Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-20-1995 Planning Packet
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20, 1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present Chair Charles Schroeder, Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Candace Rowlette, Charles Nolan, Jr , and Janice Berg Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Sherr>' Frost represented Staff. Councilmembers Jabbour and Goetten were present. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p m SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/FUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING (#1) 7:00 P.M. #2000 CORTLEN G. CLOUTIER, 2480 CASCO POINT ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, CLASS I - PUBLIC HEARING 7:00-7:53 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and /Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant, Mr. Cloutier, was present Mabusth reported that the appli; Hr.on is for a division of legally combined lots 1, 3,4, artd outlot 1, which is a type I classification of subdivision. These lots were originally combined for tax purposes. The applicant is asking for a division of Lot I, which meets all requirements. The issue is access. The existing access will serve lot 1. The access currently serves the homestead parcel. The drive would be altered to only serve lot 1, and the homestead parcel (combined lots 3 and 4) will be served by existing drive at Frederick Street. When the land was subdivided, an outlot (20' wide) was created within the Tillson Villa Carman subdivision Lots 1 -4 could gain access from the road outlot and lot 5 from Frederick Street. Today, lot 2 achieves access from outlot and combined lots 1, 3, and 4 from direct accesses at Casco Point Road and Frederick Street. At this time, Mabusth commented that it was important to determine what are the future plans for the lots; mainly, if there would be a future division of lots 3 and 4. The new lots must meet requirements of current code and provide approved legal access. There is adequate area to subdivide lots I, 3, and 4. The required area for each lot will depend on whether the lot will achieve access via a private road or driveway outlot. Lot 1 has access from Casco Point Road from an existing approved curb cut. Lot 4 has an existing access from Frederick Street. The code states that only two lots can be served from a driveway uv.’tlot and that the back lot meet 150% of required area. The lines of existing sewer and water service to rei;:dence would need to be located and shown on survey. The location for the water connection for the original house is unknown The sewer may come from Casco Point Road. There may be a need for an easement depending on their locations A municipal sewer line intersects lot 4 at the northwest comer. The City would ask for an easement over the sewer line. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNASSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#1 - #2000 Cortlen Cloutier - Continued) Mr Cloutier said he had nothing to add to the report and had no plans at this time for lots 3 and 4 He reported that he purchased 4 lots in l%5 The property was platted with a roadway on outlot 1 providing egress and ingress Cloutier said he used (Hitlot 1 for access at one time, and then he put in a guest driveway and now uses access off of Frederick Street The applicant said that the outlot I roadway has existed for over 30 years The driveway he created has been used for less than 30 years along with the access on Frederick Street. The applicant reported he created the access so as not to inconvoiience the residents of lot 2, the Paurus family Mr. Cloutier said he called the County tax division in 1967 and asked for one tax statement He reported that he was not aware that he had legally combirod the lots, which was done. Cloutier would like to divide lot 1 to build a house for his son. The lot dhi»on can be dorre through metes and bounds division through the City The lot meet the area and width requirements With the lot division, the driveway through lot 1 would be removed, as it was never legally installed The Commission members discussed what would happen with lots 3 and 4 if lot 1 were to be divided now. Rowlette said that lot 3 would become a back lot Rowlette questioned whether access would be through a new road or an outlot for the back lots. Lindquitt thought that since it had been subdivided in the past that it would have to be allowed to be so again Rowlette suggested having the city attorney peruse the situation to eliminate a problem with subdivision in the future Wilbur Anderson of 3555 Frederick Street asked how the lots were declared for sewer and water hook-up. Mabusth responded that the property has been assessed for 2 water units but with this sewer project, by lineal footage along the roads were assessed. John Erickson, 1620 Shady wood Road, who owned two lots on Shadywood, which his parents had since 1941, said that people were asked at that time if they wanted one or two tax statements if they had two lots He reported that he has one statement but owns two lots with two sewer stubs. Mabusth agreed that their land use planning was not consistent when sewer and water stubs were given out to properties. Schroeder noted that 3 sewer hookups would be needed if the lots were subdivided. Mr. Cloutier said that the house located on lot 4 is not hooked up on Casco Pt but hooked up through Frederick Street When Casco sewer was installed, he had been asked where he would like the sewer stubbed in. There is a sewer stub to serve lot I at Casco Point Road. An easement runs through lot 1 for lot 3 for both ingress/egress and utilities. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#1 - #2000 - Cortlen Cloutier - Continued) If the lots have been combined, which Mabusth verifies that they have indeed been combined, then the Planning Commission would have to determine the size of the lots for subdivision and how access would be provided Rowlette questioned whether lot 3 should be treated as an already derignated lot or not Mr. Paurus asked about the boathouse located on the property He reported that it was old and unsafe and needs to either be repaired or removed Schr(>eder responded that this apyplication does not apply to the boathouse but did ask the applicant what his plans were for the future of the boathouse Mr Cloutier reported that he wished to rehabilitate the boathouse He had installed a 3-season porch on top of the boathouse and said he had thought he had been gi'.en verbal approval to do so by the building inspector at that time. Mabusth said that the permit on file was given for a single story boathouse only. Rowlette informed the applicant of the City’s desire to have no structures in the 0-75' zone If the boathouse is to be repaired, and the cost would be more than 50^/» of the value of the boathouse at the time of the 1975 code, the boathouse must be removed. No repairs can be done without a permit. Rowlette said she would like to have the city attorney’s opinion on whether there would be any rights grandfathered to the property if it had been legally combined Mabusth responded to the negative saying that the current code would apply to the property. Lindquist agreed that any further division of lots 3 and 4, once lot 1 was approved for subdivision, would have to follow the current codes. Nolan reiterated to the applicant that if he desires any future division of the lots, the commission needs to see the plan at this time Cloutier responded that he did not wish to be concerned with future division at this time, only the one lot as presented. Schroeder emphasized that the present plan for lot I could mean that lot 3 would not be able to be subdivided in the future because of the issue of access and would be subject to current standards The commission members suggested to the applicant that he come back before the commission with an amended application with plans for all the lots. Mabusth said, once again, that the subdivision could be done with a simple metes and bounds subdivision. Mabi *h put the applicant on notice that any future subdivision would need a new plat due the access issue The current code may not allow the division of lots 3 and 4 at a I date*. If the applicant's intentions are anything other than the two lot subdivision as sta ' the applicant, the intentions of the applicant needed to be known at this time. The applicant said he had no pi *> at this time but that his children said they would like to see a future division of lots 3 and *, therefore, requested tabling of the application. Mabusth said the property would 1 ave to be replatted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON M ARCH 20, 1995 (#1 - #2000 - Cortlen Cloutier - Continued) Schroder moved. Peterson seconded, to table application #2000 Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#2) #1950 GLENN UPTON, 3685 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:53-8:03 P.M. The Applicant, Mr Upton, was present The application originated in the summer of 1994 for an increase in hardcover in the 0-75’ setback requiring a variance for a deck The Planning Commission denied the application. The applicant asked to go back to the Planning Commission with an amended plan. The amended plan is for 192 s f of additional living space and 484 s f for an attached garage The amended proposal is for 52* lakeshore setback, where 75' is required. It does meet the minimum DNR required setback of 50'. A hardship list is included as well as a petition from the neighbors which support the second proposal. John Erickson asked where the property was located from him Erickson asked about the garage location, and how the proposal affects the deeded access and the public right-of- way. The original garage is being removed, and the new garage will be attached to the side of the house The applicant said that the land crossing the public access had been deeded to him by the county. Schroeder said that this issue does not affect the application Rowlette informed the applicant of the chy ordinance disallowing any boats larger than 20* to be stored outside on a property. Schroeder noted the 68 s f increase in hardcover in the 0-75' zone with the remainder of the increase in the 75-250' zone He also noted the attempt by the applicant to meet as many requirements as he could and the large number of hardships pertaining to the application. Peterson asked about the status of the survey and side setback. It was determined that the survey had been updated last year with the filing of the current application. Mabusth and the applicant confirmed that the side setback requirement was met with 11.3'. Nolan asked if the applicant was willing to remove the shed and other items located in that area, which the applicant said he would. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve applicant #2950 as amended with the condition that all hardcover removal be completed prior to construction to include shed and miscellaneous items. The access garage could be retained until the proposed attached garage is completed. Ayes 7, Nays 0 MINirreS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNnSSlON MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, (#3) #1979 RICHARD LITTLE, 1S90 SHADYT^OOD ROAD • VARUNCES • CONTINUATION OF PCBLIC HEARING - WRITTEN RENOTIFICATION 8:03- 8:09 P.M. The applicant, who was out of town, was represettted by his son-in-law. Mabusth said that the application was before the Planning Commission in November and required an updated survey of the shoreline The proposed reconstruction of the 14x26' deck would result in 40 s f of additional hardcover located in the 0-75' zone and the entire deck is located in front of the average lakeshore setback line The Planning Commission had approved the application in November awaiting updated survey showing that the deck was not in the 0-75' zone Mrs Little had given her approval over the phone for the reshaping of the deck to eliminate the deck portion in the 0-75' zone Their representative at this meeting asked that the deck remain as proposed sitting on the original footprint. The trees in front of the deck would remain. Nolan said it would be out of character to approve any structure in the 0-75' zone. He asked the representative if the applicant would consider remo> ing brick hardcover that extended beyond the dimensions of the deck above the patio to reduce hardcover to offset the reconstruction of the deck. 1 tie representative said thiv would be acceptable. Nolan moved. Smith seconded, to approve application #1979 for replacement of the 14x26' deck as previously existed with the removal of hardcover extendii^ beyond the deck dimensions in the patio area. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#4) #1999 DAVID AND VICKI VICKERMAN, 2475 DL'NWCX)DY AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:09-8:22 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Vickerman, were present. Mabusth reported that the application would involve the removal of a 16x24' boathouse and replaced with a 12x 15' deck and access stairs leading down steep bank to the lake. The problem with the stnicture is that it would be 10' above the lake and 9' from the shoreline The code allows for a 8x4' landing with access stairs. The applicant reported that due to the steepness of the lot, there is no where to do anything to enjoy the lake without being able to walk out onto a deck. This would be the only access to the lake and use of the lakeshore itself Mrs. Vickerman asked if a wood deck could be installed where the boathouse is now located. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1905 (#4 - #1999 - David and V'icki Vickerman - Continued) Mabusth responded that the only allowed structure would be the 4x8' landing as part of the access stair structure. Rowiette informed the applicant that the area where the boathouse is would need to be stabilized but could provide an area to sit and et^oy the lake but no deck would be allowed The need to eliminate hardcova* in the 0-75* zone was emphasized The applicant was informed that open-timbered decking is considered hardcover because the timber does not absorb water The deck as proposed would not allow any vegetation to grow underneath it and wxxild result in runoff into the lake. Added vegetation on properties to improve water runoff was discussed The applicant was informed of the need for a plan for the removal of the boathouse with stabilizing of the area possibly through retaitting walls If retaining walls are required, a conditional-use permit would also be required The Planning Commission would review the plans for approval which would be forwarded to the Council for final approval. It was reemphasized that the code only allows for a 4x8' landing on the access stairs. Schroeder moved, Nolan seconded, to table application #1999 until the April Planning Commission meeting. At that time, the applicam will present a plan for the boathouse removal, hill stabilization, and landing, amending the original application to a conditional use permit Ayes 7, Nays 0 (#5) #2001 POWDER PACKERS, INC,/RHONDA E. WILSON, 640 ORCHARD PARK ROAD • VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:22-8:36 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant, Ms Wilson, was present. The application is for a front/street setback variance where 100’ is required, for a 33x23* garage and 4x12' entry. The setback proposed is for 75* at the entry addition and 71.7 at tlK garage addition where the existing residence is located at 75.7 There is an existing overhang that travels the length of the residence The proposed mtry would extend 2* beyond llie overhang. When the house was originally built in 1959, the five-acre zone standards did not apply. The property is 4.79 acres in a 5-acre zone, which had been changed after the construction of this house. The addition will meet the required 10* separation setback from the tennis court. Smith asked why the garage was moved forward from the rest of the house. The applicant responded that this provided a thru corridor right into the house entry door. The driveway plans were shown to the commissioners. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#S - #2001 - PoM^der Packers, Inc /Rhonda Wilson - Continued) Peterson commented that the plans arc consbteirt with the neighborhood. He voiced concern with the location of a water pipe he saw that was located close to the sewer It was reported that the pvc pipe was buried and came up at this point and fed off the main well but adequate distance separated the well and septic Smith inquired of the deadline date for sewer connection. The applicant said that although the number of bedrooms increased from 3 to 4, this did not increase the square foou^. Applicam did note that the sewer would be updated during 1995 Mtd)usth reported seeing water pocketing near the culvert on the westside in the ditch area. The culvert will need io be checked to ensure it is working properly. Smith noted that the tennis court is non-conforming A variance would be required if any striictural changes would he needed Rowlette moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2001 for front street setback variance with the three conditions listed pertaining to the septic, the culvert, and the tennis court. Ayes 7, Nays 0 (#6) #2003 ART AND KATHY HENNINGSEN, 975 TONKAWA ROAD • VARUNCES - PUBLIC HEARING 0:30-0:54 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants, Mr. and Mrs Henningsen, were present. The application is for an average lakeshore setback variance. The screen porch and deck improvements are all located in front of the average lakeshore setback line as are portions of the house Because of the shape of the property, the hardcover improvement is concentrated in the 75-250'zone. Hardcover exists at 32.49%. 1052 s.f of new hardcover is to be added and 1184 s.f of hardcover is to be removed. 712 s.f. or 2.8% of proposed structural hardcover shall be traded writh the removals of 1184 s.f of nonstructural hardcover. The grade level patio has not been included as structural hardcover. The brick patio is being remo>^ as part of hardcover tradeoffs. The property is 2.3 acres in LR-IB zoning district, requiring one acre in area. The impact on the lake view for the neighbors was discussed. There has been no problem voiced Council member Jabbour, who is a neighbor, commented that he has no problem with the home location. Rowlette commented that the Gilbert family, neighbors of this property, hadn't voiced any concern, and had also received the same average lakeshore setback variance. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20. 1995 (#6 - #2003 - Art and Kathy Henntngsen - Continufd) There were no public comments Mabusth reported on the drainage system for the property. Water drains from the wetland to the SE under two culverts, into a pond, to an underground 100' culvert, located under the applicant’s driveway pavement, with an outlet at the grassed lakeshore yard draining along a line of pine trees eventually to lake. No erosion was noted. Mabusth was unaware of erosion problems of lakeshore bank area Once the plastic is removed around house, Mabusth and Nolan both said this might bring flooding problems to the lower level. The applicant said that the builder assessed the hardcover in relation to drainage. The builder plans to build up around the foundation with soil Water has pooled in the lower level entry The drain tile pumped water out but drained back into the house The grading meds to be looked at. Commission members were asked for their viewpoints Schroeder is concerned with making a distinction between structural and non>structural hardcover. Nolan commented favorably on the use of natural vegetation between the house and lake. Lindquist thought the plan was ambitious but had no problem with it. He earlier made note of the large amount of up-lront structure with the two patios and deck in comparison with the hardcover removals required Rowiette noted the long narrow lot and how that resulted in the hardcover pooling in one area Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve A|^lication #2003 with the understanding that the plastic under the rock and hardcover removal be completed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Detail grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed by City Engineer Ayes 7, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEWS (#7) #2002 WILLIAM SMITH, 2580 FOX STREET - SKETCH PLAN/SUBDIVISION Mabusth reported that this is a sketch plan for a subdivision of three lots. The French Lake Upper Basin has been redefined as wetland and is no classified as a protected lake. The property is no longer located within a shoreland area. The RR-IB zoning requires two acres of continuous dry land. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 19Q5 (#7 - #2002 - William Smith - Continued) This plan is for a division of a two-lot subdivision originally approved in 1985 There is adequate area to meet requirements of a back lot division w ith 7+ acres The applicant was advised in 1985 that future access considerations required access conforming to a 3- lot subdivision The City acquired no underlying access easement over the roadway in the adjacent RLS division The owner of the RLS said he would never approve any easement or curb cut. This resuhs in only two options, A and B, for the applicant, not three as proposed Mabusth reported that the existing driveway comes very close to the wetland. 26* setback is required A separate conditional use and variance application was filed with the original subdivision application that would allow encroachment of protected wetland for drive to north The bam on the property was placed in front of the principal structure also requiring a variance review The drainage comes from both the northeast and northwest into a large wetland and continues draining through a dniinageway along the driveway to French Lake Basin wetland Option A calls for the use of the existing driveway to serve all three The northern lot meets the back lot requirement but a 30' driveway outlot can only serve 2 lots per code. There is 2 12 acres to the west of the easement maintaining the required continuous 2 acres for the new building envelope Option B calls for a 60' wide private road with a cul-de-sac along the eastern border. Major portions will be located within a designated wetland area. Mabusth said that in 1985, the applicants chose to develop a shared access drive and did not attempt to acquire an access off the RLS drive. Rowlette noted that this application is similar to the problem faced with the Cloutier application previously discussed Row lette suggested a possible new curb cut off of Fox Street to service new lot Schroeder said this would require a new curb cut. Schroeder also said that during discussions with the neighbors, the property was always planned to have 3 lots Nolan asked about upgrading of the existing driveway to a road. Mabusth responded that the setback from a wetland prevented this option. Due to the narrowness of the available land for the driveway, it must remain a driveway but does need upgrading. A loop turnaround was noted to be in lot 2 for emergency vehicles. The Applicant, Bill Smith, would like to keep the driveway, making necessary improvements, and possibly upgrading it with a passing area if necessary. He preferred the aesthetically-pleasing look of the driveway to a cul-de-sac road. Smith said that one possible buyer asked about keeping the bam. Commissioners informed Smith that 3 acres are needed to allow the keeping of one horse. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#7 - #2002 WUliam Smith - Continued) In discussing the RLS road to the we^, the Applicant reported having spoken to the owners, and specihcaily, Keith Anderson, who pays for the maintenance Anderson reportedly said he sees no benefit to others using the private road and does not wish to blacktop it. Rowlette said if the applicant desires a third lot, this should be where the access comes from Another option discussed was a new driveway from Fox Street, either with a new curt) cut or the use of the existing c***^ cut with an immediate turn to the west. Mabusth said she would check with Gerhardson regarding a new curb cut; but at this time, she was not certain that this option would meet Council's approval During Commission discussion, Nolan said that the the current driveway would need uf^ading, even if maintained with two lots, as no maintenance has been done on it. Nolan also said that this proposal has never been done in the past and sees no reason to allow it at this time. M^usth responded that we have discussed what the code requires and have not examined the statement of hardships prepared by applicant seeking variances to code requirements. Rowlette said she was interested in using the other curb cut off of Fox Street, arul does not see the property as having three lots. Rowlette r«»)»d from ihe 1985 resolution where this issue was discussed. The resolution detemuitvd at that time that the subdivision could only be done if code could be met. Lindquist feh that a separate curb cut and separate driveway were the only alternatives. Mabusth was asked if City had ever approved a 3 lot division served by a driveway. Mabusth referred to the Stronghold subdivision in the 1980's that allowed for a variance and approved access via a driveway. Schroeder responded that an aesthetic argument is not a good reason for a variance and saw Fox Run as the best alternative. His second choice was use of the original driveway, and third best, another private road. Schroeder said the applicant needed to exhaust all avenues with obtaining the use of Fox Run as an access. If this is not obtainable, Nolan and Rowlette said it was their opinion that this was not a subdivision. Mabusth concurred that the use of the existing driveway, the new road off the existing road, or the new curb cut were not viable options unless the commission were willing to approve the necessary variances. The code cidls for a private road to serve three lots. . . 'S'*'*-.“.♦jv MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995(#7 - #2002 - William Smith - Continu«I)Schroeder asked that the city check with the attorney on the affect on the lot as unbuildable if no variance were granted Mabusth said that the ComjM’ehensive Plan allows for three 'ots on a driveway but the subdivision code requires a private road. The attorney said that the code has precedence over the Comprehensive Plan. Schroeder asked Mabusth about outlots Mabusth said that lot 2 has 3+ acres, and there would be no issue with the »ze of outlots. The Comntissioners were asked by the chair their final thoughts regarding the plan Lindquist asked if the en^pneer would approve a "y" within a curb cut Mabusth thought this would be a possibility. Lindquist said a new curb cut off Fox Street or access from Fox Run or not buildabie Berg agreed with this Peterson preferred access off Fox Run. He (fid not wish to see a new curb cut and thought a "y" would be better but not preferred. Schroder preferred Fox Run. He would like the attorney to look at the utuation and determine why it ended up as it now is Rowlette did not want to set a precedent with three lots on a driveway. She was unsure of her feelings on the "y". Nolan agreed with this Smith preferred Fox Run, then a new curb cub, and then the "y". (#8) #2004 ROBERT MELAMED, 920 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH - SKETCH PLAN/SUBDIVISION Robert Melamed and Ron Lauer were present. Mabusth reviewed the property and the issues involved. This is a 15 acre subdivision in a heavily wooded area, owned by the Carpenter family, with designated wetlands and types 1 and II not designated on City's wetland maps. The applicant has a purchase i^eement with the Carpenter trust. The property is surrounded by Old Crystal Bay Road on the west and driveway to the south and east. The drainaf* ^ows from th'^ north to the designated wetlaiiid, then east via a culvert under drive and eventually i j French Lake lower basin. The applicant has asked the conunission to look at the findings and hardships. The code would require an internal road as well as a cul-de-sac This plan results in the removal of 660 trees and the filling of2400 s.f of wetland type 1 and 2, and m^or portions of designated wetland for access to the east lot Peterson asked if access from the driveway to the north was a possibility. The applicant said it was not as it would require turning the driveway into a road. This would also require depletion of a forest area. Another option would be to come in off of Old Crystal Bay Road. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995(#8 - #2004 - Robert Melamed - Continued)The applicant reported the ability to get adequate septic area for 5 tc6 lots Septic sites were in non*forested areas The covenant in future deeds would restrict removal of trees. It is the applicant's deare to create a development that does not look like one, and one which cannot be seen from Old Crystal Bay Road The applicant wished to create the least amount of impact on the forestation areas which resulted in 4 lots. The applicant said that this would be the minimum that is economically "doable" as there was no negotiation with the purchase price. Two safe access points can be located at the western boundary of the prop«ty. The most northern will provide a shared access to lots 1 and 2. If the access to lot .3 is changed to a shared driveway with lot 4, it wouid require a 300' access easement for lot 4 ! he shared drivev/ay would have an impact on the buildable lot or it could be replatted. TIm ivoids the use of the City road. Smith suggested access to lot #1 from the property to the north. Then she sugge^ed dropping down between lots 2 and 3 and putting in a driveway with a "y" serving 2 and 3, south of the wetland. Smith suggested no road from Old Crystal Bay Road but the use of the City drive to access 4. This would avoid the wetland areas. The applicant responded that the City would probably not allow this, and it also does not solve the private road issue. The applicant prefers plan A. If this is acceptable, then asks what to do with the City driveway. Applicant said he is prepared to upgrade it but would like to consider the impact on the park and neighboiltoods if upgraded to a City road He also reported having met with Zetterstrom from the County, who asked that fencing be removed, and would grant curb cuts. Nolan suggested leaving lots 1 and 2 as shown but accessing 3 where 4 is shown as the road has to be upgraded anyways. Lot 4 could be accessed at the eastside of City drive. This would take out few trees and no wetlands would need to be crossed. Flint reported that this would be too close to the French Creek Preserve. He said the Park Commission hts the right to ask for 8% for Park Dedication and has determined that the land on the east end, about 1.2 acres, approximately 600' long, with a depth of 8T, wouid be a good option. A house plan would have to be changed but this land is virtually forested. It could be left as a natural corridor and is consistent with the results of the survey. It would act as a delinear park. It now has a deer run which would be left open for that use. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#8 - #2004 - Robert Melamed - Continued) Flint also spoke of where the bike/hike trail will possibly come in along this property The backbone of the trail is Old Crystal Bay Road which then extends to the new access apoint to Maxwell Bay Flint said one way for the trail would come Hown Old Crystal Bay Road but would be difficult to build. Another way would be to come over Fox Street on Rainy Road, which is north of this area in question, and come down east of the subject property. The trail is 8' wide and requires a minimum of a 14* easemem. Lindquist has suggested the trail running east of the MWCC lit) station through the City property but Flint said this would impact the preserve area. Council Member Jabbour asked for discussion on the City/Park driveway becoming a road. Flint did not desire for this to occur Jabbour said it would be good to pool the Council's opinion on the use of the City driveway. Jabbour asked the applicant what kind of arrangement he now has with the City to get to his bouse, which is located near the subject property Melamed said he maintains the driveway along with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Whoever gets there first, plows it. He has an easement to use this driveway. Jabbour said that preserving the area is the main issue Berg questioned whether tiiere is a 4th buildable lot. The applicant summarized his position. He said he personally will be impacted as a neighbor. Two curb cuts will minimize effect on park and wetlands. A third would be proposed located on the south side. The applicant plans on redredging the pond at the southeast comer to the shape it originally was before the City filled it. He will make it a natural wildlife pond. Smith would like the applicant to look at her concept. Smith would like to see lot 4 accessed from the City drive. The Commissioners gave their opinions of the project. Nolan is in concurrence with the use of the City drive but would like to have a shared access at the City drive rather than a curb cut off Old Crystal Bay Road for safety reasons He would propose both lots 3 and 4 access at 4 or take 4 around to the east. Rowlette agreed with Nolan. Lindquist also agreed with Nolan, combining the access for 3 and 4. Lindquist also was in agreement with Flint and the dedication of the 8% Peterson felt that the basic project was good. Schroeder agreed with Nolan's ideas on upgrading the City road. Schroeder commented to Flint if the main trail was on Old Crystal Bay Road and found less than 87' on the east, to maintain a portion for the west side. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 m) #IS00 MICHAEL fLANK, 4115 WATERTOWN ROAD - REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL DIRECTION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION Neither the applicant nor representive were present Rowlette moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #1800 until the applicant could be present. Ayes 7, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#10) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 13,1995 - CHARLES NOLAN Nolan reported that the Crystal Creek Subdivision application and Carlson application were approved under the consent agenda at the Council meeting The Council supported the Jundt application requiring removal of the 25’ of paved road, even thwgh aesthetically not pleasing but noting that the law is the law The Council also would like to sec the Jundt’s present a comprehensive plan Nolan said Applicant Perl did not come to the meeting. Council moved to table his application and would act on it at their next meeting with or without the presence of the applicant. The Lebedoff application was approved. Nolan said the DNR changed its viewpoint, giving approval to the 20’ setback The Wicklund application was approved as recommended (#11) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Schroeder reported on the change in chair for meetings. Chairmanship will be rotated with Peterson being chair during April, and Rowlette to co-chair. The purpose of rotation is to allow all members an opportunity to become more involved in the meetings. Schroeder suggested that Park Commission Chair Richard Flint attend the tour at the Freshwater Institute as it would be a good resource for the Park Commission. Schroder moved, Nolan seconded, to change the meeting time of the Planning Commission to 6:30 p.m. Ayes 7, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (^11- Other Issues for Discussion - Continued) Rowlette nude several comments on the meeting with the Park Commission. She said it was an important discovery that the Planning Commission could take land instead of money for park dedication Rowlette felt this would be a great tool in future applications The Park Commissioners had noted that they did not get copies of Planning Commission activities until after the>’ had occurred Mabusth said that preliminary subdivision application forms were now being sent to the members of the Park Commission. Rowlette suggested that the Park Commissioners send a representative to the Planning Commission meetings Mabusth said that Flint would like to see sketch plan reviews Schroeder commented that the Park Commission is a powerful planning tool for the Planning Commission He also noted the need to take into account the trail system in future planning It was reported that Park Dedication can take %% of any undeveloped land where a subdivision is going to be dc:ie Rowlette said the Park Commission is also going to have available maps of large parcels of land to identify that land in which they are interested for future park dev elopment Schroeder commented on the need for the Park Commis»on to come up with a plan for future park land for the City. There is financial incentive for people to give large parcels/easement s to relieve themselves of tlu tax burden ADDITIONAL ITEIVIS (f#12) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 22, 1995 MEETING Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of February 22, 1995. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#13) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE APRIL 10, 1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Dale Lindquist will attend the Council Meeting of 4/10/95. ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved, Peterson seconded, to adjourn at 11:10 p.nt >'2 Ir PLANNING COCVnSSION MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1995, 7:00 P.M. 278C KELLEY PARK^'AY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATTVY: - Charles Kelley. ATTENDANCE Applicants presenting proposals before the Commission are asked to move to the table at the front of the Chambers when their application is announced bv the Chairman. SCHEDLXED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 1. 7;00p.m. (fZOOO Cortlen G. Cloutier - 2480 Casco Point Road Subdivision, Class I - Public Hearing - Preiimicar> ACTION ITEMS - Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled publi hearinss. #1950 Glenn Upten. 3685 North Shore Drive - Variances - Continuation of Public Hear. Wrinen Renotification #1979 Richard Little, 1890 Shadywood Road - Variances - Continuation of Public Hear: Written Renotification 4.#1999 David and Vicki Vickerman, 2475 Dunwoody Avenue - Variances - Public Hearing 5.#2001 Powder Packers, Inc./Rhonda E. Wilson. 640 Orchard Park Road - Variance Public Hearing 6.#2003 ^\rt and Kathy Henningsen, 975 Tonkawa Road - Variances - Public Hearing Sketch Plan Ri-views 7. #2002 William Smith. 2580 Fox Street - Sketch Plan/Subdivision 8. #2004 Robert Melamed, 920 Old Crysul Bay Road South - Sketch Plan/Subdivision 9.#1800 Michael Plank. 4115 Watertown Road - Request for Conceptual Direction froir Hanning Commission Planning Comuiission Comments 10. Report Ly Planning Commission Representative attending Council Meeting of March 13 1995 (Qjiarlcs Nolan). 11. Other iit^ues for discussion. Additional Iteij^ 12. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the Febniary 22, 1995 meeting. 13. Planning Commission to select a representative to aoeod the April 10, 1995 meeting of the Cour|Cil. Adjournment .1 w. ■ . i PLANNING COMMISSION )COONCXL PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE ///AT^C* f-j i /99 ^ PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (plsass print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1. 2. 3. / (t Ac/ ,o Vi Pa f C)ht hn t \> ' ^ Pfrk4. .i. u/vti. y.<; A VM • 6. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. I‘''^"7 . ,?L 'C ( 00 2^ . li. . . r ■.m.e.i.jwir'.f ■■• _■ _. kI ?! !► Ill ? P a ? P^ O t? ■r I 1 K5 M 3 U a<t. S 7 1'^ p O* S M O I II ssaS -?•“ "I n Q-a f 9Q fc; 2 IM O 5 2 2 i § ,Tf rwU rr o p P ^I R ^ I/O ^ £> pS I I 1^ II sS R o LM o . tr o I sisij ® a V. * V I 3 I jO gs n•:> c ?*< S’ 2 1 f ^ & i>1 s■8 S- - If I i I § I “* R‘ a a- oI o •n0 in 1 (/) S’Rp- •T3I incs oa 2 8 " H ^ " §■ X ! If 5 VA 5* I S ! ?cr W X §.a I I I o 0a S’a. 2»S- 731 X Ui ^a"I O £• <0 TT1V Vi oJ E»i *■< > i?? i? ?p s. S’ n*9 a. a .*' ri —p 09 |S 1 so IIP I S § I I I oo 0 1 R S 8 f o 0 1 g o 3 52 X8 >3?o li En %2 &on I a XI 0 5 2saa K12 8. ■?2 Pi Q3 K Cl . n ?| IS X • Vi S I i*o. S’I o Sr- n ci(/) sr n 1 55 S •a. 5!n ^1$ pi ■ II — W *> 0 ^ II If s. & 0" •» B n ^1tlIS B tcr S. ^ o 1 Ia 5 ii §5; O no5 P >H ST ? 5 wii -a2 o r Hb2;S| opS 515 Piiir® 9 ?: 2 d 3‘nis I. TO:Chair Schroedcr and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administralor DATE:March 16, 1995 SUBJECT: #2000 Conlen Cloutier, 2480 Casco Point Road - Subdivision, Class I - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC Pertinent Ordinances Section 11.03, Definition 66 A-2 - Division of properties previously combined for tax purposes Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. Lot 1, total area = 34.215 s.f. 75-250 ’ setback area = 4,375 s.f. No hardcover recorded 1 250-500 ’ setback area = 29,840 s.f. Existing = 2,227 s.f. or 7.4% Proposed = 4,165 s.f. or 13.9% (allowed 30%) Lots 3 and 4, total area = 54,182 s.f. 0-75 ’ setback area = 14,238 s.f. Allowed = 0 Existing = 1,122 s.f. or 7,8% 75-250 ’ setback area = 31,685 s.f. Existing = 3,547 s.f. or 11.1% (allowed 25%) 250-5(X)* setback area = 8,259 s.f. Existing = 2,019 s.f. or 24% (allowed 30%) Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B) - Lot standards for the LR-IC Zoning District 1.Lot 1 A. Area Required Existing = 21,780 s.f. = 34,215 s.f. Ar • Zoning Memo #2000 March 16, 1995 Page 2 B. Lot width Required = 100’ Existing = 200’ + C. Setbacks Proposed residence meets all required setbacks, 30’ front and rear, 10’ side Lots 3 and 4 A. Area Required 21,780 s.f. Existing = 54,182 s.f. B Lot width Required = 100’ Access at Casco Point Road measured at the 30’ street setback is approximately 60’ Frederick Street - Total lineal footage along Frederick Street is a 137’. Lot width measured at the 30’ setback from the 104’ street line is a 100’ + . The property can also achieve access via a 20’ outlet located at Casco Point Road. It should be noted for the record that Lot 3 no longer meets the required lot area of the zoning district at 19,338 s.f. nor does Lot 4 meet the required lot width of 100’ measured in a straight line at the shoreline per 10.02, Definition 43 B. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owner’s List D - Gaffron Letter 1/19/95 El-2 - Sewer/Water As Builts F - Original Plat of Tillson’s Villa Carman Addition Filed 12/62 G - Council Minutes 10/9/61 H - Planning Commission Minutes 10/26/61 I - Council Minutes 11/13/61 J - Topographic Map of Property K - Survey Zoning Memo #2000 March 16, 1995 Page 3 Description of Request Applicant proposes the division of Lot 1 from legally combined Lots 3, 4 and CXitlot 1 for the purpose of allowing the lot to be developed as a single residential unit. As noted above, the lot meets the area and width standards and the proposed house meets the required setback standards of the LR-IC District. The total property was assessed two water units. There will be a sewer connection charge for the new residence. The rate per the 1995 fee schedule is at $1,284.50 (plus SAC charge of $850). Applicant proposes the use of an existing drive at Casco Point Road that currently serv'es the principal structure on combined Lots 3 and 4. The unprovement plan shows southerly portions of that drive being removed so as to no longer serve the existing residence. The residence will continue to achiev'e its principal access off of Frederick Street. Note encroachment of that driveway within Lot 1. Applicant has the option to either relocate drive within homestead parcel or obtain an access easement over Lot 1 which will have no impact on the area of Lot 1 at 34,215 s.f. Background on Tillson’s Villa Carman Addition Review Exhibits F, G, H and I, there is little information as to the intent of the subdivision which was reviewed by the City in 1961 and filled by the applicant in December 1962. Lot 2 of Tillson ’s Villa Carman (2500 Casco Point Road) achieves access via the 20’ outlot and Lot 5 (3585 Frederick Street) achieves direct access off of Frederick Street. Lot 2 has an access easement over a portion of the outlot used to service their residence. The driveway within the outlot does not extend to the principal residence. The principal residence is served by both the drives at Frederick and the one that intersects Lot 1. SewerAVater Service The City has no confirmation as to where the existing residence on combined Lots 3 and 4 is connected to both water and sewer. Review Exhibits El and E2. We are certain that the sewer connection comes from Casco Point Road and possibly water from Frederick Street. Note the encroachment of a municipal sewer line through the northeast comer of Lot 4. If the existing residence is connected to sewer at Casco Point Road, a utility easement would have to be granted in favor of applicant ’s property over Lot 1. Applicant does have the option to reconnect to the sewer line that intersects his property and to allow the residence on Lot 1 to connect to either of the two stubs at Casco Point Road. A water stub is available for the new residence at Casco Point Road. Applicant must confirm the location of the hookups of both services to the existing residence. In fact, this information should have been provided on survey. Major concern for this current review is the issue of access. Review Exhibit J, based on the topographic information the access from Casco Point would provide little impact to existing development. Topographies are steeper along the south and east sides and there appears to be i J Zoning Memo #2' March 16, 1995 Page 4 a low wet area at the west side. Driveway curl) cut could be created but would involve major land alterations and tree removal which now provide natural screening for surrounding properties. The 20 ’ outlet would not meet the required width of 30 ’ for private driveway outlot for a backloi configuration subdivision. In reviewing the minutes of the Planning Commission and Council in 1961, there is little direction. We are unable to determine the true intent of the driveway outlot - - how many lots were to be served.^ We must deal with the current pattern of development and the directives of the current code. Applicant should advise if he proposes to divide combined Parcels 3 and 4 some time in the future. If this is the case, then we must address the need for a conforming road outlot now with this subdivision. Based on current code standards, the applicant should be advised that two riparian lots would not be approved but it may be possible with a replat to create a non riparian lot. If it is not the intent of the applicant to subdivide the remaining larger parcel, then the current layout with individual accesses (accesses that already exist) serving the three residential sites may be acceptable to the City. Planning Commission should be prepared to make a recommendation on the issue of access. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. 3. If the applicant advises that he proposes to divide combined Lots 3 and 4 in the future, will you require platting of a private road with this subdivision? If there is no intention of applicant to further subdivide combine Lots 3 and 4, will you allow access to Lot 1 via an existing curb cut at Casco Point Road or will you require access via the 20 ’ driveway outlot. Should special consideration be given for lots previously approved by City in an earlier subdivision review where lots meet current minimum lot standards? 4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Options of Action To either approve or deny the current proposal; or Table providing applicant additional tLne to address the need for an internal road providing access to Lots 1,2, and combined Lots 3 and 4 and eventually a fourth lot in the future. mm tSMii 0 RTiTiE ^rsnr^iTtmTwria HIM ij r*mws] P.Ttk«Mi rtvtii liTrTTtdiKMSa rtinn til irtf I [tiau rtip.mt] im> tjij • 1 vTAl • iron RITBCC MINI>njM MATERIAL REQUIRED EUR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to “application fees’ listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Surv’ey. ^ 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). . ^ ... 5. As an addendum to this application, please anach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official ’s Signature _________________________________—--------------------------------------------------------------- MINIMUM MATERIAL REQLTRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION Qf fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Cenificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opmion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official’s Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _—- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -—-— I. application fees (Zoning Administrator to check [XI those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) S200.(X) _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement S300.00 Subdivision Application (Class I & II) S300.(X) Preliminary Subdivision Application S325.00 + S25.00Aot (Class III & all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) S175.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only S75.00 Subdivision w/easemenis and covenants min. $2(X).(X) _____ Park Fees (to be oetermined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class 1 and II Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) -------- Renewal of Class III. Preliminary Subdivision Application SI50.00 (No change from origi^ application) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application 5100.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: Proposed Private Roads $6(X).00 + $.50/lineal ft.j lin. ft. x .50 $-------- Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 “ ^ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 -I- $25/stub ” Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 -i- $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (i^iplicable to rural subdivision applicauons) $50.00/new lot proposed for on-site x_____new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Mlsc. Fees Variance $200.00 Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $75.00 PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit Tie applicim hereby agree! to proviiejmnfoniiaHotl required or requeated by ihe Zoning AdminiMtalor, Ci^ ^ ™wmey. Hanning CoLngJ^^S^ nste!sa>yJiM«ee^ applicalion and further agree! 10 pay aU additional fee! established by »rHina^i»/S- — f Applicant ’s Sigpaiure Owner’s Signam re — ^y -------1-------y Applicant must have all submittals intb-f^City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeji^. meetings are held on the third Mondav of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetmgs ot tne ru j Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to anend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an auinoi— agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. -15,3W N99*Vf' D_»tO»J!»i I 6H0R€iINE : ^ a;(II) ^ 140 X \ Mb 2 '^0 ^ ^ (22) i ^ a'*?.a.i.a ^ 140 ^ n 1 MOV ^ dW ft (V *’ « ' ^ M) ^ 3 id • (20) aj r ' <0 A s (*5) ^ S?\ '9 • S» MO " r a)40 s '* .a140 ^N M6) ^ ^ 19)< " 5 MO "w I liO 50« = ';ri 20-117-2 3 -»2 'C ?93MO< X'o^o (U‘5/<?^i5 «irv. process ^fUi DATE 02/li/fSSATCM 502P«00 AOOtOMCR mmTAXPAYCIIHAHE/ADOt PROP AOOR Olt€R KAME TAXPAYER NAIC/AOOR PROP AOOR OMNER NAHi TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER HAHE/AODR PROP AOOR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR I • ! * • ’ • . i » « r'. «■ • • t ' i r . •# » • % f t NCNNEPIN COUNTY MOPERTY INrORMATION SYSTCN PROPERTY OtCRS LISTM 20-117-2S 21 0010 02S00 CASCO POINT RO NORHAN N PAURUS ETAL NORMAN N • IRJA F PAURUS 2500 CASCO POINT RO NAVZATA MN 553Y1 50 20-117-25 21 0014 02550 CASCO POINT RO T CNALUPSKV A 0 Y CNALUPSKV T CNALUPSKV A 0 Y CNALUPSKV 2550 CASCO POINT RO ORONO m 55594 50 20-117-25 21 0017 02520 CASCO POINT RO THOHAS N FRAHN ETAL TNONAS H FRAHN 2520 CASCO POINT ROAO NAVZATA HN 55391 50 20-117-25 21 0028 05405 SHORELINE OR N N BELL TELEPHONE CO US NEST INC TAX OEPT ATTN KLAUS COX 4500 S SYRACUSE NAY STE 700 ENGELNOOO CO 00111 TOTAL BATCH 502 Q0Q30 t " ♦ ^ I I . ' It"--- 4.^ 50 20-117-23 21 001200050 AOOiSSS UNASSieCONARIE A SVAN6NARIE A SVAN64140 IITN AVI S MPLS IM 55407 50 20-117-25 21 0015 02520 CASCO POINT RO MARIE A SVAN6 MARIE A SVANB 4140 IITN AVt S MPLS MN 55407 50 20-117-23 21 0022 00050 ADDRESS UNASSICNED VIL OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY H4 55559 50 20-117-25 21 0029 05407 SHORELINE OR F J HAGNER AML MAGNER TRST FRANK J HAGNER 1522 ROMONA LA BOULDER CITY NV 09005 20-117-23-21-0036/0037 pending Cortlen G Cloutier Jr Cortlen G Cloutier Jr 2480 Casco Point Rd Wayzata MH 55391 REPORT NO. PAGE PI45540150 20-117-25 21 0015 00050 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO MILDREO E NERHANSON MILDRED E HERMANSON 4120 LOREN DRIVE MPLS tW 55417 50 20-117-25 21 0014 02510 CASCO POINT Ml HUGH R MORRIS ETAL HUGH R MORRIS 2510 CASCO PT RO NAVZATA MN 55591 50 20-117-25 21 0025 05745 SHORELINE OR NN ENG LUTN SYNOO GOOO SHEPHERD LUTN CNURCN 5745 SHORELINE DRIVE NAVZATA MN 55591 50 20-117-25 21 0055 03701 SHORELINE DR CASCO RUN LTD PTNRSHP CASCO RUN LTD PTNRSHP C/O LISAOETH C CREAR BOX 124 MIMCTONKA BEACH IM 55541 It ^ ■ vrH:0< i f :-J|f fUi MTi oa/i4/9§MTCH S02mm Mm mmn mmTAXFAYfH mm/Mm pmm Mm QNHEM NAME TAXPAYCII NAHE/AOm PKOP ADOR ONNill KAfIC TAXPAYCII NAHE/ADM ^ 0 ' •* • • PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHC/ADDR ' ‘V PROP AOOR OmCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 4 . • * • s / •« M 20-117-2S 12 0009 OOOSa ADORED UNASSXGNEO OAVIO A RUTLER DAVID A BUTLER 447S NIGNKAY 12 CNAStU MN 55318 SB 20-117-25 12 0015 02^5 CARHAN ST DIANE H FISCHER DIANE FISCHER 2AA5 CARMEN ST HAYZATA HN 55591 58 20-117-25 12 0018 02889 CARMAN ST BANK OF AMERICA TRUSTEE THOMAS A LIND 2870 CARHAN ST NAYZATA Ifl 55591 58 20-117-25 12 0019 05580 FREDERICK ST L Y NEKTON ET AL TRUSTEES BRUCE 0 NEWTON 5580 FREDERICK ST NAYZATA m 55591 58 20-117-25 12 0022 02828 CASCO POINT RD 8 P J SKORO STEPHEN J I JEAN K SKORO 2828 CASCO PT RO NAYZATA HN 55591 58 20-117-25 12 0050 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HARD E EDWARDS ET AL RICHARD A EDWARDS 2880 CARMAN ST HAYZATA MN 55591 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OmERS LIST58 20-117-25 12 001000058 ADDRESS UNASSXGNEO DAVID A BUTLER DAVID A BUTLER 8875 NIGHNAY 12 CHASKA MN 55518 58 20-117-25 12 0018 02887 CARMAN ST T A ANDERSON A S L ANDERSuN TERRY A i SHARI L ANDERSON 2887 CARHAN ST ORONO HN 55591 58 20-117-25 12 0017 05555 FREDERICK ST N F A P H ANDERSEN WILBUR F ANDERSEN 5555 FREDERICK ST HAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-117-25 12 0020 02878 CASCO POINT RO LYLE A BUERKLE ETAL LYLE A BUERKLE 2878 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-1(7-25 12 0025 02808 CASCO POINT RD T D MICHAUD ACL MICHAUD THOMAS D MICHAUD • CARRIE L MICHAUD 2808 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA m 55591 • 4 58 20-117-25 12 0059 02850 CARMAN ST R C KUNCIO A S E RALEIGH R C KUNCIO A S E RALEIGH 2850 CARMAN ST NAYZATA MN 555^1 REPORT NO. PAGE58 20-117-25 12 001202851 CARMAN ST JALMAR E AUNE A NlFf JALMAR E A GLADYS V AUNE 2851 CARMAN ST HAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-117-25 If 0015 02855 CARMAN ST J E SNELL ACE SNELL JOHN E A CLARA E SNELL 801 WOOSTER ST LOOl OH 88258 58 20-117-25 12 0018 05585 FREDERICK ST JOHN S MCLEOD JOHN S MCLEOD 5585 FREDERICK ST NAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-117-25 12 0021 02858 CASCO POINT RO J C ROBERTS A J E ROBERTS JOHN C A JANET E ROBERTS 2858 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-117-25 12 0025 05585 FREDERICK ST J 0 PUGH A J A JOHNSON J D PUGH A J A JOHNSON 5585 FREDERICK ST NAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-117-25 12 0080 02870 CARHAN ST T A A D K LIND THOMAS A LINO 2870 CARMAN ST NAYZATA MN 55591 PI85S8818 ft ^ * ♦ * V.: % • I '4 ’•i . ft » 't > S f I I it ^ k 4 • • ' I ..*%C‘ft i «f.*i > • ■ ■* • t }• I 'O. * * ^' v: ■■ r..- ’ ■ vi-vV' . • .V A AAV' ■v:. • 4 * • V 4 y . p .-’Ji.*o . »!‘f ; fVi’ • » v; i |V•\ I • ■ ..rmJ M-.i , • **» • r r ’• j-i* i'4 • f 1 \* i RUN OATl 02/1i/fS lATCIi M2 NfNNEPm COUNTY MORCRTV INFOnmiXON SYSTfN WORgtTY CM€RS LIST Of MOT NO. 0X4SSM1 OACi 10 ^ * I ^ . At * 't. •■ '• X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORnATlON AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXmON, TO THE DEST OF HY KNONLEOCE AND RELIEF. ^ ^ Z-n>?5 ;y UwPATE ■ # , ^ JT • t4 » • t if•‘7. . V'f.C’ ' . • » r v| • !. < • • ? ^• • 'rs ■■ ' i ■ •. •«' • <)» tv i-\yn ■ . * - t 1;-MfilX '-■fH .v: i>tO vl;':' * • O ;v {•vl ’ !■ "'♦f ' •• iv;!- '••} f O. , * I I 't ■ *• • N I t <*{ ; L: • I /O 0'\ \\'’iv tei^i ^‘J•V GITYofOROXO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kefiey Parkway Ofono. MN 55355 Mailiof Address: P 0. Box 55 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 CC65 Januar/ 19, 1995 X - d* .fM'- r r% ■J Brandi Anderson Homes. Inc. 1602 East Cliff Road Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 ATTN: Dave Anderson Re: Proposed Residence. Lot 1, Block I, Tillson’s Villa Carman Dear Mr. Anderson: Your application for a permit to constnict a new single family residence on the above described propertv ’ was received in our office January 18th. The building permit for subject property caimot be issued until Lot 1 has been legally separated from Lots 3, 4 and Outlet 1 via Class I Subdivision review process per the Orono Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Lots 1, 3, 4 and Outloi 1 currently exist as a single tax parcel, having been combined for tax purposes some time prior to 1974. The Orono Subdivision Code. Chapter 11, defines "the division of property previously combined for tax purposes" as a Class I Subdivision, exempt from platting but permitted to be subdivided by metes and bounds description per the stant^rd subdivision procedure, which includes review by the Planning Commission at a public hearing, and subsequent action by the City Council. An anomey representing Mr. Cloutier was advised of this requirement some time ago by Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth. Apparently Mr. Cloutier has since filed a deed with the County transferring ownership of Lot 1, and the County has duly assigned a separate PID n^ber pending completion of their review process. Part of the County’s process is confirmation of City approval of the division. The City cannot and will not grant approval for the completion of that division until said property has been formally subdivided by the owner, Mr. Cloutier. Enclosed is a subdivision application for your use. Technically, the application should be made by Mr. Cloutier. In addition to the required submittals noted, the survey provided must show Lots 1,3,4 and Outlot 1, and must show all existing improvements and hardcover on the entire property, as well as indicating the proposed subdivision. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Brandi Anderson Homes. Inc. January 19, 1995 Page 2 ~ >gs. S3 would be Mondayt March l^th. 1C Zonmg Distnc: mere my ^ required to be onto Outlet 1. Mr. Cloutier Road can be allowed or wheth /t ots 3 and 4 and Outlet 1) also meets minimumwiU have to show that his remaining parcel (Lots j ana ^ ana zoning requirements, and survey. <■ f.hr»v^ nlease feel free to contact me or Zoning If you have questions on any of the above, please icci irec Administrator Jeanne Mabusth at 473-7357. Sincerely, Michael P. 0a^n Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/ch Enc. Subdivision Application cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, BuUding & Zoning Administrator ’ I *' •v%- i. . \ ‘ • 4 • ♦ .{ 'A I' --------------------------------------------------- iW'I!if i '-\|)%| jiUliO' I i m m.mm ISIS % i-'i^ t ^*n.rT*i r §it ir.[- \iwp!i| lJliu3E£;ti-:£;r;-.i r5fTr*-j^.:-<;v. -',tl *’» *m IpJ-/f f t^N4:?.5^ '-v- ^h:" < Minutes of meeting held on Oct.9,1961,were read and approved.Sr » *«■ Mrs.Emil Peterson,Secy.of the Casco Point Community League,was present invitir Council members to attend a meeting of their League at tne Elizaoeth Gardner School on November I7th,I96I,at 8:00 P.I.:. Ceo.Oscha of Fox Inc.^’avarre,’^ss present requesting pennlssion to move a house 20x22 ft.to a low lot on tne grounds of the former Ferodowell nursery,tne site to b« filled in for a split level nome.Tne nouse and site will be viewed by Bagley and Hanson for furtner report at our next meeting. -Ted Wolf requested approval of his plans for building permits on Lots 5,6,7,8, and 9 Block 6,Berculst-":'iCi:land Park Addn.~agley reported favoraoly recommencg issuance of two permits wnicn was approved..Ir.Wolf also requested anproval of ^permlt9^or Lots 5,6,7,£,S and 10,in Block 3,in same Addn.(Hererred to ian.Com. IT. Hearing on petition of Geo.Heatncock and I'aud Johnson,for vacation of Portland Place adjacent to Lots I and 2,Block I,Saga Kill Revised Addn.was neld with nc one objecting and on motion of Bagley,seconded by Scnmltt,petition was approve Geo.Tillson and nls attorney Wm.Fox,presented plans for division of the Ferod- I will property in Casco Point.Referred to the Piang.Gom.for their recomendatlor ^■Wesley Wegen and Henry Meyer were preeen* in reference to the possible purehas *of Lot I3,Snadywood Addn.They werecreferred to our attorney now defending suit ■"with reference thereto. John Hurley and a committee,representing the Shadywood Improvement Assn.were present with petitions for extension of the Mound water system to the Shady- wood Point area.I.ney were advised that a puoljc nearing would be necessary and subject should first be approved by tiie Village Council of I'ound. Fred Olson wss present recuestlng the hard-topping of tne Baldur Park Road^. Due to Isteness of season blacktopping would be deferred but gravel would be applied to road end drainage problems checked to extent possible. Donald Wnite presented plans for a 20 lot subdivision of his property at the Intersection of Co.Hl-ways 19 & 64. ( Submitted to Planng.Com.for review.) The hearing set for rezonlng of property described in notice of published hearing referred to in minutes of of Oct.9th from residential to commercial classification involving petition of Melvin Olson was approved permitting use of tnls area oy the Henn.Co.Highway Dept. Changes in codes and ordinances submitted by Hanson were reviewed and ordered submitted to attorn^ Mewhall for review prior to publication. Verified Accts.and Dills No.I6?5 through No.1709 reviewed and approved. Meeting adjourned. Approved:. / \ V 0. E. Johnson,Clerk. * M^TOTtS Of THI KflTtlKI Of TW fWffTW_ JUMISalOf.VItLAOI Of 0ROW),OCT.26,196X \3 ■»* fr«Mntt .WolT*|f»»6‘'“wffftW.H.B* 4wi|Vli« T.Hlli»,a.M.I!«lp*rln,H.3.Rlo« 6 2*?nss.r??rjs.ir,.??*.s?:iurMn:»4'Jsiws. SLwiSSSl-S^JsS Kia. ■ r>^ •v.rW «I 0«0f8* Tlllton pr«f#nt*d hl« pl*n c« - prwrtT Into flT« lot*. Tim co«illto*,Curry,Rlo* utA Ln*^,r*portoO f*tor*bly on tUo plmn.Tb* r*port w*« *ee*pt«d •nd rooo«B*n<l*tlon* for *ppro**l p**»*d un«a.J»u*ly. . I .*1 6 Tod Wolf poquootod opprofol of thro* balldln« *itot os tot*^*»4iU^ S.6-7«6-9-10,8Uc.3»Borgqul*t* and Wl*kl«nd* fork Adda. Tho / Tioving eo*«ltt**,Curry and Rloo, roportod that tboro would bo oodralnago probloaa and that tho alao of tho propoaod '*ot* would eorroapood to aurroundtng*. It wa* polntod Mt on A qMttlOB of poliojo Claronao Owatbor roquoatod tha rotoMindatlosa of tho Cu^ •iOB ro a pomit to build a two*oa» ^aKgo ^<ot 6,B1k.3* Caaoo Bolgbt*. Approral wa* roeowwndod anbjoot So.Iswoatlca* -- - [ ia*pootor,0oo.Baa4on«VWVlf mm 9 •*! tloB by Dolldlng I. • , t * f-V;•■-i.t. • ^ f V' > •»f V . . . ' f/r : /• •1 . - Vgf * village of Orano Crystal Bay,Minnesota — Minutes of Council meeting held in the Village Hall on Nov.13,1961,7:30 p“ Present:H.R.Ross G.A.Hanson,Assr ss,Mayor;*7. J. Schmitt,R. C. Bagley,K. Tumnam.E. 0. Wood* Truateeal ;A.G. Stinson,Foreman;C-. H.RoasaCnf ,Police;0. S. Johnson,S.B,Belt, Minutes of meeting held on Oct.23,1961,were read and approved. Robt.A.Swanson reouested anoroval of divlslcb of tne three acre prooerty of Lennox Stuobs on County Rd’. 146.Ref erred to Planng.Com.under Case No*.37. Mrs.'^.’T.Tolf and Mrs. J. E. Swedberg were present concerning street signs posted on Baker Place.Referred to Engr.Mills for Investigation. ent cc if' :/r/La Page of tne Ebernardt Co '.vcs prese'nt concerning plans for addition to tne Anna S.Smltn property In Gaodywood.iagley and Hanson had previously vlewe( the property recomendlng favorably and project was approved by tne Council. "ed "Yolf was present concerning approval of three building permits previously handled under*Planng.Com.Case # 34.Held in aoeyance pending review by Bagley. :irs.Emll Peterson,Secy.or tne Casco Point Com.League,was present reporting the' erection of commercial signs In residential areas contrary to present restrict: ons.Referred to Foreman Stinson for investigation and report at next meeting. David S.Llppert reouested approval of plans for a two car garage on his prop erty in Shady wo od, tr.e problem being distance from property line, tne olans and property were previously viewed by Bagley and Hanson and on motion of Tumnam, seconded by Scnaltt,a minimum of 5 ft.from property line was approved. IJonn Hurley and a committee from tne Snadywood Improvement were again present Iconcernlng^tension of tne Mound water system as referred to in minutes of loot.23rdwill Contact Mound for furtner advise and report results later/’j^t- A Everett Dexter,Mayor of Long Lake,was present reporting on present status of progress of plana Involving sewage system.We will be contacted furtner if their’ proposed plans involve areas controlled cy our Village. oreman Stinson reported on road improvements during current year to date, purchase of a loading bucket costl.ng ^ ^5.00 was approved.Stinson and Engr ^llls will report later on progress of street signs erected. ■t [reo.Tlllson was present involving division.of the Perodowlll property handled ider Fls.nng.Com.Case # 35 was approved. :is !essrs.Pederson and McEay of the County Highway Dent.presented resolution nvolvlng State Project # 27-6I5-02-,Us 63Ii4(3)( Areola Prldge) Involving onstruetlon of Highway if 15 wnlcn was approved. bormal S.Nelson,Orono Civil Defense Director,was present to discuss organlza- ^.ion of personnel and activation of plans .Proposed passage of an ordinance 'as tabled for consideration at next meeting.* luildlng,plumbing,sewage and-ewell drilling ordinances were discussed and minor nanges suggested and approved. ouncll approved tne retirement of tne remaining liquor store warrants of S6000 ouncil approved tne purchase of an Adler typewriter at R 179.50.7 To: Date: Subject: Chair Schroeder oral Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator March 10, 1995 #1950 Glenn Upton. 3685 North Shore Drive - Variances - Referred Back to Planning Commission by the Couircil at Request of Applicant - Continuation of Public Hearing -Written Renotification Zoning District: LR-IC Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.22. Subdivision 1 (B) - Lakeshore setback variance. Required = 75 ’ Existing =31’ Original proposal =41’ Amended proposal * 52’ (minimum DNR required setback Variance = 23’ or 30.6% 3. 4. = SO’) Section 10.22. Subdivision 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback. Review Exhibit J. The proposed additions will have no impact on the average lakeshore setback line. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover. 0-75’ setback area = 8,380 s.f. Existing = 1.792 s.f. or 21.4% Original proposal = 2,238 s.f. or 26.1% Amended proposal = 1,860 s.f. or 22.2% Increase = 68 s.f. or 0.81% 75-250’ setback area = 3,250 s.f. Allowed = 812.5 s.f. or 25% Existing = 24 s.f. or 0.73% / Amended proposal = 550 s.f. or 16.6% Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of structural coverage. Total lot area = 11,630 s.f. Allowed = 1,745 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1,208 s.f. or 10.4% Original proposal = 1,876 s.f. or 16.1% Amended proposal = 1,665 s.f. or 14.3% No variance required. Zoning File #1950 March 10, 1995 Page 2 5. Section 10.25. Subdivision 6 (B) A. Side setback Required = 10’ Proposed = 113* No variance required. B Street setback. Note: Street lot line is located adjacent to County rightof-way Required = 30 ’ Existing = 71* Proposed =71* No variance required. List of Exhibits Original Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List F - Survey-Original Proposal I - DNR Letter J - Topographic Map/Average Lakeshore Setback New Exhibits K - Planing Commission Action Notice L - Council Minutes 9/12/94 M - Applicant*s Hardship Statement N - Neighbors’ Petition O - 0-75* Hardcover Inventory P - 75-250’ Hardcover Inventory Q - Amended Site Plan R - S - Amended Floor Plan Amended Street Elevation Status of Application At the Council meeting of September 12, 1994, the application was ^erred to ^ Planning Commission as applicant asked to be allowed to present an amended the Commission. Staff has provided written notice to neighbors because of the extended p of time from the original review in August. Zoning File #1950 March 10, 1995 Paec 3 Review of Amended Proposal Applicant has reduced the footprint from the original proposal by 211 s.f. The new structure will be located 52 ’ from the shoreline rather than 41 ’ as originally proposed with construction of a lakeside deck. The current proposal proposes no deck expansions within the lakeshore yard. The proposal now involves 192 s.f. expansion of living space and 484 s.f. for attached garage. All other setback requirements are met except for the lakeshore setback. Hardcover is increased 68 s.f. or 0.81% over the e.xisting le\el at 21.4%. Hardco\er is now proposed at 22.2% (oricinal projwsal 26.7%). The majority ot the hardcover proposed within the 75-250 ’ setback area. 550 s.f. of driveway should not technically be credited as hardcover because it is located within an easement area that has been excluded from total lot area. Structural coverage is proposed at 14.3%. The original application requested 16.1 % with a 1.1 % variance in stnicmral coverage. Please refer to applicant ’s hardship statement. Exhibit M. The neighbors who voiced approval and support of Mr. Upton s original proposal have now signed a petition approving the amended proposal. Issues for Consideration 1. Is the increase of 68 s.f. of hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback area justified.> 2.Has applicant provided acceptable hardships for structural hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback area? Any recommendation of approval must include the condition that all hardcover scheduled for removal must be completed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Applicant may be allowed to retain accessory garage until new garage addition is complet^. The existing detached garage must be removed prior to the final inspection for the new addition to the principal residence. i A ^ {‘iSO CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Applicadoa Fes S2(X).00 (S50.00 per each addidonai variance) Renewal Variance Fee SIOO.OO (no change from original ippUcanon) Variance for non-confonning stniemres $.00.(» After-tbe-Fact Fees (Double applicacon fee. r k • IL U pyrv rc L r \i A ~ * •” i T^f ’^» AWWVWVV'VVV*. . •• n1 \ A/ •» • < A * w V • vv PROPERTY INFORMApON Site Address, f rf A Property Idendixauon Numoer {t'.i.iJ } L'% t w'V VVVA fiVA » A» * Property Idendixauon i umoer if not included on required survey.Anach legal description to application if not incluaea h e Property Acquired, --------- ^ “ >rcS^t use of property: J^.esidentiai ----- Zoning District: (monih/year) applicant _ . Name /-S / L^A'^MS-r^ Phone (home) Phnneiwork) Cj 9^ - sNamc / ^_! ■ ■■■ ^ , r^nr”s T' l/^ Zip: II QlAddress: ----Lny...? / ,r ^ Address: 3/^-,'> s Phone(liorae) ^'~7 / jT* » r*- /A r * hone (work)OWSER Qf different than ypheanO 2^ DESCRIFriON OF REQUE^ Descnberec,ucs.mdecul^.^^_^^^^-^-^--^^’^ ------------------- ^(attach addidonai sheells if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ Setback: ___Lot Width Front __Side Lot CoverageHardcover _ Rear ^ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) compliance wiih Zoning Code requirements:----------------------- - (attach additional sheets if necessary) LLp-^ - REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ... „,.K. n.,.« b. submittH hv t^f Wgltatiw j^dUne dat^ in stto fnr vour appliV^tion to ^ considered compMei 1. 2. j. 4. 5. HcnDcpin Countv Department of Finance, A-603. Govt Cen.er, 3 8 3 ). tJ«.Uciom » Kq.W. !■ »««.. P«''« ”•= <■> “W *'> * " “ reproduction. 6. 7. 8. 9. Skcfch/s'fplJ^ TZr'iZLicn views (provide one (1) copy SV.' x IIT ' LUr of ihriegal nnn.es (include marial smtus) of all persons wnh an .merest m the - nror^L ms would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current ownerts). ^p!rSeSl tots application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City start. information supplied is true and cotrect to the best of his/her knowledg . DateApplicant’s Signature^ tSb^tfor pirptis of investigation and verir.cauon of this request. ifpry^Date rw taw A. -------- — Applicant must have all submittals into the City each month. M^/eting. PianniBg commissionMeeting. Planning of the PlaiLig Commission this change prior to the meeting. . ..• 8 IL SUN DATE 04/2f/fA mmEPlH BATOI 008 moo AODi OWEA NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOM AOM 0»XR NMC TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADDR OMCR NAME T/09AYCR NAME/AMR SR 08-117’2S S4 0050 0SAS5 NORTH SNORE OR A A 0 NA6EN AL A OONNA NA6EN 5A5S NORTH SNORE DR HAYZATA NN 55391 58 08-117-25 54 0055 03485 NORTH SHORE OR R 0 RESSIER A S RESSLER REX 6 RESSLER 3483 NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA HN 55391 58 17-117-23 21 0011 03705 NORTH SHORE OR H SULLNOLO ET AL N/L EST DR HAROLD SULLNOLO 5705 NORTH SHORE DRIVE HAYZATA HN 55391 COUNTY PROPERTY INPORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OHICRS LIST 58 08-117-23 34 0051 05449 NORTH SHME OR HARREN E 0ER6 ET AL H/L EST HARDEN E SER6 5449 NO SHORE DRIVE HAYZATA m 55391 58 08-117-25 54 0054 03485 NORTH SHORE OR CLEM4 C UPTON 6LENN C UPTON 5485 NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA m 55391 50 17-117-23 21 0012 01420 SHAOYHOOO RO J C ERICSON ETAL HR JOHN C ERICSON REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 24 . 4 ».1' 58 08-117-23 54 0052 03475 NORTH SHORE OR NMtRY SKRYPEC MARRY SKRYPEC 3475 NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 21 0010 01410 SHAOYHOOO RO DAO ROGERS OONALO A CA.TL ROGERS 1410 SHAOYHOOO RO HAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 1420 SHADY) HAYZATA MN 008 00008 10 ROAD 55391 !»* ; •• 0 • . 0 V : % . . •* •4 . k ? 'A t * ( *' 9. ^.4 • n n «. • T CERTIFY THAT TW FACTS REPRESCKTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE Oil THE RECORDS OF THE HEItCPIN COUNTY OEPAR' OF MY KNONLEOGE ANO BELIEF. • • 8 •• I.. 1 • \ aT/: : • » •DAT I • ■ 1/ .9 i . O:. • : ‘‘V ^ • ^ • *• . • •r 0 8*. • I i» .* i., •i • I ^sscaJL. i.’t' r-' — i'' •' '■ V’ : V 1--. fW'4 tM ‘4 r r. ■ vi :V'2.0 .i ^. <*i ( • «I ' * « p •* • \ ■»\ \ / ;/ ■I <e ■7 i if > riv a -se:-< \ r *■ ’}'5 ;• >9: )« f I 99 <y\ \ ‘ *v O f Oi 4 ; 0^£R/?y / I 5: ^ fiTj (^,1| ^..——r ; »'«?Tr gi ’i 8 '* §: K £ f li S n g; ••• ?!« S « g ?; ” 1 f 1 1 1 i Y i <p Y t ^ 1 ^ ‘ // i,. ^ -...........— f 02}149lt*« .1 > A .. r3 (13) 1 rr.w.»»^.—»»«»«»—«♦»««—«lOfT. 9S ......................................................|...!5 ' - - i (34) 2* ■«« ^j'vv icfiEin 2 -* 91 <^o , 5 . Sc * 4*1 *V.R L $ RO 1219 • o •* *0 1 r* * o tn n oy n n »i ft ) o ft i< (fl O i» (» Q. ( ft H- Ml D« o a >-• m rtiiQ n 3 fii u aft ft H* S 7 O «4 <• % ft r < n 7 O H* a 0 A ft o n c c *1a Tl Kl a^ft M * u K A A ft ft a S B» » M A ft »1 D 0 7^90 O A f1 A A *1 A *0 »a A a n AO 3 a* •i Ml a 3 0>» H* O O 3 3 ft C A ^ 73 3 A Mk A ft a 3 H» •< a M*0 « AA I-* t- Mi A at M O O ft H* »t n 3 0O 3 M, » O Ml A A Ml la H* a O O a H n ft ft ANAn o • K>O O tt • C N ft A 3 a A A 0 It ►- o ►- KM- AO • 3 0T3 n A ft A*ft A 7 n ft A 77* a A * ft <$». • m m m L M phomeno. STATI Of ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, NN 5S10S 772-7910 FH£NO. September 8, 1994 Jeanne Mabueth City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 5S323 RE: GLEN UPTON VARIANCE REQUEST (CITY #1950) , LAKE MINNETONKA, CRYSTAL BAY (27-133-21) , CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Ns. Nabusth : Z have reviewed the above-referenced variance request and recommend that the city deny the request in its current forai. The DNR would object to any new structures or additions, including decics, being proposed on this site within the minimum state setbacX from the lake of 50 feet. It appears that a reasonable addition that meats the BO foot lake setback could be constructed on this site by shifting the proposed addition away from the lake. We would not object if the city approved a modified plan that is outside the 50 foot setback, assuming that the applicant has demonstrated hardship. The courts have said that the applicant has a **heavy burden of proof** to show that all the prerequisites to the granting of a variance are satisfied. This is because a variance allows property to be used in a manner forbidden by the ordinance. The Department should be advised of the action taken on the above request within 10 days of final action and a copy of the official record should be forwarded to this office if the variance request is not denied. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, CiJ) Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist CCS c: city of Orono Shoreland file 440.000 € Io O 90 >•2 i ^ 3 0*- T n o O 3 X 5 CO il!S CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Baj, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Glen Upton 3685 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 TVTE OF APPLICATION: DATE OF MEETING: 8/15/94 ZONING FILE #1950 NOTICE OF PLANNING CO\LMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 8/18/94 COPIES TO:First Landmark Builder 611 South Snelling St. Paul, MN 55116 Variances VOTE:4 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Denial for reasons noted below. 1. Excessive hardcover (increase in 0-75 ’ not justified). 2. Does not meet DNR’s 50 ’ minimum setback nor Orono’s 75’ setback from lakeshore. 3. Hardships presented do not support the magnitude ot structure proposed for the site. Applicant’s next scheduled mer*ing is confirmed as: City Council Monday, September 12, 1994, meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are ivailable from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. niinutbs of the regular meeting held on SEPTENffiER U. 1994 I- V*■- * '». (Item - Etherington - Continued)^UCiii ffv - ------- Hurx asked how closely tied is this propei^ ^he is d««lopmem wa5 not aUow^ ,o ^what «ould happen if ihia ptopet^ allowed to th.e eatt same plan. The drainage plan is tied to this applicant o y.same plan, i ne ariuias^ f-.........- HU. ntoved. KcUey seconded to approve Bradley and Dina Ethenngton, Resolution Ayes 5, Mays ___ « -m ft • Kraaiev ajiu ----------- - ,..7t «949 SANFORD .AND MARGARET ERIKSON. 4455 FOREST lAKE 1::;’d ^g -^A^ANCE . resolution #3463 Jabbour moved, Goettra seconded to appro«thej^^^ Sanford and Margaret Enkscn, 445a Forest La Navs 0.iSaVS V. „„ ,1950 GLEN I rrON. 3685 NORTH SHORE DRIA^ - VARIANCES 1. was moved by CaUahatA seconded by Coene. to send bach the application to the Planning Commission for amendment, hyes 5, Nays 0. .1,54 LARRV ELSEN, 2879 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - resolution #3464RE5Ui-VJ 1 #3464. Ayes 4, Nays 0. <..10, #1956 TOM AND CHRIS SM^A. -.040 AVATXRTOAVN ROAD - VAI^NCES - RESOLUTION #3465 1. was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goerten, to adopt the Application #1956. Resolution #3465. Ayes 4, Nays 0. fv. February 28, 1995 Orouo City Council and Planning C I MlM Jssum SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP AND UISIQUE FINDINGS On August 15, 1994 I was turned do-,«ii by the Planning Commission on an application for a variance to build an addition and a garage on my property at 3685 North Shore Drive. The denial was for the following reasons: 1. Excessive hard cover (increase in 0-75' not justified). 2. Does not meet DNR;s 50' minimum setback nor Orono's 75' setback from lake shore. 3. Hardships presented do not support the magnitude of structure proposed for the site. I now wish to resubmit with the following corrections made: III II reduced for a1. The proposed new deck has been eliminated and the size of the new n total savings of 504 square feet of hard cover. 2. Although I could not meet Orono's 75' setback because the lot is only 100' wide, 1 did manage to meet the DNR's 50' minimum setback. 3. The Tax Records for this property indicate that there was a structure on this lot in 1914. Building Permits do not go back 81 years, nor do hard cover, setbacks and other ordinances. The point I am trying to make is that if the house were here before the ordinances, can't some improvements like a two car garage be grandfathered in even if they don't comply with today's strict regulations? There are five homes on our private road. Mine is the worst looking and the smallest. My neighbors homes have all been updated and they have two car garages on their properties. My neighbors have 50 feet on the lake and 50 feet on the road. My lot is 90 feet on the lake and 162 feet on the road. I have more land than my neighbors and yet I cannot make improvements. I request that this body grant me what they have granted my neighbors in the past. The right to build a new attached garage and to add 191 square feet on to the room that I built in 1986. I want to improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood by updating my property. Everyone will benefit including the City of Orono. Thank you. Sincerely, Glenn C. Upton TO THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL AND MAN'NING COMMISSION: We the undersigned think that Glenn C. Upton should be allowed to build an addition plus a two car garage on his property at 3685 North Shore Drive. ADDRESS: 3655 North Shore Drive NAME: Haeen SIGNATURE u 3669 North Shore Dri •: 3679 North Shore Drive 3683 North Shore Drive 3705 North Shore Drive Berg Skrypec Ressler Sullwold *0n Vacation ,) * Warren and Vernice Berg are out of town on vacation J 0tUr* hardcover CALCULATION WORKSHEET .0 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) (o^ pxTfmNG hardcov er in zone ----SA. House 75-150’ 20 9 25-500’500-1000* YTf A^f — g.g - X /3. 'X ■ B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk 12. a / 7 6 _ /ga SJ. X X A? 12 E. Paiio/Dcck 3‘S /X 72^ F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic U.6%(/C S.F. , s.F. S F. S.f.tftK rC'w*./!’ S.F. S.F. j F 'f'o S.F. S.F. G. Other sW 3 /£»/ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total pro^RTY area in zone ^ , ,oo - S?.fohcJ^^ ^ _ a9^ yv^y*'^s F^ A A I ---- i39CT~ S.F. B % aTiT7i S.F. Length' Width S.F. S F- , M S.F. 19^ B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk a;«h/ E. Patio/Deck Shfs, F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic 5" ^Xo U99 s.F. jet? XO'& /a. a .5* /A s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total pro^^^ area in zone ^X 100 hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-TS' .y 25-500’500-1000' FYI5mN<^ HARP<"pVtJ^ ^ ZONE A. House ---------------- Lentift VKHii rSii D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. OLQcr X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total propert ;^ea in zone ^ ^ ,c.T7r» uADnrnVFR IN ZONE ^53-^— 1 IXV. A.House B.Garage A;<u ; C.Driveway D.Sidewalk E.Patio/Deck F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic G.Other Leofih Wkltb ^2*7'X X X X X X X X X 2£- 4T •f-e X 100 total hardcover in zone total PROP^y AREA IN ZONE^ ■^'XSO x 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. p-ai? '-i-j. 2V S.F. ft- *« S.F. S.F. ^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 3JLSO _ S.l €9,it % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ’i/0 S.F. 3aV4?Zs.F. /6.IL* A B A B I* »o • r* o o< n o n 1 n ft O rtvc (A (A a o ft otH- «» B# 3 Ife Q U P0* n a ft H* #» O To: Fr«n: Date: Subject: Chair Schrocdcr and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusih, Building & Zoning Administrator March 10. 1995 #1979 Richard Little. 1890 Shady wood Road - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing - Wrinen Renotificaiion Zoning District: LR-IC requiring 21,780 s.f. or one-half acre in area Total area of property = 38,233 s.f. or .87 acres Pertinent Ordinances 1. 3. 4. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of structural coverage. Allowed = 5,735 s.f. or I5?tf Existing = 3,907 s.f. or 10.2% Proposed = 3.907 s.f. or 10.2% (grade level deck without railings is not included within structural coverage inventory) Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A) - Lakeshore setback variance. Required = 75* Existing =71’ Proposed =71’ Variance = 4 ’ or 5.3% Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback variance. The entire replacement deck at 14’ x 26 ’ would be located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of amended hardcover facts based on new survey information. A. 0-75’ setback area = 11,250 s.f. Existing = 227 s.f. or 2.02% Proposed = 227 s.f. or 2.02% No change in 0-75’ setback hardcover. B 75-250’ setback area = 26,983 s.f. Allowed = 6,745.7 s.f, or 25% Existing = 7,841 s.f. or 29.05% Proposed = 7,841 s.f. or 29.05% No changes in hardcover proposed within 75-250’ setback area Zoning File #1979 March 10, 1995 Page 2 List of Exhibits Original Exhibits Submitted for November Planning Commission Meeting A - Application C - Property Owners List D - Plat Map E - Hardcover Site Plan F - Amended 0-75’ Hardcover Inventory G - Amended Hardcover Facts 75-250’ Setback Area J - Applicant ’s Original Proposal N - Average Lakeshore Setback/Site Plan New Exhibit P - Amended Site Plan Locating 929.4 Contour Status of Application At the November meeting, the three member Commission provided conceptual directioa'action. The application was to be presented to Council at their Etecember meeting for final action as with all other applications at the November meeting The applicant was unable to attend the December 12th meeting of the Council because of a serious illness. Mr. Little is now able to r esent an amended proposal before the full Planning Commission. The neighbors have received wrinen notification that the amended application will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at your March meeting. The applicant was advised at the November meeting that members would not consider approving new construction to be located within the 0-75’ setback area. The Planning Commission encouraged applicant to expand deck out of the 0-75’ setback area and within the 75-250’ setback area but also advised that they would want a matching removal of hardcover. Review Exhibit P. Applicant proposes in the amended plan the reconstruction of the 14 ’ X 26 ’ deck. Note portions of the southeast comer of deck will be located within the 0-75’ setback area resulting in 20 s.f. of additional hardcover. Hardcover facts for the 0-75’ and 75- 250’ have been adjusted by staff now with the confirmation that other existing improvements are located within the 0-75’ setback area. Issues for Consideration 1.Would members now approve new construction within the 0-75’ setback area if either matching or additional removals are made to compensate for 20 s.f. of new hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area? ... grade level patio at 175 s.f. or 1.5%, 12 s.f. or 0.1% for upper deck at northeast side of residence at lakeshore? Zoning File #1979 March 10, 1995 Page 3 2.Would you approve an expansion of deck within 75-250’ setback area without requiring matching or additional hardcover removals? 3. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. If hardcover removals are a condition of approval for this application, please condition approval on hardcover removals being completed prior to the footing inspection for the new deck. . . I . n a r tmaM r-aY 11 I tT a tV-'d, .1 . ■ 1 > ^ ^ > k. , — d t ^ (2) TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator November 15, 1994 SUBJECT: #1979 Richard Little, 1890 Shadywood Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC requiring 21,780 s.f. or 1/2 acre in area. Total area of property = 38,233 s.f. , Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C) - Review of structural coverage. Allowed = 5,735 s.f. or 15% Existing = 3,907 s.f. or 10.2% Proposed = 3,907 s.f. or 10.2% if the deck is replaced in its present dimensions (lot coverage facts would not be altered if expanded deck is approved as deck would not have railings). Section 10.22, Subd. 1(A) - Lakeshore setback variance (review Exhibit O). Required = 75’ Existing =71’ Proposed = 71’ if deck is approved in present configuration Proposed = 65’ if expanded deck area is approved refer to Exliibit J. Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) - Average lakeshore setback variance (review Exhibits N and O). The entire 14’x26 ’ deck would be located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover variances. A. 0-75’ setback area = 11,250 s.f. Existing = 11.9 s.f. or 0.1% Proposed = 11.9 s.f. or 0.1 % if deck approved n its present configuration Proposed = 271.9 s.f. or 2.4% if expanded deck is approved Increase in hardcover = 260 s.f. or 2.3% B.75-250’ setback area = 26,983 s.f. Allowed = 6,745.7 s.f. or 25% Existing = 8,056 s.f. or 29.8% Proposed = 8,056 s.f. or 29.8% if deck approved in its present configuration Proposed = 8,225.9 s.f. or 30.5% if expanded deck area is approved Hardcover increase = 169.9 s.f. or 0.6%. Zoning File <1^1979 November 15, 1994 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicant ’s Addendum C - Property Owners List D - Plat Map E - Hardcover Site Plan F - 0-75’ Hardcover Facts Based on Replacement of Existing Deck G - 75-250’ Hardcover Facts Based on Replacement of Existing Deck H - 0-75’ If Expanded Deck Approved I - 75-250’ If Expanded Deck Approved J - Survey Locating Proposed Deck Improvements K - Work Sheet for Expanded Deck Areas L - Deck Plan M - Original Survey N - Approximate Location of Residences on Adjacent Lots O - Staff Sketch - Setback of Existing Deck/Average Lakeshore Setback Line Brief Review of Application Applicant seeks approval of variances to the above referenced sections of the code to allow either the replacemvmt of a former 14’x26’ lakeside deck or replacement of former deck with expansions into the 0-75’ and 75-250’ setback areas. The entire deck structure was located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The deck structure was located approximately 71 ’ from the shoreline. The proposed expanded deck would extend 65’ from the shoreline. The applicant ’s addendum notes that the existing deck is rotting and in a serious state of disrepair. Upon a recent site inspection, staff found that the entire deck has been removed. The surveys of the property have never shown the subject deck (Exhibit M). It is difficult to confirm the exact dimensions of the former deck but it would appear from the former firework and location of a footing that the 14’x26’ deck was as drawn in proposed site plans (Exhibits J and O). The majority of hardcover improvements on this property are located in the 75-250’ setback area. The principal structure except for the lakeside deck met all required setbacks. Hardship Statement Please refer to Exhibit A, the application and applicant ’s addendum. Exhibit B. Staff would add the following: Zoning File #1979 November 15, 1994 Paee 3 A. B The deck although located completely in front of the average lakeshore setback line had no visual impact upon the residences to either side of the subject structure based on location of deck to the existing principal strucmre, topography and maure plantings at south side lot line. 11.9 s.f. of hardcover had existed within the 0-75’ setback area and that resulted from the slight encroachment of the lakeshore deck. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. Will Planning Commission approve new construction that involves an encroachment of the 75’ lakeshore setback area--should deck be altered to meet the 75’ setback from the lakeshore? Excesses of hardcover exist within the 75-250’. Would you allow additional expansions of new deck out of the lakeshore setback area? 3. Are further hardcover reductions necessary as a result of the proposed improvements? If existing hardcover improvements are to be removed as a condition of variance approval, your recommendation should specify removals must be completed prior to the footing inspection for new deck structure plus any other conditions required by the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission will allow no encroachment of the 75’ setback, staff must ask that applicant ’s surveyor state the exact location of 75’ setback line so that field inspector confirm no encroachment on site. The City will also require an amended survey locating approved deck location. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICAg^ ^ Initial Application Fee S200.00 /ir ^-IL, ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 ^ (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $-00.00 After-Jie-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site — Prooertv Idenrific3tioii Nunibcr ^ ^ -----r^—r----^ Mdoa » applicauoa if not included on rcqutred survey. r rr v " r C. 4 I I w» C‘» \%y»n%j l:rAi^:^;rL ~rrrrr ▲ Wk/v^ W W'V _ ^ ^ , i i T rCtJ . AA Ai;VA CU.M It W • VV “Lr:‘i** Tf v"»A At*U l It W-1% I u w • vv I-1..* C TiwTi* ^I fji ?Tw*ati.-rv wwa mv *• 7 ^ • » A • V.* V«J'' Date Property Arrpnred 14de) tdo Qop adjacent parcels of l^d. (month/year) Present use of property: X ^residential Zoning District: applic .\nt Name LlTTjLg other (specify) Address: iS^C «=^M|,sjL>y —QJl (if dSrent than applicant) 1^^ //y /j Name 'T^ Phone thome) 41 / ______ Phone(work) ------ rirv: \i:A^7.f^Tp\_______,Zip:_££25-|. Phone(home) Phone (work)_ Address: ia„ib^—.Zip:. description OF request /m'v Describe request in detail: Kfi —Sy,i7T(hd 6z——Cl )Li&xS_i. Estimated Construction Cost S 4y foo H 1^ ^^‘^'(aSch^ddUioiSalste^^^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ Setback: ___Lot Width Front __Side )< Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore ____Other (specify)______________________________________ Pf'/nr-i/g Trtg -------------------------------------------- REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All .h, fAllnwin. information h* «ubmitte(< hv th; wpU«HiW ilW tot in wda for vour application to be considered conipletei 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). ^ ;^Cemficate of Survey (signed by a “"'S'®; , ^ calculations as required. In addition, provide one ( ) py ^^rapSc survey (e.xisting and proposed elevations) if any ctoges i^xistmg grade areVoposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy .x 11 for Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ 8. 9. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation vicwb v */ --r/ - -- ^ - prope”.!^ ^L wTddendum to this appiication. please attach a separate list of any other persons vou wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by C ia T staff. The Applicant and Propetty Owner mustjiign this ,nniira.inn ic not compi»t> if the abovf infoniinti(m has not iwn mtiMUOL infonnation supplied is true Md correct to *e ^st of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature he “y acknowledges and agrees to this application and furdter en^ rrSie property by City staff, consultants, apnts Commission members, and Conned members for purposes of investigation a^verification of this request. Owner’s Signamre /■Date g nv^- Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 da^l«fo« M«tins Planning Commission Meeungs ate held on tte third MoMay ot eiwu^^ this change prior to the meeting. 8 « >r RUN DATE 10/Q4/94 • 1k . f . •i t/Fii* " ■ ■J}HEItCPIN COUKTY FROPCRTY INFONHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OMCRS LIST ',, BATCH 50A-'l ;, PROP AOOR OMNER HAH rj;'jAXPAYBRNAHE/AOOR SB' 17-117-2S 2A 0002 0107S SHADYMOOO RO BAN TXLLOTSON 6LENN R TXLLOTSON 1075 SHAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA N4 55S91 .4 ! k UW ./v.t OWCR NAME TAXPAYER i^/4 NAHE/AOOR f \ •• ? t 4 SB 17-117-2S 2A 0013 OOOSB AOORESS UNASSIGNEO COFFEE LANDINGS COFFEE LANDINGS 0722 M FAIR HILLS RO HXMCTOMU 4M 55345 PROP AOOR ' 0»04ER NAHE T; ^TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 1 SB 17-117>23 24 0019 01B90 SMAOYHOOO RO R L LITTLE ADA LITTLE R L LITTLE ADA LITTLE 1090 SHAOYNOOO RO HAYZATA Wl 55391 li-ii"M-l •. . ) i i t' -PtW AOOR 'T ' OMCR NAHE :TAXPAYER t NAHE/AOOR i* ‘ ‘'(•i " •j i • •• Ik • • B r so 17-117-23 24 0022 01930 SHAOYNOOO RO DAVID A ELHQUIST DAVID A ELHQUIST 1930 SHAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA m 55391 * ;•\;v;r rkA v^ J /•’' ' ^ V. •} » -'Pi';" » r ‘ • Y .:« L - I 'vU-I * V REPORT NO. PAGE PZ43540111 r. ?: * *rI **30 17-117-23 24 000300030 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO G P. TXLLOTSON/N A TXLLOTSON GLEM4 R TILLOTSON 1075 SHAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA M4 55391 so 17-117-23 24 0004 01000 SHAOYNOOO RO OURNOQO A TAYLOR OLGA H TAYLOR \1000 SHAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA m 55391 .•i-1 ! <•> !•;‘ ■r 4 • .. 4• A• *».V SO 17-117-23 24 0014 00030 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO COFFEE LANDINGS COFFEE LANDINGS 4722 N FAIR HILLS RO HXttCTONKA m 55345 i f ? SO 17-117-23 24 OOIB 01040 SHAOYNOOO RO N R A R T OHLIE NXLLIAH A RHONDA OlflTE 1040 SHAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA rt4 65391 1 t. ! 30 17-117-23 24 0020 01910 SHAOYNOOO RO J R MCMANUS A M E TULLY J R MCMANUS A M E TULLY 1910 SHAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA MN 55391 30 17-117-23 24 0021 01920 SHAOYNOOO RO J A B L BASTERLAND UAN P GASTERLAND 1920 SHAOYNOOO RO HAYZATA »« 55391 TOTAL BATCH 504 00010 k . k •« 4 » ••1 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRI* REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATIONt TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE ANO BELIEF. DATE » > 5,U9 * r •t MM : * a ; » I sj r * I ■ •4v' •r.' » \ • *»•<. •* ' V. ‘ ^ • • ■ , N I. • * • 9 •*. J *• 1i I I* ••'♦' a f ’ '.•• ’ i..-; •j ' *■ • • • - % { .. ^ -i• ♦. « • •• * * • ; '"¥ I * % w • * ' ■ » •• , • f I ;• ■ •• ■ .t' .••vil.; . .s y ^ ,••41 •* r -NtLEf: ,») * IK. 2 .(5) A /} - n le^ o' - ^ ' S8S-/ lO.d’ = C ^ 32.0'/,T O ^ 297 ^-P- 0-=- K-.a'x /;.i' - 5.^ 7T ^:1 ^ Jib ^ AV' =■ ^‘'-* N J M' y?.ii.' = «•*=• ■ f< - ;u'io‘‘/ - i"i9^.^. Tor/iL - f,^6d 5P Z,£5S s.r. J« a'-7S ’'^^ 72 j ML //J 7S"-Z^i9 ’2cv;£- f/yS-^.! fJ.P. OBCfCy ________ hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE <WE) FYTSTING hardcover IN ZONE A. House ______________ Leofth 75*250’25-500'500-1 Widd X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk u * • . ' - 'J**« J-’. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X X X VC -ryr±i _S.F. _S.F. _S.F. _S.F. _S.F. _S.F. __S.F. __S.F. _S.F. _S.F. S.F. ' f -i *i ^ y V G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A //•? -- B / raryposED ^^;l|Pn^^>VFR IN ZONE A. House____________ Leoftlt l\j 2-^Q X 100 - ((^0 C«AaJ6iE - llj 2. CO S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. J.C^% /^S Widd X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. -Rauo/Deck V- X X X X ■*------r3.0 -f _________S.F. S.F. S.F. _________S.F. _________S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. •hfr^ S.F. F. Landscape __ Underlain __ By Plastic __ G, Other TOTAL Hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 4^ -*• B -X 100 - / T£ W_S.F. 'V ,,^ S.F. “s.F. ~ S.F. S.F. S.F. "S.F. " % //j^STO B A B 0?, 0 5- HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’75-250*25-500*500-1 F;yr5mNG FAwncovER IN ZONE A. House_____________ S.F. Length Width X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway S.F. X X see Bytrtiatr A D. Sidewalk X X E. TatiD/Deck t>C« - r*.di4 ^ ^ F. Laxidscape ___________ Underlain ____________ By Plastic ____________ X X X X G. Other X X S.F. TOT.\L HARDCOVER LN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A IT 05-<. ^ B X 100 ij ^^3 " ^S.F. A i %—— ^ '' j * raoPOSED H^nnmVER IN ZONE A. House_____________ ^ — S.F. / Lenctb Width X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Paiio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________- ^ ® - xlOO •LgLj//—S.F. 9 S.F. % •’ 6 A B pCf , 0^ ___ _ tru-^^'^vro^-. cf fint*'* ’’ v--ascta•I .r.r..3-i:^ '•cvjit.-, - . - »«sr - ^ir.n nf the “ ;/-»-v, thereon, i- lur.d. 11 huiWinrs. i* ;*:•'* if eny. ^rcn c. cnor .r-eroachnonts. Scale: Data : r = to* 9-5-73 Iron oarVcer —ro#-‘‘*n .^rdon a. 00^.-n Land SuJr-eyo. an Long lAkn, lAinneso b:hL lasin L S ) 1219 I •5.^5•*« ^ 19) V 1 ^I7« 4 ^ ii; 19) 2 •«5 5 U’i A i •" 1 (3) 9*,^^ ‘,f’, *' • V 3a (*5) z: C’) - *>fr S\^f 7^ . ^ 30? • " \ / V {•D ^ Y 29 y: • ^ V (‘le; sV 2?i J V^c^v it \ ( '" • . S\;■• • 1 \ ^ V—it : •’ *^‘ C 8 ^ \ \ 'x A ^1 N 28 \ ^ i* % ('^) •*4 W' ^ (12) !<8 . ^v •i?: \^-S (3) .* -\> £/ \\ -Vw ^41-5 T»Ar f b r: (13)( ^9 S52 zv I6>.4 V 39 (’3) 14? X___ 36 2 ip •(24).^ (25),'s ri*^* « £ • ^ JO 4C JO - 2.J ,4 ■ ^to - •0 (S9)iT •53 Z3 (49) (26) (27) -• \ • ^ • ■9- b nUI .•*. • i ■t'X 4. ••MM rV CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DELORIS LITTLE OF LOTS 29, AND 30, ShjADYWOOD I HENNEPIN COUNTY, MjlNNESOTA : : ' I I I EAST % m 64.98 ■*>17?. 42 A ^-f ; : ' M SS * • 0tk • •• ’• \ ^14.9 t IT A A V 1 1 1 Existinif Garaaf* ^ w w, 'i 1 ^ !<•*. - •• 1 i ^4^4:-'iV » ~r h. WEST 205.27 LEGAL DESCRIPTIOH OF PREMISES:— I , Lots 29. and 30, SHAOVWOOD • I• *• # , 1 o: denotes iron marker i Bearings shown are based upon an assumed (jatum. i’ * I ’ Tili s survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of an existing gafiage thereon, and the location of an existing house in relation to the northerly property line and the 929.4 contour line. It does not purport to show any other improve ments or encroacltments. I I 1 I- nrM> ^■3^^ ‘1''- 1'H'.'tv k \xtinu' • I I .»lt~ \jVs^V< i.LM'Mill \ I hereby cerlify lhal this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super vision, and lhal 1 am a duly rey.islcred Civil lingineer and Lind Surveyor under Ihe laws oi Ihe Slale of Mimv s^ia. Mark S. Gronberg Minncsola license Number 12755 UAtU SLALt r'i40* JOB NO. 95-03 To:Chair Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator March 14, 1995 #1999 David and Vicki Vickerman, 2475 Dunwoody Avenue - Variances Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC Total lot area = 35,450 s.f. or .81 acres Pertinent Ordinances 1. r Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A) - Lakeshore setback variance. Required = 75’ Proposed = 9’ (DNR Shoreland Management Regulations would require 10 minimum setback) Variance = 66’ or 88% 3.Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover. A. 0-75’ setback area = 9,530 s.f. Allowed = 0 E.xisting = 825 s.f. or 8.6% Proposed = 709 s.f or 7.4% B.75-250’ setback area = 22,540 s.f. Allowed = 5,635 s.f. or 25% Existing = 5,738 s.f. or 25.46% No change in hardcover proposed. C.250-500’ setback area = 3,380 s.f. Existing = 0 (allowed = 30%) No change in hardcover proposed. D.Total hardcover Existing = 6,563 s.f. or 18.5% Proposed = 6,447 s.f. or 18.1% Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Structural coverage. Allowed = 5,317.5 s.f. or 15% Existing = 3,394 s.f. or 9.5% Proposed = 3,138 s.f. or 8.8% Zoning FUe #1999 March 14, 1995 Page 2 5.Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (F) - Stairway, landings - variance for area of landing. A. Stairs Allowed width for stairs = 4’ Proposed = 4’ B Landings Allowed = 32 s.f. Proposed mm w * • * = 180 s.f. (DNR Shoreland Management Regulations would allow 32 s.f.) List of Exhibits A B C D E F Application Property Owners List Plat Map Neighbors’ Acknowledgement Forms Elevations Proposed Site Plan/Survey G-1-2 DNR Shoreland Management Regulations, Pages 1-3, Hardcover Inventory H-1-3 Hardcover Calculations I - Survey/Existing Description of Request Applicant has filed for a variance to allow the installation of a new access stair and deck structure within the lakeshore yard in exchange for the removal of 16’ x 24’ boathouse. The existing concrete stairs are in disrepair. In fact, the entire lakeshore yard is in need of repair or improvement. The bank appears stabilized with existing plantings to the north side of the access stair but adjacent to the boathouse and at the lower portions of the steep banks at shoreline there are signs of severe erosion. The removal of the boathouse may have a serious impact on the stability of the adjacent bank. If the boathouse is to be removed, applicant will be responsible for providing plans developed by a licensed engineer or landscape architect to advise how boathouse is to be removed and still provide stability of the bank. If retaining walls are to be installed, the applicant should be advised of the need for a conditional use permit. In e.xchange for the removal of the deteriorating aesthetic blight on the lakeshore landscape, the applicant proposes the installation of new access stairs and landing at 12’ x 15’ to the immediate north of the existing boathouse. The hardship statement notes the severe steep bank with no level shoreline available for boaters and bathers. Review Exhibit I, the topographic information would suggest that there is a level area where the boathouse is located. i —.......- tM* Zoning File #1999 March 14. 1995 Page 3 Applicant may be able to develop a level recreational area in the footprint of the boathouse. The boathouse will have to be removed as it appears to be ready to collapse into the lake. There is an obvious need for a comprehensive restoration of this lakeshore yard. There may be other options available to applicant to provide the necessary’ level area needed for accessory uses. Owners of lakeshore propenies with steep banks who may have small children bathers do require immediate access to lake for safety reasons. The level sitting area at top of bank may not be close enough for immediate action. Statement of Hardship Please refer to Exhibit A Issues for Consideration 1. What options are available to applicant for providing level access area adjacent to shore? A. Reduce size of deck. Refer to Exhibits G for guidelines for screening structure from lake. B. Level beach area to be developed once boathouse is removed. C. Other options. 2. Other issues raised by the Planning Conunission. Options of Action To either approve or deny the application as proposed or to table providing applicant additional time to develop a comprehensive improvement plan for the lakeshore yard to address the following issues: A. Method of removing boathouse. B. Need for retaining walls to provide necessary stability of banks. C. Develop recommended option for providing level access area to shoreline. In order to assist the applicant, the City has topographic information that can purchased for SI2 an acre. Applicant’s consultant may wish to use the information in developing a comprehensive improvement plan. I. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION #1^Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S 100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures • After-the-Fact Fees (Double application tee) l • X.r_ W;'wA!.'_ .C. ^ ^ *wvilvvyvv ... •1“V X • • • • • - r V* i •-.••luA _ ^ • fc-..............•V VfV» uw‘-a. PROPERTi' INFOR-M^IO^ Site Address <Vr/i> Propeny liennficauon on required survey. Attach legal descnption to ap^ication if n ^ Date Propeny Acquired 1--------------- (month'year) r<To>S - -(specity). Present ui^t property . /^-resiaenuji ----- Zoning District:^______ applicant n Phone ihnme') \ Address: Ta---- - —^ OWNTR (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phondhome) Phone (work)_ Zip: DESCRimON OF REQLX^ Describe request mdetail: -------JIZ_------------ Iff-(attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) _______...rK 7nnino Tfide reauircments: UtjUx.compliance with Zoning Code requirements ■5T?e/^p» tU^L- -----til-----L£i^ 5“ A (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQU]SUBMITTALS AII nf .h, fnllftwin. inf«rn.a(ion mu<» bv tht application »adlint fall Wl« for vour application to be considered compictg; 1. *> 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. To^eraphic survev (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes i^xisting grade areVoposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'A" x 11" for repn^ucuon. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S A x 11 ). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As In 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 ysst variance i»nnliration is not complete if the information has_not been Tbe**apSt^ hercby^agr^^ provide all information required or requested by the Zomng ISLSS. » pay adliiiona, fees (staff lime no. cove.^ and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this app ication and cemfies that the information supplied is true^^tjfJyn^yo the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date hereby tcto^edges and agrees to this application and further entry onto the properly by Ciry staff, consultants, apnts. Commission members, and CouncU members for purposes of^^ Owner’s Signature fimyand verification of this request. __________ Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Plannii® Colston to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Buildmg & Zonmg this change prior to the meeting. 8 RUN OATC 09/23/94 BATCH 003 HENNEPINMOH AOOR OHNER HAH8 TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP kwn ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADDR Olt4ER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR n ru 30 20-117-23 21 0002 024A0 DUNHOOOY AVE BENNETT C DONNEY BENNETT C DOtlEY 2A75 SHAOYHOOO RO EXCELSIOR MN 55331 30 20-117-23 21 0010 02420 DUTMOOOY AVE CALVARY NEHORIAL CHURCH CALVARY NEHORIAL CHURCH 2420 DUNHOOOY AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 30 20-117-23 22 0014 02475 OUNNOOOY AVE J A A S L PONERS DAVID D I VICKI R VICKERHAN 2625 LYDIARO CIR EXCELSTOR MN 55331 30 20-117-23 22 0017 02505 DUNHOOOY AVE JANES S NOROLIE ET AL JANES S NORDLIE 2505 OUNHOODY AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEMpwnwrt omERS list REPORT NO. P1435401 PAGE ^30 20-117-23 21 000302400 OUMp«X)OY AVE D G HORAN i T A HENOT DAVID 6 HORAN A TRACY NENDT 2400 DUNHOOOY AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 30 20-117-23 21 000000030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO LAHRENCE T HENDERSON LAHRENCE T HENDERSON 2464 DUNHOOOY AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 30 20-117-23 22 0011 02445 DUNHOOOY AVE A B NELSON ETAL ALVIN B NELSON 2445 DUNHOOOY AVE HAYZATA NN 55391 30 20-117-23 22 0013 02465 DUNHOOOY AVE R V UHDEHOCKER ETAL ROBERT UHDEMOCKER 2465 DUNNOODY AV NAYZATA MN 55391 30 20-117-23 22 0015 02477 OUNNOOOY AVE J A i S L PONERS NILLIAN P A 6E0RGETTA HICKEY 2477 DUNHOOOY AVE NAYZATA NN 55391 30 20-117-23 22 0016 02405 DUNHOOOY AVE N P HICKEY I G G HICKEY N P HICKEY IGA HICKEY 2405 DUNHOOOY AVE NAYZATA NN 5539X TOTAL BATCH 003 00010 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION» TO THE BEST OF NY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE r ^ • / •r‘1 \ \ r % ' .1 #. *•• v: • r--• f*»• f . ■ .•»'( • • I f - % — i L'1. * ✓ « "A 7 ✓ Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form 4 6roryt<r^H.-cfetyof [print nafne(s)] ’ [print address) have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at Ou^^’cedy A^:.^\so referred to as Und Use Application No.------------. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not «ked to '' ' .. ______I -<■ rtr iic#» hilt merelv to confirm for the CitydeclLrappmvaror"disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm Council that 1 (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor project or use requtres-^uncU approval. Probity Owner Date I***####********#**** Property 0>»ner ' **♦*♦##»**♦♦*■•■******♦*********•******************’ (T)(we) L< ^ ^ ^ [print name(s)j address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or ai ^4/7^ (X.vu.,- also referred to as Land Use Application No.------------.• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, 1 (we) am (^e) not asked to declare anoroval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for Su^il ttal 1 (we) am (are) aware of *e improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. \ ^ ------------------- DateProperty Owner DateProperty Owner AppLrn.Ta3-bmro":nr^^^^^ to the scheduled meeting date. J....-....:-....... ->4-1 • ..-. F anticipated, the structure is built to withstand ice action and wind-driven waves and debris. C. 31uff impact zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. D. Steep slopes. Local government officials must evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development visibility from public waters before issuing a permit for construction of sewage treatment systems, reads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes. When determined necessary, conditions must be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assum.ing summer, leaf-on vegetation. E. Proximity to unplatted cemeteries and significant historic sites. No structure may be placed nearer than 50 feet from the boundary of an unplatted cemetery protected under Minnesota Statutes, section 307.08, unless necessary approval is obtained from the Minnesota State Archaeologist's Office. No structure may be placed on a significant historic site in a manner that affects the values of the site unless adequate information about the sice has been removed and documented in a public repository. F. Proximity to roads and highways. No structure may be placed nearer than 50 feet from the right-of-way line of any federal, state, or county highway; or 20 feet from the right-of-way line of any town road, public street, or ethers net classified. G. Height. ^11 structures in residential districts in cities, except churches and nenresidential agriculturai structures, must not exceed 25 feet in height. H. Accessory structures and facilities. All accessory structures and facilities, except those that are water-oriented, must meet or exceed structure setback standards. If allowed by local government controls, each residential lot may have one water-oriented accessory structure or facility located closer to public waters than the structure setback if all of the following standards are met: (1) The structure or facility must not. exceed ten feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than 250 square feet. Detached decks must not exceed eight feet above grade at any point. (2) The setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water level must -be at least ten feet. A-1.25 (3) The structure or facility must be treated to reauce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or other means acceptable to the local unit of government, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. (4) The roof may be used as a deck with safety ^3ils, but must net be enclosed or used as a storage area. (5) The structure or facility must not be designed or used for human habitation and must not contain wate supply or sewage treatmen t facilities. (6) As an alternative for general development and recreational development waterbodies, water-oriented accessory structures used solely for watercraft storage, and including storage of related boating and water-oriented snorting equipment, may occupy an area up to 400 square feet provided the maximum width of the structure is 20 feet as measured parallel to the configuration of the shoreline. (7) Any accessory structures or facilities not meeting the above criteria, or any additional accessory structures or facilities must meet or exceed structure setback standards. I. Stairways, lifts, and landings. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steeo slopes to shore areas. Stairways and lifts must meet t.he i.ollowing design requirements; (1) Stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for commercial properties,^public open-space recreational properties, and planned unit developments. (2) Landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots must not exceed 32 square feet in area. Landings larger^ than 32 square feet may be used for commercial properties, public opeh-space recreational properties, and pxanned unit developments. (3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. (4) Stairways, lifts, and lanaings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings, or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion* (5) Stairways, lifts, and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water assuming summer, . A-1.26 HARDCOVER J\LCULATIO?r WORKSHEET SETBACK zone: (CIRCLE ONE)(^^7^ 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone // / r' / A. ■ House BaiLOin6i Cohc. St- CONi. 3. Garage c. D riveway TC STt'i-5 D. Sidewalk £. Patio / D eck F. Landscape AREAS underlain BY . . PLA:STIC SHEETING Pock: W/4LtS o. Other - X LENGTH 2^ ■ B. X X » X __ X __ X _ X WIDTH X_____lA 6S - X _ S.F. S.F. S.F, ( S.F, y • F. *v • > •.V . .y . J . S.F. S.F, V-. • • • • S • FI —7-1 • • Ilf. I S.F. O J 4 <1-. ♦ V .F. S.F. S.F. S.Fi S.F. /73 S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone 02. S i 825" S.F. i.F. “XI B JS3 0 X 100 -9.66 •% 5^ /^do/a/ W;,, - l ^ 0-^ /U^u<T\^ f , _______ V \/\CKY HARDCOVER calculation ’WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 250-500' Existing Hardcover in Zone 500-1000' A1. House ' x SiF.• ^<?H4i2fT£ d f'CC IN C?tO lhngth width Y zx t • • S.Fi *'KfhiC^'T f/i X a 200 • • S.F. ^ \f4CLuo.^c. 5TtTi->5 3r.i<«c 5TfP X a UP.S. F. ROCJC • -22fi S. F. B.•Garage _ x a S.F. • C.Driveway x •'2000 t StFi X a • » StF. 0.Sidewalks *vvALxc y » • ■ Z3 ‘f • • p S.F. X a SiF» n / ^ • M W f 1 f SiFiE.Jatio/Deck X • • S.Fr F.Landscape x a .• SiFiAREAS UNDERLAIN BY . X « SiFiPLASTIC SHEETING X • 8 w • • • • S.F. ‘ .1 S«PiXa ( G. Other . x • S.F, V • Total Hardcover in Zone S7J3 • f.F. Li 05 • S 4• • ,0' 1 -i Total Property Area in Zone 22.540*- ,.F. \T\ 5733 -i.m 22.540 ^ XOO -% HARCCOVEP, ULCULATION'KORKSKEET SETBACK zone : (circle ONE) 0-75' 75-250' ^0-50^ Existing H ardcover in Zone • • .• 500-1000'fZ-S” • • A . H ouse ' x • S. P.• length WIDTH t • X • B S.P. • X • • §. p. ft • X 5?. P . X m S. P. % B. • Garage y S.F. • C.D riveway y •e*S.F. c;. X • t • Si Fi \ D.Sidewalk /.. x ’ # • • • . . a • * . * * S • F. « p . 4 • ••«> X SiFi a ‘ ‘r . > «• y h- j ^ • S.F.r~- E.’at 10/ D eck X • • a .S«Fi 3 ‘ •V' , J *N,F.Landscape x • f SiFiAREAS UNDERLAIN BY , X • SiFiPLASTIC SHEETING X • SiFi • • • • X • I • • • • •• •• SiFi «• • • G. Other x • S.F. . V • Total H ardcover in Zone tD • i.Fi 1 A • Total Property A rea in Zone 333 ot'S.F. 1 b1 • « B 3 3 ^O y^ 200 • ^ ^ • •m— »m .. • • •• * « • • TO:Chair Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:March 10. 1995 SUBJECT: #2001 Rhonda Wilson. 640 Orchard Park Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IA, Rural Residential requiring 5 acres in area. Total area of property = approximately 4.79 acres, review E.xhibit K - wetland is not located within property. Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.27. Subd. 5(B) - Front/street setback variance. Required = 100’ Existing = 75.7 ’ Proposed = 75 ’+ - entry addition Proposed = 71.7 ’ garage addition Variance = 28.3’ or 28.3% List of Exhibits A - Application A1-Statement of Hardships B - Applicant’s Addendum C - Purchase Agreement D - Property Owner’s List E - Plat Map F - Survey/Site Plan G - Existing Elevation H - Existing Floor Plan I - Proposed Elevation J - Proposed Floor Plan K - Wetland Map L - Septic Map Existing/Proposed Description of Request Applicant proposes a 33’x23’ three stall garage addition to the west side of the existing resideiKe and a 4 ’xl2’ roofed entry addition to the street side or south side of residence. There already exists a 2’ + roofed entry that extends 32’ + along the front line of house. Both additions will require street setback variances as existing residence is located approximately 75 ’ from the street lot line. The survey does not designate tennis court in west side yard at 188’. ApplicMt sh^l ask surveyor for an updated survey. The 23’ wide addition will easily meet the required 10 separation setback. Zoning File #2001 March 10. 1995 Page 2 Per Section 10.03, Subd. 9(C-1) tennis courts are not considered an oversized accessory structure but the structure is subject to more restrictive setback standards. Your site inspection will confirm the structure is located in front of the front line of the principal residence. Section 10.03. Subd. 14(D) would also require a minimum 30’ side yard setback. The structure is nonconforming in its present location and variances will be required if major repairs are proposed by applicant or fumre owner in the future. A new septic system will be insulled during the construction period of 1995 in the east side yard (review Exhibit L). The house installed in 1959 was constructed prior to current standards for residential construction within the RR-IA Zoning District. Note if garage is to be attached it would have to be located in the substandard street yard as the entire west side of residence is located within 100’ setback. Statement of Hardships Please review Exhibit A-1. Issues for Consideration 1. Will the proposed setback for the addition be consistent with the setbacks of developed properties in the immediate area? 2. Should the garage addition maintain a minimum 75.7 ’ setback from the street lot line? Why must garage addition extend 4 ’ further into street yard?—there is no impact on exterior improvements in yard. Will it have any impact on tl.e overall design of structure or on the proposed interior layout, review Exhibits I and JV Your recommendation for approval must include the following: 1. 2. 3. Deadline of fall of 1995 for installation of septic system as residence will increase from 3 bedrooms to 4 bedrooms. Applicant or applicant ’s contractor to review need for either a new culvert or reinstallation of existing culvert to create positive drainage in ditch at public road. Notice to applicant and future owners that tennis court is nonconforming requuing variance approval for major structural repairs. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $200.00 i B ft ($50.00 per each additional variance) f Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 ” ' ' (no change from original application) £ j Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-ihe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) I / i i : -■ :: . 1; WA ? » W'l** W‘>VJ*W* -m f iT U WJ J w u PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ ^ , Site Address Crchru-ni rarjC- /\d . m » » . A Vfc’v'cv vv vv» r ' ■» • •• V X W*W t te. V V > * W :* 4 • ' ? Uf ? u — v'Va . Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 3 ji " /fj O .. Q f:£j — I (do)([dono^also own the adjacent parcels otiand. ^ ^ ^ Present use of property’: X residential ___other (specify)^— ------------------------------- Zoning District: ^ « - _________________________________________— *. t X i X ^ V V^.' 4» iPPi ICANT ifc " 5 W.^r^ Phone (home) ■/'73 > Name P..i.:. JiL.,.u r- /t V/^.. (^^>tone(work) ■y‘f’y-<>77/ (k. Address: /-i't v ^>. r.i — Cit>';— OWTsER (if different than applicant) «/>/. / P Phonethomc) Name rL.,.: ________________— ‘’’'one (work)_ Address:./!.^/:?''Citv: lilpl^y Zip: Oj, -_4'_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST PctimntpdrnnstructionCostS ^<^jCcSD ~ Describe request in detail: add,4.cr> i) /»tr 3 arch.~iccfuf4U c ± -p ^__________________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage X Setback: V Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship /description of UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements__________________________— ------------ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All nf the followiny information ^ <aibmitted hv the application d^adUn^ ^ate in Qr^er for vour application to be considered complete. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Completed Application Form Certif.ed Property Owners List of owners wiihm 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-j 271). i/ Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). . . , . u .. “Ttertiricate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor and mc ude hardcover calculations as required. In addition provide OM (1) copy 8 A x H reproduction. Adv.i-C -_rV 6. 7. 8. 9. reproducuon. rrcivn.ue.^— ' Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevatioris) if any ctogcs existing gra ^ — property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). __As 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.Additional items as may be requested Py t.-iiy , . /. . The P^ny Owner m!«t sign this application. Please remernber to yfili v.ri«nc> anniiraHnn is not compile if Hie above InformMiPii hai not been inclqtfgtL ^ j IS^^S.^r^ees “oTay addC^ nTcoterS and/or consultam expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signamre c/7.Date -sj-3£ OWNER’S SIGNATURE . „_ki» The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Councu members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date this change prior to the meeting. 8 /3,/9'PS (}ct4 <j(hoto 'PO 2<*''‘ Zu.. _ . , / , / P, ,> s<<2/ 7 w«/• N,^ Q^-ipAyj^ 'j-a^^^ 6i4A. •A.C>€Lf MAR 14 19S5 c:.' ■ .......................mill I I I p February 22, 1995 n -s City of Orono Council Members 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Dear Council Members; Enclosed, please find my variance application for the property I am purchasing on March 14th at 640 Orchard Park Road. I will be attending the March 20th Planning Commis sion meeting. Should my plans be accepted, I would greatly appreciate your consideration in allowing me to seek approval at the March 27th Council meeting. I will not be living in the house during renovation and I would like to begin the process as soon as possible. I apologize for the expedient manner of my request. There were many issues that delayed our closing including a buried oil tank and septic system follow-up. These con cerns have been resolved. Thank you so much! Sincerely, ^ Rhonda E. Wilson Powder Packers, Inc. / a RECEIVED OF 4_________ \ PURCHASE AGREEMENT ThA term approved by ttw Mmn«oa AnodMn ol 1 Dale P^EAUQRS*. Wbcfi disctaims any labttiy afiamg out of UM or nvsusc of th«s torm y /«»• c________ 2. Page 1 ol Pages Txi / // O 4.Ooiars (S o;^o JS tti# suff' of E ti^^^D^-CASH-NOTE M earnest money to be deposited upon acceptance of Purchase Agieemcnt by aN partiet, on or 7 before the ^iTbusiness day after acceptance. In a trust account of Hsting broiief but to be returned to Buyer If Purchase E AQfeement Is not accepted by Seller. Said earnest money is part payment tor the purchase of the property localed al. V->M L X ___ilfLA.----— ' .......... ............... ....a Street Address 10 Ciy of O ^ 11. Legally described as; 12 ^ O .. County of Slate of Minnescta, i- o r- I \A a. ia inctuding the toitoiinnq properly. 4 any. owned by Seier and used and tocaied on said propafty: garden bulbs, ptants. shrUji, and 14. trees; storm sash, storm doors, screers and awnings; window shades, blinds, traverse and curtain and drapery rods; altachad igNing tS fuctures and butos. plumbtfig fixtures, water healer, healing ptants (wilfi any burners, tante, fliolvrs and other equipment used in IE connection iherevnlh). burll in air conditioning equ4H««ot. etoctronic air Wer. Water Softener OWNED / R^^D/NONE, buil^ humidieer 17. and dehurmlfier. liquid gas tank and controls fif the property of Seller), sump pump; attached television antenna, cable TV ia and wiring; BUILT-INS: dishvirashers. garbage dtsposats. trash compactors, wrens, cook lop slwes. microwteite ovens, hood Ians, 19. Intercoms. ATTACHED; carpeting; mirrors; garage door openers and ail controls; smoka datectors; fireplace screens, doors and 2Q heatllators; AND; the following personal property: -----—----------------------- ■ ....................... ■ ........-...... 21_______________________________________——-------——------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 22. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23, ail of which property Seller has this day agreed to sefl lo Buyer lor sum of (S /^"Z. 24 U ^ ^ * A 1 r-f Jvr s/v __4__rr jO- o J 2S which Buyer agrees to pay in ihe following manner Earnest money of S 1 a a.i 26, and t *7 cy r. .n ^______________________cash on------j. J —Ls^ 3 Doilafi, 27. the balance of f --------------------------------------- ^ ^ VA Assumption ^ Contract for Deed Other ___________________the date of dosing, and by rmancir>g in accordance with ttm attached addendum: 26 Conventional 291 This Purchase Agreement subject to a coriirigency addendum. (If answer is IS. see attached addendum.) Oa This Purchase Agreement jS / tSTTgr^ubject to carKeflalion of a previousfy wriiien Purchase Agreement dated - 31. This Purchase Agreement JS subject to an Inspection Addendum. (If answer la IS, see attached addendum.) 32. Attached are other agenda which are mide a part of this Purchase AgreemenL (ErSer page or pages on hne 2) Warranty Deed33 OEED/WARKETABLE TITLE: Upon perfermance by Buyer. Seier shai deliver a ------------ 34. joined in by spouse, if any. conveying marketatle ittfe. subject tr. ^ 36 (A) Buildtng and zoning tows, ordinances, state and federal regulations; (B) Restrictions relating lo use or improvement of the property iMIhoill 36 effective torfeiture provisions; (C) Reservation of any mineral nghts by the State of Minnesota; (D) Utily and drainage easementi which do not f y.jrfere with existing impro/ements; (E) Rights of tenants as follows (unless spectfed. not subject to tenancies): / 37. 36_______________________________________ 39. (F) Others (Must be speafied in wnling):________ 4Q SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS shall be paid as tolkwrs: ___ __ 41. BUYER AND SELLER SHALL PRORATE AS OF THE D«^qF CUSING r§EUEBWAU PKf ON DATE OF CLOSI^ tf ln«a>inna 42. of special assessments certified tor payment with the real estate taxes due and payable in the year of closing. 40, buyer shall ass umej T^^LER shall ^AY'yi dale Of dosing al other special assessmanis levied as of die data of daait«. 44. BUYER SHALL ASSUME / SELLER SHALL PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT Op'^wlal ass«ssmar«s pendng as of the daa ollhia agraaniere tor 46 improvements that have been ordereB~by the Qty Council or olf^ assessing autfiontieSv (Seier s p^^vision tor payment shaX be by paymeni imo 46 escrow of 2 times the estimated amount of the assessments, or less as required by Buyer's lender.) 47. BUYER SHALL ASSUME^jELL^SHALI^a T^ date of closing'any deferred leal estate taxes Oa Green Acres, etc) or special 46 assessments paymeni of which is required as a result of the closing of this Buyer shafl pay real estate taxes due and payable in Ihe 49 year following closing and thereafter and any unpaid special assessments payable therewith and thereafter, the payment of which to net 5Q cthenvtse provided. 51. /to of the dale d this agmemenL Seier represents toal Seier HAS / RiS^OTltedelved a nolioe d hearing tor a new pubic Impnwnert 52. project from any governmental assessing authority, the costs of which project may be assessed againsi Ihe property. If a nctice d pendtog S3 special assessmed to issued after the date d this agreement and on or before ttit date d dosing. Buyer shal assume payment d 54. ALL /.Non e / OTHER: ___________________________of any such special assessmerts. and Seier shal pnwide tor paymeni on 56 date d ctosiog<ffC / ^ON^ OTHER: __________________________________d any such spedal assessments. M such special 56 assessments or eserwv arrxxints tor said special assessments as required by Buyers lender shaH exceed ^ Oy tbto 57. Purchase Agreement shall be nuil and void al Seiler s option: parties agree lo sign cancellation d Purchase Agreement arxJ aH earnest 56 money paid hereunder shall be refunded lo Buyer, unless one or both d the partiet agree* In writing on or before the dale d dosing, lo 59. assume, pay. or provide lor the payment d such excess. 60 SHtcf and Buyer Initial Senorfs) >/ '• \OMwIl vlfL- _Dale / PURCHASE AGREEMENT KK Addms (-*^>0 K» P»9»3 \ tl% <__________ 1M REAL ESTATE TAXES sMbgJiaxl-MJolowt;^ nr Buvr»h«lpn PHORAfgDPTOMDAYOraSsiWa irms. ALL. HONE m^taaBlMMdu^«nrfn»«M»ini»»yM.ioyr na Se»H gha« pay.^ EROWATEO TO DAY OF Cm^jG. ITTHS. ALL, NONE w«l waii laiaa du« and n««w «lh» y.. ioT T 109L ctosmg dale -jd. Ihe real esMt \ajm% paid shai. 9 prorHed. ba lo lha new dosa^g data Seiar warr«« U m dua «id 1ia pay?t;« in lha year 19. __wi9 ba ^y^R4RT-N0N -homaataad dassiBcahon. If pad or non homestaad daasificaiion it didad. 111. Seiar agrees to pay Buyer ai closing $------------------------------------------------------------------------------------lowaid lha norvhomesiaad iiZ portion dlha real estaia taws. Buyer agrees to pay any remaining balance of r>on4>omestaad tanas whan they become dua and payabtai 111 No representaiiorts are made concerning the amount of subsequent real estate taws. 114 POSSESSION: Seiar shal daltvar possession of the property not later than after ctostog. Its Aii rest, homacwnar associaiion dues, rants, toel oi, liquid petroleum gas and al charges tor city water, ciiy sewer, eiectncity. and nalurto 11B gas Shan be prorated between the pamas as of dato of dosing. Seiar aQraas to ramow ALL DEBRIS AND ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY 117. NOT INCLUDED HEREIN from the property by possession datoi 11& ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: % lha beat of the Saiar's knc^Madga there era rx> hazsdous &JbatanceA or underground taaiQ. lift herein noted: ____________________________________________________________________________________ 12a_________________________________________ 121 SPECIAL WARRANTIES: 122. SeUER WARRANTS THAT THE PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO: CITY SEWER DYES QNO CITY WATEROYESDNO 121 SQXCR/BUYER AGREES TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS ANOfOR SEPTIC SYSTEM CERTIFICATION IF REOUIREO BY MRm 124 GOVERNING AUTHORITY ANO/OR LENDER. SELLER WVRRANTS THAT ALL APPUANCE& HEAHNO. AiR CONO’-JNINQ, WIRING 125 AND PLUMBING SYSTEMS USED AND LOCATED ON SAID PROPERTY WILL BE IN WORKING ORDER ON THE OWE OF CLOSING 12E EXCEPT AS NOTED ON ATTACHED ADDENDUM. BUYER HAS THE RIGHT TO INSPEa PROPERTY PRIOR TO CtOSINa 127. OTHER: ^ ^ pT ♦ c . rv A j < J 12ft -a < 129. BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT NO ORAL REPRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE REGARDING POSSIBLE PROBLEMS OF WATER laa IN BASEMENT OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY WATER OR ICE BUILDUP ON THE ROOF OF THE PROPERTY AND BUYER REUBS 131. SOLELY IN THAT REGARD ON THE FOLLOV;iNG STATEMENT BY SELLER 132 SELLER HAS/NOTHM) ROOF. WAU OR CEILING DAMAGE CAUSED BY WATER m OR ICE BUILD-UP. BUY^r^^) HAS NOT RECEIVED A REAL ESTATE TRANSFER DISCLOSURE SWTEMENT. 134. BUYER HAS RECEIVED THE TRUTH IN HOUSING INSPECTION REPORT, IF REQUIRED BY MUNiaPAUTY. 135 BUYER HAS RECEIVED THE WELL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REOUIREO BY MINNESOTA UTA TIitaa ai 136 BUYER S SELLER INITIAL: Buvrfsl ' ____________ Srt«rf«l EC W3I.23S. m REsn^l°^ arbitration disoosure and 13ft SELLER(SV BUYER(S) O ----------- ' 14G SELLER(S) .^4/ I l\S 1 .^ r ‘ > L f 'L BUYER(S) . V JtJ<J 141.NOTICE 142^ F%v%/.AJ2k 14a ^ ^ X ^ ^-T" 144. THIS NOTICE DOES NOT SATISFY MINNESOTA STATUTORY AGENCY DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS •xhonze I agree lo purchase the prapatiy lor tie price and on me 147 urteM^njdlrt Shsiu^!?^ pniperty horn Ihe markai, *. terms and conditions sal tam atone. 140 CMhQU^S. J. fS’UN.Bd (Sbnw t fWM N«ri^ ------ ^ (s^RBiBSWMr \ / *55f P VJ.'lri hmM MMRif (Say..* tewwMr) X_______ (MvM SIMI 152. isa SUBwe r • • V ADDENDUM TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT f«€AUO«S' MinnMOia AstociiMoii «l I^CAUOBS^ (telatmt any HMHkty arising out ol usa ar mitiiaa ol mis lorm. 1. Oalg - 11 I n 1_________________ ______^ ftf ^2. Pagt Pages a Addendum to Purchase Agreement between parties dated —/y/^3. , 19 JLJL. pertaining to the purchase 4. and sale of the property at L^O \ 5. 6 7. & f\. w ^______\\ « «> tv r^T » <t -V.C^w A\ A Wi.. CN \ V 5^ a Xix 11. T^ c^t V v r> \/« "VVtt'V A\wt« r\>-< V Nn*v ^ cV. < r \vi c V j- 1^ V \ V.\J 0\ij r.Q o^ ~.-\... i 12. nS -~\\^« \_{^.*~>^^ ^ \ k,-. ^ *> tvwj^ sVr>A^c V.. , 4 11 nt»i 14. _____ 'VV r n 1^0 <* \ t 1^16 ] JSi NOT' 5*vy^3~^.^-T" T^a t lU^ yng-nn>/s ^ ro^n»^&g»>^r4gS 17.\^A r w C .A,A a It e Pi't. iT< ^bL^9. .Bvy —*r Sr^^-As gi? t'X^T' r?in As.r^r r.-. ^^20. - -'■____ V I roX." ./ 21. 22. 21 24. 27. 29. 30. 31. 32. 31 34. SSSS “ U^>]<i8rw^ VI ill ^Lt 32' .«.•«w -----------------—— .T”I?rl®4Sl“‘;‘-T:5'5fP'.«?. CO'i''".*CT OET^VEEM BUYEPS *»in PE11 EO./ } 'i MM OATC OZ/Zt/fS! V-'Q . V i BATCH 501 O‘ «wo Amm » v> QKNEII MANE TANPAYEE NAHE/ADDE Uv^ o' I tf ,y; I nup A00ii‘ omcr hmc TAXPAYfR . .iy_ ,NMC/AOOR PEOP ADOE ^ OMNEE MANE TANPAYEE . ;NAHE/AODE w s \ ■• • ’. V ’ * r* I A ^ • * V i i: r-A. . f p* ii t; i ; ■ • )V A # ^ ♦ Oi■ ■ fi. * *i l » * t • ■ • I V 1 _ .*- • u , •» ' *5 :•t* • p\HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0M€RS LIST SO S1*110-ES 11 0005 00045 OECNAEO PARK RD JAN P106EQN jdfl G A NAGOALEN N PIOGEON 10012 GLEN H1L01N6 LA GLOQNXNCTON NN 554S1 SO S2-110-2S 22 0004 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO EOOEET T NICKELSEN ETAL JIN NHALEN 14425 SOTH AVE N PLYMOUTH NN 5544A SO S2-110-2S 2S 0004 00500 ORCHARD PARK RD CONSUELO L CARRUTHERS CONSUELO CARRUTHERS 500 ORCHARD PARK ROAD LONG LAKE NN 55S54 ir t ) c .* I ^ It i •; j SO S1-I18-2S 11 0004 00415 ORCHARD PARK ED K I A LANG KEVIN M LANG 415 ORCHARD PARK RD LONG LAKE NN 55S54 SO S2-110-2S 22 0005 00440 ORCHARD PARK RD CHARLES J FENNER THOMAS L SCHERBER 5000 SHADY ISLAND TE SHORENOOD NN 55S44 tCIO SO S2-118-2S 2S*G00r 00440 ORCHARD PARK RD ROBERT J A LORRAINE E RODEN ROBERT J i LORRAINE E RODEN 440 ORCHARD PARK RD LONG LAKE MN 55S54 • t ■:?.i ■t REPORT NO. PI4S540I PAGE 1 f SO S1-110-2S 14 0001 00505 OECNAEO PARK ED 0 A H THOMAS DONNELL 0 A HENRIETA THQNM 585 ORCHARD PARK ED LONG LAKE m 55S54 S8 S2-110-2S 22 0004 00480 OECNAEO PARR RO D E HXNTERS A 0 K LAW DOUGLAS E NINTEES 400 OECHATO PARK EO ^ LONG LAKE NN 55S54 > * • . K • i: ' 4' ■ •! i TOTAL BATCH 5Q1 00000 % tmf 1. •» * • ♦ i 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXAnONt TO THE BEST OF NY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE \ •. kJ• ■ ■ f ■ y.j </X . J "Vr . ” •v*'- n #' t^ t * * ' *t > 'T, ,* ' . % ft '* . y.ll r •* V ^ ■ ».■ r,. . . ‘' • » ♦ - 4V >. / y . •* ' V { *A 4 Vf.. " -rV? ,>.v. V h , •h t « • 1 ». ,.#■ ’ I *. ny I • -t • i • *. • •* » t i •• t . ■ i ♦ ■ 4^ ^ > • . • V- ‘ I s • . • • • I'. i mj : V’* OR^MARD A R K rr 2 'nri) tn'T» o “'^rrr>r* pi t J j w f J .= ♦ y: Vi* • *. I I :. • •% '■9m ? ■: '*'U /\ /-n..V)47 5(>*'J- . / 3i0.1V PLAT ♦-■- ■S30,?,4MP.A.. OA icii .A f* " i-STORY FRAME •« DWELLING .5 “640 „ deck .o'-' -V y \ \ vfe lft«0 .** £|^*-o| • * I « s % «r X,' * f ' 4lV ' '✓ HORSE 'o>STABLE .1*0. . • • -.‘i* ■'?' ,'J,: ■ / ^^fS0 PWWI MlIIII, . HIIH^!li>g»l.iJ- '•■-.nxi-' ■' X .•.;»■•;■ ., I ..V • *. r ' 5< i\ 4 ■i'j v;: 4 4I «>«> Uto 55 ixir J irf •iij a I - J 0^ fc.#rr^ -»-------- 1 __zmi—1 —i:--------ri-^-1^ ✓ } K ’r-"njj!- - -ri_____ V Q \ jiiT~ :.tv^ fcftgjsrl. ;: ! • I t m \ ♦u ■ ( , i •: • ‘ • i. : ¥; •' ?j Z. i5-’q c i : • v>; ■> • * ^ *•' ..*y j ■ V 4w• > •' * . I = ■; ■• » * ; *■ : , i i • 1 ^ ‘ : : i . • ■ t n> ^ ■i >. ■: :-^i ’. »• .“*1•• • •. I ' 7. - • * «f **' :.;^i • » Jo laO*.——.. , /i.'■T \ •* ' • < .'4 I •‘r* f.. r^ ' «v «■ • •.* . • i t' •> y '^ ■ . ;■ ■ •J-. •y I ■# , . . > k ^ ; • • '' ■ • 1; • /*• t ^ * 4‘ ’ i'A \ •. \ '1 •i.. ' ‘.V , •. I. t- •• .• V .• «■ i- .. ,j., ;; t •. ■ J •!*>Pm b'. >A y % r I IM fafkv>.-. :.✓. -- • - . » Tl Si ?T* iMI^fi® *• I>^T® SV* Tr’> " :.-:^-.BJr ^ 7U t , -' Ci- 'ltr .. V iii V V-M ^ 4fy?v .'wV>>-VJ>r^’ *» *-K rr iil cc-'.- - s!«ra»3ws?»»fip»^srs'^ i»il^-»7! I1 '4 - • • • INSPECTION R ct On D DATE J-N-B'Z TANt^S AJcfT £OCAr>t> compliance PA^H^f^/€XC> /ucRie^i-y SSTUKAinr^ » c»i >^»r Cec^ftni "i—LUJf Ate ^u^fAe/MC A/a “^'SCa -03 ■’ •' y ^ ^h2S''-ll J)h^thill’ll<-j- /I J fyrKfC. /glAb. PUMPOUT RECORD LOCATION SKETCH DATE GALLONS (tzLc^J^o^ &6r^l j/XI lL 5^2fJ^ J22Z tr -----It----K pAeSur^rt^ iQcpixy^ -O C-CONFORMING S - SUBSTANDARD N - NONCONFORMING Inclucte: 1) y\NIMocation 2) Dittoncf from houtt to lepiic tanks. cJiit. boa, and drain Held 3) North arrow and road \ . ; — VIV^ < msmr . . ----------------r-ERMlT MO. ^ ^ ^ jr i ':■! < iro-mi-crinns Asunm t-.V| I) _ 0 ,.7KLir 4 iTlSUR w'iT ’ •.-.. t-J •-,/f« /oiMit* tc4*j .•% yi» i'.t • n t..*••>! i|.»i..l ff.Iy ri>f.»,j ,,| » ^ ^ . I U X li Jf.V sjf' X \ \ • %> I \ ;\* V ' V . • ::i * * • <i*‘ . . • 1 . .r- . ‘ ) •* *.. .'• '*■ ‘i.’r n * i- , '• . V’^ 1 M •.% * \ ' * * ■'•■ i • i'! ' .' .' ' :v .'•. •*». A ■■• vt" ■‘ • '■■K- •;•.•;• >l! *■ ri 4, TO:Chair Schrocdcr and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mahusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:March 13. 1995 SUBJECT: #2003 An and Kathy Henningsen, 975 Tonkawa Road - Variances - Fhiblic Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, requiring 1 acre in area. Area of property = 100,740 s.f. or 2.3 acres. Lot width = 140’. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.22. Subd. 1(B) - Average lakeshore setback variance, refer to Exhibit H. A. Screen porch extends 23’+ in front of the average lakeshore setback line. B. Lakeside deck extends 25’ in front of average lakeshore setback line. Section 10.22. Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. A. 0-75' setback area = 10,570 s.f. Hardcover = 0. B.75-250* setback area = 24,650 s.f. Allowed = 6,162.5 s.f. or 25% Existing = 8,0^9 s.f. or 32.49%*' Proposed = 7,877 s.f. or 31.96%*^ Variance = 1,714.5 s.f. or 6.9% Refer to Exhibit J, at the time of the surveyor ’s site inspection hardcover improvements were difficult to discern at the street side of residence. The surveyor advised in the hardcover inventory that the 75-250’ facts may not be complete. ♦’ 1,052 s.f. of new hardcover improvements are to be added. 1,184 s.f. or 4.8% of nonstructural hardcover to be removed. Applicant proposes 712 s.f. or 2.8% of permanent structural hardcover in conjunction with the removals of the nonstructural. C.250-500’ setback area = 35,120 s.f. Existing = 2,515 s.f. or 7.16 (allowed 30%). 4 Zoning File #2003 March 13, 1995 Paee 2 D. 500-1,000’ setback = 30,400 s.f. Existing = 2,180 s.f. or 7.17% (allowed 35%). E. Total hardcover review Area = 100,740 s.f. Existing = 12,704 s.f. or 12.6% Proposed = 12,572 s.f. or 12.4% Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C) - Structural Coverage. As property exceeds 1.99 acres, stnicniral coverage is not an issue. List of Exhibits A - Application Al- Applicants’ Hardship Statement B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Neighbors Acknowledgment Forms E(l-4) - Hardcover Fact Sheets F(l-3) - Elevations G(l-2) - Floor Plans H - Average Lakeshore Setback Plans I - Topographic Map J - Survey Description of Request Applicant proposes construction of a 18’xl4’ screen porch, deck approximately 15’x34’ and patio at 340 s.f. to the lakeside of the existing residence and a new 1 3/4’x8.4’ entiy addition to the street side of the residence. Excesses of hardcover exist in the 75-250’ setback at 32.4%. Applicant in mm proposes the removal of some 1,184 s.f. or 4.8% of nonstructural hardcover consisting of plastic under! iner beneath landscape areas and brick patio at the southwest side of residence. The new entry way has not been shown on the hardcover facts which suggests that roofed entry addition shall be installed over the brick walkway at the street side. Review Exhibits I and J, there is a major drainageway that drains from a wetland and then via a culvert beneath the driveway in the eastern property entering applicants’ property at the east lot line then draining through a second drainage culvert. As the drainageway approaches the paved parking area adjacent to house, it is directed underground via a 100’ length culvert that evenmally drains out to the lakeshore side to a drainage outlet at approximate 940 elevation that allows drainage to flow along shared lot line to lake. Great care must be given to not dismrb the existing drainage system. Applicants shall be required to provide detailed grading and drainage plans with building permit for new construction. Zoning File #2003 March 13, 1995 Page 3 Upon staff s recent inspection, additional hardcov’er areas were found at street side of residence, review Exhibit H. Approximately 282 s.f. of additional landscape areas underlain with plastic were found. Adjusted hardcover within 75"250 is now at 8,291 s.f. or 33.6%. Applicants will probably agree to remove the plastic underliner. In early discussions with applicants, staff advised that based on topography and drainage patterns for property, the removal of plastic may result in flooding problems within lower floor. The applicants were advised to consult with contractor. Upon your site inspection, note signs of flooding problem in lower floor at lakeside. Currently the onlv outdoor sitting area is the patio (233 s.f.) at the southwest side to the lakeside of the residence. There is an extensive deck system to the lakeside of the residence to the west. The owner was sranied an average lakeshore setback and hardcover variances in 1987 for the deck. Upon your site inspection try to determine the degree of visual impact by the proposed new constructiori apon the residc'*ces to the east and to the west. Statement of Hardship Review Exhibit Al, applicants’ hardship statement. Issues for Consideration 1.Will there be a negative impact upon the lakeshore views of the residences to the east or west.’ If so, which of the strucnires would have the most impact? Are there ways that the improvements could be installed to minimize the visual impact, refer to G*1 and H-2? What of the topography at the lakeside and existing plantings? Proposed improvements consist of 712 s.f. or 2.8% of structural improvements and 340 s.f. (grade level patio) or 1.4% of nonstrucmral in exchange for the removal of 1,184 s.f. or 4.8% nonstrucmral hardcover improvements. Once again the code provides no direction on nonstrucmral versus strucmral. The only code section that deals with strucmral considerations is the strucmral coverage code and it does not apply for a lot in excess of 1.99 acres. 3.Are additional hardcover removals necessary? 282 s.f.± additional hardcover has been found. 4.How do existing flood problems of residence impact your review of accessory strucmre additions to lakeside of residence? 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Zoning File #2003 March 13, 1995 Page 4 Options of Action To either approve the application as proposed; or Tabling application if major changes are proposed in improvement plan, Any condition of approval must include the following conditions: 1.All hardcover improvements scheduled for removal must be completed prior to the footing inspection for new construction. Applicants to provide detailed grading and drainage plans with building permit application for additions to lakeside of residence. Iff C^P>.f\ Initial Application Fee $200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $1(X).(X) (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning stnictures $200.00 Aftcr-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) V, wi : V ; i, • * f w: WI • awA* -• ••••.: r f •• Ia » V V'vvV' V V ‘-'Jt j»Ci^... v« w. iUwri • • V • • \ • w - PROPERTY C^TO^^IATroN ^ p'-ope'^'^ld/^iau^n Nu^^r ^ J ^ • • V V a ♦. w • on su^cy. Date Properrv Arguired v^f«^ i ) ? ? 5'—------------------------ (month/yeai i PresenrusTof^opern': ^presidential Zoning District;_________________ _other (specify). . . - Phone (home) ^ '7^-^ f> ^“P----- APPLICAi __I P/r ifJ / 'GS£/(J KioneCN^-ork) 42 ^__““ ^ /— IZ" ______Zip:^iX^ ^Address: > J ^— OWTsER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone(home) Phone (work)_ Zip:, VARIANCES required Lot Area __Lot Width yX Hardcover Lot Coverage Sethi- 'k:Front Side Rear V'^Kvtn^t Lakeshore Other (specify) P"I»ny conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements. (attach additional sheets if necessary) 4. required submittals All nf ih> fnllowin. informatio n mu-a h« submitted br tht MriiwtlOT <W«UiBt ittflrtg fof vour application to be considered coniplctci 1. Completed Application Form , 2. /-i^'jCenified Property Owners LUt of owners within ISO' (you must obum^s list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). 3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). . , ^ ■ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and me ude , calculations as required. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8'A x 11 tor ^^rapWe sun ev (existing and proposed elevations) if any ctoges inexisting grade ^am'^foposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8.A" x ll" for rep^-j^ >on- 7; ^ legal names (include marital status) of all petsons with an mterest ,n the oropertv. 'IThis would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 8. s/^ As ^ a'ddendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons vou wish notified of this application. 9 Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember th« jaHlE ,nnii.x,.nn u no.' comnlele if the above jnfprmatjpn has npt been incMetL Th/applic^ Lre^^agreefm provide all information required or requested by the Zonii« MmWs mto aTr«s o pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee paymenO "cStam expenis^ncureed in review of tins application tmd ceruf.es dm. dm information supplied is u^md correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature ( m^Mr^herSy and agrees to this application and further auttonzes Owner’s Signature Date A i v!„*c muct he nresent at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission this change prior to the meeting. 8 r Arthur and Kathy Henningsen 3099 Farview Lane Long Lake, Mn. 55356 March 13. 1995 Variation Application # 2003 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Buiiding and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth: Tnis letter should accompany our Variance Application with the City of Orono. It is a written statement of the hardships demonstrated at 975 Tonkawa with respect to our proposed remodeling plans. 1. The shape of the property is long and narrow. Although it is 2.3 acres, the width of the property is 140 feet The majority of the hardcover is centralized in one area where the house is located. 2. The house and neighboring homes are existing structures. 3. The existing home is 17 years old. It was not built with the lake orientation in mind. Presently, there is not any decking or doors along the lakeside to gain access outside. 4. A screened porch is a necessity to enjoy the outdoors without our friendly Minnesota mosquitoes. The proposed placement of the screened porch is related to view impact. The existing porch and patio area is located on the north end of the house. The sloping of the land, and the existence of trees In this area Infringe on the lake view, and really prohibit the placement of a new screened porch In this area. Furthermore, the present porch will be converted to a family room which can be used year round with access doors to lakeside. This is an attempt to update the existing Interior of the home and to benefit from the lakeside orientation. The proposed location of the screened porch enhances the street appeal of the property from the front of the house, compliments the architectual style, and updates it. We are aware of the Impact of this upon the neighboring house to the south, and wish to respect their right to privacy. For this reason we would like to transplant the 12 foot evergreen in this area, and move it closer to the property line. This should compliment the existing row of evergreens that are already planted, and create privacy for both ourselves and our neighbor. 5. The proposed overhang at the front door is to be built on existing brick. 6. The dormer roof at the rear of the house is to be changed In an attempt to add windows and create a view of the lake from the master bedroom. The proposed roof line is actually less roof than the dormer It replaces. Hopefully, this letter will serve to explain our hardship issues, and familiarize you witf the reasons behind our plans. We have tried to be reasonable and considerate in our planning process. We think that our remodeled home at 975 Tonkawa will be a real asset to the neighborhood and the community of Ororx). Thank you for your consideration. Arthur and Kathy Henningsen 1 RUN VATI fn/tr/fS BATCH 508rs.AOOR OMCR NAME TAHHAYER MAHE/AOOR n MOH ADOH . OHNEH NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR » • n PROP ADM ONNiR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR ’; o> r*;-‘ n V. I V r •'i .* * *• t.I j 4 f I* S8 0a-lI7-2S IE 0001 00T60 rCMCAHA RO L 0 DORRyn A DORR TRUSTEES lANRENCE t HARItYN DORR ASS5 HOOOLElMp FLINTRIO^ LACAMAOA CA 91011 5D DS-117-ES IE 0004 00990 PARTENNOdb RO BRUCE A MARY ENGELSMA BRUCE A MARY ENQEL9U 990 PARTENHObO RD LONG LAKE HN 55S54 SB 0B-117-E3 El D014 009B5 TONKAia RO GABRIEL E JABBOUR GABRIEL E JABBOUR El UNIVERSITY AVE N f MPLS MN 55413 :.4- ’"v’’ ■ ■ .3*. ‘ LJ«>V . •; MEMPXN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY CMCRS LIST30 06-117-E3 IE 000200970 TONKANA RODAM BOOTHDAVID A MARILYN BOOTH970 TONKAMA RO LONG LAKE MN S53S4 30 00-117-E3 El 0014 D09S5 TONKANA RO JAM GILBERT JAMES R A MARY M GILBERT 955 TONKANA RO LONG LAKE m 55354 V t » V'. * $ K ¥ ^ ♦ •, * • Ml ■ .si- ^ \:?r « • • total batch SOB 00007 RCPOirr NO. PXASSAOl PA6C IBSB 0B-117-2S IT BOOS oono TOMUNA m>H C A L J CONNILIUS HIUIAH e CORNELIUS LORI J CORNELIUS 9i0 TONRAHA RD ORONO MN 553SA SB 0S-117-TS n 0015 00Y75 rOMCANA RO A J FARAS INK TAVEG6IA ANTHONY J FARAS Y7S rCPKANA RO LONG LAKE MN 555SA X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEMCPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PRtVERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF NY KNOMLEDGE AND BELIEF. | l-lofSDATE •h ■ .« * ’fip• < L*•f-f 'V>\r' i I' '■M A/? • K •-V ♦ . L » ♦ HWA. •r , ij;' i i ^ *' .1 • •B I \ L* 'lij ‘J '4 ^PI ' -Wf V. ■ii:;.’. Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form 1i- of__ [print name(s)l [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located aj if^Iso referred to as Land Use Application No. O • I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, 1 (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for die City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. tliuA 5^ f? Date /£:> /^4T Date .e) C^Ahnd^'JiicvK ofI (we) [print name(s)j [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of thcpmj^- located at . also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (^) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for City Council that I (we) am (arc) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. Pp(h 0 AUa Jhhouj^ Property Owner S' Date Property Owner 5/U3.Date if you have any infomation that may assist the City i" the review of to ^ Um Application, please Submit your comments to the BuUding & Z.tung Office at least 10 days pnot to the scheduled meeting date. h I r‘ V:v / • ■> \ V) ( Aut H£HNIH<S,^£H •I ■ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) (0-7^ 75-250 Existing H ardcover in Zone • • A. H ouse ' x • • 1 ^ 250-500*• • • • • %% • I i ‘ 500-1000' • S.F. LENGTH WIDTH .• • X o S.F. X , • m t • • • S.F. • X . • S.F. X . • S.F. B. Garage . x S.F. c. Driveway x * 1 S.F. X 1• SB • J • S.F. « •# • • •• 1 • • * D. Sidewalk • x a t S.F. X 1 ' S.F. X •• S.F. E. .Ja TIO/Deck X . •.« * S.F. F.Landscape __ x • • •• m . * . 1 • • - S.F. areas •1 i • S.F. underlain BY . X 4 plastic 1 • sheeting X .1 S.F. • • « • X • S.F» • G. Other x • J S.F.• 2-27-"is Totaw Ha»jocovbr in Zone Total Property Area in Zone B Q--1.,. lo.5gojr,.,. m O •% ‘• • • X 100 - *.. , « • •••■• I<ATHY ^ HMNiHct^eN ■i HARDCOVER'calculation’WORKSHEET ' ‘ * . SETBACK zone: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' (^-25^ 250-500' 500-1000 Existing Hardcover in Zone . . ’ A. H ouse Wml.l5 ■open P0tiCf4 CO n C. ^LAi^ WOOD RSTAln,H<;r v^hcl B. Garage . c. D riveway LENGTH (5.6a.o 15.e 4,0 X X WIDTH X ^ 6.5 ?.g .5T X • m 3681 S.F. 11. i IS____ S.F, S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 274^ S.F. D. Sidewalk _ t # S.F, • • . » «i _ S.F. • • •#••» BPtac E. Patio / D eck F.Landscape AREAS underlain BY ■ , . plastic sheeting X X X .1 .. 233 I S.F, S.F. S.F. ]/2l ’S.Fl /C(T J ' _ S.F. _ S.F. fdcfAorea 6. O ther Total H ardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone ■ » S.F» S.F. 12211. t,f. [T] [s . «• , ^ 7877 s 25£ -f ^rri y 100 • ^,2.4^ *% 'to -*-» \ •—-J ‘ilt / Cy5 . ^rc*r r: ^6o\/0SZ. = 340 JitiC*: ^at/o 's Z33 \ >//S4 r -/J2CA4a<, TtAO > Ufpaa Aft, ; s C- /iocK A.A<Arr/c ' a .930 iAHT ■ HARDCOVER calculation'WORKSHEET ' .' SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' ^5Q-50gp! 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone . ! A. ' House B. Garage c. Driveway E. Patio/ Deck • F. Landscape areas UNDERLAIN BY , . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other LENGTH D. Sidewalk _ X X - X - X X X WIDTH *r • S.F. S • F t S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. ZFISt S.F. S.F. t * • t S.F. S.F. S.F. 1 S.F. _ S.F. S.F. J_ S.F. S.F. S.F. • • * • • •• Total Hardcover in Zone - .it a I Total Property Area in Zone - 3^,/ ZQi, j.p, | BJ 2^/2 ^ “Y] 3S, iZO X 100 • » I I : • « • lt«.a t. j^THr ? ■ hardcover ' calcuution 'worksheet SETBACK zone: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500'{ ; Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House B. Garage c. Driveway 0. Sidewalk E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , . plastic sheeting G. Other LENGTH X X - X . X width X ^ X _ S.F. S,F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2.l£01 z,r. S t F • • 0 ••• S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F, V * S.F. S.F. S.Fi S.F. ZI80Z S.F 2.-27 -is £ ■ I • Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone • 30.^0 t.p. i t j . 2/rO X 100 - I. I t • • •••% ...*■ »I :» vr - • • i riHli J81 I 5^-r 1 ai n . * ■ I.U.. 11 ^ • • r^-r • • i;+ • *' I . 1. •It.U i fi^J-Ll’i:: ••; 'Irt U I- I » II / _X«C4N i i .1 eifi/Aru^ -------- * ** ** « . w I a-^—T _nr-lO »*.*^ <1^ I|ia,|i.»^ *4^ ^ ^i'9ViI !11 I-*— 1 ■ “j ■ j'_*r*r ■ ■ j. ’.•L i i^; Kl| . S • *• I ..* • 4 ; V etTimwA/ ^I H..I • •# • vrr' * • & ' J 4-^V- ^\ T^i i_Xt ■^•=4 U OviMC^ - i:— i!-4L 1 « I • I • r# I • * t • • '•■9 ^ •»- .*•• «T»*f r I 1 • I A • . • • •Vi) 5 >z I \ J \ (J ’ ] / \ © y ) • • » -‘■-i'! ■' BTf-?rr-* tr m; . ' # - ^ . .Mt 1.%^- Fn r '. i ♦>? 10 . » ^ .f’ i I : «FV ■r ^ vejyM? ff jii t; 111? ff /• * ’ .a I -k* vr *^3»-m^rI «:• MltrT'TtW^t4 t • • 4 !«• ^ *~4I • •t .1 : • <4 k ^ . -• •• •i‘l*l‘ ■ I -I «/> r /••/(>J' (00 li * « •i ' » ! T "T .1 L sp Setback ; Existing Hevse* fKt._ 'a ^250*SCft<^< ^ •PT3 /rr>r s$?- •7f setback bN UMib'‘° ^ ^^ UVN-^ - C- •'■. '■^ .vA\' ,.<.5 .b® bO' i____NJ-no'ar'n^^ 14001* • N34*47lsV - i40-?2Z.7^7 " “ * ^•'929.4 Contour Lake Minnetonka -H-h- \_ _ _/ _ _/ CT3> 955.6 CRAVE DRIVE * TRAIL - • PAVED CRAVE GUARD RAILR PATH SI DEW BRIDC DOCK CULVE WALL WALL LAKE/ STREA DRAIN o TREE TREE CT2>SWAMF ti^o PILE FEMCt CATE WALL■ ■ ' ■ ■ « 1 ■ 1 BUILD 1 1 L-------1 BUILD STRUC CD CONCR 1 <* 1 SWiriTi 1__1 RECRE t =*SIGNS o TANK o POLE t STREI n UTILI m RAILI RAIL! o CROUl A GROUl ..— ___-- I NOE INTEi DEPRi - OBSC SPOT w 1 n. To:Chair Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusih. Building & Zoning Administrator Date:March 16, 1995 Subject: #2002 William F. Smith, 2580 Fox Street - Sketch Plan/Subdivision Zoning^^JTCt^^ isTO longer located within shoreland area with the reclassification of Upper French Lake Basin. Pertinent Ordinances contiguous requirement. 2.Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) - Review RR-IB lot standards. 3.Section 10 55 Subdivision 8 - Minimum 26’ setback must be maintained from wetlands, buildable envelope. Slightly shy of the 87,120 s.f. (approximated by staff at 86,950 s.f.) 2.“li ! »» . J ~ two residential units can only be served by the ouUot. The proposed outlot would now serve three residential units. 3.Section 11.02, Subdivision 10 (A) (1-7) - Necessary fmdings for granUng variances. 4.Section 11.10, Subdivisions 6, 7, and 8 - Sketch plan review guidelines. 5.Section 11.33, Subdivision 4 - Typical Section - Access serving 3-6 residential units call for private road. Zoning File #2002 March 16, 1995 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Section 1. CMP 7-12 - Utilization of private roads - rural areas 2. CMP 7-17 - Private driveway may serve up to 3 residences List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - Application Applicant’s Addendum Location Map Wetland Map Topographic Map/Drainage Pattern Plat of Beau Marais-Wetland/Drainage Easements Resolution No. 1978, Preliminary Approval of Beau Marais Plat Resolution No. 2069 Granting Final Plat Approval Option A Option B Option C Ordinance Back Lot/Front Lot Configuration Subdivision Description of Request The two lot plat of Beau Marais was approved by the Council in October of 1986. The resolutions that granted both preliminary and final plat approval (Exhibits G and H) addressed the issues of access if Lot 1 was to be subdivided in the fimire. The subdivider was advised that if three lots were to be created that a private road would have to be installed or access could be achieved from Fox Run, the 60’ road outlot that serves RLS 1249, review Exhibit C. The applicant has provided three options for redevelopment of Lot 1. Option A proposes retaining the use of the existing private driveway that currently serves the two lot division. Option B proposes the use of a private road installed to the east side of the property with a cul- de-sac. Option C would provide access for existing Lot 2 and proposed Lot 1 at Fox Run, a 60- wide tract created in RLS 1249. The owner of the road outlot and property located at 2650 has contacted me to advise that they have no intention of allowing another user of their private road. The City has no underlying easements over the tract as RLS 1249 was filed in May of 1968. There is no way we can force access off of the privately owned roadway . Option C is really not an option. Planning Commission members should consider only Options A and B for this sketch plan review. Zoning File #2002 March 16. 1995 Page 3 Review of Option A The existing private drive encroaches major portions of the wetland at the northern end and at the southern end the road appears to be located less than 26’ from the designated wetland. Applicant received approval of a conditional use permit and variance application during the review of the subdivision, allowing for the encroachment of the wetland by the drive serving the future residence on Lot 1. In a later year, the applicant received approval for the installation of a bam on Lot 1 that was located in front of the front line of the principal strucnire. In Option A the roadway would remain as it is. Based on the directives of the back lot/front lot ordinance, the driveway would have to be designated at a minimum width of 30’. The code would limit access to just two residential units. This option does have a major impact on the area of the buildable envelope portion of Lot 2 as either a driveway easement or road outlot divides the parcel. The western portion or building pad must contain two acres of dry contiguous. Staff approximates the area to the west side ot Lot 2 at 86.950 s.f. just under two acres (87,120 s.f.). In order to gain the additional area, the existing roadway may have to be realigned in the area of the curb cut at Fox Street to ensure no encroachment of wetland. The 30’ outlot could be placed at the most western edge of the drive and continue through to the northern boundaries of original Lot 1, Beau Marais plat. This would involve Lot 1 within the current subdivision. Planning Commission members will be asked to consider allowing the roadway to stay as a priv'ate easement rather than an outlot. .Vtembers are asked to look at Section 11.02, Subdivision 10 (A) (1-7), necessary findings for granting variances to subdivision regulations, Section 11.33, Subdivision 4-the classifying of a roadway that serves 3-6 units as a private road and Comp Plan Amendment Section CMP 7-17-classification of a driveway as serving up to three residences. As in the resolutions approving the Beau Marais plat, a private road would be required to serve three residential units as set forth in the subdivision regulations. The Comp Plan suggests that three residential umr:, can still be served by a private driveway. The City Attorney has advised that the subdivision regulations have precedence over Comp Plan policies and guidelines. Applicant also notes that the bam, either with Option A or B, will be moved to northern lot, proposed Lot 1, upon approval of the plat rather than allowing bam to remain on an undeveloped site. Review of Option B Option B proposes a 60’ wide rather than 50’ wide private road with cul-de-sac along the east boundaries of property. Note the entire northern portions of road and cul-de-sac are located within a designated wetland. This type of application would have to be reviewed by the Watershed District, DNR and Corps of Engineers. With other existing access options already available, it may be difficult to persuade these agencies to approve such an intensive filling of a wetland area. There is also the issue of removal of the mature evergreen trees that line the Zoning File #2(X)2 March 16, 1995 Page 4 east boundaiy of the property. These would all be lost with the installation of a road along te east border As with the first review of our subdivision application for this meeting, the Cloutier application, the time to have addressed fumre road needs if a division was to take place was at the time of the first subdivision. Access from Fos Run was twvcr available tpjte nni-in,! ,„hHivider and ihe Citv should have been advised of tlus. If a private road was to be installed it should have been done at the time a subdivider had control over all of the property. A limited cul-de-sac road could have been developed at that time. The shared driveway was the best solution for a two lot division of this property. It minimUed as much as possible the impact on the wetland although one could argue that the building site should have been limited to the south on orieinal Lot 2. The City responded to the subdivider's request to build on the northern portions requiring an encroachment of the wetland with the access drtve. The City is now asked io consider additional variances and to deal with issues that should have been addressed with the first subdivision. If members are to recommend granting variances for this subdivision, we would ask that vou review Section 11.02, Subdivision 10, the necessary findings for granting such variances. 1. Does an unusual hardship exist on this land? 2.Will the granting of the variance be detrimental to public safety, health, welfare or injurious to other properties? 3.Is the problem unique to this property and not found existing on other surrounding properties? 4.Can you find real physical hardships on this property such that if there was a strict enforcement of the regulations it would result in an environmentally unsound development of land or is this viewed more as an inconvenience to the subdivider or possibly a hardship created by a subdivider? 5.Will the variance be in conflict with the provisions of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan? In some respects, to force the directives of the suMivision regulations and zoning code would create conflicts in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan would support the serving of three residential units by a private driveway. 6.Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Subdivision Regulations or Zoning Code would allow you to vary the minimum lot standard requirements for a lot as set forth in the zoning chapter. In other words, you can consider other variances but not an area variance for proposed Lot 2. This means that the building envelop to the west side of the access road must contain two acres of dry contiguous land. Zoning File itlQOl March 16, 1995 Page 5 7.The variances will not in any manner vary tl» procedural requirements of this chapter. There is no plan to vary from the normal required procedural guidelines set forth in either the subdivision or zoning code. This applicant will apply to all appropriate agencies before filing a preliminary subdivision application with the City. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission need not take any formal action as we are dealing with a sketch plan but the applicant would like conceptual direction concerning a development plan that would receive your approval. If that option has been presented or considered with this application ... maybe there is no option for further division. Both options will require variance approvals to some degree. Option B will require more and more intense variances. v.| CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICA 'X K>^ fv Vr .i>^ •-V?. .«»' ••* ' PROPERTY LOCATION Site address 2580 Fox St. WA f I u'.’* tk '• • • w 1 * • .... *.*.*! ? ' ▲ c P;prn;MenSTN^inber (PID) o.in23M0007 P!=i« check or.e - Propcn>- i. abstract or-------torreos. V A k." - . t ...» . • «. vv # V » Attach le2al descriotion to application. Lot : Block 1 Beau Marais Hennepin County, Minnesota APPLICANT Name yir.igtn F. Staitb—-----------------Phone (home) 475-26'^ Address ^ Zip S5ii6 Phone (work) Q2Q-8825 Cirv' Minneapolis ------------- ^ ------- - - • ■ ^ ^ : u • .* V 4 V . 1 ^ •• *r-*^ ■ . . a.’* • * • “ - - V u . . * ^ OWTsTR (if different than applicant) Name John B..-^. Idstron Ii Address 2580 Fox St^ Orono/Wayzata Phone (home) Zip 55391 Phone (work) 927-4444 (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Ta.\ Parcels Development Size 7.16 3.07 10.23 Present use (check)i/' v/ Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify) _ Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes . Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buUdlmg sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) 1 Units per4.16 Acres 159429.6 Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees' listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Cenified Property Owners List of owners within 350’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Ofricial’s Sipiamre____________________________________ _____________________________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official’s Signature _____________________________________ ------------------------------------------- I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: X Sketch Plan Review (Class I. II & III) S2(X).00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Reanangcment S300.00 Subdivision Application (Class I & II) S3(X).00 Preliminary Subdivision Application S325.00 + S25.00/lot (Class III <Sc. all non-rcsidential) Final Plat Application (Class III) S175.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only S75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. S200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application S150.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) ~ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $100.00 (No change from original triplication) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 - S______ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; lin. ft. x .50 * $_____ Totals 20T5TOT Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 ---------- Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.(X) -I- $25/smb ---------- Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub - Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 ■■ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.()0/new lot proposed for on-site x _____new lots ---------- C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $2(X).00 ■ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $75.00 .. PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit ----------- The applicant hereby agrees to pmviilb aK information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City ^ ^ “iuncil necessary to process this plication and ftirther agrees to pay all additional fees Date, ? _________ Date Attorney, Planning (3o^__ established by ordiaaficeT/^/// Applicant’s Signature l//I^ -7T ^ - -24 - 95Owner’s Signature /"^ Applicant must haveWl submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the^rd Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Plan^g Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to anend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. BUSINESS^CENTERS Space and Support for Business February 27. 1995 Wm. F. Smith 6327 Cambridge Street St. Louis Park. MN 55416 The Planning Commission City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55323 RE: 2580 Fox Street JM7T i-•y ri '..f r- -*? J \ « y } Dear Commissioners: We are the purchasers of the 10.23 acre site Iccated at 2580 Fox Street (“Property") from John B.A. Idstrom. We propose to move into the existing home and homestead the properly upon closing later this summer. The Properly is a long narrow parcel The north part of the Property is where the house is located, and the north pan contains approximately 6 acres. The south portion contains approximately 4 acres. Both parts are serviced by an existing driveway that also serves the Cassotti property at 2560 Fox Street. We are proposing a simple subdivision or replat to allow us to sell the South 4 acre parcel. PLAN A Plan A is to incorporate the existing driveway and easements into the subdivision so that ail three lots are served by the existing driveway. This plan has no major wetlands impact, unless the driveway is reguired to be upgraded. This plan also causes no tree removal. PLANB Plan B is to relocate the driveway along the eastern border of the Property. This driveway would presumably have the greatest impact on the wetlands and would probably require an outlot. This Plan B also requires tree removal and extensive grading. The estimated wetland disturbance is approximateiy 4000 sq. Ft. If a full road and cul-de-sac are required, this 4000 sq. Ft. Would increase to 18,000 sq. Ft. PLANC We have approached the owners of the private cul-de-sac west of and adjacent to the Property, which is known as Fox Run to see if two adjacent driveways to the Property can be accessed from Fox Run. That appears unlikely as the owners are not interested. There would be a minor amount of wetland crossing but this does reduce overall hardcover as some of the existing driveway would be eliminated. In the event Fox Run becomes a public street, then Plan C becomes a better option. 6327 Cambridge St., St. Louis Park, MN 5S416 (612) 929-8825 -0^ J t f t J I % • Febaiary 27, 1995 Page 2 We understand that a subdivision would eventually require that the bam currently located on the South part of the Property be removed and we intend to do so. We trust that this outline of the three (3) driveway options is helpful, and appreciate your jks e?jSI <,iri 'A:' ,-:?tOT »4-^V tt^'«Iv;.;v^ iSi^» *y < iSP I' P' mm mmmm, .‘<v ■o:-;"''-VP •* ■ .* ..•/I iw®- It.".... 330 >: - iwiil ;.S-■ i /*. ,'tjir rir4*--.r Pc ^'\mr • « ai^«/iYl ??PS*«a im rsraBS 5,i§1 ft M .rV '' . ii ■ ■'/ ■ •Jt. *.* , • .«p .• • .#■ • •• V i.'‘'^-v fe.i;:-^rr?V*. • ^ “• *.ii • Jv-•'• '‘I •’ :^-^-iTi ■ ' . ••. ..•:.i.i;i.>.-,— •■■• .. •.■■v/,vv-- • ■ ,• ':': V - j;i.c.-;v^ C>v;>Vv4.*ia^K.-^;!V Vr-•/■■': v\vraTrr5S8?5s?^ i c 3 O’ -I =r 3 00« ro M :cn> 3 3ro ■o Q. ui r* O O C 3r+*< 3 lO 3 3n> ino rt* Qf 0>a> oc 3ron o -h !-♦ 3*(D O oc 3 IQ Q.rr> in O ■a o IS r*- Ccu rttv d 3n> ooc 3 V? Ui rtcu rtc rf fD in 3 fiU< IV 5l ® cr IV IV 3 3^ 3Q O VI Z O O 1» T> - 0 3 01 TO <-♦ IV -I n CO cnotn I 5- x>»i O -h (• 07 5c zm UIo o CO rt 3n> LOc O' r»- •S. VC -f, - 2 lO • 00 CO «• Of tn rs> o rt 3 <0 CU*o Ol *o •o -1 TO O < CD C^ CL CU T3. CO ino -1 cu 3 Q. cr IV Q. <t 3n> cun fO•o rt LO 0 1o.cu z & ftn> 3 3 VC ■S !-♦ 3 fO CO 3 n. z ^*'«* '4' • 5? Vn "■si^ss 5 = , • -O Q O5... in 3 -«i* - s 1 ^ • • % -3 1 6 City of OROrvO CIT V Of ORONO RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _______ A RBSourrxoa gaahtxiig rtsLiMiMAAV ATPaovAL roi A FLAT AT 2StO fOI 8TUDR AFPL2CAT10M M.9S7 H3tAIA8« John B. A. Idatroa XX. on August 23* 19B5* filad a foraal subdivision application with tho City for approval of a two-lot rssldantlal plat of prop<>rty Isqslly dascribad sst Lots 13 and 14. Auditor's Subdivision Kuabar 229. Hannapin County. Hinnasots (hareaftar *proparty*)} and MI8IBA8* after dua published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statues 442.3S9 at. saq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Platting Codas, the Orono Planning CoBBlssion held a public hearing on September 14* 194S. at which time all parsons dasirirg to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak therooni and MBBRIASf the Planning ComnlHslon further reviewed thin application concurrently with Application Ko.944. requesting variances and a Conditional Use Permit tor excavation in wetlands, on February li* 1984} and HURREAS. at their rcq-lat r,e«*t:r.«i h«*ld on M.irch 10, 19Be. the Orono •‘;ty Council •■onsj'SiTf.l t!i»* hjii.ivssii;:. .ijj)«i»ra'li*n ot John d. A. Iiistr'.r: r...t u >| : •*; 11 <*; i.q ii r.. ot latti ;.rop»-Mty .i lufa*. «'iJ wi'hii. oh-lH hinglc Family Hural .•usiU’ntiu) zonir.'i uistrict t%;quitlng a ciiuimum of 2 acres cf contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2. The proX'Orty has a total of 13.5 acres Of land* 3.1 acres of which is considered wetland. y 3. Lot 1 contains 7.5 acres of dry buildsble Isnd* of which l.§ ... seres of dry buildsble lend are contiouous with the proposed bttllAlnf^^L sltei Lot 2 contains 2.2 acres of contiguous dry buildsble land west of a proposed essament for s driveway serving Lot 1. - 4. Doth Lots I Shd 2 neot tho minimum width requirements of 2P0 fuett however* the proponed lot configuration requires a street « & I’.tgo I of 4 4 ' • i I city of ORONO cn y RfSOLUTION OF THt CITY COUNCIL NO. I •* ' •________ ORONO fronlA9# V4runc# for Lot <i#nich r»ot abut or iropit on a public •tre«t• 5. Lut» I and 2 will ;»har« a ainqlu driveway accoat onto Pox StrMt rather than acceaeinq fiom the exxatinq private road levMdiately west of the property# and thia eill require that appropriate access saseMnts of 20* width be granted trom each new lot to the other* 6* The City will require a Ccnaux va 11 um and Klowaqo Easeeent over the designated wetlands on Lets * «^nu 7* The City will require that l«.7 feet of additional riqht-of-wsy for Pox Street be dedicated on the Plat. • * Both Lots I and 2 have been demunstrated to have suitable sites for priftary and altsrnats drainfislds to servs the proposed housss* B* Although Lot I contains enough dry bulldsble lend meet tho srea standard for an additional future lot near fox Strsst# such s subdivision cresting a 3rd lot on t!*is proposed property would require s replst of Lot I and would require construction of s roed tO Besidential Private Boad Standards tu serve alii Lots and the City would at that tiwe require that all i Lots gain access from such road or would need to access onto Fox Run, and vax laiiCOs to the frontage requirements would be needed for the rear Lot. 1C, 7h»* acv»*i.s • M * r •• nuild‘» *i Hite on Uut \ requires a varijrce and r11 : .iiiu 1 l*tinit in ur*iei to conMiuct a driveway acrosi* the d«.*s i qr»o i i*u wctlan<i« which vaiia.icus and Oundltiofial Use Permit were conceptually approved by tbu City Council on March lOt l9Bi* ll* Single family residences can be constructed on without the need for further variances*i and both Lots 1 and 2 a WIIMIAS, th* City will qrant tho varlanc** «nil WmSMit for • 32* eorrUor for croc.fn^ of th* watland* part of tho ftnol Vff SohdivisloA Moolutlon. -V MOH TflBBBfOIIB BB IT RBBOLVBO* that banod upon either one or more v of the findings noted sbuvs# tlio City Council of the City oi Oronu hereby d approves the pislimtnafy plat for John U*A* IdsLrom XX at 2SH0 fox StrssB Paqn 2 of 4 % M city of OROISO 6 nCSOkUTION OPTNECITVCOUNOL NO. ________ p^r •iirvay dat*d revised 11-27~8S by Coffin end Crdfibeffd# Ine. subject to the follovine conditional 1. Lota 1 and 2 ahall ehare a single driveway access located se shewn on the prslieinary plat drawing. 2. h Conservation and riowags easeaent shall be granted over the designated wetlands on the property. the following list of final subaittala oust be suboitted to the Senliif Mainistrater two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council Meeting en the second and fourth Mondays of the nonthi 1. Itocord hist orswlr.gs in the fora of two aylar copies a.'td one copy rodueed to 1* - 200*. Drawing to include! a. lot lines platted per preliolnary survey by Coffin and Cronbeig# Inc. dated 4>2*04/l*21*t5 revised 11*27«IS b. dedication of IS.7 feet of right>of>way for Fos Street c. dedication of *drainage and utility easeaents* 10* wide along all periaeter property lines and each wide of internal property lines d. designation an*i civ<iicalion of i lie «B>;t lands as d^aijtsje easement > on the plat lArq^l r.ct ir.tnt :i req-ifud; a. TitJ-i it’.niiin to *lic Ci *y. All owners. Mortgage i'.'j i I :• i>r wixn 5>ioi*'itv ind I Out c’ti therein ehall aiqt. ti.e plat atiU all other dcouBiciiis affected hy euch interest th« appllrant rnun prwvldc coriitiiiti copica of all f#Cordt4 •aacMnta currently Aff«ctln9 tho proparty -i Ce and aaecutad Klowaija and Conaarvation ISaaaMntai V blank araa taqairing daacription may bm filled out aa foLlot^a *over the drainage eaaonanta aa ahoun on the plat of (plat A na»el*. Pa<iff I of 4 «• Citv of ORO.NC) RESOLUTION OF THE CITV COUNCIL NO.9 .s A RZCOiriTION APPROVING THE PTJLT OP BEAU MAMIS PILE NO. 9E7 NQBRBASt the City of Orono is a ocnicipal corporation orgonized and existing under the laws or the State of Minnesota; and WBBRBAS, the City Council of the City cf Crono has adoptee subdivision regulations for the orderly, eccnonic and safe development cf land Within the City; and WBBREAS# the City Council !j.is considered the application for a subdivision by John B.A. Idstzom II, the subdivider; and WBBREAS, che subdivision has .been found to noet all standards of the RR-IB zoning district, ci;cept that Lot 2 does not on a public street, requiring a variance, but docs have access to a public road via a private driveway casement over Lot 1; and WBBRBAS, the subdivider hus completed al? ruguireoents of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1. Completion of all the requirements cf Resolution Mo. 1970. 2. Dedication on the plat of rights*of~way for public streets and roads, shown as Fox Street. 3. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. 4. Dedication to the City of a Flowagc and Conservation Basement providing for limitations on the uoe ot wetlands and/or drainage- ways described therein and shown or. the plat as "drainage easements 5. Payment to the City of a Park Dedication 7eo in the amount of $300.00 6. Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of tho plat easements in the amount of $150.00; and WBBRBAS* each lot is cf a size and configuration that will Ilow its use as a single family residence to be fully developed without the need for further variances; and .i Page 1 of 2 I i ' • 3 Citv Of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.10 o wliliKEASr the prcposcri huildir.c site cn Lot I nay be accessed only by crossing a protected v;etlor.d area and applicant has been 'jranted the .loccssary variances and conditional use pernit for such u driveway to cross the wetlands per Resolution N’o. 2069. NOW, TOEREyORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Beau Marais, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and incorporating within this approval the granting oC a variance to the requirement for frontage cn u public street for I.oL 2; subject to the following ccnditions; 1. Lots 1 and 2 shall share a single driveway access onto rox Street rather than accessing fror. the* existing private road irjr.ediateiy west of the property. Appropriata access easements of 20’ width shall be granted fren es^-h new lot to the other. The driveway shall bo const "uc ted no less than 26’ from the wetlands . The «ubdivider is advised that although Lot 1 contains cnough^\ dry bu.kldable land to meet the area standard for an additional future let near Fox Street, such a subdivision creating a 3rd lot on this property would require a replat of Lot 1 and would m require construction of a road to Rcsidennia.' Private Poa Standards to serve all 3 lots, and the City would at that time require that all 3 lots gain access from such ruad or would need to access onto Fox Run, and variances to the frontage requirements would bo needed for the rear lot. 3. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City o. orono with the Hennepin County Recorder’s Office on or before April 27, 1987 together with a certified oiiginal copy of this Resolution nnd executed copies of the docune.tts noted above. The aoproval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the natc specified above. In that event. It will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 27th day of October. 1986. ' ~ * I f . » / /• • ■V • . ( « V aV * ..'ity Clerk..Xayjr • * , - SKETCH PLAN FOR WILLIAM F. SMITH OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1. BEAU MARAIS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2 0 Q 2 A. rcMT-vto irr Rt\Mi«S iMii IW< CI|'lh>N 0 } •♦•w #•.•* •• •«•••/ P#to*v CMUU'N IT mmmmm ;^'s'^2'TnmiiracK Avfinit' v I.om^ l^k^MNI 55356 I Ixtvln- ciflifv llul lhi» 'wf^ cv w j» pfi'|uu'il K mr i*f ««*lct my dlm:l M»p«* vi«i»'n. JMiJ ihJl t Ml Adulv rrf;ivl«iv'il U\i[npmtt Jml L»tvl Siionw uwkf Ihc* but i4 Ibtf id Mjik S. C^bvfS MinitrtoU Uctflvc Xumt^f 12753 SCALK r*io iwn l-te pwKn 95*3 rfC.il .** • , ' f S» { • ., I . • • *:. 1 ' • - •1 •. • • •» .1-.» SKETCH PLAN FOR WILLIAM F. SMITH OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, BEAU MARAIS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA -•] I M..-4.J r e. •nNi«v i>\it Q f n *r ruvh'ffMii'HJ RQNBER0; lNC.:i' iisfiia I KfrK fvilrfv i KjI ihi« Mjnn mj« pniun'J h imr«« umi<f my ilirrrt ti^«n. jnd iKjI I J iluK n^Ktrml C»il I npmrr inJ I <inJ ^nryiw umlrt ihr U«rt i4 Ihr SUir »4 VlmnrMiU Mjtk S. (U«>ntvf|; MinriM^i Ijcrnsr NumlCTuT.'^ MTAUr>tocr n«r» R>«NO 9S-JI .vS-; ■ f >. • .V.: .: '-I t r »• \ .. *>#■ A «. • , •• I • •• V •* I SKETCH PLAN FOR WBLLIAM F. SMITH OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, BEAU MARAIS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA • i'- M O' ■I c. . " t'. 'iU\f >!M ' r^r -s,', '''jlj'vr ■ llunin ttiMt thjitiM* H4*iHi-iMfitlK mi‘««imih'f mt \ .ttitl 4Kti IJ4II * «lult It i;»'H It j 11\ il I n|;pnn I >n>l I jnJ Stmm* uihlrf iht* b«t« t4 iht NjV t4 _____ Mjfl S \linm««44 I ntnv ViinNr IJTW ^AU IMU MIKU 9SJI =• if . • : 'V A •V * * ‘i • ■1 /t.• ♦ •• • V •- •'*• « ; • ■ ';V‘■ t « • i __ . • 1 ,.' • ♦ . . •4 i l'.__t ORDINANCE NO , SECOND SERIES L Av ordinance to amend the municipal zoning sSl!^.“TSSKi!SJI?Sfo,s M not ABirr A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROAD the city council OF ORONO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: , Mudcical Zoning Cede Section 10.02 and Municipal Subdivision code Secnon 11 03 SuMivis.'on 2 ate each hereby amended by adding the foilowmg detmtnons: n -- A lot rvnicailv <ecarated from a public or pnvate road by another lot and ’-■'t'Ba^*- • ^ private road via a narrow corridor. Such a separated which gams access ^‘r . is platted as an outlet. A separated lot is considered 0 be a bacn.« ^ ^ t cVr^iTof" merew - <‘--ent over another lot. the separated lot is considered to be an "easement back lot". -Lot-Front" - A lot abutting a public or private road, across which an outlot has been platted for access to a back lot. SECTION 2. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 is amended by adding Subdivision 27 which shall read as follows; Subd -7 Special Standards for Back Lots Created After Janua^ 1. ^ J°“ fs defmed in' this section winch were c^as to required in Section 11.31. Subdivision 5 of the Orono Subdivision Code: A.Dimensional standards for back lots shaU be as follows: 1. 9 Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement. Lot width measured paraUel to to front or street^e at to street yard setback line of a lakeshore back lot. or ^ setback line of a nonlakeshore back '“U district width requirement. The street yard corridor ends and to lot begins, tklsho^^^ the lot width standard at the shorelme, at th line, and at the street yard setback line. 1 B (m J. The depth of the required street yard or front yard shaU be 150% of the zoning district front yard requirement. 4.The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shall be 150% of the zoning district yard requirements. The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shaU meet the zoning discnct lakeshore yard requirements. XrsaodUs, ex«pt that the raquirtd sid. yard of the from lot fd^acent to the access outlot shall be equivalent to the side street yard requirement for that zoning district. C. Access requirements. 1.Access outlets shall be 30 ’ minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screenmg without encroaching on neighboring properties. In aporovina front^ack lot divisions, the City may requ^ that both front fot and back lot share a driveway access wii^ the access outlot if Council determines that creatmg an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least lO’ from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. 4.No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot. 5. creation of a or private road meetmg City standards. D. Screening requirements. 1.Driveways constructed in access outlets sh^ '’t screened by fencing or vegetation at the ^ „ all points to the rear of the requued street yard ^ as to .it-T-in... intrusion of vehicle headhghts into the side or rear yard of adjacent lots. ——■' **■ The street yr d of the back lot shaU be adequately screened by fencing oVve^^etation at the discretion of the City, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yards of adjacent lots. E.additional requiremenisi 1.Accessory structures within a back lot shall be allowed no closer than 10’ to a neighboring propert>’’s side or rear yard. \c-ssor>' structures shall not be allowed within the required street vard of a back lot nor within the -equired rear yara or a front lot which abuts the street yard of a back lot. No accJSSOr>- sttucture shall be allowed within an access outlot. SECTION 3. Orono Municipal Code Section 11.31. Subdivision 5 is hereby deleted ai,d the following language substituted in its place: Snbdivision 5. Double frontage lots, access to lots, and front/baclt lot divisions. A.Double frontace lots. Double fronutge and reversed fr»“2V°lMentS avowU except where necessary to provide separatton development from traffic anerials or to overcome specific thsadvanug of topography and orientation. B.Access from any arterial roadway. Lots f„m access exclusively from an anenal roadway the any anenal roadway may be necessary f Council mav require that such lots be served by uTiere oossible in order to limit possible traffic hazard on such driveways shall be designed and arranged so as to avoid req g to back into traffic on any anerial roadway. C. rsubdlvlslons shaU adhere to the following standards: m ’-••• , t», .*t rr.-^niLi. --------•'**»-* 1. b. c. Applicability. t Front/back lot divisions may be used when existing nropeny dimensions are narrow and deep, such that lot width does not aUow for a side-by-side lot spUt, but acreage is adequate to provide a "front lot" and a back lot without requiring an area variance when the area of the ouilot access corridor is excluded. F-ont/back lot divisions may be used for individual "lot snlits" but may not be used when subdividmg a large n^cel ’into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is niwe^ a convenience to the developer rather than supponed by unique site factors. A front/bacS: lot division shall not be allowed when any Uisiinv residence on a neighboring property abunmg the proposed access ontlot is located nearer rts affected side lot line than a distance equivalent to the zoning dismct required front yard depth. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning dismct requirement. Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot line at the street yard setback line of a lakeshore back the rear of the front yard setback Ime of a back lot, shaU meet the zoning district width requirement The street yard or front yard for any back lot wil vard staning where the narrow access jot 'and the lot begins. Lakeshore back width standard at the shorelme, at the lakeshor line and at the street yard setback line. The depth of the required street yard or front 150% of the zoning district front yard requirement. The required side yard and rear y^d r < .“r- £>»■“meet the zonitig district lakeshore yard requirements. a. b. C- d. Pioneer and th Dimensional standards for front lots. A front lot created as pan of a front/back lot division shall meet all zoning district area, width and setback standards, except that the required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlot shall be equivalent to the side street vard requirement for that zoning district. 4. Access requirements; a Access outlets shall be 30 ’ minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. b In ancroving front'back lot divisions, the City may require that* both front lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access outlot if Council determines that creating an additional access to ±e existing street will be a potential safety hazard. c. Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10 from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot. e. No access outlot may be platted abu.ting an adjacent outlot except when the intent is to combine the two access for creation of a public or private road meetmg ity standards. Screenin» requiremeats and accessory stiucrure Front/back loc subdivisions shall be designed m a j die screening requiremems and accessory stnicmre standards of Section 10.03, Subdivision 27 can be met. The requirements and standards of this section those front/back lot divisions which receive prelimmary plat approval after January 1, 1994. SECTION 4. Adoption and publication. This ordinance sh^ n“„ubiicat^ ,e Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediate y up 6. d. Adopted by d« City C oudc U of Orono Mbnesota on this 1993, by a vote of _ ^ day of • Edward J. Callahan. Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin. City Clerk To:Chair Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:March 16. 1995 Subject:#2004 Bob Melamed/Ron Lauer, 920 Old Crystal Bay Road South - Sketch Plaa'Subdivision Zoning District: RR-IB. Rural Residential. 2 acre minimum dry contiguous land for minimum lot area. Portion of property is located within a shoreland area (1000’ from the lower basin of French Lake shoreline). Pertinent Ordinances 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Section 10.03. Subdivision 6 (B) - Combination of separated parcels prohibited. Potential impact on Lot 3 if access is shared with Lot 4 (Plan A) potential 300 ’ extension from Old Crystal Bay Road to Lot 4. 2. Section 10.28. Subdivision 5 (B) - Lot standards for RR-IB zoning district, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - Both access drives off Old Ciystal Bay Road will encroach Type 1 or 2 wetlands (not protected wetlands of the City). Driveway to most eastern lot in both Plans will intersect a designated wetland. Section 11.02. Subdivision 10 (A) (1-7) - Necessary findings for the granting of variances. Section 11.03, Subdivision 24 - Minimum lot area. Dry buildable land must be contiguous exclusive of designated wetland. Members should reinember that Type 1-2 wetlands not designated on the City’s wetland maps are included in dry buildable area. Also private or public vehicular easements must be excluded from the dry buildable. Section 11.10. Subdivisions 6, 7, and 8 - Sketch plan review guidelines. Section 11.33, Subdivision 4 - Typical Section - 3-6 units require public road. Comprehensive Plan 7.17 - Private driveway may serve up to three residences. Will a conflict exist between the Subdivision Regulations and the Comp Plan? The City Attorney has advised that the subdivision regulations will have precedence over a Comp Plan policy or guidelines. Zoning File #2004 March 16, 1995 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicant’s Addendum C - Location Map D - Wetlands Map E - Topographic Information/Drainage Patterns F - Plan A G - Plan B H - Sur\ey Review of Application The application involves the proposed subdivision of an undeveloped property owned by the Leonard G. Carpenter family consisting of 15 acres located to the immediate west of the City’s French Creek Preserve Park. The property contains approximately 3 acres of designated wetland (blue outlined ar'*a). The applicant’s soils consultant has located areas of Type 1 and 2 wetlands (green outlined area) that may be credited as dry buildable lands. The applicant has provided two plans. Plan A proposes a four lot proposal with a shared access drive to the north on Old Crystal Bay Road serving Lots 1 and 2 and a single access off Old Crystal Bay Road serving Lot 3. The third access to Lot 4 is via the City’s driveway that already provides access to the French Creek Preserve, two residential units and the MWCC facility. The driveways to Lots 1, 2 and 3 will encroach Type 1 wetlands and the drive to Lot 4 will encroach a designated wetland. Plan B of four lots proposes an internal road that will also encroach major portions of the Type 1 wetland. All Type 1 wetland areas that are filled will require double the areas for mitigation on the property. In addition. Lot 3 of Plan B will require an extensive driveway that would intersect one of the widest portions of the designated wetland. Please review applicant’s addendum that notes the unique feamres of this property and the request to weigh carefully the demands of the ordinances in order to minimize the impact on this unique property. Review of Plan A Applicant has met with Hennepin County and the representative of the Department of Transportation agrees that at least two safe access points can be located on the eastern boundaty of the property. The most northern will provide a shared access to Lots 1 and 2. As applicant s addendum notes that if the access to Lot 3 is converted to a shared drive with Lot 4, the access easement driveway would be of approximately 300’ in length requiring the removal of more 1 Zoning File #2004 March 16, 1995 Page 3 trees but of more impact, the easement driveway would divide the buildable envelope. Applicant could no lon2er credit the area on both sides of the easement to satisfy minimum lot requirements. The access drive ’s encroachment of the wetland with Plan A approaches at the narrowest area of the designated wetland. In fact, this area of the wetland is a drainageway connectine the larger wetland area at the northwest to the wetland at the southeast comer that evenmallv^drains eastward to French Uke, review E.xhibit E. The real issue for the City with Plan A is does the third residential unit force the upgrade of the City’s private driveway. For variances to be granted to Section 11.33. Subdivision 4, specific hardships and unique findings must be found. The applicant has suggested the following in his addendum: 1.A private road with cul-de-sac will result in massive tree removal at the northeast end of the driveway. The desire to maintain a preserve-like atmosphere. 3.The loss of trees would have a negative impact on not only the Preserve but the residences in the immediate area and the long-established residential development to the north, south and east sides of the French Lake community. 4.The negative impact on Lot 3 with the loss of more trees if it was to share an access with Lot 4. Review of Plan B Clearly, the unpopular plan, there is also a need to address variances to Section 11.33, Subdivision 4. The code requires an internal road with the development of a four lot plat. Many of the findings and hardships noted above can also be made for the development of an internal road within the subject property. The applicant notes the following additional findings: 1.The construction of a road with cul-de-sac will result in the loss of approximately 650, 45 year old unique spruce and pine trees. This is a unique heavily-forested property similar to the Sugar Woods property, at which time the City rezoned the rural property and extended sewer to it in order to save the unique forested area. The internal road would have an extensive impact on the wetlands resulting in the filling of some 2400 s.f. of wetlands vs. 800 s.f. with Plan A. 3.Hennepin County DOT has approved the location of the two curb cuts for the shared drive and single drive along Old Crystal Bay Road recognizing the uniqueness of the property. Zoning File #2004 March 16, 1995 Page 4 4. The internal road would result in the removal of approximately 650 trees while Plan A’s driveways will result in only 90 trees being lost. 5. The site is already surrounded by Old Crysial Bay Road on the west and the City driveway on the south and east sides. In reviewing both Plans A and B with the applicant, staff asked why Lot 4 in Plan A or Lot 3 in Plan B could not achieve access via the eastern portion of the City’s driveway. Applicant responded that the southern portion of the road would be blocked by a large wetland and as one goes north on the road, the trees become more dense. There would now be an open corridor in “this portion of the drive and defeat the attempt to maintain the preserve atmosphere and may have a negative impact on the preserve park. Prior to filing the preliminary subdivision application with the City, the applicant must complete the permitting process with the Watershed District, U.S. Corps of Engineers and the Department of Natural Resources for the filling of not only the Type 1 wetlands but of the designated wetlands. Options of Action There is no formal action required of the Planning Commission at the time of the skeff'*’ plan review but you are asked to comment on the two plans for development and to make a recommendation as to your preference and the one you can best support. If you feel unique findings and hardships noted above are valid, then you may agree with applicant ’s position and recommend the development of Plan A. If it is your positio*i that Plan B is tlic only viable option, then in an attempt to minimize the impact on the designated wetland you may allow Lot 3 to achieve access via the City driveway. If members concur that it is important to keep driveway curb cuts off the eastern portions of the Citj’ drive, then applicant may have to realign lot lines so that access can be achieved from the southern portion. If Plan A is approved and the City grants t^e necessary variances to limit t^ removal, the City may ask for special restrictions to be placed not only in'the resolution granting approval of the plat but in the private covenants, similar to what the City asked for in the plat of Sugar Woods. Applicant should also be advised that the City shall request special covenants to be filed against the Chain of Title of each of the three western lots advising future owners of the location of Type 1 and 2 wetlands and the need to deal with the appropriate agencies if any alterations are proposed within these special protected areas (similar to the types of covenants the City requested with the Old Crystal Bay Road Addition). • iVcoi 6 t) S‘ 'iS ■) n/r\ /n « "'• ! ■Jv •> -T*IT CITY OF ORONO - SI.'BDIVISION APPLICATION •. rv •*- "I■"’•.•5 ’ ? \ W . • w PROPERTY LOCATION Site address V* » » WJ'w.^w ^ ‘ r* •* w • . ^r f>'-C Property Identification Number (PID) Please check one - Property f . - • abstract or to rre ns: Attach legal description to application. ' w 1- * ' ** ■ ;*•*•*• * V » •' A ' ^. .. . w % APPLICANT 1 ~ Name ^ / /- /^ Address ^^------ Cit\' ______ Phone (home) V7'5 Zip£>22''Phone (work) 0\\7^R nf different than applicant) _ ^ Name o^/tz-’oc rrg.r /Ausr ^ • .•9^ •• — - Address Citv '4 «7 —:—^—'t*. vC,,.h^/A3 .'T Phone (home) --------- _ U_^ ;r r Phone (work) ^ iSJLiLZ Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size / U’ 7 3. 3 /£■ Present use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ Present Zoning District PROPOSAL ¥Division for Tax Purposes ■■ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (M new butldltng sues) ~l L Subdivision for New Building Sites _ Existing Units _New Units Total Units Number of Building Sites 4 Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per _____ Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official’s Signaure_______________________________________ ---------------------------------------------- MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ ___ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ . . . —-^ Totals I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning .Administrator to check PQ those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I. II «S: III) S200.00 —------- _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement S300.00 ---------- Subdivision Application (Class I & II) S3(X).00 ______ Preliminary Subdivision Application S325.00 + S25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) ______ _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) S175.00 ---------- _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only S75.(X) ■ _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. S2(X).00 ---------- _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) ---------- Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _____ Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application S150.00 (No change from original application) ______ Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $150.(X) (No change from original application) ---------- Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $100.00 (No change from original application) ______ B. Special Improvement Fees: Proposed Private Roads $600.00 -h $.50/lineaI ft.; _____ lin. ft. x .50 * ^ Proposed Public Roads $9(X3.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 * . — ~~ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $9(X).00 ---------- Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub '■ Proposed Watennain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub ---------- Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 ---------- On-Site System. Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision aqiplications) $50.CK)/new lot proposed for on-site x_____new lots ---------- C. Flexible Application Fecs/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $200.(X) —— Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $75.00 -------— PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/D welling Unit ------— The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning CommissjptJ^and Cpuncil^eces^^^to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional ees DateOwner’s Signature ____________________________________________ Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Cot^ssion meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an au onze agent attend in your place and to alvise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. MELAMED LAUER PARTNERS 1212 E. WAYZATA BLVD., STE 100 WAYZATA. MN 65391 (612) 473-2588 March 13.1995 Orono City Planning Commission P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Ladies and Gentlemen; I am writing to outline to you the intention of Melamed Lauer Partners for the development of the 15 acre parcel on Old Crystal Bay Road that I will refer to as the "Carpenter Prcoerty*. This 15 acre parcel, located on the east side of Old Crystal Bay Road, is truly one of the most unique parcels of undeveloped land remaining in the City of Orono. It was planted heavily with Pine and Spruce in the 1950*s and remains today as an outstanding example of forestation within our City. Numerous wetlands exist within the boundaries of the properties as well and have been delineated on the attached sketch plans. It is our goal to develop a four lot subdivision of wooded home sites that will take advantage of the forestation and wetland areas. We not only contemplate a very minimum of wetland disturbance but are going to go to great ends to preserve as many of the t-ees as possible. It is our goal to complete this development In such a manner that when the homes are located within, there will be almost no visual disturbance to the neighboring property owners as well as the City of Orono's French Creek Preservelocated to the east and north of the property. this goal We will ask for variances from the City of Orono ordinances to accomplish al. First of all, we are not going to ask for connection to city sewer. We recognize the political and logistical difficulties of doing so and have been assurec by preliminary septic testing that sites exist for primary and alternate septic sites for a minimum of four lots and probably for more. Although we have two sketch plans to show you, there are clear advantages to all concerned, particularly the City, for your granting us the variance request to use a driveway plan over an internal road and cul-da-sac plan. We wil ask the City for a variance to permit the use of a shared driveway access at the north end of the property from Old Crystal Bay Road, a single let access to the southwesterly lot, also from Old Crystal BayBay Road, a single let access to the southwesterly lol Road, and a single lot access from the city driveway to the easterly lot. 1 reviewed this access plan with Hennepin County and they have given it tentative approval. They readily recognized the advantages to all concerned of our not disrupting the ferestation and wetland areas in the manner that would be required to utilize an internal road and cul-de-sac. The mature Evergreen trees present the same concerns to the City as you have expressed about Sugarwoods and the results that were achieved there are the minimum that we would hope for on this property. If we dont have to develop a road to access the building sites, the wet ands and forestation can truly be preserved much in the same as they are ■/s now. We are prepared to put the necessary restrictons in deeds to preverit the unnecessary removal of Evergreen trees, particularly along the boarders of the lots. This Will result in an elimination cf any visual impact upon the residential neighborhoods or the preserve. We estimate uhat using this approach cf driveways rather than an internal ..___ . ___•______^ CAr\ Cx/crrtraon trooc It wi nicnroad will result in saving at least 540 larce mature Evergreen trees. It will also SCO square feet or wetlands with driveways rather than 2400result in our crossing SCO square feet o1 square feet of wetlands with roadways. The next variance that we II ask for is the permission by the City for a third residential unit to have access off the City driveway which currently serves the two residential units that have been constructed on the properties the City recently sold to me. There are also many reasons why the City should not want to upgrade their driveway to a rcac. First cf ail. the City owns tt.'s driveway and I believe is committBd to k66ping a preserve atmosphere for the park land located at the end driveway. In order to build the road and construct the necessary cul-de-sac, It would be necessary to do massive tree removal near the end of the driveway on City property to accomplish the cul-de-sac construction. This would have a major impact on the natural preserve atmosphere as well as to the residents in the area. If one of the goals is to keep the preserve atmosphere unique and to prevent visual impact of any residential structures to persons walking in the preserve area, then it is mandatory that this road not be constructed. If access to lot four would be accomplished with a shared access off from Old Crystal Bay Road from lot three, it would require construction of a 300 foot driveway easement through the south side of lot three and also the removal of large numbers of major trees. This would also double the length of the driveway required to lot four and, of course, more trees would be removed in that area as well. I trust you recognize that I share your concern for maintaining the unique nature of the preserve that is so vital. It is for this reason that we are not asking for sewer, not asking for maximum lot density, and our asking for variances to permit us to save the trees, protect the visual serenity of the preserve, and disturb the least amount of wetlands. I will be out of town during this week until March 1 7th. However, I will be home on Saturday, March 18th and Sunday, March 19th and would welcome the opportunity to walk with any of you in the area of the subdivision that we have proposed. If you would call me at 476-1212. and if I’m not home leave a message on my voicemail, I will get back to you to set any time that would be convenient Tor you on that Saturday or Sunday to walk and/or talk further about this project. Thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely yours, Robert L. Melamed, Partner Melamed Lauer Partners RLM/tlw eavedrcrono doc3/1 3/9S B' f/-' • ../. i::^ '■. - \ ■- I gs^ \ - ■ r: •-#•\ .*57 ■,=* ^ '/^ . *• ■ \ '^ ’ J m«5i£ >*.;• y -:;V..'^ .. !r • «« >^ :s >m z ^ z hSZ X 0m mg 5 zo 2 Q -»2 ^ o > QC A ^ Q 5 o2 ^H -n m 2 •“^ CO < Cisp* z (oO U mA3'S w BO o O z ^ m T] m = a Z Wgo CO ^ o CO Z c m5 m m 3J gP =”z CO op> rr*N> i’ i II 00 ^ I O (Oo cn i.' • ■:i ■ I 1 • , i f' N K ^ s s *\ '' I ^ 9>m z ^z hS S^!5 isos o -»2 n z o ^ ^H -n m a -■<co< C z ?0 3miSS g4S Sim To: From: Date: Subject: NOTE; Chairman Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator March 15, 1995 #1800 Michael Plank, 4115-4145 Watertown Road - Subdivision - Sketch Plan Reconsideration Planning Commission originally approved a lot line rearrangement for this property in February 1993. Pending submittal of final survey work, that recommendation was never brought forward to Council and the approval expired in February’ 1994, Due to recent code changes affecting "back lots", and anticipating their effect on future subdivision of the remaining property, staff has recommended and applicant has agreed to bring this back to you as a sketch plan. List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - Discussion Lot Line Rearrangements Approved 2/16/93 Staff Memo 9/12/94 Survey. Potential Funire Arrangement with Platted Road Staff Sketches (D-1 thru D-6) Resolution No. 2267 Ordinance No. 122. Second Series Planning Commission is requested to consider how the "back lot" ordinance should be interpreted in regards to the currently proposed lot line rearrangement, as well as a future division of the thineen acre remaining parcel. In order to follow the history of this property, staff has provided a series of sketches. Exhibits D-l thru D-6. • D-l shows the applicant ’s total property as it existed prior to 1988. • D-2 shows how the property was divided into three lots in 1988. Note that Resolution No. 2267 which approved this subdivision, allowed the old house on Lot 2 to continue accessing directly to Watertown Road, allowed a new driveway on a narrow outlot to serve Lot 3, and allowed this new driveway to be shared with a second lot which might be created from Lot 3 in the future. • D-3 shows that in 1993, rather than merely splitting Lot 3 to create a fourth lot, applicant chose to rearrange the line between Lots 2 and 3, increasing I>ot 2 to 13.6 acres and reducing Lot 3 to 6.2 acres. Zoning File #1800 March 15, 1995 Page 2 Note that applicant chose to combine the driveway outlot w ith Lot 2, so that he could sell the existing house on the easterly portion of Lot 3, yet maintain full control of the outlot for fumre use as access to the westerly portion of Lot 3 if it is subdivided off of enlarged Lot 2 some day. Question #1: Docs the transition from Sketch D-2 to Sketch D-3 constitute creation of a new back lot per Ordinance No. 122, Subdivision 27? Or is it merely reshaping an existing back lot? If the easterly portion of Lot 3 is considered a new back lot, then it must meet the 150% acreage requirement, or 7.5 acres. Question #2: With Lot 3 being divided and its west half being combined with Lot 2, is the "shared driveway" approval of Resolution No. 2267 still applicable? Question #3; D-5 shows a possible future split of enlarged Lot 2 to create an 8.2 acre second back lot. Inherent in this layout is the need for a lot width variance. Is this shared driveway outlot what Planning Commission intended to allow in Subdivision 27 (C-4) (Page 2 of Ordinance No. 122)? That section says "no more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot." Sketch D-6 is applicant’s alternative proposal incorporating a future outlot roasl rather than the narrow driveway corridor. (For clarity, the parcels have now ucen labeled X, Y and Z). Question #4: Although new Lot Y would still require a width variance, neither Y nor Z would be considered back lots because now they front on a private road. Does that road have to be built to eliminate the back lot status of Y and Z? Or is merely a shared driveway for Y and Z within the platted road, still acceptable? And, Is there any need to build a road to serve just two lots, Y and Z, if X will still access Watertown Road directly? I.e., does any of this impact the 1988 approval for a shared driveway to serve the two lots in the south half of this property? Applicant ’s Perspective The applicant in the past has indicated he would prefer not to relocate the old hour’s Watertown Road driveway eastward to the outlot due to distance and topographical considerations. It can be assumed he would also prefer to construct a shared driveway rather than a .oad within a platted road outlot, to serve just the two southerly lots. 1 Zoning File #1800 March 15, 1995 Page 3 Assuming the City honors its 1988 "shared driveway" allowance, applicant and staff need jjjj-gQfjQjj regarding interpretation of the ordinances, and how Planning Commission \\ishes applicant to do his*^initial lot line rearrangement without creating problems for a future split of the combined Lot 2/west part of Lot 3. Staff Recommendation • Allowing a shared driveway in the current 30’ outlot corridor would not currently pose a problem. However, if Highway 12 planning ultimately leads to expanded traffic levels on Watertown Road, the City may ultimately want the old house to relocate its Watertown Road driveway to the outlot. A future subdivision of this parcel would then have three homes using one access, and the standards then indicate the use of a private road. • While the layout as approved in 1993 doesn ’t increase the one-house level of traffic currently using the corridor, a future division would. If the east part of Lot 3 is determined to not be a "newly created back lot", then there may be no real need to plat a private road outlot now. • If the applicant in the future wishes to do the future split, at that time it would make sense to re-examine traffic situations and then determine whether an outlot road should be platted/built and whether the old house should access to it also. <••• < a o X ix: X|... da << ;.ii Q • oVa«r* X ♦■,.* X L> bj •j: PROPOSED LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR MICHAEL PLANK IN LOTS 2 & 3. BLOCK 1. & OUTLOT A. MAPLE PLACE HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOA <..U\PFCV;A lA!Jf r- iVil I \ <■B lU 1 acrr«f0i«t rSAWNM ai\fw»N tun lOU •li1k»N I oti 2 «)d 1. Block I. and Ouloi A. MATI£ PLACT: i‘RoPOKn> I m.M lacclA • halol A 1^ 2 . »1 tfiM p«t 9{lBt I. Block I. MAHi PLACE, which lioo woalwly of •bt rollewiny domibod lino bmI iia octonaiona: Ccoaiwmim il tfw aoctwMl coraor of 'Md Lo« I. tfwnco OQ an uuntd tw vuai of Wool olo«« a aopaart of<M nodborfy lino of • aid L«< J a dirtanco of 110 00 l*«no oa aa^lo point in aaid norllwrly luw. md ^ poial of l>f|MBin| of ibo luM boioi doicribod; Owaco Sou* 41 do|r«oo 2) aHmao# Wo« a diotaoo a| 271 M lirol. ttwoco Sooh 5 dayooo Wool a dift«tro of 150 00 fool; ibonco aotfhtoMvly to apooo on Oio •oubody low ofoaidtol J diaail 122 30 fool wootwly ordw oo^aal coraor of ooid Ul J. aa mooMod alant Ni<i Mudiwly ioia. ad aaid Iim dioro oadii^ ndijoct to M OMmoia for divoway piapoooo am nod Otflol A. PxcaLfi thal p«1 olTad 1. 6lock I. MAPt£fUCK jioo oootorfy or^M loa*owi^ itMaibod hw nd ita oatooBiona. Conoaoncim m 6o iwdMort coraor of a«d Lol J; tiooco M on aammod boari«« of Wool along a mpmrn of dw nordwrly lino of anid Lot 1 • ikiiaKo of 110 uo froc lo an aatlo point w ooid aordmfy No. and tw point ofboiHiti« of tht linr l<rin« dracnbod. dwoco Soinh 41 dapooa 23 miautoo Wool a diatanco of 27t M fror. dttncr Soiah 5 do|p««0 Wo< a diolanca of 330 00 fool; Imoco ooudwooMrly lo a poial oa On ootalmly lino of oatd Ul 3 4alanl 122 SO fool woolorfy of «» aonOwHl conwr of •aid Lot J. aa aioanaod along awd ooudwriy lino, nod aaid lina iboro ondii«. togottor wiA an oaaoffleal for rbivoway piopoaoa ootr Oullol A, aaid MAPLE PLACE. 0 Draoita tf oa markor Dranngs shown «o Iwood igion aa aaaianod dilua ~?frrir ^«/r <r4W«p»0 I''' I.im.tr.uk MU ' I . iti; I .iL^ \|\ ui: i I'.jm I lu liH »• ilit% llul IIm» •iiUt» H>. p« [•jw. .1K >Mt' un>i 1 a>% d»»nl WfVt- «•>»«• .mi.IiKii Ijihj Jiitk ticMitidi jH.ll0iv.lstir>ini<r«inJrf Ilk tin* «*1 IIn M«Ii »-• \lirMk’«.CJ . ____________ Mkli ^ A|iii»ia'*>a4A I ^a lean a?^^^ HAIJ r. too' iwa i-13-kJ awvi* 02*545 'J - S¥J TO: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator ^ / FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator September 12, 1994 #1800 Michael Plank, 4115/4145 Watertown Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearraneement - Renewal of 2/16/93 Approval - Request for Continuation to October 17th Meeting The original Planning Commission recommendation for approval for this lot line rearrangement expired on February 16. 1994. A review of the file suggests that the "front/back lot" ordinance (flag lots) adopted in December 1993 may have an impact on the viability of this and any fumre subdivision of the property. Applicant ’s surveyor has indicated and staff coiKurs that this public hearing be continued to the October 17th meeting to give applicant time to further review the proposal with staff. Staff Recommendation It would be appropriate for Planning Commission to table this request, continue the public hearing to October 17th and accept no public comment at the September 19th meeting. H -o MteihMSB '1 C.. < C^. *.-'...c,:.i: • r*m* ‘S.1 )... da •M* tf** L:J Cl At t tAa *•*:V.; ♦ •a#vj V'.* u *\pkcv ;a i a ?h 19 4» t . • lUdf kah airy ' • *0*9. \ I ^ 4^*0 #/W*## »*-%# i?.> ,/ */ ' ••• 'V; -.' '%/' Pl*«n« \ \ •>«««i««t y^c/ruM€ \ C» ' r.ii:M.ni^\ .\ ;<*D /^4rrt/4 f # //vL. I T0f r4Mf^ \ B 'V b 1C £ acre«Ut«t t Ca^hd'Y \j PROPOSED LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR MICHAEL PLANK IN LOTS 2 4 3. BLOCK 1. & OUTLOT A. MAPLE PLACE HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOA i-EQAJ- PFSfBIPTIflN f >F PBPkiKp^ lAm 2 aid J. BlocJi I. Bhi Ouao4 A, MATLE FlACE PRo»i^9nT I j^fiAi nF^ntiPTinKw PccitA ^lM A.U«2.aiitep«1«fU« J.Black l.MAn£PLACE. Pw followiRi dMcnUd liM sd ite MOMw: •'--------^r - ^ 11 —pM If lud Lot J. *Mc« M a tudLol S Bdi I S«^ 3 d»pa« WmI • «r S5t M IbK loBpeaateM^tyliap ofaidUU dtiaa 12U0M—<■»! carwrerpiidUl t.awanvaJ dan M^Nlf Ite. ^ m4 Iw It m tmtmarn for «kiva«r«f pupaa wvm w4 (Mtl A. •tidUlSBdiitetttriieoofcMitaa^tMjirtii^MiMvIat bt|ia«l tf *• lat Umg *mm Saft 41 data 21 mSZm 01 271M teat Stud 3 4»pat WmI • (ftttara «rS5t at ibtt A m* PMOlfl |wri ofUt J. Blodi I. MAPLE PLACE. Ua MMkdy tC^ MIwm ditmbtd lat ad iiB ostaava; Caaarai # ai^tal anHr tEtad La J* r • "Tl'Ts ^ ’A Wt of II 00» ^ Kt. adiM pate tAtp^a- fta teatt aaa i a^ ------ - V f L^^ll a te tatetep lia aaa La2 4teM tUM fca aate% ate tateal aaa a tad La J. a atwte tli^ ta4 aiterip iat. ad add Ite tea a^^ lifaHr ate ^ Fte"^ Oala A. tad IMFU PLACE Bttrap dtota «• batd «pa a aaatd teM. jw xitete orsoann lauHN** RfvnrK cun lAKumiiN COITIN & C.RONBERG, iNC.I S nK ufiih ihji ihi* Mirtn K im-if urntrf mi dMriiMprf- iiMim «nj iKji limidwivr iiilIrtKmm Miil^ikJSttnnnK inidrr (Nr Un»«t lh< M«lr i4 Mm«irv<i M«iL S Cnnihriii Mmnr^tj Lnm«4* Ni<nkl<r« fCAU r. too* mrt •»»PJ ntMo «i-S43 2-jrrJ /^aruAf x: 0 V ISM. €■ t ^ IliORON^ City of ORO^’O RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.! A RESOLOTION GRANTIliC APPROVAL OP THE PRSLIMINARY PLAT OP MICHAEL PLANK APPLICATION NO. 1194 WHEREAS, Michael Plank (hereinafter "the applicant") on August 14, 1987 filed a Class III subdivision application with the City o. Orono to as the property; and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with concerning this^ application were given the opportunity to spea)c thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on September 28, 1987, tho Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of Michael Planx, noting the following findings of fact: 1, The property is located within the RR-IA Single Family Residential zoning district requiring a cumulative dry buildable land with a minimum of 2 acres contiguous land. 2. The property consists of 24.9 acres. Lot 1 contains ^ dry lands with 2.7 contiguous dry acres; Lot 2 TOntains 5 acres of dry lands; and Lot 3 contains 11.7 acres of dry lands. 3. Lot 1 shall achieve access via a future curb cut Road; Lot 2 shall continue to use existing approved J® shall be served by an approved driveway, recently constructed, at northeast edge of property. ' 4. The existing access within Lot 3 shall serve as a shared dri^ when Lot 3 is divided in the future. 5. A single family residence can be constructed on Lot 1 without the need for future variances. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that based “P®" hereby of the findings noted above, the City Council of vy coffin approves the preliminary plat of Michael Plank 2^ 1987 and Gronberg. Inc. dated July 15, 198? «''*»«'* A' i«, h"e further grants a variance to the standard that agtlot serving frontage on a public road with the creation of the drive y Lot 3, subject to the following conditions: Page 1 of 3 \ t triAt* TO cr^cA^ Lo'^t X ^.0 z' ^ ^/jNi r_Dt-ti. uavj^ A P=><2. T>*fe t.^' 2C^*^’ N A (/j/fi»TW ^ -^1 z / y "2: ^.Z ^ U /»'s2^c V f.>n' /* ^ , c,.z-n^r ^TO 2- jfc-ftueli. eY A <p, >«€S ^M/t- TC> a«ll.TO>* fL/Wr»vt^ T^ )wCHT "P^ ,1 «» ** V/ * X ^ gAt(^ tors .... CfTY* City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF' .NO.2267 ORONO 1. Prior to tho issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for new residence on Lot 3» applicant r.ust relocate drainage ditch adjacent to Watertown Road, approximately 27 feet from centerline of Watertow.n Road. 2. Owner of Lot 2 to grant access and utility easement over 10 feet drainage and utility casement along east lot line in favor of Lot 3. 3. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month: A. RECORD PLAT drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1”«200'. Drawing to include: a) Lot lines platted per preliminary survey. b) Dedication of right-of-way for Watertown Road. c) Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10* wide along all perimeter property lines and 5* each side of internal property lines. d) Designate 30 feet wide corridor of Lot 3 as an outlot. e) Designate drainage easements in angles and bearings as shown on preliminary plat - drainageway to be designated at a 15 feet width. B. LEGAL DOCUMENTS required: a) Title opinion addressed to the City. owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b) The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c) Deed access and utility easement in favor of Lot 3 over 10 feet drainage and utility easement adjacent to east lot line of Lot 2. c. PEES TO BE PAID: Total Due $400.00 a} Park dedication fee per current schedule# calculated as follows: Lot 3 at $100.00. Page 2 of 3 •4 City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _2267 CITY ' OF ; * ORON& b) Final plat fro - Sib- 00 c) Filin? fee fc :)1t: ■‘Associated documents - $150. Applicant is further ad\>« .. that upon final approval •‘si three lot plat by the Council, the City will refund $2,000.00 depositi c with the City as security to issue that this subdivision application woul<J be filed and completed by applicant. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held September 28, 1987. ATTEST: Sorbthy f thy Hallin. CitvCity Clerk Pago 3 of 3 f- ORDINANCE NO 122 , SECOND SERIES CODE AND ^ ^ USE OF LOTS sS W 5SiuC OK -lUVAlI «0*. aa "easemeat Dacjc loi . platted for a==«s to a bacUot. bv addmgfor access to a wv. ^ ■ rMe Sectioo 10.03 is ameoded by addm=SECTION 2. Municipal Zoning Code Sectio Subdivision 27 whicn shall reao as toUows. ,jv 1 1994 Back lots rit-Sd S s ^ « „•,hired in section 11.31. Subdivtsion 5oi the drono Subdivision Code: A. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as foUows: Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement. Inf line Lot width measured parallel to the ttie front yard° .ierhaclclmeofalakesfaorebadclot. orat 1. 2 Lot width measured parallel to the the front yard s«ct yard setback line of a akesho^^^^^^^^ setback line of a front yard for district width requirement. The ^ access outlet back lot will be a yard starting . j^^^k lots shall meet corridor ends and the lot ^le lakeshote setback ihe lot width standard at the shore^. at me^---------------^ line, and at the street yard setback lae-^ ^ \ . 1 B. C. D. toshort y^ of I lakKhoB back lot shaU meet the zoning dtoct lakemote yard requirements. front/back ^ tha required side yard of the front lot Sfent t"==roudot shall be equivalent to the side street yard requiremcGt for tbac zoning distnc:. Access requirements 1. 2. J. rinre chall be 30’ width, and shall be wide ri^rrcco^i^ snow removal and screening M encroaching on neighboring properties. ,n approving front/b.k J- L«ssTud " rCorcVd«:^^^^ creating an vlO .-.-M SSs to mVe^ting street wul be a potential sarety hazard. Driveways within a back lot shaU be located at least W from the Side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. ^be served by a driveway locatcd^^ NO access outlet may be platted « “ i-Trent when the intent is to combine the two access o creation of a public or private road meeting City stan Screening requirements 1.Driveways constructed m ® disc-^n of the City, at screened by fencing or vegetanon at the lot, so all points to the rear of ±c required street yard of ^e fron S^to eUxninate intrusion of vehicle headUghts mto the side or re yard of adjacent lots. V ^ vard of the back lot shall be adequately screened by SciS^'or veg«t2tioa at the discretioa of the City, so as to inmiSoQ of vehicle headlights mto the side or rear yards of adjacent lots- E. . .4 ,rr-ssorv structures. Accessory structures shall adhere to Standards for ^ with the foUowing additionalail requirements or tne zormij, requirements: 1. Acc-ssory structures within a back lot shaU be allowed no closer ^ 10° » a neighboring property ’s side or rear yard. shall not be allowed within the required street i'r"7b"o;‘:?tL ,the reouued rear yard of a trout lot which abuts the street yard of a back lot. J. No accessory structure shaU be aUowed within an access ouUot. SECTION 3. Orono Municipal C^e Sec-n 11.31. Subdivision 5 is hereby deleted and the following language substituted in us place. tar. ace-ss to lots, and frontDack lot divisions. Subdivision 3. Double ffonuge lots, acc-ss A.Double fronuge lots. Double j^of Residential rto1tnS:Slc “:SeRS or tl overcotne specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. B.Access from any arterial Wredri“wa “«MS^&o® access e.xclusively from an anesnal roadway. adjoining lots, the - » -id«q»«ng vehicles to back into traffic on any arterial roadway. C. "o^ro^rprrde'cS^^^^^ -rdie tkrrSJts^fmr^^^^ --» the following standards: « • 1. ApplicabiliQ^' b. c. • Front/baclc lot divisions may be used whea existing property dimensions arc narrow and deep, such that lot ^d£ does not aUow for a side-by-side lot spUt, but acreage is adequate to provide a "front lot" and a back lot without requiring an area variance when the area of the outlot access corridoi is excluded. Front/back lot divisions may be used for individual "lot splits" but may not be used when subdividing a large p'arcel’into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is merely a convenience to the developer rather than supported by unique site factors. A front/back lot division shaU not be aUowed when any existing residence on a neighboring property abutting the proposed access oudot is located nearer its affected side lot line than a distance equivalent to the zoning dismct required front yard depth. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows. Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement. Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot line at the street yard setback line of a lakeshore back lot, or at the rear of the front yard setback line of a nonl^eshore back lot, shall meet the zoning district width requiKmeut. The street yard or front yard for any back lot wiU be a vard starting where the narrow access outlot comdor ends and the lot begins. Lakeshore back lots shall meet the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setbacic line and at the street yard setback line. The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150% of the zoning district front yard requirement. The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lou shall be 150% of the zoning district yard The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shau meet the zoning district lakeshore yard requirements. a. b. c. d. J. 4. 5. 6. of a froac/b ct-indards except that the required side yard of le fro “ iJe'adjacsot to tho access outlet shall be equivalent to the Se street yard requirement for that aonmg distnct. Access requiremeats: a. Kree^S ^thout encroaching on ne.ghbormg propenies. b. Tn anorovir.'’ front/back lot divisions, the City may require Ihar' both front lot and back lot share a driveway access ^ rhin the ^c-^ss outiot if Council determmes that creatmg :;:rdi«e:s ^ the ex^tmg street wUI be a potential safety hazard. Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10' ftorthe side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. xfo more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outiot. „cept when the ~ „eetmg C.tyrc= “rpruc or pnvate road meeting City Standards. screening requirements "./ra'^e:" Front/back lot subdivisions shaU be dcsi^ne jt^dards of the screening requiremeats and accessory structure stan Section 10.03, Subdivision 27 can be met. The requirements and standards of^ ^^eive preliminary plat those front/back lot divisions which receive prei approval after January 1, 1994. SECTION 4. Adoption and publication. This j^ypon publication. Pioneer and the Inker newspapers and shall become etfecuve msmedtately up i « % December ^ K ,h= Cicy Council of Orono. Minnesou on this .U- . wl!ty a vote of ^ ayes and nays. -................... Ea^^id J. CaUKhan. Jr., Mayop^ u - • Lake^/^'oneer newspapers the week of 12/27/93.Pxiblishec rn the Laker/- -once ORONO 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 Rowlette 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 for 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 'or the remaining 22 acre parcel will be considered at a later time. The total dedication of 66' 04 rijiht-of-way road easement of Watertown Road at one section creates an unbuildable triangu:^-r 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 m 1968 the code stated that a stock farm had to have 10 acres and Section 10.03 would allow an increase of 25% without the need for a conditional use permit review. In . >85, variances were granted for t e commercial 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 d-, 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. 1 V. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 Larry Berg, attome>- 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 parcel and use as it has always been used. Berg expressed his view tiiat the historic use of the property should be grandfathered m as U has continued since 1957. Mabusth did not consider this a "grandfather" simation. 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 1957 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 oroug"* 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, t e applicant advised the City that in 1975 there w-rre 20 horses on the 9.9 acres. ORONO PLANNING COMxMlSSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 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. Peterson asked how many other properties in Orono have 9.9 acres with 27 horses. Napier responded that right across the street there was a 4 5 acre parcel with 18 horses on it. Mabusth responded she would h tve 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 w ould 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 tor 20 horses. Mabusth asked Planning Commission members if the>- 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 variance. ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 Berg reiterated that the last time this property was before the City, this level of in^'^nse horse use was permitted. This was many months before the City contacted the owner regarding tuinbination 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 JM 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 tqjpropriate 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 MWCC 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 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 («) #1992 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1420 BRACKETTS POLNT ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITA^ARIANCES - 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 suppon 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 that 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 a!.<jwed 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®/o 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/s^ctural repair 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 wntten statement wth 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 fi-om the 0-75’ zone, there would be no need for a variance for the drive. He did riot 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 main 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 PLANNCiG COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 Nolan amended his motion, Smith seconded, to approve Application #1992 for James and Joann lundt 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. applicant will provide an amended plan to be presented to Council Ayes 4, nays 0. (#4) #1993 CALMN 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. Mabusth explained that the applicants have received variance approvals, per Application #1945, for a I0'xl4' three season porch addition. After 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 L^e 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 vanance^ 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 responded 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 md requesting a bond to ensure it is completed. Mabusth responded that as a condition of approval of this application, the City would require a building permit for the shed and to move it 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 Westl^e Street for a side setback variance with staff recommendations 1-5 in the memo dated February 15, 1995 and adding the deadline date of July 1995 for the removal of aU 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 theii 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 h^ that the residence be located 25' from the main lake. The comer of the existing residence is at 17 while the applicants have proposed 20'. Strauss also suggested the applicant look at removmg 8 ORONO PLANNING CO>LMlSSION 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 Rowlette 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 1950’s. Sally 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 improve,’ 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 althoueh 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 vrith the location of the residence. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Peterson, to approve Application #1997 for Jonathan wd 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 Rowlette objected to approval of the application because they felt the footprint of the residence was too ambitious for the lot. ORONO PLANNLNG COM>nSSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 (#8) #1998 CRAIG WICKLUND, 3780 BAYSIDE ROAD - VARUNCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:35-10:03 P.M. Mr. and Mrs Craig Wicklund and Jo Hais'ett were present for the application 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 1.6 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 stru'.;ture. 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 water 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 be an 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 ^ee 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 hardshio 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 they 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 application 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. • * 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 January 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