Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-19-1995 Planning Packet
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 19, 1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present; Chair Stephen Peterron, Charles Schrocder, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Candace Rowlette, Charles Nolan, Jr, and Janice Berg. The following represented the City Staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Sherry Frost Council Member Goetten and Mayor Callahan were present. Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p m SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING (ilfl) #2025 MICHAEL PLANK, 4115/4145 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 7:00-7:0* P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr Plank was represented by his surveyor, Mark Gronberg. The sketch plan was reviewed at the last Planning Commission meeting. The applicant followed the recci^u'iendations for the preliminary subdivision. The road outlot has been platted. There is no back lot reconfiguration. Lot 2 does not have to meet 150% of area and width standards. A width variance will be required for Lot 2 adjacent to cul-de-sac. Septic testing revealed adequate soils for on-site ahemate site location. The applicant was informed that if Lot I was subdivided in the future that the northern lot would no longer be able to access from Watertown Road. An upgraded road was asked for if the three lot subdivision were to be done The applicant's representative inquired if the current standards at the time of future subdivision do not ask for an upgrade, if the applicant could go to what the standards say at that time The loss of trees were discussed. Mabusth said this would be looked at when Lot I was further subdivided. Smith asked what the future desire for the property is according to the applicant His representative said Plank would like to subdivide the remaining property into two lots at some future date. Plank was reported to say he has no objection to the requirements but wants it open to what the staiKlards are at that time. During public comments, Mark Jones, a Realtor with Burnet Realty, said the 6 acres with the house has been sold contingent upon approval of the subdivision. KHNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNilSSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 19, 1995 V «• » * • Ms sX • *«. M mm « y Commissioners agreed that changes to the plans were made as asked. Mabusth noted a newly defined designated wetland on the property. Mabusth commented that a vacation of the utility and drainage easement on the old shared lot tine w ould be asked for when fiuther division occurs. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2025 with the Staff recomnrendations 1-4, and with the understandimt that if Lot I is subdivided, it willj be subject to the standards and ordinances at that time. Ayes 6, Nays 0 (#2) #2029 WILLIAM F. SMITH, 25S0 FOX STREET - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION • 7:50-8:30 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Smith was present At the last meeting of the commission. Smith was asked to gain access to the newly created lot from Fox Run. Four property owners have sent letters voicing their opposition to the use of this access The applicant's subdivision proposal requests the use of the existing easement drivewav to serve all three lots It was noted that there is 2+ acres of drv contiguous land to the west of the driveway. Mabusth said another alternative suggested at the sketch olan review would be to allow a second curb cut to serve the new lot, but that would conflict with the City's comprdtensive management plan for rural areas. An earlier subdivision stipulated a disclaimer that if an additional lot was created, a private road would be needed to serve 3 lots. To satisfv the current code, a 24' wide paved road would be needed with a cul-de-sac within the only area available, a designated wetland. Mabusth said if division was considered a back lot/front lot configuration, an outlot at 30' width could be installed along the east lot line Lot 2 would have to continue using the existing drive. There would be minimal encroachment of the designated wetland. The applicant would like the Commission to recommend using the existing driveway for the lot. Smith has added 4" of new gravel, which has already conformed to the ruts. The applicant will bring in a blade to cut the drive to make it uniform and then crown it for proper drainage. Smith said this would be done to all of the drivewav and the turnaround areas. Mabusth noted that the on-site septic tests confirm suitable area for septic treatment on Lot 2. There would be contiguous 2-acre of dry land to west of easement drive that intersc'cts Lot 2. "t i I ->»rr >i|• Mr'l. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 19. 1^95 (#2 - #2029 William Smith - Continued) Lindquist was informed that Lot 1 cannot be further subdivided due to the wetlands. Lindquist said this would mean that there would be a maximum of three lots served by the driveway if approved The Applicant asked the Commission to consider the amilarities with the Strongholdl subdivision, where a 30' outlet roadwav was aooroved. which abuts the McMillan property This roadway would also cxtoid no further. The minority of the driveway serves two existing residences; the new drive would turn off immediately Mabusth said this is a narrow gravel easement drive The Stronghold property is serv^ by a paved platted outlet. There is a 14' desiunated easement; but the actual driveway is 10' in its present state Mabusth said th^e is a need to retain the 26' setback from the wetlands. It wi» noted that there is a loop or turnaround adiacem to the home that could meet the needs of the fire department if necessary Smith said if the application is approved, the bam will be relocated. A larser turnaround could be created where a larae vehicle could drive in. back up ami drive out. Smith plans on creating additional parking for the approach to the house. Peterson said the City is looking at the driveway issue in general. The fire and police departments would like larger turnarounds. No changes have been made to the ordinance as yet. Peterson recommended maintaining the drive without paving. Smith said if an immediate cut were made, it would affect large trees and is also where the septic enters the property. So as to not disturb the topography of the site, Smith asked for a cut fi^om the driveway further to the north. Lindquist would like to see the driveway easement be wider than 14'. Mabusth said this mav create a problem in aettina 2 acres dry continuous. Smith said the oriidnal cut was 14’ and vegetation has encroached into the 14'. Mabusth asked Limlquist if he felt the outlot or easement should extend all the way to Lot 3. It was noted that the middle lot is owned by another person, and the City has no authority to include advising this property as to the need to now create a driveway outlot. Smith asked that the first portion, 50'- 75*,of the drive extending to the first turn off be wider and base the width on the space available rather than the 1 S' outlot. It was noted that changes to the middle lot could trigger pulling the scenario all together. This lot is not larac enouoh for subdivision. Mabusth Questioned whv the applicant would join in the subdivision? Smith said the owner of the lots informed him the turnaround was available for emergency vdiicles. Smith said he is willing to do what is necessary to allow rigs to emer the upper lot. I r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 19, 1995 (#2 « #2029 William Smith - Continued) Beth CaMxIy, owner of Lot 2, said expanding the width of the drive defeats the purpose of maintaining the aesthetics of the area An expansion would encroach on the trees. The area is well populated by wildlife Casody said she would be happy to maintain the circle for emergenc> vehicles Lindquist said the initial wider road up to the first driveway would be preferred for safety reasons. Gordon Buhrer, owner of property to the west, said he appreciates the narrowness of the existing road If the road had to be widened, Buhrer fdt it would encourage more traffic; and did not see any reason to widen it if the neighbors each preferred to keep it narrow. Commission members did not believ e the the amount of upgrade being discussed would affect either the privacy or the aesthetics Maintenance would be required, however. 'n discussing how wide the driveway should be, Mabusth noted there are no standards in the code for driv eways. Schroeder commented, if we now were to have three homes on the driveway, it would technically be a road, so the Commission is able to discuss the width. Rowlette commented on the inability to pass on the road Nolan said the 4" of gravel for the driveway is insufficient. Smith said there was also a 6" underlavment Casodv reported on a moving van's ability to manuever and make a complete circle on the turnaround in Lot 2. Casody also noted that meeting another car on the drive only required a 15' backing up movement of a vehicle Smith cautioned about setting a precedent, citing the Stronghold property being paved with a cul-de-sac. Mabusth said the paving was completed after ffie fact and noted the Council had dealt with the same issues on the Melamed subdivision. Rowlette moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2029 for variances to the subdivision regulations with the stipulation that additional property be available on the first lot to remain at 2 acres to allow widening and upgrading of the driveway to the location of the new curb cut off the driveway. The 1 O' existing driveway will be widened to at least 18' with gravel. The remainder of the driveway acccessing the other two lots will be widened to a 12’ width. An outlot will be designated throu^ Lot 2. The applicant asked what would happen if the wetland rules were relaxed in the future. Mabusth said the proposals ail would be subject to current code. Ayes 7, Nays 0. iaatiiiik rifti MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMKDSSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 19, 1995 («5) #3031 BRl CE R. KELLY AND IRMA J. KELLY, 2340 POX STREET - PRPI IMIN4RY SIird IVISION - 8:30-0:45 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication noted Mr & Mrs Kelly were present The property in question is located at the intersection of Fox Street and Willo>^ Drive in a RR IB zone requiring 2 acre minimum lot size and 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable land The applicants propose a shared access at the existing curb cut, which has been approved by the Engineer Mabusth cautioned the owner that the driveway easement would have an impact on division of Lot I in the future The area of the v ehicular easement must be excluded from dry land area it was noted that the top of the hill at the east side of the new lot was an acceptable location. Mabusth said there was a problem with the septic testing The existing septic system serving residence is located on Lot 2 and would not meet current septic standards Mabusth noted there appears to be no problem with the septic sites on the new lot, but Staff is unable to locate the sites because the septic diagrams are not to scale They need to be redrawn to scale Mabusth said new septic testing needs to be completed for devek^[)ed lot and a preliminary survey. An additional 5' is needed to have 200' of lot width to the rear of the 50' street setback. The Applicant said both lots were over 200' wide Kelly did not understand that the easement area is deducted from the dry buildable. The reason for the subdivision is to build a retirement-type home on the other lot. Kelly said the lot line was not necessarily fixed, but he only wanted to make it easy and simple Kelly understands that two new septics are needed and cited a report saying there is adequate space on both lots for mound systems. He does not understand the need for tabling the application Rowlette commented that the survey identities the property. Kelly had thought the survey was certified Rowlette said she could not approve the application without 200* on Fox Street for the new lot. Mabusth said structures need to be located in the field and setbacks confirmed from a fixed lot line, and the locating of structures through topograpical mapping does not satisfy requirements of a preliminary plat. Schroeder said, although the Commission can not act on the application, direction can be given. Schroder noted that the septic seems to meet the requirements. Rowlette said caution was needed so as not to destroy a future subdivision. Peterson moved, Nolan seconded, to table Application #2031 for City review of the septic sites and for a survey pinpointing structures and wells. Ayes 7, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMXnSSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 10, 1005 AC TION ITEMS (#4) ^2005 SAILORS WORLD MARINA & BOAT CLLB, 1955 SHORELINE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL LSE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 8:45-9:25 P.M. Mr. DeSantis was present. Mabusth noted that this application involves the first marina to apply for a conditioned use permit for boat club use Two requirements of the code are confirmation of an approved lanscaping plan and adequate parking The marina has an approved landscape plan, and the City holds a Developer's Agreement and letter of credit to ensure completion. Mabusth noted a recent variance application for marina approval was conditioned on additional oflT-»te parking. 46 stalls are required and 41 are available. There are 66 rental slips available. Desantis said 4 stalls are not usable and 9 are maintained for the boat club. There is an accessory structure located in one stall. The Applicant provided an in-depth memo on the impact and comparison of parking needs for boat club use and slip rentals E.xamples were given for the different scenarios of 60, 80, and 100 boat club members It was further broken down into pre, peak, and late season levels. DeSantis voiced his fmstration with the process. It is his opinion that he is getting approval for a business he has already been doing for three years. The club members numbered 24 in the first year and 50 members the last two years. DeSantis uses the current formula of 7 people per I stall for rental use for boat club members at 60 user level The Applicant ma.\imize$ his business via the boat club use. He looks at the levels of us^e to pinpoint his growth. When the boat club is using more parking space than is available, DeSantis will leave a slip open to compensate. His maximum use is projected at 46 stalls on the July 4th weekend. DeSantis emphasized his ability to control the parking by adjusting from club and rental uses. DeSantis uses several methods to limit the parking. He asks people to drive together to control the over use of the parking stalls. Parking passes are placed on the vehicles to regulate the parking. Towing can be done for violators. 12 stalls may be used at the Art Center for overflow if needed Peterson recommended this relationship be maintained for future overflow parking use. E)eSantis noted the difficulty in working with the MPCA over the soil contaminations. A probe is being done to see where the contamination comes from. The landscaping plan needs to be worked around this pollution problem. MINUTES OF THE UK JNO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 19, 1995 {UA . #2005 Sailors World • Continued) The retail operation was questioned 8 stalls are reserved for this operation. DeSantis said he no longer sells or wholesales boats. The general public does frequent the retail operation part of the year. Row lette noted that 2 stalls were probably sufficient for this use. Tho’e were no public comments. Lindquist asked lAiout the request for 60 membersNps and the growth potential. Peterson was concerned with overgrowth, noting the parking ^»aces at the Art Center. DeSantis said Iks c^ntion would be maximized at 100 club memben Peterson asked how the Ait Center parking was handled. DeSantis said the patrons are followed there. The mendia’ is responsible for his party and allows only 1 car per party. This is monitored. DeSantis said his facts were compiled from his records Peterson asked how mnay members DeSantis was asking approval for. DeSantis would like a ceiling of 100. Schroeder asked how often the Art Center is bong used. DeSantis said his need is during prime season only, 6/15-8/15, with 10-12 stalls. At this time, he has been able to park 10- 12 at the nearby gas station. Mabusth stud if a number of memberships were tqiproved and the number was to change, DeSantis would have to reapply for the CUP. Mayor Callahan commented that if the concein was over parking, the approval could be conditional on the number of stalls. Callahan noted that once the CUP is completed, it is difficult to measure the membership. Schroeder said this would be incumbent on the good relationship with the Art Center, and the number of off-site spaces allowed would become the issue. Lindquist recommended approval be based on a maximum on the nund>er of off-site parking stalls provided. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2005 for a conditional use permit to provide 25 off-site parking st^ls for a maximum of 100 boat club members. The final installation of the landsctq>ing plan cannot be completed until the EPA issue has been settled. Once this is resolved, the Applicant has 60 days in which to ftilfill the landscaping plan, or by 6/15/96 if resolution occurs during the winter months. Yearly certification of the parking arrangement for the 25 off-site stalls shall be submitted with the annual commercial marina license application Ayes 7, Nays 0. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 19, 1995 («5) #2020 JAMES BRI CE, 565 LEAF STREET - PREUMLNARY SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:00-7:49 PJVL Mr Bruce was present. The application was tabled at the last Ptannii^ CommisskMt meeting sr^tject to applicant submitting an amendment of the covenants of the Stielow Addition The application is for a three-lot subdivision with a lot line rearrangement. The lot line rearrangement will provide the additional area needed to fulfill area requirements for 3 lot division Lots I and 2 will be accessed from Oxford Road, which is a private road, with Lot 3 served by public road The accessory structure on Lot 3 will be removed prior to final plat application The Engineer has asked for a 15' sewer utility easement along north lot line of lx>t 1 to serve the church property to the east. There had been public concern over tree removal with the house pad location on Lot 1. Bruce said he has not changed the property's house pad location. Bruce did meet with the neighbors to the north, who have a swimming pool located 50-60* from the property line. Bruce said the neighbor was concerned over impact on the users of the swimming pool. A neighborhood meeting was held regarding the covenant bylaws It was found that the property owner to the north's only desire was not to be able to see a house from their property, but gained no support from others, as they felt this was unreasonable. As far as the tree removal issue is concerned, Bruce said he would agree to plant pine trees. The Nelson's, the neighbors to the north, were not convinced that this solved the issue, but did agree, according to Bruce, that the building pad fits into the normal setback. Peterson clarified with Mabusth that the covenant amendment was signed and meets the required issues for this property's subdivision Bruce said the covenant was established in 1978. and this would be the third time the covenant has been amended. Mabusth said a width variance is required for Lot 3 due to narrowness of land at 199.98 feet rather than the 200 feet required. The applicant is asking for a vacation of the existing easement over the drainageway in Lot 1. The Engineer has reviewed this request and noted it can be rede«gnated to 20', where 40' had been dedicated in the original plat. Mabusth said this was an ambitious designation and is not needed. Mabusth advised that applicant proposes no change in drainageway. KlTNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 19. 1995 (US - U2020 James Bruce - Continued) Lindquist asked of the utility easement Mabusth asked for Planning Conunission ’s opinion and noted that the Engineer did recommend an easement be granted for future sewer extension to east The property is not within MUSA, and the Engiiwer said that this would be the time to gain the easemert A sewer tine is located on Oxford Street Cook had recommended the 15' easement along the north lot line. The applicant had no problem with this, except for the issue of trees All agreed that this would be the time to gain the easement but had reservations as to the location and the impact on tree removal Smith asked what the worst case scenario would be regarding the easement and tree removal Mabusth said based on the elevations, the excavations would be deep, calling for wider easement areas This would result in a major loss of trees if installed at north lot line The Planning Commission recommended an easement and discussed its location Nolan noted that an easement would normally be placed to the outskirts of the property line to eliminate interference with building pads. In this case, tliough, the easement could be in the middle where the drainage easement is located as no construction can occur at this location Lindquist recommended the City Engineer review and determine the location for less impact on tree removal. The 15' minimum easement location determined by the Engineer will be reviewed with the applicant. Rowiette would like to see the house located on the other side of the drainageway Mabusth said the City lacks the control to stipulate the house location The building pad location was determined by Bruce's judgment of the aesthetics. Bruce felt the customer would choose this particulate site for a home. Bruce also said the value of the lot would be restricted if he could r»ot build on 50% of the lot. He again reiterated that he is sensitive to the trees on the lot Nolan asked about restrictive covenants to save trees. Bruce replied that he had previously agreed at meeting with neighborhood not to cut trees from the setback area to the north and trees west of the proposed house. Rowiette asked why Bruce wanted to keep two existing driveways on Lot 3. Bruce said the driveway to the north would serve a tuckunder garage. What exists now is a driveway 9-10' wide, and Bruce feels it is not causing any impact on the property. Brtice would like to leave options open as alternative ways to approach a building. The driveway between Lots 2 and 3 would also remain where the existing house is occupied. Construction vehicles would be using this driveway. The Planning Commissioners had no problem with this usage. There was no concern with church activities. If problems arose in the future, they would be addressed at that time. ] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 19. 1995 (#5 - #2020 James Bruce - Continued) II moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2020 for a preliminary subdivision The City Engineer would determine, tlvu a meeting with Bruce, the location of the easemott, whether along the northern 15' of the lot or along the drainageway. A lo width variance is recommended for approval as well as the access layout for Lots I and 2 served by Oxford Road and Lot 3 from Leaf Street. The guest house on Lot 2 cannot function as an independent residential unit, only as a part of a resideiKe. An additional S' is required along v^rith the 10' dedication of the utility/sewer easement The driveway to serve the house on Lot 2 is allowed temporary use while the residence is in use or until developed. This would be removed prior to final inspection of home. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#6) #2021 JAMES HALE/JAMES BRUCE, 575 OXFORD ROAD AND 565 LEAF STREET - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING • 7:49-7:50 PJH. Mr. .Bruce was preseit. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to aj^rove Application #2021 for a lot line rearrangement as oresented with Staff recommendations. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#7) #2023 BETTY SUMNER, 3131 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:25-9:32 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mrs. Sunner was present. Mabusth reported that the application is for paving improvements within tiw lakeshore yard. Und^aying plastic is being removed and repla^ with concrete pavement under a second story deck as well as concrete pavement by tlM garage door. Hardcover exists at 42.9%, and there are no changes to this figure. 750 s.f, or 4.2%, of permanent, non- structural hardcover is being added. The pavement would not extend beyond the deck. There is crushed rock on the shoreline where exposed earth is located on a slope. There is no underliner but bits and pieces of old plastic only. This is not rip-rap. Mabusth noted that ^ did not think this would solve the erosion problem. Mabusth asked the Commissioners if this apfdication should have been required to come before the Commission for approval. Rowl^e said yes, noting that in some iqipbcations reductions in hardcover could be made. There are none for this application. Hardcover improvements were reviewed. There is a drive, house with deck and limited walk providing access to residence. ad MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 19, 1995 (#7 - #2023 Betty Sumner - Continued) Nolan moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2023 for hardcover variance to install permanent, concrete pavement. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#S) #2024 JAMES >^ILSON, 2565 LYDIARD AVENUE • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 9:36-9:53 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr Wilson was present. The Application if for a conditional use permit to allow the continued re«dential use of the property as a non-conforming use in B-4 zoning. This use has existed since 1959. A fabric shop was located in the residence structure up to the mid I980's The B-4 office professional use would allow the applicant to operate a CPA business with 2 full and I part-time employees four months out of the year. A second office is bdng proposed. There is no expanaon The property is within 1000’of the lake. Themtyority of the paving improvements and structure are outside of this area. No hardcover variance is being asked for or required The Engineer has reviewed the site plan improvement for the property. There will be 3 off-street parking stalls on the south side of the existing drive. It was desired to close off access to the north, but it would not be safe to do so. The bushes are in need of trimming at north curb cut. Applicant must contact County to work within right of way. Wilson should also contact Clair Rood for permission to cut trees if necessary. Lindquist asked where patrons of the accounting firm would park during tax season. The applicam said only one client would be there at one time. Schroder believed this to be a good use of the property and inquired about a sign. Wilson said he would be using a 4'x8' sheeted plywood sign. There was found to be no problem with this sign. Nolan a^ed if the use was grandfathered in. Mabusth said the code would allow the continued non-conforming use as the resident use exists to current time. Nolan also asked if this was two primary uses on the same site, and if this is a problem. Mabusth said there was nothing in the code to address the mi.xed use. Planning Commission noted the commercial part of the property faces Shadywood Road and the residential faces Lydiard.I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 19. 1995 (#8 - 2024 James Wilson - Continued) There were no public comments. Mabusth said neighbors called in support of this application. Berg moved. Rowlette seconded, to approve Application #2024 for a coriditional use permit with conditions 1 and 2 as noted. The number of employees is limited to 4. Any further expanaons would need to be reviewed Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#9) #2026 NEW HORIZON CHM O CARE, 875 WAYZATA BLVD. - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:53-10:10 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. New Horizon was represented by Sharon Bergen. The Application is for a height ^ signage area variance. The child care facility is in a residential zone but use permitted through a conditional use permit. Surrounding uses of property were reviewed. The signage is limited to 12 s.f and would not be easily seea New' Horizon is asking for additional signage. The topographical conditions require that travelers be alerted to the child care center's location. The entrance is to the east and the facility is to the west. There is a drop in elevation adjacent to road. The nearest residence is 400‘-4^ away. The property is adjacent to the Luce Line. The Applicant is asking for a illuminated 6x6' New Horizon sign located near the facility. An entrance pylon would not be lit but would be 4x4' in size and 17.8' high. These signs are both two-sided Mabusth said she was not aware that the signage was two-sided. The Applicant said this could be changed if needed. Nolan commented that the height of the signs was an issue. The need to know who is there and how to get there is needed but these dimensions seemed too high. The Applicant said the grade of the area required the height variance. At present, parents of the children are finding it difficult to see the entrance. Commissioners discussed the height and from where the grade level needs to be established. Schroeder was concerned over the need for a »gn for safety reasons and then the reason of advertising only. He suggested the Applicant speak with the highway department about a "blind spot" or "watch for children" sign if they were concerned with safety. Peterson said his children had gone to this center. It was his opinion that the sign and driveway were tenlble. Peterson was not in favor of a big commercial lit sign next to the natural Luce Line trail.i ^fINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 19, 1995 (H9 - #2026 New Horizon Child Care - Continued) Lindquist was concerned with granting a variance for a sign without first addressing the safety of the entrance A sign would not solve the safety issue Schroeder questioned whether a lit sign would accomplish a safe entry. Nolan noted the lighting intensity would also be a factor in considering safety. The Applicant said the entrance sign would not be lit in order to be sensitive to the natural area. The other lights are on timers and would be lit only during the daytime hours or when the center is being used Mabusth said this is a residential area, and lighting of signage was not necessary when facility is closed. Peterson said the regulations should be adhered to in this case Nolan did not necessarily agree He commented that the 12 s.f sign allowance would probably not be adequate. The canopy over the doorway was said by the Applicant to provide slwlter for the parents and for security It would be lit when children are coming and going. The issue of how this was lit was discussed Peterson asked for electrical detailing on the canopy. Nolan was concerned that this again was an advertising sign. Schroeder asked the Applicant to speak with the Dept of Transportation for a.ssistance in making the entry safer. Smith moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2026 to gain further feedback. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#10) #2027 RICHARD LEE KAIL, 3753 CASCO AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 10:10-10:15 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Kail was present Kail lives in the residence on the property. The Applicant is asking for an area variance for a nev/ residence which will meet the setbacks. There is a derignated wetland in the comer of the property. As the property is sewered, the Applicant will receive credit for this wetland. There are City owned parcels located to the south which functions as a retenticMi area. There would be no impact on any other property from drainage from the new construction. The alley is platted but serves no purpose A suggestion was made as to the vacation of this alky Smith commented that this would be the time to clean up the property. There were no public comments. VTMi VYi a MINUTES OF THE (mONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 19, 1995 («I0 - #2027 Richard KaU - Contimjed) Rowlette moved, Berg seconded, to approve Apphcttion #2027 for a lot area variance with conditions M as listed The AppUcant would have 30 days afta* receiving the occupancy permit to comply with condition #4. The property is also to be cleared of outside debris and cleaned up. Ayes 7, Nays 0 Kail inquired about the vacation of tlw alley. Kail was informed this would be a separate process anJ would require a puUic houing He was further informed to contact John Gerfaardj (#11) RICHARD LAVERE, 99S WILDHURST TRAIL - VARUNCES- PUBLIC HEARING 10:15>I0:30 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication wm noted Mr. LaVere was present Hk Application b for an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcovo- variance for an upper level deck at the lakeside of the residence A 1992 variance for a 20*x31* garage stall addition made by a past owner required removal of 210' of landscape plastic and removal of a garage This has been complied with Hardcover is now at 4900 s.f or 35.41% The deck would be 8* wide and expand to 14* maximum depth for 10* length. A smaO concrete patio exists beneath proposed deck. There is also a sidewalk beneath the deck offsetting an additional 90 s.f The drawing b rot to scale and shows 5082 s.f. of hardcover, wherein, the survey shows 4991 s.f The plans provide no detail on vet unda the deck. The Planning Commissioners said they had no problem with the avenge lakeshore setback variance Lindquist was concerned with the driveway and requested hardcover nund>ers be verified. Rowlette asked that no application be reviewed in the future without forms bong completely filled out. She also asked that the hardcover suy at the amount it presently is or be reduced. Rowlette noted in speaking with the owner at the property, a canopy would be removed and recommended to them that the deck did not extend beyond the windows. It was also recommended that the patio underneath the deck be removed. The present deck b planned to extend the whole length of the house. Commission asked that the worksheet be conq)ieted prior to thb application going bdbre the Council and hardcover be no more than 35.41%. Schroeder nK)ved, Nolan seconded, to approve Application #2030 subject to hardcover supported by worksheet at 4900 s.f or 35.41%. Ayes 7, Nays 0. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNnSSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE IP, 1995 PLANMING COMMISSION COMMENTS <«12) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE A1TENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 12, 1995 • STEVE PETERSON Peterson informed tte menders of the results of the Council meeting of June 12, 1995 Discussion of these results followed. (#13) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION No additional issues were discussed (#14) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MAY 15, 1995 MEETING Lindquist moved, Schroedci seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 15, 1995 Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#15) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE JULY 10,1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Sandra Smith will attend the July 10 meeting of the Council. ADJOURNMENT Rowlette moved. Berg seconded, to adjourn 10:35 p.m. Ayes 7, Nays 0. StepI^ Peterso^ Chairperson r PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 19, 1995, 7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COtTSCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - JoElIen Hurr ATTENDANCE AppUcants presenting proposris before the ConynisskMi are asked to move to the table at the front of the Chambers when their applkatioo is announced by the Chairman. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS\PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 1. 7:00 p.m. #2025 Michael Plank, 4115/4145 Watertown Road - Preliminafy Subdivision 2. 7:30 p.m. #2029 William F. Smith, 2580 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision 3. 8:00 p.m. #2031 Bruce R. Kelly and Irma J. Kelly, 2340 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision ACTION ITEMS Review of these items will commence prior to or before scheduled public hearings. 4.#2005 Sailors World Marina & Boat Club, 1955 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing. 5.#2020 James Bruce, 565 Leaf Street - Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing 6.#2021 James Hale/James Bruce, 575 Oxford Road and 565 Leaf Street - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Continuation of Public Hearing 7. #2023 Betty Sumner, 3131 Casco Circle - Variance - Public Hearing 8. #2024 James Wilson, 2565 Lydiard Avenue - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing. 9. #2026 New Horizon Child Care. 875 Wayzata Blvd. - Variances - Public Hearing. 10. #2027 Richard Lee Kail, 3753 Casco Avenue - Variance - Public Hearing. 11. #2030 Richard LaVere, 995 Wildhursi Trail - Variances - Public Hearing Planning Commission Comments 12. Report by Planning Commission Representative attending Council Meeting of June 12, 1995 (Steve Peterson). 13. Other issues for discussion. I PLANNING COMMISSION JiEETING - MONDAY, JUNE 19, 1995, 7:00 P.M. Additiooal Items 14. Planning Commission approval of miraites of tte May 15, 1995 meeting. 15. Planning Commission to select a representative to attend the July 10, 1995 meeting of the Council. Adjoumnieiit PUINNING COMMISSION'^COUNCIL MEETING DATE PUBLIC ATTENDANCE ■ u'C: /9 PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (pi print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER [Iw (x/ij ir~ 3 Cufrc /k,c P:>p iYrn LiOV ZC 3 h'< Vv' r4f^ . »n ^^ Aa Cl 5 j 31 CT ^ • ■/f L'.Vl/c^vC^ irj^A,. ZB// /1 •1 • o r» su o’ o*p s.? • < TJ R a. E O • O 2 g 5. 3n r P ? 3 O o o IJo\ IJ § ?5BUl o rj n a eJar H I •3> K 3S 3. n I I Bo o 3 f 5? >5 {/) il•e y*U > 3 y*la rS •3 nn i<i M O 00 S a3 ow ^g o |§ • Uin a § s fw 11s. 8 •o 3 Ul O T3 3 •o H a ® GB s3 ^ Ul•otn Ul s tJ Ots; Ul ui •2 & o 2n t > ? M Lit •cro. a I I > 0 1 on S* 3 w S' ^c 0i Litc> Lit ?T lo3 n O I ^ 1° 1 S f? !! I n 3riI tra <I 5a o g g <p» I os.a Ifo. Itro 2 » Sw o a;o ?or X aK ;? ?2 B i. si. M Lit I Qp* n •O S S & F i t/) §• H 3*. 8 I3 I o(n Q3 O□. X &aEa 8 B 83. 3va 2 S 8 3. 3 [ O 2 o’ 3 O'n ! ■o CS o* O’ I* G K 5SI M 0^o pi u# •« >: b o^59 •< ►- 2 Q B «?«95 ?• .-5 ri vi V PS^ n •T» 3 8ms To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator June 7, 1995 #2025 Michael Plank, 4115/4147 Watertown Road - Prel’uninaiy Subdivision - Replat of Lot Line Rearrangement (subdivision also involves creation of private road outlot) - Public Hearing Fertinent Ordinances 1. Chapter 11 - Class II Subdivision. 2. Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) - RR-IA lot standards, 3.Section 10.02, Definition 43 (A) - Lot width measured at the rear of the required front yard. Lot 2 Required Proposed Variance 300 ’ 200’ 100’ or 33.3% Li^ of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - Application Property Owners’ List Plat Map Maple Place Plat Approved 1988 Tested Septic Sites for Lot 2 Planning Commission Minutes 5/15/95 Preliminary Plan Description of Request Per the directives of the Planning Commission at the sketch plan review, based on current code, applicant was advised that an original lot line rearrangement presented to the City in 1993 would now be considered, based on current code, a back lot configuration. Proposed Lot 2 would have to meet 150% of the area and width standards. As directed, application now proposes a lot line rearrangement with a road ouUoi. Lot 2 is not a back lot and meets the dry area requirement of 5.1 acres. mm i Zoning File #2025 June 7^ 1995 Page 2 Review Exhibit E, septic testing completed in 1988 at the time of the Maple Place plat confirms an alternate site. The current system serving the residence is conforming. The City would not require additional septic testing for the 13.1 acre lot. The existing residence has a conforming system. Restatement of Issues Raised During the Sketch Plan Review I.Road outlot shall be legally combined with Lot 1. Applicant/subdivider shall create and easement in favor of Lot 2 over road Outlot A. Applicant would also grant a road and utility easement to the City over Outlot A. 2.Planning Commission would recommend approval of the lot width variance for Lot 2 at the south end of the cul-de-sac finding this was consistent for lots adjacent to cul-de-sac areas in subdivisions. 3.Review Exhibit G, the darkened area on the preliminary plan denotes additional wetland areas to be designated as a protected area consisting of approximately .95 acres. Note rhi!g will not separate or divide dry lands within Lot 1. Members placed applicant on notice that if Lot 1 was subdivided in the future that the northern lot would be required to access off Outlot A, the road outlot, and subdivider would be required to constnict road to current City standards. Staff recommends approval of the replat of a lot line rearrangement of the properties located at 4115/4147 Watertown Road involving the creation of a road outlot and approves a lot width variance for Lot 2 at 100’ or 33.3% based on the finding that all other standards of the RR-IA zoning district and subdivision regulations have been satisfied. Approval is based on the following conditions: 1.Applicant/subdivider is placed on notice that at some time in the future if Lot I is further subdivided that the most northern lot with residence will be required to access to the east at Outlot A. The subdivider/applicant shall also be responsible for construction of a road to the current City standards. 2. 3. Dedication of a road and utility easement over Outlot A. Dedication of .95 acres of additional protected wetlands located within proposed Lot 1. 4.It is recommended that Outlot A be retained in joint or common ownership with Lot 1 and that subdivider is responsible for creating easements in favor of Lot 2 over Outlot A. d ^ •'*:. *' •*' . :jQ .»♦ cn?4)F <mfo - sA d ^tsios application y'fr PROPERTY LOCATION . XJI(< ljJs,-^r-hnuY\Site address - ^'i_ -H I Propert>- Idjsui'c^'-on Nmucer toma?^11 Please check cne - Prcptrt>’ Arach legal description to application. applic .ant Name CltV ^ g -a ________Phone (home) Zip53S2^ Phone (work)-------------- OV'*NER (if different dian applicant) Name Address City -----------------—r (attach list if more than one) Phone (home) Phone (work) EXISTING LANT) USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size b • •M m tm t € ^ Present use (check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL /IC - V Acres Dry Land Aci-s Wet Land Acres To^, all parcels Residential) no. of units Other-<specify)______ a b W* • *• , •.. c *«. bb J ♦’ J •' *1 rjzrv Wf ■•I f«*t« I • .* I M M • ^ « i fc I • ^ *rtbwb'Vi , . • • w* • . v'flM ........... ; v.‘U .vr . b/ b. Number of Building Sites Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new Subdivision for New BuUding Sites Existing Units o New Units ^ Total Units buildling sites)\ y Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per____ Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) _________ >nMMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLirre PRELIMINARY APPUCA iJ) PayTEfot of fees (refer to •applicatica fees* listed te.ow. 2. Comoleted application form. c A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). karate list of any other persons'^ou Vtsh __ As an addendum to this application, please attach a sep Date ______ Zoning Official ’s Signature ip^cmion. 2. Signed Cemficate of Sur/e>' or mylar copies ot lormal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, coveaarts. etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official ’s Signature I application fees (Zoning Administrator to check PQ ’ ,C,.Sn 4 ..n -------- Subdivision of a Lot Line Rc^mngemcnuijfl^ V Subdivision Application (Class I & «0/lot (Class III & all Preliminary Subdivision Application^S323 X^T Final Plat Application (Class III) S175.0C Legal Review and Filing;________ " Subdivision only S75.00 ^ Tctali non-residential) Subdivision w/easements and cove^B min. $^00.00 Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) ■ Legal and Engineenng Review Fees ^ ^ from original application) - Renewal of Class I and I^Subdivision Application Si 5^ application) Renewal of Class III. Preliminary Sub ivision pp change from original application)" Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application SIOO.OO (No change trom ongmai pp “• 5*00.00 . S.50/.UKM 0.; -------- Proposed Public Roods S900.00 + S.50/lmed (1.; — - __ - A_____ Drivnf#* Rnadr^;So7c1;; .0 Accep, Esis^g - sTc'ev S^.0 ^ -Wvisiop .pplicouoos, ”” S50.00/new lot proposed for on-siie x--------new lots A ^ _________ lin. ft. X .50 » $ lin. ft. X .50 * $_ C. Fle.\ible Application Fees/Misc. Fees Variance S200.(X3 ^ iS“ » rSSSSSi !ssir.s"r.'=z":;“ “ ss 2 established by ordinance. _________________—------- ' Applicant ’s Signature — ---------------------- ■ '■Owner’s Signature _ut ^ v i, / / Commission nroinp are is noable to ane^ a scheduled meettag. please make airageinras to bay Date ^^^aSSBiaSmSm RUN DATE 0S/17/9SDATCN 502PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAKPAYER NAMC/ADDR PROP ADOR ONNER NAHE TAKPAYER NAtC/AODR V • PROP ADDR (M€R NAHE TAKPAYER . NAHE/ADDR ' PRC^ ADDR ^ 0»f«R NAHE TAKPAYER NAHE/ADDR I* * PROP ADOR (MCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AODR (»«CR NAHE TAXPAYER . NAHE/ADDR ^ • » • I > • • V' »*• iCKlCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY QFfCRS LISTsa 51-ua-ES IS ooiz 0A220 »UTERT0I«4 RO R AND J NYATT ROBERT J NYATT 4220 HATERTOW RO^O HAPIE PLAIN ft4 55S59 sa 5i-iia-2S 41 0001 04040 HATERTONN RO T R A C H SMIEJA TNOHAS RyXHRISTINE H ^EJA 4040 NATERTONN RO HAPLE PLAIN m 55S59 sa si-iia-2s 41 0005 04005 NATERTONN RD C P DALE I 6 L PAULSON CHRISTOPHER F DALE QERI L PAULSON 4005 HATERTONN RO HAPLE PLAIN HN 55S54 SO Sl-lia-2S 42 0001 04245. CHIPPENA LA R L SORENSEN ETAL ROBERT L SORErCEN 4245 CHIPPENA LANE HAPLE PLAIN MN 55S54 SO 31-lia-2S 42 0005 OOOSa ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO NINNIFRED H BRYANT NirtllFREO H BRYANT C/O MERLE STILES laOl LAKEVIEH TER LONG LAKE m 55S54 SO 31-lia-2S 42 0015 04360 CHIPPENA U L E HARTirCAU/J H MARTINEAU LARRY E I JEAN H HARTINEAU 4360 CHIPPENA LA HAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 30 31-110-23 13 001504225 NATERTOm RO JAMES R PAOOON JAMES R PAOOON 4225 HATERTONN RO HAPLE PLAIN Itl 55359 30 31-110-23 41 0003 04045 NATERTONN RD D S A 6 S KELLENDER6ER DANA A GREGORY FELLENBERQER 4045 NATERTONN RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 30 31-110-23 41 0000 04145 NATERT0li4 RO H R A H E PLANK SALLY PLAMC 327 NORTH CARRINGTON BUFFALO MY 02034 30 31-110-23 42 0002 04265 CHIPPENA LA r J A K L MCCAFFREY THOMAS J MCCAFFREY 4265 CHIPPENA U MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 f* ♦ 38 S1-118-2S 42 0004 00038, ADDRESS UNASSXGNEO STATE or HIM! STATE OF HI»M lONRl I LUCE LINE TRAIL) 38 31-118-23 43 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF Hlltl STATE OF HINN (DMn I LUCE LINE TRAIL) •C •I 1,1 < lEPCmT NO. PI43540I PAGE 430 31-110-23 14 0007 04100 HATERTOFN RO FRANK KOKtSH ET AL FRANK KOKESH 4100 NATERTONN RD MAPLE PLAIN m 55359 30 31-110-23 41 0004 04105 NATERTONN RD D GIGUERE A A GIGUERE PAMMALEE MARIE SANCHUK 4105 HATERTONN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 30 31-110-23 41 0011 04115 NATERTCMI RD MICHAEL R A MARY E PLANK MICHAEL PLANK 327 NORTH CARRINGTON BUFFALO NY 02034 30 31-110-23 42 0003 04355 CHIPPENA LA FREDERICK E SHEMANER JR ETAL FRED E SHEMANEK RT 2 BOK 16 HAPLE PLAIN m 55359 ( t'• • I Ji \,. 38 31-118-23 42 0012 04220 CHIPPENA LA PAHELA GAIL ANDERSON PAHELA 6 ANDERSON 4220 CHIPPENA LANE HAPLE PLAINS HN SS354 __ _• »» 38 31-118-23 43 0011 00145 TURNHAH RO BEAL SAVINGS BANC DAVID A DETERS 145 TURNHAH RD HAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 * % \ . • * . 0 k I. .* (r.} • RUN DATE 0S/17/«S RATOl 502 MEHePIH COUNTY WWKRTY INTORHATICW SYSTEM PROPERTY 0»fCRS LIST REPORT NO. PI455A01 PACE 5PROP AOOR SR 51-118-2S AS 0014__ _ eOlAS CRlSTOFOa CIRMR NAME MERE KNAPPTAXPAYER MILLIAM F • EVELYN KNAPP NAME/AOOR ASOO DAYSIOE RO maple plain Ml SS359 » •• 3R Sl-llR-n 44 0002 PROP AOOR 00058 ADDRESS UMASSICNM OMCR name STATE OF MIM4 STATE OF MINN lONR)TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR <LUCE LINE TRAIL! PROP AOOR 0»fCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR TOTAL 8ATCH 502 00024 O . ;• n , • « *• » r ’•. i r< • .4 • • n • r r.A ^ ’•; V O'♦ • • I !* % ♦ ;•; • 4- —4. • • • , SO 51-118-25 45 001500058 AOOKSS UNASSIGNEOM F A E KNAPPHILLIAH F A EVELYN KNAPP4500 SAYSIOC RO MAPLE PLAIN MM 55554 58 51-118-25 44 0005 00058 AOORESS UNASSI6NE0 STATE OF Ml»#4 STATE OF mNN «0NRI (LUCE LINE TRAIL I 58 51-li8-25 44 0005 00050 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO HE»»€PIN FORFEITEO LAND HErtCPIN FORFEITEO LAND FOR SALE TO AOJACENT PROPERTY OMKR ONLY 58 51-118-25 44 0084 00050 CRISTOFORI CIR KENDRICK 8 MELROSE KENDRICK 8 MELROSE 50 CRISTOFORI CIR MAPLE PLAIN MM 55554 I * I ♦ • 4.1 « REPRESENTATWN of INFoSaSS^A^T^APP^ OF THE HEFMEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. jU n/) *■untsiiii.« 1m miLo _ v; . I • . I* < ? 4- ■ » 4 r o MAPLE PLACEir-i / \ • i' 1 V ' V\ ' V \'"'V\Tn VV • '*'''''"'« V J " i /' A ‘53E^'A \ i V • » I' ^ '' \ » , V V • • • • • • • i 1 ALrtf^»ri^.9 \ r'-: I \ v-w /; ' ^ \; / I \ I i *MINXrrES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM^flSSION MEETING HELD ON NLAY 15. 1995 (^12 - #2019 Leisel Cox - Continued) Mabusth informed the members that the application was for a conditional use permit for a Class 1 restaurant in the Oserson Building. The Keaveny propertj’ is to the immediate east of this property. Mr. Keaveny w'as present and still owns that building. Mabusth showed the survey of the building and the parking, which has 28 stalls. Mr. Keaveny confirmed that there was no shared docking or parking areas Cook said the parking will still be workable after improvements on CoRd 15 is completed Nolan questioned if it was appropriate to ask for a cenain number of parking stalls. Mabusth did not believe this was necessary, noting there was never a parking problem at this property. The site plans call for a coffee shop t>pe restaurant serving espressos, sandwiches, and soups. Peterson said the CLT application is consistent with the use. Smith moved, Nolan seconded, to approve Application #2019 for a conditional use pentiit to include the three recommendations. A>*es 5, Nays 0. Mabusth added a third condition to the applicatioa There is now one bathroom. Separate bathrooms must be provided for men and women. (#13) SKETCH PLAN REVIEW - #1800 MICHAEL PLANK, 4115 WATERTOWN ROAD - REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL DIRECTION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION Michael Plank was present. Gaffi'on reported that approval had been originally given in February of 1993; but through an apparent mxscommunication, final exhibits were never submitted by the applicant. Consequently, the applicant never went before the Council and expired in February of 1994. The backlot ordinance was adopted since the original approval, and any new subdivisions after January of 1994 need to meet the current standards. An example of how that affects this application is the requirement for 150% of the lot area and width. Gafiron stated that at this time, this is a sketch plan review and requires no formal vote. In way of background, prior to 1988 this property was a 25 acre parcel. In 1988, it was subdivided into three lots and a 30' width access outlet. Approv^ was given for the shared use of the driveway outlot for the new house on Lot 3 and a second lot which might be split fi'om it in the future. In 1993, preliminary approval was given to rearrange the boundary between Lots 2 and 3, leaving 6.2 acres with the house on Lot 3 and 13.6 acres with the house on Lot 2. Plank then would have the ability to sell the house on Lot 3 but maintain control of the outlot and enough acreage for a possible split in the future. * • “A k f iii»» i B iT’V.&f f . , aaes. Gaffion noted that in Staffs On Exhibit C, Neither opinion, new lots are at ^ „jot the^ ^.^jth standard Commission concurs, then ^ „„sed tor the tuture ttould m Lot B proposed no'" 'v abut the outlet. at the &ont line where t , . _ j -» lOO ^ Int Lot b propu^^^ -- atut tnc ouuuL. at the front line where . tslatted 50 ’ road with a 100 fi acre lot th^it abuts p the I ^0% width and area requirement. There wo , e 1... ^K,fso#< in the and area rcqui*'-**---- Gaffron not^ " f Wa,eitiwn Road in the fumte 'u„,ber of drivewaysggg",-'^re^rip^^i^-oadstatus. Gaffrona.su*,- •• Hr45aiisss:r • «°-"::tor*s*tog off «. additional loff acreage nceued the intent at that ti tas 4 total lots. One lot Jong with the old h°uM^ j„oe in IPSOe^r Chouse that is now on L^ 3 like to?E“srrs:;^sr»- •* — • W A . w A • W A W**4*^HO*31W a ^ MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 (#13 - # 1SOO Michael Plank - Continued) Plank asked if approval could be given under the 1993 standards. Lindt^uist said the standards of today need to be upheld. Peterson asked for Plank's opinion on a road with a cul-de-sac Peterson said the Planning Commission would probably look favorably on giving a width variance in this circumstance Plank said a road would take more space and questioned what would happen if chances w ere to be made to Watenown Road. • Nolan said the approval could stipulate what would trigger a change if the drive were to come off of Watenow n Road. Referring to Exhibit D-6, Peterson said if lot Y (the future 3rd lot) has a home with it, then a road would be needed. Prior to this, the road would only be dedicated. Plank w ould maintain control of Iocs X and Y and road postpon«i. If X or Y were to be built on, the road would be constructed. Lot X might need access off a cul-de-sac if Watenown Road were improv ed or its status upgraded to a level where hnuting individual driveway access onto it is critical. Gafiron questioned whether the City could require the Applicant to close their drive from Watenown Road under the current lot line rearrangement application. Plank ask why he would want to do this. Commissioners responded that when applicant's desire a change in their properties, this is the time for leverage in gaining solutions to future "what-if* questions. Lindquist said an easement covenant would be required as a deed restriction on the sale of lot X and development of lot Y. The width variance would be a non-issue. Other commissioners agreed. Lindquist asked if the City could require Lot X to access off a cul-de-sac in the future. Gaiffon said if Lot I (X/Y) were divided, the City could then change the access to a road, and the road could be built for a level of 3 users. Plank asked if this issue could be addressed at that future time. The commissioners informed him that it was being addressed now and consistent with a 3-lot division. Gafifon said the 1988 resolution which allowed lot line to happen, included a statement that the developer could use the outlet to serve lot 3 and a future lot split from it (Y and Z). Lindquist and Berg said yes, but the code has changed, and that split never occurred. Plank w as reminded that if lot 2 were sold now. there would likely not be enough land to have another lot. Nolan commented that future commissions and councils might view the property differently and Watertown Road might not be upgraded. Any future changes would be decided on at time of future applications, but, the time to gain the casement is now. (#13 - #1800 Michael Plank - Continued) with lot Z as it could atfect lots X and Y Gaffion infomed Plank oi the time schedule tot pteliminarv- apptovals. PelersOT tepon«lSs r. -rs- ” PLANNING COaMMISSlON COMMENTS /«! j\ nrPORT BY PLANNING CONL>nSSION REPRESENTATTVT: COUNai. MEETI>G OF >UY S. 1995 - JANICE BERG Berg reported that the Council approved the aoning applications^ It viu noted to the Pate application was amended^ The 50' lakeshore setback is to be met mcludmg any I^^e ordeck. The fcidings on the grading and drainage pattern waa removed. The Line application findings on drainage remained. (#15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Gafton waa notified that there would possibly be no quoit^ tafeLation meeting. If necessary, any vote would be cominued to the next meetmg. The Planning Commission members discussed the concepnte ctoge ^ to A^proposal but not specificaUy tied to the shelter. Smith cotni^rf to she ho,^ pubte opposition to a commercial code would not hurt to possibihty of the project The Planning Commission also discussed the code regarding to I?„f aT^UeVriveway which is an issue in the proposed Melajto ^ said it WM her understanding that the Council were against granting the C ty Gaffion noted that the City granted itself a variance for the post office parkmg • ADDITIONAL ITEIVIS (#16) PLANNING COMNUSSION APPROVAL OF MXNOTES OF TOE APRIL 17. 1995 MEETING Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve to Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 17. 1995. Ayes 5. Nays 0. t •V"'--.';{’'' MAPLE PLACE SECOND ADDITONPRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MICHAEL PLANK IN LOTS 2 & 3. BLOCK 1. & OUTLOT A. MAPLE PLACE HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOA ixsicKton KtVTSIOS’DATI llf5<.RlnK1^: IMAHNtT D- Y"0 lyji .{ ^J(SCtC7-ct, f) bU V ■f'l tuj sij) ^ Yo <iL -* dC<.e^ #2025 COMN & grqnberg. Inc. CoM>H//f/iY Liavmvrs, bind Snnxyors, Silc nnnners 482 Tamarack Au-nut* • Lon^ Like, MN 55356 612-473^4141 I h*fdn uf (if» iKtl ihK Mimn tra* pnivirnl In wo uiulfr mv JlrofI mpri- tiv«in. jnct iK ji 14m4 dulv rr|Ci>U*u\i Citli InginciT iH h I Land Sunntw undrr Iht* Lm« i4 Ihi- Suit* i4 Minn«*>44j| MjiL S Mhum -ni(j | kihm ' NiimUt SCAU r. 100* (lAll kWM* fS-/SS V - ? ‘3.. To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:June 9, 1995 Subject:#2029 William F. Smith, 2580 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision, Class III Public Hearing ^Thc property is no longer located within shoreland area with the reclassification of the upper French Lake basin. Total area = 10.23 acres, 3.07 wet, 7.16 dr>’ Proposed Lot 1 = 6.07 total acres, 3.5 acres dry, 2.57 wet Lot 2 == 4.16 total acres, 3.66 acres dry, .5 wet Pertinent Ordinances Zoning Regulations 1.Section 10 03 Subdivision 6 (B) - Combination of separate parcels prohibited in meeting minimum acreage requirement. Note 2.15 dry contiguous acres exist to west of easement drive within Lot 2. 2. 3. Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) - RR-IB lot standards. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - Minimum 26’ setback to be maintained from weUands. Note applicant proposes use of existing easement drive to serve three properties proposing no further expansion in width of road. Subdivision Regulations ^ _ 4. Section 11.03, Definition 24 - Lot area minimum, 5.Section 11.03 - Definition of back lot/front lot, review Exhibit L. There will be a need to address variances to this section as current easement road that encroaches existmg l^t 2 of the Beau Marais plat cannot be replatted to designate through outlot at a 30 width. Ordinance also limits use of 30’ driveway outlot to two units. 6. 7. Section 11.03, Subdivision 10 (A) (1-7) - Necessary findings for granting variances. Section 11.33, Subdivision 42 - A typical section access serving three to six residential units call for private road. Comprehensive Plan Transportation Section CMP 7-17 - Private driveway may serve up to three residential units. \ \ \ Zoning File #2029 June 9, 1995 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - B • C - D-1-5 E-1-2 F-M G-M H - 1 - J - K - L - M - N • O - P - Application Property Owners* List Plat Map Applicant’s Addendum & Exhibits Applicant’s Letter & Plan tor Access Dated 3/31/95 Planning Commission Minutes 3/20 95 Written Response of Fox Run Residences Septic Plan Resolution No. 2069 Drainage Plan Wetlands Back Lot/Fronl Lot Ordinance Access Plan Proposing Options Preferred by Applicant Plan for Private Road with Cul-de-sac as Required by Ordinance Driveway Outlot - Back Lot/Front Lot Division Current Preliminary Plan Current Proposal In recent meetings, the Planning Commission has been asked to address several variations on accesses for properties to be subdivided. Some such as the Cloutier and Plank involved cautionary advise for fumre divisions and others seeking variances to subdivision reguIaUom because of unique features and the impact on these amenities if the regulations were to be satisfied. In the case of the Beau Marais ptat of 1986, the City cannot now ask for a replat so that a private road can be designed to meet the ordinance requirements of a three lot plat (as with Plank division). Shouldn’t that issue havs >^en addressed in 1986 before lot lines were defined? The current application involves a back lot/front lot division. How shall the City deal with the issue of access in the 1995 subdivision? Applicant proposes use of existing easement driveway to satisfy access needs of back lot/front lot division. Easement driveway will serve three units requiring variai^s to subdivision regulations (Section 11.33, Subdivision 42 and Section 11.31, Subdivision 5). Section 11 33, Subdivision 42 calls for a private road when an access is to serve three to six residential units. Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 would require a 30 ’ wide driveway outlot with back lot/front lot division. Review Exhibits F-1-4, the Planning Commission was unanimous in recommending that access to the newly created southern lot was preferred from Fox Run. Review Exhibits G-1 , oroperty owners have submitted written statements reaffirming their refusal to allow addition^ accesses onto private roadway. Review Exhibits D-1-5, applicant asks you to compare the Zoning File #2029 June 9, 1995 Page 3 current proposal and variances granted to the Stronghold plat noting the similarity in physical characteristics of the property. Note in the Stronghold plat there was a 30 driveway outlot planed. Note also at the entrance a 50’ outlot was platted up to the driveway that served the existing residence. In the current proposal it is not possible to provide a continuous driveway outlot because Lot 2 of the Beau Marais plat is not included in this subdivision. The access standard for Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 would be met in division proposed in Exhibit O. A 30’ outlot could be platted along the east side of property to the north lot line of Lot 2, Beau Marais. Based on the directives of the ordinance, only Lots 1 and 2 could be served by this driveway. Lot 2, Beau Marais would continue to gain access via the existing easement drive. This option would have a major impact on the property resulting in the loss of the mature pines along the east side. It would also require a minor encroachment of the wetlands to allow for a connection to the existing drive to serve Lot 1. Review Exhibit N, the private road with cul-de-sac option. This plan would satisfy subdivision regulations. All lots would achieve access from the private road. There would even be a greater impact on the wetland with the installation of cul-de-sac. In 1986 a private road with cul-de-sac could have been located out of the wetlands. Review Exhibit H, septic testing confirms that there is suitable and adequate area for both a principal and alternate septic site for proposed Lot 2. Lot 2 will meet all area and width requirements no matter what is the resolve of the access issue. Access Plan Options 1.Use of existing easement drive to serve three residential units require approval of variances to both sections of subdivision regulations noted above. If this option is approved. Planning Commission may wish to recommend upgrading of the existing roadway. Applicant ’s addendum notes that 4" of Class 5 gravel have ^n placed over existing drive. Should the roadway be paved and should the portion wit^n proposed Lot 2, at least at the entrance, be upgraded with appropriate identification for access to the three lots? Should addresses be changed and a road name assigned to the driveway? Should proposed Lot 1 be required to provide a turnaround in dry buildable area adjacent to residence? Should the driveway be expanded? Would you allow further encroachment of the wetland? 2.Private road with cul-de-sac (Exhibit N). This option would require approval of variances allowing for major encroachment of the designated wetland. The would have to be reviewed by the Corps of Engineers, Watershed District and This plan would also result in the loss of several mature trees along the east side of property. All three lots would achieve access via this new roadway. Zonine File #2029 June 9^ 1995 Page 4 3.Back lot/front lot with 30’ driveway outlot (Exhibit O). This option would satisfy access requirement for the division of this propert>\ Only Lots 1 aiKl 2 shall achieve access via the driveway. Lot 2, Beau Marais would retain access from the existing casement drive. There would be minor encroachment of the 26 ’ setback and a need to intersect drainageway at northern border of outlot to allow Lot 1 to use existing northern portion of driveway. Since our sketch plan review, this City Engineer, applicant and applicant’s consultant have met on the site and walked the eastern portions of the property. A driveway along the east side could be installed and does not appear to be a major engineering feat. The narrowest part of the wetland would have to be intersected by a driveway ihat would extend to Lot I’s driveway. If one just deals with a back lot configuration, this would appear to be a means of satisfying the ordinances but what of the aesthetic impact? 4.Individual curb cut to serve proposed Lot 2. Proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the Beau Marais plat would continue to use the easement drive. The City Engineer has reviewed the area to the west of the easement driveway and finds no sighting problems with the selection of a curb cut to the west side of Lot 2. This option appears to be a rather contrived means of circumventing the demands of the ordinance, and in many ways is in direct opposition to the goals and intent of the Comp Plan. 5.No acceptable access plan. Property cannot be subdivided Options of Action The Planning Commission members must select an access option or deny plat. If an access option is approved, then the necessary vanances must also be granted, refer to Section 11.02, Subdivision 10 (A) (1-7) for required findings. If any upgrades of existing improvements are considered in your option, please include them in conditions of approval. CITY OF ORONO o n o APPlfiCAlTOJ^ r I > trr- ::r • • *1 ^ ^ PROPERTY LOCATION Site address ?^an Fr.v .qi-rpet-. ..*• -n •►•I - Property TH^^nrificnrinn Niimber fPID) Qyil7 234IQQQJZ ----- Please check one - Prc^ ’^ty ^ abstract or------lorrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLlfc^"^ Block 1 Beau Marais Hennepin County, Minnesota Name william f. Smith Address 6327 Cambridge St.Phone (home>t75-269Q ■ iQj^St. Louis Park, Minnesota Zip55416 Phone (work)929-8825 OV^^'ER (if different than applicant) Name ui 11 if t;mi ^K Address City Zip Phone (home) Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size 7^ 3.07 10.23 Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all Residential; no. of units__i Other (specify)__Barn PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites i Existing Units ____1 New Units 2 . Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) 1 ____Units per a i a Acres 159429.6 Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land X Residential _______Other (specify)__________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLtfE TRE^ 1. Payceni of fees (refer to ‘applicaiicQ fees* below. 2. Coopletcd application form. 3. Preliminary plat info^marioa on Cenificaie ^ t!us list from Hennepin County Department of Finance 4. Cerofied Property Owners List of ovbxcm wi±m a50 Oou -*-st on«« A-603 Govt. Cemer 348-3271). persons you wish notified of tha applicatioa. 5. As an addendum to iliis application, please inacb a sep r>T»w Trniing Official ’s Signamre ----------- “yjming umciai $ aijnarure ----------- --------------- 2. Signed Ccrtificaie of Survey or mylar copies o: ic.^al plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 3. Developers Agreement and Leaer of Credit. Paie 7nnin; Official ’s Signature I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Adninistmor to check [X] those wliicli apply) ' (Ca..U s nr. s:co^ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement -S.>0^0 Totals Subdivision of a Lot Line RearTangcmem-».K^v — sSi“°ou ‘A^-tns:j.00ta laas. m i an n<m-r«id™iaD Final Plat Application (Cass IID S173.00 Legal Review and Filing: Subdivision only ST5 .(X) Subdivision w/easemeats and covenants min. S^uu.wjUULLl ▼ ^ —— ---------- Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) S600.00 + $.30/lineaI ft.; ■ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + S.50/lmeaI ft.; Sl’etTVoVcry to Accept Existing Private Road S900^W Pn?posed Sanitary Sewr' Main Extension 5^0-^ + 5-3/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culvettt) $200.00 rvahiation Review (applicable to rural _ lin. ft. X 0 « $. lin. ft. x .50 ■ $_ irE=r »^vuica .ppneano., S50.ob/n^ lot proposed for on-site x —r— Qcw lou c. Flexible-Appir^oo Fees/Mi^. Fees Variance $200.00 . . -------- Easement Vacation Associated wtb ^3.(W ---------PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwellmg Unit City fees Date Owner’s Signature / --------------------------------------------- . SLmnnzwt.^tn jwr>- KM MTI unun •ATCN MS MQF AOM CMKR HAM TAXPAYER HAM/AMR PROP AOM OMER NAM TA)^AYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADDR CMCR NAM TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AODR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAM/AODR PROP ADDR OHNER NAM TAXPAYER NAM/AODR PROP ADDR OMER NAM TAXPAYER NAM/ADDR HDtCPIH COUNTY PROPERTY IHFQRnATIQN SYSTEM PROPERTY CMCRS USTSO 00-117-tS II doot OOOSO AMRESS UNA^IGNED 0 J 0000 0 J DOOD USl ARCNER LAM PLYMOUTH HN S5447 SO 00-117-2S U ODDS POMS NILLON M S R N RINCER A T L RINKS R N RINOER i T L RINOER 005 MLLGN OR S tONO LAKE HN S5IS4 0009SO 00-117-21 A2 02610 FOX ST DEAN ROBERT LINDBLOOH DEAN R Llt4DBLOOM 2610 FOX ST HAYZATA HN 55191 SB 04-117-25 45 0020 00650 GANDER RD PETER J CAPELL PETER J CAPELL 650 GANDER RD HAYZATA HN 55S91 * *KPOKT NO.PkU 10 •so 0%-117-n u 0001 r OOOSO MOOCSS UNASSIQNIO |> STATE or ra»#CSOTA STATE or HUM (OMIl (LUCE LUC TiAlLI Mt 4 -f • 0 \J 'i 0^ k 04-117-tS 14 0002 MILLGM M S B R CARPENTXER/C H CARPENTIER DANIEL R CARPENTIER 505 NILLQM DR SO LONG LARI ft« 55S54 % S'-••v‘VO * . • • V • * •u iso 04-117-2S 14 OOOS OOOSO AOOOESS UNASSIOCO . THE STATE Of HUOCSOTA ONR-OUREAU OT REAL EST H6T f ATTN OMEN HALLACA 1201 E NNT 2 GRAND RAPIDS IM UTOO 1 X•JU I 'i so 04-117>2S 41 0001 OOSOi NILLON OR S MLLIAH 0 ROODOON NILLIAH 0 R0OU6ON SOS WLLOM OR S LONB LAKE fW SSSS4 3« 04-117-2S 41 0003 SO 04-117-2S 41 0004 V ^ .16 04-117-tS 41 0005 02450 POX ST OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO t ■ ■■■ 02420 FOX ST K A K ANDERSON MILLIAN E 06RAN ETAL 1 c J JOHN N A SUSAN • RINKR KEITH A KATHLEEN ANDERSON DEAN R LINOSLOOH JOHN A SUSAN RINSER 2450 FOX ST 2430 FOX ST 2420 FOX ST NAYZATA (M S5SA1 NAYZATA HN 55S91 NAYZATA HN 5BS91 0 SO 04*117-23 41 0007 56 04-117-2S 41 0006 ft .1 * *. * i • ■58 04-117-25 41 OOOB 02500 FOX ST 02590 F(M ST •• >. , -02640 FQK ST jom B A lOSTROH S L CASOTTI A E J CASOTH - 't ^0 i J PLUCRER JOHN D A IDSTROH STEVEN L A ELIZARETH CASOTTZ T.DARRELL A PLUCKER 2560 FOX ST 2550 FOX ST 2440 FOK ST NAYZATA m 553T1 ORONO >M 55S91 * •* ■ • / y ■ •! \ HAYZATA m sssn. • •/ ♦ ♦'f . ♦ . . w " • •* i 4 • if •1 r t'« X- •f* •r ♦’-A* . ■ 5B 04-117-25 42 0010 02620 FOX ST 0 JAY A T L DUNRER 6 JAY 1 T L BUHRER 2620 FOX ST NAYZATA MN 55591 % V \ K \ SB 04-117-tS 4S 0009 02625 FOX ST DAE PETERSON DAVID E PETERSON 2625 FOX STREET NAYZATA M 55S91 •:7 t. i* *• • = * .4\ • i . ’ . : V-' ^ ; 0 . .-rw' \ 58 04-117-25 44 0002 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGMD P E ECRERLINE/H A ECRERLIM PETER E ECRERLIM 2555 FOX ST ORONO HN 55591 1 • 1 ' •: • ‘ I , *• • ■»I V ' ■ . • . • ♦ i i: .1 • p . t '*• TOTAL DATCil 50S 00017 /^v V •f s 'i ■i 1- \ *» t, f * ' ^ jv' • •) RUN DAn U/U/U - BATCN SOS '____ ■ > ' i-fSWCPIN COUNTY MQKRTV iNfOUATiCM mttN MOPCftTT QHNHS LIST i ■’H.•f-.»MpgRT NO. mss%H •«a A. % A V % \I 0 *?* i i 9 f f y i 4 t i, uf . a ’• ‘ . *:. .^0 ‘ . f ’•'•*{t 1. ■4V*k- • ■f > • V. i<t • ^ V ’ * u ^ /■ C-.P, i T '• '•■; • •v.T;*; ■■•JV i ■ ■ • • , ^ i •/ .■ t ■ 7*‘t- ’ ‘ ■ •.•; ' '•■ •«K (5% . •.•'•V. .,->i V •■ ^ •. • • j V • % •*;•' ,vU t- 1. OS’ -i- . . • . > «* f XT * , • ^ ♦ •^ JL ’ If ' i t y!.. * ■' * t .;.■>?■ Vs•: ..a,; ■1 % 1 4 4 » a 1 .f: ■■.$ * • . ‘ •■ '■■ ;. K,9 .• , • -•• • j* r* • >.. .. • 1- • - ■ < . •n » • t .V'vj .‘S r s ^ ■ ■■ ■■^ V • .» *f <4' * ^ * . •»••. > 1 • ■ 'i: ■. •■•:■: I•• * •* 1. :•> A * •K. ». ♦ * I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS tCPRCSEMTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE .REPRESENTATION OF ZNFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT Of PROPERTY TAHATION# TO THE REST OF NY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. » ’-Ti ..>s^ :\‘r '• ' 't *■ DATE g-3o-?5.. ■tv .>.' L, ■»A M • ■■I?'. * t .A i. '■ **’ a C>A-*a / .•* . V- Ir., « I :•'•>: -.5 «; .• r r -■■•i -•,( *. • ■' * * V. V..«•V' • • • * . .' I* ^ i • •.< •) . • i.' . ■' • V' ’ ■ •, V- ■ . • • * ^ I • a * - Vr A • . ^ .A* ■« Wm. F. Smith u COMPANIES May 25. 1995 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 ir ^ RE: 2580 Fox Street Greetings; In support of our proposed subdivision of 2580 Fox Street, please review the City ot Orono Resolution No 1479 regarding the Stronghold Plat This is a situation verv’ similar to 2580 Fo.x Street where a private drivew'ay serv'es Lots 1,2, and 3, Block I, Stronghold A copy ot the Resolution No. 1479 and the sketches of the Stronghold site are attached Also submitted for your review find percolation tests results for 2580 As you may know. 2580 Fox Street is similarly configured to Stronghold, that is, it is a long, narrow, unusual and unic]ue lot with some wetlands. The owners of Fox Run. the adjacent private property to the west of 2580 Fox Street are not interested in allowing an additional driveway cut from Fox Run, so our alternatives are either: the existing driveway to serve three lots, or two driveways from Fox Street to serve 2580, 2560 and the front lot The existing driveway has been improved this month with the addition of 4" of Class 5 material followed by grading and compacting. We believe that through careful planning we can avoid any net loss ot wetlands and in fact, perhaps, create a net gain of wetlands, by allow ing the existing driveway to setv’e the three lots We also believe there^will be no loss of trees Further. Orono’s Comprehensive Plan seems to support the serving of three residential units from a private driveway. WE do not believe that the development of the south portion of 2580 as a single family lot will have any adverse alTects on the public safety, health and welfare, nor do we see any adverse consequences to the neighbors or their property We are interested in getting your input into the proper way to divide 2580. We appreciate youj time, vour efforts, and your comments Wm F Smith Companies 6327 Cambridge Street Minneapolis. MN 55416 612 929 8825 800 870 2229 fax 612 929 3006 * • - •^V»1». / .-.-^ .r ^:l.>i':.V Ci’cy of O.-'^OXO ! V S': —^>*.- . - • •• ^ r.£SCuwT;CN OF the C.TY CCJNC.t nC. ■. ♦ < ‘‘L------------- % • ^ *• • t% J^^wV*w«# • •V'^ *'• • STIwNCS-CiOO '.■:nc T;;i; ■*:-*" or _ ' , % ••••““* 3*1 Ow*T i w ^O* • KHER2AS, t.'.'i ia-°s*of the S-: 'we o; Mi.-r.cseti; tr.c orctr.izei w.-.d cx-stir..- —ci..........- - , «.3 r~ “'a C’tv ci Orcr.c has aact-c-. WHEREAS. ■-•>* C-41 lf:-;:L4:y:ic=r.c.ii= Ar.d SA.'C EcvR:c?=or.; subdivision regulatto-is .c. ^w..w o. y of la.'id within the City; a.-- «- --• -- -io“ a-1 standards WHERE/vS, the ‘orono's cr.-sato sewage^ of th« R.R-IB zoning district f--w.'’‘i ot^’I^ of a siac o.nd co.-.:i\-r atio.-. creaar^r.t code. fir.ci.n| that -csidcnae to do Iccaae. t.-.at will allow its uae as^a ' without the ncca 01 a.v/ va.-a..-w . ^ ^ -- w, ---V CO--cil has considered the application .0. WHERa.-.a* — -----• ^ .• c sdiviacr; andj .,, ••-r,-. -11 !•' Larry iai “.r. -----------u-v. « « _ _ ^• . V“SE -—yeted all reruirohonta 0*;c:-:ERE.-.S. the .t .;aoivice- -y;**::': _ * • U - - ■ •'•••’IT. :.. --• -^c Cif/, inc-u-i.'-g:plotting regu—t-w..- w- —«- • ^ •2 - cr. t.'.c ?-«3WVT w *• plat • » % *1 ^wi « • M ur.:. ylat cl «» ••way •• • H • yUl .A ••* c 5. cnav.'. aa CO'unty .■'->a«a •-••o* — . o- a arivatc crA-vo-way s.'.our. on t..e G\* w * 0 ^ *.___ .... v'wC drivovjiy, Ccr.j...v.,rr. w-e city t. XoaC the S-Rt-vider ha;. wa-ie-->-c^w .io.-:.u.na.“.t accc;.s. -i.es Easor.er.t ^ver sl-h C-tlct; the ro-.'c. .nt •‘•'•'^ ..t-.i.-y X-'"'sv-Vu^-ve ingfcss. csrooo, i.viacr has ert-'-tea in favor _._ir.acc and util-ty includinc a of a.l ah--ttir.s3 ar.a/or C“>vo'.-.ar.ts wr.arcin ca,n dealaraticn of certain -oc owners covenants o; -AC Ar.d ?.y A»c «== »* .orit-cd dAivewAy. .......... . OAd.CAiior. -.0 tAC c.cy ff^A_rlovaso^Ani^CdA^- '~d;?:'’h‘^'rciiiv'd ‘5Lcr:Ld cdd-'CAn .r.i shd-T. on t.o olat as “urainage cacwtK.nw- . * • cr »* •:' K.- •%■ • !y 'C . V!'*.r •• T ’.*• \’* *..*- -• •/ \ h '•V * #f • I MV . V' •• V- **• .• V 'i • ! *• • • .rj-% *•% • • . • A- -fft • flb «« r i.-f *T r* • * hf • • -*»• r. ■'.•r f. • . ■ -A. • . f r* .'. v> *.. ir " • •• L... [* ■ .--------------------------ari:^------- -------- .V b'*•-\ jsyvc*.% vr^v^iw^-Vc vjrcy 0-.^ A <<• ak t «* «« V ^ *•> ■ •* MM *1^1*• *wi\ C W»« • • WOw>\w(«» • •» - > *x.T*r v;*if A 5. rxocuno.-. c: r. r-i>:.*v;,wlwr *ii A.^*vor.cr.v ;>rjv:,4Mr.v* for 1^% ^ ^ • » • w w w r. <3 >. * ..-iCic.*. o: z.'c priv-to cr:.vcw„” ii upprcvec 3/ ;v wS a »*c.'.cI.:.or. ci s--d-.vi-j.3r. :.zz:zvc.l. 7. Pay.-ncr.t tc t.'*.e City of a Pars Coiicatior. ?ae ir. cr.e ascar.t o: v420. 3.Pay.-Tjent to tr.o City for t.to Ic^at rov'icw «,r.o recording of tho plat a a.-nou.-.t of v75 of tho olat and all c0cu.~cr.t3 rc-atoo“ ■'“ “*.oreto tr. t.no KOV, ’TliZP.ZTOHE, BZ 17 ZZZZZVZO t.nat the City Council of the City of Oror.o hereby aprovos t.ne plot of Stro.nc.holc, Kc.n.nepir. County, .*^innosotc; subject to tho follovi.-.g conuitio.ns: Access to Lots 1, 1 i 2, Lloc.< 1, Stra.-.^hold, shall oc fro.r. t.-.o private criveway wit.n .no direct,« •* M access oer.n.ittec to 2-row.n Road South. O-utlot .*», Srrcncholc, shall rer.ai.n under joint ownership Wit.n L.*t 2, biocK 1, Strcn.jnolc. T.ne uforr*said plat s.nall 00 filed by the- City of Oror.o with the fiu.nnapi.n Cou.nty ■\ccoraar'5 Office on or before_____ retober 2 5_______lv3j, tocecner with a certified original copy of t.nis .Acsolut-on a.nd e.<ecutcd copies of the c-.00.7.0nts ana co-.-c.n...nc3 doscrioed horcin. The approval grantee by this .resolution ohr.ll expire if the plat has not been filed oy t.ne a-;e specified above. l.n that eve.nt, it will be necco3-ry to file - ;.aw •.tplic..t.o.-. wit.h t.ne C.ty of Cro.n.'.» for 3ubdiVisi<3" review. Adooted b/ tho City Cou.nc.l of t.ne City of Crono, Minnesota at a regular siiccing held C Navs. A-aril 2 5 , 13t5, by e vote of 5 Ayes and « ■ > * V/ . . . f'- • ' fV:: **•1.1.* ?-'v - i * b-: 4 /» . *.. •'fc*-**' V . ?f r • . ■■ *.-* ! ."<ary C. iw^ier, .Savor Attest; S\ Aloerca «. C—-o.-.., City C.erit • •'t" .1r •• A % *% • *#*• • T1 y '..•r-. • - i ■ «r. .rN . ••* ..h’< ; - ‘‘Vf- • n ■ ^ ' i ;‘i W - -te- < iw^»» i ^ • « m rnm*» • ito.* # •• • • • • M .............••• •« • e /:•. /✓ - i • : I • I* r t y.vv ’! A*r i-*V t*» 9 // CWLC •» & • ••^•••*' • .1 •• M 0 « *i»# i ♦.. .•.. • 1^* ' ■ M■ •• ■v-Tr."*'. .*»• • •#»- ■:; I SI •«? / » 4 SCAll - c? vyrts Wi GyDow «. cown eo, wt*sm «»« • •**■ . •a • V . - " . • • • i- ‘‘.: '^7Vf -iV -•• .. • •• ' ' i- V • •. ; • ... • : •Vv^:v ■* V -* • 1 ‘i.:-:; - r. ‘ \-W •.‘I • i *S-< 'a V '.•'WJ'^** V.- V-! ■{'«'. S-.;*!teE!.: I^v/..-I'■■; •.■*- .j-'V .• '■■;-'■* ?•. V •;• ■ •i. A « t y. t __________-........... ............. .'KjS.I-------- - ••■. —•«■ • •• • •# % ♦ m % A 5<i 5/ rt I" <J. ftl' ^ ot ft - a. 'A <»•: # C •» '* • ,/i^f •• I V*i f*' /« I-•* •*•• ' « .*• '^•* *•* ».. t-f ii> -ft. V / \ .>.. ^ • ' *•*# . • «*• • ..»•! •■ i •• ^0 .• • / I '*•* • • ''SCM.r • / f'*0 r^'f r . r. t •*.•?. •• v: r ••-•':-t • GOfH’Oi'! i\. COfriiV • » «• March 31,1995 Planning Commission City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN Re: 2580 Fox Street Dear Commissioner: Described on the attached survey and below for your review find the three (3) revised driveway options to serve the North and South portions of 2580 Fox Stt'eet as sketched by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. Proposal A This is shown in yellow on the attached sketch and is simple a new driveway cut off of Fox Run to the South lot (the barn lot). Since Fox Run is private road owned by the three neighboring property owners, they have been contacted by me and expect that they will let rr.e know whether this proposal Is acceptable to them. The existing driveway would continue to serve 25^ and 2580 Fox Street. Proposal B This is shown in green on the attached sketch and provide for a new driveway cut' from the existing driveway to serve the South lot only. The existing driveway will continue to serve 2560 and 2580 Fox Street Proposal C This is shown in blue on the attached sketch. This plan provides for an additional driveway cut off form Fox Street to the South lot, approximately 200' West of the existing Fox Street cut and 100* East of Fox Run. Again, the existing driveway would continue to serve 2560 and 2580 Fox Street. None of three proposed driveway options has any Impact on or change to the wetland, and any affected trees will be transplanted. Thank you for your review and comments. Since llliam Fr^mlth I I uoob J I. -U----------J _ r r/ sT.N6 : CUA.CVw>ir • !■? >-|H 5l L'■ ^Mo0OS9 v./«W' — £^*t A, \ ll - 3o>-A- - • 1 inW**' ji^iVAx rox' ■ I^MrATIIA*1 M*!!M -4 •n*l»«k (P ; «• n I****## •• I* •# »••• / #»•••« 9 0*^m w / /* t» f«A««NtT ■MVi SKETCH PLAN FORjwiLLIAM F. SMITH OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1. BEAU MARAIS HENNfePIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA rn I ? : i : i » « t •. I i driveway PROPOSALS A. FROM FOX RUN * B. FROM EXISTING FOX STREET DRIVEWAY ||C. NEW DRIVE FROM FOX STREET • # fi t'' cnmN k G ronberg . Inc . /jf\’NriVTN. biHil i'fin\yiir< Site /V<iumits 4^2 r.imar.uk ANcnui*_ • hnig LiW. M\ 353^ M2-4'73-4l4l T Ii<ln IIwmI i«'Muii «.• itifMii .11- rita Hititi• im «lnMI«u|^« ||> I'H* «4 M<U Mill itt«>nK-i|C Minnrv<J I »r»M‘ NumWf IZ#'' •4 All r'loo* t-to-fs |I«MI W-JI 9i v; w . .. I f- ;•« V «A'. V' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETL nG HELD ON NLARCH 20» 1995 ^ I (#6 - #2003 - Art and Kaihy Hennmgsen - Contimjcd) There were no public comments Mabusth reponed on the drainage system for the property. Waw dr^ ^ wetland, to the SE ^ two culvens, into a pond, to an underground 100 culs-ert. locat^ und« Se appficanfs dnvewa, pavement, with an oudet at the grassed ^eshore ^"3 done ^ine of pine trees ev entually to lake. No eroston was noted Mabusthw.u IwVe of eroLn problems of lakeshore bank area. the plamc house. Mabusth and Nolan both said this might brtng flooding problems to the lower level. The appUcam said that the builder assessed the haidcover in relation to drarage The buildw plans to build up around the foundation with soil. Water has pooled lower levden^. The drain tile pumped water out but drained back into the house. The grading needs to be looked at. Commission members were asked for their viewpoint, Sc^o^er is making a distinaion between stmctural and non-stmctural hardcovw Nolan fevorablv on the use of natural vegetation between the house and Uke L'^ui^ght the plan was ambitious but had no problem with it. He e^ier made note of ^e^' amount of up-front structure with the two patios and deck in company with ^ hardcover ronovals required Rowlette noted the long narrow lot and how that resulted ini the hardcover pooling in one area Undquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2003 ^ that die plastic under the it>ck and hardcover removal be completed pnor o foo^ inspection for the new constmetion. Detafl grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed by City Engineer. Ayes 7, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEWS (#7) #2002 WILLIAM SMITH, 25S0 FOX STREET - SKETCH plan /subdivision Mabusth reported that this is a sketch plan for a subcU'/ision 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-1B zoning requires two acres of continuous dry land. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 TWs pUn is for a division of a two-loi subdivision ongmafly ap^oved m 1985 There is ademule area to meet requirements of a back lot division with acres. The appljcant^ was advised in 1985 that future access considerations requited access conforming to a a- lot subdivision The City acquired no underlying access easement over the roadAay in the adjacent RLS division The owner of the RLS said he would nev er approve any easement or curb cut. This results in only two options, A and B. tor the applic^, not ttaee as proposed Mabusth reported that the rusting dnveway comes very close to the 26' ^back is required A separate conditional use and variance apphcauon was hied wnh the original subdivision application that would allow encroachmem of proteaed wetl^d for drive to nonh The bam on the propeny was placed m front ot the pnncipal structure also requiring a variance review The drainage comes from both the nonheast and northwest into a large wetland and continues draining through a drainageway along the driveway to French Lake Basin wetland. Option A caUs 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 - acres for the new building envelope. Option B calls for a 60* wide private road with a cul-de-sac along the «stem border. Major portions will be located within a designated wetland area. Mabusth said that in 1985, the applicants chose to develop a shared access dnve and did not attempt to acquire an access off the RLS drive. Rowlette r.cttfd that this application is similar to the problem faced with the Clomier application previously discussed. Rowlette 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, BiU 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 CONLNUSSION NfEETING HELD ON ALARCH 20, 1995 (#7 - #2002 William Smith - Continued) access comes from Another option discussed was a new driveway from Fox Street, either with a new curb cut or the use of the existing curb cut with an immediate turn to the west. Matoh 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 allow it at this time. Mabusth responded that we have discussed what the c(^e squires and have not examined the statement of hardships prepared by applicant seekmg vanances to code requirements. Rowlette said she was interested in using the other curb cut oft'of Fox Street, and docs only be done if code ccMild be met. Lindquist felt that a separate curb cut and separate driveway were the only altenutives. and approved access via a driveway Schroeder responded that an aesthetic argument is not a good reason tor a variance and saw Fox Run as the best alternative His second choice was use of the onginal dnveway. and third best, another private road, Schroeder said the applicant need^ to e^l ah avenues with obtaining the use of Fox Run as an access If tins ts not “ and Rowlerie said it was their opinion that this was not a subdivision. Mabusth concureo that the u3C of the e.xisting driveway, the new road off the existing road, or the new curt cut were not viable options unless the commission were willing to approve the necessary variances. The code calls for a private road to serve three lots. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20. 1995 (#7 - #2002 - NVlIliam Smith - Continued) Schroeder asked that the cit> check wth the attorney on the affect on the lot as unbuiWablc if no variance were granted. Mabusth said that the Comprehensive Plan allows for three lots 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 outlets Mabusth said that lot 2 has 3+ acres, and there would be no issue with the size of outlets. The Commissioners were asked by the chair their final thoughts regarding the plan Lindquist asked if the engineer 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 buildable Berg agreed with this Peterson preferred access off Fox Run^ He did not wish to see a new curb cut and thought a "y" would be better but not preferred Schroeder preferred Fox Run He would like the attorney to look at the situation and determine why it ended up as it now is Rowictte did not want to set a precedent with three lots on a driveway She w as unsure of her feelings on the "y". J^olan 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 Mtdiusth reviewed the property and the issues involv'cd. This is a 15 acre subdivision in a heavily wooded area, owned by the Carpenter fiunily, with designated wetlands and types 1 and n not designated on City's wetland maps. The applicam has a purchase agreement with the Carpenter trust The property is surrounded by Old Crystal Bay Road on the west and driveway to the south and east. The drainage flows from the north to »hc designated wetland, then cast via a culvert under drive and eventually to French Lake lower basin. The applicant has asked the commission 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 of 2400 s.f of wetland type 1 and 2, and major 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. i r U I 9 April I9S5 Wliiiim F. Snnm cili / 9294125 6327 C«mb(id9« Street Ftx: 612/ 9294006 St Lotti«P«ft.MN SS4I6 SUBJECT; FOX RUN DRIVEWA Y ACCESS Desr BUI k JcamCtir. In rpfard to your letter of 21 March 1995 and our lubiequen! telephane ooBwiationi riquoitmi have your propoted touth prcpwty devtlopmem have driveway acccu to Fox Rua u requeited by tht City of Orooo. we are providing this rasponae Wf are of tba opidon that tl» wesUng traSe Fox Run ii already ouireotly too hemy and Bequint fbr the ealiting condition of the roadbed and the current width of the roadway. ThU leaiDa quite evkioit at this springtime thaw from the quite significantly deteriorated condition of the Fox Run roadbed at the entraoce to Fox Street The rot^wiy Is very sendtive io the ^imtiae diaw and othtf wfS rimes of the yenr to traffic weight from heavy vthieiM Mieh at gadtsga ffneirt. eonitniction tnjoks and delivery tntdes. Tba additionsl traffic vobone and wdght Ihun an iddhhMial driveway and household would require tome aignificaftt immediate upgrade of tba Pox Run roadbed. The ineteiied traffic volume and weight would require in the future idao more frequent and more eoitly msintMianee of the roadway. The additional roadbed and roadway Improvemami would not only be quite costly but more bnponamly would detract fiom the privacy and beauty of die natural setting which we now eqjoy. It is fbr these reasons as staled shove, and also others not suted herein, that we fbel Wi muit decline your request. However, we do lock fbrward to your presence as a naigbbor and wl^ to expras our warmeal j^aetlngato you and your fkmily. Suieerely, Darrell A Judi Plucker 2640 Fox Street Orono,MN 55391 612 / 476-4279 612/S91-S437 Fax: 612/5914413 i '« m A * ^ m V A W ^ mm mnrrt- e-tf3 .ttU 9Mb r’f«l yiVlK.BUl.fRi Ifiy rM TU 9«i?bb F. u; FAX MKMOaANDUM Date: To: April 0. 1»»U William Smith Fiuui; Sublaclt IMum Lliulbloum Yorrr March '/istljotter on yoUT KwX Street Lot At thi. tlm«. 1 fe.1 that acce« to th» poWatUl buUJing .It.Jo ™.t.<.u £orv«l from th. .xlitlng drive. Additionally, .me. the lot has frontag it should not bo considof^d Mand looked . Our privaia road. Fox Run, curreuUy servos four (4) hoiui* and 1 see no benefit hi adding additional traffic oii Fox Run. I would like to w.lcom. you to our bMuUlul ar.a and hop. you an .bla to niolv. this situation In a fair and realistic manner. *.• VO it« • t#rA *. ka.-Sri • • , 0m, » m t IL. C>mg m •^ «'I •« I 14C • '«>'«<«» • w «» -W. - Ajiii! ?, |w*'< Jcarr.f \Kinusili City •>:'Oiuiu. 27^0 Kcilwv i*a]k\.j\ Post OPlwc Ui_i\ Oo rrsS!jl 13a\.,%7<}ii D<‘ar Jcaiiiic?. Enclobtrd, please find the le.v.jHMi-e fuan Kicrh Anderson m :f>5i' J'o.x Si. to my rcviuesi ilnrod March ’1, |‘d"5 I am itill vvuitini; on thv Pluchcr's and Lumlblooms. I will contact you mid week. William f Stnitli mmmm * • • (tft It U L L-.V W*ii Shere/LitfetMirjieicnJa Cftict 3'Cl ShatUft.' rri * • ^‘iyirrs vc;?:cj: P»652^-l.r%r. ‘/. 7 - /?? ^jrai Jin.'icrscn Manager ^ - 'll lie/ 0/U.P..JJ ..« / yH^ ^ £) W AdU*-^ Qt£> N A n^yii * t^> 1^ ■ ilj •?<%!<- ■»\'^‘Bfl«-t *> - *»UI«-1 Scate^ASFVcolorion Tuts XSoil Boring! ^Bonch Mork Note: TWi tysXm « to b« construCttd lo in««l Iht Mrmuolo Poltot«n CorAol A;tney Chapter 70S0 ( 2<ocal Ordinancf Check ell underground utllltlei property nr-wnnfts^T^i \.p-f a. 1. ^ ^ v.\-o ------ OTO»40 KhtJ. \4^V<ii. S-P TESTING INC Ouigried Rj* (^. ^ PM.«-497-3566 City of OROX )s- AESOLUTION OF THE CITY COU\dl NO ZOk, 9 A R22010T10M APPSOVING TUB PrjiT OP BB\0 MAAAIS PILE NO. ')67 WEJHHETVS# the City O^orci i ^ ■% ^ ■ organized and exietin, under the la-'u or the St^tc" oV^lino'sota^ahd*^" -ubdivlsicn regulations for^the^o^rdVri-" cf Orono hus adopttO cf l«nd within the City; and ~ o-^-c and safe development a s«Wivicior“ John%fA^.‘ld?t“dn Il^the^ application for ucandards of th *^R4o%oni*lfg^dint A'ct^/et'hat"'iront on a public street. roouirip.rr - .. that «ot 2 does not to a public road via a private drivLay eau^nen't over'^hot the PiAttinf““Vat\^ons oVtho‘*Cit^r^n^^ ot 1.Completion of all the requirements cf Hesolation ?;o. 1978. and roads^Vhewn^as^ Pox^Stre^t.^^*^^^^*'^^"''^^ public streets 3. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. provicin^VoT l\mitatfin7 on thP^Tj^Tt w'lt $300.0^^^'* ^ity of a Park Dedication Peo in the amount of ^ plat Clements in t^^o‘amour!t of **5150.00;^ and***'^ fU lng of the Pago 1 of 2 ■ ■wrhi MS Mil ■^ii'iet WMf T p ■"! 11 ^ r.'itn 14r .■ > *riTTi iri ■ I ~wa^* r* f.. t j. wi rY^ v/r-* - - t m lw ,V v Citv ol* OR.OrVC> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.10 0-- WHZH2ASf the proposed huildir.g site on Lot 1 may be dcccsscd ijnly by crossing a protected wetland area and applicant has beer. ':ranted the aecessary variances a^.d conditional use pcrciit for such u rjyiveway to crocs the wetlands per Resolution !*o* 20C6* NOW, TOBREFORB DB it resolved, that the City Council of the of Orono hereby approves the plat of Beau Harais, Hennepin County, Kinnesote, and incorporating within this approval the granting oC a variance to the require.Tter.t for frontage on a public street fo Lot 2; subject to the following cenditiens: The aoproval granted by this Resolution shall espiro if the ')lat has not been filed by the oatc specified above* In that event. It will he necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono lor subdivision review. Dated this 27th day of October. 1986. A'I'TEST : . ( ' .V * • •• f /_ ' ' v^vV' • I’ity Clerk. ;Mayvr • •• **• •• 1. Lots 1 and I shall share a single driveway access onto Fox Street rather than accessing fror. the existin%i private road immediately west of the property. Appropriate access easements of 20* width shall be granted from *;cch new lot to the other* The driveway shall bo constructed no less than 26* from the wetlands* _ 2* The r^ubdivider is advised that although Lot I contains enough ^ dry bulldable land to meet the area standard for an additional > future lot near Fox Street, such a subdivision creating a 3rd let k on this property would require a roplat of Lot 1 and would m require construction of a road to .*iesidentia.' Private Road # Standards to serve all 3 lots, and the City would at that tinu | require that all 3 lots gain access fro.-:, such road or would need! to access onto Fox Run, and variances to the frontage! requirements would be 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 original copy of this Resolution ano executed copies of the docume.nta noted above.I ■ jrrfTM- aiTTTlMi TT a I'nvTiMlii^ irr it r r ~ ' ' >> ***-_.. ki/tl r.» m: 1** T» fsrr rm^ ^. "• f'' ■ w. ■! gTMlMail « W « msxmumm: Mil mm .•■:••" 'yJS V.r yiM I®jfi^'v»: V '•.'If .<5 IZ ORDINANCE NO , SECOND SERIES L AV ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ZONING COTE AND SUBDIVISION CODE BY DEFINING «;ta ^^S for the CREATION AND USE OF LOTS NOT ABUT A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROAD the CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: ^FCTION 1 Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.02 and Municipal Subdivision C.d= S«50. nS:s.MM.« s «. •■••"•■"W lot is considered ^o^rid^r b placed'Ts^a^'^of the lot.^ When merely an ease’men. over another lot. the separated lot is eonsidered 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 addmg Subdivision 27 which shall read as follows: SSS'.iSS'iSS’ss.S'.s: iS i ■ > ■. ™M.i« 5 of the Orono Subdivision Code: A.Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows. 1. Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement. Lot width measured paraUel to the front or street lot line at the Street vard setback line of a lakeshore back lot, or at e setback line of a nonlakeshore back lot, shall meet t^ zo g district width requirement. The street yard or front y back lot wUl be a yard starring where the narrow zc«as ourio corridor ends and the lot begins. Lak"**®"‘’“V°^„S^*ack the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the es line, and at the street yard setback line. 1 B 3.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 distnet lakeshore yard requirements. Ltback sumdards. except that the required side yard ot the front lot adjacent to the access outlot shaU 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 screening without encroaching on neighboring propenies. access to the existing street wiU be a potential safety hazard. 3.Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10 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.No access ouUot may be platted abutting an adjacent accew outlot except when die intent is to combine the two access outlots for creation of a public or private toad meeting City standard . D. Screening requirements. 1. yard of adjacent lots. 1 t .1^ M t f — ■ .1 r■■ll « u - The street yard of the back lot shaU be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion of the City, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yards of adjacent lots. E. Standards for accessory stnictures. Accessory strucmres shaU adhere to airrequiretneats of the zoning code. w.d. the foUowmg addmonal requirements: 1.Accessorv structures within a back lot shall be allowed no closer lhan 10 ’ to a neighboring propert>'’s side or rear yard. Acc-ssory strucmres shall not be allowed within the required street yard^’of a back lot nor within the required rear yard of a front lot 'which abuts the street yard of a back lot. No accessory structure shall be allowed within an access outlot. SECTION 3. Orono Municipal Code Section 11.31. Subdivision 5 is hereby deleted and the following language substituted in its place: Subdivision 5. Double fronuge lots, access to lots, and front/back lot divisions. A.Double fronuge lots. Double fronuge and reversed avoided except where necessaiy to provide separauon “f development from traffic aiterials or to overcome specific disadvanuges of topography and orientation. B.Access from any anerial roadway. Lots shall not, in general, deri^ access exclusively from an anerial roadway. Where any anerial roadway may be necessary for f Council may require that such lots be served by a nossible, in order to limit possible traffic hazard on such roadwa . . . ^ driveways shall be designed and ananged so as to avoid requinng vehicles to back into traffic on any anerial roadway. C. /- Front/back lot subdivisions. "Flag lots" and defined in this Chapter (see definition of "Lot-Back ) sh^ ^ Front/back lot divisions shaU be allowed oiUy m creation of an ouUot to provide access from the back ^ P f^r private road. Such outlot shaU not be aUowed as either the back or front lots. FrontAiack lot subdivisions shaU adhere the following standards: . aC.-iU. . • .A.I r >••ti. 1. • Applicability. a.Front/back lot divisions may be used when existing property 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 outlot access corridor is excluded. b.Front/back lot divisions may be used for individual lot splits" but may not be used when subdividing a large naicd into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is merely a convenience to the developer rather than supponed by unique site factors. c.A frcnt/back lot division shall not be allowed when any e.xisting residence on a neighboring property abuning the proposed access outlot is located nearer its affected side lot line than a distance equivalent to the zonmg district required front yard depth. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: a. b. Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement. the rear of the front yard setback Ime of a iionlakeshorc back lot, shall meet the zoning district wid^ ^ The street yard or front yard for any back lo yard staning where the narrow access and the lot begins. Lakeshore back setback width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback line and at the street yard setback line. c.The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150% of the zoning district front yard requu-emen . d.The required side yard and rear yard depths f" shall be 150% of the zoning district yard The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back tot shaU meet the zoning district lakeshore yard requirements. J. A 3. 6. I 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 ouUot shaU be equivalent to the Sid- street yard reouirement for that zoning distnct. Access requirements: Access outlets shall be 30 ’ minimum width, and shall be wide enoueh to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. In anproving front/back lot divisions, the City may require that* both front lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access outlet 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 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 out lot. c.No access ouUot may be platted abutung an adjacent ouUo except when the intent is to combine the two accew ouU^ote for creation of a public or pnvate road mccung C ty standards. Screenin«^ requirements and accessory sirucmre stand^ds. Front/back lot ^subdivisions shall be designed m a “^“^ndar^s^f the screening requirements and accessory struemre standards of Section 10.03, Subdivision 27 can be met. The requirements and standards of this section those front/back lot divisions which receive preliminary p approval after January 1, 1994. Pioneer and th SECTION 4. Adoption and publicauon. This I- Laker newspapers and shall become effective immedia y P Adop.ed by the City CouKa of Orono. Miimesota on this 19931 by a vote of__ayes and —. nays. day of •. Edward J. Calladan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin. City ClerK I i---------I ifc I I'^.M SKETC WILLIA OF LOTS 1 AND 2 b1 HENNEPIN C« U i 1 onivEWAY pn j^FROMFJ '^Vnome> C. NEW DBI SKETCH PLAN FOR WILLIAM F. SMITH OF LOTS 1 AND 2. BLOCK 1. BEAU MARAIS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA 0 -U- 8. ■1 USA'S PUI MM kirtk>\ Q ; «4 w I K*n'<n nttrti ilu» il*« '■umn •» a* pniun'J K irw i« umlif my dirrcl Mif'cr- \ Ami Ihji I Am a i IuI\ rt*i;i«h-ml C i\ d I njcmm And Land Sunrynr under ihr Ia«« (i| the Hnr »<l Mmm-v««A Slifk S. r.nmKtji MtiiiH^MrA I mom* Nwmlvi 12*5' SCAIJr-wo' OAfr t-to-r RIUNO 9SII / I . PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILLIAM F. SMITH BEAU MARAIS SECOND ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA . N*tC t if a*r •r B«««t M«r«if (i IJ 4L^‘ COFFIN k GRONBERG. INC. CI>M>f<//uiy Lviii Sun^Vi'^’* S.'fr Ti.MM/trs 482 Ijrnjriuk Au-nut* * L,ik» \'\ M2 47V4141 I h^n^»^ uftih Ihji «h»' Minn piv|viml K mr iiiKlit nn Jinil M»f»r»- I iMiiM jinl iKil 14*n 4 iluH n-|;nl*ml C «il I 4iul 14ml Sunmn umkf lilt- bus «4 ll*r H4lr i«l Mwmu-m«U NUiV !i (^nmlvii: SlmiirMiU I Numl^ t 127-*' KAII r'loo' •*\TT H4IMI 9511 >•»•. • • *• •• • mre PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILLIAM F. SMITH BEAU MARAIS SECOND ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA . N«u L»» • •» .• »*« -Ml .i- , . i © f; >> \ ' ll- )■ —”> «" ('V i ’Vi "> COFFTN k GRQNBERG. LNC. CVnstW/<n^ [n^r>hV''>. Ltirtf ''ifi Ji-i'ir’- 4if2 IiifTuravk Au nui- • U-n^ I .<ki M\ b)2r3-4m I utlilt Ihjil Ihi' Mmi-\ H j* puiMh-J h iw »*» unJif n« «IimvI Mifpt* % isiiw. jnJ ihJi I jm a duh iv)(nlrtt>l Cnil f npmn and I and Sunrti* lindirt ilir Lim« i4 lltr SUir i4 MmnrM4a . Y --' •'' V Mailk S I kn»M' \undM I SCAU r*ia>’ oan 9511 .,1* -__A__. TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:June 12, 1995 SUBJECT: #2031 Bruce & Irma Kelley. 2340 Fox Street - Preliminary' Subdivision Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB - Minimum 2 acre requirement. Total area = 6+ acres, dry land Lot 1=4 acres, dry Easement area = 11,034 +. s.q. [amended area of Lot 4, = 3.74 acres] Lot 2 = 2 acres Pertinent Ordininces Section 11.03, Subd. 24 - "Lot Area, Minimum" - Each lot shall contain the minimum area required for each proposed lot as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter cf the City Code. In rural zones not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land exclusive of wetlands, public and private rights-of-way, yghiculai or pedestrian easements. ......... Section 11.03, Subd. 66 (C) - Class III Subdivision - Lot 2 does not meet required 200’ of width to the rear of the street yard setback. Required = 200’ Proposed = 195 ’ Variance = 5 ’ or 2.5% Section 10.28, Subd. 5 (B) - RR-IB Lot Standards - it is difficult to determine achial setbacks of existing struemres from lot lines. As structures have not been located based on field survey work. Applicant has used topographic/aerial maps of City that do not provide^ the requued accuracy for a preliminary plat. Lot 2 at the street lot line measures 195 ’ not 165’ as shown on survey. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owner’s List D - Wetlands Map El-3 - Preliminary Subdivision Application F - Gustafson Report G - Weekman Report H - Septic Plan Lot 2 I - Septic Plan Lot 1 J- Bill Kelley’s Land - Plat 12/77 K - Preliminary Lot Layout - Information Required Zoning File #2031 June 13, 1995 Page 2 Reriew of Application The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Bill Kelleys LaiKl. It is staffs understanding that Lot 1, the most western lot, will be retained for a possible resubdivision. Lot 2, the most easterly lot. measures 195’ at street lot line, and not 165.44’ as shown. Lot line can be slightly altered so that lot width is increased 5’ at the 50’ setback line. As already noted, the driveway easement will have a major impact on the potential division of Lot 1 in the future. Based upon the directives of the code, the area of the vehicular easement must be excluded from dry land area Lot 4, adjusted at 3.74 acres. Review Exhibit F, Engineer reports, that he would approve the shared access at this controlled intersection, but the shared easement would have a negative impact on future subdivision plans. Staff reviewed a potential curb cut at the east lot line of Lot 2 at the top of the hill. Engineer notes that an alternate access at the easterly lot line would satisfy sight distance requirements. Weckman ’s report. Exhibit G, recommends that the application be tabled until iqiplkante consultant provides additional septic testing along with scaled drawings indicating the dfain field dimensions, lot lines, hardcover, and well setbacks. The consultant has also recommended that the existing system that serves the house now located on Lot 2 be used to serve the proposed new residence. The consultant has labeled the system as a mound system. Weekman notes that based on the presumed year of installation (1960’s) that mound systems did not exist in ^t day. The consultant has not provided diagrams to scale showing the exact size, location, orientation of the site or the property line setbacks. The surveyor should also locate the soil borings and perc tests holes on the preliminary plan as requested in preliminary application information. Another prime concern is the fact that we have not received a preliminary plat survey signed by a licensed surveyor. Existing structures have not been determined from field inspections but from the City ’s topographic maps. Review Exhibit E 1-3, the application information clearly asks for detailed survey information when filing preliminary plat. Staff Recommendation Staff must recommend the tabling of the application until we are in receipt of a preliminary survey and additional septic testing and mapping so that we are able to confirm all code requirements have been met. Staff will attempt to meet with the applicant prior to our meeting so that we may discuss in more detail the issues that must be addressed by applicant. jb '••1■ o Q i CITY^ORONO - Sl^DrvTSION APPLICATION ^;i(3 3/iTC V // w C- PROPERTY LOCATION n^uo MU 5~5'55~^ Siffi address f.'i'rP.—1;/7-Z3 0007 p-cc-' rPlease cneck one - P.cp-rz> . ^ •• > Pieie heck cce - Prcr-*:-- ^ ahs.ac: or _ Aitach legal deschcuon to apF.icaiion. tcT I , 5«-««c I, O't-c. ggi^eg Z,Ai>P^>^ \ 4TJI^s¥ Ad(ire<;s ------------------------Zip(work) ^'iO-'S3l_0 Cicy /Qgg>>ug) --------------------------------------- OW'NER (if different than ap^icant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) existing land use Number of Tax Parcels Development Size i 6.11 /II Present use (check) 4jf/3i Acres Dry' Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ % Present Zoning District Division for Tax PurposesPROPOSAL -------------‘™m;;rOcly (no new bui.^tng si.es) ^ Subdivision for New Building Sites ^ ^ Number oFBuUding Sues -------------Units^^ ~ Toul Units CITY IffLVACS OFFICE *r » Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land L?5!,®^ 4OJ.0 ...ar.- '' TL ,«?.C d364k coolResidential Other (specify) MINDrcM ^UraUAL REQUIRED FOR APFUCATON 1. Payment of fees (refer to •application fees listed oeio . 2. Completed application form. 1: “isT w.1. «?'(JOU mus. obtota UUs li« ftom Hcbnbpm Cmmq, of Fin^ 5. to ipliliioo. an^ a «para.e lU. of any oto pano^^you wish nodfiod of to appHcnnon, Zoning Official ’s Signature ------------------------------------z.oning umciat s aigruumc ---------------------------------------- MlNtia-M MATERIAL REQITRED FOR CO^^>LOT 1. Payn:==. of f«. (refer ro Prehmmary Sob<U..don Approve resolut.on and park„v.enr of fees (refer ro SobUroo Approvai resotooc and park fees .f appicnb,.,. Signed Cc.^lf:ca:e of Sun-ey or mylar copies oi formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Utter of Credit. Zoning Official ’s Signature " I. APPLIC.4TION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check pC] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: Sketch Plan Review (Class I. II & III) ^ ' Subdivision of a Lot Lme Rcarrangetneni SjW.OU -------- 'pStrn^ SuMtoto ‘A^!o!>:niS”?0 A S25.00, lo, (Qass III i all non-residenrial) Final Plat Application (Class III) S175.00 Ugal Review and Filing: ___Subdivision only S73.00 Totals "aiUDoiviaiuu ulUT -...r.ww ' r-inrt nn Subdivision w/casemenu and covenant nun.^S^.W Park Fees (to be determined per Sccuon 11.62) ■ Legal and Engineering Review Fees ^ ^ original appUcauon) ■ r“™!1 of a«! 1 on Applicarion $150.00 (No change from original applicadon) • of Final cLs III Subdi.iaion AppUcadon $100.00 (No change horn original appltoron) ^ A _ ____A. A $600.00 + S.SOAineal ft.; Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lincal ft.; _r__PTicrinff Private Road ■ Proposed Waiermain Extension $250.00 + 523/swb Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 Pvaliiatinn Review (aDolicablc to rural lin. ft. X .50 » $ lin. ft. X .50 • $_ - ^sy^^r. tTEvSfonTev'L (applicedle u, mnl »bdivision applicadrma) $50.00/ncw lot proposed for on-site x--------new loO .___________r*#itC. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees Variaoce S200.00 Vacation Associated with Subdivision S75.00 PRD Application with Subdivision S30.00/Dwelling Unit siablished by ordinance^ ^ ^Date ^ ^ applicant ’s Signature Iwner’s Signanire Date iwncr 5 ---------------------------------- i vnnt must have all submittals mto the City Office 25 days before the Planning th* Plnn““* held on the third Mondav of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled revi authorized r^cm7rio L ro" V.S. rh. BnUtog & Zoning Office of to change prior ro to meermg. L_.. ^ 9-03/ KUN DATE 0S/2A/f5 \ I • . F •HEFtCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORNAnON SYSTEH J.REPORT ND.Pl4ii461vj \PROPERTY ONNERS LXST PACE IEBATCH 504 •, •‘ Rl *35 03-117-23 32 OOOE 38 03-117-23 32 0007 •i -,56 05-117-25 52 0015 •- *. • » PROP ADDR 00056 ADDRESS UUSSIONEO 02540 FOX ST 02500 FOK ST • 6 OHNER NAME CHRISTOPHER J RELLEY 5RUCC R KELLiY •E CUNN1N6T0N • R CUNONDTON **• * * TAXPAYER CHRISTOPHER J KELLEY BRUCE R KELLEY L \p e •E CUM4ZN6TQN i K CUMONDTON 0 NAHE/AODR 347 LAKEVIEH AVE N 2340 FQK ST •2500 FOX ST • L0N6 LAKE MN 5555A ORONO l« 55556 M ^ H• .r # LONO LAKE Itl 58554 « r m • • * *4 % 56 05-117-25 52 0014 3B 03^117-23 33 0001 • w • so 65-117-25 55 6002 • > k' PROP AMR 02260 FCM ST 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 02525 FOX ST • . OmER NAME J N A J ANDERSON HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND ALVIN M LANDSERO ETAL ■ / TAXPAYER JAMES N ANDERSON CITY OF OMHQ • P ALVIN N LANDSERO JR . \ NAME/AMR 2260 FOX ST DRAINAGE t CONSERVATION 2525 FOX ST • •• « L0N6 LAKE HN 55554 5-1B-90 ST DEED 8173541•0 S t MAYZATA m 55541 6 A 1• •56 05-117-25 55 0001 38 04-117-23 41 0001 s ^ 1 1 t • k'. ■{' ' ♦ 5S 04-117-25 44 0001 f 4 PROP AOOR 02265 NEB6ER HILLS RO 00505 HILLON DR S 00056- AOORESS UNASSX6NED ' ‘ V** •' .“1 OHNER NAME DAK PEDERSON HXLLIAM 6 ROBINSON • « A mitCPXN FORFEITED LAND TAXPAYER DENNIS 6 A KAREN L PEDERSON HILLXAM G ROBINSON ♦ 'f/ •.CITY OF ORONO • n NAME/AOOR 2265 HEBBER HILLS ROAD 505 NILLON DR S ROAD • •MAYZATA MN 55541 LONG LAKE MN B5354 •10/1/02 ST DEED 141420 t 1 •% , 56 04-117-25 44 0002 > • 4 • •• •• ' PROP AOOR 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED •* • • . OWCR NAME P E ECKERLINE/M A ECKERLINE s • «6 % • TAXPAYER PETER E ECKERLINE TOTAL BATCH S06 00010 i »• 1 . ^ # NAHE/AOOR 2555 FOX ST 4. • ORONO HN 55341 t f* t « 0 • 4 • ! ’ * • - *' ♦ tV < • I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REMCSCMTIB ARI W ACCURATt AND TRUI REPRESENTATION OF XNFORHATZQN AS XT APPCAM TNXS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEFMEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATXONf TO THE REST OF HY KNQHLEOGE AND DEUEF. s-3o-;>5DATE 'I- • A. • f t* •A.o •«/ », * A * . •/ •f ■ 7'*" • •• v- ■% v'* •• . V I *i‘ X- . f \ ¥■ '"'i i?>r -1 |pr ^ ■ , * —"• ill r«&l ‘55EP^^5r; i: i'lH stiff i'iP'lteaegp 11 .•• •‘.I • i • f H “'M,- „-v .17: -'.►Si'S4 p(;il?r,v;:u^4v*43j^ ;. •. 4. a* . * a \ • . :■} 1 .V i^] '■' s' ■'^:'';. - ''•'<i*'X ■•' ffii*fff.V''v’K- .,.^.•■s■i':'''>,^A jffiyp Wmmmm^ *. ■ ‘ •; 'i i* V m R»^^SW5§wi%Sl25i^» • > V •‘4.. ' s» i'Jw • >vi:< tH*. ;a ks m //^•'.'V .'Xi' .'''s' V.'-r•'.T^^'^* *%«r: <-s > ■ ■ i's«. ^l[m !V. 4. . approval, final sun’cying. engineering FINAI. PL-\T Record ^al drawings must and legal mstaUed (or a confer sis ‘ final plats. Deadlire for SFP‘!"‘'°“' j-ttv two weeks before the Council meetmg at enal suemirraU approval, which ±e sucaivtsion ^*’Ul iw— 5. which ±e subdivision wui r—— * RECORDLVG of the PL.AT. After rmal real Liate raxes required documents with the County. lots CAN BE s5HJ for entire vear ^ QMT Y aptpt ;~fROPER RECORDING OF 5.ND/OR BL'ILDIN gTeR-NUTS ISSUED u. the plat . tvfop M.AT ^^’^' ^FOLlREn 1. 2. $600.00 + 50C lineal foot 900.00 + 50C lineal footProposed Private Roadsss? ”£ ”r ss.».«K.«Proposed Sanitary Sewer Mam Extension ------- ------ — Proposed Waiennuin Extension Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) ^ On-Site System - Site Evaluauon Review (applicable to rural subdivision appheauons) 250.00 + .iJ.w 250.00 + 25.00 per stub 200.00 50.00 per new lot proposed for on-site Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees: nn |!^”„ent vlatioo Association with Subd.vtston 75.TO PRD Application with Subdivison _ i -so 00 Renewal of Preliminary Subdivision Applicauon (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Subdivision Application (No change from original application) 75.00 30.00/dwelling umt 100.00 % * PPfTT\TTNApv SimPIVTSTON RgVIE^ 1. Completed applicadoa form. 2.Sabdivision application f=*. including special improvement fees for road, extension of municipal services, ex. Ceniflcate of Survey (boundary sur.-ey) of the propetiy sbowing: EXISTINQ ■ r-rro^i' ^SdSa'Sht-of-way and pavement locauon) : ^ tostre lines (determined by omvL (ordinao’ btgh *^levell). Namral Environme^T Lakes _Ji5i Lake Classen Dickey Lake French Lake North Basin: Sewage Lagoon: South Basin: Lydiard Lake Lake Katrina Wolsfeld Lake (Medina) OHWL 974.5 ’ 985.5 ’ 930.5 ’ 934.3 ’ 930.0’ 970.9’ pcrrg.ition‘1^ Develorr**^^; Lakes Long Lake Mooney Lake Tanager Lake Hadley Lake (Plymouth) OHWL 944.3 ’ 988.0’ 929.4 ’ 961.4' r;(»ngral D^velopmepr ^GD) Lakes Forest Lake Lake Minnetonka OHWL 929.4 ’ 929.4* Jrihutarv Streams Painters Creek Stubbs Bay Creek Long Lake Creek Wolsfeld Creek Dickey Lake Creek OHWL Consult with Orono Staff ^ Stags wi* oftos property. Location of existing wells and septic sy«e““ „ ^ nr «ihdivisions and may beTopographical contours required for all Class H and m subdivisions ana m y required by staff for a Class I subdivision. Location of any existing Zoning District boun^ Ime. Locate bluff* areas if property is located within a shoreland are . •A bluff has ihe following characteristics: A. Pan or aU of the feature is located in a shoreland area; B. C. The slope rises at least 25' above the Ordinary High Water l^vet of the water body; T^e vrade of the slope from the toe ome bluff to a point 25' or more above the iSii^ High Water Level avenges 30% or greater; and D. The slope must drain toward the water body. The toe of dte bluff is the lower point of a 50’ segment with an average slope exceeding lO . . . u -«r r>n thp cross-scction of a bluff below which the slope IsfLfd above which the average slope for a distance of 30 ’ or more is 18% or less. proposed. Proposed property lines. : iy^LiSScipX*^^^ >0' ggrved by sanitary sewer. PATA Total property area. Area of each wetland. Total area of each lot. Dry-buildable area of each lot. ^ Average dry buildable lot area. 4. Certified property owners list (350 ’). 5. Site evaluation report for septic system drainftcld on each lot not served by samtary scwcr s. Preliminary engineering layout of proposed new roads (including center hne profdc). sewer, water lines. 7 Stormwater Management Pl^. A storawamr [ij ni subdivision applications (two [2] ^ae^ “ endlieer rezitered^ in the State of reduced to irxl7-). A is recommended Mbmitted to the City must include the followmg tnfotmauon. ^ I Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& IvJl Associates Engineers & Architects June 7, 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Kelley Subdivision File No. 139-2031 t . rje- A •*7*e*v *f • ' • '! :e* • "i V ’ i -.— ■» •:. V ' ic" j ■* ■ <1 : •» i\*rr* ^ A’• ^ • 'T* r TTV^'t c*np.:tF* A ,»r : A . '*»f *7 ««»*•« A j •• • t ' . 'it • *'3 % ■ • *: I^tdO cci*^*^* **! “ rr"'■■ •uije* ^ % e^'. ^ ffTu d':'* “f A H<»rN r V*cr,»r« * •! r c *• :*n.»‘ * i.*• ’s • .' . c-".". '3 - •« Vt- • * * '.• •'•e. » V ? .% ■ - ^ n 'Af'-r : .v«v» »§ ? VAV--C: i«»*. r "T ; - ^ .1 ^ ,.•*, fcr —er* • Anoe*'jn H 9 •©•f **€ M«w« A 1- r »S G«»v *■ ^ j jdirrv^'^ A i A C J £jge*r^ <»E • 7 c* 'Khm-dT •»£ ••!> j '<*s*ve*i ^ C ‘JAiW-iS Pf V '<rv8 .irne»' w c G -*ve« PI • -*»e^ 3 Jl^re*t'e j»v C •• stftiu. tt ir - 'CO -*£ " ^ •* . ?r^ 71 ‘f Cet i w * e* ’ - ^ j r-e.-r' i.-ie* ’E 0«*n St-»wA' **€ .e**’e\- j f*' e* P| ..-sec^ ’ ■'£ tee vt Virvi 0£ c>>^.e; A E*i;»\cn Kfc V P»A-e “.*v V C '.“r * V " f%| . •n*e » •» ' ^VJW 6 V--'- Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the proposed subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Bill Kelley s Land for Bruce and Irma Kelley. The property is located at the northeast quadrant of Willow Drive and Fox Street. The applicants propose to use the existing driveway as a shared access to the hvo lots. This access is located at a four-way stop intersection. As long as this intersection is controlled, the driveway location is acceptable for a shared access. This would require that a driveway easement be provided to the easterly lot. If the westerly lot is planned to be further subdivided in the future, the driveway easement may be deducted from the overall area, which would not allow two lots at the 2 acre minimum. An alternate access for the easterly lot could be located near the east lot line as this is the top of the hill and has good sight distance. Drainage and utility easements will be required 5 feet wide along the proposed division line. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 TO:Jeanne Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administration FROM: Stephen Weekman. On-Site Systems Manager DATE: June 5, 1995 SUBJECT: Subdivision application #2031, Bruce & Irma Kelley - Septic Rev iew The report by Mr. Koch includes soil testing Uk existing residence. Two si„s are indicated on the site plan, but well setbacks. The renort bv Mr. Koch also includes soil testing for the new lot and a dia^ of ^ ly ’sKm b detrtd by Mntoh location ate limited after twelve years and six inspecuons ^ been tSr; Uble. mci^g r.;i^ram":«“"setbacks. This lot is only two acres in size and ensuring that two confortning ate feasible is imperative for the approval of this subdivision. D .erf ™ the soil testing I would recommend the application be tabled until more information fs11 avaTable if die applicant and/or soU consulmn. wish to discuss my rcconunondations . i L To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator fmom: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator June 14, 1995 #2005 Sailors World Marina and Boat Club, 1955 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing The above referenced application has been rescheduled before the Planning Commission at your June 19 meeting. Please advise staff by Thursday, June 15 before Noon if you wish copies of the original packet prepared for the April agenda. To: From: Date: Subject: ^ t) Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator June 14. 1995 #2020 James BrtKe. 565 Leaf Street - Preliminary Subdivision - Contiimtion of Public Hearing #2021 James Hale/James Bnice, 575 Oxford Road and 565 Leaf Street - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Contiraiation of Public Hearing Jim Bruce, the applicant, has advised that the amendment of the covenants has been completed and has asked to be scheduled before the Planning Commission at their June 19 meeting. Mr. Bruce will provide written documentation that will either be included in your packets at the end of the wttk or at the meeting. If members wish copies of the original packets prepared for the May agenda, please contact sUff before Noon on Thursday, June 15, 1995. /i 1 7. Chair Peterson and Oroi» Planning Conunission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator Date;June 14, 1995 Subject: #2023 Betty Sumner, 3131 Casco Circle - Variance - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Approval of a hardcover variance within 75-250’ setback area. Total area « 17,500 s.f. Allow'ed 4,375 s.f. or 25% Existing = 7,515 s.f. or 42.9% Proposed = 7,515 s.f. or 42.9% List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - Application Plat Map Property Owners’ List Hardcover Fact Sheet Lakeshore Improvement Sketch Hardcover Improvement Plan Survey Description of Request Applicant proposes the removal of approximately 750.5 s.f. or 4.2% of non-stnictural hardcover consisting of landscape and patio areas underlain with plastic and covered with wood chips. The area is to be paved with permanent concrete, review Exhibit A. On your inspwtion you will note that applicant is removing landscape areas underlain with plastic so as to muiimize hardcover. The majority of hardcover results from the extensive blacktop drive and a limited paved walkway. Members may remember the review of the application involving the property to the immediate east. A portion of that driveway encroaches applicant ’s property. In early conversations with applicant ’s contractor, he advised that the property had excessive hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area and that applicant wished to place concrete paving over landscape areas underlain with plastic and wood chips. Staff further ^dvis^ the owner and applicant of the need to file a variance application as once suff has been advised that excesses exist, based on Council directives, owner should be advised to remove Ae excesses when those excesses result from landscape areas underlined with plastic or geo-grid. The applicant has agreed to file a hardcover variance to allow the installation of permanent paving improvements where excesses of hardcover exist. Zoning File #2023 June 14, 1995 Page 2 Review Exhibit E, applkant’s contractor has also pla::ed stones over existing grade in an attempt to minimize erosion of the sloped bank area at lake. In addition, there is additional rock placed to the west side of the lakeshorc yard for the obvious storage of a boat. There appears to be a section of black underiiner plastic within the central portion of the area. Applicant should advise if this is to be removed. If not, the hardcover within the 0-75 setback area should be amended. Staff can confirm that the newly insulled rock within the lakcshore yard does not have plastic or geo-grid underiiner. 1 612 s.f. or 3.4% of the paving improvement is located beneath the deck. 2.138 s.f. of remaining paving improvement will be loca^xl adjacent to an access door that provides storage for cither a boat or lawn equipment. 3.Should the applicant have been advised to tile a hardcover variance with the City? Applicant should be asked what the schedule is for the restoration of groundcover where landscape areas have been disturbed to allow for the removal of the former plastic u^rlincr. The entire lakcshore yard is grassed and gently sloped. There appears to be no problem with erosion or sediment running into lake. Options of Action To cither approve or deny hardcover variance as proposed. 1 0 crrv' OF ORONO - v .\rl \nce application Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal V’ariance Fee S 100.00 (no chanee from ori2inaI application) Variance for non-conforming structures S200.00 After-the-Faci Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORNLATION Site AddressW Number rF.l.U~r^ ------- Atuch legal descnpc.on to application ,f not mcluded on requmid sur%e>. Date Properry Acquired,-------ULfSl----;—— ----------- I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels or Present use of propeny: _ylresidentol -----other (specify). Zoning District:---------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT Name ' CCti I f'i Pboac(homeX Phone (work)_ J7/ Address:Ciev: <".g.ctU0 Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name --------------------------- Phonc(liomc) Phone (wOTk)_ Address:City:Zip: description of REQtXST ^ Describe request in detail: —(SbueP- • ■ ‘ iJJ (attach additional sheets if necessary ) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ Setback: ___ Lot Width Front Side y Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) 4.^ __Si^—r«r- —sa./v^ >F.X) tr-4 .^1.1 - j ^ g- Va r rA^isA-.pr'xc/'-, H.>a li-4^ qu.\. y </i cujaj^ CuC/^ . -tb- dlitan tSv^ ‘T REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ^■1 »f .h, fnlln»^n> inf.m...ion must hf <lw MPUcaliW ^Itadlint daw jgiiDlg: for vour appHcatinn to h<» considered compktei 1. f or own„s wi^Mn U^-(>™ f- J. 4. 5. 7 Department of Finance, A-603, Govt' Center, 3^271). “calculations as required. In addition, provtde one (I) copy 3 A x 11 for 3^r^°ic surs ev (e.xisting and proposed elevations) if any clunges in e.xisting grade 6. 7. 8. 9. ^chroTpIaS oTZr& elevation views (provide one (1) copy x IP). /■ U^of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest m the “ property This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). M Sendum to this application, please attach a separate list ot any other persons you wish notified ot this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The AppHcant Ju^Vroperty O^r must sign this application. Please remember ^ XSBIC .»rianr> anpii«u.»i«n Is nof cninolele if thf abcvg informatidll hM IWX MWlwM. m provide all infomurion required or requested by the Zonit, AdmiStrator tgrJs to pay additional fees (staff time not coveted by OTginal fee »d",LuU* expenis^ncurred in review of this application and certtfies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature \j,7K7uC_Date ^^Mr^lJreby a^^edges and agrees to this applicauon and further entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Counc members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date Aoolicant must have all subminals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning M?e i^r Pl^g Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of ^h moj^ pre«"« « «*««*““«* -"-togs of the Planning Conunig.^ anrf rmincil If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arra^ rotaveraumo^g^^^^ anend in your place and to advise U« Building & Zoning Office of thi<; change prior to the meeting. 8 io iUN OATf 0Vt7/fSBATCH SOS > IHIOH AOOil ONNCH MAH6 TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR : o u u PROP ADOR ONNER NAH6 TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR f — • t SB 20-117-ES SA 0007 03131 CASCO CIR J P SUMNER A E R SUMNER OONN P SUMNER EILEABETH K SUMNER S131 CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN 55391 SB 20-117-23 A3 0029 03135 CASCO CIR ROLAND C AMUNDSON ROLAND C AMUNDSON MINNESOTA JUDICIAL CTR 25 CONSTITUTIONAL AVE ST PAUL MN 55155 ■i 1HEftCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION STSTEM »•»PROPERTY QM€RS LISTSB 20-117-2S SA Of 03129 CASCO CIR GERTRUDE N DOUGALL GERTRUDE N OOUGAU 5100 NEMTQN AVE S HPLS MN 55A19 SB 20-117-2S AS OOSO 0313S CASCO CIR G C BECKER/T X HARCNESAULT G C BEOCER/T X NARCNESSAULT c*-'■‘fL •r A ■ f G . tf • * • r % t . *i * 0 < i•• % M S0-117>tS S4 Mit 0S127 CASCO CIR J ttONMO A 0 NQMAAO JATCS A DOOM HONARO 3177 CASCO CXR HAYZATA m 55371 ' ■ «• i - r. IMPORT ». PXASiAOl ^ : ‘ /PAK lA ■ ’KhV'' ■ a; r ! 31 • h a t ^ ■ V. t > ‘ V/;»i »j * r ..’r K «• ,■ I A TQTAI. UT»i S03 MOOi 3133 CASCO CIR ORQNO MN 55391 <^4 - • • ■' ■* ■ ^ i «• > f.T • • I *‘5» . V \* : . •. -V* * » ^ • t V , ••• i ‘ •’ '■ C A »V. % ^ ■ L C ■ A <V t, ■' % ••1. . 4 4 ^ •. « \!• V •' . . • . • <•'‘ •* *% • t f. ■ . ‘ .1 1 • •• . ‘A •% .• / ' P 4 • , * • i. ‘. • 1 # • • t ’ 1 • • 'V •«• Z CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMAnON AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON TIN RECORB or THE NENCPIN COUNTY OEPARTtCHT OF PROPERTY TAXATION^ TO THE BEST OF. NY KNQNLEDGE AND BELIEF. =9: O 10 CO i ♦ ■ A f: ‘ \. .4’-^ f - • >•9. . Rt 4 • .. 1I < • .1^•» . / ■ •J • 4 I- 4 > V . * . . • >!* . / . ' * T, ■ ”, * . A P " *• V* • .V ‘t • ^« - f • f ^ '^-28'fL > • *♦ i V* a #• ‘ . r* s ’ •A *'•-f; t.V < V:* ^ - • .a• •• . « .V.* * -A ■ ■ • A*'. . ,, •• • ■ !• •». ■ * */Cf' i*' ” ' ^ ‘ i t 4 oJ*' . .1 V ...» , fU :.0 , .P» ir*. •O to V./ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONT) 0-75’ EXISTING HARDCO\TR CS ZONT A. House S 5~______ hardcover calculation worksheet 75-250’ I 250.500’ Lenffti Widih X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk 30 VO /ce? 30 E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic SO X X X X X X X X X ¥0 IS /s G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROP|^^ AREA IN ZONE ^ ^ PROPOSED A. House hardcover in zone Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Dn *way D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property in zone ^ ^ aio — i£z£ 9C QO 5DO-1000 ’ S.F S.F, S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. *7 5^ S.F. S.F. 7' v!) <0 S.F. __________S.F. __________^S.F. S.F. __S.F. __S.F. —* S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ! -1. ‘TOO ^ S.F. A B A B # t O7CS0 Cl^'L£>'^. (} 1 1 V75- • (> ll o r c" 1 $ 0- \ . 1 • ' (' 1 ( F 1 i 1 i ^ foh ojt 07 5 0 0<' rV r . ■( * ■ f- ■ ' ••'. ;-5 r V < O r . •-- ) I t •y I / '.1 . --------——I " — --------— ____^ - ‘ Mt?, • 'n, r •l J± C f % <r^ 1 'O’ A'^-;>' / /y1 ^ To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:Juitt 15, 1995 Subject:#2024 James Wilson, 2565 Lydiard Avenue - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zooios Di^rict:B-4/LR-1B. Review Exhibits N and Q, the majority of this property is located within B-4 zone. Approximate area = 33.239± s.f. (exclusive of Lydiard Avenue right-of- way) Pertinent Ordinances 1 Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 - Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to allow the continued residential use of the property, considered a non-conforming use on a B-4 property. 2.Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover. Review Exhibits C and Q. Applicant’s surveyor designates a smaller area located within 1,000’ of lake. Per the plat map, staff has identiried a greater portion of the property being located within 1,000’ of lake although major portions of paving and commercial use are located out of the 1,000* setback. List of Exhibits A - Bl-2 C - D - E - FI - F2 - G - H - I - J - Kl-5 L - M - N - 01-2 P - Q - Application Applicant ’s Addendum Plat Map Property Owners’ List Floor Plan-Commercial Use Portion of Building Engineer’s Report Engineer’s Sketch Copy of Early Assessment Record-House Built in 1959 1950 Zoning Map-Carman ’s Bay Commercial District Allowed Uses 1950 Code 1%7 Zoning Map. B-1 Commercial 1967 Zoning Code 1975 Zoning Map, B-4 Commercial 1975 Zoning Code, B-4 Current Zoning Map Current Zoning Code, B-4 Commercial Neighbor’s Approval Survey I Zoning File #2024 June 15, 1995 Page 2 History of Property The Elliot family constnicted the existing residence in 1959, refer to Exhibits G, H and I. Sometime after the construction of the home, the commercial addition to the northeast side of the residence was constructed. Some members may remember the former fabric shop located within commercial part of structure. The commercial use of the property ceased sometime within the last 10 years. Mrs. Elliot has resided at the residence through December of 1994 when Mrs. Elliot passed away. The property is currently being offered for sale. In reviewing the vague description of allowed uses in the 1950 code, it w ould appear that as long as tlK use was fourxi to not involve a negative impact on the commercial district that a permit for residential construction was issued by the City. In 1967, review Exhibits J and Kl-5, the commercial zoning district was now reclassified as B-1. The uses were clearly defined. Note that multiple dwellings were allowed as a conditional use permit in the B-1 zone. Finally, in the 1975 codes and current codes, property was rezoned to B-4, Office Professional Use District. Residential dwellings, except for retirement homes and nursing homes, are no longer allowed. Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5, the applicant and ftiture owner of the property asics the City to allow the continued use of the resitkntial structure for residential use. The applicant also proposes the use of the commercial part of the structure for his accounting business. Both applicant and an assistant would be full-tin^ and a part-time person used during tl» tax season. The use would be consistent with those uses allowed within the B-4 zoning district. Refer to Exhibit P, the neighboring property owner at 2615 Lydiard Circle recommends approval of the continued use of the structure as a residence. In informal conversations with property owners of that area, they have noted support for the continued use of the residence structure as a residence and would be greatly concerned if the entire structure was to be used for an office commercial use because of the surrounding residential development. As with Zelma McKinney’s conditional use permit application for a non-conforming use, this property also has been under single ownership for over 40 years and property subject to major zoning code amendments through those years. Staff has not asked for hardcover facts. As already noted above, the majority of paving/structural improvements will be located out of the 1,000’ setback. In addition, applicant proposes no improvements that involve the expansion of the building envelope nor of paving improvement. Review Exhibits FI and 2, the Engineer has reviewed the commercial entrance area and has recommended parallel parking along the south side of the paved area leaving the north side open as a through roadway connecting Lydiard and the County road curb cuts. On your site inspection, observe the area of concern noted by Engineer at the north entrance. Applicant will have to work closely with the County to achieve the necessary clearance of vegetation to open up the sighting distance from that curb cut. It would be staffs guess that the majority of the vegetation would be located within County right-of-way, although applicant should contact property owner, Clair Rood, to immediate north if shrubs or trees are to be trimmed back. Zoning File #2024 June \5, 1995 Page 3 Review Exhibit E, applicant proposes the installation ot partitions to create a ^ond office area Applicant proposes no changes within the residential use. Access to the residence will continue to be off Lydiard and all commercial activities will be located off Shadywood. All signaee allowances for the commercial use will be subject to the signage standards tor the B-4 zone.^ Applicam may wish to consider whether he wishes a permanent address assigned at a Shadywood or Lydiard Avenue address. Although the application has been brought under a Lydiard Avenue address, a Shadywood Road address is the current official designation. Issues for Consideration 1 Will the proposed multiple residential and commercial use of this property re<|uire sp^ial limitations or restrictions on commercial use? The residential unit within this zoning district requires one acre. The property is less than one acre although the B-4 zonmg district would require only 20,000 s f. The commercially-used portion of structure is a single story 26 ’ x 24’ addition. Should the conditional use permit specify an approved number of employees for the commercial use? Applicant proposes two full-tune suff members and a part-time person. Parking and safety issues alone necessitate some type of control of tte commercial use. 2. Do members agree that hardcover information is not necessary with Ais review? If applicant at some time in the lumre proposes any additions or paving expansions, hardcover inventory would have to be provided with the permit. 3. The neighborhood appears to be in complete support of the continued residential use. The location of the residential and commercial uses of the structure present miniMl impact on the immediate adjacent residential neighborhood. Do members have other concerns? Options of Action To either deny or approve James Wilson ’s conditional use application to allow contim^ residential use of the B-4 zoned property considered a non-conforming use based on some of the findings suggested in the staff memo above, i.e. history, zoning of 1950, pattern of surroundmg residential development, layout/design of structure, no proposed expansions of structure..... If the application is to be denied, please refer to the necessary findings set forth in Section 10.09, Subdivision 6 (A) (1-3). Any recommendation of approval must include the following conditions: 1. Conditions set forth by City Engineer in his report dated June 7, 1995 that includes a recommended site plan indicating three designated off-street parking stalls. 2^ning File #2024 June 13, 1995 Page 4 2.Any controls or limits to be placed on commercial use of property while residential use is permined. a. b. Limits on number of employees. Review of all buildii^ permits that result in an expansion of either the commercial or residential use. 3. Others recommended by Plannin g Commission. u cy, CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAM) Uojr i ^>' /W ft JL PROPERTi’ LOCATION Site Address (o^ i-VL Type of Application to be Filed ^ • /I Tvpc of Application to be ^uea Propcrt>’ Identification Number (P.I.D.) J>Q^—/ilZ—5^3 —L!---- '^'^W‘^i/ii'jnuaLiJS^ tk^imch APPL1CA.NJ- . , ^ Name A1aW.£> f Address3zS£35 City mmnn Phone (home) Phone (%vork) ‘T Zip .ifferem th.n appl.c™)«W^^^'"f Name -V. i%?/i IMA>7^//5/a; ) ^ (w^)_^^_^ •0, (^{p.(*H (^n^/lC, <v^Z:----Zip Q/*-L^ Date Property Acquireduaicriut^ciiv i-iw»4waiAv^________^------------------------——— I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (monih/year) FEES - COM)mONAL USE PERMITS - S 50.00 For each variance request with CUP applicauon 5125.00 Residential Accessory Use 5200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) 51 75.00 Guest House/Gucst Apartments 5150.00 Duplex CredityBldg ‘ S250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use 5200.00 Land Alteration • ^ -------- Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplam Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 ’ of lakeshore m « W i • •! I i mt ’m m • tt3j .• PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $100 00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) . OTHER APPLICATIONS $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ^ S250.00 Vacation $175.00 Easement Vacation $ 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ~ S300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) S300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ” $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District_____ Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) REQUIRED SUBMITT.\LS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. ■ Cenifitd Proptm- Owners List of owners within 350' Cvoo can obtain this list from ■ Hennepin Counts' Deparanent of Finance, A.603, Government Center, 348-3271). " Certificate of Sur\ey (signed by a licensed sur\eyor) - refer to handout for survey information. . . ^ ■ . Attach le^^al description to application if not included on required survey. ■ Topographic survey (e.xisting and proposed contours) if land alterations involvu changes in elevation (grades). . • .u List of the legal names (include marital satus) of all persons with an mterest m the ’ property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owncr(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ‘ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons ' vou w ish notified of this application. YOII ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY TOR ^pSSSSn (ir X 17” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SL'BMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Propertv’ Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Depanment that Land Use Application is complete, Initials of Clerical Staff:________________________— --------------- supplied is true and conea to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s signature 0\’VT'(ER’S SIGNATURE, , . . ^ The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signature ___Date —\jp ^ IQ UOola^, ompo J90\'©3S “5'1SS ADDlicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission ro«n,i«ion Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. AppUcants must be present at idl «hed^~ Commission Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled ple^i^e arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ^amsi !I7. ^M/iUton t-' CERTIFIED PUBUC ACCOUNTANT il if,air‘.J it A.n •* . A - \ I A •i 4444 SHORELINE DRIVE P.O. BOX 95 MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 (612)471-0547 - 'wV City of Orono Crystal Bay, Minnesota I am at this time requesting a Non-Conforming Residential Permit on the property located at 2565 Lydiard Avenue. The property previously was a business and owner occupied dwelling, and I think that the location lends itself to this use. I am a Certified Public Accountant practicing in the area for thirteen years. I have one full time employee year round and one part time employee in the months January through April. I have enclosed an enlarged copy of the survey showing the proposed changes to the floor plan for the business portion of the residence. Sincerely, '. Vilson, CPA y 16, 1995 ( tfT.^,‘.4 .t.r I ..'I*.'/, Ik \.vr~ mrti .•■n. r->• « i.. CERTIFIED PUBUC ACCOUNTANT IX -/ O o W ;W 4.^-3 4444 SHORELINE DRIVE ’ P.O. BOX 95 MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 (612)471-0547 City of Orono Crystal Bay, Minnesota Dear Sirs, I would like to request that my Non-Conforming Residential Permit be considered by both the Planning Committee on June 19th and also by the full Council on June 26th. The closing date is scheduled for July 1st, so your attention tho this matter would be greatly appreciated. I apologize for any inconvenience that this request creates. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, wv r T. Wilson, CPA May 16, 1995 ••.'1 ^ ■■ 'x V :: i \ Xv_?• \ -., V > \ •. \ >. ^// y^ l ... • '•' >♦- a )IARO fV t* «r»ti« A'❖ r. » XPORT *^'yKr? *T *V * /? ^ <____ :AaSAM ^ BAT BlieBTS l\-\M'll-Z3 #t* n itr^ ifO 310 •n iAI ** M« W i 1,3;. *-ajL Sr. A ^ A 3--/? c-> ^ h ^ :*•. •C • /ICS^Mr.-- (r: 7x>> '\ *•' j' A; V V/' oX X .I'KJN BATt 0«/lV9t BATCH lOT PROH AOOB ONNER HAHB TAXPAYER HAHi/ABBR PROP AOOR 0»tCR NAIC TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR GMIER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR Olt«R NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OMCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AODR HENNEPIN COUNTT PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY QI»«RS LISTM tO-117-25 II OOOS OESaS LYOXARO AVE BLENOON J OLSON QLENOON OLSON tSBS LYOIARO AVE ENrELSZM m 55SU 58 E0-117-E5 11 0021 02SAS LYOIARO AVE V H ELLIOTT TRUSTEE VALERIA H ELLIOTT E5A5 LYOIARO AVE NAVARRE HN 5S3T2 58 EO-117-25 11 0029 02545 SHAOYHOOO RO DEANNA H LEACH CLAIR ROOD 2215 KEM«00 NAY NAYZATA m 55591 SO 20-117-25 11 0058 02520 SHAOYNOOO RC FRESHNATER FOUNDATION FRESHNATER FOUNDATION 725 CO RC A NAYZATA HN 55591 58 20-117-25 14 0005 02425 LYOIARO AVE C H NILLIAHS ET AL C H NILLIAHS ACL ALVAREZ 2425 LYOIARO CIR EXCELSIOR m 55551 58 21-117-25 22 0011 02570 LYOIARO AVE T A RYAN A P J RYAN THOMAS A RYAN 2 HACLYm RO EXCELSIOR m 55551 58 20-117-25 11 0004 02595 LYOIARO AVE P A E LENOX PHILIP A ELIZABETH LENOK RT 1 ■. MAPLE ^LAIN ttA 55559 0 4 • ‘4 ^ 4 M 20-117-2S U 0027 02%77 SNAOYMOQQ U OUAT« N HALL OUANC N HALL 17M5 CAESTLXNi HUhSLi TX 7?m A > i £w • 58 20-117-25 11 0050 02525 SHAOYNOOO W) DEANNA H LEACH CLAIR ROOD 2215 RENNOOO NAY NAYZATA N4 55591 'i ■I ;v sa 20*117-21 14 0001 02005 LYOIARO CIR 6 L HALTZEN A i J LERVXR QARY L HALTZEN BONNIE J LERVIR 2005 LYOIARO CIR ORONO HN 55m *■4 ? * 8 9 i 58 20-117-25 14 0004 02440 KELLY AVE J R A .3 L VOLKHAR JOHN R A SHERRY L VOLKHAR 2*40 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR m 55551 .1* •J' ■•rr i V *. • i X A l8 21-117-25 22 0012 A 02454 LYOIARO AVE * 0 N HCCU9CEY A C F HCCUSKEV. ' OAVIO N A CONNIE F HCCUSKEY; 2454 LYOIARO AVE V EXCELSIOR W4 55551 I*- » .* V'REPORT NO. PlAlilOl PA68 2fSB ZO-117-n U 0007 02540 RELLY AVI ^ RIK R NELSON RIRR R NELSON 2540 RELLY AVI ENCELSim »ti 55I1I I' 9#1 '•u-A. » V4' ** . .A9 SB 20-117-25 U 0020 02555 SHAOYNOOO RO OEANNA H LEACH CLAIR ROOD 2215 RENNOOO NAY NAYZATA m 55551 •-.i' V M** I.*' .* > • i 4 ■'.V. '•'v-:.U « ^ • lit SB 20-II7-2S 11 0054 02500 SHAOYNOOO RO UNIVERSITY or NINNESOTA REGENTS U OT H/REAL EST OTF SHOPS BUILOZNQb SUITE 101 51f 15TH 4VE S E HPLS HN 55455-Om SB 20-117-25 14 0002 02415 LYOIARO CIR HICHAEL L GILBERTSON ET AL HICHAEL L A RAREN GILBERTSON 2415 LYOIARO CIRCLE S EKCELSIOR m II551 SB 20-117-25 14 0010 02420 RELLY AVI GINGER L PRZTCHARO GINGER L SCOTT 2420 RELLY AVI EXCELSIOR HN SfSSl SB 21-117-25 22 0015 025B5 SHAOYNOOO RO 0 H SCHULTZ ETAL DONALD H SCHULTZ 25S5 SHAOYNOOO RO EKCELSIOR HN 65551 r >■1 ::* -t \« f • • V*: • • •• 8 • « ^ V.v 1r * • 1 \• • 1 ’*v :v j' •.1 ; r/j r.‘ ; V • k' \y*: -1 ■ ,9;a e- 4.»s- V-. r; NUN MTI 04/lVfS NATCH Mf NCmCFIN CtXKTY MOKATY INramATXGN STSTCN ^ PNONCNTY CMCNS LIST « •sjmmKT m, n«sMdiMM M V,* rM 21>U7-2S 22 OQlt 50 21-117-25 22 0019 ; .50 21-117-21 22 0020PNOP ADDS 02S0S OLD MACH HO 02555 OLD MACH RO t f •02505 OLD MACH ROOFHEN NANS K 0 SNfRflAN 2 J D SMEimAN T H 2 A A COOUTE 1 M OLANCN CO LT« R1NSHPTAXPAYERKIRK 0/JACQUELINE 0 SHCNHAN TNONAS N 2 ALZCZA A COOUTt •f S •E M OLANCN CO LTl RTMS19HAME/AQOR 2MS OLD MACH RO X5» OLD REACH RO J 5500 M OOTM ST NAYZATA W< 1SS91 NAYZATA m SSSfl » .• V hi LS •« 55451 SO tl-Ur-25 2S OOSO SR xi-117-n n oosi • R • i t * f SR E1-117-ES 25 DOSTPROP AOOR 02*40 LYOZARO AVE 0EA40 LYDIARO AVE f 02IRD KELLY AVEOmER NANE E Q FMESC A J R FREESE R J RAUEE i J J RAUER ' N JOHN R NUXR ETALTAXPAYERELDON 0 • JOANN R FREESE RRUCI J RAUER * * •HRS PNYLLXS E QHALLEYNAHE/AOOR 2*40 LYDIARO AVE XA40 LYOIAND AVE A •’27RO KELLY AVE EXCELSZOR m 55SSZ EXCELSim m S53S1 ■i > > i. EXCELSZOR m 55SS1 50 21-117-25 25 0050 SR El-117-n ES 0055 *" . r %• ' C 'PROP ADOR 027to KELLY AVE 027EO KELLY AVI H » «JO OMCR NAME JOHN L KOZAR ETAL CATWRINE HANSON HEAMR mr ■ ■ TAXPAYER JOHN L KOZAR CATICRINC HANSON HEAOHER TOTAL OATOIj 109 OOOZiKAME/AOOR 2750 KELLY AVE 7720 KELLY AVE : EXCELSIOR m 55551 EXCELSIOR HN fiSSX ;• 1 • . .. o I ■ I "• ? w •n . I • • N’ ‘ >■ J *' •* 'VJ'f ^ ^ '«' '■ >J >► t ■ Vvs-' . » ’ * • I s t; V '1 ^• •. • : .■ -4 r' •>■:'■■ : •* ’ ? ‘t’ *, • •? .-'■ ■•. t»'s * ■....• V • V ' , » * • \ • . X CCATIFY THAt THC FACTS N^NNCSiNTIO ANC AN ACCUNATC AND TNUi AEPRESEKTATION OF INFODUTION AS XT APPEANS THIS DATS ON THt NECONOS OF THE. NENN OF HY KNONL « •’ V ’ ^ . *• • (. » • ! 1 vr^ •• I- J * , *.'• 4 • a I. •.f . «••\V 4 . 1;* « V J f‘ . • » Sh' i c,‘// >!*•> J -- 6U4SIX3 1 )i’>d U-t 1 ‘=5i /p^c:,o j-is:x Tv 0 T. ^ I Bonestroo Rosene ifTW Anderlik& IvJl Associates Engineers & Architects . ♦‘kx "X >A'•* -r 4< •f(3kc« vViVu- *. ^;; 2 nf« *»' - *f “ t-" A * ,ie* * ^ “ - - 3 ‘ 'f , r" ? * t V^N-e*. t 0 > -'unitm T . • ' M • f* »4.!»v • t :r * V • ►».••.» C»^ 3 C L-'V*-?* C r« i • • **•' •• *1 1 4 4 June 7. 1995 ,e'*» A •t VW«r« A N^vner^ •§ T »A4ir*W^ •! VC % f ^ Thi>r»'in A i 4 Dur^C iur j^^ ^ A ^..*%„ *»f P*e'je* < ; *1 . ir • r... • * t X • ••«•• •* *f V-4" *ei r ^ r-'. L •...... - "t •• A ,.->•. « • ^ 9| V-* " • * «| M... A »f A •! • ; 3rf*'»x>n A I A : f JGe»r.»r »f A »t» S<^‘ir Pf j C.n(Ae« •€ Vata D *AI<4 ft ¥rte'. • Af i. •»* »fe'Tf'Avr Af « ♦'e^ L A ■*? tr ^tO* t/ ''E ^ .»• A j ^ t 4* • *. W 'I 2-. ^ ** ' Ar^ *•f Cev. ■ o C * e- *f ' *1 »f iC»“n •• j • Je' Af O frvww Af j £** e* n -• ep^ » W'en Pf .ee V ‘.« “’T •’I C^-^iet. A (vwiiion tee V A.«,vr 4»* •M* An M r inn * jnei V A nq ..•nes f fnge » Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bav, Minnesota 55323 James Wilson CUP File No. 139-2024 Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the certificate of survey for the James Wilson residence at 2565 Lydiard Avenue. Although the existing driveway with an access to both Shadywood Road and Lydiard Avenue is not desirable, it offers the best access given the present constraints. The driveway can accommodate three spaces for parallel parking along the south side. A through lane should be kept open on the north side of the driveway and the three spaces along the south side should be striped. The trees and vines along the west side of the northerly access presently obstruct the view to Shadywood Road. These trees should be trimmed back to improve the sight distance at the access. It apf^ars that the trees may be located on the adjacent property, Lot 2, Block 1, Leach Addition (PID # 20*117-23-11* 0029). Also, a portion of the paved driveway encroaches into this lot. The applicant should discuss the situation with the owner(s) of this property. A driveway easement should be obtained by the applicant or the access should be removed from the adjacent lot. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. I). xduij^^ Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 • . ^ ^ I K> VJ Ul rn s o SSliL^ fM^'1 SOUTH ^ * !i|:Sri? Wj^A 1; .-r^gjf. \9O0O Lydiarcf ^OUTH Avenue TsTsT r* r“ rti lb p* ^ M « •. ' ft- r r’' ’ KsnmauL and LAnsaou »ynjDiNc attmu ^ v ;. > («1 » <V~ ■ Nfc «l fcqria o«.4.jfcr f*«>'— mtMimi _ _ _ 'T_ %M CAmji ' t *11 tAW> i\Trno\TMr\r5i r lUl. WJk, INiWw V * '- /• •.:/ CKT«ni-niST.'S • SWv 0>«m. SV^JS D c. tWr^: ----------- . I t«L bt'IU>ISt. DIACRAM AM) OtTBUIlJ)lNCS _______t>». »»-Ia X w '' *. A ■ ■ Av^ S* ; .rV:v,>A^;. '. ■ V , ■ • *‘:- ;^.>v. »• ' .♦■ t t , V • •• - J ’ • ' -•■vT-'' , • ;..“ ■ •:. \ LTKUCI\'Pu^ VALVX wt 1 yAJoarr • V) • ',V. f •• ■ AwfPfP^l iW .••■v • V. - ■ V, • ,; v-V' . .-........... _ ^ {;: r‘V' ..■ V'- - •• •. . •. y ‘s ■4j * vv^ t: _ • * »>» - ji —1 - —*- * .vrfCvt-ivjtv’-.v V ' /k\ ^ Cl/ u5.: M I 7 « ' , . •20.4^ s ” 7 / p*ei' i.v / :.«' iz CUTLOT a 'O0*43 ‘?5-£-C at .K t a>.y CoV*^'/ /it-s?!' //T^d -^6 : .* : .•.., *..• • • . (I .* -510 91.7 : YOTARO ClR '!^ 91 w » ISO ^• fi.......«-—-15! ISO S 'i A ‘t * ^ r 14 (13) ; 202 9 ( 12) / in "i !a* j \* o» ISO #5T -t 15 C n ^ ^ (30) : ISO 12 £ (37) £ 212.4 1 .AUO SI ".. ( ...■••.••••(26) •..:•;: y' / 7X% (4) ? V> »n JsS^_ 11 rs: ^ MsWrI OHtfitf. Mi T I? 9kMm iHr •ftvtilMli CMlStfird l» r«H fUlM^ U ih» uM tU Mtf MsWrIy Um wi m»d ul byiMmg * • »m t*%A%mry **llavarf «***!•• pM»t t iHtfi «m ^ifi ^tir «urh Ally ftrt iSMi twalKerly ‘ buil4tr»* um J «t thv time of •t tilt toytlifty Imr tif ilip i thr i»t ua uf iMt rtM tutu»« rtflil mi mmf mi County Koo4 | t.'Wl r 4H*I thr tiiartm I mim Mo 7; tKcnrt tMtrrly yorol-1 n»ri«i «*t tli«t rttitiatMUi and rt* J Itl wttK tht nortli lint cif tnid j* t>« tt. m 'roin «-«>nttrui ting any | atrtiMi twtnty tit) t<i 4 ynintft' iiWting i. huiMii ct. o« m«ting diftant turo liundttd Afly||f •‘•.ns «i* thtrtt<*. fm fist* fr«rt amilliwttittly at riglii anglrt from thr aoutli- •riy Imt of County Moad Mo It; thanrr aouUitaatri ly par* alltl with thr rt-nlri Itfo* itl •aid Cuimty tti»^ I No It t«* tht aouth*-4*tcil> lint <*f 1^4 fiHU i4i HU mIi Fm«i Itl Toarnaitf uf Langihin thmtr M»uthartalcil% mii ihr 1.^ Itl. ijimivii’Oi 41th aytli ti4da« ul*.«tiy l#oM«n;ia or pioltMian At.nh IB ut 4A.attnr« and Optra* tiuii un aarl l.i'tl at tht limt at tl<« uiupt ut* •* thiB rranlutien •lid idinaAo the inartnitnl of tliin t« auUti« r HMf irttnclion. I oiui . ‘ ii.n I 01 dm .«••• C. COMMCMCUL OltmiCT 111 thr corn* «M ul ilialrici. •Mthraaieily lint of »4itl 1^4 i ouiMiagB »ray hr i-iJ andortrlad four l«i t.> a piMnI diManl*,^ ..-onwroal am fi four Hundrrd laoti frrt •oothw**9trrl> fioafi the onilh* wtaitily lint of Baid C«*ufity Moad Mo It. Ihriwr iiouih taattrly pBialhl wrh iht ctnitr lifir of taid C'ouniy Moad Mu It to tht point of inltrBtrtion with tha C4»ttily hnt of arttaan twaniy tit) townahip ont h«mdrad arvtn- tton (117) rangt twenty-ihrao (21) Mrnntpin Caunty. Min* naaala. thanre noiilirrly aktig tht tnalarly lint nf mid atidiun twenty dt* to the , point of Initrmttion o ith (he jS center lint ol aaid County i Moad Mo. tt. thtfU'T north* wtfterly along tht rtniri Unt of mid County Moad No tt to the point of Its inti tme* tton with the noMntti> liiu of Mid aactMin twrnt.% (Iti thtnet weattrU along thr northtily lint of mid artiton twenty «lt) to the |M>ini of beginning B. MniDCimAL DItTMICT I In inrrchandla- mg miip*j«t« pr«i%.fltd that na buildinga Mtay U* ).* rafter td *t* oatd foi an> of ihr following uM> or purpioti fu any athat uai or pui|«wt of i Bind and ng*j luir oifiutai to lilt fo|..«wing uactil 01 iiurpoBT*. (here being no build* ingB tiwd l«»r 4ny of coin uara or purpOBoa at the tima ul t)ia ndap* * ikm of thit rtwaluthm and atdl** nanrt a l>ani t balla. pool hatta. cir* cuath. b Sraplativ ar amphibigii beat *4 any facility for tha •iperation inainttnanct* or Btoiage of air craft r. UatB or p irpowt which, in itlaiion ti i>etin«ttad uaaa of other pi«*n i-« a art noaioua or uMenaur h» i« a Min of thr ernicaiull of d inmht. gat fuinet. yihTBiioii .*1 noijt CRYtTM. RAY 0I9YRICY | •MttM III. BE 1'' I'LMTIIKH ht:.soi \ ri> aku iHOAINC o ihrf* |.>U<‘*<nK aiMl Au- the reaiJential diMml. ..........* *' bMRnahip Iw. no building nr othti iiru. lui. 01 »• ^»d improvement ahall htiiMitei be •*'••*'* *unini‘ di>**.«;t r#f the arectad ar uaad fur any piirpoae I «l othar than rmidenlial puipuatf, -V and for tha purpam of providing * huildinga ruatomarily tiatd in cun* ' ' juiHtiun tharewith 2 No billbaardH or nthei ad* vtitiming aigna. dimplayt or other •igns of any hind ahall hr eret lrd or maintaintd withm mid real* dential diatrirl aactpt aigna hoar* mg only tht ngmm of tlit rtoi* denta of the dial/! *t and the namm _of dwtllinga thtroin, tnctpl amet K and road namm and traffic migna, ^ and taetpf aigna advtriiming Mr am It or rent, the peemiatf on which they may he kuted. and except aignm advertiaing'ja«rh com • mtrcial buitnaaa or huaiihaam aa may tmial m Iht aaid dwlrict at ' Um *4 Ihr 0>eif*%iu«i of tlo» • rtmnhitioti and ordinance amf the | If Town of (it mo. iMiri.Mnt to the lawf of tht State >4 Minneanta: In wit I* Cryiia l Bay IMalHat That part of Brctiona three (3), four (4), nine (t). ten tl()> •fKl lirteon (IS) of Townahip one hundred ■eventcen (117) range twnnty-thiee (13) Hen nepin County. Minnamta, de* acribed m fnllowt: Beginning at the pmnt of uil«ffaectkNi of thr MHiIhrrly line of aaction three (1) townahip one hundred mvenieen (117) range twenty* three (11) Hennepin County. Minneaota w iih the cenlor line of the right of w«v • f the Girat Norlliein *)iefH‘e wiuth* 4«Mi9*tl% :il«mg ilii* renter line ot ««:*( rmiliitiid light of WBy to lt^ p-.in» Ilf inlei'*ecti4n wii)'5'* ?r.T'T- ••-i j- ii, Audi -'V . , *oi‘* SiilidiviMf.h S* l.••bel JS4.- 3 Ntilhmg hen-in conliinetl i ii. nm oni 1^ theII b* oomliu9*«i •• p«ohihit th«‘ mute of anv •**••4 i«m feir* m Mii(*r4j ** Coiijii* Minnewiim. | eKleo«i**i« Ihiieof | |••■lMl• .miri *« weeterW line of mold Auditor' NotjilivteNm Komlj* t 3ia V* th '»h*re »4 Lak* Mmm*tonl«‘ tlirmi B*'aih4f<*ii tv end auuti «'i ly along Im ). »ie nf Lak .Miiio«*»onlia 1.1 im northefl I n* nf ihr (li.initel twforft l. • * •*! lake Minn«*timlia an t I \ »ial lt.i\ . them r weeterl *d *oig IN *.11. literK l.ne nf mi .l antH'l It- I;»v point of ita o Ai»h the titif 111 •*f the ngh: itf woi* af U lAi e«t M •#« 1 h e r n Nadma* ii*f‘r.ce imrihea^i* I ly altiiM M lentri line wf tin* great MnrtI • n Ha lil'td •«* Ihr pi*inl iIa iniiTMtlNm with the fO! t* • 1 *»r of C'ooMtv Bead M SI tmoee wcmierly ahmg It ifotei tine f mid Caun Moad No SI to the pahM af i in«ei ae«*tMin with the aaiilae lit of County Moad No tl; then m. itheily. wemierly and narl rily «l«ing the I'enief Ime Bald County Hoad Mo. N to t point of inlermectem erllh f ea»terl) tatenaia n el the taut eily boundary «4 Lai Btean < j Au4iioC« SuhdiviBian Mumt M7. Henneptn Cauniy. Mlnr Bi*ta thence weaietlf aMgS V rRifiidtd line, and waatet ftoiKerly and w eater ly alo (h** .outherly heundary hne aai«l im Beeen (7> Auitlc S .hulviaian Mo lil In tht atv loo- of Siiihbe Bay. Laha M lift! t ka. Ihrfirr n-irthaf(y, ea eil\ rit>rttieily and naflhen eri\ akmg aaid ahma la < pr.ini of intermctian with * norih-mnu*h lentn Imt af • torn ftve (ll luarnilllp < hundred arv tnteen flit) rai Iwimlyll.**-*- tilt Nenne i*i*uni% Minnra»*ta. thei fM-ith% il%' atona aaid center I to the point of Inlefwvlian « the lenier ime el the right 4 ay of the Minneaaln West Heilroatl. «alM* htiewn m i.iH*e liio-i iheiM enalef ly ai the crntri line •«! mid tatir rtihf al way to the paM af leraecttoii with the tantet of Coor.iy Mead Ma I4B; Ihr Mtuihriiy olena aaid ceniar ol BaMi C«runty Baad Mn It i!i«* fi«*mt of it« ininaaclian « the iMMiih«**|y line td aer i)iu*e tV (own»iiip mm hum •eveauen !lii <41^ Iwe ttiiee r*.i* lltnti«*pin Cat* Minnranti-. then*« a at It along flu* Bunl litie id Mid lion three (3) 1.. the pain liegmning .«nd which Bald rnning dh ^hall be referred to a« the Cr Bay Diatrict. BE IT rUMTIlBM MESOL AND ordained , that the lowiflia itiU'B. i«*gul4tiaiii am ^tiictiuna with re^pt-ct la up the landr and bvildln^j w the above rolling iialrin aha aii«l are hereby adopted ar town Wit o o ro > -n 3) n o *T| 3D n > i> > m > So2 i/)Smpr r-c -cm-c -<fn 3)3) .0m U} omz mcn Omz m to CJ5 ^H H 5 H >>— J>r r 31.100 MUNICIPAL CODE OF OP.ONO larged, reconstructed or altered, and no structure or land shall he used for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the Zoning Code. 31.100. Non-Conforming Uses. Any land or buildings which were actually and legally devoted to a non-conforming use on March 10, 1967, may be continued in said non-conforming use pursuant to con ditional use permit granted pursuant to, subject to the following regula tions and such land or buildings may not be: 31.101. Changed to another non-conforming use; 31.102. Re-established after voluntary ’ discontinuance of said use, such discontinuance having lasted for at least one year; 31.103. Extended in area. 31.104. No “junk yard” may continue as a non-conforming use under any circumstances. « 31.110. Apply to “Uses” Only. The non-conforming use provisions of the Zoning Code apply only to the use to which land and build ings are put, and do not apply to situations where location or height of structures, lot size or other factors not involving the use of the premises prevent strict conformance with the requirements of the Zoning Code. Where, however, such a situation existed legally imder the prior applicable law, the Council will not unreasonably require strict compliance and will generally look with favor on granting of a variance under 32.300ff. 31JS00. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upo:. Sept. 14, 1967 (the effective date of *he Zoning Code) under single separate ownership in a “R” Residential district, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Code as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose prov ’ided that in the judgment of the council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety. Single sep arate ownerships includes joint ownership by not more than two persons. 31.210. One Building per Lot. Ebccept in the case of Planned Resi- 24 1-1-68 \L''" 35.018 L^'VND USE 35. ZONING: CO>DIERCL\L DISTRICTS 35.000. B-1: Commercial Business Districts. 35.010. B-1: Permitted Uses. Within any Commercial Busi ness District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses. 35.011. Municipal Buildings. Municipal buildings where the use conducted is customarily considered to be an office use. 35.012. Private Oubs. Private clubs and lodges not operated for a profit. 35.013. Offices. Professional offices and offices of a general na ture. 35.014. Clinics. Clinics for human care. 35.013. Mortuaries. Funeral homes and mortuaries. 35.016. Motels. Motels, motor hotels and hotels provided the site shall contain not less than 800 square feet of area per unit and provided the site has public sanitary sewer available. 35.017. Nurseries. Day nurseries and nursery schools provided not less than 40 square feet of outside play area per pupil is available and fenced. 35.018. Retail and Senice Busuiesses. The following retail sales and service businesses: Appliance store, furniture store, upholsterj' shop, drapery shop, carpet store. Art and school supply store, book and magazine store, office supply store, office machine store. 1-1-68 32-15 •I i • i !l I *: 35.020 T« V ^iUNICIPAL CODE OF ORONO • ■ I I Bakeo'. delicatessen, grocery, meat market, fruit market, dairy store, vegetable market, frozen food locker, provided no killing is done on the site. Banks. loan co.-npany, insurance company, real estate office. Barber shop, beauty shop, health and physical culture center. Bowling alley, billiard hali. ice arena, archerj' range. Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts and soft drinks, drive-in facilities. Camera and photographic supply store, photographic studio, pic ture framing, florist shop, locksmith. Diy cleaning, shirt laundry, tailor shop, pressing and shoe shine, laundromats, laundry' and cleaning pick-up stations. Garage for major auto repa r, body and fender shop, car wash, mo tor fuel station, auto uphols'ery' shop, auto painting, auto sates and auto parts store, provided the business is within a completely enclosed struc ture. Hardware store, variety store, garden store, fix-it shop. Hobby shop, gift store, glassware and pottery, antiques. Jewelry store, watch repair, radio, television and sound equipment repair and service. ^ Library, museum, theater, record shop, music store, business school. News stand, tobacco shop, taxi stand, bus station, depot. Paint store, wallpaper store, floor covering, interior decorating, glass and mirror shop. Restaurant, cafe, tearoom. Shoe store, department store, dress shop, men’s store, wearing ap parel store. Radio and television studios. 35.020. B-1: Conditional Uses. Within the “B-1” Commercial Dis trict no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. 35.021. Nursing Homes. Nursing homes, rest homes or retire ment homes, provided the site shall contain not less than 600 square feet of lot area for each person to be accommodated and that no build ing be located less than 30 feet from the side lot line; hospitals for human care, provided that all buildings be located not less than 25 feet from the lot line of any lot in an “R" District. 35.022. Studios. Art studio, interior decorating studio, music stu dio provided no retail sales "re made of products not manufactured on the site. 32-16 1-1-68 \i, A- 35.032 LAND USE 35.023. Radio ajid TV. Radio and television towers. 35.024. Schools. Private academies, schools, colleges and univer sities for teaching. 35.025. Galleries, etc. Historical buildings, museums, art institutes, galleries, and playhouses. 35.026. Accessories. Accessory structures or uses other than those listed as permitted. 35.027. Parking. Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is in another “B" or “I” District and is in the same ownership as the land in the “B” or “I” District and subject to those conditions as set forth in 38.110 ff and other such conditions as found necessary by the Village Council 35.028. Public Ser\ices. Public service structures, including, but not limited to. buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substa tions. 3S.029. Research. Research Centers. 35.030. Auto Lots. Open sales or storage lot provided that auto mobile lots are adjacent to and a part of a new car agency. 35.031. Halls. Armories, convention hall, sports arena, auction hall, roller rink, dance hall. 35.032. Drive-in Theatres. Drive-in theatre, pro\ided the entrance driveway shall hold sufficient autos to equal 209c of the capacity and the entrance and exits shall be on or within 200 feet of a major thoroughfare. Th‘ creen shall be so oriented that it will not be in view from the ma^'o' in':'.'* uglifare and the property shall be adequately fenced. 1-1-68 32-17 35.033 \L- MUNICIPAL CODE OF ORONO 33.033. Trade Schools. Trade schools when conducted within a completely enclosed structure. 35.034. Shops and Warehouses. Electrical service, heating, plumb ing, sheet metal and air conditioning shops and warehousing to 6000 feet. 35.033. Monuments. Stone and monument sales. 35.036. Vets or Kennels. Animal hospital, clinic or kennels. 35.037. Boats and Bait. Boat storage, docking, repairing, sales, rental and bait shops. 35.038. Taverns. Tavern, cocktail lounge, liquor store. 35.039. Multiple Dwellings. Multiple dwellings. 35.040. B-1: Accessory Uses. Within any “B-1” Conunercial Dis* trict, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses. 35.041. Garages, etc. Private garages, off-street parking and load ing spaces, as regulated in the Zoning Code. 35.042. Signs. Signs, as regulated in the Zoning Code. 35.043. Temporary Buildings. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of construction on the premises for a period not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction. 35.044. Landscaping. Decorative landscape features. 35.045. Incidentals. Any incidental repair or processing neces sary to conduct a permitted principal use. 32-18 1-1-68 o • ;*'4^k iC cmroi* 0«»CNOCITY OF ORONO notice T.C P-annins Coo^ssion will Parkv^av on Monday, June 19. 1995. meeimg cuuuu jy,^ p reviewing the foUowing land use applications: ) 1. 2. —^ #2023 Betty Sumner the rati!) and wallcway on a .2024 James WUson has ft.ed a =0"—^ Lydiatd Avenue that would allow b -4. Office and Professional rSi^r" accountin^hushKSS within the same smicture. 3. 4. r-Tv iH Tire has aoplied for a variance that would allow more than ?i?f ^oHig^ 4^ ^ ““ ss“S "d level deck at the lakeside of the existmg restdence. • hinu to be heard wUl appear at this meeting. Written comments are solicited. —*h! Or^cTomts^ review, by appointment. 5. L S 10.43 3 Schools Private academies# schools# trade schools, colleges and universities for teaching. C. Research Centers. D. Veterinary Clinics or .<ennels. hospitals, clinic or kennels. Animal E. Libraries. F. Museums. G Galleries, Etc. Historical buildings, museums, art institutes, galleries and playhouses. , d th- ";nd'^raL\“rse\%i'c^nV%n'offL%““[^^^^^^^^^ “pVo'vlarng ther^ts “no outside display or advertising of the restaurant use. T Parking. Off-street parking when the principal iin ’-loB!nuldrifisio^rra^^ ftn^r =s-c^h-c^ond%rio-‘ a^s-f^^^S necessary by the Council. T Public Services. Public service structures, sis: -vL~ substations . s Accessory Uses. Within any "B-4" Office and Professional""-BuVine\°s"D!st?ict, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "3-1 “ District. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Yard, Setback and Design Requirements. square feet, feet. A. Area. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be 100 feet. C. Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 D. Rear Yards. The minimum rear or feet and unless the rear yard has access from a assurealley, a side driveway of 12 feet shall be provided to assure access. ORONO CC 346 (4-1-84) O-' S 10.42 L Fencing. Wherever a "3-3" Shopping Center n'ei-T-i-Vf abuts or is across the street from an "R" Business District or compact evergreen hedge not less District, an adequa fl^et in height shall be erected. .e lesi than three teet not more than four feet in height. M. Building Design and Construction. See Section 10.40, Subdivision 6, Subparagraph G. Section 10.75. SBC. 10.43. B-4 OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. t? ua 1 PiiroQse The "B-4" Office and Professional Business >s^ntenaed to /lae^a dls«i^ct wh^oh^^t^s related^ to and ollSF"£ th'otrfn il^'p^ay'’lt^^!unfol ‘'merohfndlsi ‘to ‘'’the'‘“,^^^^^^^ dls?t1^t sh“l have tmnediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Application. All applications foe a betiding ?:vUwed\y ’'the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within “Vllan^ifused Professional Business District, no structure or land shall be u except for one or more of the following uses: A. Municipal Buildings. Municipal the use conducted is customarily considered to be an gthe use CO Offices. Professional offices and offices ot the general Clinics for human care on an out patient basis only.^ D. Banks and Insurance Offices. feet from the side lot line. ORONO CC 345 (4-1-84) - - -Iff 't-t- .ir> 4.. • £-1 *»./ 42*^ • C,-*/ r I. : >*/.W ^S.'i r ' 5 ! r,_-. ,*v . , I •» f • *'vT • • -C 'I • . . v» I f-' I ' • t M * ;t: >4 \ ;h f & illfi 4 wr Restaurants which are 35.328. Re5iaurints_i£lag£^roffice building located wtthin anc display or advertising provicing there is of the restaurant use. a. nprkinq when the principal 1C. Parking. on a lot which isslie of tHi-HTi^a-^et parking abut “ another -B” or -I". District ana ^^bjact V' in aTiOi-nci «>n« of I uiswi.i'-^ ^ * __4-V '^r5 in the B Tin £f eno othership as tht G forth in 38.1iw '^ron4-ro-s^°a"t°-^ _ .,ic service structures, 35 330. public_services. j „ical transr,issioni^ludingT-bSTTBrT^ed^to.^ele^^^ exchange stations. lines anc builcings elevated tanks, lift-rtfoLnnrrirftril^-r substations. stations E-v ”B-4" Office S;i|^iT|llr5lit?!lf; the following uses shall and professional Business^D^ be pern..-tec access . , . .h* ”B-1" District.;i„3. accessory use as regulated in the B 35.350. ^c Design Reouire-.e.^. 35.331. Area. The minimum lot square feet. 35.352. tot Width. The mnin.un. lot wi 100 feet. 35.353. rront Varcs . The n<inin.u™ front yar - be* 20 feet. n he 35.354. kE-£_^;,,^^:afyarrharac-c«^ r««rcrtirey! a ^Id* dnveway of 12 feet shall * • eSoo tci assure access. \c buildina shall be 33.356. BlHackP|SHH|^;„,’^5ot line,'35 feet to nearer than 3= .eet to a y ^ j^^ne, 35 |2it"raJ.rsi^e"iot ’tr«t f?ora"*^*Si=trict, rCutrdInri-l^re-esfthl^”35 feet fro™ such lot line. puMic The district shall have i:..ediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. 35.302. B-4; Applicat^Jl. , thtu'bl r‘'evTe«ed by'tL c;un=ii .nd .-.V be referred to the Planning Coirunission for review. 35.310. B,l^_Pe^itte|^- ^.^^Ictu^e'^^'leSrshLl K^^ef er=e;?ior“:ne“r r.or; of ihe following uses: . 35.311.the use concucteo is cus office use. p.-ofe'^'ional offices and offices of 35.312. Of f ices . the general nature. ^i.jn-ir-c ■‘^or huiT.an care on an out- 25.313. Clinics . Clinics .or nw ■oatient basis only. 35.321. '"honis! p^viaed ^Sr‘srt^^sh”!%ontIin not less 'liullfing ;ri::fternrs ^^^35 feet fro™ tne sroe lot line. = W ,-1. Private academies, schools, trade ;tktcls. -SMs aod universities for teachrng. 35,323. Research Centers. Clinics or Kennels. Anirial hospital, 3 5.324. Veterinary- Ciinics - - - - - clinic or kennels. 35.325. Libraries, 35.326. Museums.J D . O -t w . ***-*"^-^------- -O- Galleries, etc. Historical buildings, museums, «t Lstilsti'sT'gSTTeries and playhouses. ) i 3S.27S. Drives. The desisn shall i"fJ““3e internal circulation drives not less than 22 feet in width which are exclusive ol the required parking area. 35.280. Curb Cuts. The driveway curb cuts to the develop- iT.ent shall not exceed 26 feet in width, 5 feet return curb radii, and be located not less than 60 feet from all intersecting streets. 35.281. Drainaoe. No land shall be developed•and^no a:;:s“s^on'-:a^ac^JJV=Perties. Site and drainage plans shall be submittea by the aoolicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be leviewea by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Comr.ission anc Council for approval. Such runoff may be requirec to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in erode affecting water runoff whether onto acgacent prooertv or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surf ace* V‘*a ter .Management Plan and shall be consistent wit.h other applicable regulations or ordinances ana subject to the approval of ether agencies naving juris diction over the area affected by the drainage. 35.282. Fencing. Wherever a "B-3” Shopping Center^ Business District abuts or is across the f an “R" District, an adequate fence or compact etergreen hedge not less than 50% opaque nor less than 6 -eet in height shell be erected. When adjacent to a street, it shall not be less than 3 feet nor more than 4 leet in height. 35.283. Building Design and Construction. See Section 35.C46. 35.284. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2 1/2 stories or 30 feet in height except as provioeo 38.900. 35.300. B-4; Office and Professional Business District. 35.3C1. B-4; Purpose. The "B-4" Office and Professional Business is intended to*provide a district which is relatec to and may adjoin residential districts or ‘’■'ther business districts for the location of administrative office builaings and related offices. The office uses allowed in this district are those in which there is limited contact with the public and no exterior display or selling of merchandise to the genera • 9 sa i 5 pro Vi 11 v ‘ inc ir‘’sa la ^ jud q»ent. Structure not spec-laXi^ (Ord. 172, 12-19-74, effective 1-1-75) ^ - ne*»c Anv land or buildinas which^1.100. Non-conforrtno Os__. 5 ^^.,.^<,nforninq use on were actually and ^^°wi^^oltinued in said non-confomino use ""ra^/io^’lniniLa! Str^rTit granted as hereinafter speci- liStided ord. 172, 12-19-74, effective 1-1-75) '3i.20l'."T.he nor.-confcrr.inc use ray not be chanced to another ':-^,;r5sroriV°17i!'l2-19-74, effective 1-1-75) dec’areo unsa.e -be . ^j,re than 50 sarv repairs --- 4.^,,n-vire structure shall include fair narket value c- : to’the structure or located such accessory ®;,jT^ns, carquees, monuments.&^;rordr17i:"L-l?-v4:^rfect^^^^ 31.103. Vhnen any rconlorminf^"” or lar.d ir. any district ;o anv non-conformi.nr use. i-. shall net thereafter bo nanced^.o^ (Arendec Orn. 17 2, i-i j.. /*«» - , , _______•^^rn''no structure shall 31.:r4. vrricr.ever a ^ e^nloJion. earthquake, war, have been danaoed ^y ire, and used as beforeriot, or act of ">='2, may be recon- ru^ if it ive rectr.structe- "'*‘ *^:* building or structure xs — • • *SfSr •HO S3r.»nQtf uC -n6 r-iArket. VfilU6 ®S ievert-'-hv's r.croort f75U ?he'*ime of damage, in which .s-c,.c. or the assessment records any constructao:J.;,:--;,.-;;.,. assessment records at t.ne t^e IndTnrconstruction ^ Z^r.tr.r Cede. ®i_®i_Trc\X ^V i r ir.^ Cede* ^ ^ ^ nc\ .letinied ord. 172, 12-19-74, effective 1-1-75) w — ----- - — or Jid1^difc:=4 "nfr^r^pg^inu^fg a stricluri, ^nf Uwrurrn^cirfrrm^n: Sfe'tneoJvLrr'"”'' o e 1 € 7 To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusih, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:June 8. 1995 Subject:#2026 New Horizon Child Care, 875 Wayzata Boulevard - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB Total area = 7+ acres Pertinent Ordinances 1.Section 10.61, Subdivision 2 (A) (3) - Signage area. Allowed = 12 s.f. Proposed = 42 s.f. Variance = 30 s.f. or 250% 2.Section 10.61, Subdivision 2 (C) - Height/Setback. A. Setback. Required — 5 ’ Entry pylon - 10’ Lighted pylon = 37’ B Height. Allowed = 8* 1. Entry pylon = 17’8" Variance = 9 ’ 8’ or 122.5% 2. Lighted pylon = 15’ 6" Variance = 7’ 6" or 95% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - PropertjrOwners ’ List D - Canopy Detail E-1-2 Canop> Elevations F - Lighted Pylon Sign G - Entrance Pylon H - Survey/Site Plan I - Topographic Map Zoning File #2026 June 8, 1995 Page 2 Decription of Request Busy Beaver Day Care will be purchased by New Horizon Child Care. Mrs. Cici, the owner of Busy Beaver, had talked of a need to provide better signage for the facility because of the unique location of the entrance at the extreme east and the day care located to the extreme west on the property'. The Director talked of a need to provide clear identification of the location of the facility for the cars that travel in excess of the allowed 45 m.p.h. Some members familiar with New Horizon Child Care facilities will recognize the typical blue/yellow signage proposed with the current application. Two pylon signs have been proposed that will exceed the allowed 12 s.f. of total signage area for this use. Height variances are also requested for both pylons because of the sharp drop in elevations adjacent to Highway 12. Refer to Exhibits H and I, there is a 6 to 7 drop at entrance pylon and 5’ to 6’ drop at lighted pylon. Commercial signage allowance is based on frontage on public road. For each lineal foot, an owner is allowed 1 s.f. of signage. In the B-1, B-2 and B-4 districts, no individual signs shall exceed 50 s.f. In the B-3 shopping district, no single sign shall exceed 100 s.f. The property is zoned residential but surrounding uses of properties suggest other than a typical residential neighborhood. The property is surrounded by a railroad to the south, a cemetery to the east, an elevated Luce Line to the west and finally Highway 12 and another day care facility to the north. The City has never received complaints from residential land owners in surrounding residential neighborhood. The closest residence in Orono would be to the south located 400+’ from the southern boundary of the property. The railroad right-of-way is located within that setback. The actual facility is located 800+’ from the residential property. The City has granted signage area variances to churches that have day care facilities. In 1994, members may remember that we granted signage area variances to the Calvary Memorial Church at Dunwoody and Shoreline. The variances in the 1994 application dealt only with area excesses and not height variances. Statement of Hardship Please refer to Exhibit A, applicant notes the following: 1 Unique topography of site presents a need for additional height in signage. Zoning File J)f2026 June 8. 1995 Page 3 2. 3. The speed of the traffic along this section of Highway 12 does iK>t follow the 45 m.p.h. speed limit. Speeds are usually 50+ m.p.h. There is a special need to provide clear identification signage to the east and west of property so that vehicles can reduce speed providing adequate w'aming to the other drivers. Unique access of entrance to facility with entrance located to the far east of the property and day care located to the far west. IsMes for Consideration 1. 3. Why must signs be higher than 8 ’ above the elevation of the existing road? ’^y would the lighted pylon close to the facility need to be greater than 8 above existing grade? Do the existing elevations at tl.e road and at the grade-level of the pylon have any impact on your recommendation? Do the proposed setbacks of the pylon signs have any impact on your recommendation? 10’ for the 16 s.f. entrance sign 37+’ for the 36 s.f. lighted sign Will the 36 s.f. illuminated sign have a visual impact upon the surrounding residential neighborhood? If so, how can the negative impact be minimized? Will the sign be illuminated 24 hours a day or just while the facility is in use? 4. Do members have any concern with the canopy structure over the entraiKe? Options of Action Approval as proposed or amended. Any condition of approval may include one or more of the following: 1. Control on the lighting of the signage. 2. Limits on height. 3. Limits for individual signage areas. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLIC/ TION Initial Application Fes S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance Renewal Variance Fee SlOO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming simcmres ^5-UU.Uu Afier-the-Fact Fees (Double application lee) PROPERTY INFORMATION _ Site Address '-J lf~ -yc ».*v 'I** nt I %*• • «.r f Wk : ^w> -r-T Property Identification Number (P.I.D.),-----^— «rmired survey Attach'l«al descttption to applicatica if not induced on tequ«d suncy. Date Property Acquired ----------------------- ' I (do) (do not) also own the Cfi^Present use of propeny: residential ^oin..i.pec ------- Zoning District: (month/year) applicant L^wLiMirep Name Phone (work) Address: *7 /d rirv- OWNER (if different than applicant) y-/U I SI Estimated Construction Cost ---------- /-^g/urM)/)V I>{^CTIQAJAL VARIANCES required Lot Area _ Setback: Lot Width Front ___Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) „r ^ r N\rY,vi (aJ^ch additional sheets u necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the follrming information must submittfd I>v the applic ati< for vQur 3DDlication to considcrc<l tie in order 3i 4. 'X 6. 7. 8. 9. Cenified Propem Owners List ol^owners within 150 (you must obum fr “ Hennepin County Deparanent of Finance, A-60.', Govt Center, 348-J.71), Plat Map (obtained with property owners list), j , , i,„,j„„„„ ” Cemficate of Sutsey (signed by a licensed surveyor me ude “calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/5 x 11 for ZovmpWc surv ev (existing and proposed elevaiions) if any changes in existing grade ~ are proposed. In addition, provide one 0) copy S‘A x Sketches or plans of Ooor S; elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8/5 x 11 ), - LUt oTthe leaal names (include marital sums) of all persons with an mteres m the - oropem. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current ownerts), L LTddendum to this application, please atuch a separate list of any other persons vou 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 th« jaail vwriwnr, annlicftion is not complete if Hw «l)oyf infqPlWtWn hM n«H t)wn intlwjttl. Tlf appl^ Lreby^ag^^^m provide all infoimaticn required or request^ by the Zoi^ MmWstrator aerees to pav additional fees (suff time not covered by ongmal fee " c”mutom expenis i»:urred in review of this »PP~ “<> information supplied is mie and correci;2sM^ best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Sienatme^^G'/lU Date Ttewner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and filler “ j, entry onto the pretty by City suff, consulunts, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature CcyLy-i Date s/aa/a Anolicam must have all submituls into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Co®””'®" nv Platan Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each n^oi^. A^n cLts muTbe p^l at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission ^d ColdrifaS applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please m^ to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Buildmg & Zotung Off this change prior to the meeting. 8 - .i. , BM MTi ant/n \ ’ BATCH B07 ICNNEPXN COUNTY PHOPIHTY XNFORNATXON STSTCH BHOBCRTY OMCRS LIST/> • tCBWBH NM€ TANBAYIR NttC/AOOR M ' SB-IU-SS A1 0010 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSXGNED . \ HEIOCRIN FORFEITED lUNO CITY OF ORONO DRAXNME a CONSERVATION B>1D>90 ST DEED D17SS4E sa SB-llD-ES AS OOOS OOOSO AOORESS UNASSIGNEO F H CICX A X-H CICI t FANDELX H A INBEDORO N CtCZ ms TROY U N NAFLE GROVE Ml S5S11 ■* •/'I Y*** . h \\ DROP AOOR ' OMCR Nim St U-llD-tS AS 0024 OOOSO. ADDRESS UNASSIGNU TAHFAYER NAHE/AOOR DURLXNGTON NORTHERN RY DURLINDTON NORTHERN RY A.y.'’ ^•V. ■t. ‘ / so M-llO-tS AA OOOA « 00050 NAYZATA BLVD N .K • •. ♦ V, FEMCR/MABCHER LU FEMCR/NAQENER LLC 12520 NAYZATA DIVD HZMCTOMU M4 55S05 # •■Vi". V-’.- • I - . J f • ; FROF AOOR A.«OMNIR NANI A: ' MAXFAYER “. • •• A.** ^ _ _ Si SS*lli-2S 44 0007 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO STAH or raNN STATE or NXNN IMII V , . NANE/ADOS ILUCE LINE TRAXU . • , * i' 72 S5-1U-2S AS OOlt 0021S LXNDANOOO LA R t VAN VAUEWURO ET AL R f A 0 J VAN VALKEiaURQ tlS LXNDANOOO LANE LONO LAKE NN 55SA1 r J.!1. FROF ADDR -4 ONNiR NANi TAHFAYER •V NAHE/AOOR. NAHE/AOOR , 72 SB>110>2S AA 0002 OOAU NAYZATA OLVO N 1 J OOILEY ETAL I J OOULEY All N NAYZATA BLVD NAYZATA m sssn • fit 4 . 72 S5-U0-2S AA 0010 00204 LXNOANOOO U KAO RAOLOFF KEITH N RAOLOFF 204 LXNOANOOO LANE NAYZATA m ..55S91 ' FROF AOOR 0»tCR NAHi I * • , I . • X ?./, TAHFAYER ; TOTAL BATCH NAHE/AOOR ‘ V.NAHE/AOOR .r’.’ vi- .V ^ -4‘ V 1^.- ♦t. *A 507 OOOlt V • % . i 0- . ■ A '• • ‘ • -t’**4 * 0 ■ ; vy.-/. 'V . ' ’I..• 1. *. t T >.• *•- .• ■ ‘ ^ 0 m V . ' ‘ 1*? * • X • 4'• %•^ 4 •• A * V '*'* “'y*. ,r... ^ . . • 4 • . • ■ ■ y I I. REFORT NO. FXASBAOl FAK 10SO SS>110-2S AS OOOA OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO STATE OF HIMI STATE OF HXNN (DNRI ILUCE LINE TRAIL! SO S5-118-2S AA 0005 00075 NAYZATA OLVO N F H CXCI A I H CICI FANDELI H A XNGEOORO CICI 75S2 TROY U N NAFLE GROVE m 55S11 72 S5-110-2S AS 0027 00205 LXNDANOOO U J SELL A K SELL JEFFREY A KATHLEEN SELL 205 LXNOANOOO LA NAYZATA HN SSSAl AA S5-110-2S AA 0000 OOSAA NARRINOTON RO CITY OF NAYZATA CITY OF NAYZATA 400 RICE ST NAYZATA m S5SA1 «' I < . •• • 'I ♦- *’ ' Fi - J .•* y. ; V:-:r' *fV.\o.Ay ; ‘ ti ' » •*. • •'mtiw :RUN DATC Oim/n, • .*«•••MTCN SQ7'*!• ♦ .1 « * . •/ * .•• ' • * * • * m ' '.:*V > • ;•* ‘ • • » • 1 • V • *. ' • ■ ../.••‘I -.. fi ' • x‘ ♦*- 4- . ‘ •V ^ / ■*.• V f* •A • •>'., /U. •. •. r;-. ^ V-.r-i/, • • v ;. • ^ ■•' ;•- %4‘ . • I ^ ‘ * • * • * *. •*'* - * ’^1 • * • ■.. t ■-;■ ♦ • ■*' . • « , I • • . » •■.* I »*♦ I • . • • y*'- -I ■,•; ’ • i f* . t ■: ■ ■ ■ . *' . ■'.f* • ’ '■* I'"t* ■* • •' .(»■*•••• •"- * •• •:. T /=•. ■• • • ‘ V . . . / •* » ‘ ^ -• . ^ * • • ** • . '. * *•* • • I •■■ ’/ ir>.' •■• .>•.:'/■■ ’. Vv • • ‘ ■ ••• I■' •;" .f ■ r HETMEPIN COUNTY ntOPCRTY XHPOMUTION SYSTEM PMPCRTV OMCRS LIST • t » ^ S f . • , j* • * > ' - ^ M.' • • \ ■J- i / V" ^ * : ;\a- a^..• * A*' ' .* f ”* *• • **.• i • . < • . *; V • • • • • i • • . • r L. • ■ »■ •. * < •. ■ f *'* •. ■ •V- f* ’ • ' .*■ f,- s/» ,1. i; " .t- ;t; >■ •. »•» # *1 :k r. i. i' « 4^ 5*’ I# •• * I t \ A K * « >• V “ }* & i: »' - * ►» « . . *T* |r ? ^ ■ ^1 ^v- r - • V ■' •. r* • *. . Y I # f ;f; t* 1 *1 •V REPORT NO. PIASMOl PAIS 19 ■ i • IT' A 'll. t" X CfiniFY THAT THE fACTi HEPHESCNTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTAHON OF INFORHAHON AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECOflOS OF THE HEr#€PIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF NY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF ■ f "f ^ t:- J . . i./i; ^ * ’ *'.»•». V' -•■• ■ •. ' i -j «t£M i336 .»f)6 mdJ) • t ‘i’- I'■« •»•u. * t ' ^>'V- . I * H*. < . ;• f . 4w . “» f'.A r • » >r • ■ S‘ * * ** » • • . • ■' • I .•■ ‘ i I r ■ •’< •» • SA * i J '• •A , u Till: f ’’, rn*i_ ^ *i< * )jk y ^\VJO /Vi'l fjj~‘ /cr D C/)fJo?i S>'AAF aJs'®AJ 1 \ .. \ • • .• - \^v>'b A ; (^XQ p/dCtL'/)/uiv^ • t 0 #2<r% j C/f/OOFY - c/>e-uJ i::| K i r* * : • iKifi \ li kif illTi C i . : J '. I % ill liii Siltiil i:h\ piI iilf f; LiipEiiiEiiti;!! *11* <114 i 2!;?* BM u ji U i; 4i m r iip!i il r r|i ■; li J: i; i: »;• II f; ,;; StWiihi.'!:”;: ; # mm $ i I wv 4 ■ V 9iS'Ki UII: 11:11:'.^ iSS'i “iar--:; ig-1 j :: »*!*K*.*.* iSif mv !KV .£;••: Pi’FPi;:;:::MWMii*mmi iiiiirgiiytmKffljBTttigaiMMr^ ii; i 3[igi|[aiiigiaHgrt^^ iij ► Bn*. . ‘ tr-n’. /.* ir.Wlir 'll:fi*;: iPltv;:;fe' '«< illiitti*:::; »r f» • V 5::ii t-HS r iLiil??Ill m n ■ ligi ir: i I"' « •*2* '*1*^ |-• I ! li i I ii I i: ii i;I • •» I !r‘i :i ij l!g! 1::S r; | -I Iii til m--' i: V •P m ■ 8 ?§*•■'■• mM--- . (< fii.U: ■ if* ■ * ^•#v I* i; ii&iiyi iKgiiiiiUiir&iHiiit!! li iigai-iiiiiiiiiiiiidiig:MaiJ{ig:u:.iiia:E:u..it ^/?aMFV - /^/^0\)-r 0/£.vaJ i / if HORIZON •A _ Child Care¥t I r » r' »Vi A 7' Ol // % w\«^'jr-'^ry 'Xa^oiAi PAitti / l^oojale, / 5'q" / HORIZON t*- [kn t'-i' Iz' .« / ' \ ' 4/ 6a? ^ /U^/) 'TU. tzn I A>/\i:f D f t?(PuU^ fX.c e. ^ AZE.C- -/ _Avc^<t_pglv/EiiJAv eA>iV.f\kice- S 5* 51' 15* E 0.11 Sit DITAIW V ♦ 1 . .* ■ t » • • *■ f. ‘f:. • ( i •i- *■•. - >1 w To:Chair Peterson and Orono Plannii^ Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administralof Date:June 8, 1995 Subject:#2027 Richard Lee Kail, 3753 Casco Avenue - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC Lot area = 15,645 s.f. or .36 acres Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (A-l) - Lots of one acre or less that meet 80% of the lot width and lot area requirements may be developed without Council approval. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) - Required area. LR-IC requires 21,780 s.f. or acre. 3.Section 10.03, Subdivision 16 (A-l) A. Required = 17,424 s.f. or .4 acres (80%) Existing = 15,645 s.f. or .36 acres Variance = 6,135 s.f. or 28% (variance = 1,779 s.f. or 10% per 80% standard) B Lot width. LR-IC requires 1(X)*. 4.Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (A-l). Required = 80’ Existing = 92 ’ No variance required. 5.Section 10.22, Subdivision 2. 500-1,000 setback area = 15,645 s.f. Allowed = 5,476 s.f. or 35% Existing = 1,868 s.f. or 11.93% Proposed = 3,923.2 s.f. or 25.07% No variance required. 6. Section 10.55, Subdivision 15 (A-2) - Credit of wetlands as property is sewered. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Property Owners’ List Zoning File #2027 June 8, 1995 Page 2 C - Plat Map D - Hardcover Inventor}' E - Neighbors ’ Acknowledgement Form F - Survey G - Site Plan H • Elevations I - First Floor Plan J - Second Floor Plan K - Wetlands Map Description of Request Applicant proposes construction of a two-story residence and the razing of the existing home located 18’ from the street lot line. Note portions of the existing improvements encroach the 14’ alley to the east (review Exhibit F). Review Exhibit G, the af^licant has advised that the rear deck shown on the site plan at 9’ from the side lot line will be altered to meet the 10 setback. the steeper elevations for a rear walkout design. The City Engineer will be asked to review the grading plans with building permit to ensure there will be no greater impact of iiKreased runoff upon drainage retention area to the south. Note drainage all flows to the southwest comer of property. Applicant will reside in the residence during constraction. Tltt building staff will be consulted to sec if the detached garage will have to be removed during the process of construction. The survey has not designated the wetland area to the southwest of the property, but as property is sewered this area may be credited against lot area. Statement of Hardship or Unique Findings 1. 2. 3. A single family residence has existed on the property for over 50 years and the property is served with municipal sewer and water. There is no additional land available to acquire except for the 14’ alley to the east. If the alley were to be vacated, applicant would receive approximately 1,253 s.f. of additional area (7 x 179). Current improvements on the property encroach the alley and do not meet current setback standards. All new construction will meet all other required zoning standards. Zoning File #2027 June 8, 1995 Page 3 4. Review Exhibit C, tte subject property is consistent with the size and width of other adjacent properties in the iiiunediaie neighborhood. 5. New construction will have no impact on residential development as all drainage will drain directly to a pt^nding area on land owned by City to south and west. Options of Action To either deny or approve tte area variarKe application for Richard Lee Kail for the property located at 3753 Casco Avenue. If you choose to approve the variance appUcation, the following conditions should be included in that recommerxiation. Upon application for a building permit, applicant shall provide a survey locating designated wetland and proposed house. Applicant shall also provide detailed grading and drainage plans. The concrete pad located within public alley to be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction. .. Applicant to obtain a demolition permit for the removal of both the gmge ^ house. The Building staff shall determine if detached garage can remain during the period of construction. Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 7, applicant may apply for a permit from the City staff that wUl allow applicant to reside in the existing residence for a three-month period. 1. 2. 4. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S200.00 (550.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S1(X).00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conlorming structures $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) U - «* • • • «n » «~- - t . PROPERTY CVFORMATION Site Address _M^.i.cT ut Propertv' Identification Number (P.I.D )_^0^)*~7 —i?—.QQQ3. Attach legal description to application if n<M included on required survey. Date Propertv Acquired _n /(month/year) jL/iUW M. 1 i A ^ ■ --------------------------- I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: V' residential ___other (specify) Zoning District: __________ .——---------------- Address: Cu<r& PhoMihome) _____ Phone(work) ~)-12oo City. _____Zip: ---- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name________________ Phonefhomc) Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST FcrimafffdrnnstructionCostS UQ -4^—_ c,. K.'U /b'Ll I.vfC o^r (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED t/ Lot Area _Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship /description of UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: (attach additional sheets if necessary) tj i r* • .1- •t <ii^ ’r«r^. .1 REQUIRED SUBMnT.VLS All of the following infon"^*«»n must hr siihmittgd hv the application deadline date in order fnr vniir to be considfrfl) <?omplet£i $ us. of owners wiU,in ISO’ (you nrus. obtain Uus Us. from — WU. Counw Depanmen. of Finance. .A-603. Gov. Center, 343-u27I). Plat Map (obtained with j surveyor) and include hardcover “Ceninca.e of Survey (signed by a ^ ,1- for“ calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 A xU reproduction. 1. 2. 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. j ^ osed elevations) if any changes in existing grade / Topographic suney ( . g P x 11" for reproduction. you wish notified of this application. __Additional items as may be requested by City staff. ‘nnlienyUh indlliUll. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ;„fonna.ion required or requested by the Zoning The applicant hereby agrees “ P™*^ (sta^time not covered by original fee payment) Administrator agrees » W dia. d« LtLur^pl-^ arc^err^s. Of his(hj;Vw.edge. Applicant’s Signamre U<^---------Date SSy Sedges and agrees to this ,n.rv onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, anu members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Date 8 \ . 7nJN DATE OA/tl/fS BATCH SOI HENTJEPIN CCXJNTY PROPERTY INFOMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY QNNERS LIST PROP AIMNI OlfCR NAME TAXPAYER HAME/AODR SB 20-117-25 24 0008 02755 CAROLINE AVE N J RUDE ADA RUDE HENDELL J RUDE 2755 CAROLINE AVE HAYZATA MN 555T1 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR IB 20-117-25 51 0005 05750 CASCO AVE N N SULLIVAN ETAL H H SULLIVAN 5750 CASCO AVE NAYZATA MN 55591 PROP ADDR 0»t€R NAME TAXPAYER 5B 20-117-25 51 0011 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIC^D DEAN V GREIMAff^ DEAN V CREIMANN PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 58 20-117-25 51 0067 02868 CASCO POINT RD CHARLES F NELSON I HIFE CHARLES A LUCY NELSON 2868 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-117-25 24 0010 02740 ETHEL AVE L L VICRNAIR A R L VICRNAIR LANCE L A RHOOA L VICRNAIR ; ; 2740 ETHEL AVE HAYZATA MN 55191 KW HO. OMWOl U X0-U7-XS ^ OOU ' . • V 1 * 'Ifc' 5-. f >•< I P 02765 ETHEL AVE NEVA L NILtlAMS NEVA L NILLXANS 2765 ETHEL AVE HAYZATA Itl 55591 ^ / V ' ^ •t... un • a. .{. * *i ^ ^'ij&f ■ • • 'S'” ;• -aW • ’ - A.* "l • ** V ** .* 58 20-117-25 51 0009 05755 CASCO AVE RICHARD L RAIL RICHARD L RAIL 5755 CASCO AVE HAYZATA MN 55591 •i 'I- 58 20-117-25 51 0010 05759 CASCO AVE BRUCE 0 MADDEN ETAL BRUCE 0 NAOOEN 5759 CASCO AVENUE ' NAYZATA HN 55591 .r J Vf V '‘ j I. ’ 4; * * ’f .. h- ♦ • •» S0 £0-117-2S il 0014 rrOOOSa ADDRESS UNASSIOCO v V HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OP ORONO •* ■> M 70-117*tl 11 OOlf 00010 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HEFMEPIN FORPEXTED UND CITY OP ORONO .• • o ',j- NAME/ADDR 5779 CASCO AVE LOCAL ROWING AREA i CONVEYED HAYZATA MN 55591 9/5/80 ST DEED 158897 .!■ * S • ♦ X/8/8E ST DEED 151148 • • •' • ' • •5B 20-117-25 51 0016 58 20-117-25 51 0058 »•• . i‘ y • 58 20-117-25 51 0062 ! “ PROP ADDR 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO 05721 CASCO AVE 4 #•02740 CAROLINE V^VE CBtCR NAME TAXPAYER HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO D R NELTY 1 M N JIN D R NELTY ANN JIN ?- f ^ • r 8 L A J H ROSSTEOr ^ . i SCOTT A JANTT ROSSTEOT ^ . NAME/ADDR CONVEYED 5721 CASCO AVE ’ k *2740 CAROLINE AVE •2/8/82 ST DEED I6I146 HAYZATA MN 55591 V D HAYZATA MN 55591 JO -v.< ■ ■ U5 ’ • j* r (T")„ • . V — ♦ 7** f t /^r:» r* •* r * **■i • » I T nr^i ‘ ;v > *• H TOTAL DATCH m-* • •» i 501 00015 I I ■vf'- - : / s s* t t ;v H-l' »11 ri: . I . • ^ 7 ••4 > •. *' y*• ^ • • % • # . •• • H s' •» • * 9 • . .r :V\- * • . V* • ‘W • ’ • !*. .‘V• 9 ■ « « 8 * • • 9 ' i » '•i ^ I r f -•■-“•.j" ••4 '■■■•■ 1..7. • %>•* 4 “, «» •* •* 4,, I * f • 0 r , ’ 1 4>‘ s.. |H • % . , 4 V . ' ^ ' ' -..I-.*' - ' t Ui,-. A*'*. r *: J «JN OATf 04/21/9S MTCH SOI > • •S-i¥NEW«P1N COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHAnON SYSTEH " PROPERTY OltCRS LIST f ,**■ .. 'v I «;*KPQRT NO. PXOSSmPAGE ^5 r1-» ( » . 4 *P c 4 .H ; •♦r* Pa i t y.1* I f*' • A =te • ••*•'■ rx; .*. ■ • • • •. ■ •; •I •» ^ #P* iJ4 *y . • ., I t >«•; IP •4- ( r..^-•■'.■ -■ f« 4- ^ * . /. 4,\ ]\ s' . •* .. :v-4 .• •■• • 7 ‘:'i: • ;'■■> Vi.' i- ■ /. r .. 'O'* •• '. • t > M \ , 0. 'M ■“^1 *4?* ..i<r • •' •.> 4 t, /•r iK I ) A • » ♦ P > i* • •'4, . • V ; €5 ■4 ♦ • A*P -i * «I . ♦ . •‘ *./ « t . * '• % *V . * ’ k ■* • • .. I U •»* :v; a ^ ^ \**! ;• 4 * ... » < . t I i. •*' *. . .H^ . A t 'j.• '/.I r‘. « f p's •/. I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS RtPRESENTtO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TWS REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS XT APPEARS THIS OATS ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPEJTY TA)^nON* TO THE REST OF NY KNONLEDOE.ANO RELIEF. m-15« ’ , « * ■ I v ‘ I ^ - • *• : . -''V 'V,A DATE ■' • . .» ■•> *■.•.■-• ••I-.,,-;'.:/F*. . .**•• iv V » V :« .1 ) . • u V- " C V , *’ ' • • .1* j K ^ ‘ . •* , . • •• V• 4 • * . - /Y* \.t s' »i 4 • * I . • >E • u. ,« ' ::.'4 • ;' •: c* T5..V . ‘ ' V • • M... ......j-; *• -fc; V. • • , .•••:r •. . • : • ■ -Tt-. V;. • **L. :« • # . • R *• ■' • ■ . ' • ; ;P. .• *r . -V- ■■■■ ■■: •, ’ . ; ' smatgk rrlARDCOVER CALCL’ SETT vCK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 0^5 N N iVotesHEETX • J 75-250'n_cnn«250-500 6' 500-1000’ EXISTING If a RDCOXTR IN ZONE A. House 2L » Length Width % \ B. Garage C. Driveway X X i D. StJcwalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic G. Other 15^lo TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area >N zone ^ ^ ppOPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House —:?rjr Length Wk/o B. Garage C. Driveway m.3A /O D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck N F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic 3 G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - A -*• B X 100 F’SJ'S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. l(.o S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. :^7L'S.F. S.F. iCCsy.^_s.F. 11 (_% S.F. J ^ I S.F. S.F, S.F. /S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Alt S.F. S.F. IlLl S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. D A B S.F. A ^<T LUT.3*\ _ S.F. B 0.:S~.07T'7r i ;p, / /« ^ .* - 4 • . .V- ! i • ^ — V ■. • f J 0 i Adjacent Propertj 0%> ners’ Acknowledgement Form I (we) 9)1^ ^/? P j>( [prim name(s)l of 19 ^V Co ::;> f c- /«t/Z^ [print address] have reviewed the plana for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located J,_________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. 1 (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the Ci^ Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the Improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. Propeny Owner 2.x Date Property Owner *♦***♦***♦♦♦♦♦**•**-*********••*••*•♦***•*********•**•*******••*•••*********** I (we)H • £M -J .rJ ■P7J/ /Z [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the propcrt>* located also referred to as Land Use Application No. -• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbo project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Property Owner Date If YOU have any information that may assist the City in the review of this I^d Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 'A *:>«.-• t— \ -> ••• 34 LEGiUi DBS Lots 7 an This surv of ths ab location concrots to show a Rents. ^ I J rin^s Jzi i IJ r. ‘/.V- I'- o "^16-WT'eUErVATTlOH scALie^ci .• i 1 •\ »» • .‘I’.V ;-’/ f ;.‘«|. Mii'l :!• ’r '*' y ' ' 11 •' •SWT" \zJ \K e^lh^// r «otJ s^uvA,E 7.^'; I to" :. • . • • 0 00 • / 1 ~m . yi . . . -mml' <uc UEFT~ [SLEV/icnoU l*-g! ^ iMi « • • • •► •■•••. % • •*««•««« *••• • #* «l j-.1__ 1 74-4'r 1 V 3d •4 *'5? \ m • . T <LrtVTO|^^ 7W^3k. ‘,V: V 'fe: ' IIiWf/i » jT' t f. - 'v .V-.-Kh '*7^ - V •' '' W \ i»x,/w •A ■ • --■.^'u.''i[?'-v .SV-.A- - ' f • . • ^ ’ H ' ' V . ^ < ^'* ^ ^•* -. . . * • -^ .i • r r % . ^ ^ ‘ r* t ^ ,v^. V* To: From: Date: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator June 16, 1995 Subject: #2030 Richard LaVerc, 995 Wildhurst Trail - Variances * Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Total lot area = 23,210 s.f. or .53 acres Potinent Ordinances 1. 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) - Average lakeshorc setback variance for upper level deck at lakeside of residence. Allowed = 0 Proposed = 6’ Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover variance within 75-250’ setback area. Total area * 13,835 s.f. Allowed = 3,458.8 s.f. or 25% Existing = 4,900 s.f. or 35.41%* Proposed = 4,991.58 s.f. or 36.08% (5,082.58 s.f. or 36.7% approved with Application #1726) Variance = 1,532.8 s.f. or 11% ♦ All hardcover scheduled for removal as a condition of approval of Application #1726 has been completed (plastic aiKl detached garage). List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners’ List D - Neighbors’ Acknowledgement Form E - Resolution No. 3118 F - Site Plan Approved, Application #1726 Gl-2 Floor Plan & Driveway Detail, Application #1726 H - Current Floor Plan & Driveway Detail I - Front Elevation, Application #1726 J - Current Elevation Kl-2 East/West Elevations L - Lakeside Elevation M - Amended Deck Plan N - Survey, Application #1726 O - (Turrent Survey Zoning File #2030 June 16, 1995 Page 2 Review of Application In 1992, the City approved hardcover variaiKes for a 20’ x 31 ’ addition to the east side of the residence. The addition was to provide a third stall for ihc garage ami to the lakeside, an 8 ’ wide screened porch extension and roofed deck. The conditions of that approval asked for the removal of some 210 s.f. of landscape plastic along the south and west side of residence and the removal of a detached garage structure in the street yard. Staff can confirm that the detached garage and 210 s.f. of plastic have been removed. In fact, the entire driveway has been disrupted in the previous owner ’s preparation to redefine driveway access (shown on Exhibits F and G-2). A building permit was issued in 1993 but only the foundation and cement floor of basement have been completed. Applicant s surveyor confirms that approximately 4,9(X) s.f. of har dcover improvements exist on the property at this date. Review Exhibits L, M and O, the current owner proposes completion of the addition and has expanded the application to include a lakeside deck that would result in a 6 encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line and 91.58 s.f. of additional hardcover in the 75-250 setback area. Note lakeside deck will be installed over existing cement patio. Applicant has amended the plat to also include an 8 ’ x 18 ’ deck to the west. The 8 ’ deck expansion would TOt result in an increase in hardcover because it will be placed over existing concrete block patio. The deck extends 14 ’ from the residence at its widest extension to lake. Statement of Hardship Please refer to Exhibit E, the original resolution that approved Application #1726 and Exhibit A, applicant’s current hardship statement. Issues for Consideration 1.The proposed drive and the approved drive with Application #1726 appears to be far more ambitious. It is also not clear from the information provided in the detail plan. Exhibit H, the area of the new covered porch and redesigned walk. Staff will ask applicant to provide hardcover detail on proposed improvements: Areas of house footprint. Approved deck. Covered entrance porch, street entrance walkway, driveway, and entrance monuments. This information to be submitted to staff prior to scheduling the application before the Council for final action. 2.Upon your site inspection, determine if there will be an impact on lake views of maximum 14 ’ extended deck at second level. Note alignment of homes and location of trees. Total deck area is approximately 562 s.f. Should area of structural hardcover improvement be reduced? Is the 14 ’ maximum depth of deck at lakeside acceptable? Zoning File #2030 June 16, 1995 Page 3 3.Applicant has provided no information on area beneath ’ tke^ide deck. Applicant should provide information on any proposed changes. 4. Any other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Options of Action To deny, approve or amend the variance application for an average lakeshore setback and hardcover variance within the 75-250 ’ setback area. Any condition of approval must include the following: 1. Applicant to provide detail on proposed hardcover improvements to include areas of following improvements; Footprint of residence strucmre to include covered entraiK^e porch at street side. Final approved footprint of upper level lakeside deck - also hardcover improvements that extend beyond deck at upper level. Walkway and driveway detail to include area of new entrance monuments. Hardcover facts to be submitted before application is scheduled before the Council for final action. 2. Other conditions recommen'fea by the Planning Commission. •# O A CITY OF ORONO - VARL\NCE APPUCAI i ^ Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variaiKc) Renewal Variance Fee S 100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conl'orming struemres .,-UO.uu After-ihe-Faci Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address C^)f /g klLtJLZl. \ f cm OF DFCW FI nA uCE office 135C2000CO 1 01 CEH CHECK "it --- kiCilf^rHAKS rOi 200. 00. Date PrgpeajL Acquired /3>/ ><r* 1 - _____.u. n.-ll uate rrgpssijL----;—... „t~ I (doXf^ol^also own the^jacent parcels ot l^d. Present use of propert>': j/_residential _ ° Zoning District: L''- ' * ~--------------- axikk9.o coot FOI JC (month/year) 05/2 other (specify) >s: — applican Name Address OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ____________________ Phone (home ) ^ ^ t. Phone (work) J?q V~ OOB' “? ,( City: o Phone(home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:..Zip- rkircr'D rPTioM OF REOLEST Estimated Construction Cost $. ,OPQ---------description OF ^cc/>0Mu2k1^0 Describe requestmdetail: r* (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ Setback: ___Lot Width Front __Side X Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) Compliance with Zoning Co.1e requiremems; Oe. c-pnn oP £7 ------ r ^ ^ ^(atSchSditional sheets if necessary) [^\j,A-DDtA CA*^^i06 p^s^T/*7^n cF *^*^2//^ fJlUr\/iCaSL^J^ {/Ai^UH^C^ , Q.€5DC ^JT?OyX : I . REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AH of the followiny information he submitted bv the fflplicajiop deadlint-jate lqi»^er for vour application to be considered COIPPMCI 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ^ ,Completed Application Form ^ TT^Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150 (you must obtain this list from Kennepin Countv’ Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). t^lat Map (obtained with property owners list). “T^tenificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addhion, provide one (1) copy 8 ‘A" x 11" for Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade "“^e proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'-6" x 11" for reproduction i/Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/4" x 11"). j^^List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember ^t jgyE variance application k not complete if the above information has not been incIWP^lL APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE . u -r « The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information requued or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee paymenO and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application *nd certifies that the information supplied is true rjK^coTe^t^^ b&t of his/her knowleuge. JjU Date 5Applicant’s Signature OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and filler authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of inyestigatmn yld yerffication of this request. Owner’s Signature Date 6/^/ lission AppllC3Ill UlUSl lidvC all auuiiiiuai3 mvvj uiw --------------------------------- Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. AppUcants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 •lyv 377.5 •09. 3 Aa^.9 P*«T 0^ LOT 53 .-/•>>. 6'*'^. {^ O a j *-w' »7-117-23-21 / I .i T ^ t ( ^ \ ' -v». < i -' ' 2 \ *4 r i.v? ;5 - j» ; »? '-f7)' . ?; -3?? ■ ': i 0 ; lO 0 3 : ^ 7 '. »' s 3 s : f ^^95 ? ^ \ £ 3 N '9 S ? J' s- 3 : '9 ‘‘%3 ? « i ('16) ’?—.'J i 3 ? ; ” ’3(13), S ^ ili^ 5 ?•. 4 9 : S 3) s ;* = ? i '3 5 ?. '. ' 5 0 ' » c 1 »30 50 »0 "* 5 :” Li.. -:'f..........-rib :; « i •. 4 r* -;• y / V *. X liSL ?5i’ / ■3.1? JCJ.G4 S0a*49*?9 ‘C 1 ' 1 ''•■1 Coir-41 ;• 1f 1 r / 5/ ^ca (RH)r (93 V MM MTf tl/fS/ff BATCH Ml i V •« #m§mpiH couNry pmspiwrr infouhatzqn systinPiQPCRTY ONNEM LIST PMP Aom OKNill MAHi TAKPAYEII NAME/AOM M 07-117-23 12 0002 00975 NILOHURST TR AIL SOOCRHAN A A L SOOtRUAN 975 MXLDHURST T1UXL HOUND ftl 553A4 OHNER NANS TAXPAYCII NAHE/AOOII Sa 07-117-23 13 0215 00990 NILOHURST TR R.N ZEBECR I R J ZE5ECR RONALD N A RITA JANE ZEOECR 990 NILOHURST TR HOUND Pf4 553A9 PROP AOOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO 07-117-23 21 0009 00997 NILOHURST TR C E BOEHM A M A C BOEHM CHARLES A MARY ANN BOEHM 997 NILOHURST TRAIL HOUND MN 553A9 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SO 07-117-23 21 0015 09455 NEST BRANCH RD JANE E KLINE .JANE E KLINE 9955 NEST BRANCH RO HOUND m 55399 4 I V KBOIIT NO. nUMOl BMf I 38 07-117-23 12 0083 00893 MHBMURST T1 HULIAH A 6ILLMIXST NIUZAH A 6ILL0UZST m NILOHURST TR HOUND HN B53A4 38 07-117-23 IS 0217 01000 NILOHURST TR Rtl CONST OF 8LOOHZNCTQN INC R2I CONST OF BLOONZNBTON INC 1887 SH0RELZI8! DR NAY2ATA 194 BU91 ». • 7 - V . , 4:., f* SB 07-117*tS It 0009 ooioi nmsT arms u J A A E B PRiTNAH JAMES A ELIZABETH PRETHAM BOS POREST .AJB& LA HOUNB 104 55399 % f w II 30 07-117-2S tl OOOB 00999 NILOHURST TR R H A A A CAVAN ROBERT H CAVAN 999 NILOHURST TRAIL mUtW MN 55399 ♦ ' ' . t. ‘V •• 1V?'V , •9 ' J.. • ^ . M r... 1:i'vrv. Cr* 4 * A SB 07-117-2S 21 BOOS 00995 NILOHURST TR R C LAVERE A J A LAVERE RICHARD C A JULIE A UVEtt 995 raLDHURST TR HOUND 104 55S99 : t. ; • ^•■9A *.V rC..- * ■ ’ *•. ■ ■- < ■ '»■.S'>r;*v ■ ;4 ' ^ ‘ ^4 • / I'V 38 07>117*8S tl 0008 • 00038 Aoomss UNMSXONiOi NARRIIT J N0R6ART HARRIET J N0R8MIT 1003 NILOHURST TR HOUND 494 US84 ' !?>38 07-117-23 24 004B oA oA NILOHURST TR R«X CONST Of BUXMINSTON X4C R2X C0I4ST OF BLOQiaNBTaN XNC 14B7 SHORELINE OR HAYZATA 494 SSS91 »■ r r « i # •x t •9 ^ 4. TOTAL BATCH « 4 9. Ml OMU \ 4 . V . r • 4 r- J » H V* tt » J • "s i, ' ' *.T, . I ' *'1 .11.-. .v'f iV’-' 'it’’ ■■i-. 1 CERTIFY THAT .THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF 144FORHAnON AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HE44NEPIN COUNTY DCPARTME44T OF PROPERTY TAT'.iTXaN* TO THE BEST OF 41Y 4C440HLE0GS AND BELIEF. 4*' . ^ '*•1 J* :^ X I f .> . I DATE '•4.-V- .J 7 8^ 4: . £ - , ' « •.-.I- F* I ’ I 4 V. t.r •Vv,%.4 V • *a4 IJ- f • ? • ■ / •.1 ■'Jk 'r t 1 .. < V' V- • ; j'l't . . . . «■ * • I •* V* 0 !• ; i «,y. .. •••.' 'f •. A «• k f «. ‘ $ • - • '^i. ' i :j.% w ^ . ..I* ■ •" >: .* V r . r f-* # /7 r - 'u Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form (j&(we) (o.< \\si- [print nafflc(s)l tuve reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No.------------. I (we) understand that in executing this adcnowledgement, I (we) am (are) »t ^ m declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for CouSl tSt I (we) am («) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or4isc requires Council approval. u/ \v \ ni n y 5 h tAi r~ Date Property Owner ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦•♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦•***************** I (we) C ► /g > ^ Date I******************************* [print address][print name(s)] ----------------- have reviewea the plans for the proposed improvement or propt^ use <rf the property located „ Jr^/ also referred to as Land Use Application No.------------• I (we) understand that in executmg this acknowledgeTOm, I ^ declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to coid^or ^ City Council itat I (we) am (ate) aware of the improvemem plans and that the proposed neighbor project or use requires Council approval. y/^ — Property Owner Date Property Owner ---- If you have any infonnauon that may assist the City in the review of ‘W* ^ Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zonmg Office at least 10 day p to the scheduled meeting date. Date oT o CITYof ORONO resolution of the city council A RESOLOTION GRANTING ___ VARIAMCES TO MONICIPAL SECTIONS 10.22, SUTOIVISION and 10.24, SOBDIVISION 5 (Bl PILE 11726 « n Kar-a J olcxa and James G. OlexaWHEREAS. B»>^bara J. property located (hereinafter "the applicants 1 Orono (hereinafter at 995 Wildhurst Trail ^e ^ll feet of the ?rtre%^°68r9r6^?"HJnne‘pTn C^nty, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property")? and WHEREAS, the variance Lo Municipal ^^'^^^^.^“consisting of* a 20* x 31’ addition allow structural °^V over existing garage and the expansion of a second s Y excess of hardcover Sithin the 7 5-250' setback 5,201 s.f. or exists pj^opo®®*^, ®nnlv 25% is allowed and a variance to Tine !nst%a°l oT^h ” «qu"red^°10. re,nirin, approval of a 4 or 44% setback variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of orono, Minnesota: piuDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1726. Lahelho?rRLideitrarzonLfSlsrrict acr0 in SLVBSim The Orono ^‘=°™^”//“o^^ended ‘* »PP V^Cs^^ ;?opo''s ‘edMrianles'based upon the following findings. 1. 2. 3. Page 1 of 5 4. A. B. C. D. E. 5. CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3113________ The existing garage within fro. the curve adjacent to the public roadway. ro%frreftne^“%’p.eStTttl"%«U« this neighborhood. There is no hardcover within the 0-75' aetback area. setback line. P^p^stf «ns«'uc\"ion ’ ^as "ptovgr. 'w??ttSn Statement approving of the applicatio . ,-i that the conditions existing on The City Council it and do not apply this property are zoning district; generally to Pi^P^es^would not adversely affectthat granting the variances woux ^ hazard traffic conditions, property; would not or other danger to aool^^^^^^ but is merely serve as ^sJ/abie ?::^!ng'’wi“h tL%pi\i% a"n^a ^ the Zoning Code and ^Comprehensive Plan of the City. health, safety and welfare or cue Page 2 of 5 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.3118 1. 2. COSCLDSIONS, ORDER WTO (XlllDITIONS nf the above findingSr the Orono Based upon one or mor ^ Municipal Zoning Code City Council hereby grants iq.24, Subdivision 5 (B) Section 10.22, Subdivision a garage/porch addition to permit the construction of^a 31^ the expansion of a to the east side of the ^ ^g^inq garage within the 75-250 second story addition the hardcov«t exist and to approve a setback area hack for the addition to the east lot line, sub^ct^to the^ following conditions: Applicant shall obtain a ‘demolition /q® newof application for a buxid^ or'ccfpanc^ an/use o£ attached garage. Applicant shall the°£ooting and west side o£ JJption. The Building "nin ........... (May 11, 1993 ). Violation of or non^-compliancy a and conditions of this , shall automatically ;e^°:in\^^" an^y ^Stho%°rt^"\ranVed ^.TrlL and shall he punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant* “ r«o?ut”rand ”n hereby agree to the . heirs, successors andbehalf of themselves, th^eir he this ^re%\& in^VchaYn^f^itl. of the property. Page 3 of 5 3. 4. 5. oT o ^-1 '>^'3 CITY of ORONO resolution of the city council NO. 3118_ _ _ _ Adopted by the llth*da^^ May ^ 1992'.Minnesota at a regular neetrng held on the lltn a y ATTl IT: cfArm.Clin'; cTtrcJ-«lc Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) / STATE OF MINNESOTA )} s s • COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument ^"p”t«lon 4*DorSthy m1 this 11th day of of the City of Orono, a muniApkl“c^rporaUon^nd said instrument was executed on behal of the City. "'S^^Sesob fM9-97 • • ». • w % STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.3118 ) ss. On this known to me/to be the P«”='l'4nowledged that he (they) executedforegoing instrument, and^aoknow^^^^ g^^^_ the saine as his vuneii/ "IfYliLW_________' ITc with^ and for^saiq cuuu^,^ ^^-^so^a itggggg JAMIE L BOSMA NOTARY PUBUC-M..NHE£OTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My Ccmm. Empires 12-19-97 O NOTn PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. , 199 r before me rNofaly-public wIThTn L^d^oF^nd^^inuTT-pTrsonally appears known to me to be the P;“'^“‘^*^’„^®l"dg “e'd t^>rhe ttheT'Vxe'iut^ NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 "fii* •$£. 14- •-* \ '4. S^c. Z ^ -••5 gg*oto‘ 9^" f ///.tfo WILDHURST T^ Ri.\/iseJ Z-Z’Z'9Z I I SouH- Uine ptt 5.£. Stc.7,T./rT, R. z ^frcrf, litiliiy ond i>/'omofe DEMARS • GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC 3030 Hutar Lan* No. Ptymouttv IM 55447 PhOOK (812) 558-0908 I harwy eartlly Itwt tM» is a irua and corract rapraaantahon o» a stawy of tha botMarwa of ttw aoova OaacriMd IoimJ and of tt» loca tion of al buMn if any, maraoa and al viaibta ancro aefwnanta. if am'. */om or on said land. Aa srwyad byrad by ma Ois _ ' ^ “//7% daa Of ^pvf.nofr .\% 91 __ 257-^3 "W / ■ ^ Minn. Rag. No. 90(ob Srata b4cr?«i I VO =LVC > kJ(G; r-1 A I L_s.v=-'. li*- I e # ft«[. •"‘P n..-- - •j» . • %• •#.r *,•.-$ i ! /,»• «.v '••• < Ar *■ ‘* » »r t - ^!tr.h ■ /• •. ...••» -/ • • W*‘ r. HJ I ^^'S. vxjAiiVvwrs' ^ nxl •# ' ^ «• *. .* • ’ *v \ ' %* .*^* * .{ /. f • i ~-J t- .. - •.: “I f I f *'!'__.'N, i! i 1 -- I ! 1 i i • « ta^iur* * ^ ji • 1 1 !1 — —. —••—■ i 1 • 7 !! J • •'.••w l‘ c' E.L.^\/A— •• C‘-..l • • •• f/ "'"f] jif^ Jf/- X § 1=0 U -S •viVfc ti < A • ’ • 0 CD 0/ < QQ • IT Ui I < ~) 0^<^v*s 'oJ^vi^VNO.vs.tTo- , M •• ♦ . •• • •> • p ■ % V"\ M <et^ I il-<2» i. L‘ i •7^. \ n n •C T 1 LI-1 I! rn ii:!r rA ; • • • • |/»"h I'.O' §7 “7 r I® < > r * c: r~^ ».I Iffrn» < > j 0 7- . i .. J \ w. i-------7h:Tr.---------------1--^ //A\ A5<^ to 4k‘tf»£ r?g^5o .. i" ''&fsf 7^ At.M of<«i> rr -r* yyr n .•«^ s^rrr'rr^'7.^^i / *r/ -j^s&.osS ^ A-/^—V #/ I Vi $ r ■»•■••. A ,ff S’ p (*!«•* • ft ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 15,1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members presem; Chair Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Charles Nolan, Jr, and Janice Berg. Charles Schroeder and Candace Rowlctte were absent. The following represented the City Staff; Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Council member J. Diann Goetten was present. Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (#1) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINC/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING - #2020 JAMES BRUCE - 565 LEAF STREET - 7:00-7:30 P.M. A. VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT B. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Bruce was present. The property will be served with sewer from Oxford Road. The City will ask for a 20 easement, 10’ on either ade of lots 1 and 2 for the sewer line to serve lot 3. Detuled grading and construction plans for future sewer connection must be submitted with building plans for new construction on lot 3. There is a concern with any impact the future sewer work would have on Oxford Road. An accessory structure located on lot 3 will be given one year from the final plat approval for removal if a building permit for new construction has not been issued. The existing residence on lot 2 may stay as part of the principal residence as detached additional living space but not as an independent living space. Covenants will need to be placed on the property to alert fiiture owners that this structure may not be used as an independent structure. The applicant met with members of the commission regarding tree removal on the property. 32 trees were noted to remain in the area immediately surrounding the proposed building envelope. Five mature trees will be removed. Nolan asked if the building enveloped noted on the plans was exact. The applicant said it was approximate and allowed a 75'x75' area to build the house but may deviate somewhat. An existing culvert may also be affected. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15. 1995 (#1 - #2020 James Bruce - Continued) Nolan asked if any covenants will be put in place. Nolan's concern was with a hjture owner clear cutting the property to obtain l^e views. The applicant noted that the open space around the proposed house will be more to the east than west and with primary views to the south. Bruce is willing to file a covenant to place tree removal restrictions west of the house, between Oxford Road and the house, and within the area to the north. Mabusth commented on the cul-de-sac issue. Bruce had warned to keep the cul-de-s^ due to landscaping features but Staff advised of potential problems. Tlw cul-de-sac, in its present location, will never serve as a turnaround area. The sewer line that will run through that area, and the approximate 50'diameter paved cul-de-sac is inadequate to serve as a turnaround. The applicant said he could understand the City's view on this but would like to try to save the mature tiw in tlw area. The Planning Commission agreed that the surface of the drive could remain until binldii^ was completed on lot 3. During the public comments. Sue Nelson, who owns the property to the north of proposed lot 2, commerned that her swimming pool is located only SO-dO* fiom the shared lot line. The Nelson home is farther away. The closeness of the pool to the proposed building site could become a nuisance according to Nelson. She said she would prefo the open area to the south used for residential development and limit tree removal along the north. Peterson commented that the setbacks are being met. Nelson responded that Oxford Road is a private street, and the covenants state that property cannot be subdivided without the owner receiving approval of property owners to allow an amendment of the covenants. Mabusth confirmed that the City does not enforce private covenants. The applicant should be advised to commence the process of amending the covenants. Staff cannot schedule the subdivision and vacation applications before the Commission until thia is finalized. Don George of 495 Oxford Road, lives across the street from the proposed devdopment. George reported bdng aware of the covenants and is concerned with the new development. Peterson asked Bruce how he was not aware of the covenants. Bruce said he was notified this past week after an attorney's title opinion was completed. The seller had not informed Bruce of the covenant. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15,1995 (#1 - #2020 James Biuce - Continued) Mark Randow, a member of the church located to the north and east of the property, said the church is surrounded by the property under discussion. The church has an outdoor Mxt it$ would be overdiadowed by any building done on the weekends. Randow said the church has been long standing and would like to see building construction curtailed on the weekends as well as around-the-clock type constnictioo. Concern was also voiced on the increased drainaged from the property noting the drainage easement on the east side. Peterson noted a concern also for any new property ownm because of the outdoor weddings being conducted. Randow noted a need for screening or ifiiHtrapitw as a barrier between the properties. Sue Nelson recalled past problems with their septic system prior to hook-up to sewer noting the need for these future lots to be connected to sewer Peterson said he had no problems with the vacation of the easement mthin Staff recommendations but wm concerned now having teamed of the existing coven^. Peterson Mt H would be necessary to table this issue until the matter of amending the covenants is resolved. The sketch review noted that the property is Mbdividable, and if the dvision falls within covenant rules, would be subdivided. Other issues of sewer and drainage will be addressed as part of the normal subdivision review. I iiKkf Mft agreed with this summation and the need to table the application. Applicant Bruce reported that the seller informed him that the covenant has been amoided in the sa«"e fiohion before, and there is an amendiuent process within the covenant, the owner is now undertaking fix this application. Bruce asked the Planning Commission for an indication of approval, subject to the covenant amendment, and an idea of the time frame. Peterson said the missing information could result in stopping this process but does show good improvements made from last meeting. Smith asked for clarification on the use of the existing unit on lot 2. Mabusth responded that the application is similar to the recem Kipler/Sargent application, where a covenant was executed to limit future use of an independent accessory structure as a guesthouse. The structure would have to be connected to sewer to serve a bathroom, but it was noted that no kitchen would be allowed. Peterson moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2020 until more information is received on the existing covenants and their effect on the application. Ayes 5, Nays 0. minutes of the ORONO H-ANNING COMMISSION meeting held on may 15, 1995 gi"WFnillTP PUBLIC HEARINC/FUBUC PiPOKMATlON MEfcllNG - HAIX AND JAMESLEAF STREET - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT UNC REARRANCEMENT - 7.30- 7:31 P.M. The Certifictte of Mafling and Affidavit of PuWkation were m^ed. Mr. Bruce was present. This Applkation is a foUow up to the sketch review. There b a p^hasc agreetnortm JJJ^^K^hase of 0.10 «:re from James Hate to sadsfy^^ Tl^ «, «rt»ck probtem.. Tl» l« lin. re«™g«^covenant homeowners, which have given approval in the past. Mabusth noted that the Staf has no concern with the division of the lot lines as proposed. covenants prior to approval of the application. Petcnm moved. Smith seconded, to table AppScalion #2021, to levtew eovmiiilla. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (m SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINC/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING - min ROBERT MELAMED - 920 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION 0:30-9:27 PM. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Mr. Mdamed was present. The AppUcant updated the Planning Commissioners on the prefimtnary wbdivision. The to the code to use the City driveway rather than going to an internal road. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HLi-D ON MAY 15, 1995 (#3 • #2022 Robert Metuned - Continued) The Applicint is desiring to keep iwsy front the wetlend sms which would require removil of650' trees Slid excessive fUIii^ within wetlands. A permit is automatically gramed by the MCWD if the wetland filling does not exceed 400*. The MCWD will review grading plans. No mitigation is needed but Applicant does plan to dredge wetlands inthefiiture Melamed would like to create a ponding area and deepen another pond. He advised that he received positive feedback on this fiom the MCWD. Mabusth said that this would be considered a major application involving a conditional use permit and variance. Mabusth asked Applicant the purpose of the alteration. Melamed said thb would '"**^*^ the wildlife areas and general aesthetic purposes, and to replace what has been destroyed in the past. It was noted that this is part of the general plan and not a part of the current review. The Applicant reported that after discussions with the Council, Park Commission, and Planning Commission, a 15 ’ outlot is requested at the west lot line adjacent to county road fof s trail and would be part of the park dedication. Meiamed nottd that the Park Commisskm was concerned with buffering the City preserve area on the east side from this property. A decision is needed on whether this should be dedicated on fee title as park dedication land or protected on private covenants. Melamed noted ^ Park Commission preferred a park dedication, while the Council was in ftvor of a buffer zone as it was fidt that better control was afforded if City owned land rather than controlled as incovenaitts. The driveway on the south side needs to be decided. If no internal road is built, t^ two- shared driveways are currently proposed, one off county road and one off City driv^y. The quesdon of whether the City desires to grant itself a variance or upgrade the drive to a City road needs to be decided upon. The upgrade would require a cut-de-sac, which I^^lamed said the neighbors do not want. Melamed said the Park Commisaion felt the area would not be enhanced by an upgrade. The Council is uncomfortable wth granting a variance and is possibly looking at amending the code on the number of residences allowed to be served by a driveway. The Applicant prefers that a variance be given. Peterson read into the record a letter from Frances Graham and Robert Gumiut voicing their desire that the City gram itself a variance. Graham and Gumnit also asked that the developer not be allowed to use the word "preserve" in its nanw as they felt it was confusing and potentially misleading. They asked that trees and wetlands be maintained. During public comments, Mike Ellis, who lives next door to the property on the south, voiced his disapproval of bike trails on the property. Ellis asked how the creek would be crossed serving lot 4, and Melamed replied that a concrete culvert would be installed. Ellis objected strongly to the proposed Willow Drive to Brown Road trail. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 (#3 - #2022 Robert Melamed - Continued) Duke Hust, who lives two lots north of the proposed developmeiit, reported that the hike trail would come vwy dose to his home. Host’s house is bu^ dose to the road and would lose his fiont yard. He does not object to the plan except for the proposed trail. Bridget Hust, 820 Old Crystal Bay Road, voiced concern over loss of taD trees where the trail is proposed. Hust noted that the trail would come within Iff of her * It was noted that the Park Commission had voted against a trail on the west side, 3/2, but the Council was in favor of the trail at this location Nolan asked if the concern was that trail connections might not be made if buih on the east dde of this proposed development, which Mabusth confirmed. Melamed noted that no connection would be made to the north unless Hust or Ellis should subdivide their property or it was actfuired by the City. Hust agreed that this was a concern. Flint said that this was a matter of two decisions; whether to take an easement now or build the trail now There is no plan to build now but it wu the appropriate time to gain an easement. The possibility of having a trail on the cast side and being unable to connect to the cast was a concern as well as being obtrusive with the park. Peterson said dedsioes made at this meeting would not affect the trail issue as it will be resolved by the final decision of the Council. Goetten responded that it was not the intention of the Council to extend Ac trail to NorA ShoreDrive. At this time, the trail is not yet able to reach the Luce Line. Inregardsto fhif fpfffjfic application, Goetten said that nothing has been absohitdy decided upon, and it will come up before the Council at a later date. The Council asked the Park Commisnoo to look at a trail on Ae west. Goetten imted that the Coum^ has never condemned a property for the trail. The Council will look further into this issue. Peterson ask^ for any further public comments. Hust commented that he agreed whh the letter noted above. Ellis inquired about the size of Ac City-owned driveway. Melamed commented that it was his goal that the development would look like it was not even there fi-om the road. Melamed does not wiA to disturb the wooded landscape. Nolan asked if restrictive covenants would be placed on tree removal. Melamed said this would be accompiiAed through covenants or conservation easements. The restricted areas would correspond to the building setbacks. The purpose is to create a border on each lot that eliminates any tree removal. I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 (#3 - «2022 Roben Mdamcd - Continued) Sirith inquired ofthe size of the borders. MeUmed said he hw drawn in buffer 2on« along the exterior lot Unes of the property at a 5ff width that b only encroached by septic areas Staff has recommended a 3(y wide buffer along shared interior lot Unes Nolan asked that where driveways extend aloi^ shared lot lines, that 30 wide buffer not include area of drive, but to extend buffer width to maintain 3ff buffer. Peterson personally fWt a variance should be granted to the ordinance, and no diuige be made to the ordinance. Peterson would like the City Attorney s ruling on whether a City can grant itself a variance It was later noted by Gafifron that this had been done with the post office parking lot. Mabusth noted that the Applicant has submitted a letter stath^ he will follow the ptth^ decided upon by the City in re^rds to access roads Mdamed had thou^ that the drive would have to be upgraM to a road. The Planning Commissionm replied that anotho’ alternative for access woidd be decided upon but no upgrade of City drive would be recommended Goetten said the problem is that there are already two homes there, and does the City grant a variance for two more. The Council does not look ftvorriily on other developers doing so; then, why should the City allow themselves to gain from granting a variance. Goetten said the Council was also not in filvor of an internal road. Nolan asked Goetten if the Council preferred two shared access drives off Old Crystal Road. Goetten replied in the negative. Melamed’s partner. Ron Lauer, asked if it was possible for the City to make the road a public road. Mabusth said the roadway is alre^ public. By code, if a third house is built, then the driveway must be upgraded to a road. Applicant asked if the City were to find no legal problems with granting itself a variance, as it does with others, would the City look hard at granting this request. Gc^en said the Council needs to look at the big picture and noted conflicts with several ordinances at this tune. Lindquist voiced his favor of the bike easement along Old Crystal Bay Road. Lindquist also said he understood where the Council was on the issue of the drive; and even though it may be the best solution, the possibility of comity off of Old Crystal Bay Road was there. Mabusth said the Engineer recommended grading of the bike trail along with the developer's grading The Engineer advised that it would be diflScult for the City to do filling in the future. The filling of wetland areas was an issue as the City would be required to find mitigation areas. It is easier for developers to accomplish before residential development. 1,11 1 ti " n -rrfca-^iie^«iaitlfs MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 (#3 - #2022 Robcit Mdaned - Condmied) Hint spoke for Art Elhs. EBis said a dike was fbnned when the existing drive at Old Ciystal Bay Road was buih. It had been dry prior to that time. Melamed reported that the En^neer had said the tow land had to drain to the north. Host commented that EDis said the land used to drain to the southeast. Peterson said drainage was an issue in all applications and would took at ensuring that no further problems occurred. Smith asked for clarification on driveways being the personal decision of a homeowno^. Mabusth said the curb cuts require approval, but where the drive comes off the curb cut is decided by the homeowner. i;twtq«it€> moved, Nolan seconded, to approve the preliminaiy subdivision for Melamed/Lauer with the understanding that a variance be granted off the City driveway to allow two served from the City drive with Four tots in the total subdivision.^ ^ Application meet the 9 conditions stated in Staff memo in addition to condition as fr>Uows: 10)createbu£faedzonii^fbrdriveway zones, 11) rqxjft received from City Attorney prior to going before the Council on the City's legd right to change the ordinance or aDow a variance granted to the City, and 12) encourage devetoper to change the subdivision name from the "preserve* name. The Applicant asked for clarification if Park Dedication, a buffer zone, or an outlet would be done on the east side of the property. Mabusth said the City usually does not take wetlands as part of Park Dedication. Nolan asked if the purpose was to only provide a buffer zone. said that other wildlife concerns have been noted, such as a north-south pathway for wildlife. Flint said granting a fee would be preferred but would like to see a buffer for the wildlife \imay. Ayes 5, Nays 0.141 («4) *in» DAVID AND VICKI VICKEHMAN, 1475 DUNWOODY AVENUE - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF FUBUC HEARING - 7:31-7:41 P.M. Mr. A Mrs. Vkkerman were pr^ent. Mabusth reported that the application was or^inally filed for a deck structure withm the 0-75’ zone. The Plaiuiing Commission denied the application at the Mardi meeting, but confirmed the need for a new staircase along with the removal of the boat house. The City Engineer will need to confirm whether an existing retaining wall will be needed once the boathouse is removed. The area where the boathouse sits will be restored with natural landscaping. Mabusth commented that a demolition permit will be needed and noted that 18 cubic yards of fill will be placed in low areas and to provide adequate soil base to allow planting of ground cover. Landsciqniig wiU naiiiiiuze the fill. There is also the option of stones or chips but no geogrid material is to be used. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15,1995 (#4 - #1999 David &. Vicki Vickermaii - Continued) Nolan was concerned with the stabUiation of the slope. It was noted thtt once the is removed, timing is critical. Nolan did not want the a(^hcatkm to have to go through the Planning Commission process prior to stabilization once the boathouse was removed. The Applicant responded that Bill Niccum of Minnetonka Portable Dredging will demohsh the boathoiis^ and fill with a clay/dirt combination with dirt on top and attempt completion within a day Mabusth noted that the City Engines would need to be there when this was done to see that guidelines were followed. Mrixnth asked the applicant to inform Staff of the date and time for the demolitioa Nolan asked if the slope could be stabilized without a retaining wall Mabusth said the Engineer thought this was possible as the rest of the ground appears to ^ stable, and loose earth and debris appear to have been swept to rear of boathouse giving the appearance of severe erosion. Mabusth also said that the area where the boathouse is now tocated is level. Both Peterson and Berg said the Planning C Chy Engineer. i»on would rely on the eqiertise of the The AppUcant commerned that they proposed to use crown vetch in the landscaping. There were no public comments. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Appli^on #1999 with Staff recommendations, and specifically, that the City Engineer be on site when the boathouse is removed. The Applicant is to work with the Engineer on steps taken to stabilize the slope. Plans must be acceptable to the Engineer. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #2005 SAILORS WORLD MARINA AND BOAT CLUB, 1955 SHORELINE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Application #2005 was tabled at the request of the applicam. (#6) #2007 TONY EH>EN COMPANY, 2000 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE WEST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBUC HEARING 7:42-7:54 P.M. Ross Lineham represented the company. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 (#6 - #2007 Tony Eiden Company - Continued) i itii4iam reported that the purpose of the berm on the north lot boundary, which conbnu» on to the west, b a result of an effort to make lot 1 more MleaWe A void was fiUed in between two berms to cre^e a new berm. Work was done on an existing berm on the west and at existing grade on the east. There were no deviations. Mabusth said that the berm was partially completed. Mabusth said that the primary and ahemate septic sites force drainage to imme^te rear ofresidence. It was noted that the ground was wet in the back yard. ThcEngineer recommended constniction of a swale to the rear by the house that would carry drainage from east to west. The applicant said there was enough elevation for proper drainage via the swale. Mabusth asked the applicant if he thought about a swale between the lots, draining to the south and direct drainage out to Countryside. The applicam agreed saying the the hifl carries m^or drainage from higher devations at east. Mabusth reported that the septic b a mound system, and there is a need to direct drainage away from the toes of the mounds. Peterson asked how the berm by the City trail along Watenown Ro^ impacU the drainage. The Applicant said the berm would have i» impact «i traU. Mabusth said the berm preseitts problems for the septic system sites and concentrates drainage via lot 1 to the immediate rear of residence. Lindquist asked if tim plan would meet the 2V septic setba ck. The Applicant replied that it would when amended. Lineham also said that he was working with Steve Weckman, who approved the mound system, and asked to see Weckman on the site rather than through addhional paper work. Mabusth said that the bsue was of such great importance that it cannot be worked out on site only. Smith responded that it was needed to be on paper first. Peterson said he had no problem with the berm as long as it did not affect the drainage system to which Mabusth agreed. Peterson saw the iswe as one of engineering and grading being worked out with the developer and Weckman. Mabusth said the Engineer has recommended that a swale be develop^ to rear of residence and/or along sh^ lot lines of 1 and 2 or a combination of both. Nolan noted the importance of maintaiiui^ a 20’ septic separation with site drainage on the shared lines or directii^ away from it. minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 (#6 - #2007 Tony Eiden Company - Continued) Nolan moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2007 for the installation of an L- shaped berm on lots I and 2, block 2 subject to the berm maintaining a 20* setback separation from the drainfidds The Applicam must provide she drainage plans satisfactory to the City Engineer alor^ with an integrated drainage plan along the dtared property lines and between the rwidcncc and drainfidd for lot 1 with an easement accompanying agreed swale. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2013 FRESHWATER FOUNDATION, 2500 SHADYWOOD ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:54-0:12 P.M. Boyd Burton, Vice Chair of the Freshwater Foundation, and Board of Director members, Robert Searles and JoEIIcn Hurt, were present. Mr. Burton rdayed the groundwork on the history of the institute, which was formed by Dick Gray in 1968 to do research on preservation of fresh water, and who then built the institute. An agreement was made witfi the University of Nfinnesota in 1974 and was given over to the university in 1976 as a research institute and named the Gray Freshwater Biological Institute. Burton sa«d the university has concluded, that due to budget restraints, they are unable to continue to afford operating the foundation. Two options were available; one, to put the foundation on stand-by, or two, give the foundation back. The intent is to not change the purpose but to be more of an educational organization informing the public on fresh water issues. The origiiud construction cost paid by private contributions vns 4 million dollars. Since then, another 3-1/2 million has been spent on research. The building sits on five aa?s, with an addhional 2-1/2 acres south of the building, as well as two outlots. It was found that no conditional use permit was ever issued to either the foundation or the university. The foundation's application is to correct that mistake at this time. Peterson reported his pleasure in seeing the institute back in the community and would like to see school tours of the instituie. Peterson is in favor of the CUP and asked Burton if he was aware of Staffs recommendation for the CUP. Peterson is concerned that no CUP be without written documentation that the university has removed all hazardous wastes, and that any hazardous waste be taken care of and disposed of in a proper manner. The Applicant said the formal decommissioning will take place by the end of July. Smith asked who the regulatory agencies involved were and if they concur with these decisions. The PC A is the i^ency involved. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CX)MMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 (#7 - #2013 Freshwater Foundation - Continued) Thov v/tre no public conunents. f mAy»€t inquired of the ADA requirements for the buildii^ ^on said an inspection has occurred. Only small diflTerences were fixind and few modifications needed. The plan is to comply but no time schedule has been decided There are two levels to the building. The elevator is not ADA approved at this time but would only be necessary if the pubUc were to be exposed to the lower floor in the future. Smith asked that a time frame be part of the recommendation. Mabusth said the institute acts as a poUing place and could work out the details with the City on compliance. Appropriate BraiUe signage on bathroom doors were as soon as possible. Hurr asked when next election use would occur. Mabusth advised in fell of 1996. Bag about parking and any plans for paving or expansion of the parku^ lot. The Applicant says there are no plans to expand, and the occasional wet conditions of the lot are the only complaints received. Hurr replied that any additioiial parking would require a CUP. Nolan asked if any conferences were held that would incur problems with parl^ It was found that there were no guidelines in place for this situation, and Mabusth said no problems have been reported. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2013 for a CUP for contimi^ use as a research facility as the Freshwater Institute. The Applicant wiU bring the building up to ADA codes within a year of their receiving the property, July, 1996. Proper ification will be needed from the MPCA. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#S) #2015 MARK HARRINGTON, 4080 BAYSIDE ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - PUBUC HEARING 9:43-9:54 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. John Amot represented the applicant. Mabusth reported that the appUcation is for a 35*x44', 3-story addition, which wiU double the size of the existing structure. A variance setback was granted for a detKh^ garage in 1984. The detached garage will be removed when the attached garage, which is part of the application, is built. minutes of the orono planning commission meeting held on may 15.1995 (#S - #2015 - Mark Harrington - Continued) Ahdgl«v«i»ce»»ecos«y.A heiglit variance is necessary. Measuremei«swereia«»«v^^^™ - win be added to gain positive drainage from the garage area. .__, Ihional use pernut wm be required for a guest apartmem on the be «the k)w« leyd bMcmem. tlie buenwt vnB be «ceMed by . aeirweU but will not be finished at this time. Mibunh infijnned the cotnmssionera that aituie pim ^ Ibr removil end teptacemeol of the original Structure The application is the first step in the improvement process. addition will be nla^ in line with this proposed structure. Nolan as*f<^ about the pine trees in fi’ont of the residence. Antot said trees have already been moved, and the trees there now will remain. Amot said the county has given their approval fi)T the thiveway. There were no pubhc comments. Peterson said, while the Phmni^ Conmassion normaUy takes a strong stance on ^ height variances, this is not an issue here. removal of the garage. Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#9) #2016 MARK DUPONT, 2275 WEBBER BOLLS ROAD - VARIANCES- PUBUC HEARING The Application was tabled at the request of the ap|• I »i' (#10) #2017 william HIBBS, 1905 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD > VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 6:13-0:20 P^ The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Hibbs was present I i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CX)MMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15. 1995 (#10 - #2017 William Hibbs - Continued) Mabusth reported that the apphcaat was before the Planning Commissioo a few yean ago for a proposed enpansion of the residence. The application was dented by the Planning Commtsiion due to the excessive amoum of hardwvtr. The hardcover issue involved structural and non-structural hardcover. -illThe current proposal involves the r( residence and replace with a 23 5’x44.3 ’. 2-1/2 story addition. The driveway wouw De relocated off of Fagersioss Road. Two accessory structures will be removed, and a new driveway will be installed. The new access has been a(^>roved by the Engineer. Mabusth explained how side setbacks work on ewner lots; 15' setback is rMpiired off Webb Street, and 33* is proposed. 30* is required for a front street setback. There will be 23'setback from Fagemess Point Road. Mabusth noted that if the structure was to be moved to the north to meet required 30* setback, more excavation would be retpitred. AM improvements result in hardcover reductions. Lindquist asked how close the deck is to the road. Mabusth said the deck is located about l5’-20'. In reviewing the information, the structural corerage is reduced by 3% and is proposed at 23%. The hardcover reduction is 18%; reducing it to 31.97% in the 75-25(7 setback area. Setbacks are improved. Peterson commented that the proposal is a nugor improvfiSient to the lot and the structure. There were no public comments. Nolan asked if the shed on the property would be removed and received an affir reply. ll^ll Smith asked that the yard be cleaned up and stuff removed. The applicant said it would be done after construction is completed as there was no place to store anything now. Mabusth reported that applicant advised that there will be no retaining wall to the west adjacent to garage but graduated landscaping. Mabusth asked applicant if he considered moving the structin^ to meet the 30' setback. Hibbs re^jxmded that this would require removal of a large Hackberry tree and would not want to lose the tree. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 (#10 . #2017 WiUiiai • Continued) Nolen y*^^**^***^*^y*i the need fiw m spron on the drive but esked thtf nee Imutstioiis be m. Mebusth said the back-up are wes induded in the hardcover proposals. The detailed she plan will be submitted prior to the ap|4ication going before the Council. Nolan moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2017 for variances to hardcover, sttuctural coverage, side and street set^ks sid>)ect to apron otabfished before goii^ to the Council meeting. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#ll)#2tltRICIlAROBORN, 1991 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:JJ-9;37 P.M, The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Pubficatkm were noted Mr. Bom was pre Mabusth reported that the application is for a CUP to instaO a pemumem dock. Thedock is existing but the applicant is asking to expand it. There are no setback problems The DNR has issued a pemnt, which Staff has received a copy. The applicant will need to review his proposal with the LMCD. The appficanl responded that he has begun this application process. Mabusth commented that the visiting Planmng Commisskmers remarked on the umstructionofthe railing on the upper deck. A permit was issued for a new rail. The original rail was of solid construction. The new railing wUl be more open. Appiovalwu given in 1991 for this construction. Nolan commented on the landscaping on the lakeshore portion of the lot, which has plastic underlayment. The Applicam responded that this was installed when he bought the property. Peterson informed the Applicant that the plastic is considered hardcover and would te desirable if removed. I jfirfqiiist moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2018, sut^ect to LMCD approval. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#12) #2019 LEISEL COX, 3445 SHORELINE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 9:37-9:43 PJH. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Lrisel Cox ivas present. J minutes of the orono planning commission meeting held on may 15, 1995 (#12 - #2019 Leisd Cox - Continued) Mabus* hifoniied the menibm thil the applfcaioo wM for » Clus I reswirem in the Oveooo Building. TheKeevtnjrpropeftyafothemnnetfae of tW. monettv Mr Keeveny wu piwent end itiD owm that building. Mabuith showed the survey of tl* buiMing and the parking. 1^ has M staUe Mr Keavenycoohnned that there was no shared docking or perkii* areas. C^saidthe parking wUl still be workable after improvemotts on CoRd 15 is complct^. N^ questioned if it was appropriate to ask for acertain number ofparki^ stalU. Mabusth d* ««# thi« wM neoessarv. noting there was never a parking problem at tills property. The site plans call for a coffee shop ty|» re^auram serving espremosy sandwiches, and soups. Peterson said the CUP application is consistent with the use. Smith moved, Nolan seconded, to approve Application #2019 for a condhkmal use penwl to include the three recommendations Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mabusth added a third condition to the application. There is now one bathroom. Separate bathrooms must be provided for men and women. (#13) SKETCH PLAN REVIEW - #1S00 MICHAEL W-ANK, 4115 WATERTOWN ROAD - REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL DIRECTION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION Michael Plank was present. (jaffion reported that approval had been ori^nally given in Fdiruary of 1993; but throu^ an apparem miscommunication, final exhibiu were never submitted by the appbcam. Consequently, the applicant never went before the Cou^l and expired in Febniary of 1994 The backlot ordinance was adopted since the original approval, and any new subdivisions after January of 1994 need to meet the current standards. An exa^le of how that this application is the requirement for 150% of the lot area and width. Gaflfron stated that at this time, this is a sketch plan review and requires no formal vote. In way of background, prior to 1988 this property was a 25 acre parcel. In 1988, it was subdivided imo three lots and a 30* width access outlot. Approval was given for tte shared use of the driveway outlot for the new house on Lot 3 and a second lot which might be split fi’om it in the future. In 1993, preliminary approval was given to rMrrai^ the boundary between Lots 2 and 3, leaving 6.2 acres with the house on Lot 3 and 13.6 acres with the house on Lot 2. Plank then would have the ability to seU the house on Lot 3 but maintain comrol of the outlot and enough acreage for a possible split in the future. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 (#13 - #1SOO Michad PUnk - Continued) On Exhibit C, proposed Lot B win consist of 6.2 acres. Giflfron noted that in Staffs opinion, new lots are created ifthis lot line rearrangement occurs IfPlanning Commission concurs, then Lot Bwould need to meet the 7 5 acre requirement Nather Lot B proposed now or Lot C proposed for the future would mea the 300* width standard at the front line where they would abut the uutlot. To avoid the backlot acreage issue, a 6.2 acre lot that abutt a platted 50* road mthz \W cul-de-sac would not be considered a backlot and would not hav e to meet the 150% width and area requirement There would still be the need for lot width variances on the cul-de- Gaffron noted that with the Highway 12 studies underway, there could be changes m the status and character of Watertown Road in the future. Also, Planning commission is reviewing the current status of driveways in regards to the threshold number of driveways required for upgrading to road status. Gaffixm also asked the followup (giestions: Does the road have to be built if it's platted? If, in the future, a third driveway (from the old house on Lot 2) becomes the thud driveway using Uie outlot, will it have to be upgraded to road status? How wiB expanding the outlot to a platted road and cul-de-sac width affect the acreage needed for splitting off an additional lot? Plank said he bought the or^mal 25 acres in 1976. He indicated the inteitt at that time was 4 total lots. One lot was divided off in 1977 and remained the same for the next 11 years. In 1986, he noted there were 20 acres along with the old house. Thro were 3 potential lots left at that time. The house that is now on Lot 3 was moved in; and since timing was of the essence, a lot line was drawn rather quickly. Plank would now like to keep Lot 2 with the additional land but would like to swing the lot line downward. Nolan asked if Plank does not plan to subdivide fiirtlwr, why he would not keep the lot at 7+ acres ipffte«4 of 6+ acres. Plank responded that he (ttd not bdieve it would be wise to pve up a possible lot, and the wetlands need to be considered in the calcidations. Lindquist explained what he perc«ved the situation to be. The Applicant is looking for 3 total lots, but is not now at the point of creatii^ the third lot. There are now two houses on a potential 3 lot property, but the 3rd lot would need a variance to make it a 3rd lot. These lots arc not platted. There is current a backlot (Lot 3), which conforms to the 7-1/2 acre requirement Ifit were reduced to 6.2 acres, it th« would not conft^ Lindquist asked if the road could be platted without actually putting the road in, or is the commission willing to grant a variance when the land is in the 5-acre zone. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15.1995 (#13 - #1S00 Michael Plank - Continued) Plank asked ifapproval could be given under the 1993 standards. Lindquist said the standard of today need to be upheld. Peterson asked for Plank's opinion on a road with a cul-de-sac. Peterson said the Planning Commission would probably look finrorably on giving a width variance in this circumstance. Plank said a road would take more space and questioned what would happen if changes were to be made to Watertown Road. Nolan said the approval could stipulate what would trigger a change if the (hive were to come off of Watertown Road. Referring to Exhibit D-6. Peterson said if lot Y (the future 3rd lot) has a home with h, then a road would be needed. Prior to this, the road would only be dedicated Plank wouMinaintain control of lots X and Y and road postponed. If X or Y were to be built on, the road would be constructed. Lot X m^ n^ aeons off a cul-de-sac if Watertown Road were irtqwoved or its status upgrade to a level whee limiting individual driveway access onto it is critical. Gaffion questioned whether the City could require the Applicant to dose their drive from Watertown Road under the current lot line rearrang ement a|I M l. I Plank ask why he would warn to do this. Corranisriooers responded that when appBcanfs derire a change m their properties, this is the time Ibr leverage in gaining solutions to ftiture "what-iP questKNis. UndqM»«* said an eefe«*e«t covenant would be rerpured as a deed restriction on the sale of lot X and development of lot Y. The width variance would be a non-issue. Other commissioners agreed. Lhxhpiist asked if the City could require Lot X to access off a cul-de-sac in the fiiture. Gaffion said if Lot 1 (X/^ were divided, the City could then change the access to a road, and the road could be buUt for a level of 3 users. Plank asked if this issue could be addressed at that future time. The comrnissiotiers inforitied him that it was being addressed now and was consistent with a 3-k>t divirioiL Gaffion said the 1988 resolution v^ch allowed lot line to happen, included a statement that the developer could use the outlot to serve lot 3 and a fiiture lot split from it (Y and Z). Lindquist and Berg said yes, but the code has changed, and that s^ never occurred. Plank was reminded that if lot 2 were sold now, there would likdy not be enough land to have another lot. Nolan commented that future commissions and coundb might view the property differently and Watertown Road might not be upgraded. Any future changes would be decided <m at time of friture applications^ but, tte time to gain the easement is now. M&OJTES of the ORONO planning COMMiSSlOK MEETING HELD ON MAY 15. 1995 (#13 - #1800 Michad Plank • Continued) Plank feitoatcd that it was necessaiy lor him to sd) the home on lot Z now He was informed that any other changes would be reevakiated and cautioned as to what was done widi lot Z as it could affect lots X and Y. Gaflroo infi>rmed Plank ofthe time schedule for prelinunary approvals. Peteison reported that a for sale sign could be installed now A sale can be contingent on application approval. Peterson si^gested Plank work out details with Staff. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#14) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8,1995 - JANICE BERG Berg reported that the Council approved the loning appheatioos. It was noted that the Palm application was amended. The 50* lakeshore setback is to be met including any structure or deck. The findings on the gra^ and drainage pattern was removed. The line application findings on draiiu^ remained. (#15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION (jafiron was notified that there would possibly be no quortm for the May 18 public information meeting. If necessaiy, any vote would be continued to the next ii » - - t M The Planning Commission numbers discussed the conceptual diai^ in code in regards to the shelter proposal but not specifically tied to the sheher. Smith comm^ed that she hoped public opposition to a commercial code would not hurt the possibility ofthe project. The Planning Commission also discussed the code regarding the number of drives coming offof a public driveway which is an issue in the proposed Mdamed development. South said it was her understandii^ that the Coundl were against granting the City a variance, (jaffion noted that the City gramed itsdf a variance for the post office parking lot. ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#16) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF BHNUTES OF THE APRIL 17, 1995 MEETING Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 17, 1995. Ayes 5, Nays 0. 1 ' c CHARLES D. MOLAIM AND SONS, INC. “N3T=UC^’C*^J S£’.Si-CPVS*«T • * : MAY 31 1995 Niay 26,1995 .J Mayor Edward Callahan, Jr. and Qrono Council Members City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Callahan and Council Members. I, is with n»x«i emotions that I must now foimally resi^ my Board Member for the City of Orono. WhUe 1 am certainly excited to be moving to I cannot help but feel disheartened to be leaving Orono ai^ tto Comn^on. Orono is a wonderful community with great direction and leadership that is well supported by an oiitsianriing staff We will most assuredly miss Uvmg here. It appears that our closing date will be scheduled around July 1« wi* a ...iSin,. shortly thereafter. Consequently. I must inform you that the scheduled meeting of the Commission on June 19th will be my last meeting. I would like to further express my sincere thanks and appreciation aUowing me the opportunity to serve this community and help shape Orono s future. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with all of you over the past two years. Undoubtedly, I will become active in Medina at some point in the future. Hopefully our paths will cross again. Thank you. Sincerdy, Charies D. Nolan, Jr. CDN/css 5607 SO. CEDAR LK. RD. MINNEAPOUS. MN. 55A1 6 (612) 5A6-3206 •pd. ' 4j :>i. pt.m-LMiu»Ky Pt.»r L^r T., »?c. I , 5»u. ilfftt-ry* l^cocff- P. *!*■£.««>', PF ♦ t-S M,r «t t»»5- oma«.^T 7366 . Aj-:yaga-4>fcteas» ii-r* -«-7.;r^ - W.Vlw taasT-vu: •“»«^ii:i!J SCC15.C0j*i : i V o i ] r >■ BOOK-22JL wge ZE C.R. DOC. NO.-434a7X8 BILL KELLEY’S LAND 0 M ibo too . scAtc IN rrir u^riwtiA .i«rr OOCMOTCS tnO« NONUMfur •CM'NCS SHOWN ANC ASSUWCO *MM Au wn ir T«u fttstsTS: rti4t vittiM iHOpi^rljr; P«r lOtftA o«f-^llf «n^ t»r «r t>-' t>« Sow(N«tt OAt >)g«rt«r of VdtoA ), MJ\ Ctj\t4 IN to N Altai pUtted 8iu U1 isV-y*^3 '**" ** *****'• *►»!€ S. Crllc/, Jr.. %|A<}lr • tNrrr 0^ tN folluMln^ dr^inird e-Nlf gf IN nortii nr<-hAlf, gf U4» lo^tTv^vt onr-igir- foMitMp n;, ftpA^ 2i wr'»t of IN 5th Prln<.lp4l N.ld«M itlltf’S LAID 4^4 •le Nr«b^ Jo"itr *n4 itr-fKitr ‘ ^t4l. ti>4 -to N"‘7 A-«4t» »i !h» pl»t. \H'h '<1 hhJxmJiJ > gf Ml >t/ of f Kfa.’e*^i Httllrt «■ tl>it IO<d., of iioJuo^Wta___H'7' f»bp tgrUfr tNt I Ni 1 th«t thtt pt«t l« A ( 3jii5s?r ihAt lhi» pi«t l« A conrct rgprrtrrfAtlon of v*tU tgritfr. Oh Ih- plAt »« f««l AAd fghjr.dthta gf A foot, IhAt aIY <«r.j«vntf qrcgod At thoM on iA>d pUt; tfiAt tN owUtdo bggnjAriet )i« co tN»T Ar» ng ii#t ’Aodt to be arttfr«tH In *Ald pl#t. i"€e\ Aft* co»^rectlif tho» hAif been COrrMtly plACrd In IN corifctl/ JrtlTiAtri on lAld plAt. vl ONMO. Nj 4Nt50fA tMt plAt of Sill AllUf'5 lAtO dAt Aprroard A"d Accrptrd b/ th* MlnnetetA. At A rr^ulAr ««etln^ tNrtgf held thi> djy gf ^ '‘’t5*6r'of ”'pyi!gfj ?Kyy* Vorhon r. Hoppe. Director alo. mawioU lot of IJ69. Uil> plot 0« bfm aoprawd COtlfTT MCOtOC Menheplh County Swrveygr ^fjfe«^raVifVtalbr*r '