right to use that portion of the <lcdicatud pubUc right of way not currently used *>y the City for construction of a dock*. (Memo attached to these minutes)' 5 There were no persons present objecting ai^ the puBlle hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Cailahan# seconded by dcDonald* to recoiuncnd approval of the variance based on the found hardship, subject to obtaining a written [lermit to permit structure or. unused p'.rriofi ot public right<>of-way, and . subject to staff *s reroirjrc.ndat :ons. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0, I 197^CALVIN KOKTU VaiLLy LYRIC AVENUE CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT I'UBLXC BEARING 9:29-9:42 PM The cor1111 cat *• of nuiilincf .iml .if f iiiavit of publication noted. •97« a:,<5 ttsioM fuanas wto ocvKim at, i§m. nm • TIM |«urt>os« of tho potlac htt.irir.9 was to coosiOwr tho rcoiiost to tUMp a pwt 900t witftifi thw 1/j to 1/2 ocro lot. Col Rortia was prwsont for this »attor «n4 notod that ho currwntly roots the property at 341S Lyric Aoonuo with tho option to buy. Torry Schloo* owner of th« property, woo prosuot and ototod siM was in favor of allcwitxf thu applicont to hoop h«o pot brad Wusslor* 3440 Livin<}ston.\«o. > was prosont and stated ho was in f .»vcr of ollowanq the ofipt- it»nt to keep his pet foat. Also present was Jason licsider. a foroor neiahbor of Nr. north's in Eden Prairie, who stated they never hod anv problens with tho goat. ' Sime stated he fcJt ’his ^oat was definitely e "pet* eid should not be buo3«:ct to •tninal units. McDonald stated ther*.* wus a net;d (or an "enotic aninal* classification. whici. would include this py9«y yoat. Chairnan Callahan stated he troudht tliere should he seoo conditions ir. granting this reguest rwthor then an open* ended Conditional Us«.* Permit. Movedne guestioned the tvp.-u .^.f vaccinations roguirod for this type el pet end suggested reguirir.9 • letter free the vote Mr. north a:.swred the Ct-PBission that •hilly* is , regularly by wtorinarian* br. bailee of Cedar Pet Clinic in Minneapolis* and is in good huolth* .■ piere were 1.0 persons present,'iobjeotiaf ond thu publichearing was closed. , 'J... «i ^ i. * >. a, . ' It was Bovud by Chairsan Ca? lahan* seconded by NcOonald* to recoMBend ao|<roval •;( the Oonuitior.al Use Permit subject to thu fellowingt 1) StaCt to contact Dr. bailee to verify health df •Billy*. 2) Conditional t'se Permit is limited to the length of tisie that applicant resides there. 31 Conditional Cse Permit. 11 linited to the lifetino of "Billy* the goat. Motion* Ayes 4, Nays U. •f77 JIN HBIlUai 140h BhLPtfN PAM BQAO VAHIAMCNS PVhLXC NMAhtllC 9t43 > 10t03 PM The certi t it'c.te of mailing and affidavit Of publication Was noted. 1 CITY OF f ’ oRoKa City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1 ^ H i________ 6 A RESOLUTIOM CRAMTINC A CONDTIONAL USB PKMMIT PKII MUNICIPAL ZONING COOB SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 3 (R) KILE 1976 WBEllRAS, Calvin Charles Korth (hereinafter *the applicant*) has an interest in the property located at Lyric Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter •City") and leqaliy described as Lot 10# Block 3, Navarro (hereinafter •property"); and WHEREAS# the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a Conditional Use Permit to keep a pigmy goat witnin his residence per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20# Subdivision 3 (K). •Unnesota: NOW# TIfEREPORK# BE IT RESOLV EH ly the City Council of Orono# FINDINGS 1. This application was reViewiM* :b;ni!.'i l iii.- t976. 2. The property is iocuted in thi.* Lakoshore Sub-District. 3. On October 21# 19B5# the Orono Planning Cotr.mi ssion reviewed tne application as proposed anti reconmen led approval based on the follcwing findings; A) 7);e goat is maintained us a house pet and not as a farm animal. The goat is maintained within applicant's residence. ■ » i-L V-V ;» D) Area requirements per Section 10.20# Subdivision 3>{X) are not applicable as goat is kept within residence and goat does not require grazing area* for food. C) Surrounding neighbors and most affected neighbors have all submitted written statements approving the keeping of the goat as proposed by applicant. 0) Dr. Oailoe of the Cedar Pet Ciinlc and Dr. Dill DeDuld# of the Ujiivcrsity of Minnesota *s ^.arge Animal Clinic# confirm that the pet goat decs: not require speci«tl vaccinations or Innocula- t?onti. The keeping of the go.it will erreate no potential health threats for nei^hborliood or surrounding conmunity* 4. The City Council has connidiTed this application including the findings an^l reccmr.erubit ions oi the Planninn Commission# reports by staff and the or.i i an I wr i t t fn rumme-nt s ot the applicant and the ettect of the prof»orc*tJ use ori t !u; h«*alth# :;afety an^J wclf*»ro of the i.ommuni ty. Pac|<* 1 of 3 Cl nr OF , ORONCr City of ORONO I RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL IHHl d!naer to noighborinq propertie., nor will it dcprccioto •urroundinq property values and that the proposed level of use of the will bo in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Codo and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the orono City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit per Municipal /.oning C^o Section 10.20. Subdivision 3 IK) to permit the applicant to maintain his pigmy goat within his residence, subject to the following conditions: new conditional use permit# 2 T!iC City Council hereby reserves the riqht to review and/M modify safety and public welfare of Orono citizens. 3. Violation of or non-compiiance with any of the tgrms Rnd condi tions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of .the toning codo, shall automatically terminate any authority oranted l»ereln, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.^ , / successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolu tion in the chain of title of the property. ^ Adopted by the Orono City Council on thin I2t‘> day of November* 1985. ATTEST: ^Dofothy H. !laiiin, V.'ity Clerk (1) .c vV .\. \X ». . Mary C. Uutler, Mayor *v I Anol leant ’ Paqc 2 of 3 3^c?/ s c 1© r ^ L A I, No. 18 (47) Over 6,500 copies ddivered each week Serving the West Hennepin communities of: Long Lake, Orono. Maple Plain, Minnetonka Beach, Loretto, Independence and the Orono School District 472-1140 Tuesday, Nov. 19, 1985 nty Park System IS upgrades for ;er Park _ • A goat is a pet, agreed the Orono City Council Courteau •inourg of the Suburban gional Park District ad- 'aple Plain City Coun- 2. diNCuvsing the 1986 proposals for near-by b • ira pointed out the park imc change f*'om Hen ry Park Reserve District jn Hennepin Regional ict. or Hennepin Parks. he name change reflccis of the projects being . district was created in aside and protea land for national use and nature n. Hartenburg reminded , district has moved ii.s -s to French Park, at id 9 in PIVmouth: that eft the old Baker bam ir full public use during summer. In addition to 'lie u.se. they intend to -ic at the bam nearly 75 •aiion kit.s for purchase. . outdcHirs enthusiasts instead of at the park entrance, w ill be a bike rental stand. Mayor Jeff Walton expressed much concern over possible over development of Baker Park and sug gested developing other parks rather than adding more activities to Baker. Hanenburg assured the cr ncil that other parks are being made more attractive, hopefully drawing some of the people from Baker during tbc crovbded summer months. Walton also expressed his displeasure with a concession stand , in the park, explaining that he*d rather see concessions bought in town and brought into the park. The*old' library Council member Donna Snyder brought a pmposal from the Pre.scr- vaiion Committee for the **Old’* Maple Plain Hennepin County Library for the council to consutcr. A permanent site is needed for the original Maple P in library building now being stored by the fire bam The committee has been lookmc for a site convcr.ient and visible in B> Kathleen .M. Gnilka Is your “kid"’ a pet? If it is an African pigmy goat and lives in your home, except for occasional outings in fine weather, it i.s indeed a pet. A nice pet. say nine of the twelve neighbors, the Cedar Pet veterinary clinic and Dr. Bill DeBold of the University of Minne.sota's large animal clinic, but most importantly, the goat 's fnend and owner. Calvin Konh. “He may blah, but he doesn’t bark." an Orono councilman was prompted to say. His diet i.s regulated to the fruit.s and vegetables he prefers, and no tin cans are on the menu for Billy Goat Korth in Navarre. The Orono City Council gave its approval to this livc-in relationship by accepting the offered definitions of the goal as a pet. thus escapting the prohibition for farm animals in the Konh's zoning district. Navarre development Richard Kaveny appeared before the Orono City Council to apply for a subdivision of two lots, currently zoned Bl Commercial, in Navarre on the projea for client John Lam- bin who has requested a building permit to convert the existing building, found to be a sound struc ture. into a small eat-in and carry out resuurant named “Chicken Joint Restaurant.” But the county is requesting that the propeny owner provide a right- of-way. If that is the ultimate deci sion. the propeny should go to con demnation because it obstruct.s ’ development, the property owner feels. There are parking and driveway bamers proposed between the drug store and the proposed restaurant, and signs are planned to direct traf fic though w idths are narrow and the Joadinc'area is not efficient. Fire lanes and hydrants would also bo provided. Discussion of the proposed sub division led to no decksion: the coun cil ubied the matter for further study. l^ke access questions Sen. Gen Olson appeared at the council meeting to discuss P''*’* blems of public access to Lake Mm- --.oni l r.f'v' mctm .ak-.*' A DATE: Friday, Fcbruaiy 10.1995 TO:City of Orono FROM:CalKorth SUBJECT: House Pet Billie Jean Korth, Nigerian Dwarf Goat TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Billie Jean, at 17" high and 40 lbs, is the smallest household pet in my Orono nei^d>orfaood. She lives in a dog kennel, which is sunounded by a dog fence and keeps warm during the mtu in an infiilatH dog house. She is house trained and has never ventured from our yard. Billie has been my friend and pet since her birth more than a half dozen years ago. After complaints from a chronic complaining neighbor included Billie, your Orono Police "staked out" Billie and found no basis for a noise complaint. To more objectively explain her definition as a household pet, I am going to present tire following: 1) E^q>eit written testimony from a domestic pet/livestock VcterinariaiL Eiqiert written testimony from the executive director of the Hennepin County Humane Society. 3) 4) Excerpts from a national Nigerian Dwarf magazine. The Pioneer weekly newspaper sttwy in which a prior OrcNU) council l^ally defined her as a pet A 10 minute home video starring Billie Jean Korth, produced for a Pet Food Warehouse pet video contest. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, IL Calvin Charles Korth 900 Dakota Avenue j Meira 612-446-1858 Local C Emerjeocy bi2-955 i525 wvcSB Watertown Veterinanr Oink: yoo An^ Avenue Box )27 Watertowa MN >5188 Dr Holly Neaton Dr ]om Scheftel Dr. Scon Pheairum Dr Katrina Gustafson i-i"? I o tOl'Xooo Ciyy~iCtA^'yn ) Tki -) '' Sjicw\ " .^cc, /990 '^U.4 ^ecu)^ ^Ul t>C. p-TTw ,'^ ^t</c 0<3 cixJ2j(^ tty^ 4x3 (^ CclL ha^H^ ^, cotl &JUL Clxvi \r\ ^ ^ a^^CL^y\ O/nd! <\.o~pcu _ o / iL'TiCjlt ^cCk) ^If^JLfCt 0 <^aStc? ki-p-f' pn^'l^.S jCte^ ^oJ^ OA^J (^atb Kift cu> AaAULk>cJz. «» ^ ~ -f-^^JLAjL 1^ 1^ dcVL-irt -Hicck S<iLi Jt A^iA^AJUlsJ-^Vj ^ 1>\JM \ Animal Humane Society A Voice For Those Who Cannot Speak January 25, 1995 The City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN Gentlemen: It has been brought to my attention that the City of Orono is involved in a discussion with one of its citizens concerning a pet goat by the name of Billy Jean. The p«t pigmy goat owned by Cal Korth has been considered a domestic pet by its owmer for many years. It is my understanding that the animal at times actually lives in the house as a domestic dog or cat does and is a very important member of the household. Billy Jean has been a participant with Cal at our annual Walk for Animals for several years, walking with the hundreds of dogs, cats, and other ammals. I hope you will consider looking beyond what may be considered the legal definition of a pigmy goat as livestock and consider the human animal bond that exists between the owner and the pet pigmy goat named “Billy Jean ”. Sincerely, Alan T. Stensrud Executive Director ATS;jae 845 Meadow Lane North. MJnneapoUs. MN 55422 (612) 522-4325 A Non-Profit Corporation Dedicated To The Welfare Of Animals (3) Dear ^au4a and Sandra* I am a new subscriber to FOOTWJTES* and I am looking forward to being the proud owner of a Nigeria'^ y Dwarf doe this spring. I worked at the goat barn at the University of California in Davis for a year to learn goat keeping first hand before I actually wouTd get an animal of my own. That was more than 5 years ago. Working there* I learned 1 really liked/these animals and taking care of them. I feel the article in FIRST For Uoeen m^azine re quires more than comment. I would like to' take issue with some statements that were made, i^was appalled that they recommend tethering. Tethering is not the restraint of choice for goats. Goats*' being herd ani mals and enjoying each other's company, cannot be very companionable when tethered because of the danger oi tangling in each other’s teUrers. Then of course a goat can become entangled ^^its own tether. I’m sure the majority of goat owners would agree that goc fencing is the restrair^^bf choice. Another fallacy^>n the article is the statement that goats requir^grazing area. As most goat keepers know* goats are^ot grazers but are predominantly browsers. Evep-'^so* they require neither grazing nor browsing* ar they can be kept in dry lots with the keeper bn^nging them their food. At U.C. Oavis* they kept^tf(e majority of their goats in pens with gravel on^--^^e ground. Each pen had a communal goat house* with straw on the wooden floors. Seldom if ever did these Qoats oraze and browse. The article in FIRST For Women magazine also states that a miniature goat’s manners are "challenging at best". The same can be said of many dogs, who jump on people* slobber on people, bite, bark, etc. any an imal not properly trained can be "challenging at best". To generalize that goats, miniature or other wise* are just basically ornery is blatantly untrue. I beg to take issue with the statement "Domesticated farm animals* no matter how small* are not suitable pets in suburban or urban households." This has long been a disturbing issue with me. Why do we accept a dog as a suitable animal for suburban or urban dwellers and not a miniature goat? Dogs can be noisy* smelly, and more than challenging in their behavior, yet they are not questioned as suitable pets. Any ani mal not properly cared for can be a poor pet. 1 be lieve that a goat* far from being an unsuitable pet, can be a superior pet to a dog or cat. Goats can be very affectionate. They can be trained* including house breaking. Their droppings are easy to deal with, and, unlike that of dogs and cats. (continued...! 5. - m -J •.* ^ can even be a benefit to the garden. A dog Nhich is not kept up after will smell far worse than an equally uncared for goat. (Of course* I’m not advocating lack of care in either case.) I have long resented laws in neighborhoods re stricting the keeping of livestock. Livestock animals are not necessarily more dirty than allowable pet ani mals. When I lived in Davis* I kept about SO chickens* several ducks* and many rabbits all in a suburban back yard, hy neighbors never complained and we were always on speaking terms. After we moved I ran into one of our neighbors and he told me he wished he could do something about their new neighbor’s dog. He said the yard smelled* there were flies* and the dog barked and whined. We know how difficult it can be to do much about a neighbor's dog or cat* but one call to the po lice about chickens* goats* or even rabbits can get these animals a quick eviction. I think we need more discussion on this issue of prejudice against animals that can provide food for us as well ifi the benefits associated with pets. Sincerely* Joy W. Lewis y Phoenix* Oregon DONT II WAIT i » -y ' m a ,*!* . : - Breeders! t Regular* consistent advertising is the most effective kind. FOOTNOTES* offers a year of advertising your herd in the Breeders List for only $9.00« What better way to reach people who are seriously interested in Nigerian Dwarf goats? Send us your name* herdname* address and phone number, and let FOOTNOTES* do the rest! See inside front cover for acre advertisinq inforution. 6. Dwarves in the Public Eye rr i. i « kJ^ i ’■Kf: ^ ' ' * *' , »• vl , p. a; .>*4 >=; • . ^ %-* '• <>■ - /li <;-•* hM ^ * , * • • • 'Vt , . ?;/ D ^ ■» mmmm • .. «* ■■' :>m v©l ;t' •■■» "v- • a: f K-*-**:, 1 :i43a •tV' ^ -a. •• -r.tS, - Ui • ■'?•>- IL‘V "'iis /' irvj C:#=IL. I F^ORM I . - • Sunday^ June 25i 1989, Christy Hallquest of Christy's Critters. Chino. California, participated in '’The Pet Parade’* with her Nigerian Dwarf and Pygmy goats. "The Pet Parade" is a celebration of pets and their owners. Pet owners are invited to parade their leashed pets down the Avenue of the Stars in Century City. The public is invited to view the parade. The parade benefits the Los Angeles Society for the Pre vention of Cruelty to Animals (LASPCA) and Caring For Babies With AIDS. There were also animals available for adoption through LASPCA. 10. Dwarves in the Public Eye Can you think of a better place to be on a cold Canadian winter night? ” IN CANADA Winona Crapp Keen^ Ontario My husband Earl and I were asked to bring two Dexter cattle to Joywind Rare Breeds Conservancy for tneir Open House on November EOth, 1988. We also took two Nigerian Dwarf goats, "Shadow" and baby "Hershey". I had just picked up Hershey the day before from Pat Freeman lof Braco Farm], Needless to say, the little girls were the star attractions — everyone loves something small and cute. There was a film crew there from CBC, and they filmed us for the television pro~ gram "The Nature Of Things", and another crew filmed us for a different program called "Monitor". "Monitor" aired on Feb. 6th on a local station; "The Nature Of Things" is scheduled for this fall. I’m enclosing a few snapshots of my "darlings". Shadow lived in the house with us last summer until we got two others, then she went out with them. Hershey in the house with us, and never soils any thing but the paper provided for her use. She curls up on my lap to watch TV like one of the cats. If one of our three Siamese cats happens to be in her way, she really bashes them! 15. t. ^ 0 V Over 6,500 copies ddivered each week Serving the West Hennepin communities of: Long Lake, Orono, Maple Plain, Minnetonka Beach, Loretto, Independence and the Orono School District It, No. 18 (47)472-1140 'm Tuesday, Nov. 19, 1985 unty Park System ns upgrades for ker Park A goat is a pet, agreed the Orono City Council \ Courteju Ijne.'^hurc ofihe Suburban Regional Park Dihinct ad- |the Maple Plain Cay Coun- IV. 12. discus.sing the I9S6 Id proposals tor near-by lark. iburg pointed out (he park name change from Hen- luniy Park Reserve Di.sirict irban Hennepin Regional jsirict. or Hennepin Parks. The name change reflcas Us of the projects being ark district wa.s created in sex aside and protect land for ecreaiional use and nature ition, Hanenburg reminded Cll- ark district ha.s moved its ners to French Park, at Road 9 in Plymouth; that .i.s left the old Baker bam * for full public use during ng summer. In addition to public u.se. they intend to ailable at the bam nearly 75 necrcation kits for purchase. M , instead of at the park entrance, will be a bike rental stand. Mavor Jeff Walton expressed much concern over possible over development of Baker Park and .sug gested developing other parks rather than adding more activities to Baker. Hanenburg as.sured the council that other parks are being made more attractive, hopefully drawing some of the people from Baker during the crowded .summer months. Walton also expressed his displeasure with a concession stand in the park, explaining that he'd rather see concessions bought in town and brought into the park. The*old* library Council member Donna Snyder brought a proposal from the Pre.ser- vation Committee for the "Old” Maple Plain Hennepin County Library for the council to consider. A permanent site is needed for the original Maple Plain library building now being stored by the fire bam. The committee has been looking for By Kathleen .M. Gniika I.s your "kid** a pet? If it is an African pigmy goal and lives in your home, except for occa.sional outings in fine weather, it is indeed a pet. A nice pet. say nine of the twelve neighbors, the Cedar Pet veterinary cliritc and Dr. Bill DeBold of the University of Minnesota*$ large animal clinic, but most importantly, the goat's friend and owner. Calvin Konh. **He may blah, but he doe.sn*t bark.** an Orono councilman wa.s prompted to say. His diet is regulated to the fruits and vegetables he prefers, and no tin cans are on the menu for Billy Goat Konh in Navarre. The Orono City Council gave its approval to this livc-in relationship by accepting the offered definitions of the goat as a pet. thus escapting the prohibition for farm animals in the Konh*s zoning district. Navarre development on the project for client John Lam bin who has requested a buildir, permit to convert the exisiin. building, found to be a sound struc ture. into a small eat-in and carry <iul restaurant named "Chicken Join Restaurant.** But the county is requesting thu the propeny owner provide a right of-way. If that is the ultimate dcci sion. the property should go to con demnation becau.se it obstruct ' development, the property owne feels. There are parking and drivewa; barriers proposed between the druL store and the proposed restaurant and signs are planned to direct trat fic though widths are narrow and the loading area is not efficient. Fire lanes and hydrants would also b>. provided. Discussion of the proposed sub division led to no decision: the coun cil ubied the matter for furthe.' study. Lake access questions Richard Keaveny appeared before 5en. Gen Olson appeared at the the Orono City Council to apply for council meeting to discuss the pro- a subdivision of two lots, currently 5iem.s of public access to Lake Min- Toncil B< rommerciai. in Navarre. fv>ionka and other metro lakes. A iw CAL AM) lULUL JIL\N 0 . m X I*• •» f itV* f *' .4 M ^■i* i ■*■- -. .? d: I - s 05 •V \i ■ V^ vv\‘ c\'^^ o's '?S, v^L ■p ^ February 22. 1995 To:Sanne A. 'Mabusth> Building & Zoning Administrator Chair Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse - City Administrator From:Calvin Charles Korth - 900 Dakota Avenue Subject: #1993 - Appeal of Zoning Administrator’s Interpretation of the Code - Public Hearing I anticipate the commission rejecting my appeal based on the staff s recommendation, in spite of expert written testimony by professionals in this specific field. Therefore, I am withdrawing my appeal. It is with sincere sadness that 1 plan my departure, for I have lived, paid taxes and enjoyed the area for almost a dozen years. Billie Jean and I will leave 900 Dakota Avenue and Orono on or before Friday, March 31, 1995. You can expect “anonymous” complaints from this area to continue, simply redirected towards someone and something else. Billie wasn't a problem. Sincerely, Calvin C. Korth TO;Chair Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabuslh, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:February 10, 1995 SUBJECT: #1994 Robert and Velma Wolff, 4450 Forest Lake Landing - Amended Variance Request -Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Total lot area = 10,586 s.f. IPertinent Ordinances Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) - Average lakeshore setback variance Existing deck = 35’ Proposed deck = 39’ Existing principal structure = 23’ Proposed principal structure addition = 28 ’ Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover variance A. 0-75’ setback area = 3,825 s.f. Allowed = 0 Existing = 26 s.f. B 75-250’ setback area = 6,761 s.f. Allowed = 1,690 s.f. or 25% Existing = 3,513 s.f. or 51.9% Proposed = 3,184 s.f. or 47% (addition of 104 s.f. new deck, removal of 433 s.f. of plastic underliner and paving, refer to Exhibit A Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C) - Lot/structural coverage variance Total lot area = 10,586 s.f. Allowed = 1,587.9 s.f. or 15% Existing = 2,052 s.f. or 19.3% Proposed = 2,156 s.f. or 20.3% (Increase results with 104 s.f. of new deck area) List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Hardcover Facts E - Amended Site Plan F - Floor Plans/Lakeshore Elevation Zoning File #1994 February 10, 1995 Page 2 G - Side Elevation H - Original Site Plan 1 - Amended Original Survey J - Resolution Approving Application #1945 K - Hardcover Site Plan Approved with Application #1945 and Included within Approval Resolution Description of Amended Application Application #1945 was approved by the Council on August 8, 1994, refer to Exhibits H, I and J. The applicants proposed a 10’xl4’ three season porch within the existing building envelope cf a lakeside deck requiring approval of hardcover variances within the 75-250 setback area, side setback variance, average lakeshore setback variance and a variance to allowed area of structural coverage for the property. The applicants have rethought their need for additional living space at the lakeshore side of the residence. The three season porch would not provide additional area for their dining room nor for a large piano in their living room. The amended plan calls for a 5 x26 expansion of the second floor and a matching 4’x26 ’ extension to the lake of the existing deck. The lakeside addition has been designed at an angle at the sides minimizing any siting impacts upon the residence to the north, the residence receiving the most impact by the average lakeshore setback. The addition will not require a side setback variance as all improvements are located out of the 10’ setback area. Adjusted hardcover is now at 47% with the removal of 433 s.f. of existing hardcover improvements and the addition of 104 s.f. of new deck area. A{^lication #1945 was approved with an adjusted hardcover at 45.5% within the 75-250’ setback area. Stnictural coverage is up 1%. Existing at 19.3 and proposed now at 20.3%. Statement of Hardship Applicants suggest that many of the hardships stated in the original approval resolution still holds true for the amended proposal. The applicants also note that the second story 5’ addition has been angled at the side to minimize any siting problems for the residence to the north. Issues for Consideration 1. Do members concur that the principal structure addition has been designed to minimize any visual impact upon neighboring property owner to north? . . . Will there be any new impacts upon the residence to the south? Will it be necessary to trim back on lakeward expansions? 2. Will members approve a 1% increase in structural coverage? Zoning File #1994 February 10, 1995 Page 3 3.Hardcover is up 11/2% over what was approved by Council with Application #1945 ik)w proposed at 3,184 s.f. or 47%. Will additional hardcover removals be required of applicants? 4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Ik. ‘i I —I------------------------------------------------i CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION M “1 » Initial Application Fee S200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) ___ Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 / / (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning structures $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) n 1ft- JL :rL LI Tf uF LFLnQ r>.PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ ^ ^ Site Addles u---- Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) i »m»“ 1. Am vi. u L'l^ r i L u V tai i. V V V 0 i ' I II "i J. uTL-it 4i.W a » U ! k' Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ___________v~ I (do) (3onq^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. V Va . i. * ift j i.* .f I ; .*uv (nroWiiS'ji^ar)'- *..)L- Present use of property: V residential Zoning District: other (specify). APPLICANT / Name ^OD&t'T /t/e Address: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____________________ City: Phone (home) 4^7 Phone(work)___ Phone(home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side y Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship /description OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property condiuons preventmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements: (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ... information must q.hmitted bv the aPPHcatjoad^Kne dat< In OrdfiE for vour application to hg considered coinplcte. 1. 2. 3. 4. r_t__!___I nu/npr^ li^tV 5.Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade " ^‘’^ropLed. .n IddUion, provide one U) copy 8;.- ^ ll" o-pr^^ you wish notified of this application. __Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 8. 9. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember SSffiE __s_.... ie nnt rnmnl^te if the above information hflS POf XhTappl^ Lreb^^ag^w provide all infonnation required ot Administraiot, agrees to pay additional fees (staff t^ not and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this applicauon and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to tl^e best of yyher knowledge. Applicant ’s Signamre Date / ^<^*7 members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signamre _____Date WMMMWBM this change prior to the meeting. 8 ^ • .’■-V miriii I r ii-~i ■■ ii“Ti-------------~~i--------1--------------- * • * a.K.9»«iN g C9 esi ■<&3^ \ a ®» a'^ oei XI r < 4 3§ ^ ^.<v Oil XI aS> CIS ^•® fO (^ q>?i (o)jQ'nAi.i^) 1 K1 m % s sg E S^ g-J 60I9C 5 s laaiAVMMcsi i.n.ON lo iu V ' *‘C.ei;N30MV9 M 82? 1- ,1"* ^ «___________________ " 9 U\ rv.rsi .« 1^ / o> -T / / / RUN DATE 04/ES/H BATCH 005raOB ADDB 0«€R NAffE TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADOR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADOR GHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNrORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LISTSB 07-117-E5 15 OEW 0005B ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO ^ / FLOOD CONTROL lUNDER NATER1 z/s/nz ST DEED S1A11A8 • . ", v; ■ * .*> ‘ IM ;07-llf24 ooos0M4S , FORCST LAKE LANOINS T N LEIVKE « A M LfHBKE TtHOm HillAUCE , «A4S FORCST LAKE li^INO MOUND Ml SSSAA i V 1 so 07-117-2J EA OOU i . . . V. 0A450 FOREST LAKE LANDINO ‘ j f R L A V A HOIFF , .- f • ‘„ ROBERT L I VELMA A MOIFF R450 FORCST LAKE LANDINO MOUND Ml 55SM . f I !• 4>-.V 1 ; SB; B7rllT-E< M 0017 .' OAUO: -FORCST LAKE LANDINO i . ^ 3 BRSeRLCrt J M EULRA Svf M B BRioRLEri J II ruciiA 4400 FORCST UKE LANDING MOUND MN 5SS44 4 , SB 07-117-ES *4 0010 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIGNCB ROGER M BYBOTH BRUCE 6 KEHRING • ' | I1D48 HYLAND TER EDEN PRAIRIE Ml 55S44.. SO 07-117-25 24 0022 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROGER N BYBOTH BRUCE Q KEHRING >> 1104B HYLAND TER EDEN PRAIRIE MN . ’* . ‘'L' ■ . .* !*V* ■ * ^• • •• ' ' ^ * i*r• V.'. • ^.r.. • ' }. • so 07-llt-2S 24 0020 OOOSB : ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ROGER N BYBOTH BRUCE 0 KEHRING 11040 HYLAND TER EDEN PRAIRIE.Ml 55544 SB 07-117-25 24 002S 04475 FOREST LAKE LANDING RAY D HURLEY RAV DONALD hURLEY 447S FOREST LAKE LANDING * • ( m/kJ DONAI.il HUALKT ;R . , FOREST LAKE LA 58 07-117-23 24 003^ ‘ ' *' 04445 FOREST LAKE LANDINO JON 0 BLACKSTONC ET AL. ,v-.. :v -- - - - - - - - -- JON D BLACKSTONE' ••v f/ RICHARD H.NALTER JR 4445 FORCST LAKE LANDING . . : • ’ V.Vt; .: ^«»EST LAKE LANDINO MOUND MN 55544 . ‘ > : .i . '1. ;! ;,ORONO Ml > 55544 y?;nsn?:2 ‘>50-oV4iif.t* 24 0040 •iw ; : IV ‘04*>0 FOREST LAKE L Vv':'■" H NALTER JR A J M N L‘ . 0 » * V'*; I LANDIH8 NALTCH PROP AOOII OHIICR IIAMF TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 5S 07-117-75 74 04400 FOREST LAKE LOREN F SCHOENZEIT LOREN F SCHOENZEIT 4480 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUND MN 55544 i ORONO Ml 55544 • ' , , - ■; • ... 0041 ■ i • • • • -i ‘ tT . .. . : -TOTAL BATCH' . .005 00014 * * KPORT NO. PI45540PAGESB 07-117-25 24 0015 • 04440 FOREST LAKE LANDING 0 A H OVERBOC OLE A IffiLEN OVERBOC >, 4440 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUND Ml 55544 SB 07-117-2S 24 0010 04415 FOREST LAKE LANDING ROGER N BYBOTH BRUCE 6 KEHRING 11040 HYIANO TER ' EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55S44 5B 07-117-2S 24 0021 00050 ADDRESS UNASSIGNCB RO»R M BYBOTH BRUCE G KEHRING 1104B HYLAND TER ' EDEN PRAIRIE MN 5U44 . U • •*• < •ar' ■v :- . ^ • t'r I ‘ SB 07-117-25 24 0024 04475 FOREST LAKE |JU«1N0 RAY 0 HURLEY • RAY 0 HURLEY • 4475 FORCST LAKE LANDING MOUND MN 55544' .V' • ifi‘ .1.’: \ 58 07-117-75 74 0041 04440 FORCST LAK8 LANDING J M PRCN A K L PRCN JOHN A KAREN PRCN 4440 FOREST LAKE LANDING ‘ MOUND MN 55544 Mm I . ‘ •:*••! . V*.».VV| ‘V ^ \ > V i'*‘* <• MM OAH 9$m/n MTCM MS ‘vJj i- '>1'J rJ ( '• 1 \s^ iS> .fICttCMtl COUNTY MMf*TY IHroMttTICUl SYSTEM MOPiOTY (Mens LIST REPORT to. PlASSAQl PAGC IS * • • • - * '#' ’ •i .v ^: v. * ;• ;: I -* . ■* ‘ * * f '• *•*«? *i‘ ', '* * * • •• fc • • ’ • '. .r •' / * ’ . ; • . I ••; ‘ r ' • . , ’•■ : •: •■ i •■ ': .; ■ :i • '. ; ••. . . >■ ;• •< '’..V.v* ,'v ! : •;• . *■.■.' • • • •*■ . »*. ’ • • ., i , I ) ••. .• . i- >• iV*' u-J-r •'iVr.-M \ • • ', • K’ *• *• t 'i .? ! • • ■.TV/';:i * i :v ' • • VOi,‘* . . :• ' • ."fr• -I i.-’/k I.*, 'f *■ *i’ %* ■ •.'• •'• .‘-k' .' • >.t;-vV' i ■* ’ * . • • • vir-.h. • • * .* ' . , • ■ • ..*>?*■. • “•!' .• v; , ’ • '■ -.r'* .:• •, Ct *1 ' r« i'k^sr*^ # >*1 V, • . • ’ ...♦. •; W • 3 ^ ‘ • ..*. .. :i-‘’ .• . V •.• •' :. . ‘v-'j ’: ’... v:- I *. i' *' •.’■ , .! !. . ... •*.• *%• . * ‘I , « I* •* . * • y * • li I .• i s O \ • • • • . . r ” « *1 * , V ■ ». • f * • ■ y * • • • ■ . ■ . ^4 • •••• V A, . V «• ’l* *' *4,’ ■.*••• f • ■ • *^. « . * .V ‘ • ;•* .f. V V* ' •’! *v^’. * ’• '• .. * r V.' , • ••• .. : " “ *• ;• '***,.■/*• . .f*-*. •■•* *i • • . * ■ • • * • » V *<.-• >9 •. ' *•■ ’ ‘ .** • . *.■ i’».' ■ ; >■ ■ i rt'inw.^t 5« t :v i ■ r®*®*'.;./ V 'W;- . * * ■ ‘ ‘ . i • . “ I ‘ • ■* *. t ' « . V.; r<m-m^ 1 'STu.'SST— ‘ :l . i y V I . . •: . . . ■ i . 'V.ivJ'*-!’ •• . . • ' •» * • . ■••••;• ;< it ,’W! V ■• ’• •'•. •! V*vi> ?# L^4• i ^^.ftiLwyLTO hardcover calculation SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)75-250*25-500*500-11 EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Leofth -------* Widxh X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X li x:i^ E. Patio/Deck X X / 10 F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X 47 )< Id M K iu G. Other total hardcover in zone 1 TOTAL PRgPE^^ area IN ZONE^X 100 raOPOSEP hardcover in zone A. House UO - Leofih Widei X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paw-*Dedc a(b j. X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other total hardcover in zone total property ARE.-V IN ZONE -s- B 4-^47 X100 13 /D^2L S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. —S.F. S.F. ■u=f^S.F. S.F. 'S.F. S.F. 3 ^ /..n -4^ / >S.F. S.F. ?5 JO 7?-.S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. •S.F. S.F. / 7 S.F. 10^S.F. y —S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 75 1 *7 • S.F. -------S.F. % ! . / - 0 A B - — 3 3 / CT-' *^7% t '^o / I.« •• V \v>v ' S' (J.'f V » f.V. ( J)gxa7‘ • • \ { -Z. 'lO 3^x1'' j33^0:i •) N«X Xm zm *D O Ocz -I 30O CDm z zzm CO I zI Is X-' H ' o >X Dmz CO o "Tl"n CD 'e- ■ f 0 o 9 ^ ^*5 O' s- ;s o ^ u\f H r- <*^ 7^ -cn /> C a J ^ ^ tz) > 0/:l/l 4 I ^'^,4 Goo&ir ■37,7 sio LoT tor I/-- ur <:>- 7S- S£TdfKL' IC3.S' LoT* /I ur 10 ^ V •. .. r ../ -vvt: •/ ^ Mr. and Mrs. Robert WoHl 4450 Forest Laxe Landing Orono. MN 55364 ^ ''•I yiit'i (^'V*;j;£i*fitlrRs>&aH 8 4 5 6 t#si r.i \^ ^0 1! • * id^ Aw/’ P&r^tksl^ /cO <• * . K ‘ t • • • # • •• < • • . Page 6 of 6 » • CITY of ORONO RESOLLTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. S4S6------- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this __day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within notary pubuc STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of __ . 199__ before me a Notary Public within aiKl for said u. and »ho executed the loregouig uisuuuiem.and known to me to be the personts) oescnoeu u fte* act and deed, acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free a NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ___ day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county , personally appeared . --eluted the foregoing instrument.and known to me to be the person(s) descn^ m and and deed, acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free notary pubuc Page 5 of 6 r«mS0QSC;* m * O V om CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO- 3 4 5 6 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constimte a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree 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 8th day of August, 1994. ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instnimem was acknowledged before me on diis 8th day of August, 1994 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City o Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 r««son& CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COLTVCIL NO. 8 4 5 6 4.The Citv Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property m this zoning disrtet; that erantins the variances would not adversely affect traffic condmons. light, air nor ^ a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property: would not iwrely «rve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to a leviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary topresme a robstmial right of the applicant: and would be in keeping with the spirit and mtent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.The City CouncU has consideted this appUcation including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City st^, commenB by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS 1.AU hardcover removals as shown on Page 6 of this prior to the framing inspection for the new construcuon. Applicant shall contact Building staff to confirm hardcover removals. 2 Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property ^^p“ bHe peLssive only and must be exercised by building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 8, 1995). Page 3 of 6 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 8 4 5 6 Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. SecUon 10.24. SubdivUion 5 (B) - Side yard setback for intensificaUon of stxucmie within substandard side yard. Required « 10’ Existing = 6.5’ Proposed = 6.5’ Variance = 3.5’ or 35% NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City CouncU of Orono. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1945. I’.nique findings and hardships: A.The City has received no negative comments from the neighbors to cither the north or south. The structure will have a minii^ i^act on tte residence to the south side. The residence to the north will not sec the porch as it is located at southeast side of the residence completely out of the view of the residence to the north. B. The residence was constructed prior to the current lakeshote/shoreland standards. C.The property does not meet the current standards of the LR-IB zo^ district requiring one acre in area. The subject property 10.586 s f. The required lot width is 140’. The average width of the subject property is 54 ’. Page 2 of 6 i fwm MOS C.!« XT CITY of ORONO RESOLLTION OF THE CITY COOVCIL NO. _5_iliLg_J? A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 (B) AND 2 AND SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE NO. 1945 WHEREAS, Robert L. Wolff and Velma A. Wolff (hereinafter "the applicants") arc the owners of the property located at 4450 Forest l^.ke binding within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: Lot 11, Tonkaview Gardens, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to tlte Municipal Zoninc Code to peniiit construction of a 10’ x 14’ three season porch within the envelope of the existing deck at the lakeside of the residence requiring approval of the following variances; Section 10.03. Subdivision 14 (C) - Lot coverage or structural variance. Allowed = 1,587.9 s.f. or 15% Existing = 2,052 s.f. or 19.3% Proposed = 2,052 s.f. or 19.3% 2)Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback. Allowed = 0’ Existing structure = 26’ Propo.sed three season porch = 26’ Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover within the 75-250’ setback area Allow'ed = 1,690 s.f. or 25% Existing = 3.513 s.f. or 51.9% Proposed = 3,080 s.f. or 45.5 % Hardcover reduction = 433 s.f. or 6.4% Pace 1 of 6 TO: DA1E: 6. Chair Schrocder and Orono Flanning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator February 15, 1995 SUBJECT: #1996 Gregg Perl. 309 Westlake Street - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR>1A Total area including PID 05-117-23 23 0021 and 0020 * 1.6 acres Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.03, Subd. 4 - Prohibition It is unlawful to convert, enlarge, rcconsttuct or alter any structure or use any structure or land for any purpose nor in any maruier which is not in conformity with the Zoning Chapter. Section 10.23, Subd. 6(B) - Side yard setback variance Required = 30’ Existing = 12’ (3’ eave to south side of residence considered an encroachment when a substandard setback exists) List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat C - Property Owners List D - Applicant’s Letter E - Survey F - Floor Plan Lower Level G - Elevation - Rear - Approved with Application #1104 H - Current Elevation I - Resolution #2318 J - Advance Surveying & Engineering Co. Letter 10/5/87 K - Gaffron Letter of 12/8/87 Advising of Need for Building Permit Description of Request The applicant proceeded to install bedrooms in the upper level of the southwest comer of residence necessitating the expansion of the roof envelope in order to meet the required lepl height, refer to Exhibits G and H. The improvements were begun without the required building permit. Staff issued a stop work order when the work was discovered in progress. Applicant was advised of the need to file a side setback variance as portions of the residence were located within the required 30’ sid^ setback. Zoning File #1996 February 15, 1995 Page 2 In 1987 applicant received approval of a side, rear and height variance for major additions to the existing residence. At that time applicant owned only the eastern portions of Lx)ts 1, 2 and 3, Block 2, Hillside Park. Since that time, the applicant has acquired the western portions of the property. The new improvement will require only a side setback variance airf not a rear setback variance as in the earlier review. This portion of the stnicture did not require a height variance. Review Exhibit I, Resolution #2318, Condition 4 on Page 3 and Exhibit J, there was a need for septic repairs at the time of the major expansion and improvement of the residence m 1987. According to the City’s files, there is no record of the applicant obtainmg a perimt to complete the necessary repairs. Since that time, the property was approved for sewer with the rwent Stubbs Bay sewer project. The applicant has not hooked up to sewer nor w^ it one of the properties that was required to connect to sewer within sixteen months. Staff did rei^ll that he ma/tA some minor repairs that seem to alleviate tte original problems with the septic system. Now with the increase of bedroom use the applicant must connect to sewer. Review Exhibit D, applicant’s letter notes that he will connect to sewer by June of this year. Parcels 0020 and 0021 must be legally combined if the City is not to include the need for a rear setback variance. The property is .8 acres. If legally combined, the total area acres In the 1987 review, hardcover was at approximately 25 %. The property is allowed 35 % as it is located within 500-1.000’ of the lakeshore. In a recent Stubbs ^y sewer project the total property was recognized as one unit and assessed for one sewer unit. Refer to Exhibit E, Mr. Perl has installed a storage shed that encro^hes within the the west. The files reveal that a letter was sent to Mr. ^rl advising him of the need a building permit and that it appeared the shed was encroaching into the west property. Mr. wrl never obtained the necessary building permit. The budding remains as a nonconforming structure. In recent applications, the City did not take acUon when there appeared to be accessory structures tliat encroached into an adjacent property. It has been our policy to allow property owners to deal with the problem. The size of the structure required a buUdmg permit and the applicant was notified of that need and of the encroachment. A condition of this approval must be that the shed is relocated to a conforming setback on the property. Tlwre is also an exterior storage violation on the property that must be removed either by replacmg equipment within storage sheds or garage or by removing the various items from the property. Statement of Hardship Some of the hardships noted in Resolution #2318 can stUl hold true for current applicatmn. Note applicant has remedied the need for a rear setback variance by purchasing the remamder of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and increasing the size of the parcel to 1.6 acres. 1 ! Zoning File #1996 February 15, 1995 Page 3 Options of Action Any condition of approval of the side setback variance for the property located at 3Q9 Westlake Street must include the following conditions: 1.Applicant to obtain building permits for the installation of two bedrooms and for the detached storage structure, both subject to a penalty fee. 2. Applicant to connect to municipal sewer by April. MaX. 3.Upon application for a building permit, applicant to advise of method to physically restrain from opening patio/deck doors at second level. Applicant is further advised that if a deck is proposed from the second level doors that a side setback variance wUl be necessary if a portion of the deck is located within the 30’ required side yard. 4.Applicant to immediately apply for the legal combination of parcek 05-117-23 23 0021 and 0020. 5.Applicant to confirm date when all exterior storage violations are to be removed for this property. - - “IJ—If • -T ■. ......................................A- CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ft Initial Application Fee $200.00 a m ($50.00 per each additional variance) mf i Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) / / Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 Aftcr-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) -4^19 M o V ui I tV r, 1 i .‘wv k. w VV W {Ji irEi'.V .1 mm m m PROPERTY INFORMAIJON , . Attach legal description to application if not iittluded on required survey. Datt preierty Acquiitd ----------------------^(momh/year) 4.V V • V • V r-*=I"m m m '' ' ' i » t VW . ^ • -Ai -I-’f • ■ >. w ' U V V' ▲ ' t k A t J> ■ fA /T'* V A ^ t not) also own thc^: e of orooertv: re Zoning District: APPLICANT tOuvriAC. other (specify) Name £j:^ ^ Phone (home)_fV2^V^^lZ Pbone(work)___ Address: LA^t>City: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _______ * * *_______!l Phone(home) Phone (work)_ Zip:, ( Address:i 1 (City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail:____ Estimated Construction Cost (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCIUPTION OF UNUSUAL Describe undue hardship or practical difficult or unusual property conuiuons compliance with Zoning Code requirements: -----ACtVt (attach additional sheets if necessary) 30^ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS \\,uSiO€ i ^ ^ / AU of thg following information must be submitted bv the aPDlication deadling dat» In orjgr for vour application to be considgred complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Fonn Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V4" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘A" x 11" for reproduction.^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'A" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the propert}'. 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 jfiUE variance applicatioii 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 b true agd corre9H9 the,best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date //Z-7/9^ OWNER’S SIGNATURE u, 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 invesUgatte^ ag^ verification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date //■?; Applicant must have ill sutoittals into the City ofTices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. AppUcants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Pfanning 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 X'-'WX<'* » • . ^v-/. .,'. - «* t »i • 1 . ? •■ A > '■■' •.V -( . ^ ♦ ♦ * >• « I • •••.« $■ * I *.* • • • *•r IV .• • K'. • jt 7•u‘i...I• r . ^•. ):< ^ - • >• • / . •- . « •# \ % •* t ♦ V 4/ % i iv i* ? • ‘ * >; r i J ^ •V • • •• •♦ A k. .* \ < i A *• •* / , >«.• 1 WH OAH .U/29/94r- '■ ’ *■' •' • .WfiiWTCH.W 4 '•,»•••■■HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHAHON SYSTEfl PROPERTY OMCRS UST ■ ^ PROP AOOR ONNER NANi TAXPAYER ^ ' NAHE/AOOR so 05-117-2S 2S OOQR 0S9A5 BAYSlOE RO FRED BLANCH JR FRED BLANCH JR SMS BAYSlOE RO L0N6 LAKE NN 55SS4 PfW ADOR *■ ONNER NAH6 TAXPAYER : • HAHE/AODR S6 05*117-23 23 0020 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO 6REGG S i BETTE J PERL GREGG S I BETTE J PERL 50$ N LAKE ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 % i 1 >•u'-;>ROP ADOR ; ONNER NA« TAXPAYER ‘ ^ NAHE/AOOR ^ -r'v ' ^ - L-',-. ■ : ■ /v*; 4 i^PROP AOOR : / ■\ ‘ 58 05-117-23 23 0023 0003B ADDRESS UNASSIGNED I E A H K BERGSAGEL XRV BERGSAGEL PO BOX 16$ NAY2JkTA HN 55391 f, i.ONNER NAME r TAXPAYER » .“‘J:NANE/AODR 3B 05-117-23 23 0033 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO MICHAEL G FILBRANDT MICHAEL FILBRANOT 5960 BAYSlOE RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 •. /,•,, . M/ - V W/*. *7 ’• y; I . ■’ I * . I •' r ^ • • ' * /••f fI*#-f 7 REPORT NO. PXRS5R01 PR6t U >SB 0S-117<2S 2S BOOT OSBTS BAYSlOE RO N 0 KELLEY A C A KELLEY HICHAEL 0 A COttaE KELLEY S895 BAYSlOE RO LONB LAKE m S5S5A X. '* V4 , SB 05-U7-ES ES OOlS 003AO- NESTLAKE ST C K NARRER A T R HARRER CYNTHIA K A TXNOTMY R NARRER SAO NESTLAKE ST LONB LAKE m 55SBA : i 5B 05-117-23 23 0021 0030$ NESTLAKE ST OTEGG S PERL GREGG S PERL 50$ NESTLAKE ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 s.♦ f SB OS>117>2S ES BOES 00SZ5 NESTLAKE ST . X E A N K BCRBSABEL . ' XRV BER6SA6EL PO BOX lAB NAYZATA NN 5SSBX iK f» '• * • 5B 05-117-25 25 0026 00361 NESTLAKE ST I E i N K BERGSAGEL XRV BERGSAGEL PO BOX 16$ NAYZATA MN 55391 A-.!i • »* • % - R * / . > if. SB 05-117-21 21 0025 0056$ NESTLAKE ST EDNA T ANDERSON ET AL N/i B EDNA T ANDERSON 56$ NESTLAKE ST LONG LAKE MN 55556 4 • b<58 05-U7-25 25 0058 00552 bCSTLAKE ST . . " 7 . ., B M BICHANICH A H B JANSSEN . . ' B H BICHANICH A H B JANSSEN ,• . . TOTAL BATCH 552 NESTLAKE ST ' LONG LAKE m 5555A * •* SOB OOOU ■r'7-> : ; • < r • ■ ■ t7* • ■ ‘ • ‘o *’ ‘1^ ^ * ■ * • ♦ i . ■» • • ‘ » ^ i* * I* ^0^ 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AM ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATXON» TO THE BEST OF HY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. i^y J DATE «»— f « X4 » I % \ • \ , A • • , ’A-. ; . .»» • ... r *., ♦ e•2- ' • • '7 JR. -tr.. far c -j i 1 .• ». i /: y iJt (ViTS7~ /-Art- S/' «X^ K><i^ OtMJCi. ^ ^ . ,i‘^ ••%. » • ' .'to j , •• • • • - .<* * *■ / .*. •/ ^ . *' *' Jto' '. .•• •. " *' ••\* T •»**'r v*i/> . i . • .' . , f .. . r..' * ■.' • • *. * • .• ^. ' • ’ . ••' • ^ m t» • • *« '» *.♦ ,*#« - •«' »* « •%.'•• •• lipir:CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR II ‘ImI ;.<:!,!»• .%|ri.w GREGORY PERL ff OF LOTS 1. 2, AND 3, BLOCK 2, HILLSIDE PARK Q O (Cl; / ■>, •w- HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA S8?*si'e M •••■•■ 4S670^‘t. •457.0'HHhiJt(^k' ill 2^9.10 201.00 ^fc. ■', *■^■m fe^- '•‘if'. i*.- l«lv- : ■«Pt4vm--'701.00 ••••. T.OKk Deck 4 m.i m Existing *• DeckrJ 911 1 *...** Vw.>vv;,. 'V,: ■ 24977 n>' O O 6 4- V t<A s <u -JC<s 456.77-m.'. 4S7.0 m* •30* ■-V I ft •;■,•••■.'. > : ■ '-t" I ;»« ;* 'A'v V »r’^r*- it' *'■SJ;I • ■ .-|v si;;'- - V •tiT'' fPfefr’ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYEOf Lots 1. 2. and 3, Block 2. •’Hillside Park” •: denotes iron marker found Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. ® _This survey intends to show the boundaries of ihc above described property, and the locations of an e *stihg house and shed thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. IlMliifts" ^ C offin & Gronberg . Inc . “ L .>'l*fillli|\; / KyMUin* StV itnilUT’i '^''2 LiiiMf.uls \\nuu* * I >»n>i L>kt’. M\ ^ M2 47V4UI 1 I hereby terlify llrot Ihis survey, was prepnred by me or under my direct super vision, and that I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the Stale of Minnesola. Mark S. Gronberg Minnesola License Number 12755 DATE 12-15-94 SCALE |*'s40' jOBKo. 94-455* #F^loc^. Pft^i -I I * I - f I-! . •, . I i‘ I \ T«.i • # 4' *» * • i .^ . ••• ■ ‘i* /’W ■< • V #* ' • * te* • * * •' • * « » > r 'V^v . ''t'^ •'‘.V*** V '*• ^ • • •• . » .- ‘ ~v ' -1*» f > 9 •/{?'<? y/u ar> * • B * ‘ ^-S'4> • ••'-^- •■ \ * .* 4 ^•r ' • • •7 - V* j 4 ^ ;) w % . I A -'-X i^r ^‘-'.: ti'T'r( nm I ^ n^7-T‘ t:<f, f.. Vv^?.*- * J :-' • '*• ‘'-i •'/' >> s '..>’i: • ■-*1 »\T - »i• •"fi. » r -.f. _ i It* " ^ ««»*• 9 "■ ■•• • *• |i* . *** "^ m. ^ ^ I I — •• '■ y }'^^‘ *♦.* ■ T. -o ,’I' *•’*»•>'> V X X »'• • »•■ > I—•■ . - • .. --•:- -^- ] • . . ■#,'«' •'• ' .» .................................................... '■;•■ :.V.. • L • - I. •* ‘ ^A • • r: -V^r ‘ .• ► f ^ 1! Q Q ^ft ■-( o J rm r •f • • • • • .^.*. * r - * • <♦»* • . . • » '•-; •/ ,t,- V* > * « • • * rr'• i •’ 'I • • f- % i ♦j ‘ ,V' . ■• ■■ •*> !• ' ' V* V ‘ '»•■ S ■ t, *-l *♦• • ' •'* • ' *1 * V • •,*: '*■ • Vi> .rv- . jV.! *• •• - ^ ^f 7 ) •* I • • • •• "mtt* • •• ••■* * X.. C . % ^ > »» - • .«* ► ^ ( m** • - • • • ~ . •« 1;: ‘‘ -V"*’*' ■• *.• * ■ '. ■••/“■•• • ■■ •,. '.■■•; .■. • yV • ..•>”• . -U T^r- —— .. • ----- p ... rr- ~*‘i----------------• ■ • ■ • »• « «». • •% •-•. • « •. • V''-'•■■ •>.1 *’ *^l •* »«< . 1 ''m. ^ ^ •'•4-'> *#: K^:.t • • 0 if• « # * • , • ^ V •icirv ORONO’ City of OROrVO RCSOLUTKM Of THiCfTV COUNCIL HO. 2311________ A waaaumm ouurxk A VMtlAACS TO mncmii xo ibc cop e 8BCTX0N 10.23, f0»XVXSZ0a C CA) ft (B|rxu «uo4 H r WBSBBAS, Gregg Perl, (hereinafter *the applicant”) ia the eener of the property located at 309 Westlake Street within the City of Oreno (hereinafter *City”) and legally described as follewst Lots 1# 2, and 3 except the West 270* of said lots# Block 2# lillside Park# Hennepin County# Minnesota (hereinafter *the preperty*)i and VSBUMB# the applicant has applied to the City for a warianee to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23# Subdivision ft (A) to perait the construction of a primary residential structure 3S* in defined height where a defined height of only 30* is normally allowed# and a variance to Section 10.23# Subdivision ft (B) to allow a 12* side setback for that structure where a 30* side setback is normally required# and to allow a 27.1* rear setback where a 50* rear setback is normally required. Minnesotat MOW, T1 LBPOHB# BB XT RB80LVB0 by ^the.CityaCouncil of Orono# f'iThe Jprop«rty ,,'is irlocatedxin ithey.LK'lA^ Residential^Zoning District.*;#'V ‘' * m? 3. The Orono Planning Coaaiissien reviewed-this^;applieatic«ljen.«, February 17# 1967 and Hovember 1ft# 1907# and recommended approval'*of‘ the proposed variances based upon the following findings! A) Approval of the variance for a side setback of 12*# finding that the neighboring residence structure located at that side la more than ftO* away# and this variance will not cause any significant encroachment on light# air or open space in the neighborhood. B) Approval of a variance for rear setback of 27.1 feet finding that the steep slopes behind the house makes it unlikely that a house could feasibly be constructed on the property to the rear and that that neighboring property to the rear is substandard in size# does not have sewer available# and it is unlikely that a house could feasibly be constructed on that property except near Tonkawa Road# far from applicant's house. Page 1 of 4 /I. V '4k’ '': Cl TV. ^ i- : .;■ I DRONO; • )•:•*• #<^-1*. • -4* ‘i 13 VI ^ «•, *s.W*•> *•*.■*I »M •* « * # . Based open one or siore of the findings noted above# the Orono '’’tv Council hereby grants a variance per Municipal Zoning Code Se^ioa lo 22, subdivision^e (B) to permit the construetien of a house vith a . the following conditions: tx... ] e ■ Page 2 of 4 '’*• - -1 . /» ; . <-r ^ #• ^ • •?* <4 r >. k '<] C- ii><* 0 ^•i.’T.t;ET ■' city ORONa City of OROIVO RCSOLUTIOH OF THE CITY COUNCIL MO. 2318 ::i^ »*»• 10 • t • . . - r, . m -V- .1’ >-A'. 1. F«r appIicaBt'a ravitad propPial, tha aad saaidMea \ atraetora aba.l ba attachad. • a 2. Bardeoaar an tha proparty shall not axeaad 3S% or 13»100 a«f« m 3. Applicant shall subait a raviaad plan ahowinp tha attaehaant of tha garaga to tha hoosa for City ravlaw prior to issnanea of tha ' building parait. i 4. Applicant shall cooplata intsria repairs to tha axiating# failiof - septic systaa no later than July 1# 1980. An axtansion to that data aay ba granted by staff if installation of City sowar appaara to ba iaainant and tha existing systaa is functioning adequately at that tiaa. Further# if installation of aunicipal sowar does net appear " iaainant as of Dacaabar 31# 1988# a fully-cenforaing septic systaa shall ba installed on tha property no later than Dacaabar 31# 1989. 5. Authorities granted with this resolution run with tha property net with tha applicants# but are pamissiva only and aust ba axareiaad by application for a building permit within one year of tha data of ■ Council approval# or this variance will expire on that data (Dacaabar .... ..6. Violation of ,or noa-ceapllanca with'^any^fTthanaras and eeaditions, of>thisirasblutien;shall .eeBstituta^a;>>elaaoaj^ef ;tha soning^eda#']piha 11*. auteaatically .tarainata .^any muthbirltyjaraatad , iharain#T^ shall^ba^punishablaias a adBdaBaaaer«Cd;JI|i|ddl£&a^^ ’7. The undersigned applicant have read# understood aad hereby afraao;^.,. ',to tha terms of this resolution aad on behalf of hiasalf# his hairs#!^:: :‘'successors and assigns# hereby agrees to thai recording of this:i#i : resolution in tha chain of title of tha property. , - 'Vi; • ^ f! 1987, Adopted by tha Orono City Council on this 14th day of Oaeaiibor»;rl: % . * /V r. - ■ATTOSSTf in# City Clarkdrothy M Faga 3 of 4 T-!•I 0 -m » ^ ADVANCE SURVEYING ft ENGINEERING CO. ■mp^MNIMM Oetob«r 5, 1987 Mr. 6r«g P«rl 309 W«at ZrfJc* StTMt Long U)M, MM 55356 r , k -ii DMur crttgi ♦ » At your r^quMt v hxvm conducted an invastigatioa of aoil . eonditiona at your hoBooita in Long Laka, Minnaaota. Tha aita la loeatad at 309 Maat Laka straat in Long Laka. « Oaa or aora daap fcoringa vara takan to dataet any avidanca' of >. a high watar tabla audh aa actual atanding vatar in tha boring or ataiaing of tha aoil by tha action of anaerobic bactaria vhich liva in aaaaonally aaturatad cenditiona. Thia BUltieolorad ataining of tha aoil known aa "aottling" , it, found, indieataa that for at laaat part of tha yaar, inauffioiant air ia contained in tha aoil to aupport aerobic bactaria that are affective in tha purification of aawaga and that tha aoil ia unable to tranaait nonal rainfall without baconing aaturatad. Tha boringa alao liat aoil typo and taxtura ainca diffarant aoil typaa vary in tha. rata at which thay are abla to abaorb aawaga. Percolation taata vara alao takan to naaaxara tha rata at which tha aoil in tha area of tha propoaad drainfiald can abaorb and treat aawaga affluent. Thaaa percolation taata are ahallow boringa vTiich approximate tha drainfiald in eparation. Thay ^ ara drilled to about tha aama depth aa tha drai^iald propoaad for conatruetien and filled with about 13 inchaa of water. ■ In a clayey or ailty aoil, tha boringa ara allowed to aoak and ■. tine ia allowed for tha aoil partiolaa to avail and fill tha . poraa in tha aoil ao that conditiona will approxiaata actual, ? drainfiald operation. A maaauraaant ia than takan of how many - minutaa art required for tha vatar in tha boringa to drop by ', one inch. Thia aaaauramant ia known aa tha percolation rata . and ia axpraaaad in minutaa par inch (MPX). , - t » * ■V, K r *». •-#4 • « ^ •-» t V'*;. '■’ .i ^ * f P* r«Mea for Mklag ouch ■oooumM.#. 4. »♦. -\v , * typo ond minm otm^iSdilSSSS!^^^ tho ^*** •■ount of oovogo whieh will bo ■ 'i.Pft you propooo. m oonorS tbo ooo -y b. convMt.4 to bidSoJufS tSgiJS^^ L''I ■ • •*■ • .- . '%i-4 Sito Svoluationt ,, S^-ISi.-:£aS?a “J»2 £ffi JS-SSS: • •x: K*> • «.**** .'I' 4 t •• SSautixSS ijjd-b*^^*'***®* your inotollor aJS* ^Sli Plotoo for , Ji .?2J5^'b«u “j.%s.^s:^ “• ,s;s-is*. o' » * 1 * * ' /• •/ •... ,*>V toots and'hor^i^o ^liSlolSd' Sf5SS SI^JSSS,."" •*"'“«»» tMb>i;.; Siacoroly^ fCZMEZlIZNO 00. P k ... ■ •■*•■? ti. vr - I > V- '• .1. v! ^ # ^ t t. . Sho^s V /V 7„I v7=Ff*-ir>’ .... -y^ -'V 7^ .... . fc»» ♦ . n‘ • • V’- V- .♦ 4 / , »• ' •' ♦- • • ✓ . ••*A V’ . . 1^ ff • . .. ’^.* . . »y ••»«'<'' ' »#•-<• '!■« . Vtl liV I . ' * ,' -- ;• • • r ’ •*• • *"- f •* . ■.-•• • - 1^. y 4 . kb ■ ‘ ,* ,.•. !'. A/ -;.' •’ .f •' «r-'"~4' ■■ •'■•■*1 ^ ^ ^ ^v ‘ • ‘ *• > *. *^ ** • •*'.' % r* Tj •' * * • . • •" • • # •• ■• »*7 >* l « ^ . 9 K T **«M OilWv ii«*CITY rf OROXO• ka <M North Shor, of toko UtnoHonia Deceaber 8, 1917 5?!’2 ‘309 Westlake StrMt I<ong Lake, MN 55358 *•1 Zoning Violation, on Froparty Doar Mr. « Mr*. Porli p'«p«Jr!°Vxro"r.r“i'" •« “'• •» •• foilow.: '•'* “IP “PO" C0«pl.i„t7 T*. ob.ct»,VviouUSSI «. X ^ f Tf^ 1 4 A A ^ ^ a c A «o«d”ji."bV:VI.!.*"?' a"«>!0* 2«bT; iuik. - ^«*o V"i W.V r..‘-s:ss; tho .Ki.tlng 12* k 12* »»>• w-d for a?STd!^* !**'*«• 'oJ? -lloJobWHSf -j: Jide lot irn^/VoV.rV;dlf.eVto'o‘bJr-*’^n * «• *<^thfn *"** presuming that it l»*^Johr/ ‘’“fading permit for thil • ithin your side or rear yard anrf aa f®**^^*' ">ove it to a locatinn 5' from the rear lot n«-> from the aide lot line«nd at least rVom VhV rVar" loT iV„ ^^om^h.'iuoTotVilo Secti*o *’®‘?'*lrement* i. Section To*ni*"^”^ roforence for bui ldTno^°‘°^; Subdivision 15 (d t "(V) iL® *«dthi requiring a permit la square foot limit onthe Cnifomi Building Code. referenced as Section 301 (b) of •ULDl.>r; A /OM\C - 4T171ie A^issivi;ADMINISTIIATION a fIN anc F - 47J.735H ri m u HONKS . 47i 7Uf tiSi’ly %•« *.• 4 't'S #> sr .% '4^ ’'? p t»-V *■ •*'tk t • ,i-»hN •'.•'•a • •; %■ 1 I •» 4*1 Cregq t B«tty »«rl D«c«ab«r a, 1*87 Pag« 2 of 2loning Administrator, Jeanne Mabusth. and i na*mA®“ December 3rd, we received on N^vembe! 23^ lVa7^property. State Statute require? thit'th2*id!«7ri’^®2 complainants remain confidential. The complaint alleges* identity of M9hr."nd*o"n d„rtn, d., „d B. Piles of dirt, rocks, etc. stored in the yard. C. Business being operated from the residence. ^ verbal complaint received la «hat-season, you and your employes on a reouiat during the construction property on evenings and weekends. ’ basis repa.r equipment on the visible evidence of any continued busineas*^^ k^” y*rd, there is no prop«rty. PU„ of dir/.iid rock 2»r. n« obMriid* “** ®' *''• ss:.nit: bV “dViV.d^%%^rr%%.Vr ri*„ii*‘k ”/.."'d.r.r «M"o*y::.':r.'^^j;:jr*.“’' “ * »o'“t!o"or.“„r.*vV„ “.‘o’?, •triacture, would not >pp..r to h.ve • dir.et r.^.V/ >.?* *”* •«•••<>',and height variances requested Howev»-f*^*^^0"’bip to the setback they may have an indirHt Jeiati???M« <^^ty Council your additional investment in the property has“I 2t?ntia/"r non>allowed uses of the property*^ Staff perpetuating counsel be prepared to address the aboJi *u9gest that you or your the December 14th Council Uitina ri. concerns or issues at helpful to the City Council if you would\r1fv?’,f be most appropriate and prior to the meeting. That letter ?houi*n *7^^*^* their review ieter than noon on Thursday, December this office no th. pock.t of infor..““V;o? ”.?U i? "• •“*>:?"Krrhrr Hfbr/n‘u 4?5-**iV,'i?t."“ Sincerely,• ^ Michael P. Caffl^n, Asst Planning & toning Administrator KPC/tln Enclosure Municipal Zoning Code Sections. Noted Above 'c ;'-V .-‘vt'?. ' ■ .• j 'VU . 1 ■• t I I ' -V n. TO:Chair Schrocdcr and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:February 13, 1995 SUBJECT: <^1997 Jon and Sally Lcbcdoff, 1101 Femdale Road West - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, requiring 2 acres in area. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.23, Sub. 6(B) A. Area variance Required Existing Variance 87,120 s.f. 8.481 s.f. 78,639 s.f. or 90.2% B Lot width Required * 200’ At the 75’ setback = 58’ Variance = 142’ or 71% At the lakeshore measured in a straight line Variance = 128’ or 64% = 72’ C.North side lot line Existing = 0 Proposed = r Variance = 9’ or 90% South side yard Required = 10’ Existing = 10’ Proposed = 12’ No variance required E.Rear setback Required Existing Proposed Variance = 50’ = 46 ’ = 44.5’ = 5.5% Zoning File #1997 Fcbniaiy 13, 1995 Page 2 Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) A. Lakeshorc setback from main lake Required = 75 ’ Existing = 17’ Proposed = 20’ B Setback from the lagoon Existing = 75 ’ + Proposed = 75 ’ + Review Exhibit L, structure shall not be set in front of the average lakeshofe setback line. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 A. 0-75’ setback area = 7,211.6 s.f. Allowed = 0 Existing = 4,585.4 s.f. or 63.58% Proposed = 3,939.2 s.f. or 54.62% B.75-250 ’ setback area = 1,269.3 s.f. Existing = 1,269.3 s.f. or 1(X)% Proposed = 861.3 s.f. or 67.86% C.Review of total hardcover on property Total area = 8,481 s.f. Existing = 5,854.7 s.f. or 69% Proposed = 4,800.5 s.f. or 56.6% Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C) - Structural coverage Total lot area = 8,481 s.f. Allowed = 1,5(X) s.f. Existing = 2,513.8 s.f. or 29.6% Proposed = 2,369.5 s.f. or 27.9% Per Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C-1) the following shall be included in calculations of lot coverage by strucmres: 1. All roof structures which extend more than 6 ’ above grade level. The roofed patio area at the lakeside of the residence, the roofed carport and roofed patio area to the street side of residence are all included in structural coverage. Zoning File #1997 February 13, 1995 Page 3 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D • Applicants ’ Description of Request E - Applicants ’ Hardship Statement F - Applicants ’ Statement of Unique Property Conditions G - Overall Hardcover Comparison Study by Applicants H - Certificate of Title I - Neighbors ’ Acknowledgment Forms J - 0-75’ Existing and Proposed Hardcover Inventory K - 75-250’ Hardcover Setback Area Existing and Proposed L - Existing Survey M - Existing House Footprint and Hardcover N - Proposed House Footprint and Hardcover O - Floor Plans P - Elevation/Roof Plan Q - Diagram of Roof Improvements within First Floor Level of Existing Residence Description of Request Applicants propose the removal of the existing single story structure and to construct a new two story structure to be placed within the approximate fooqirint of the existing residence. The structure will be 38’ wide and 60’ along the north side and 62 ’ along the south side (additional 2 ’ needed for a garage entrance along the street side of residence). Maximum height of the structure to the top or peak of the roof will be 32’. The mean distance to the peak of the roof is 26' +. Review Exhibits M and N, the new structure is pulled back approximately 3’ from the lakeshore at the northwest comer at 20 ’, the original was 17’. The footprint of the new structure will be reduced by 144.3 s.f. (original 2,513.8 s.f., proposed 2,369.5 s.f.). The property is s'abject to a lakeshore setback on both the west and the east sides. Both the existing and the proposed structure are located out of the 75’ setback from the lagoon side. The property was approved for sewer in the 1980 Femdale Sewer Project. The subject property was connected to sewer in the fall of 1981. The property achieves access via an easement through the property to the immediate north and east, review Exhibit H. One-fourth of the area of the existing footprint are structural improvements with roofed areas, refer to Exhibit Q. Per the definition above, this portion of the existing principal structure must be included as part of the structural footprint. Zoning File #1997 February 13, 1995 Page 4 In reviewing Exhibits M and N and the hardcover fact sheets, J and K, the applicants rroposc major reductions of hardcover totally 1,054.2 s.f. or 12.43%. The proposed site plan does not reflect specific removals of existing hardcover improvements. It appears that only the stone walkway at the northeast side of the residence will remain along with the gravel parking area and street entrance areas. The elevations reveal no other access doors to north, west or south. Statement of Hardship Refer to Exhibits E and F, applicants’ Statement of Hardship and unusual propeny conditions Issues for Consideration 1.As already noted above, total hardcover on the property has been reduced from 69% to 56.6%. Is the proposal too ambitious for the severely limited property? Should residence be relocated more to the south to minimize substandard setback at north lot line? - - - Should building footprint be reduced? 3.Now that a new structure is to be rebuilt on property, should stmeture be pull^ further away from main lake to the east? - - - Refer to survey, Exhibit L, and still maintain 75’ setback from lagoon? 4.Review Exhibit P, the elevations of tlic residence reveal no additional access doors which may not be realistic or practical. Many lakeshore owners ^»<^sciate a direct access to lake from their lakeside. Applicants should be aske*’ o respond to this issue. 5.A well was installed on this property in 1989 but has not been located on the survey. Applicants should be aware if there is a need to install new well if house is to be relocated. Ceil Strauss of the DNR has been sent the information in the variance packet and will be asked to comment. Suiff vdll report on her final corrments at your meeting. m CrtY OF ORONO . VARIANCE AFPUCATI Initial Application Fee $200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) #1.^Q €))n (•. /m H\jf ••••', •• W A / ’ m'i W M . —•. wr • ' ■ • J ; >* ;j *i t A te W V W W V V A 7l c-v • k V*\\ w W • V V , w . ? I wv te w'VA t L w *. t . • A. w J PROPERTV INFORMATION Site Address 1101 West Femdale Road. Wavzata, MN 55.191 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 02-117-2.^-43-0020 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired December 1954________________(month^ar) I (do) fdo notl aisc own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; X residential__ Zoning District: LRIA________________________ other (specify) APPUCANT Name: Jon and Sallv Mitchell LebedofT Ad Iress: 1915 Irving Avc. $._________ Phone (home) (612) 377-3272 Phone (work) _____1*17 0 City: Minnearx?lis. MN Zip: 55403 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name: Estate of RolWrt G. Mitchell Address: do Robert G. Mitchell. Jr. Lindquist &. Vennum Phone (home) (612) 473-1042 Phone (work) (612) 371-3262 City: Minnearol’s. MN Zip: 55402 4200 IDS Center DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Construction Cost $ 300.000 Describe request in detail; (See attached)___________________— (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width V/ Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify):. HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: (see attached)______________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessaiy) r REQU]ItIDllSUBMITTALS -s * » O ■ i I Pc >.. n..«t b« ■j.ihmWfj tY tlw apiHkatloq ift-gplg fnr vour application to b* ronsidered Cpmpl^ 2 List of owners within 150 ’ (you must Coril<y D.p«tmem of FinaDco, A-603, Govt Center. 348-3271). Plat Map (obained with property owners list). ___ c..«r*v /eiem^d bv a liceosei3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ^ Sca^te orTurvey (signed by a licensed surveyor) ^ calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 A x 11 for ?o^rep1d^survev (existing and proposed elevations) if any ctoges in existing grade 8. 9. arc proposed. In addition, proviac one m i « v vv - - J Sketches or clans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S/i x ll ). ✓ S o “ute legal names (include marital stams) of all persons wi± an mtetest m the oreU^ t4 won't include name(s) of applicam(s) if not cuneni ownens). M M 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. ^PLICAIVT provide all information required or requested by the Zouing Tfw. Date / — 5 S~f ^Applicant’s Signamre ' S^fer hf Acknowledges and agrees to this applicauon and furdrer entry onto the property by City soff. consultants, a^nis Ccmmission members, and Counc members for purpores^^^jjgesd^iio^afd_v^ica^q^^^^ nnAX:LtAJl^^L __DateOwner’s Signature ^^ m -------. ----- this change prior to the meeting. . , 8 (browns BAY) APFKOX iCSt Cl»C or lOT 13 nwtm snooc coriMd Mens ACCmiHC TO NCCORO nM f'989 ^BjAi i- r} BRQTO) OZ' 117'ZJ-^J /) GOVT LOT 2 RUN DATC OUll/fS IlATCII 504 SO 02-117-n 41 0014 RMR 4000 01105 FfRNOALi RO MONNCR NAMi R4LRII C 046LCYTAXRAY5R RALRH C OAOtfYNAK/AOOR 1105 FimOALi RO N •HAYZATA HN 55301 HEIWRXN COUNYY RRORCRTY XNromATXON SYSTEH R5R0RT NO. 01415401• V. h-RS LIST10 ei-117-n 41 oolf 00010 AOORflS UNASSZONiO RALRN C OAGIEY RALRN C 0A6UY 1105 FERNDAIE » N HAYZATA MN 55301 RAOi »l . . ‘• . . - >■» , Jf H* 'M 0t>117-fS «1 OOM 01101 FCRNOALf RO Ml ROKOr • NITCNIU ROOCRT 6 NITCNfU 1101 N FERNDALI RO IttVZATA H4 S5S01 St Ot-117>2S OS OOtS RROO AOOR OlOOS ' FEIMDALE RO N CMNER NAM R I K TON TAXPAYER i C A MTMCRXNE H PCM NAME/AOOR lOOS M fERNOALi RO MAYZATA HN SSSOl •> 1 ; y * ' • .i r.s .. ‘ AO , V •I-’ ♦ IDTAL iATOi SM OOOOA •« .*1 > *»• «* » - * * ■ “ *0* ^ .**< •• ,|4i, H . • t , . , «■* ^ »*. ^ ^ I.” ;v .. A* > M ,: -9^m* t > V ; • I* ,r. f \ • ■ ■ * - 'K -- r'/ 1.. (I I ^•• 0 V .; : A* ’ V* ; ■ . , !•* n'.-r. •. '• . ’ •, -f' #^.4 • r-i\* ■ * »’X c •* t \ ' j • ^ V, -1 ^» • ■» ■- nff X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS RERRESEKIID ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE ^PRESENTATION OF INFORNATIQN AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON TNE RECORDS THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXAHONt TO THE REST or HY KNONLEDGE AND RELIEF. DATE r r r r if 3mm f*', ”J. - i I i;V;^ D Description of Request Demoish existing house and build new two-story dwelling on existing foundation, except as noted on the survey. The variances d for are necessary to build the new house requested by the Applicants. The proposed new house hardcover is 2369.5 square feet vs. 2513.8 square feet hardcover for the existing house Or^ucTNig canopy over front porch). The hardcover reduction for the new house Is 144.3 feet (-5.7%). The roof line or canopy of the new house is 3.2 feet further back from Lake Minnetonka and the house remains rrKjre tttan 75 feet from ifrie lagoon. There is a slight foundation line change on the driveway side for the garage. Two foundation jogs on the sides are being rerrxjved. in effect increasing the side lot setbacks. There will be removal of existing hardcover including portions of gravel driveway, sidewalk, front canopy, wood steps and patio block. The proposed new house is a two-story house to replace a one-story house to have adequate space for a family of two adults md two children (ages 11 and 14). The height of the house to under the Orono height limit of 30 feet for a pitched roof, being 22’3" at the measuring point. In 1989, while Mr. Mitchell was living, a similar proposal was made. At that time. Ralph Bagley, the neighbor to the west, requested that some additional landscaping be done between the two houses. That additional laridscaping was installed, in addition, the overhead power lines were placed underground to each of the two houses. The applicants know of no issues pending regarding any other neighbors. The hardship is as stated below. 1. Hardship attached, the present hardcover on the site Is 5854.7 square teet. The e)d8ting house is without any basement or attic storage area and only has a one car carport. The lot Is 8480.9 square feet in size. The applicants can. and will if the building permit is granted, reduce the existing hardcover from 5854.7 square feet (5854.7 / 8480.9 * 69.03%) to 4800.5 square feet (4800.5 / 8480.9 = 56.60%), a reduction of 1054.2 square feet of hardcover (-12.43%). This will be accomplished by removing certain gravel driveway areas and walkways on the westerly, soutiieiiy and easterly sides of the site, and removing sidewalks, wood steps, patio block and some front canopy, and replacing the same with grass. The neighbors on either side of this site, as well as other neighbors along this area of West Femdale Road, have in the past few years made various changes, alterations, and additions to their properties in efforts to Increase liveability. It is our understanding that when the city granted such requests, the test applied was minimal Increases in hardcover and minimal reductions In required setbacks, or better. On the Mitchell site there would be a 1054.2 square foot reduction in hardcover and a slight increase in the size of the existing side setbacks in the process creating a more liveable dwelling. i 1. z 3. 4. Urusual Property Con Area of smalt, old lots Lake surrounds Bagiey and Mitchel houses virtu'^Jy on 3 sidesi Land is low lying, sewered. New water wed. The neighborhood houses have been gradually upgraded over the years by each house having been Improved similarly. This b the last house in the immediate area to need improvement HARDCOVER (SQ. FT.) EwsilnQ House House and Other Hardcover 2513.8 2940.9 Proposed House House (No Canopy) 2369.5 Other Hardcover 2341.0 Total Hardcover 5854.7 Total Hard 4800.5 Q ■p n crp "Rfl fp/)i\‘r ^ 'ip ■? ' UD ' % ■[yU ir _b NO. «28780 MEMORIAL (CONTINUED) DOCUMENT NUMBER KIND OF INSTRUMENT driveway purposes over the fo DATE OF INSTRUMENT DATE OF REGISTRATION Mo.Day Year Mo.Day Year Hour land Mar 25 1971 OStOO AMOUNT lowing part of said Tract A RUNNING IN FAVOR OF SIGNATURE OF DEPUTY REGISTRAR over a pt of Tract A* AAI* By DoPd Doc. No. RLS NO. E3228A Is revised & amended to read as folt .Mso an easement for Registered Land Survey No. 441t Beginning at the most Southerly corner of the 12 foot strip of land hereinabove described! thence Southeasterly to the most Easterly corner of Tract B In said Registered Land Survey No 802! thence Northwesterly along the Northeasterly line of said Tract B* 40 feet! thence Northeasterly to the most Westerly corner of the 12 foot strip of land hereinabove described! thence Southeasterly to the point of beginning of the easement being described. 1792257 Mortgage Dec 1 1986 Jan 9 1987 -T-t $250000.00 209l0<i0 Deed of Appurtenant Easement Nov 10 1988 Apr 23 199C 12 ZOSIOM Deed of Appurtenant Easement Nov 8 1988 Rpr 23 1990 12 / Stephen R. Pflauro and Jonathan G. Lebedoff Trustees of the Alice Tenney Mitchell Trust Fund H U/A 8-31-56, c/o Lindquist & Vennum 740 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN An • * * * ’ • •• III * *•' easement for underground utilities purposes over other land (See Inst) Ralph C. Bagley S Mary Jim Bagley, hus 6 wf, granting j-.n easement for underground utilities purposes over pt'u * of'ibove.land!for.the benefit of other land. (See Inst) \i .y y y : y #** • «y • (TURN PAGE) ■t (?>P /'— ■g ‘i p ■ cp \b uu [f IbtM [if NO.628780 District Court No.(S) Transfer from No.'s) Originally registered Volume(s) 07^9 Page(s) 0227645 12378 0626848 12/31/54 STATE Of MINNESOTA. COUNTY Of HENNEPIN. REGISTRATION rhis Is to ce»-tlfy that* Robert C. Mitchell of 1101 West Ferndnle Rond* City of Wny7ntn. County of Hennepin. State of Minnesota Is(are) noui the oiunerls) of nn estate In fee slnple of and In the follouilng described land situated In the County of Hennepin and State c« Minnesota# to uilt* Tract B» Registered Land Survey No. 902. Files of Registrar of Titles. County of Hennepin. Subject to the encumbrances* liens and Interest noted by the memorial underuirItten or endorsed hereon) ■>nd subject to the following rights or encumbrances subsisting, as provided In the twenty-fourth section of ”An act concerning the registration of land and the title thereto** of the General laws of the State of Minnesota for the year 1905. end the amendments thereof, namely> 1. Liens, claims or rights arising under the laws or the constitution of the United States, which the statutes of this state cannot require to appear of record. 2. The lien of any tax or special assessment for which the land has not been sold at the date of the certificate of title. • ^ .»* , 3. Any lease foh a period not exceeding three ye.irs. when there Is actual occupation of ‘the premises under the lease. 4* All rights In public highways upon the land. 5. Such right of appeal or right to appear and contest the application as Is allowed by law; S. The rights of any person ■ In possession under deed or contract for deed from the owner of .‘.the certificate of title. r*". \ .-1 That the said Robert 0. Mitchell Is of the age of 72 years* Is unmarried and Is Under no •* disability* .*• ' I ' ■ ' f-‘ ^ IN WITNESS WHEREOF. 1 have'hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal*of my office THIS FIFTEENTH DAY 0P,0ECEI«ER 1«12 , R. DAN CARLSON *' ^ V Registrar of Titles. ^ ♦ .? * In and for the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota. I, diiiy ' DEPUTY MEMORIAL OF ESTATES. EASEMEN*. 1 OR CHARGES ON THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE HERETO ATTACHED '101 DOCUMENT NUMBER KIND OF INSTRUMENT DATE OF INSTRUMENT DATE OF REGISTRATION AtiOUNT RUNNING IN FAVOR OF SIGNATURE OF DEPUTY REGISTRAR Mo.Day Year Mo.Day Year Hour 632284 Warranty Mar 2 1960 Jul 25 I960 02t05 Robert C. Carter B Georgia K. Deed On other Carter* his wf. as jt tenants. land Granting easements for Mar 25 1971 OSiOO driveway purposes over pt of Tract A. R. L. S. No. 441 & full riparian rights B rights to cross over the rear o(F Tract A . RLS No.441 &Tract A. RLS No 902 in favor of , Tract B. R. L. S . No . 902 (Se<? Inst) 874081 Order of Moy 9 1967 May 10 1967 10:15 Directing that the land desc Court On other of the second easement created COO (TURN PAGE) NO. 6287S0 .imm V: pll ifei-COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA THIS IS A CONDITION OF THE REGISTER AS TO THE WITHIN CERTIFICATE OF TITLE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE --•..V -.. •. ... .. ■• . ■•**’• . • ^ . • .* Jf • r-.r-' c? c“^cno * — - ‘ ) • JJ-_X_ r 1 -j V \ f*.j ^ */ Adjacent Propcrtr Ownery Acknoi?de<lgeiEeht. Form' ■l^ 3 0 -3.C. & Katherine M. Fox [print name(sX of 1095 W Ferndale Rd, Wavzata. MN 55391 [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the propert>' located 1101 w F»rndaio or also refen’ed to as Land Use Application No.________. 3c (we) understand that in e.xecuting this acknowiedgemeni. }&(we) acDt(are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the proper:)' or use bu: merely to confirm for the City Council that i (we) actx(are) aware of the improvement plar.s and that the proposed neishbor’s project or use requires Council approval. / Prope.-T)’ Owner b.C.Fox Date 2- is^ S 3v. Property Owner Katherine M. Fox Datw'/ ■■ • •••-■ : :.• '. V- '..* - :• ■ TP WTYCF ORCNO Jpi # TT* !♦• S.i. ^ V f.' tV-:7 Adjacent Property OwntOT* Acknasiledgement Fom-^0 I QS)^ Ralph C. Bag ley 5 Q 1995 [print name(s)] of 1105 Ferndale Rd W, Wayzata, MN 5539 [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 1101 Ferndale Rd w also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (MJC) undersnind that in executing this acknowledgement, I (wc) am (aotit not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the proper:)' or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I Owisd am iaad aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. t Property Owner Ralph cr Bagley ^6 / 9 Date Property Owner Date , / r' /hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZO*NE: (CIRCLE ONE) (o-^75-250’25-500’500-1000’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 2 >7 Lecfch Z4-.4 & X X X Widdi So^o B. Garage 7 “Z"X Zf»<j C. Dnvcway X X D. Sidewalk ^.7 X X 23-Z CAHO^'i E. Petio/Deelf Si. X X Z4-.T. /<#•. 4- fc®»*capc Uoderhfrr Bv-Ptetic 6-/ X X X G. Other i^cc ^3^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ' A B . PROPOSEn HARDCQ^*ER in ZONE A. House Leogtb Zc^X X X Widib 7. €7 B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk *r#V« X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other X 100 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total 3 ^ 100 I4-. 3 // // 'Sg. o n?.z 1730 S.F. S.F. /oz./ J35»o \ /Z4--0 S.F. S.F. r' Z7S.3 i L. I s.r\ s.fJ s^>./ \5i3.o S.F. S.F. S.F. S^.7 S.F. i I ' 14 <76 AS.4- S.F. 7Z//.^ S.F. % A B 4>3.6& 164^.6 S.F. tS3.4 S.F. ___S.F. S.F. 310 ao/6. S.F. /4g/. O S.F. S.F. IZd^o S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 9 • 373^.2 S.F. 7Ztf .6^ S.F. A B ^4..U7.% 1 i« ; HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length X X X B. Gpige • •• C. Driveway D. Sidewalk ^•7 t«h'o . E. PatioZDadt ___^ F. Laadiawpa (judirtaiii By Plaaiit 3.! G. Otber X X X X X X X X X .TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House — Length Z X X X B. Garage C. dnvcway D. Sidewalk • 3 E- Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X 25-500’500-1000' \C total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE zt m 343 ^_S.F.• Width S.F. B ‘S.F. B ^S.F. y.^zt,g _S.F. On S.F. St-i- •------- B "s.F.y •. t4\c?S.F. ■J. 3»B 8.4>”S.F.,V" ‘• ■V 3.4 13,0 S.F. • B:"s.F. /. 7 H.Z 34.4 34.5 S.F... A—, w tln. •5’s Z3. O "s.F. //.5 a 63. O ‘s.F. I) A g._S.F. /Z69.3 s.F. ."s.F.B J2^4.S X 100 B j£>^ 3f Bl 310 _S.F., Widib Z.4,7 B^5.3 S.F. Z B 44 ‘s.F. B 3 S.F. .S.F. B 47^0 S.F. •]]S.F. 3 9 S.F. t.=”S.F. B _S.F. B "s.F. • _S.F. B " S.F. "s.F.B • • • • » _S.F. SUI. 3 # • S.F.A BE/2A<7.^“ S.F. ^ X 100 ^7'.ait“ % -■ • • •• •* NAmCOVCII SUHVCV FOHSALLY MITCHELL LEBEDOFF AND JON LEBEOOFFor TNACT •. R.L.t. MO Ml tCNNEMN COUNTY. IMNNCtOTA i / r\J UUi Mtfttrtiw •» »a«Bttrt trMt t. tM s#'»fr ■». Mt, ••l.t *t IN* ki NAM l»ll f*M«f tatwoi U I»M t»* »**<irl*i «r IM •'•••'Ir. tM IMIIIW •# tit ••IMIM *»«M* !•••** Uiroi. fM IM *«•«••*< lUllltM •* III *«•• •AM* ***^»«*»*. II «MI *•! H^t**l I«IM« «•! MM* INtY MMlH •« to r«ii» 1 1 AffM* •••• »• Ml*. M IMII m^artRiK *N ^ ^ »• • ONI.MMM ............... mmcoia tmiviv pom i\ \ (.1.1 '\i 11,11\MITCHELL AND JON LEBEDOFF or TRACT N. «.!.•. NA tOt MKNMK WN COUNTY. INNNMOTA KM!Mil hmm $MHtX mmiHBk « I I ^ i • !":! ' ;'l ‘1 , -i: , i > • •li ■ I L ■%' •" '■ i?'.fi . -4* • .•%.-• • **^-8 i I *'J^ t f 50.92mtoa. 90.SB f<LSMo.90Z 0 I a»irr. ipi^ |MI4I»>I» ■.wwncm iuoi 4 rt*« I o m K c 1 * 1 .. -5 .^>EA4^ : • ^p-EAT yy —! : 1 ill & V 3 L£M Q a^i 7* -——-A --+■ 1 J 1 TT t J---------------" Pn^»T FU^tZ. I^t .,--------- 3V I -e^Pf /Y\ FWetg. mV* + ■J % #!'5 'v < il£LL > s fY f'v irr. iriL [I01IM?»-ISII •31 LIMfliim Km 'J» \ 0 juiniHiftai ,BROSfss*^ SmmmmJT** MHPM Ct^. Mrt C>*rp'C-»0 . .*»i'V f /I-6? — -*. x->a^'y< i*avn^» MT &LeV/»»Tl«^M • • FT. FT. IF« LVinDOftOIBROSrsp^ ^EV. ^-3MS [I9iii«7i*iai m t. WtTTATA ILVa * • •v e e KUS tHT e m am0mm> I »L1 To: From: Date: Chair Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator February 10, 1995 Subject: #1998 Craig Wicklund, 3780 Bayside Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) - Area, lot width and front setback variances. A. Lot area Required = 87,120 s.f, or 2 acres Existing = 65,560 s.f. or 1.51 acres (17,582 s.f. or .4 acres of wet. Per Section 10.55, Subd. 15 (A) (2), wetland areas can be credited for sewered properties.) Variance = 21,560 s.f. or .49 acres B Lot width Required = Existing = Variance = 200’ 149’ 51’ or 25.5% C. Front setback Required = 50’ Existing = 46 ’ Proposed = 26 ’ Variance = 24 ’ or 48% List of Exhibits A - Application B > Plat Map C - Property Owners’ List D - Addendum E - Topographic Map-2 ’ Contours F - Neighboring Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form G - Burgers Bayside Second Addition Plat-Location of Access Easement H - Deed Recognizing Access Easement I - Proposed Site Plan J - Property to South ’s Survey (Gardiner) K - Staff Sketch L - Elevations M - Floor Plan Zoning File #1998 February 10, 1995 Page 2 Description of Request Lot 52 was part of a larger parcel acquired by the current owners in 1911 (refer to Exhibit H). Auditor ’s Subdivision No. 203 was filed in October of 1928. An easement described as a rod wide (16‘/i’) was created in 1911 over the Burger property at the time the larger parcel was created. The easement in later years served not only the Anderson parcel but the former Miner residence on Lot 53 of that same Auditor s Subdivision. The same non exclusive easement continues to serve the Anderson property. There is some controversy as to whether the deed for Lot 52 was updated to reflect right to the use of the easement. There is nothing to suggest in ilic original Deed that the access easement was an exclusive easement and that when Auditor ’s Subdivision No. 203 was approved^Lot 52 would not be made deliberately landlocked. Refer to Exhibits B and J. The owner of the property to the immediate south has installed a garage within a 30 ’ public alley to the south. Landmark Drive does not abut the property. The only available access to this site is via the 16‘/6’ wide easement. The propeny was served with sewer with the recent sewering of the Stubbs Bay area. The existing residence is currently not connected to sewer but has been assessed one sewer unit. Municipal sewer lines are located within the utility easement along that same 16corridor of Lot 2. Burgers Bayside Second Addition (refer to Exhibit G). It is the intention of the applicant to take down the existing structures and rebuild a new residence with attached garage requiring area and width variances. Refer to Exhibit D, applicant claims cenain hardships with relocating a new residence stnicmre meeting the required 50’ front setback. Statement of Hardship Applicant ’s addendum notes the following hardships: 1.Applicant claims existing house and proposed house will be located on a natural knoll defined at the 942’ and 940’ elevations. If the house was located further back on lot, it would sit much lower and based on the walkout design may create water problems for new residence. 2. 'The well is located right in the central portion of the building envelope. The well was installed in 1989 and applicant wishes to continue use of well. • • • 3.Placement of garage and storage area reduces length of driveway and minimizes hardcover. 4.Allowing structure to be placed more to the south will save two mature trees on property. Impact of residence being placed 26’ from south lot line is minimized by existing growth of trees and shrubs along the south lot line of the property. 1 Zoning File #1998 February 10, 1995 Page 3 Staff would add the following for the area and lot width variance: 1. 2. 3. 4. The house has existed on this site for over 50 years. The property was approved for sewer in 1992 and assessed one sewer unit. Refer to Exhibit K. There is an adequate building envelope to permit the construction of a new residence on the property. The property is located within 250-500 ’ of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and would be allowed a total of 19,668 s.f. of hardcover improvements. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. 3. 4. At the time a property is to be completely redeveloped, is it appropriate to consider location of an existing well as a reason for granting setback variances? Refer to Exhibit K. The house can be readjusted to meet the 50 ’ setback and also not be forced into the northern tree line It will line up approximately with the rear of the existing detached garage. Hardcover not appear to be a problem for this property and should not be used as a reason for tilting a setback variance for new construction. Upon your site inspection, review the elevations to the rear of the detached garage. Is there adequate room to create a walkout and also min imize any tree removal to the north? Note the drainageway within the tree line that runs from the west to the east property line. The house has been designed to take advantage of lakeviews to the southeast. Can this be achieved if house is moved 24 ’ to the northeast? 5. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. Options of Action Approval as proposed if members feel applicant ha; demonstrated suitable hardships for the granting of a front setback variance, OR Partial approval granting the area and lot width variance but requiring that struemre be placed at the conforming setbacks. Zoning File #1998 February 10, 1995 Paee 4 Any recommendation of approval must iiKlude the following conditions: 1. New structure must be connected to sewer. 2. Applicant to provide detailed grading and drainage plans for walkout design with application for building permit. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ^ !('?&4 Initial Application Fee $200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S1(X).00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $2 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) #1993 PROPERTY INFORMATION ~ Site Address 37^0 tO fiA.Site Address .ri 7 ^ U Polm S i dg.__ Property T^gnrification Number (P.l.Pi^ na4»*r > t» > Itkf Attach legal description to application if not included on rMuired survey. ^ Date Property Acquired vVrti»> (mdnth/year) __ I (do) m- • "Iso own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use (»'* property: residential Zoning District:^_________________ other (specify) .’fc “%* • • I I f L T- V' • ^ V Vf ‘I T/ If , Lvi ‘‘ji » ^ I : A. * APPLICANT Name 0^r(x.\ c< 10 i c./^/ <L -----^----- . Addresl: ^ o “yn VO o KA City: Phone thome) </l /-v 75" 7 U Phonefwork)“V7S “•?04»(o ____Zip:3-r3?y OWNER (if different than applicMt) 0^*0 q, tics 6 oName Address: T)ge>-li;ll "RtJL Phonefhome) ^7 3 ~ ^3 ^ ^ ___ Phone (work) y7 37 /j City: J Zip: 5SJ X DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost /’lO^OOO^ Describe request in detail: TV> —r\n <L ^ ^ C r> 1 4 Cf.-----1^0'4' ---------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage ^ Setback: Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or ^usual property conditions preventmg rnmniianre withZotiins Code requirements: NC ^ l•,compliance with Zoning Code requirements __________________ 0^1 ir,e ^ cn ^aC.(L a-Urx^(.he.J —4 (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadUnc datf jp QrdgE for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owrcrs list). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V4 x 11 for Top^rapWe survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'A” x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8V4" x 11 ). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an mterest 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 Propertv Owner must sign this application. Please remember Aat vnrinnrp anpHc^finn is not conmlete if the abov e information has not be<?n inclyd^ APPLICANT’S SIGNATLTIE u • The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the ^lUJ^g Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not coveted by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of to application, and cemfies that the information supplied is ifSi and coiject, to (li^^Scst qf histor knowledge. Applicant ’s Signamre The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and fiiither entry onto the property by City staff, constants, agents, Comimssion members, and Councu members for purposes of inv^st^ffion ^irtTverif^on of this request. Sienam yT:^Date Applicant must hav^"all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planniiig Commission to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Buildmg & Zoiung Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 12') » . * CW)V -4 ** ijT n i>ii^ £ * - # * ^ iSA^ ?‘VW_Z1 WII j7i4 = 5 Cu) ^».38 C/V ^ < T» H " EILEEN S »« f •? »4T«W ^4sr (.'.) If ?» *r«-* V »• ••. #.*( tos) k (nar Lf ^i'AA {ti l •It ^^3' • t U ’9) -1 •.,11 o » \»i / ft <0 \f J ,U •s (ns) ‘ •• •■ 1 1-* fK / ’*ir> 1|> y V i*. « -i-t . 1 ♦ 1 *■• < ••• nr jo .♦ '» _ II •/*«C(7» •ft (118)' ^•. K I1 /\ 1 •<;1 •V 1 ••' .0 • < V . .VJ 1 • » *\» 1 ^ (rsTT u\ •I • i-w • r ‘» /■ t«.* •*i t:^ -f«*y >•• C3)y ?f 3?1 9. •# ( 3) 1 ......................— .••••••* MVJG63 e^'< MTCN SOffe:.- HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPEHTY IWOWttTION SYSTEH property 0>t«RS LIST • K X ^ • . mor AOOK OMCII KM TAXPAYER ^^CcRfCR HAW HAME/AOOR J M 05-117-25 21 0005 V 05700 OAYSIDC RO HA2EL ANDERSON hazel ANDERSON 5700 OAYSlOE RD LONG LAKE MN 55554 '"V V' (. ,*• * ■ ■, '»v. , i?r,J ^i<^PRQP AOOR : iV 0»f4ER NAME . >^-.*TAXPAYER ^ ' NAHE/AOOR • < ».• *sa 05-X17-2S 21 0020 03750 OAYSlOE RO JOHN A MARY JANE BURGER CHRISTINE • CARY VALERIUS 5750 OAYSlOE RO LONG LAKE Ml 55554 • V. • \ y,, PROP AOOR l| OMIER NAME -TAXPAYER . - vHA»€/AOORill f j , so 05-117-25 22 0015 00040 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED O.S PERKINS A P M PERKINS DANIEL S A PATRICE H PERRINS 55 LANDMARK DR ORONO Ml 55554 I »'J^V • 0 ■i // * * ‘. PROP AOOR ■T . :ONNER NAME -Va TAXPAYER ' • ;-HAME/AOOR ' i *••>*. • 50 05-117-25 25 0057 00255 LANDMARK OR MARK L A KARENA S CASEY HARK L A KARENA S CASEY 4520 ENCHANTED OR MOUND Ml 55544 t ' PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER, •• NAME/AOOR t .t 50 05-117-25 L4 0102 00050 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SAC 6AR0INER STEVE GARDINER 5770 OAYSlOE RO LONG LAKE Ml 55554 j ’ * * Vi, -PROP AOOR •'ONNER NAME « . V; tf '• "••TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR TOTAL OATCH 505 00015 ■ ^ - '• \ , Ky:./ 4 . V I M ; '• i • «*• r k?- • • * • . ’« * \ 4 ■ I* '• .i. . ’* * ■ • ... ... . • • I *. • ‘ ■ ' ' REPORT NO. PX45S401 PAGt 14 : 50 05-117-25 21 0014 05700 OAYSlOE RO J 0 HAUS A J E MAUS • JAMES O A JOAN E HAUS 5700 OAYSlOE RO LONG LAKE Ml 55554 ' 50 05-117-25 21 0010 V -I. \ 00050 LANDMARK OR • ' JAMES A PATRICIA TOW ' • ' . JAMES A PATRICIA TOOO 149 MEAOON LA LONG LAKE Ml 55554 •t ■ *. • . • S • *. V .*5 P •*. . 0 4 58 05-117-25 22 0010 00055 LANDMARK DR 0 S PERKINS A P M PERKINS DANIEL S A PATRICE H PERKINS 55 LANDMARK OR ORONO MN 55554 I*. * • • • 50 05-117-25 22 0011. 00175 LANDMARK OR L C HARREN A J M HARREN LEE C A JULIE H HARREN 175 LANDMARK DR LONG LAKE MN 55554 * ♦ • \ « %• /• SO 05-117-25 22 0014 00105 LANDMARK OR R P A K A KYLE RICHARD F A KATHLEEN A KYLE 1140 TONKAHA RO long lake MN 55554 Vi so : 05-117-ES 2S 0050 . ' '00050 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO landmark or homeom «rs assoc ' landmark OR HOMEOMCRS ASSOC *» . I • ' V X CA) LEE C HABREN ft r* *• • t 175 LANDMARK OR LONG LAKE Ml 55554 56 05-117-25 24 0100 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO SAC GARDINER STEVE GARDINER 5770 BAYSIOE RO LONGiLAKE MN 55554 50 05-117-25 24 OlOl 05770 BAYSIOE RO SAC GARDINER STEVE GARDINER 5770 BAYSIOE RO LONG LAKE MN 55554 i y . •■ y ( V 58 05-117-25 24 0105 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO SAC GARDINER STEVE GARDINER 5770 BAYSIOE RO LONG LAKE Ml 55554 .J % 4 V. ..:vs‘ r ‘ •. .‘‘T vr.. . SO 05-117-25 24 0111 05775 BAYSIOE RO 6 R A CE RONLETTE GERALD L RONLETTE ' 5775 BAYSIOE RO LONG LAKE Ml 55554 I*i * i ■ •** * » '; J ’ ■ '■ • '• •• •• ** . •* . *.• . ' * *» 1 • • ' ‘ : . .. f *it .. ■ • ■:' • * L i*. ‘-.t' • r «t J J . J ■J -/ . * lt‘< HEf*«PZN COUNTY PROPERTY INPORHAHON SYSTEH PROPERTY ONNERS LIST /• V’ *.-'I ' V '■• • -J. '■■.-•‘•.f: . •. .• . ■•• •• * V. V I ’ • • • »; V* y*- ;* . ^* *..*■* ••* • :oM swnH . Rm«rNo. n*ss4«i | •. ••,. -^v •• • ’ •.- ■ * *i^i**«‘ • " I *•. - m i -•* i'4 . • • X' f• » . • •i • •’4. • •• . i • :^-y r • •e - 1 • . r • •■■■;>' • •••;•* • •'«.= '■■'■ ; ■•■' ■ ■■''-■ ••VT.rV!'*.,:: ■ ;.v.: ' . > • ^ • *V t . • ‘ • V < '• • Vi4[5» .* ♦ y» r ; f t •; I • / ^ iTf • 5^' ■ # R pi* ’ • ^J - >•• • I ^ V' ■ ‘ • . : * !'•' »•• • . •••!,. j I k . * ;• A A' 4 •^ r* V • • • >•* > i'.*.'’•' ! ' •' ! sw/ r-* :^»v- .. . • , .. ■■ •■•• •.•/■./iviij,*. : /': ■ ■ ■••::. ‘•■•■•'V'V '. • . •» . 1 ^ .. SP • . ** ^ ■ . • /,•. •.;• \u ' V.‘. :• • . * ■ 5. ' •• : . , ■ . V .• ■;• •; :% jiN.». I ? '*>•;• . . , • •' • I , :•• V { / ' *# . • • I V • i ** ' >',•!> * *, 'Vvisr. . ' • •••,•. :r -• ..- ; ..» , .*.. : i ‘ ^ • ■■'.Mv " '■ ‘ ■» .* ■;•■ •• • . i t ‘ • 4 • • s . . X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTEi ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEtMEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPEBTY. TAXATION^ TO THE REST OF HY RNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. ^ / ^0”^l3 BYDATE I • ■I''-’..; ■, V ' >.£''> * . •'t • • . .y • • • •• ’in'■ (•.:• i •-V • i • '**J^*# ^ IV * {I ^1 ♦ I •. : ‘ . •. A. ^ • f . • » • • I 3780 BAYSIDE ROAD Proposed new construction home location for a 1.5 acre lot with existing home to be removed. Topog lines 942 & 940 create a natural knoll for the best building site. The existing house is located on this knoll. If the new house is located further back on the lot, to lines 938 & 936, it will sit much lower and could block the natural water flow of that lower area. During heavy rains this might create water problems in the in the new house. The present well location is also a consider ation for the new construction site. This is a very good and useable well which was drilled in 1988. It does create some problems in placing the home with considetation to wel3 set backs and the fact that it is centrally located on the lot. Placing the garage, which also serves as small boat storage and shed, on the south side of the house minimizes driveway hard cover and saves existing tC3es. The south side of this lot touches an easement which is shared with the Gardiners. There is tree and shrub growth which creates a natural privacy for both lots along this easement D #l9y» Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form I (we) __of 3^-^ [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at CZ) referred to as Land Use Application No.------------• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but mere^ 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 y ^ Property Owner Date ♦**♦♦♦♦*♦♦*♦*♦*#***♦»*********♦*♦♦’*'********** HiKi******************************* I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located ,, also referred to as Land Use Application No.------------• 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 If vou have any information that may assist the City in the review of thi^^ AppLtton please »bmit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days pnor to the scheduled meeting date. Jn Adiid paid hp iht lafd d/» ^ Ktnhy (^ran^, J^arj^Aint ......hfifi and asstgiu, /Wtw, U iht Cpvnty of-----Il^nncj) 1?}, ----------------- ^lSM.,ttU&f.1?.»l^.XJ^.Kil/Al.,flf..;?.ftiJJii^.u..nxA,X8l^..J:o•.al0M^I!ifl^^^iib __4.1.-^__/n»r 7*1^ >»••■«■*•■••••*■< ‘ *•• aft I «*#4a .m •*^••*•••1 ------------------■■.. .':v^“v-;”“--r*5!;;;55^t,:^^ ’ • J •' .'• • *^********•■*•<*■■■>•*•••••>••»**•«■»••a ■a«a**«*ai■•••••I •;<* i.i V-*.’* • »pa» —»•* aaa.aa^aMaMat# ••••*■••#•> »•—■«■■—a .-S/;, ■;■’>. '■T-i; ‘•••••a»•••■#••#*»**aaaa»«aa»-.aa••aa«a a«*««i a««*«aa»«ftaaaaa«44« * i ' » • a ' ^ * a . * ^ a.^. ' M«*aM#»aa« *• «a4MM%a**«»aM«MMB*a4*aa**^at^M>«*a4«aa » ^0 jp4i# iMiif /([»poU /Ifn £itmf, Tn£Mcr tdfh aU*ihe htrtdHaniitth andfappurf^jf^neei ih<iyMn^ or in auyuiio ^ppiiiafninf, unto ifto tafd pari.^, ,^^iht tifs/Jn(f,rOJi£fSn. Jndt/iottM.. •■* ■* • >elr# *’ a5. •A‘- » •■••■•• •••••••■•••<■ a^%#** aaaaaaBtaatataaaaaaa* • laa* «a aava ......------- V>..B.aMi^aB.a^*B*ataa.^*aa««a»aa^aMa*aa» y J partSoob/ fnt p.tH, for.-------lv.98 .. J,H«iy.,.........Jk«^, «.v«tfi*W#W tffl irtfh (Af «'<ff]:jP(ir<...y . i^<A« pari^...1}.^.T_l * ' -<'■•-■ ..■•J ‘. utK tcixtd In ftt of the 7andi anrf pnmUif ^on in futfiiii^ andftnn ofot*fsaid, v^: niwf i?ie d ’fy nnd year firct aheve uriHcn* ifli DvHv«rc4 In Frwnrt g| I* ' /f *»'. ,»•*?• '* •♦ ■ ■;yVv.r ? ’ .’ aiaa..a< ... J ;-----------. ■ m FEB**10-9S FEI 9:13 CHICAGO TITLE Coun<)f » ..t *•rnw^pmnnmmmm ft »i« f{n«m l9 Ic fhi pirtei^ (« and-irA? t.vttuU4l. tkaith0yt.rt(tite'l the.$<mit «f,......1t’.Wly.„../it» art omt ‘ 4 i . I . % ••* f;u, H»\k« m I * • • •.*• •• i ’ V,*‘. ''';7; -UV'v * • * ' ♦*♦• ♦ *..V . *• *vu\ \y**.y ' Mr yu' •** * /.iav’ii ' *-* » ^ '.* ■'., ►•• *» miTi t -A. :rf /♦ 7S-/S ■ : CartificatQ of Survey for Jack Anderson of Lot 52, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 203 Hennepin County, Minnesota /49,0S t # 1 Cl)i. o ^ o Legal Description Lot 52, Auditor's Subdivision No. 203, Hennepin County, Minnesota. This survey shows the location of an existing house, shed and well on the above described property, and topo graphy as supplied from the City of Orono maps. It does not purport to show any other improvements or en croachments. o: iron marker —: Existing contour from city maps COITIN k GROSBI RC,, 1\C.I hereby certify that this survey w*is prepared by me or under my direct super vision, and that I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755 DATE /*2S-9T SCALE / :4o JOB NO. 9S-/S V* I. ll \ !<l iA !■r':l 1 ^ «.• .* i* l‘i|V . ••* ! I** *'l.l 1*1»• ' I - •h- H , f- I 5'3 '.I ’»I } •. i Certificato of Survey for Jack Anderson of Lot 52, Auditor's Subdivision Ho, 203 llemicpin County, Minnesota A/B7*44*/C*'ii/ /^f. OS ;! ■< ' :\i\ i' I 111! t "1. Q ^1- {« V% « V ! j • kotfjc *• si^e^ L - „l •*e/***ov€j I r'.l r • I Nilvr*! Titti Legal Description Lot 52, Auditor's Subdivision No.^ 203, Hennepin County, Minnesota. This survey shows the location of an existing house, shed and well on the above described property, ami topo graphy as supplied from the City of Orono maps. It does not purport to show any other improvements or en croachments . J j\\ ' 7^ i INI I , iu. /t/fl *44 */C**(k/ o: iron marker -*7/e — : Existing contour fiom city map:? /•r AAfA * • 4f-4f/ iilll i»s»iii I hereby ccrlUy Ihnl Ihis survey u-.h prepmcil by me ur uiuler my direct super* vlsUm, niul Ihnt I nm a duly rey.lslered Civil r.nj;iueer and l..iiid Siirvryur imdvi ihc la'vs i»f the SUde uC Minnesulo. Mark S. Gionbcrg Minnesota.Lkense Number 12755 TMtMKtnetknutxtam^asctraen:- DAii: /.sr-9y 9S-/S ... .. # w _a 0 f ''yi t\l j fVJI J // 'Zh^cf \ MltK-SI 1. 2-‘V(ca-f I N A »•- . ♦ 0 »c^ M i <’ ., *V-. y< 2«^ FLoopi Rift»J 4‘,/^* -• ■ f i ^.v 552> i.f- . ■■■■ *^vr‘ > '•■; ‘S.J<1' *::as . .. .. ... #4^ • .*« . ?. A4 ‘ • . ♦. f > i .. Certificate of Survey for Jack An arson of Lot 52, Auditor's Subdivision No. 203 Hennepin County^ Minnesota A/87*44 */4**U/ /49. CS M .. #i OQ.Qu iL Cmlmj U§m9m «* tkwi U«J ^ |l Evivfbi) NifWral IVtf# myi IT***' 14(7 IT * J Legal Description Lot 52, Auditor's Subdivision No.« 203, Hennepin County, Minnesota* Thin survey shows the location of an exittl:>9 house, shed and well on the above described property, and topo graphy as supplied from the City of Orono maps. It does not purport to show any other improvements or en croachments . Mr o: iron marker y/a-- : Existing contour from city maps ^0t4Af4 w/.r4f4€MfS > Coil IN k CitONUntG, Inc. [-«y r ■. ,.p-1 '‘.LL •_!! ''o’ f HIM t A\ul"l' • • ' M2 \:y im I hereby cerlify lhal this survey w.ts prepnreti by me ur under my direct $uper* vision, snd that 1 am a duly rcgUlered Civil l;n};ineer .ind t.and Survt'ynr iiiuier the latvs of the Slate uf Minne^itln. Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota.License Number 12755 UAII: /^2S^9S KAi i- JOIJNO 9S^/S *?• y maps FF3-2i-l99S 04:5e '*.* v^. IP.01 ii.V.U’SXiS c To; City of Orono Planning Commission From; Steve Gardiner, 3770 Bayside Rd Subject; Hem #1998 Craiq Wicklund variance of 3780 Bayside Date; 2-22-9S The following is for information only. I have no objection to the variance application at 3780 Bayside Rd. Enclosed is a survey of our property at 3770 Bayside Rd. Please note the entrance to the 3780 property crosses our property. This does not concern me at this time but might be a future issue. I would like to request that construction trucks do not drive past the entrance to 3780 close to our house and back up into the propery. This would damage the gravel driveway we maintain. I would like to be informed of the variances granted as we are considering remodeling our house also. Please call me at 476-0254 if you have any questions. Steve Gardiner U nnesota . on oP an 1 on the cl topo- City of ort to or en- .1 * /Prepared for*r.TLVL Af.. ' AMMLN C'.AKl)INKH ^Gr®v«l -...207 Kp - — -A TT—r M ■ - - •‘l ; '* . •■• r • . V ; •J .;• •I .'v • fi.r {••,•’• • •; I- i- • > \ ' ■ % f :• k. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 17,1995 ROLL TTic Orcno Planning Commission met on the above date with the foOowing menders present: Chair Charles ScJjoeder, Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Car.viace Rowlctte, Charles Nolan, Jr , and Janice Berg Building and Zoning Mu>. listrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Sherry Frost represented Staff. Chair S< rjoeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.nL SCHEDULED PUBUC HEARING/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING (#1) 7:30 P.M. #1990 ROBERT W. CARLSON, 710 GANDER ROAD - VACATION OF EASEMENT - 8:05-*:0S P.M. Mr. Carlson was not present. No member of the public had any comments. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Item #1990. Ayes 7, Nays 0. ACTION ITEMS (#2) #1975 LARRY ANHALT, 2190 WAYZATA BLVD. - APPEALS - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HC.ARING - 7:00-8:05 P.M. The Applicant was presem. Mabusth said this application has been taken m as an appeal because of the many land use issues that must be resoKed before a formal application can be filed. The plm calls for a commercial use of Outlet E, Sugar Woods, in B1 zoning district. The Planning Commission is asked to determine if the proposed use is consistent with intent of B-1 code for a "garage" use. There is also the issue of a partially platted east/west road to the north of the property, and City’s plan to seek a final access to east at North Brown Road. The conceptual site plan consists of a showroom, an office area, garage, and car wash. One third of the structure will be for office and showroom use with the remaind^ for the garagi* and car wash. The applicant advised the showroom will house such items as hres, exhaust systems, and brake systems One major issue involves a conflict with plat maps presented with information. The right- of-way issue needs to be solved. Staff provided an exhibit depicting the various options for right-of-way dedications. The City Engineer and Mn/DOT say that a C/D line is being sought in the 1995 improvements. The plat map for the County shows the right-of-way as an E/F line. According to Dennis Hill of the County’s Property Description Office, we should go with the right-of-way we depicted by the C/D line in lieu of that shown on the current County plat map. Hwy 12 at this location will have a median in the center probably a turn to left or east. The median is part of the 1995 safety improvements. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION meeting held on JANUARY 17. 1995 (#2 - #1975 Larry Anhalt - Continued) The northern 55* of the property must be rezoned from RR-lB to B-1 consent with directives of Sugar Woods plat. The commission discussed the need to plat the remainder of the east/west road which they advised should be platted as part of this application The road will run from the Otten property at the west and through Anhalt’s propwty. eventually to Brown Road. The road will be installed based on demands for future development. The Sugar Woods covenants say that at the time the common corridor is to be platted that the rt^ will be designated. It was noted that because applicam has been asked to dedicate additional nght-of-way for 1995 Hwy 12 irnprovemems, Mn/DOT has approved a single curb cut to property The land owner, Sid Rebers, along with his legal representative, Greg Poe, were Rebere originaUy owned 41 acres from Sugar Woods to Hwy 12 Poe tossed why it was his opinion that the east/west. Brown to Willow Road, connection is not functional. Cliff Otten was also prcsem. The easement goes through the Otten property imo the Reber property. It was important to note that easements now exist from Willow Road over Outlot D within applicam's property and does not extend any further into Outlot F. This would have to be asked for as part of the application process. Outlot D was created as part of the future road. Any development of the property east of the Wear property would trigger construction of the road. The first issue to be resolved would be in the proposed use permitted under the B-1 code. Anhalt’s business. Pro Tire and Exhaust, is a retail/installation operation involving what he called quick items, tires, shocks, struts, exhaust, alignments, and oil changes. The plan is for a garage consisting of four, east facing bays and a car wash for his clientele, not for the general public The location would provide good exposure being located on 12. It should be noted that the site allows adequate room to move the proposed building to the rear as Mn/DOT is taking additional land for right-of-way. Anhalt is asking for clarification from the Planning Commission on the zoning issue in order to proceed with site planning. Mabusth reviewed the iment of the B1 sales district that encourages commodities or services for the surrounding neighborhood and may adjoin a residential area. It must be serviced by municipai water and sewer, and direct highway access is needed. The garage use is Usted under the conditional use section of the code and includes repair of cars, which must be totally enclosed. The rear and front setback requirements present no problem. There are recent Mn/DOT changes to Hwy 12 that the City and Applicant will need to review for this appfication. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 17. 1995 i»2 - #1975 Lany Anhalt - Contiiiued) The Planning Commissionm voiced their approval of this land use saying it was consistent with the City’s comprehensive piM. Nolan brought up the number of parkii^ stalls needed for this usage Mabusth said this would be studied as part of the conditional use permit process Neighbor, Bill Wear, of 2160 W’ayzata Blvd., said he was concerned with the curb cut. He feels it is too close to his property and should be relocated. Otherwise, he finds the application to be satisfactoiy CliflFOtten, the property owner to the immediate west noted his support and approval of the application. Peterson moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #1975. vwth the findii^ th^ the applicant complies with the Bl zoning code and amendment two of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant must come back before the commission with a formal conditional use penmt and commercial site plan; rezoning and subdivision application. The commission reaffirmed for applicant that the City will expect the designation of a fiiture connection road to North Brown Road at the time of the platting of Outlot F. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#i) #1981 TODD R COURNEYA, 4620 TONR4VTEW LANE - VARIANCE - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 8:08-8:20 P.M. The Applicant was present. Mabusth said the Applicant has come back with a new plan which does not encroach the bkiffarea. The proposed house has been downsized, and the garage has been relocated to the west side and reduced to two stalls. The proposed house will be kicated 25’ from the street lot line where 35' is required. The setback from the existing traveled road witt be 46’ and at 42’ if Tonkaview Road is upgi ided at 28’ width, as proposed by the City Engineer. The setback from the 10* grassed boulevard of the upgraded road is 32 ’ from the north side, wdiere 35' is required. Peterson, who was one of three commissioners who reviewed this af^lication at the last meeting, recalled that if a variance was to be needed, preference was to the street side and not to the bluff area side. A main concern was with the drainage for the propos^ plan. Rowlettte was concerned that no water goes down the hill on the site. Nolan said a landscape stabilization plan would be needed along with a drainage plan designed by a professional engineer. Smith is concerned with the patio and the placement of the building over the smaller hill. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONftilSSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 17, 1995 (#3 - #1981 Todd R. Counieya - Continued) Nolan moved, Rowlcttc seconded, to approve AppUcalion #1981 sul^ to review and acceptance by the City of a professional drainage plan, a comprehensive landscape stabilization plan, as well as an erosion control plan requiring periodic inspertions by the City Engineer Ayes 6. Nays I. Smith. Smith’s opinion is that the plan should move the bouse away from the smaller hill. (#4) #1986 DAVID YORKS, 2825 CASCO POINT ROAD - AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMrr/VAMANCE - PUBUC HEARING - P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mrs. Yorks was present. Schroeder read a letter addressed to the City from Dave Stockdale rfEdgewoik BuiMera. the contractor for the application, to be iiKluded as part of the public lecord, stipulating confirmation that proper construction procedures were followed for the retaining wall as required by the City. Mabusth said the application was an emergency situation that developed aftw the November Planning Commission meeting requiring the City to make a decision without first coming before the Commission and Council for approv^. It was discovered that the retaining wall at the top of the bank leading to the lake was in a near state of coHaj^ ^ measures needed to be taken immediately to safeguard bank before spring thaw The contractor failed to caU for inspections during the reconitniction of akhough. contractor did work with the City Engineer on the project. Since inspections would^ confirm that the wall had been installed as required, the Engineer asked that a letter be submitted for the record. There wctc no public comments. Rowlette felt there should be no after-the-fact penalty due to the circumstances. Rowlette, moved, Nolan seconded, to approve Application #I9W for an after-the-fart conditional use permit and setback variance for retaining wall with the recommendation that no penalty be assessed. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#5) #1987 LARRY PILLAR, 2705 ETHEL AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:30-8:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 17, 1995 (#5 - #1987 Larry Pillar - Continued) The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the application involves a I0*xl5* addition to the rear of a home that was installed without a building pennit The applicant's intention was to repwr sections of the foundation of the three-season porch, which also provides an interior access to the basement area, and found he needed to replace foundations, the wood frame walls and roof The addition was rebuilt within the original envelope. Applicant advised that he has been working on this project for a few months. The inspectors issued a stop work order, and applicant tvas advised of the need for a building permit and survey. The survey revealed the porch tvas 4*7 from the side lot line. The house is 4* from said line There is a 14' unimproved alley which separates applied's from the property to the north. If the alleyway was vacated, this property would receive the benefit of the cvenmal 14' wide alley. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #1987 to include a penalty fee for not having acquired a building permit and that addition be completed within 90 days. Ayes 7, Nays 0. It was noted that the shed on the property was not found on the survey and u located on the property line. The vacating of the alley would solve this problem. (#6) #1988 KENNETH J. SEVERINSON, 2800 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:40-8:50 P.M, The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a setback variance required for reinstalladon of new sections, 6-T in height, of a privacy fence adjacent to the southwest channel side and street side of the property. The original fence continued approximately 8' farther along the channel than the new fence. The Applicant said he was unaware of the ne^ for a permit. It was discovered after 78% of the fence had been replaced. The fence is in the 0-75' zone and is not considered hardcover. The Applicant said the noise level of the area without the privacy fence is very loud and is part of his hardship statemem. Peterson and Smith were concerned with appioving a fence here and setting a precedent for others to follow as a reason to grant a future request for fencing. There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE WONO PLANNING COMMISSION meeting held on JANUARY 17, 1995 (M6 - «19«8 Kenneth J. Severinson - Continued) Schroeder moved, Rowlettc seconded, to approve Application # 1988 for reconstruction of the fence due to the hardships listed. Ayes 5, Nays 2, Peterson, Smith. Peterson said be would have liked to have seen a lower fence with shrubs to be consistent with other channel properties. Smith concurred. (#7) #1989 WILLIAM STODDARD, 2805 KELLY AVENUE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:50-9:20 P,M. The A£Sdavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. A letter from the Applicant to Orono officials was read to be added as part of the public record. It was noted that permits had been received from the Minneha ha Creek Watershed District and the Department of the Array/Corps of Engine^s for the installation of the proposed pond. Stoddard had been in communication with the City over street flooding matters and wrongly assumed he had satisfied City requirements. This application is a land-use submission for a pond for water retention to aid with the flooding that occurs in Kelly Avenue. Mabusth said the property has a low area approximately 80‘x90’ in which the Applicant would like to build a 60^60* pond. Landscaping would also involve the placement of large rocks around the pond. The plan also includes the reseeding of all distrubed ams to more suitable vegetation. The Applicant would also like to realign his driveway due to the street flooding and is working with Public Works Director Gerfaardson on this matter. The City Engineer recommended against large berm or rocks being placed in the unimproved right-of-way. Mabusth noted that this land is not a designated or protected wetland but a low retention area. This project will not impact the «orm water plan and will have a minimal effect on retention during flooding. It was noted that the 550-600 yards of soil material being removed is now being stockpiled but will be moved and trucked out by the contractor. Berg reported having leceived complaints over the depth of the pond. It was clarified that the pond will gradually deepen to approximately 6 ’ to 8'. It was noted that eight neighbors have signed letters giving their approval of the pond as long as the pond conforms to regulations stipulated by the MCWD, Corps of Engineers, and the City of Orono. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 17, 1995 (#7 - #1989 William Stoddard - Continued) Neighbor, Clair Rood, asked how the pond would alleviate flooding of Kelly Avmie. Mabusth said that it would not solve Kelly Avenue flooding and would provide only a temporary respite for the water, would not add to the flooding proUcfn, nor would it impact any future storm sewers Peterson moved, Rowlettc seconded, to approve Application # 1989 for a conditional use permit for a 60\60* area to be upgraded to a type 3 wetland similiar to the pond developed for a property located at Orono Orchard Road The surround^ area will need to remain natural, with cattails, and no mownng near the pond. The Applicant must work with the Staff on a vegcution plan Ayes 7, Nays 0. <#S) #1991 CLAIR ROOD, 2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD - COMMERCUL SITE PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:25-10:15 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. This application is for a proposed office building on the west side of Shadywood Road on lot I of Leach Addition Subdivision A comprehensive plan is included for lot 2 of L^h Addition for another office building, both projects located within the B4 zoning district, and a duplex in the LR-IB zone The subdivision was approved in 1978 with a 24* acce^ and utility easement to serve residential lot along northwest lot line of lot 1. Mabusth said the property was the subject of a review in 1980 for an office building, which never transpired. The Applicant is proposing a I25*x42 ’ single story office building with a south-facing walkout. Mabusth noted that the parking stalls on the plan were not sufficient for the maximum use potential that a building of this size would demand Although the Applicam's plan for the lower level involves storage only, the City looks at what the potential use could be in the future for determining paring stalls, if ihe building were a single story only, the number of stalls would satisfy City ordinances. The plans shows 25, 9'xl8 ’, stalls. The code calls for stalls at 9bc20'. This is a sensitive area where drainage is concerned. There is a 12" culvert which drains to the southeast to Lafayette Marsh subdivision. Plans for this site must include drainage calculations for determining runoff that will leave site at developed level. A retention area must also be included on this she. It should be noted that hardcover is less than 35% within the 500 to 1000' zone Ordinance Section 10 56 allows for hardcover controls for properties located in commercial zones. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 17. 1995 (#« - #1991 Clair Rood - Continued) Commissioo concerns involve the use of hardcover with pavement within 21^ of tte front and with drainage ^otng to the front. The duplex is proposed to share the driveway with commercial use which is not allowed. The parking stalls also cannot back up onto the roadway as proposed. The 24' roadway easement is presently located on the north side of the property in question The Appticant is planning on moving this easement to the center to run between two commercial buildings and down to the proposed duplex. Commission members suggested that the applicant considw moving the building setting for aesthetic reasons as the back of the proposed building is presently exposed to CoRd 19. Another suggestion was combining the two lots and having one oflSce buildup The Applicant anticipates a possible lease with a real estate office for the one building. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table this Application to allow the Applicant to work with Staff on solving the problems of parking stalls, road egress, and water drainage and retention. Ayes 7, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#9) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12,1994 Smith distributed her report of the Council meeting to the members of the commissioa (#10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Mabusth reported that the Council has reviewed the B-2 Ordinance Propos^ Amaidment and submitted their changes. Council will again review the ordinance at their meeting of Jamiary23, 1995. The Planning Commission has a meeting Friday morning, 1/20/95, on the proposed Westonka Intervention Project shelter. The Planning Commission meeting in February has been changed to Wednesday, 2/22/95. ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#11) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 21,1994 MEETING Peterson moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 21, 1994. Ayes 6, Nays 0. Smith was not present during the motion. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 17, 1995 (#12) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE FEBRUARY 13,1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Rowictte will attend the February 13, 1995 meeting of the CouncU ADJOURNMENT Peterson moved, Berg seconded, to adjourn at 10:20 p.m. C/icu //. Charles Schroeder, Chair Person 1 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 6, 1995 The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Charles Schroeder. Vice Chairman Steve Peterson, Candy Rowlette, Sandra Smith, Charles Nolan, Janice Berg, and Dale Lindquist. City staff was represented by Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffro^n. Police Lt. Gary Cheswick arrived at approximately 8:40 a.m. Applicant Dan Hessberg was represented by consultant Margaret Webber, Judge Mary Davidson and Board Member Greg Sichender. Members of the public present included Rick Meyers of 2195 Bavview Place and John Ericson of 1620 Shady wood Road. City Councilmember JoEllen Hurt was also present. The work session was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 7.57 a.m. Mabusth gave a brief overview of the request for approval of a battered women’s shelter in the former Grace Baptist Church near the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19 in Navarre. She noted the site is zoned LR-IC Single Family Residential and exists adjacent to the B-1 Commercial Zoning District. Mabusth noted the proposed site plan includes parking and a future playground area for the shelter. She noted that no expansions of the existing building are proposed, although partitioning of the interior is proposed to provide for office areas and 7-8 sleeping rooms. She indicated that space would be provided for small meeting rooms for counseling and job training sessions. She further indicated that provisions would be made for school age children from both the Westonka and Orono school districts to be picked up at the site. Mabusth indicated the work session outline is structured to first bring forw^ discussion regarding the nature of the proposed use, and secondly to consider the zoning issues and comparability of that use in Orono. Dan Hessberg introduced Himself as applicant on behalf of Westonka Intervention Project. He indicated that Westonka Intervention currently is a group of approximately 18 volui^re at the request of local police departments intervene in cases of domestic abuse. He indicate that domestic abuse victims are provided with one or more advocates who assist victims m understanding their options for dealing with their situation, assist them through counselu^, accompany them through the hearing processes, etc. Hessberg indicated that over the p^ II years they have found it impossible to place victims in a shelter due to lack of space m existmg shelters. Schroeder questioned how Westonka Intervention was funded. Hessberg replied that they were funded by the cities through Block Grant Funding and through various local organizations and private donations. He indicated they have an extremely limited budget at this time. Returning to the outline, Mabusth indicated that the proposed shelter would accommodate a number of functions, including group counseling sessions for up to 8 persons, monthly meetmgs 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION I\ORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 6, 1995 of the 15-membcr Board, job training sessions, individual counseling, day care for victims children, as well as counseling for community members not using the shelter for housing. She indicated that while 24 hour staffmg would be provided, there would be no staff members who reside at the site She indicated that there would be a full-time executive director and additional professional full and part-time staffing. Mabusth provided an overhead listmg the members of the Board of Directors. It was indicated that the majority of Board members were from the 7 cities served by Westonka Intervention, which include Minnetrista, St. Bonifacius, Orono, Minnetonka Beach, Long Lake, Spring Park and Mound. Resident John Ericson, who owns vacant lots adjacent to the site, questioned how dus activity would fit into the residential character of the adjoinmg neighborhood. Schroeder mdicated that was an issue for discussion but would be considered later in the outlme. Margaret Webber, the applicant ’s consultant, arrived at approximately 8:20 a.m. as budgets for facilities receiving grants. Webber indicated that in the case of Westonka Intervention, the Department of COTectioM would be reviewing the Department of Human Services per diem reimbursements but Westonka Intervention will not be receiving a grant from the Department of Coi^tion^ Schroeder’s question, she indicated that she knew of no shelters which received neither a grant nor a per diem reimbursement. ss:™-~ s:>sr«sr~ £ KS Department ’s computer system cannot distinguish or track which cases have been refei^ to Westonka Intervention nor do the reports reveal which involved domestic violence. Th^r^ handled differently by different cities and she was not completely familiar with reporting procedures. Peterson suggested that perhaps the better source for data is the Department of Corrections. Mabusth presented an overhead supplied by the applicants with data for the Westonka area. Mabusth reiterated that there is no specific state legislation regulating or providing requirements for shelters. She noted that the Minnesota Association of Bartered Women’s Shelters is a loose DRAFT MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DoilESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANTJARY 6, 1995 confederation of 20 Minnesou shelters. v.hich sets thek s^dards for trait^g of votowts who -Sr^dst rtr„ 2^;:^ • r f between people involved with shelters. There U no licensing mvolved with shelters except for the food service aspect. Schroeder asked whether the budget review by the Department of Corrretions constituted an informal or "de facto" licensing. Webber was not familiar with tte depth of review provided by the Department of Corrections in their budget review. She did i^icate that a ^ facto licensing probably exists when a county or sure grant is involved smce the contras for^ gran .neeifies conditions Lindquist requested that information regarding the Department of ?^aio.^ r^v^proceTs be provMed. Webber acknowledged she would be anendmg a seminar and would provide that information after attending. Schroeder reiterated that the Planning Commission is being asked to review an activity for which wc have compare the structure or activity happening within, and added that another ag-nc> s licensing guildelines would provide that baseline. Mabusth confirmed that Westonka Interv ention is a non-profit charitable organixatlon. Webber confirmed that all existing shelters are non-profit. Schroeder noted that shelters are one option for solving the abuse problem ma', be other wavs such as housing victims in hotels or other facilities. Webber describe die relationship between all of the various agencies who are ^ domestic abuse problem. Mabusth indicated that there are no orhcT local agencies shelter in the area of the 7 cities Westonka Intervention serves. Rowlette all 7 cities automatically call Westonka Intervention in dealmg with domestic abuse situauons. MabusSTLt her informa.iou la tha. dm Orono Police might use Wesmnka Imerv^mn or might call Sojourner or Home Free, two shelters in neighbormg cities to the e^t. if shel was i^ded immediately since Westonka Intervention does not yet have that abihtj. Rowlette questioned whether she was interpreting correedy that the figures provided people who have wanted to get into shelters have not been able to because of the diis^area Webber commented that that may not be quite accurate, that the Orono Police a different relationship than some other Westonka cities with Westonka jjje Mound and Minnetrista Police may use Westonka Intervention m most or all ca»s wte * Orono Police do not necessarily use them in every case. Webber contmued Minnetrista Police over the last 10 years had never been able to place aomeone m J Home Free due to a lack of available space. She noted that it is possible ^t ju-r as advocates themselves and contacted Sojourner or Home Free on theu- own miua than involving somebody from Westonka Intervention. Rowlette requested that if possible a represenutive of the Orono Police Department be asked to come over to the meeting to describe their policies and procedures. • m ••• <• MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELFERS HELD ON JANUARY 6. 1995 It was noted ihat the Mound and Minnetrista Police may have had a policy of using Westonka even prior to the 1990 procedure mandate. Discussion ensued as to whether Orono’s policies and procedures are similar to those of Mound and Minnetrista. or whether procedures are being icil»'V^cd. Mabusih noted that the law does not specifically require the use of an intermediary. She .'iiuicatc J that the law required immediate action and required that a policy be in place, but does not require the use of a specific organization. Judge Davidson indicated she had brought along some materials which she would leave related to domestic abuse laws. She indicated the law defines what police departments are supposed to do, but not whar happens if they don’t follow their adopted procedures. Peterson asked how are police departments held accountable for enforcing their own policies. Judge Davidson indicated that in anv bureaucracy it takes time to deal with issues and the Department ot Corrections might not take any action unless there we.-e complaints. It was concluded that discussion on how the Orono Police Department is dealing with domestic abuse policy would be suspended until the Police Department representative was available to comment. Continuing in the outline, Mabusth provided a list of the 20 shelters located throughout the state, mostly near larger populated areas. Planning Commission requested that this information be copied and provided to them. Peterson questioned what the capacity of shelters should be for Miimesota’s 4 million-plus population as compared to the existing capacity. Webber indicated that in most areas demand gready exceeded capacity. Judge Davidson indicated that Hennepin County handles more than 10,000 hearings for protection in any given year, with a capacity of just 100 beds in the City of Minneapolis. Judge Davidson also noted that Orders for Protection often result in placement of conditions on the abuser rather than the victim, such as requiring the abuser to have no contact or stay away from the victim. The shelters do provide a safe place for victims when such orders are not complied with. Victims are at the highest risk between the ^ time of abuse and the time a Protection Order is granted, that is the time during which victims are at greatest risk in need of safe housing. Many people find shelter with family members or through their own resources, but those that do not have those resources available need a place to go on a generally short-term basis. Schroeder questioned whether it would be possible to determine the number of people who don’t have the resources or other meaos of shelter and would make use of Westonka’s proposed shelter. Judge Dav idson replied that it is virtually impossible to come up with those numbers, and that because no shelter exists, many victims will remain in the abusive situation because they don’t have another housing option. Greg Sichender indicated that with other shelters having to turn away 50% of their calls, it likely that there are numbers of victims not finding shelter. Webber agreed, suggesting that it is likelv that the majority of victims don’t find shelter and remain in abusive situations. She referred to a recent news anicle regarding several women who had become murder victims as DRAFT MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAiNNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 6, 1995 a result of their abuser violating Protection Orders. It was also noted that while living with famUy is often an option, the abuser typically knows all of the victim’s family and has little problem finding the victim, hence staying with family is not always a good solution. Lt. Gary Cheswick of the Orono Police Department arrived and introduced himself. Lt. Cheswick indicated that the State Statutes require that certain procedures and policies be adccted and followed, and that the Orono Police Deparmient does follow the policies wluch *ey have adopted. Those policies include the ability of each officer to assess the specific situation, and victims are always provided with an information card as a resource for phone numbers, who to contact for specific assistance, etc. Lt. Cheswick had provided a copy of the Police Department’s adopted policy to Mabusth and she read excerpts from it. The policy requires that officers advise victims of their legal rights, available shelters, and community services, and provide victims with copies of "Rights and Services for Ah Crime Victims". In determining the appropriate course of action in domestic abuse cases, the primary concern of the officer is protection of all from further acts of violence. Lt. Cheswick noted that each victim typically has some idea of how they want to handle the situation, and that each case is different. Peterson questioned whether the Police Department had transported any victim to any shelter within the last year. Lt. Cheswick indicated that in the past he personally had on occasion transported victims to Pioneer House but would have to check the computer listing to determine where other victims may have been taken. Rowlette questioned whether Orono Police are direr?.?d to involve m advocate from Westonka Intervention immediately for each domestic abuse situation. He indicated that the officers have the discretion to assess each situation individually and bring in a third party as necessary, b^ there is no specific policy directive mandating the use of Westonka Intervention or any third party He indicated he would provide Mabusth with a copy of the information materials provided to victims by the police. He further indicated that quite often in domestic abuse cares where the police are called, the abuser is taken to jail which allows some time for the victim to consider options for action. Our police normally will discuss with the victim tlwir opuons and assist victims in the options they choose. He noted that quite often in Orono, victims have their own avenues and resources for dealing with the siniation and consequently do not request shelter. Lindquist asked whether the Orono Police had had difficulty in locating shelter space for victims who need it. Lt. Cheswick replied that the Police Department h^ the availability of toe motels in the area and the cost for short-term stays in them by victims is paid for by West Hennepin Human Services if necessary. He tdso indicated that Sojourner and the Mission Home were additional options that could be used. J* *• %1ESXJTES OF ’I'HK. ORONO PLANNING CO\EVflSSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 6. 1995 Rowlene asked what training is provided to the Orono Police Officers in regards to dealing with domestic abuse situations. U. Chcswick replied that each officer receives training when they are hired, and that it ’S a Department mandate that ongomg training occu'. He noted that in Febmary'ihe Department is scheduled to attend a training session in domestic abuse. JoEllen Hurr asked what additional assistance officers provide victims other than handing them a card with their rights and contact resources. U. Cheswick replied that quite often victims are in the police office, and that the officer will advise and assi-t them until they are in a position of safety, i.e. they may be transroned if so requested to n location, then they are assisted in making the contacts they deem necessary. Lindquist questioned whether Lt. Cheswick felt a shelter in Orono would be of benefit. Li. Cheswick noted th'it in some respects it would mean more work for the depamnent, noting that the number of police calls to tlie shelters in Plyn mth and Minnetonka were significant Mabusth noted that many such calls were due to "suspicious activity", ,ince the environment of a shelter is sensitive to intrusion by the victims’ abusers. This has lead to number of false alarm calls. She also noted that at one of the shelters located on a cul-de-sac m a middle class neighborhood a large number of the calls were made by a single neighbor who was apparently adversely impacted by the activity, car parking, etc. generated by the facility. Lt. Cheswick noted that in many respects having a shelter in Orono would be helpful, in th^ it would provide a nearby location and an additional option for victims. Schroeder questioned how many incidences of domestic abuse the Police Department responded to in a typical year. Lt. Cheswick indicated he would have to review the computer records, but that there are many different levels of domestic abuse, and he would have to do some research to present a cle^ picmre. Mabusth showed an overiiead with information provided by the applicant regarding tM number of domestic abuse calls reported for Orono including its contract cities. Lt. Cheswick noted that those numbers were somewhat different than City records, and Webber noted that her numbers might be incorrect due to some errors. Schroeder indicated he had received some information from the Department of Corrections indicating 19 incidents of domestic assault which Lt. Cheswick characterized as the "senous incidents in 1993, as opposed to somewhere in the range of 80 total domestic assault incidents. Schroeder indicated he would provide his information to everyone. Schroeder reiterated that the reason for all of this discussion regardhg the number of incidents is to somehow establish whether or not a need exists for the puposed shelter in Orono. Peterson asked, of the 78 incidents reported for 1993, does Lt. Cheswick have a sense of how manv actually were referred to or transported to a shelter Lt. Cheswick suggested the num^r was probably less than 10. Lt. Cheswick also noted that in his experience the Department has not had a problem gening people into safe housing when it was necessary, be it a shelter or a motel. He noted that he personally had not experienced the inability to get a victim mto a DRAFT iMCsxrrES of the orono planning commission work session ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 6, 1995 shelter. He that motels were typically used on a 1-3 day basis, and shelters would likely be used for a longer term or when there was a question of safety for the victim, which was always of concern to the officer. He reiterated that quite often the abuser is arrested on a typical fifth degree assault and is jailed for up to 36 hours. Judge Davidson indicated that all custodies are reviewed on a daUy basis and the Court will decide whether an abuser is released or not. Rowletie noted that information provided by the applicants regarding Sojourner indicted they turned away victims on a daily basis due to lack of space, but that the information she is hearing today suggests something else. Lt. Cheswick replied that in Orono’s experience, the police have always been able to find a s,)ot in a shelter for a victim who needs it, although he would not dispute that on a given day a given shelter might very well be full to capacity. Peterson questioned whether Orono’s response was to hand the victim a card and do nothing more for the victim. Lt. Cheswick replied that that was not the case. Schroeder suggested that it is more likely that the perceived low numbers of abuse in Orono are a function of population numbers as compared to the population oi the much larger cities of Plymouth and Minnetonka where the two nearest shelters are located. It was suggested that while the incidence of abuse on a per capita basis may be as high in Orono as it is in other places, the numbers rcquinng the use of a shelter are relatively low compared to the numbers of people from the city of Plymouth requiring shelter in any given year. Judge Davidson suggested that Sojourner and Mission Home be contacted and asked if they kwp track of where their calls are coming from and if so, provide that information for us. Planning Commission directed suff to do so. Peterson noted that he volunteers in a homeless shelter in Minneapolis and they turn away people every night. Webber indicated that in their shelters she was advised that there is more demand for space than they can handle. Webber also indicated she would provide information regarding numbers accepted and turned away from area shelters. Schroeder suggested it may be appropriate also to ask area churches for any information th^ have or any referrals they have made regarding domestic abuse. Judge Davidson commuted that her information is that churches often tell the woman she is subservient to her husband and she should go home and take care of her family, rather than offering shelter or solutions, whe did not expect much information would be supplied by churches. She suggested talkmg to e Department of Human Services. Candy Rowlette suggested contacting Interfaith C^treach. Greg Sichender suggested contacting Pyramid, a mental health clinic in Minnetonka. PlMi^g Commission also requested that they be provided with copies of the cards provided by our o ice Department. Discussion continued regarding the need for shelter in Orono. Mabusth indicated that Orono officers she interviewed consistently commented that Orono residents have their own resources MCSTJTES OF THE ORONO WLANMNG COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 6, 1995 to deal with this matter. Lindquist commented that we should be looking at this in context of the general community, not just within Orono’s city boundaries. Mabusth agreed, and noted that the applicants acknowledge that, and have presented their application as being of benefit to the general Lake Minnetonka area. Mabusth noted that in her contacts with the Westonka and Orono school district personnel regarding this issue, they did not recognize city boundaries in dealing with the problem. Schroeder suggesteu that it is somewhat difficult for Orono s Planning Commission to look at the area-wide issue, although that is what is needed. Mabusth present^ a map ot the Lake area noting the Navarre location in relation to the area to be served. Not onlv the service area but the population served would be greatly increased by a shelter at this location, as compared to Westonka Intervention’s current service area which is generally the northwesterly quadrant of Lake Minnetonka. Mabusth questioned whether the use of the shelter was limited to, or gave priority to. residents of the defined service area, i^ebber suggested that the shelter would e.xist to serve its local community, but there certairdv are informal agreements between shelters that encourage referrals to other shelters when one is full. Webber noted that the outreach and educational efforts, however, generally are confined to the service area. Turning to the funding issue, Schroeder asked how is the project funded, how much docs it cost, where is the money going to come from. Webber advised that Westonka was approved for a $210,000 grant from the Minnesota Housing Authority. Schroeder asked whether Minnesota Housing Authority is the entity that funds most shelters. Webber replied no they haven’t traditionally funded shelters, and that is not necessarily part of their mission. For various reasons, the MHA Board chose to fund a shelter in this rather than some other use. Webber noted that shelters in this area have traditionally been funded by the Department of Corrections, both from their State allocation and Federal monies. Apparently the current available funds are spoken for, but if the Legislature allocates more money to the Department ot corrections, there may be competitive requests for use of ttat additional allocation. She noted that shelters generally rely on their per diem as reviewed by the Department of Human Services. Mabusth confirmed that the per diem is funding administered by Department of Human Services over which the Department of Corrections docs budgetary review, Hessberg noted Westonka Intervention is currently raising approximately $30,000 per year from various sources. Webber indicated they were hoping for a grant from the McKnight Foundation in the foreseeable future. Webber noted that Westonka Intervention would have to follow a similar track as other non profit organizations preparing a plan for fund raising from all of the potential sources. She also has suggested that over time Westonka Intervention develop a political strategy to convince County Commissioners to allocate funding. 8 DRAFT a Mesutes of the orono plantstng commission work session ON domestic abuse shelters held on JANUARY 6, 1995 Schrocdcr questioned whether there is a mandate that cities provide funding for shelters. Webber repUed no, but their experience has been that the cities served typicafly comributc from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars each on a yearly basis. Schroeder asked whether it was possible for a shelter to "fail", i.e. run out of money. Webber noted that yes shelters are non-profit business, and businesses can fail. However, she indicated that her experience has been that if an operation that is providing a service faUs, then other organizations who wish to see that service continued will step in. Schroeder asked what is the biggest risk facing Westonka Intervention with this project. Webber suggested that balanced stiffing is critical, especially in this size an operation. She noted that the Executive Director is typically the highest paid staff person, who is hired by the Board. The Executive Director hires staffing as budgeted by the Board, and the exact level of staffing for the proposed shelter has not been finalized yet. Schroeder suggested this was probably a good place to stop for today and reconvene at a later date. John Ericson, adjacent property owner, cotranented that while he has no specific objections to the shelter use and understands what is proposed, he would object to a rezoning of the property to commercial, which would open the door for commercial uses should the shelter become defunct. He noted that the church existed as a conditional use in this residential zone for many years, and he would object to the property being rezoned commercial. Rick Meyers commented that rezoning to allow commercial uses might result in a lucratiw financial situation for the shelter should it fail and sell to a commercial user. Schrocdcr replied that that is a valid issue and will be the subject of future discussions. Judge Davidson provided a video tape to staff for review regarding domestic abuse. The next work session on this topic was set for Friday, January 20, 7:45 a.m. in the Council Chambers. The meeting was adjourned at 9:47 a.m. Charles J. Schroeder, Chairman DRAFT MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1995 The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Charles ^hroeder. Vice Chairman Sieve Peterson. Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, and Dale Lindquist. City staff was represented by Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron. and Police Lt. Gary Cheswick. City Councilmember JoEllen Hurr was present. The applicants were represented by Margaret Webber and Greg Sichender. No members of the public were ir attendance. The worti session was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 7:40 a.m. Mabusth briefly reviewed the January’ 6th work session, noting that the Commission had concluded there was relatively little by way of standards for domestic abuse shelters other than the guidelines established by the Association of Battered Women Shelters. She also reviewed the financial needs, noting the likelihood that additional staffing above and beyond the initial level would be needed if the shelter functions like those in Minnetonka and Plymouth. Mabusth presented an overhead indicating the annual budget needs of the shelter. Webber commented that she had discussions with Home Free, Sojourner, and the Department of Corrections, who indicated that approximately 95% of the shelter operation was covered by the per diem payments, and at this time Westonka is not proposing to add major education or counseling activities to their program such as occur at some of the larger shelters. She indicated Westonka would like to get the shelter established and continue using volunteers rather than hiring a large staff at this lime. Lindquist asked whether the grants are awarded on a yearly basis. Webber replied that grants from the County are awarded annually, and funding from the State is biannual. Schroeder asked whether the pei diem amounts are set or if they vary from shelter to shelter. Webber indicated that the State has budget review policies that look at all aspects of the operation and establish an appropriate funding level based to some degree on occupancy rates and the average costs per occupancy day. Any expense incurred by the organization that is directly related to providing shelter is an eligible cost. The expense of providing counseling or job training is not an eligible cost. Webber noted she had learned much from her discussions with the other shelters. For instance, she learned that the staffing level for a twenty bed residence would be two people on the site from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and one person from 7:00 p.m .0 7:00 a.m. She also found that concerning standards of operation, the Department of Corrections "Application for Designation p a Battered Women Shelter Facility" contains a four page set of standards with which the s. ilter must certify that they comply (application copies distributed to Planning Commission Members). Webber indicated that no one from the Department of Corrections inspects the shelters specifically, but shelters are expected to be in compliance with the standards. Mabusth indicated that likely the only agency which would inspect a shelter would be Hennepin County Health Department in regards to food handling and storage. The shelter if approved would be subject to any inspections required by the City. Mabusth also indicated that the building DRAFT MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1995 inspections department had concluded the fire code does not require this shelter building to be sprinkled. Schroeder suggested that the City may wish to consider requiring sprinkling regardless considering the expected use. Schroeder expressed a final concern regarding funding, noting that the applicants had earlier indicatcu the shelter is essentially operated as a non-profit business, and not immune from financial failure Mabusth noted that with funding coming from grants and donations, funding is always a concern, but that even with the cutbacks in spending in the 1980s, sources for fundint! this type of use generally continued to be available. Sichender noted that the shelter organization has good support at the legislature and has been able to lobby effectively in past e.xperience. Moving on to Outline Item IV, Physical Characteristics of the Facility, Mabusth noted the building location in e.xcess of 200’ from adjacent residential properties. She indicated the applicants have no intent to expand the existing building, only remodel it. She noted that Webber’s memo indicates sites had been chosen based on specific features including safety, physical accessibility for target population, access to public transportation, the number of women and children to be served within the projected operating budget and cost. Webber indicated that the Navarre site was suitable with respect to its adjacency to public transportation and access to school transportation. Further, the building will be easy to secure. There is plenty of space for a safe outdoor playground for children, which shelters have found to be crucial. Sichender added that its location between a residential neighborhood and a commercial district is typically from a neighborhood prospective better than a location embedded within a neighborhood. He also noted the accessibility and visibility of the site is a plus. Mabusth noted the adjacency to grocery and other shopping is a benefit. Webber also indicated that the site in Navarre was affordable and that the purchase price is relatively inexpensive for the housing of twenty persons. Webber noted that in other areas where shelters were within a neighborhood, some neighborhoods perceived the shelter to be a problem and have generated additional police calls. In Minneapolis, shelters often found parking and playground space inadequate, and over crowding was a problem, none of which would be the case with the Navarre site. Schroeder questioned why the site in Mound was not used. Webber indicated that a number of residents had spoken against it at the Council meeting although the shelter use had been unanimously approved by the Mound Planning Commission. Sichender noted that Mound residents expressed concern about the safety of the neighborhood if a shelter is allowed, and general fears about what a shelter might do to the neighborhood and its potential impact on property values. Sichender suggested the shelter may have a positive rather than negative impact on the neighborhood. He also indicated that the experience of other shelters is that violence doesn ’t happen in the shelters or near them. It happens at home when no ody is watching, and because at the shelter some one is watching, the violence does not occur. Schroeder questioned DRAFT MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAP^^’ING COXLMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANTJARY 20, 1995 whether staiT had talked to Mound regarding their experience with the proposed shelter. Mabusth indicated she had talked to the zoning staff, who confirmed that opposition did not appear until the application reached the Council level of review. This led to approval delays which conflicted with the property owners’ schedule, the building ended up being demolished, and there was less support for continuing with the process of the zoning of the site for a shelter when there was no existing building. Schroeder questioned how the service area would change with a building in the proposed location. Mabusth showed an overhead indicating Westonka ’s service area is generally the nonhwest quadrant of Lake Minnetonka but would expand to include most of the Lake Minnetonka area cities. Schroeder asked if Westonka had its choice, where would it place a shelter to serve its conununity. Webber indicated that centrality is not as critical as access and other site specific characteristics. Affordability is also a large factor. Peterson asked whether high visibility is expected to bring in walk-in traffic without police referrals. Webber indicated affirmatively, noting that is a benefit of this visible site. She further noted that cne of the jobs of volunteer or paid advocates is to assist victims in determining whether or not they wish to involve the police and the legal system. Peterson questioned whether the low estimate of need indicated by police reports is actually an indicator of an unmet need for a shelter. Sichender noted that statistically in an affluent family where the husband has a high income the woman has more to lose, such as her life style, custody of children, etc. and therefore affluent victims tend to stay in a bad situation. Such victims are potential users of the shelter on a walk-in basis. Peterson suggested that the stigma of involving the police, which raises a red flag in the neighborhood, may be a reason for the historically low number of refeiTvils to shehers via our police department. Sichender reiterated that 60% of the requests for shelter at Home Free and Sojourner are turned away due to lack of space, and in essence are operating at 100% occupancy with no ability to serve ihe total need. Mabusth and Webber both agreed wiUi Sichender’s assessment. Lindquist questioned whether there are any statirtics indicating the numbers of walk-ins versus referrals. Webber indicated she could provide that information but did not have it with her. Peterson suggested that while his gut feeling is that while Orono is an affluent communit)’ it likely has the same problems as other communities, yet the statistics presented don’t seem to suggest a great need. He noted that the police department’s recent analysis indicates of 38 abusers Jailed, only 1 victim was referred to a shelter, 2 went to stay with friends, 1 went to a hospital, and this Is from a total of 160 domestic abuse calls over a two year period. Sichender replied that it is hard to determine how much a facility might be used when it currently isn’t there. Mabusth noted that in the 38 cases where the abuser went to jail, that action made it safe for the victim to stay at home as was suggested by Lt. Cheswick at the last meeting. Berg suggested that when the abuser is released or later if the abuse continues, the lack of a shelter option becomes more obvious. Mabusth commented that it was initially clear that statistics would not identify a need specifically for Orono, and that the need for a shelter would have to be reviewed in terms of its DRAFT MINXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1995 entire service area, not just the City of Orono. She reiterated that the current Westonka intervention service area would increase from approximately 20,000 to approximately 100,000. Schroeder noted that the relevant sutistic perhaps is not the low need of the City of Orono but the documented lack of space in the other shelters that currenUy service the area. Hurr commented that the lack of a local shelter, and the possible reluctance of a victim to go to an unknown "place in Plymouth" may be a hindrance to shelter use that would be eliminated by a local shelter. A local shelter, with high visibility, perhaps holding an open house, would logically more likely be used by local residents. Webber commented that there is a "woodwork effect" when a shelter opens up, that expands and intensifies the community’s education and awareness of problems and the various solutions. People who in the past might have stayed home now will see there are other options and start to use them. Also, people will by-pass the criminal justice system and go directly to the shelter. She also indicated that breaking a pattern of abuse takes a long time and there are victims who will go to the shelter, go back home, go back to the shelter, go back home over a period of time unfl the pattern of abuse is ended or some other tact is taken. Peterson asked Lt. Cheswick how many of the 38 abusers jailed were repeat offenders, i.e. are we really talking about less than 38 individuals. Cheswick indicated that was not part of the review but that likely some of the 38 were repeat offenders. Schroeder asked Cheswick if he had any idea of how many people were by-passing the legal system and not involving the police. Cheswick indicated there was no way of knowing. He suggested that typically in cases where the abuser is arrested, the spouse wants to stay at home where they feel most comfortable, and that is what commonly occurs. During the time the abuser is in custody, the police work with the victim to determine how the victim wants to handle the situation. Hurr suggested referrals might occur from places like churches and schools. Mabusth indicated she had talked to Westonka and Orono school districts and in fact the Westonka school did refer four families to Westonka Intervention in 1994, although the number is relatively low, perhaps a handful in a year for the Mound and Orono district. The Orono schools representative noted abuse situations exist and are often revealed during counseling sessions with smdents. Karen Orcutt, the Director of Special Education, could not provide specific numbers. Peterson reiterated Judge Davidson’s comment that churches are not always supportive of the victim in ways that solve the problem. Hurr asked Lt. Cheswick about procedures when the police are called to a domestic. Cheswick noted that domestics are one of the most dangerous situations, and generally two officers respond. Hurr questioned whether »hat eliminated coverage for the City for some period of time, and questioned how- much time officers actually could spend with a victim. Cheswick noted that if need be they call in reserves, interns or CSOs, to transport, sit with the victim, etc. If prior to arrival of backup the officer(s) receive another call and can ’t leave, they go to "mutual aid", calling in assistance from neighboring cities. He noted that an advocate would be called if the victim requests. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1995 Mabusth commented she had discussed the needs for a shelter with Chief Sullivan, and he had indicated for die record that while he can’t provide statistics for Orono or its contract cities that document the needs of the community that he directly supports the need for a shelter, in general a facility like this is needed, and he doesn’t anticipate Lhat the number of police calls generated by this facility will be a problem. Berg commented that it is unlikely that the statistics will ever demonstrate a need, since domestic abuse is such an emotional issue and the stigma attached to involving the police, i.e. the potential for a "hidden" problem to become visible to the neighborhood, keeps many victims from coming forward. Smith agreed, noting that we may never have a statistically reliable picture of the problem. Sichender commented that studies indicate domestic abuse is not limited to the lower end of the income scale, and that every community has degree of domestic abuse. Schroeder suggested that whether or not domestic abuse exists is not the question, but rather, is the proposed shelter the right solution for Orono. The information provided suggests that the nearby shelters are used to capacity. Mabusth interjected that she had been advised by an Orono officer who has been on the force for 15 years had four opportunities during his tenure to require the use of a shelter, and had never been able to place a victim at Sojourner or Hoine Free, but had to take them downtown to the Harriet Tubman shelter. Peterson noted it is still a fact that with the relatively few cases requiring a shelter, the Orono Police had always been able to find a space somewhere, if not close by. Hurr likened the placement of a shelter in Orono to the placement of the Maxwell Bay lake access In Orono. It may not benefit most Orono residents but it is a benefit to the metro area in general and the City has some responsibility to the general public. Peterson questioned whether, when abusers are jailed, are they jailed in our facility or elsewhere. Cheswick noted they are held in our facility until transported to the Hennepin County jail. Cheswick commented that if the shelter is ultimately located in Orono, it will be used, but if it’s full, we’ll have to go elsewhere. We will use it if there is space available. Smith commented that the written information provided to victims by the police might be rnade more user friendly. Cheswick commented that if all we did was hand victims the information he would agree, but that in fact each situation is handled individually, the irtformatic ‘ is provided to victims as needed rather than simply as a handful of paper. Smith expicssed concern that she would have a hard time sorting through all of the information available if she was in that situation. Cheswick suggested that individual Planning Commissioners mignt like to ride with an officer once, to get a sense of how they handle various sifations. Schroeder continued with the land use portion of the outline, questioning how the shelter fits into the zoning code. Gaffron noted that each zoning district has a list of allowed uses, and uses not listed are not allowed. Further, neither a "domestic abuse shelter" nor anything reasonably DRAFT MLNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1995 similiir to it is listed ss sn Allowed use in sny of our residentisl or commercisl zoning districts. He referred to the compilation of residential and commercial district uses handed out at the meeting. Peterson questioned what is a "public service structure" and would a shelter fall into this category. Gaffron replied that a public service structure is defined as electric transmission lines, lift stations, telephone exchange stations, etc., i.e. items of infrastructure. Gaffron noted that there are two apparent ways to amend the code to accommodate a shelter. Both require creation of a conditional use with performance standards. The first method would be to amend the LR-IC District to allow the shelter conditional use, without rezoning the property. The second option would be to rezone the property to perhaps B-4, a commercial zone which allows somewhat similar uses such as nursing homes, rest homes and retirement homes. The B-4 zone would be amended to include shelters as a conditional use. Gaffron noted that rezoning the property to B-4 might ultimately lead to commercial use of that property if the shelter fails. Leaving it LR-IC and allowing the shelter as » conditional use allows the City to place restrictions in the performance standards to strictly limit the namre of the shelter use. All Planning Commissioners present indicated rezoning '.o commercial would be inappropriate, and amending the LR-IC zone would make sense. Lindquist noted that is also in line with what the neighbors present at the last meeting wanted. Schroeder asked whether we had he^d from more than just the two neighbors. Mabusth commented she had heard from John O’Sullivan who had recently purchased the Texaco site to the south, and he at least at this time in the preliminary discussions had no problems with the shelter use. Gaffron indicated the next step would be to consider what .specific performance standards and controls would be appropriate to accomplish the City ’s goals for a shelter. Is it the goal to |i^*^ a shelter to just this site, or to allow one in otlter areas? Do the specific needs for visibility, transportation, etc. help define locations to which a shelter should be limited? Gaffron noted that the Minnetonka City Attorney, who is an Orono resident, had commented that making shelters a conditional use in a residential zone would be her preference, that is how Minnetonka proceeded, but that due to a number of factors they might have preferred that the Sojourner shelter be in a location not as "tucked into" a residential neighborhood. Gaffron c- i. in^-.ed that there are certain needs inherent in the shelter use such as parking availabiiuv would become minimum performance standards. He also suggested Planning Commission should consider whether only the LR-IC District would be amended, or whether other districts could appropriately have a shelter. He indicated that it is certainly feasible to allow a shelter only in the LR-IC District and in no other residential districts if the Planning Commission feels that is appropriate. Schroeder suggested staff may wish to check with the City Attorney for his comments. Lindquist noted that since staff has to administer this, does staff have a preference which zones would allow shelters. Gaffron indicated that it perhaps could be draft MINXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1995 allowed via an amendment to the R-IA District and therefore allowed in all residential districts that refer back to R-IA, as long as the performance standards are written so as to limit the potential locations to those which Planning Commission feels are appropriate. Referring to the list of shelters and crisis organizations, Schroeder suggested that there is a general need for shelters and the question the Planning Commission is faced with is what will we do to accommodate that need in Orono. We cannot necessarily support one specific shelter in exclusion of all others. Lindquist noted that as a conditional use, each application would come before the Planning Commission. Hurr suggested it may be possible to restrict the number of shelters within a Eiven area. She suggested Orono should do its fair share but not more than its share. Lindquist requested that staff provide information as to how other cities have dealt with the zoning issues surrounding shelters. Peterson indicated he is generally in support of the shelter but feels there is an apparent lack of documentation of the need, and noted that society has many needs today and unknown future needs that we will have to deal with eventually. We need to balance allowing these uses while appropriately restricting them. Schroeder suggested that at least one additional work session was needed to review the zoning code issues. Discussion ensued as to what level of public notification is intended for the next work session, and whether it should be in the morning or evening. It was generally concluded to do an evening meeting. Staff will do a fax calendar to all Planning Commissioners to establish possible dates for the next meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 a.m. 6f.f L #1992 ' ii i; s.'!s»*sa?s!.. r. , ntMw m»L^iKMLUi n y m mm’.tM ♦ mW 1^, |***i' • iwnfrfr, imlySllli; J -W«S5fc,^- 41W.I ^ □4> \ h^b • /^''SmSlSS^ _Z H'-MD M.4^.tp------r 4 f F^iriM-eySr^ ~M9«c. A>P *-T__» r \WW.HMW-. lt= ^'0{ !s:i^_ MmiM KE A«EA 1 FM lERVIlX COVKT AND VICINITY ne AREA lA Rn MAM nKRACE ^MA 2 FOR FOOU TENNB COURT. AND FEREWIAL CARDEN SEE M SCAIE DRAWmos FDR AR^ NOT COVERED BY ENLARGEMENTS , !c'S 'i!j :l ;ti s \',l :l:!: W“,K pc . iriblJ'n, * / PnOT(firVOCiSCfUPTIONOrHICOnOA8SUPniCDBVnMMKKOKE8HMl«| ^ PAHCEL 1: Tb* Mutb 7 u K>M of m* Cm! Ou*iw of ffw tlonrmmt Owlw ^(7 SMMn 31. To«n^ I It Nervi. nong* ». IMMt ol nt S*i PniapM Mvttan. wi4 M of E«tl MMf of tw Mult Z7 50 BTM of WWt »MI of 9w EaM H«r of M NvmMti Ouviw >|f«ig nofti of tho flMwkMn Ho*J OmoM ■: DogfWng m 9m » of t« E«t <JuMr of 9» OutTMr of * «ionc« VMM ptraM ««i iw noi«) tow of«« Sm» 7 io acm of ffi« EM Otartw of t« NortiMM OuMf • tfMnM efMft 00 «m; MTK« 8ojn panM iM«i tw ^MTwniwwO EaMkntttVwcanMrtlnaafWWWwiRoaO. »wne»loijtowfirtpifongtiao^Htow 1e rt MmacMn a«n «• WM tow of *• MMn 7 5) aerM of tw Ea« QuMr tw MortwaM OMrtar. twnot NWt) Wong Uid tow 10 rw jam! of Mfnrtng. am«it l» Vw of *« n Honrwgn CAjntr. I PAnCEL^ TMilMaiOuarMrolirwSeutoiMeftwNonrwaWOiwnoramNMtWMt Ouanar. ard mat pa>l of tw Wast Ojwiar of tw ftwtwMl Owriar of tw MatwM Ouvlar yng fwrth of tw oamartow cf vw MnnMpaM and WwartMm Road, n Sacaon 31. Towwfw Itt. nan90 23. EXCEPT. Thai pan of tw tdMl ona-toufti of tw Stutwait Ouartar cf tw Mwtwaai Ouanor. Sacdon 3t. Townanp lit. Ranga 23. oaacf toad aa c arnwandng at tw ■raaraactwn of tw camatana of tw Watartown Road at> a tow 35 laol wool of, maaaurad at ngm angtaa. to and pMM mat tw aaat tow of awe Wat* aw-«Di«th ct tw ScaafwM Ouanar of tw Nortwaat Qgwrtor, twnca Norti. parWW wdi tad Eaal tow. a Manca ot 135 toot, twnca Eaat. af angw*. a dwtanca of 35 toat to tw port of dapmug. twnca Waat.« ngM to awu Eaat tow. a dalanM of 70 laat. twnea BaiWi paraaai Mf) aad Eaal ana. to tw caraadna of aato mad. twnca Soudwaaiartr Wang and cantartow. to tw Eaw Irw. twnca Norto. Wong twd EwW Ina to tw poat W daywing. acce^ to tw Undid SiWaa Gp.ammam Siavar twnef wto tauatod ai Harvwon County. liAnnaaato PAACCL 3 tnatpanaftwUWtiatteftw touai 77 30 ariat of tw WaW Had of tw Eaw Had of tw NortwaW Ouartar tyvig norai of tw MnwapoH and Wwartoan RMd daaenbad aa bagaawig W tw NortNaau comar of tw aouti 7 SO acraa of tw Em Outotor of tw Wattiaaal Ouartot of Saewn 3t. Townahw l it. Rar^ 23; twnea Itorti Wong trw aaat tow of awd Caw Hat of tw souto 27 5U acf aa of tw Waw fdW of tw Eaw HWf of tw Nortwaw Quanar a watanca of 264 00 ttaito tw actuW poat of aagavwig of land to bo daaertoad. twnca canarurg NorVt atong tw ant Irw of aaW EaW HWI of tw aoidh 27 SO acraa of tw IWaw Hat of tw East Hdf of tw Moftiat Ouwtor h> tw atorvwaat comar twraof. twnca Wew anng tw nortt tow of tw aoum 27 so acraa to tw Wast tow of tw Eaw HMf of tw Nonrwasi Ouartar. twnca Soutwrv on tw wan tow of twEaatHatoltw»lortiaMQuanafoHiwoaniartrwoftw>arwaipefctwdWiaaitoaii Raao. twnca Soudwaatory Wong atttowof186 00iaaiwaaioftw«attlrwoftw tout) 7 50 acraa of tw EM Ouartor of tw NofVwM Ouartor. twnca Nann paraaw w<h and 156 00 toat wM of tw wM tow of OM touti 7 50 aoaa. 611« toaf to a pom 155 00 toil wM of tw MM poat W bagan twnca Em 16500 toaf to tw actual pom of bagmng aecardaig to tw Uritod S Ochamnwni Surtay Pwraol and tmwiai) n flanrwRn County, Mnnaiota PARCri 4 ThatpanofthaWaWona toMiattwSoMaMOuanarottrwNoftwM Oumai. Sactwn 31. To* canfartm aw parm NorawM Ouanar. twnca NortL paraP <t wim sM EM tow. a Wsianca a ic« of 3C Ranga 23. of tw Waiartown Hewd wtt a bna 35 angwtto.ww parWM wti tw EM tow of and Wad roMrw w35toat«M«lal.mK ana towth of tw Sei. laMEMtow.aWau 36 l*at to tw pom of ba9> tact 70Hal. VwrwaSeumpi 135 toai twnca Em. ai right angtai. a d lhanca lVa«l, at raft angWt to aM EM ww. a Watanua fMtn sM C..Ji tow. to tha cantartow of sad road, twnca Soutwastaity. atong tm cart ^.to aWEMtow. twnca Norti. atong sad EM tow. to tw pom of bagavwig. accttwmg to tw UnWd Slatoa Oommrrwnt Simay twraof. and tduwad « Hannapn Qwwy. umwaou PROPOSED DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL *A* Thai port of tw seum 7 so aerm a tw EM Ouana a tw NortwM Ouartor of Sacnon 31. Towrwrap 118. Ranga 23. Mwawpai Counry. Mainasola. tut Ma nortwrty a tw canfartow a WWartocm Road AffO Tha pan a tw WtoM Haf a tw EM Hit a tha Marlwaat Ouartor a aad Sadwn 3t. Bagnrsng a tw NoftiwM cemar a tw a a Ouartor a sM Saclen 31. t 7 50 acraa a tw EM Oiartor a n aong tw aM tow a aaW WM Haf a tw CM Hit a tw NortwM Ouaia i Watava a 2B400 faat. twnca WM Ouwtar a t*o 5M*en 31. aMtoneaa u lew a Md Wta Haf a tw EM Haf a Ouanar twnca rwrti a f'lKJPOSf O OrSCRIPTION FOR PARCEL B d part a tw leuti 1061 46 IM a tw Wasi IM a tw EM Haf a tw Nor<*WM ■rtoraSacdonSl.Teanatiw 116. Ranga 23. Hanrapn County. MWwsola. twf M EM a tw WM 33 000 toa a sad MM Haf a tw Cm Hat a tw NortwM Ouatar NortwMany a tw canwrtow a Waartoan Rowl EXCEFIND twrafnan tad Outola a tw NonrwM Ouariar a sad Saclcn 3i. twiwa norti aww tw aM tow a SM MM Har a tw CM Hat a tw MemwM Ouartar a dMma a 264 00 laai. twnca awst paraw *m> trw soun uw a tw NorthaM Ouwisr a SM Sactwn 31. a Wstanca a 156 00 toat. ttwr^ Souti pwaM adh tw aM tow a sM MM Hal a tw Em Hat a aw Nartwat Ouartor to tw caMartow a tw Watortown Road, twnca SoMaasury along 1M canlartow to tw aM tow a sM MM Hat a tw EM Haf a tw Havmmv- Ouwiar. twnca north atong sad tow to tw pom a bagrirmg PROPOSED DCSCnipnON FOR PARCH c Tha part a tha EM Hat a tw soun 27 50 acras atw Mast Ha! a aw CM Haf a tw NortwM Ouanar a Sacian 31. Toarwhg ill. Ranga 23. Hannapai Couny. MewwMda. twt MS nervi a tw louti 1061 40 foal a tw Mast Hat a tw EM Haf a SM NorthaM Ouartar AND lr«a part a tw Mast Ouartar a tw Souti 15 a sMNortwut Duartar tw: Lasnafi aEMlUa tw soiiti 1061 46 toat a tw Mat! Haf a tw E AND Hat a vmJ tojrtwM Ouartar tha iw« ranrio!^ a t • lurt a SM NorthaM Ouartor 10 05 05 m K j ■ij 5 IEcn LlJ s <te i ill I i • o • 9