Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-17-1995 Planning Packet
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN(; MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present; Chair Stephen Peterson. Charles Schroeder, Dale Lindquist. Candace Rowicttc, Charles Nolan, Jr, Janice Berg, and Sandra Smith, who arrived at 7 40 p m Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabuslh and Recorder Sherry Frost represented Staff Mayor Callahan and Council Member Goetten were present Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7 00 p m SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING (#1) #I29S RICHARD JOHNSON/GORDON NELSON - FINAL SEGMENT OF VACATION OF FOREST BLVD. - 7:00-7:07 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted, Mr. Nelson was present. Mabusth reported that over the past five > ears, the;" has been three petitions for vacation of Forest Boulevard During the first application, Mr Nelson advised the City of his access problem Oak Place had been vacated in the 1970's. The City failed to obtain an easement over his driveway, the only access to his property. Nelson's only remaining legal access is through Forest Boulevard Portions of this dedicated road is located within the lake bed, and the City has no plans to install a road All other properties have access through other means. The Council authorized the vacation and directed the City Attorney to commence the necessary legal steps to obtain an easement over Nelson's driveway. Attempts had been made to gain easements from the four properties owmers involved but with no resolve and many delays The City will now proceed tvith legal action. The Council will complete the vacation when an access easement is granted over a portion of Nelson's drive that encroaches the Johnson property. The easement is to be obtained without any financial charge Nelson is to provide a statement of satisfaction to the Council. Nelson has contacted City Attorney Barrett, who has commenced action. There were no public comments. Peterson reported that a public hearing is being held due to the lapse of time. Peterson asked n£Im> t if he understood what is needed to be done to complete the vacation, and if Ncfjcrt was satisfied with the City's actions. Nelson responded to the affirmative and provided written confirmation of his approval to the Zoning Administrator. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING C OMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1995 (#1 - #1298 Richard Johnson/Gordon Nelson - Continued) Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve the vacation of Forest Boulevard, the segment west of Johnson and Nelson properties, subject to the conditions of Council's recommendation at the March 27, 1995 meeting of the Council Ayes 6, Nays 0 (#2A) #1995 FRANK KOKESH, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION • CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Application #1995 for Frank Kokesh was tabled at the request of the applicant (#2B) #2012 FRANK KOKESH, 4100 WATERTOW N ROAD - VARUNCE PUBLIC HEARING Application #2012 for Frank Kokesh was tabled at the request of the applicant (#3) #2005 SAILORS WORLD MARINA & BOAT CLUB, 1955 SHORELINE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING Application #2005 for Sailors World w*as tabled at the request of the applicant. (#4) #2007 TONY EIDEN, 2800 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE WEST - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING Berg moved. Nolan seconded, to table Application #2007 for Tony Eiden until the applicant is present. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#5) #2008 TESSA MARCHESSAULT/GREGORY BECKER, 3133 CASCO CIRCLE • VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:08-7:40 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Becker was present Mabusth reported that this property gains access off of Casco Circle. There is an access easement along the northern boundary of the property The use of the gravel road north of the retaining wall was not obvious. The lower portions of paved drive, and not located in the easement, serves two other properties. The upper level of the property has a pavement area with a drive which extends around to the lower level garage. It was noted that the paved area encroaches on the neighbor's property. MINUTHS OF THH ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1995 (#5 - #2008 Tessa Marchcssault/Gregory Becker - Continued) The proposal is for a I I\I8‘ single-stor> addition and a I4’xl4’ pt>rtico addition to be built over existing non-structural hardcover All setbacks would be met as well as the average lakeshore setback The issue is the excess of hardcover in the 75-250* zone There is currently 29 5% The proposal would reduce the hardcover to 27 3*o with the removal of the concrete patio and rock area underlined w ith plastic located in Iront of the residence. Mabusth review^ the proposed floor plan Nolan inquired of the applicant if the sidewalk would be affected by the portico addition. Becker reported that the addition would come up to the edge of the sidewalk. Nolan, noting that the applicant needs to be sens.iive to the drainage area of the property, asked about hardcover concessions at the blacktop area near the upper level garage The applicant reported having no plans to remove any of the blacktop areas at the higher elevations because of potential erosion problems Schroeder asked the applicant if there was any encroacliment of driveway areas. The applicant responded that the neighbor’s encroachment is noted on the application and there is also an easement on the property There were no public comments Rowlette commented on the proposed removal of 574 s f of patio cement, noting that a partial amount of the cemented area would need to remain for egress from the patio door area It was found that the applicant did not wish to remov e all of this cemented patio area, which would result in the need to recalculate the hardcover percentages Lindquist remarked that the actual reduction in hardcover in the patio area would be approximately 200 s f It was suggested to the applicant that the 14'xl4’concrete block patio be made smaller The applicant agreed to a reduction in the patio area to 5'x5'. When asked by Schroeder if the hardcover in the garage area could be removed to aid in hardcover reductions in the 250’-500* zone, the applicant commented that his only purpose was to acquire approval of the new additions and did not wish to remove any additional hardcover Becker said he did not see any purpose and perceived negative changes in drainage for the property with the removal of the blacktop by the driveway Nolan responded that the area in question was not necessary and acts as a means by which runoff trav els downhill towards the lake Nolan noted that if the blacktop was removed and the area properly graded, there should be no problem with water running into the garage. NtlNlJTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1995 (#5 - #2008 l essa Marchessault/Gregory Becker - Continued) Peterson commented that there is 100®/© hardcover in the 250 ’-500' zone, where 30% is allowable The applicant commented that the areas of hardcover were done prior to his owning the property and must have been obtained through the proper channels Rowlette responded that permits are not needed for driveways The applicant was informed that when applications come before the commission, this is the only opportunity for the City to make changes to areas of excess hardcover it was also noted that the purpose in the limitations of hardcover is to serve the lake Nolan moved. Schroeder seconded, to approv’e Application #2008 for two additions with the stipulation that the hardcover be reduced by the removal of the rock area on the west side of the home adjacent to the sidewalk and a reduction in the concrete block patio to 5'x5' in the 75-250* zone, and the removal of the upper driveway asphalt area east of the garage in the 250-500 ’ zone Ayes 6, Nays 0 (#6) #2009 TOM & MAliREEN PALM, 1685 CONCORDIA STREET, AMENDED VARIANCE APPLICATION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:40-8:16 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Mr. & Mrs. Palm were present. This property is located at the north end of Concordia and was approved for a second story addition above the existing building envelope for an average lakeshore setback variance, lakeshore setback variance within the 0-75* zone, and for hardcover variance. The applicant's builder advised them not to proceed with the remodel but to remove the existing structure and rebuild The rew resdence structure would be located 50* from the shoreline and a 10x30' lakeside deck located at 40* from the shoreline. Mabusth noted questions associated with the elevation and floor plan The cantilevered window would extend 2 5* into the lakeshore setback The roofed entry at approximately the same depth also encroaches into the lakeshore setback area Mabusth said the additions are part of the principal structure and must meet the 50* setback. The applicant clarified the need to meet the 50* setback and agreed to adjust the plans to meet this setback The deck is shown at the 40* setback. The applicant reported receiving DNR approval from Ceil Strauss for the deck's location regarding the DNR regulations. Mabusth commented that the City has received phone calls and letters from neighbors voicing their approval of the current proposal. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1995 (#6 - #2009 Tom & Maureen Palm - Continued) Dtiring public comments, John Gering of 1687 Concordia reported being in agreement wish the plans as proposed Mabusth reviewed the variances and comparisons of the existing structure and proposed plan. Tte proposed deck would be located at 40 ’ from lakeshore and currently exists at 28 ’ The principal structure now located at 39* will be relocated at 50’ The deck would etKroach 10’ in front of the average lakeshore setback but the structure would meet this setback The hardcover in the 0-75' zone exists at 28% and is now proposed at 26% Hardcover in the 75-250* exists at 33®« and is now proposed at 32 4% Hardcover in the 250-500’ exists at 40f i and is proposed at 34*5a Total hardcover exists at 32 79% and is proposed at 30 95*!'o There is no structural coverage variance required proposed at 14 2^4 Nolan noted that the house plan is absent of wripheral hardcover and sees no areas where concessions can be made Nolan also noted the significant natural berm on the lakeside which would result in runoff moving back away from the lake instead of forward Nolati commented that the plan is consistent with the neighborhood Row lette voiced her concern with the substandard setbacks of the area Rowlette opined that this would be a good opportunity to look to the tuture of the area and require a 75' setback Other improvements in the area in the future could then be changed to meet the 75’ setback Rowlette did note that she was otherwise in approval of the proposed plan A public comment was heard from a new incoming neighbor of a sanitary sewer easement which nins through this and other properties 100’ from the road. The applicant reported that the sanitary sewer easement runs next to their garage apron Mr. Palm responded with the options available He said the original proposed plan had been approved at the 39’ setback, and he was not willing to change the new plan to the 75’ setback Palm said this would result in their home being behind all of the homes and was not aware of any immediate changes happening to the home to the immediate south. Palm also responded to the negative when asked by Rowlette if he would move the plan back to have the deck meet the 50' setback Smith commented that she would not approve any plan if the deck would not be moved back to meet the 50* setback. Palm noted the good drainage of the property with the sand base and lack of any pooling of water Palm also commented on the benefits to the neighborhood if this plan was approved. Peterson commented that requesting a 75* setback was probably unrealistic but did note that approval would set a precedent. NflNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17. 19«)5 (#6 - #2009 Tom & Maureen Palm - Continued) Schroeder nx)ved, Liixlquist seconded, to approve Application #2009 with the principal structure meeting the 50* setback Schroeder noted the existing variartces. the effort by the applicant to reduce hardcover, the hardships of the lot, the impracticality of setting the new construction at the 75' mark, and the fact that the drainage is away from the lake Ayes 5, Nays 2, Rowlette and Smith, both prefer the 75' setback (#7) #2012 JAMES JUNDT, 1420 BRACKETTS POLNT ROAD • VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:10-8:23 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Scott Crawford of Kraus Anderson Construction represented the applicant. Mabusth reported that the application is for repairs to the oversized accessory structure with the expanaon of the roof area This guesthouse portion of the structure is adjacent to the greenhouse area, and the new roof will be at the same height as the greenhouse roof line A conditional use permit for the caretaker house was approved in 1993 The last issue involving this structure did not involve the guesthouse portion of structure located within a sub standard side setback Now, because of structural repairs being done, a side setback variance is required Crawford reported that the plan is for roof expansions, roof repairs, repair, replacement of windows, tuckpoiming. and new guttm. Lindquist asked what is going to be done with the peaked roof area of the structure. Crawford advised an apartment now exists and an expansion of the living area is planned. The structure would be used for guests only. There were no public comments. Peterson reiterated the need for an overall plan to eliminate separate issues coming before the commission each month. Rowlette moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2010 for a side setback variance and repair to the oversized accessory structure Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#8) #2011 TIM & LORI LINE, 4415 FOREST LAKE LANDING - VARUNCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:23-8:59 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1995 (#8 - #2011 Tim & Lori Line - Continued) The Applicants were present and were represented by their architect, Blake Bichanich of Keith Waters Sc Associates Mabusth reported that the commission originally dealt ssith this undeveloped property in 1993 graming hardcover and height variances Excesses in hardcover were to be olTset with the installation of a drainfield The current proposal also involves a hardcover variance and height variance for an obsers ation tower located in the middle of the structure A drainfield to the west will treat nint^ff from 20+^% of total hardcover requests Mabusth also m>ted a gain of area due to a redefinition of the shoreline at the 929 4 elevation on the new survey Staff reviewed the surve>or's field notes and finally accepted the surveyor’s findings lacking any specific criteria for defining shorelines adjacent to wetlands either within ihe City's or DNR regulations Mabusth clarified how the height of the building is determined The legal height of the highest part of the roof, the observation tower, is 35’ The structure is 4T at the peak height from the lakeview The tower is planned in order to gain more light with the interior of the structure Bichanich commented to the members that the tower, although needing a height variance, is limited in its afi'ect on the area The applicant could add volume to the home, which would create a more massive look, without requiring any height variance. It was noted that 20% of the hardcover would be treated through the drainfield system. Nolan asked the applicant how this is controlled Bkhanich advised there would be four 1000 gallon runoff tanks, which would be equipped to take in 2" of runoff in a one-hour span Beyond that time and amount, the excess runoff w ould leech into the surrounding ground A pump with valves would pump out any sediment. A check valve would be installed to eliminate any backup of the system. If the system is overburdened, this would result in an overflow spilling out onto the lawn. Schroeder questioned if the house plan was worth the cost to install the treatment area. The architect responded that without the treatment, the result would have been a one-third reduction in the size of the home During public comments, Mrs Erickson of Forest Lake Landing asked the location of the dock Erickson was concerned with the wetland areas. Tim Line reported approval of the plans from two neighbors, and the letters of approval were read into the record by Peterson. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1995 (#8 - *^2011 Tim & Lori Line - Continued) The Robert Wolfe’s inquired if any tree removal wtHild be needed They noted that the roof line is below the tree line Lori Line noted that it is their desire to maintain trees and add more if necessary Nolan moved. Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2011 for a height v ariance and hardcover variance in the 75-250' zone noting the benefit of the drainage system and the design mitigating restrictions 1 he motion includes item 1-5 and 1-3 as noted in the Staff recommendations Ayes 6, Nays I, Rowlette, voted mainly on principal, as hardcover v-tuiance is required for new construction (#9) «0I4 JAMES NYSTROM, 1745 CONCORDIA STREET - VARUNCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:59-9:20 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Mr Nystrom was present and represented by his architect, Greg Frazee. Mabu,sth reported that the application is for proposed additions which would require lakeshore setback variances The proposed additions are located in front of the average lakeshore setback line The existing structure's patio encroaches into the neighbor's property The neighbor's 3-season porch also enroaches on this property The great room addition would be located I 6” from the south side lot line and the rear bedroom addition 1 6’ from the same side lot line. Frazee reported their surprise when the survey showed the structure 1.6* from the lot line. This will affect the preliminary plans as presented Frazee noted that the improvements stay within the roof line of the existing house. The upper level improvements are for a deck, atrium portion of great room, and stairwell to gain access to the master bedroom Peterson inquired about the distance between the structures. Frazee responded that a change would be needed for the foyer area and possible move of the great room or guestroom to the north side of the house Rowlette commented that there are problems with either additions not meeting the side setback, and a change in plans would be necessary. Frazee asked for commission’s comments on the hardcover in the 75-250’ zone Lindquist said the area needs to be measured out and figured for reductions Berg asked if the foundation would be able to handle the new additions. Frazee said the original foundation should be adequate to handle the new additions. Mabusth asked had this been confirmed of a structural engineer, for if a new foundation is needed, the whole structure could be moved. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNfISSlON MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, I9Q5 (#9 - #2014 James Nystrom - Continued) Peterson moved, Nolan seconded, to table Application #2014 to allow time for new plans to be drawn Ayes 7, Nays 0 SKETCH PLAN REVIEWS (#10) #2006 JAMES BRUCE, 565 LEAF STREET• SKETCH PLAN/SUBDIVTSION James Bruce was present. This sketch plan is for a 3-lot subdivision of lot 6 of the Stkiow Addition This property consists of 5 9 acres, and the applicant would need to acquire 0 I acres from an adjacent neighbor to meet the area requirement Mabusth noted that the property is within the MUSA, and sewer is available from Oxford Road Two stubs are now in, and one additional connection would be required to serve lot 3. A utility easement would be required and would encroach lots I and 2 and should be located near the shared lot lines Credit for the wetlands or drainageway areas are available as property is served with sewer A realignment of the drainage easement is proposed because of the impact on the building envelope It was noted that an existing residence is located on lot 2. Nolan asked the applicant what his intentions were for the realignment of the drainageway. The applicant said he felt the logical building envelope is in the northern wooded area, and the drainage easement could be moved to the south Smith asked for clarification on where the building envelope would be located The applicant said up against the setback. Concern over remov al of any wooded area w as voiced, noting a good building envdope to the south Lindquist asked if there was a problem with moving the ditch, and Mabusth noted it may not be necesary and may just be a matter of redefining easement. A separate CUP for the subdiv ision would be required if drainageway is relocated. Rowlette asked if there was any lake view on this property. The applicant sdd that there was a minimal view in the wintertime. Mabusth said if the guesthouse were to remain as a separate residence, the applicant needed to be notified that the area standard for a guesthouse would not be met. The access to the property was discussed as two drives coming from Oxford Road. Possible access options to lot 3 were discussed noting the need to not cut lot 3 in half Nolan was concerned with the narrow configuration of lot 3 and taking the portion of the driveway out of the west side of lot 2. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNOSSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17. 1995 (#10 - #2006 Janies Bruce - Continued) The applicant said he has receKed verbal agreement from Jim Hale to the west for the 1/10 acre The applicant has not yet dealt with the encroachment issue involving the property to the immediate north He noted that the minimum lot width of 200' on lot 3 was missed by I /4" according to the survey' Bruce also asked if the sewer assessment must be paid up front Mabusth said that this was the general rule with a subdivision as well as the payment of the park dedication fee The applicant asked for a timeline for the subdiv ision as he has a purchase agreement deadline of May 15. 1995 Rowlette brought up the issue of noise from outdoor weddings and services occurring at the nearby church The applicant said he has spoken with neighbors and a church spokesman about this It was noted that there were no restriaions on these events at this time The appiicam asked if a residential zone has restrictions, and Mabusth responded that it depends on how the CUP is stated The real estate agent involved in the transaction noted the reduction in the number of weddings and lack of any problem with the issue at this time He also noted that he felt the church pastor has discouraged the sale of the property these past years Rowlette commented that the issue was brought up to inform the potential property ow ner of the possible noise problem PLANNING COMMISSION COMMI N fS (#11) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 10,1995 - DALE LINDQUIST Lindquist reported that the Council has asked Staff to present both residential and commercial options on the proposed shelter site at the May 18 meeting Lindquist noted that Hurr was open to the possible change and Jabbour preferred commercial with B-4 zoning, which is professional offices use with specific limitations. Schroder commented that the commission's review was their recommendation that Westonka not benefit from a zoning change to commercial. Lindquist noted a Council work session scheduled on May 10 on a possible change to the code regarding number of accesses allowed from driveways This issue stemmed from the Melamed sketch plan for access off of City Drive If access was granted, the driveway by code would need to be upgraded Jabbour did not agree with a variance and felt the City should adher to its own code Council scheduled the work session to review this code as this issue has come up frequently Lindquist noted the approval by Council of the Upton request for a variance. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1Q95 (#12) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION It was noted that the conditional use permit application for the Freshwater Institute will be before the Planning Commission next month. ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#13) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MARCH 20,1995 MEETING Lindquist moved, Row'lette seconded, to approve the Minutes of the March 20, 1995 Meeting of the Planning Commission Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#14) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 7, 1995 WORK SESSION Schroeder noted on his comment on page 7 that the Planning Commission was not against commercial zoning but preferred remaining in residential zoning to eliminate owner gaining greater resale value if property sold in the future under commercial zoning. Schroeder mo id, Row lette seconded, to approve the Minutes of the March 7, 1995 Work Session as amended Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#15) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE MAY S, 1995 MEETING OF THE COUNOL Berg will attend the May 8, 1995 City Council Meeting Peterson will serve as alternate. ADJOURNMENT Berg moved, Rowlette seconded, to adjourn at 10:03 p.m. Ayes 7, Na)rs 0. Stephen Peterson, Chair Person planning commission 2780 K^Ll^? p WaY - COUNCIL CHANffiERS COLNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Edward J. CaUahan, Jr. .ATTE.ND.ANCE „,„„„5ais before the Commission are asked to more to the tab^Trhe" front of'the Chambers when their appiication is announced by the Chairman. of V “ • * « ____ ____ . of Vacation of Forest Blvd. if these items wiU commence prior to or before scheduled pubiic hearings. a) .“1995 Frank Kokesh. 4100 Watertown Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation b) #2(mF?ank^Kokesh. 4100 Watertown Road - Variance - Public Heanng. 3. #2005 Sailors World Marina & Boat Club. 1955 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing. 4.2007 Tony Eiden. 2800 Countryside Drive West - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing. 5. 6. #2008 Tessa Marchessault, 3133 Casco Circle - Variance - Public Hearing. #2009 Tom and Maureen Palm. 1685 Concordia Street. Amended Variance .Application - Public Hearing. 7. S. 9. #2010 James Jundt. 1420 Bracketts Point Road - Variance - Public Hearing. #2011 Tim and Lorie Line. 4415 Forest Lake Landing - Variances - Public Heanng. #2014 James Nystrom. 1745 Concordia Street - Variances - Public Heanng. Sketch Plan Reviews 10. #2006 James Bruce, 565 Leaf Street - Sketch Plan/Subdivision, I PL.\NMNG C0>DIISSI0N MEETING - APRIL 17, 199?. /:00 P.M. Planning Commission Comments in. Commission Represenaiive attending CouncU Meeting of April 10.11. Repon by Planning 1995 (Dale Lindsirom) 12. Other issues for discussion. approval of minutes of the March 20, 1995 meeting. Additional Items 13. Planning Commission a] 1 *• f^c nf March 7 1995 work session.14. Planning Commission approval ot mmuies of Marcn . represemative to anend the May 3. 1993 meeting of the15. Planning Commission to select a Council. Adjournment 1 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL PUBLIC ATTENDANCB MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15., 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. O ft (/)sr & s lAo»u» LOs* f?W I I I P § |I y. g g *-- *. CM Oc oaS' ftoft 0 1 I& ^ E* & 3.n —u 0 CO £ I1 2 T> 2 fiB S i i [ :< i I 3 ft ft|.l i ? 3 a8 “ s ■ ‘ I !g r & • i»i ►— Ul Ov to no 8 oa c t/» 3 I I in f» Xn i ^ o« «3 Cl8- p i i < n S 5I I Ii a 3. s no l§ . t/i la xg a a «« 3a 2* 01 toOi C/1 u.g* '' q 2 a »5. »° - IHS3'S ’ - r n 3 ” a 5 I5S- 8 r, a ?■' -|t| i •: i I8 I - s K 3 o *!i ^ CK •or» O 3. ri n 01 0 1 C X *T3H i i;5^ <" B sc 5‘c ? no s 8 ■o I o 0 1 Ie. *5*a •oco*s:o tr i.n O 8? ^ >0 5•n ••. n Vis ®»5 ■|1|a I" V.5 15 • o *T1 V. to UQ g a o 5n c > HS' 5-tJ o l5i°_ „ G n Sal" -a II 2* 5'“*<ia 3"B « 3 ii 5| ?. 3 uG 5 o S' g.f» P «« p- not?' I p p ■o B 1 o Q = 5-E^ a rt i Si1? c ° “ ir* O»• s O* ». •< o &a** »* n 0 5nPss 1i ? ez I uo (5 P t*l ^ “^>'4 i^8^sS >PC3• ?e P--pi O •« 3m Bm2 r To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabuslh. Building & Zoning Administrator April 5. 1995 #1298 Richard J. Johnson and Gordon Nelson. Vacation of Final Segments of Forest Boulevard - Public Hearing Peninent Ordinances Section 10.12. Vacation of Streets. Alley and Public Road. Vacation of other segments of Forest Boulevard were completed in 1988 and 1993. The two remaining sepnents are the last portions of the unimproved public road to be vacated (review Exhibit C). List of E.xhibits A - Council Minutes 3/27/95 B - DNR Letter 3/11/88 C - Location Map D * Survey Locating Private Drives Serving Both Applicants Properties Review of Current Application On March 27. 1995 the Council directed the City staff to proceed with the necessary steps to permit the vacation of Forest Boulevard located to the immediate west of the Johnson and Nelson properties. The City has approved vacations of Forest Boulevard commencing in 1988 through 1993. It was duriiig the review of the first vacation application that Mr. Nelson advised the City of his need to maintain the only legal access to his property. Review Exhibit D. The City vacated the public roadway known as Oak Place in the early ’70s and failed to obtain an access easement over Mr. Nelson ’s driveway. Note both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Nelson ’s driveways are located within vacated right-of-way not owned by either applicant. Mr. Nelson asked that Forest Boulevard not be vacated until the City obtained legal access over his driveway. The City staff and legal consultants have worked with the various property owners to obtain the multiple easements but have failed at several time-consuming and fruitless attempts. At Council ’s March 27, 1995 meeting, staff was directed to prepare for the legal vacation of Forest Boulevard, subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff to determine the need for a public hearing because of the time lapse from the first legal notice involving the property. 2. City to obtain an easement in favor of Gordon Nelson over the portion of the vacated road owned by Richard Johnson. Zoning File #1298 April 5. 1995 Page 2 3 Mr Nelson to confirm in writing his satisfaction with the City Attorney s preparation of the legal steps necessar>’ to obtain a prescriptive easement. Council has specifically asked that the vacation be completed within a 45 day period of time. The newer members of our Planning Commission will not remember the background on the original vacation request. For those who have been through the ^y vacations, we apologize for the repetition. Review Exhibit C. the majority of Forest Boulevard ts Itxa ed within Forest Uke. The topography would never allow consmicuon of a road twr would the Citv ever encourage a roadway adjacent to the lake when other accesses are available. Review Exhibit B. The DNR found the request to be acceptable. Staff Recommendation To approve the vacation of the unimproved public road known as Forest Boulevard. thoM snecific segments to the west of the Gordon Nelson and Richard Johnson property subject to the conditions^set forth by the Council at their March 27. 1995 meeting and as repeated above in this memo. > / MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 27,1995 (\ % r,ll,n-,n moved, Jabbour seconded, to av.ard the bid for Lift Station H reconstruction to the lotvest responsible bidder. Ford Construction Company, for an amount of 556.782. Ayes 3, Na>‘S 0 (*#9) TEMPORARY’ EMPLOYEES - GOLF COURSE Jabbour moved. Goeiten seconded, to approve the temporary emplo>-ment of Forest Jostrom. counter helper. S5 80 per hour, W’illiam McIntyre, counter helper. S5.80 per hour; John Ross, counter helper 55 80 per hour, Dan Ores, staner/grounds, S6.20 per hour: Doug Enckson, grounds helper, 56.50 per hour; and Jack Peterson, counter/staner, 55.70 per hour, all effective April 1, 1995. Ayes j. Nays 0. (*#10) GOLF COURSE LIQUOR LIABILITY INSURANCE AWARD Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to award the Orono Golf Course liquor liability insurance coverage for the period April 1. 1995 through March 31, 1996 to the St. Paul Insurance Company at a premium cost of $1,500. Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#11) DETERMINATION OF WHETHER TO INITIATE RIGHT-OF-W.\Y VAC.\TI0N at 1304 ELMWOOD AVENUE .Moorse reported that the memo relays the histoiy' behind the vacation of the right-of-way of Elmwood Avenue. After the vacation, the City discovered that a portion t f the vacated right-of-way served as the only access to the Nelson property. This access is on the Johnson property. The City has since attempted to reestabUsh the pubUc easement. ilaraeportioo of the right-of-way was vacated. The On the lake side ot the propemes. a large po _ , •• »r^ thi* Nelson oropem- was not vacated since it serveaportion along the dnveway leading to the Nelson prop . I. V • r, nrnnem* Mt Joluison is A».iHing to proNtde an as the onlv leoal access to the Netson property w. r easentent hut is reguesring the City vacate the lakeside fo-nnson sees the two issues as b„„o unrelated Mr. Nelson is concerned that with the vacanon of the lakestae. e .ould lose his only legal access to his driveway. Barrett said that the nwo are not relate terms of access but ,n legal terms. His opWon was to move ahead wnh the vacauon o the riuht-of-wav. Moorse said Staff is brtnmng this before the Councd to etther ue. e two i'ssues together or move ahead with vacarion wtthcut the easentent being solv«f. fahhour asked if the lakeside right-of-way was under water. Moorse relied rimt it was partiaUy under water and is very low in elevation. Callahan clarified that the reason for dte hesitation in vacating the lakeside right-of-way is the fear of cuning the Nelson's property off wifi, no legal access. Moorse satd that ^ Nelson does have legal access Barren said Nelson has a prescriptive (private, easemen through the continued use over the last :5 years but not tide to that property There would be a cloud on the title without coun approval. Barren sard it is not a lawve s riaht to determine legal access but it is a factual base. If the coun is able to conclude a fa;mal base, the pubbc interest has to be based on acmal use. Callahan said he was concerned that the vacation had not been done and asked Barrmt if rite vacanon could b completed without incurring Uability and damaging .Mr. Nelson's property. Barr« sat dte cloud in the tide is already in place with the mistaken vacation of the alley. « » a maner efface and no further damage to dde is found, there could be access by getung the alley back, condemning it or representing Mr. Nelson. r fr Mr. Johnson voiced his STiStmion with the length of time it has taken to come to any decision over the vacation of the right-of-way He reiterated how the casement and Johnson feels that Nelson is entitled to the use of the throuch the aUev' and through the lakeside He said vacation are two separate issues road but not entitled to both accesses there has been an impact on the sale of propenies in the area because of the right^f-way issue. Mr. Nelson read a prepared statement of his objeaion to the vacation of "Forest Boulevard", as the lakes.de right-of-way was once called His opinion is that he would be landlocked if the vacation is permitted. Orono had vacated all of this lakeside road except that portion in ftont of the properties owned by Johnson and Nelsoa If the City vacated that part located in front of the Johnson property. Nelson feels he would be left on his own to solve his access problem. Johnson was asked by Callahan if he was willing to give the easement to Nelsoa which he responded he would Barnett said that the locauon of the prescriptive easemem may not be the ideal way to get from the house to the road and asked Johnson if he would be willing to grant an easement to an alternate route. Johnson said he was not willing to do this. CaUahan agreed that the City needs to provide access for the Nelson's. Barrett concurred; though, he believes Nelson would have legal access through prescription It was discussed that if Johnson gave prescriptive easement to Nelson and the aaton was uncontested in couri. the cost would be about S2.000. The CouncU would then take minutes _ ,v„e the memben of the Couasl. „ri«i to tnstnict the City Attorney to act on the CaUahan ntove^, iahbcut^-^ .,. ,e prescriptive easement “ - ^ ^ „ „o charge to the Ctty. drivevay for Mr. ““ Commission if needed. If not Nelson is to take the vacation t on. ^ approval. Staff wtll rr:—««——■ ntracts before Hm for signature, «td this was the 6rst Mayor Callahan said he had two co semaphore at Hwy that he was aware of the amount of money . ^ UandV.dIowRoad.HeaskedMoorsetoexplatnhowthts ■H ,n he S75.000 unril November ofl994. The project Moorsc said ihe signal cost v. as sai g^jjated to that recently given by more than a simple signal and the co ,^^rements MmUOT ofS230.000 Ciw Engmeer Cook sa Iccause 01.0 easemen. ar. procurement process needed. ,. orient was in planning, from the beginning U. ::r:::er::::-:-» UBHIP' state of B # PHONE NO. 296-7523 ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1200 WARMER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 file no I March 11, 1988 Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Adninistrator CITY OF ORONO Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: APPLICATION »U256 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE APPLICATION ^1258 JOHI^ & BLATHY EKLEkT, 1785 CONCORDIA STREET APPLICATION ^1251 AUDREY SCHULTZ - VACATION OF ROAD Dear Ms. Mabusth: Thank you for sending infomatlon for our review on the above referenced permits. Our comments on each application follow. The upgrading and replacement of sewer lines is mainly a concern of the DnI Lands Bureau. The Division of Waters will have a chance to comment through the Bureau of Lands license procedure. indications are that impacts to protected waters will be minimal because the sewer line is mostly beneath the existing roadway. According to the plans received March 3, 1988, the Ehlert house addition does not encroach below the 931.0’ elevation. Since the Flood Insurance Rate Map (enclosed) and the City of Orono « Ordinance consider elevation 931 the 100 year flood no floodplain concerns. (We understand however^ that the Minnehaha Creek WSD uses 931.5 as the 100 year flood elevation.) The application for vacation of roads along the southeast shore Forest Lake does not raise any protected waters concerns. Thank you again for the opportunity to review these projects. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely Tom Hovey / Staff Hydrologist metro region DIVISION OF WATERS Enclosure cc: Jack Anderson Jl/dv AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER > ^ 1 < 1' Ui J 4 I h»»• M “ .0.7 - ..I 0 ♦IPfj c I »■ j‘; 3f)N3/^ PlOSciUUIl-i ‘XlUnOQ lilUuUUciM 03SIA3H nm V9VS •/ 5|io|g *c ‘2 ‘I sioi piiP *9 ‘r ‘2 *i Moi ui ouojo ! D * ^i#Ajns ^0 c#3P3l i 1 TO:Chair Peterson and Oronn Planning Commission Ron Moorse. Citv Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:April 11, 1995 SUBJECT:Frank Kokesh. 4100 Watertown Road A. #1995 Class I Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing B. #2012 Variance/Public Hearing A. Application #1995 List of Exhibits A - PC Action Notice 2/28/95 B - Berg Letter 3/15/95 C - Revised Preliminary Plan Status of Application At the February 22. 1995 meeting of the Planning Commission, the application was tabled to provide both applicant and staff additional time to address several issues raised by the Commission, review Exhibit A. The City Attorney was to review the interpretation of the ordinance as it relates to Section 10.03, Subd. 18. In addition, staff was to ask the attorney to consider the issue of grandfather rights as it related to the historic use of the property and the 1985 application that approved 25 horses on the total 31.2 acre property. The attorney concurred with staff s interpretation of the code. If the prof>erty was less than 10 acres in 1968 or 1975, the property could never have qualified under Section 10.03, Subd. 18 for the keeping or horses. Per Orono code the 9 acre parcel does not qualify as a farm and did not in the past. If more than the allowed number of horses were to be maintained on site, then a separate variance application would be required. It should also be noted that a future owner who planned to board or train animals not owned by the owner per Section 10.27, Subd. 3 [Section 10.20, Subd. 3(0)] or riding academy use per [Section 10.20, Subd. 3(P)1 would require the filing of a new conditional use permit. Review Exhibit B. the applicant has agreed to file a separate variance application. Members will review the variance request upon completion of subdivision review. Applicant was to provide an amended survey reflecting the exclusion of road rights-of-way in the area of the property to the south of Watertown Road from the total area of Parcel A. The area of the property is as follows: 9.28 acres - exclusive of road right-of-ways. 7.73 acres dry (exclusive of 1.5 acre wetland) 7.73 contiguous acres (exclusive of 2,5(X) s.f. parcel to south of Watertown Road) Zoning File #1995 and 2012 April ll. 1995 Paee 2 The On-Site Septic Inspector advises that there is a bedroom inside the bam. Applicant should advise of the status of the bedroom. Structure could never be converted to a guest or caretaker house because of the insufficient area but structure could be used for additional or accessor>- living space to principal residence. Staff Recommendation To approve the Class I subdivision application of Frank Kokesh and Robert Hare for the propeny located at 4100 Watertown Road finding all standards of the RR-IA Zoning District, septic codes and subdivision regulations for a Class I subdivision have been satisfied. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.Applicant to confirm for the City if Class I subdivision is to be finalized by a formal plat or metes and bounds descriptions along with the granting of separate easements for road right-of-way, drainage and utility easements along boundaries of property and the granting of a conservation and flowage easement over the wetland area. A separate metes and bounds description would also be retjuired for 2,500 s.f. parcel created on the south side of property. If applicant proceeds with a plat, this parcel can be designated as an outlot. Dedication either on plat or easement of 33’ for Orchard Park Road and 33’ to 66 ’ for Watertown Road. Flowage and conservation easement to be taken over designated wetland. Designated wetlands within the larger 22 acre parcel to be dedicated at the time of future plat. In the final subdivision, the larger 22 acre parcel shall be shown as one outlot and not as 2 as shown on current survey. Either dedication on the plat or the granting of drainage and utility easements 10’ adjacent to the boundaries of Parcel A. Recognition of the 2 large oversized accessory struemres as nonconforming and to further advise the future owner that any major structural repairs or alterations of these structures will require variance approvals. The 9 acre parcel does not qualify for additional animal units under Section 10.03, Subd. 18 because it is less than 10 acres in area. Applicant must obtain the necessary variance approval for the maintenance of more than 5-6 horses on the property. Zoning File #1995 and 2012 April 11, 1995 Page 3 /. 8. 9. Accessor>' structures on 22 acre parcel shall be removed within one year from the date of Council ’s final approval of a building permit for construction of a residence structure has not been issued by the City. The smaller parcel on south side of Watertown Road created with the dedication of right-of-way shall be deemed an unbuildable lot suitable for either combination with adjacent properties on south side of road or to be legally combined with homestead lot to the nonh. The applicant and future owner is advised that if the following activities involving horses not owned by the owner or resident of the property will require a conditional use permit (Section 10.27, Subd. 3) as follows: a. Boarding, rearing and training of horses (Section 10.20, Subd. 3 (M and O), riding academy] ( Section 10.20, Subd. 3 (P) and other activities such as horse shows or tack catalogue sales will also require special licenses or approvals from the Council but because of the reduced operation and area, it should be discouraged. b.The existing septic system has been found to be nonconforming as drainfield has less than 3’ vertical separation from seasonal water table. The system must be repaired by February 7, 1997 or at the time the system fails, whichever comes first. Application #2012 Pertinent Section Section 10.27, Subd. 3 [Section 10.20, Subd. 3(M)] variance to required area for the keeping of 12 horses on the 7.73 dry acres. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicant’s Addendum C - Property Owners List D - Plat Map E - Septic Site Plan Zoning File #1995 and 2012 April 11, 1995 Pace 4 Description of the Application At the City’s request, the applicant has applied for a variance to the above referenced section of the code to allow the keeping of a greater number of horses than the code would allow for a parcel that consists of 7.73 acres of dry land. Section 10.20, Subd. 3(M) allows for special consideration by the Council if horses are kept stabled and do not require a pasture for feed purposes. The applicant proposes maintaining 12 horses on the property requiring 14 acres in area. Review Exhibit E. note the location of the principal and alternate septic site. As already noted the existing sv.,tem must be abandoned and the new one installed by February of 1997. Based on the more intense use of the smaller parcel, it will be necessary to permanently protect test sites restricting all use of the area to the horses. In fact the septic site in the south or street yard of the property is located close to an outdoor training area for the animals that must be readjusted. As already noted in the subdivision portion of this review, if a future owner plans the commercial keeping of animals on the property a conditional use permit would be required for that use. Hardship Statement Review Exhibit B and the commerits of the applicant during the subdivision review. They are reviewed as follows: 1. Historic use of property. 2. The existing large bam and indoor riding areas. 3. The animals will not require pasture area for feeding purposes. 4. In the past when the owner maintained 25 horses and controlled and owii^ the 30+ acres the majority of the time the horses would be maintained within the activity areas on Parcel A. Issues for Consideration 1. Is the keeping of 12 horses at this facility reasonable . . . environmentally? 2. Wliat other issues do the members of our Commission who own or have owned horses feel should be addressed? Zoning File #1995 and 2012 April 11. 1995 Page 5 3. Are 12 animal units too intense a use of this property. If pasture iKcds arc not necessary for feeding, what other special area needs arc there for horses? The applicant notes the area within the indoor riding arena. 4. While property is still under the control of applicant, should easements for pasturinsz or other horse needs be obtained over larger outlot with a further request that applicant purchase propertv ’ at the time ot a future subdivision for fumre combination with subject propert>'? Any recondition of approval should include one or more of the following conditions: 1. Horses must be physically restrained from the use of the areas tested for on*site septic use either through fencing or landscape plantings. 2. Other conditions proposed by Planning Commission members. f CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, >1N 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #1995 notice of PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; 2/28/95 TO: Robert Hare Burnett Realty 315 Eastlake Street Wavzata. MN 55391 COPIES TO:Frank Kokesh 4100 Watenown Road Maple Plain. MN 55359 Larry Berg Fredrikson & Byron 1100 International Center 900 Second Avenue So. Mpls., MN 55402 TYPE OF APPLICATION; DATE OF MEETING: 2/22/95 Preliminary Subdivision VOTE:4 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: To table application pending resolve of the following issues: 1 . Applicant to reconsider request for twenty-five horses and to consider a more reasonable level of horse use on the 8.4 dry buildable acre property. 2.City staff to ask the City Attorney to review the interpretation of the ordinance as it relates to a less than 10 acre lot and the status of property as a farm and t^ impacts of the historic horse use of the property and to determine an earlier land use application in 1985 where property was approved at a maximum level ot twenty-five horses with a total area of 31.2 acres. As to the issue of a taking regarding any limitation placed by the City on the number of horses maintained on this property, it is recommended that applicant s attorney contact the City Attorney directly. Applicant to submit an amended survey reflecting area of parcels exclusive of road right-of-way dedication and to reflect property on south side of Watertown Road. ADDlicam’s next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information as outlined above Deadline for the March 20. 1995 meeting of the Planmng Comm^sion is Friday March lO, 1995 or April 7th for the April 17. 1995 meeting of the Planning Commission. Please contact Jeanne Mabusth (473-7357) if you have any further questions pertaining to the review of your application, ch 3. r ✓ • T e FREDRIKSON & BYRON. P.A. .\tiorr\€yi At Lau MAR 1 T 1996 March 15. 1995 U0<) Inicrnaiianai Ccnuc ^0 Second Vxenye South Minneapolis. \IN >540J-.'3^ (M:> 347-7000 K\\ (hi:) 347-7077 Direct Dial No. (612) 347-7052 Jeanne Mabusth CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 RF.! Subdivision Application filed by Frank and Sue Kokesh in connection with Property at 4100 Watertown Road Dear Jeanne: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation of this morning with Lisa Lindenfelscr. The Kokeshes have decided to accept the staffs suggestion that they apply for a variance to permit them to maintain, on the 9.91 acre parcel proposed to be created by the current subdivision application, a greater number of horses than they would otherwise be permitted. We would like the City to consider the variance s^licadon and the suMivision application together. We therefore request that the subdivision a^lication be considered, along with Uie Kokeshes* variance application, at the Planning Commission’s April 17, 1995 meeting. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please give me a cdl. Very/^ly yours, J. Berg UB/LML/kp/394984 Enclosures cc: Frank Kokesh Patty Napier Robert Hare CITY OF ORONO • VARIANXE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-the-Fact-Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address_______4100 Watertown Road •A * * • -%• • •v - , - V V ^ * - V 11-118-23-14-0007Property Identification Number (P.I.D.), Attach legal description to application if not included on requi.ed survey. Date Property M’-Y lOtiH forieinal 9.91 acre parccU------(month/year) I (do) (do wot) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential X —. other (specify)Stock farm including breeding and stud services, boarding of horses fot PeOPlc Other than property owners, riding lessons^ horse shows and tack catalffg SSlCSi Zoning ni^trirtr RR-IA -------- --------------------------- APPLICANT Name Robert Hare or Frank Kokesh AfiHre^^: 315 East I.ake Street Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ City:______Wavrata 868-0375 476-3652 Zip: 55391 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Frank and Sue Kokesh-------- Address: 4100 Watertown Road Phone (home). Phone (work) 557-0433------------- City:______Qrono______ Zip: 5535i DESCIUPnON OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $, Describe request in detail: Owner wishes to maintain ll horscs QD. ihc 9i9 I — acre parcel to be created if owner’s pending subdivision apphcation IS aPPrOYCd. by the City of Qrono. (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED _Lot Area Setback __ Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear , Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore on the 9.91 HARDSHIP/DESCRIPnON OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: SCC attach^] Exhibit A (attach additional sheets if necessary) w • 1 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS m ^ •f,. f All of the following mfnmiation must be submitted bv the appUcatioo deadline date In order for vour application to be considered complete: Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Plat Map (ootained with property owners list). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 ‘4" x 11" for reproduction. • Topographic survey (exisung and proposed deviations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8*4 * ii for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8*4" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include names(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 8. _ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 9. _ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that iflur variance anpllration h nnt gomoletc |f th> above information has not been includfid- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. _ 6. _ 7. _ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE u -r The a^licant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zomng Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this ^plication, and certifies that the information supplied is correct to the best of his/her knowledge. 1\&J/ ___________ DateApplicant’s Signature ____________ Robert Hare OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date Frank Kokesh Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and CouncU. If an appUcant 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. EXHIBIT A « j r.. Frank and Sue Kokesh purchased the Last Straw Farm in May, 1968. At that time, Last Straw Farm consisted of a 9.91 acre parcel with a house, bam, a 15’ x 50 ’ building used in connection with boarding horses, and a number of buildings that were later remov^. Approximately one year later, the Kokeshes constructed a large horse referred to as the -Indoor." After completing the Indoor, the Kokeshes bo^ed 20 horses on the site. This is a continuation of the historic use of die property and involves only the 9.91 acre parcel. At times the Kokeshes have had as many as 25 horses on the property ^d did so in reliance upon §10.03, subd. 18 of the Orono City Ordinances which provides that stock farms may continue to maintain the same number of ^irnals that existed^ of January 1, 1975, and may increase the number of animals so maintained by twenty-five percent. Following the acquisition of the 9.91 acre parcel, the Kokeshes acquired sever^ adjoining parcels which were combined into one tax parcel in 1986. In January, 1995, the Kokeshes filed an application requesting a subdivision of the property pursimt to SecUon 11.03, 66(A)(2) of the Orono City ordinances (which permits a subdivision of propeities previously combined for tax purposes). This application is currently pending before the City. The City has indicated that if it approves the Kokeshes’ subdivision application, the 9.91 acre parcel will no longer be deemed a stock farm because it will not mwt the requirements of Section 10.20, Subd. 3(L) that stock farms be at least 10 acres in size. As a result, the number of horses the Kokeshes will be allowed to maintain will be severely hmit^ and toe Kokeshes will no longer be able to operate toe property in the same manner in which it has historically been used, including breeding and stud services, boarding of horses for people other than property owners, riding lessons, horse shows and tack catalog sales. Furthermore, the 9.91 acre parcel contains only 8.41 acres of dry area which further limits toe number of horses toe Kokeshes would be allowed to keep on toe property according to toe current City Ordinances. As toe Ordinances arc currently interpreted, toe Kokeshes would be allowed to keep only 6 horses on toe property (1 horse for the first 3 acres Md 1 additional horse for each additional acre). This is a drastic change from toe 20 to 25 horses they have kept on toe property over toe years. 4 • 3M7S6 mJN DAT! OS^ai/fS %EATCN S12MW 04NEn HAHC TAXPAYfH , . HAME/AOOII PMP Aom OKNEfl NAMC TAXPAYER NAMI/AOOII mW AOOII OMNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHC/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER KAMI TAXPAYER ftAME/AODR PROP AOOR* OKNER NAME TAXPAYER KAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OINER NAME TAXPAYER HAME/AOOR • .• * 4 • t* HEfi^PIli COUNTY PRWERTY IHfO»UTICN SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS IISTSa 51-Ua*E3 11 0003 007A5 ORCHARD PARK RO L A ANDERSON i S M VO^EL L A ANDERSCN ASH VO(iEL 74S mCHARO PARK RO LONS LAKE W 5S35A Sa 31-lia-E3 11 OOOA 00415 ORCHARD PARK RO R i A LANG KEVIN H LANO 415 ORCHARD PARK RO LONO LAKE m 55354 50 31-110-E3 13 0012 04220 NATERTCMI RO R AND J WYATT ROBERT J WYATT 4220 WATERTOIOI ROAD HAPLC PLAIN MN 55354 sa 31-lia-23 14 0002 00525 ORCHARD PARK R J HEESTRANO ET AL RANDALL J HEESTRANO 525 ORCHARD PARK RO LONG LAKE MN 55354 sa 31-lia-23 41 0001 04040 WATERTOWN RD T R I C M SHIEJA THOMAS R/CHRISTINE M SMIEJA 4040 WATERTOWN RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 51-lia-23 41 0005 040S5 WATERTOWN RO C P DALE A 6 L PAULSON CHRISTOPHER F DALE CERI L PAULSON 4085 WATERTOWN RO MAPLE PUIN m 55359 *. ! T ^ i i. ■ 38 31-118-23 11 000404185 SIXTH AVE N BRIAN L GRUIS BRIAN L GRUIS 4185 4TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 31-118-23 12 0012 04225 SIXTH AVE N W A MUELLER IPO MUELLER WILLIAM A I PEGGY A MUELLER BOX 3 LONG LAKE m 55354 38 31-118-23 13 0015 04225 WATERTOWN RD JAMES R PAODON . JAMES R PAODON • 4225 WATERTOm RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 14 0003 00505 ORCHARD PARK RO 0 F KOKESH I P J BENSON 0 F KCKESH I P J BE;^0N 505 ORCHARD PARK RD LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 31-118-23 41 0003 04045 WATERTOWN RO EARL N DORN ETAL EARL N OCRN 4045 WATERTOWN RO MAPLE PUIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 41 0008 04145 WATERTOWN RO M R I M E PLANK SALLY PLANK 327 NORTH CARRINGTON BUFFALO NY 82834 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 2338 31-118-23 11 COOS0C445 ORCHARD PARK RO JIM PICGEON JCm G I MAGDALEN M PIOGEON 10912 GLEN WILDING LA BLOOMINGTON MN 55431 38 31-118-23 12 0013 04235 SIXTH AVE N H AND S WYATT WILLIAM 0 WYATT 4235 N 4TH AVE LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 31-118-23 14 0001 00585 ORCHARD PARK RD 0 I H THO.^AS DONNELL 0 I HENRIETA THOMJ^ 585 ORCHARD PARK RO LONG LAKE MN 55354 c r 38 31-118-23 14 0007 04100 WATERTOWN RD FRANK KOKESH ET AL FRANK KOKESH 4100 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 41 Cna4 04105 WATERTOWN D GIGUERE I A GIGUERE PAKMALEE MARIE SAWCHUK 4105 WATERTOWN RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 1 58 31-118-23 41 0011 04115 WATERTOWN RO MICHAEL R I MARY E PLANK MICHAEL PLANK 327 NORTH CARRINGTON BUFFALO NY 62834 I RUN OATl OS/U/nMTCH BitRtoR kBtn CNNCR HAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR HENNEPIN CCXRITV PROPERTY INfORnATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LISTla SE-llS-25 >2 0002 OSfOO HATERTCMI RO ORCNARO PARR EARN INC ORCHARD PARK FARM INC StSO MATERTONN RO HAPLE PLAIN Itl 551S0 TOTAL iATCH 512 OOOlO 4 . Rcrarr no. pi435401PACE 2438 32-118-23-23-0009 38 32-118-23-23-0010480 Orchard Park Rd 460 Orchard Park Rd Richfield Bk/Trst CoTr Robert J & Lorraine E Roden Dexter & Jennifer Andrews R & L Roden 480 Orchard Park Rd 460 Orchard Park Rd Long Lake MN 55356 Long Lake MM 55356 • • » %rvO L L t • i ^ Or ' * ' V • • • > r. • . *» O' I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF HY KN0NLED6E ANO BELIEF. DATE '^/n/95, •4.’ ■ •••■ ■ T\ • * • ’ . \ *' ■ i ^. To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, Citv Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator Date:April 10, 1995 Subject:02005 Sailors World Marina. 1955 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing Zoning District: B-2 Pertinent Sections of the Code 1.Section 10.22. Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover. 0-75* setback area = 25.117 s.f. Approved hardcover per Resolution No. 2891 15,862 s.f. or 63.4% 75-250’ setback area = 6,100 s.f. Existing = 5.100 s.f. or 83.6% Section 10.41, Subdivision 7 (A) - Conditional use permit required for boat club (time share use) 3.Section 10.41, Subdivision 8 (A-I) - Parking requirements. Refer to Exhibit E. 1995 License Application. Required parking A. 8 stalls for retail use B. 45.6 or 46 stalls per 76 slips (excluded 3 slips - 1 company boat, 2 listed as other; license shows 10 slips for boat club and 66 rental slips) Total stalls required = 54 Existing = 41* * Approved per Application #1947 - Resolution No. 3478 (Refer to Exhibit H, additional parking is provided on weekends at the Minnetonka Art Center.) List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - Application Applicant’s Addendum Plat Map Property Owners’ List 1995 License Application 1995 Site Plan Parking Plan for Art Center Zoning File #2005 April 10. 1995 Page 2 of 3 H - Resolution No. 3478 Approving Variance for Storage Module and Loss of One I - Approved Landscape Plan - Approv-ed with Comprehensive Variance and Commercial Site Plan Application J - B-2 Ordinance 1-23-95 Description of Request Garv DeSantis of Sailors World is the first of our marina owners to file a conditional u^ pennit for boat club use under your new ordinance. Please refer to Exhibit B. the applicant s addendum that provides much needed background on the boat club use. Applicant Im also provided an analysis of parking needs based on the season, element of weather and days ^ week As for staff, it has been very helpful and is unfortunate that we did not have kind of input at the time we discussed the use during the ordinance amendment hearings. Pl^g Commission members mav have been able to develop additional standards that would have assisted future applicants and the City in the review of similar conditional use permits. The ordinance does list two standards that must be addressed with the contUtional use permit The first is landscaping. Review Exhibit I. Members may remembe. that an approved landscape plan already exists and was developed at the time of the compretensive land use review for the redevelopment of the marina property. The City currently holds a Develo^r s Agreement and Letter of Credit to cover the required landscaping improvements to be completed the spring/summer season of 1995. Note storage module has now been relocated to Stall 37. The second issue is parking. In the approval of Application #1947 that dealt with the relocation of the storage module on the property, the City approved a parking variance with the total stalls being now reduced to 41. As already noted above L. the factual findings, the total number of required stalls would be 54. The parking requirements are based on the number of stalls determined to be needed for a retail operation and on the total number of slips offered for rental use (76). Page 3 of applicant’s addendum. Exhibit B, notes as follows: "Keep in mind all parking snots are open with none used for service shop needs, retail inventory, used mventory, etc. as the namre of our business has been changed to facilitate this (meaning boat club/private customer use)." The license application. Exhibit E, notes on Page 3 their retail sales/service customer ux exists requiring 8 spaces. Applicant should clarify if private boat club members or renul slip customers only use the marine accessory retail operation and not the general public, this may be an issue for consideration. Eight spaces may not be needed based on the new pnvate c u format of marina operation. 1. Zoning File #2005 April 10. 1995 Page 3 of 3 This marina has alwavs operated with less than the rccjuired number of stalls needed to sen ice the number of rental slips. In recent applications (Applications #1874 and 1947) dealing with the installation of the storage module, the applicant was requited to obtam a fo^l agreement with another ptopett)’ owner, the Minnetonka Art Center, allowing for overflow parking on busy weekends. The applicant has provided his current parking use plan at the Art Center' with his 1995 license, review E.xhibit G. Issues for Consideration Does the current conditional use permit ask for a boat club at a maximum 60 member level or is the application for a total 100 member level? The marina has operated for the last three years with a boat club at 50 member level. The City can report no problems with parking. Would you approve a conditional use permit for a boat club use of 80 or 100? If it is the applicant’s intention to increase the number of boat club members, then an amended conditional use permit would have to be filed at the time of the filing of the license application. Do members find the parking needs analysis provided by applicant regarding the boat club use helpful in our determinations? If not, then Members should be prepared to address the special parking needs of a boat club. As for staff, they found Mr. DeSantis analysis very helpful based on his years of experience. Does the fact that the marina has additional parking available on weekends at the Minnetonka Art Center have any impact on your considerations? 4. Other issues raised by Planning Commission concerning parking needs for boat club use. What conditions should be placed on this first conditional use permit for a marina owner for a boat club use? Planning Commission members may consider one or more of the following: Conditional use permit should be limited to specific number of members. Applicant should be advised that any increases in members will require an amended CUP. 3. 1. 2. Should curfew hours be placed on boat club users? Does a member of the staff have to be available at final check-in time? The marina closes at 9:00 p.m. in the summer. Should the City be involved in establishing curfews? 3. 4. Parking attendant on duty on weekends when marinas are at their busiest to facilitate auxiliary parking at Art Center. Should a specific number of stalls be designated on site for boat club users only? 5. Others recommended by Planning Commission. CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAM) LS PROPERTY’LOCATION^ . s. / x /- rr-^o. Site Address SUgrc^ £>C ■ Type of Ap^.^;^.nnnfnh>»Filgd Vo TYtiW^i^/ -------------------- Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_______________________________ Name ^Loc,N ( Oni? Ch rOfiTT^ Address /)>■?_ < >. .V ' 7 6^ OWTsER (if different than applicMt) Namef^<ty c f* A/Ay/ 2>g' ^Ci\ Phone (home) tl-'/ 2 - V7/? - 6 ______Phone (woi Citv' =1; zi^r CtZ^Jh4C /3.' '7/ Y 3*^”^Rione (home) ^76~6»i~o^ Phone (woric) L^ -7 - 7 </V_^ Address <t' ^Zip ^ J r6> ijh^L )^cels dff land. T h/ FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 50.(X) For each variance request with CUP applicauon S125.00 Residential Accessory Use $200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $175.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $150.00 Duplex CrediPBldg y <Q_ $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use* $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $100.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation $175.00 Easement Vacation $ 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision * $300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ” $300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ” $100.00 Appeals ” Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROreRTY Present Zoning Districtfu/iiSMA Present Use of Property /if/|^3>(/,4Residential _Other (specify) (month/year) .-•rrv • w » ' ' . . ii’’ -y'V' x^rtJ's u •»k.‘ *y • . . ♦ ^ • t M Vt REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ___Completed Application Form. Describe rcQuest in detail. ,, . ^ -----Certified Propertv Owners List of owners within 350’ (you can obtain this list from ----- Hennepin County' Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). ----- Cen ^iTtc of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey Arach legal description to application if not included on requ^ survey. -----Topographic survey (e.sisting and proposed contoun) if land alterations involve chanscs in elevation (grades). • List of the leeal names (include marital sams) of all persons with an mterest in the ----- propertv This would include name(s) of appiicant(s) if not current owner(s). Constnirtion plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please anach a separate list of any other persons vou wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF vnn reproduction (ll" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENT SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Propeny Owner must sign this application. Plea« remember that your application is not complete if the above informav.un has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Und Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: -------—-------------------- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. /. 8. 9. 10. The*anSt^ tereby^Mn^s"m provide /l inforniation required or requested by the Zoning ^mWs^Z ««Is m Jay addTnal L (suT time not coveted by original fee paymem) ^/or unusual elpens^&urred £ revi/w of thjLiplicMion. and cerofies that the information supplied is true and cJ^t to thi b«t faf his/W^wledge. Date 2-M Applicant’s signam] SI^L*here*by Mk^Idges and agrees to this application entry onto the property bv City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Counc members for purposes of investigation and verificauon of this request. DateOwner’s signature ___________________—------------------ Applicant must have all submitlals into the City offtca 25 days before the Plt^g Coranission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an appliMM ^ Zoning Office please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend m your place and advise the Build g of this change prior to the meeting. March 21,1995 Subject; Orono City Variance RE; 1995 & Future Sailors World Boat Club Attention Planning Commission: Pace I 1 1 • 0 r- ^ V Please review the following information pertinent to the requirement you have imposed making it necessary for a conditional use permit for a Boat Lease or Rental Club. 1 appreciate your willingness to work with the local Marinas and I will be working at continuing to offer the finest all new Marina in aU of Orono. After meeting with Mike Gatfron Febmary 27, 1995 he suggested 1 describe to you our Boat Club parking needs and general Boat Club use. Before I begin I want to express my disappointment in the Cities revision to make Boat Clubs a conditional use as this goes against the logic of over 40 years of Boat Rentals at this business site. This should be an allowable use based on presenting adequate parking and 1 feel very uncomfortable putting the ftiture of my business & family in the the hands of City Governments Conditional Use!! I believe most of the problem is you don't fiilly understand the Boat Club concept and when I provide now written and later oral explanation you will better understand why my above comments are justified. However, I respect Michael Gatfrons opinion that when I demonstrate to the City Planners the facts about the Boat Club that I will not have to be worried that every year my business could be subject to extinction M I look forward to working with you and don’t want to give you the impression that 1 will be unreasonable or don't want to cooperate with the City and its residents. On the contrary I live in Orono, employ some of its children and love the community & people and will do everything I can to continue to improve my business to meet the standards that make it an asset to the community. With all the new improvements on this site to make it affordable for me and my family my future income sources rely heavily on the Boat Club Lease or Rental concept. Page 2 To begin with a "Boat Club" is nothing more than a fancy tarn for Seasonal Boat Rental or Lease" The primary difference being that it would be a seasonal rental or lease on the equipment rather than daily rental. As a result the standard of boat operator is one who is better trained within in the frame work of the club and a safer more responsible user We have US Coast Guard Auxiliary Instructors teach our members in conjunction with the I lennepin County Water Patrol rules of the road format. The Boat Club member is typically a local or neighboring resident who does not live nght on the Lake but would like to have the privilege of boating tvithout having to own a boat. Because he is a seasonal user and very offtn a member of this very community the respect for the Boau Lake & Community is and has been the last three years a proven reality. Rather than having a 40 to 50 boat single day rental Heel of fishing boats or pontoons with random users we have a total of 1 0 to 1 2 runabouts, pontoons and sailboats We do this to ge a seasonal rental commitment out of a controlled number of people each year^ As a re»lt we are not trying to attain needed income and provide parking from a fleet of 40 or 50 that come and go alternately morning, afternoon & evenings so you turn this fle« of 40 or 50 two or three times a day with parking requirements that get excessive and uncontrollable to say the least. Normal Boat Club users go out for the day and return in the evening so parking is easy to control. The controlled parking situation the Boat Club offers is on of the main reasons we have gone to this type of Lease Rental If you have 12 boats your dealing for parking and Manna parking requirements for only that fleet of 1 2 not 40 or 50 We will not allow our Boat Club members to come with excess cars and can control this How could you control people from bnnging excess cars if you have a 40 to 50 boat fleet of daily rentals coming & going from 5 .00 tn the morning until 10:00 at night ? As I said This is one of the main reasons why we do the Boat Club concept so we can handle the parking requirements far easier making the concept fit my needs and the Cities requirements. We also control the groNsth of the Boat Club concept by capping membership each year so we know exactly what we are dealing with in terms of members and our ability to manage it. We currently have approx 50 members & will cap this year at approx. 60. Our facUity appem to be able to handle around 100 members or more as we balance the traffic and use by simply leaving a certain number of slips open by not renting them to the annual slip renters. The great thing a out the Boat Club is we can make up lost income in slip rentals and control the right balance of rente slips. Boat Club slips and open slips to accommodate needed income, parking and facility use. Page 3 You %vill sec later how the combination of Boat Club Slips & Rental Slips add up in terms of needed parking Our Club offers weekday only and full week boating We are encouraging weekday memberships which spread out parking requirements more during the less busy weekdays when it is never a problem. To understand the Boat Club usage you must realize we work with a certain number ot boats to members ratio. We currently operate with a 7 1 ratio or 7 members to every one Boat As 1 mentioned earlier because the Boat Club is in such demand we can impose parking restrictions limiting members to use of one car etc and really exercise control over the parking that you could not in a large 40 to 50 Daily Rental Boat Fleet The other nice thing about the Boat Club is we can adjust ratios upward so we need less slips and parking per member & offer boating at^other locations to make up the difference so its fair to them ( Exaggerated example if you had 20 members & one boat you assume parking for one boat & one slip and Boat Club members only need parking when they are using the boat & when its out only one member uses parking at a time so its one for one with slip renters its one boat one renter one slip one parking spot with the club its one slip one boat one parking spot & 7 members or whatever ratio that you adjust so you can partially control your parking requirements.) 1 beliex e 1 ha% e dev eloped a good understanding of the parking needs at this business site since my involvement here since 1973 when it was then called Paul's Landing with between 40 & 50 single rental units consisting of fishing boats & pontoons Please review the following estimations and facts relating to the yearly parking needs of Sailors World Boat Club, Dock Slip Renters, On & Off Season Retail. In our Boat Club our seasonal contract use dates are May 15 - Oct. 15.1 will only address Weekend parking situations considering a prime season from June 1 - Sept. 4 and off season May 1 - May 31 & Sept. 5 - Oct 15 Keep in mind all parking spots are open with none used for service shop needs, retail inventory, used inventory etc. as the nature of our business has been changed to facilitate this. Adjustments are needed to accurately portray parking needs in regards to: 1) Allocation of total prime season verses Pre- or Post season week end days. (And Holidays) In three years doing the Club early season boating in May & late season boating in Sept. & Oct has been about 50% less use on weekends compared to prime season June-August (Reason being kids still in school and weather less desirable). . 2) A bad weather % deducted in both prime & non prime season week end days. It seems that a close estimate would be 25% of entire season weekends either rain out, or too cold or windy. Page 4 To illustrate the real issue tvhere parking requirements are a valid concern we must breakdown the up coming season as follows: Total 1995 week end days where parking is an issue of concern Pre- Pnme season .................6 daysMay 13 - ................................................................................... Sept. 2 - Oct. 15 Post Season.......................................................................... Total 1995 week end prime davs & Holidays w here parking is an issue of concern ..................24 daysJune 3 - August 27........................................................................ May 29 (Monday) Memorial day....................................................................... ^ July 3,4 (Monday -Tuesday) 4th of July............................................................. ^ Sept. 4 (Monday) Labor Day............................................................................ Total Weekend & Holidays where parking is a concern................ 48 days Bad weather factor approximately 25 % deduction.......................iHito Approximate seasonal average Week End & Holidays where parking is an issue.... ^ days out of 365 days annually. Parking requirements for Boat Club & Dock Slip Renters are determined in regards to i!|^ slips at Sailors World. Our dock plan indicates a total of 79 slips that we have to deal m regards to parking. For the record only 75 slips are usable for either Slip Renters or Boat Club. Of the other 4 slips off the Sea Wall 2 of these slips are only 12 feet long and 2 are located outside with only two tie up points and arc used primarily for servicing break down towed in traffic, limited Slip Rental and Boat Club service or our work boat tie up. The following table approximates Slip Renters & Boat Club parking needs based on 1995 Boating season consisting of Prime Season Week End & Holidays with % deduction adjustments for bad weather & pre- & post prime season use. We find that approx. 25% of the total Summer Boat Club use is lost on weekends due to bad weather. We also find approx. 50% less uses ocau m the Boat Club earlier in May & later in Sept. & Oct. Prime Season when the kids arc out of school & the weather warms up is from approx. June 10 - Sept. 4 when weekend use is aroun 100%. (Please read comments on Page 6_before you review table to better understand). Pace 5 *HnAT CLL B A SLIP RENTFRS PARKING TABLE r PS. - PiRK!\CSPOTS ES - EUtLi SHAStfS LS - UTESKiSO\ « H UT-iTHElt rX - UTES E\D). CSS. • SUPS KE.\TEKS SC “ lUftT CU St Cuirentlv @ 60 members 80 members 100 members ( 7; 1 ratios or 9 boats & slips) (11 boats & slips) (14 boats & slips) Mav 15-31 9 X 1.50 for 50^^o of members (with 50 % ded. driving 2 cars = 13 50 PS E.S. use) 13 50 x 50 for E S = 6 75 P S 6.75 X 25% bad weather ded. 11 X 1 50= 16 50 16 50 P S X 50% E.S =8 25 P S X 25 B W = approx 6 25 P S /AV E. 14 X 1 50=‘21 21 P S X 50% E S = 10 50 PS X.25 = approx. 10 P.S. = .approx 4 P S needed/weeke nd June 1 - Sept. 4 9 x 1 50 for 50® o of members 11 X 1 50= 16.50 driving 2 cars — 13 50 P S. 16 50 P.S. X 25% B.W. 13 50 x 25®/o bad weather ded =12. 13 P S /W.E = 10 - 11 P S needed/'weekend 14 X 1.50=21 21 P S x 25 B W = 16P S.AV E. Sept 5.- Oct. 15 9 X 1.50 for 50®/o of members driving 2 cars = 13 50 P.S approx. 6.25 F.S.AV.E. 13.50 X .50 L.S =6 75 P S 6 7S X 25%B W =4 P S/W E. approx. 10 P S AV E. May 15-31 66 S R x 20= 13 2P S/WE 64 SR x.20= (slip rentals W E (ADD 10 for Boat Club & Slip 12 8P S AVE. 61 S.R. x .20 « 12 2P.S.AV.E, use last 2 yrs avg. Renters Memorial Weekend only), approx 20 % E.S & 30®/o prime season). June 1 - Sept. 4 66 S R x .30= 20 P.S.AV.E. 64 S R x 30= 19P.S.AV^ (ADD 15 for Boat Club & S.R. 4th of July Week end). 61 S.R. X .30 =18 3 P.S.AV.E. Sept 5 - Oct 15 66 9 R X 20= 13.2 P.S.AV.E. 64 S R. x 20= 12.8 P.S.AV.E. 61 S.R. x .20 =172PSAV.E. HIGHEST 31 P.S. for B.C & S.R. 32 P.S. for B.C. & S.R 34 P.S. for B.C- S.R TOTAUiOSLY 41 Memorial Wknd. 42 Memorial Wknd. 46 July 4th Wknd. 46 July 4th Wknd. 47 July 4th Wknd. 49 July 4th Wknd. Page 6 We issue SW parking passes to be displayed on dash board of car at all times to determine and control Slip Renter & Boat Club Member parking so we get tl -*m to come in - c*. most of the time For the sake of argument we will increase the Boat Club member parking by 50*/o OR 1 5 PARKING ST/VLLS NELDED FOR EACH This is a very liberal figure to demonstrate that although we can control the parking what would HAPPEN IF WE INCREASED THE NEED DRAMATICALLY. Even though it doesn't happen we will use an example where on a given day one out of every two Boat Club Members will come in two cars. In summation after 20 years on & off this business site I would like to express I feel we have found our niche and best mixture of Marina use for this property to best be able to meet all City requirements As I have stated in our previous Marina meetings I believe the city should view each Marina as a unique business with unique requirements Parking , Landscaping, Lake access & Services all vary in each location and each should be treated and can b« on an individual basis to meet City requirements I wouM appreciate your preaenl & fluufe recommei.aations for approval of this vanance as Boat Club income is such a vital need to assure our future ability to offer a Marina that all of Orono can be proud of Sincet 'GidV De^antis Sailors World, Inc. BtJN OATt 01/0V93 MTCM OOt MllACflNf 1 *.1 >MK» ABM CBtCR NUC TAXRAVfRNAHE/AOOR SB 10-117-n 42 00«5 OmO SHOKLINI OB R C SnCRNA I P A snc'.iA ROBCRT C A PATRICIA STIERNB SnO SHORELINE OR HAYZATA m 55391 ft > . ». ;v* Mm ' (Mmn mm ! < J • iwmn t. NANE/AOMI SB 10*117-2S 42 0014 019S5 SNORELlNi OR SAILORS MORLO HTKA MARINA A YACNT CLUB INC 1955 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA m 55391 ^4 I * J Aim ONNCR mm TAXPAYfR NAHE/ADOR ■I so 10-117-23 42 0022 01940 SHMELINE OR SMITH'S OAY MARINA INC SMITN’S BAY MARINA INC 11700 HAYZATA BLVO HIMCTCMCA M4 55343 3 1 •’ •* % ’ ; t * . • . . I r. 0 * * •'TlvirvV'v . • - • f'. • : • • ' *.• . :.. v • ^ . i-.• . • • •I : • .; •• s> .y;• . A • • • • • m ^ • i ’ i ■k*-'. • . • ^ • »•,• . •• .. . . . . * • •/ / • ,!■» •. • • •• I . • • • • 4 i O 4 . O'i- . • . - ■ ■ ; .*•: ‘ •>• ft cni«ti rr..»«.i>rY ItaUMItATlKI SY5TLII paOPCSIY UH&RS LIST REPUR1 NO. T-lHlStOl PJU» 7so 10-117-23 42 0007 01940 Si«»ELim OR A R NETTLES A A T NETTLES ALAN NETTLES A «*« NETTLES 1940 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA m 55391 so 10-117-23 42 0012 01950 SHORELINE OR C A M i CASTELLON CAMILO A MARIA L CASTELLON 1950 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA TM 55391 so 10-117-23 42 0015 00030 ADDRESS LtUSSICUEO J V SPATES ETAL MTKA MARINA A YACHT CLUB INC 1955 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 SB 10-117-23 42 0021 01900 SPATES AVE 0 CREAR A H B CREAR DANIEL CREAR 1900 SPATES AVE HAYZATA M4 55391 TOTAL BATCH 002 00007 ■ t X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE •' REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY RNOHLEOCE AND BELIEF. ^ DATE 9 4 •% K) 1,1 ) o rr- m i'-- .c I k 1 I• c: • I * V. t • .*• . - f*. / *.*.• • • T • I • i I •• *• r* ft ft ft •/ I :*.• 9 • ^ /i i \ • ,*■ 4 .• • «» I• •«• • o . *.. » • . 4‘ • * •' •• :i. « • 1 • . • < •.} *o 1 CITY OF ORONO License Year P o Box 66, Crjstal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Phone 473-7357 • • • w Date application sent to Manna _j;:-------------- rn\L%[FRri.U P'jrsuani to Orono Municipal Code ^ business use without first having olatamed •;. unlawful for any persons to engage or pamupai a license thercior froin the C.ty ,. .xcMC s\D SUBMIT SIGNED APPUCATION, REQUIRED FEBRL 'JIY 2S OF THE UCENSE \ E*\R. p, «^ps.-yrgg rVFORMATTQ>i 1. BUSINESS OR TRADE NAME ■ < . w . *i 3. rLcfS iOo^/^L) 21^1 C Street AddressMJuingTddrcsTlilllllSIlSSr/ NIarinaPhonefciilV2£EiWi-------Off.cePhoae ,s>«^c ----------- OWNERSHIP/OPERATION c T-U.. / De Fee Owner (if different than above) ---------d——----- - _ /it./ CC^^l p.„. UM-‘^’U o-GSOO_----------------------------------------------------------- business ORGANIZATION: (Check applicable item) individual ownership ____ partnership _,2S- <totP°W'™ List the name of each partner or corporate officer and their title: Name of the marina manager responsible for daily operation: Ch<.Wl ‘^.Aiv'-rtS List tb.e minimum number of employees on duty when the marina is open to the public during boating season. 6 dock attendants __L «pair or service personnel others available for sales/public information, etc. Page 1 of 5 List even' short or long term noted above: (Sj business occupant of the property other than the Business 4. 5. PRINCIP.^L BUSINESS ACTIMTY (Check all principal Lses in-water slip rental ^ sales of boats/motors/trailers/ marine accessories boat repair and servicing V on-land boat storage ^ V winter __summer marine fuel sales sale of bait and fishing tackle rnnriitional (rnnditional Use Ppi-mit IS Reauiredl services offered): Accessory X XX boat club public boat launching, on-demand ~ public boat launching, transient rhnrter boat portipfiCall caretaker dwelling_unit head pumpout fishing tournament site sale of pre-packaged food dive shop clubhouse (for slip or boat club customers) lessons/teaching boat rental sailboard sales/rental ____iceboat sales/rcnial ice fishing tackle sales cross-country ski sale/rental business SCHEDULE (Check appropnate items): V „ open during boating season only X open all year ------ tc.M tn oPM List proposed hours of operation; dock access f' - ^ retail sales ^ ^ & servic: _3_ AM to _S. PM 6, MARlNASECURlTYisprovidedby: OirOri^—SS- caretaker living on site? /V) c? nu"n " and site plan submined with this application. * • -* ■* • 7.boats stored in the water (for lake use) At dock slips Total Boats in Water a. Company Owned I Renal Slips/ Other Tool Boats i£. lO Spaces Jit 4- ^(o Cj — -^-3— Page 2 of 5 8.BOATS STORED ON LAND FOR l-\KE USE las ids Buildingsa. b. c. Outsids on Racks Outside - other means Total Boats Stored on Land for Lake Use 9.TOTAL BOATS FOR L\KE USE (Add 7 and S) 19 OTHER BOATS ON PREMISES (SUMMERS a Transient boats (repair/service) b. New boats for sale (inventory) c. Used boats for sale (inventory) d. - Building Outside Building ' / Other (list; Total OTHER BOATS ON PREMISES (WINTER) Transient boats (repair/scrv'ice) Contract storage (customer’s boats) Inventory (new & used boats) Tncide Building Total niifside Building a. b. c. d. Other (list:35 Total Total nFF-STP^^fT PARKING REQUIREMENTS 12.SUMMER PARKING a. Retail sales/service customers 8 spaces minimum (+1 per each 800 s.f. over 1,s.f.)i b.Boating customers , ^ = c. d. 6 spaces per 10 boats for lake use [.6 x Launching ramp customers (day use) 10 spaces minimum per ramp = Chaner boat port-of-call spaces 3 y spaces spaces spaces e. 1 space per each 3 seats of gross chaner boat capacity [gross chaner capacity x 0.33] = /^~2-spaces Total spaces required (add a. b, c, & d) ^ ^,55 Total spaces available per attached parking plan WINTER PARKING REQUIRED 0.20 X (line I2e) Ho spaces a. Paee 3 of 5 pnrr rnvcTRLCTlON 14.▼ r XV all that APPLY: Permanent Seasonal Pilings: Decking: V Wood ____ Concrete Metaly Wood De-icing normally used Metal ____ Other____ Other _______________ Flotation Mediod (if used):Foam Barrels Other f irFNSF ADVISQRX J c,»rfinn 5 43 shall be subject to the requirements and of Th Zomng D..ric.'and por U,o fo.lowiog business use license standards: A Jnsurar^^EauiESL Each business shall provide certification of liability insurance coverage for the deration of the license period. B. C. u ,.4 Th^ nrimarv business operator on the property shall be the ut-slSi oi" conformance wid. dte provU.oos of the B-2 zoning district standards. candards. Each business licensee shall adhere to the following minimum operation standards: , ,i cn as to eliminate traffic or traffic through neighboring property. 2) Boat engine testing mui charging shall be limited to the hours 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. premises stored boats. 4) The site shall be kept neat and orderly, and free of garbage. 5) On land storage of boats shall be managed so as to eliminate y obstructions for traffic entering and leaving the sue. 6) Parking and on-land storage of boats, trailers, plan which be limited to those locations shown on an approve ^ application, plan shall be submitted or updated as part of the am " Such site operation plan shall also indicate seasona y 7) Lights shall be shielded from the road, the lake, and adjacent properties. Page 4 of 5 ctr- • ^r-^R-'Zcne Mo business use shall be licensed in any zoaingdistri Business LV T ’censes 1 ’mir*n rr> p r ^ • »ll^3v^ed bv ordinance in another zoning district, other than B-2. except that whea a , l,„nse. such use conducted in said distnct shall n rn the above business use license standards shall be cause Ucehte RevccatigtL of thts chapter, for license suspension or rcvctaiion p P A.TT\CH>rFVTS t- n- The following must accompany ^ ap_pication.^ ^ indicating the boundaries of 1. CERTIFIC.XTE OF the location of all structures, storage the manna propeny and the pumps and tanks, parking areas, access areas, docks, slips, •’“oys. ac ‘ ^^e drawins shall be updated each year to show areas, fencing and f previous season, and any changes proposed tor all e.xistmg taci.ities. all changes tr p ^ , injjcate the locations ot the duration of the current ^ ° winter storage and required winter parking spac-s. 2. CERTI^C.^TE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE for the duration of die license period. 3. 4. Copy of your LMCD LICENSE APPLICATION.Copy or your ------------ CONLMERCIAL MARINA UCENSE APPUCATION FEE according to the current City fee schedule. _ rt 5 Initial Application @ 5300^^ 5 OO.'W Renewal Application @ S.t.00.00 ^ ------- Late Fee (if not postmarked by February 28) S100.(X) D^yO total due this APPUCATION pfvtf W procedure _ CouncU wUl review the license application and -pHF, w.ptva May OPEN F-P°-""cusf ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THmCEHSE pv TT4F CITV COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5 .43 of the Orono Municipal Code, iheapplic^t Page 5 of 5 /^UU SO A y 0\f A A O/U ^A/I^Sc<IcA^^ \ i5L^ 'XT lU'l*' ,.ii J‘ v-i: mi V^0 .Vl'•: i .^j... 'I • r] k*. *r^ .•••T.i. C^*. 'i r{»ii\\'‘''1 *^^»«'*;»a*V*• V'•" i*****'^^ *(^ k i:»‘< irJ*I'jy'.'-. i/5 *">i i? i»>5 ^ / litMJ(/PAI pO.M / •*^i (lNIV«9).m»M 7Kf3IV IIVMtIII SinWOlVIN ■1.,__ & \f». •./r/i L/‘ 0y © ’ IT / m m ' rlCl^-L /,UV>l>i^«U ti 3C0«/0^«/ \\ •" iT^ ‘i. ^.‘1""7«| / }T. ^tP*3J 'W, ©© h A .* 1...^ •••♦ v' 6^'>< / i^''f ’ oA‘'«yi';.:3. © \©' i,ii "■' • .*:orzj ...V P-o-'a •'" \ \ - -V- C£n T^^ xA/L sn fidBo^ SXr- ifl j^^'' miMWCTtyxlc A- J OuiiJi>’^j- rn^iTcc ^Ti'bio "IrviH+v^ I 4> -I piu •>',„',U''”5^» u*^’- . . a^'*' C'l’l r^^^l S» 1 '’''... • ..V-. .vs.. '{/_• /\/gb^. fo /iT)r^/^. 1^1^ zctat^.s: o. ktdk^Be.i4^ sr. T^fn -----------------—— 2. f^ec & Lodes.) ^ oTc^ci Shj'^^ ^vfsh Sc W|f «/il C/^<, J. ^AVC yJ3i ,<v4 M’.lor^ tOocLb o o CITY of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE Cm COUNCIL sIWhoT ^ • ^ ,i NO.^ 4i t n A RESOLimON GRANTING variances to Na^TCIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.41, SLEDEV ISION 5 (.A), SECTION i SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 10 (D), XSD foR SAILORS WORLD. INC. file #1947 Drivrw!^ ^ Ciiy of oLo (heromaftor -U,c Ci^-) and legally described as follows; E.xhibU A. anached (hereinafter "the property"); and tvHFUFAS on Seotember 13. 1993 the City council approved Resolution #3371 ihat granted va'S’^.lo^ ^ILullation of an 8’x20' accessory storage module to be located within parking stall 34; and WHEREAS the applicant has tiled an amended variance application that ® * seeE to relocatlT^l^m^ within m ^lip" " Co^eTecdon"srd^visi^^^^^^^ 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L) Subdivision 10 (Dl^o permit^achange^n me which contains ^,100 ' u^dcover would normally be allowed, and for a vanance o/an amended commercial site plan to allow the installation of said storage m Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE. BE FT RESOLVED by the City CouncU of Orono. Page 1 of 9 CITY of ORONO RESOLLTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL xn 3 4 78 3. findings 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1947. '* The Orono Citv Council er-nied variances and approved an amended conmercial site plan for the applicant (Zoning Application #1874) rer Resolution #3371 on December 13. 1993- Pursuant to that resolution, thr storage module has been temporarily placed within stall 34 but applicant has received complaints from property owner to the west noting visual impact upon lake views. The applicant has filed the current application in order to seek approval of an amended variance application with the purpose of reloc iting the storage module in another parking stall that would lessen the visual impact upon the lake views cf the property owner to the west. I Al the Council meeting of August 22, 1994 Council approved the use of eith« Stalls 37 or 38 because of their alignment behind the priir.ipal structure on the property. Council’s recommendation was based on the following findings: A. Placement of the structure within either stalls 37 or 38 will minimize impact upon lake views of residence to the immediate west. B. Struemre will be located out of the lakeshore setback area. C. Relocation to either stall 37 or 38 will not result in the loss of additional stalls. D. Less visual impact upon users of adjacent County Road as only 8 side would be expos** i to roadway. E. There will ue no sighting problems al intersection. 5 Noted in the earlier review for Application #1874, in order to compemate loss of the single parking stall which reduces the number of ^ ^ 42 were approved, the ^ plicant has provided a letter from ^ narking Center located approximately 1/4 miles west of the marina for overflow parkmg use. Page 2 of 9 fvmtm 5ttC- J> CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ ^ 8______ cT/; 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Tne proposed relocation for storage module wiihm either parking stalls 37 or 38 will place the structure out of the lakeshore setback zones of Doth the City of Orono and the DNR. The location of the storage module at 10’ from the Count>' Road 15 right-of-way where a 50’ setback is normally required, is a location that is extremely visible from said roadway and therefore visual screening of the module by use of eversreen rvpe vegetation is imperative to reduce the negative visual impacts. Based on the intent of Municipal Code Section 10.41, Subdivision 7 (B) required landscape areas shall not be used for the storage of boats, equipment, or materials. The proposed storage module will provide storage such that none of the landscape areas per the approved site plan for this facility need not be encumbered with storage of any kind. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or m.>rt the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants the variauces as set lo.'ii above and approves the proposed amendment of Resolution 4^3371 that approved the placement of an 8’x8 ’x20 ’ storage module within parking stall 34 and now grants a variance that would allow the relocation of said storage module within either stalls 37 or 38, subject to the following conditions; Page 3 of 9 D -.* CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 4 7 8______ 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. One 8’x8’x20’ storage module may be relocated within either parking stalls 37 or 38 per the site plan anached to this resolution as page number 8. The City Council reserves the right to reconsider and revise this approval at a future time if the storage module becomes a nuisance. The storage module shall be free standing and shall have no foundation in order VMM' to preserve its mobility. The storage module shall be screened from street view by an integrated landscape plan, page 9 of this resolution, and that shall include evergreen plantings of a size and spacing to provide at least a 50% screening of the module in the first year, with potential in three years to be 100% screened along the County Road 15 side (west) and the north side. Screening shall not be allowed to interfere with required sighting distance for vehicles entering and exiting the property. The module shall remain on the site only as long as an off-street parking agreement with the Art Center or other entity remains in effect. In conjunction with the approval of this storage module, no storage of materials, equipment, or boats shall occur in any of the non-hardcover landscape areas indicated on the site plan. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constimte a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this amended resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 4 of 9 fvm im C U CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8478 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 10th dav of October, 1994. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of October, 1994 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. M'l LINDA S. VEE r.'OTAFiY PU8UC • MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNT!' My ccmir.iMicn expIrM 6-12-t8 Notary Public Page 5 of 9 rn500$ r A CITY of ORONO IV RESOLUnON OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 4 7 S_____ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this q ai dav of 06 ce'ty^h 199 U before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared beSar^-hs^ ^ct^nar- known to me to be the persoii(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. LISDA S. VET. J f.CTAPY PUBUC - MlNNHSCTA > HEMNEPIN COUNT/ ! :> V My comnviMicn expires 0> 12-96 t J • ./. i/A NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared _______________________known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page S of 9 S4 EXHIBIT A * ^9 •• m * I Cotnnxencing at the intersection of the North line of Central Avenue extended Easterly with Easterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 7 thence Northeasterly 42 degrees 15 minutes East 120.5 feet to actual point of beginning thence South 57 decrees 45 minutes East 29.04 feet thence North 37 decrees 50 minutes East 130 feet to the i.ntersection of North line of Grand Avenue extended Easterly thence North 55 degrees 45 minutes West 18 feet thence Southwesterly 42 degrees 15 minutes West 131.5 feat to beginning includi.'.g accretions,. "ORA PARK" ON LAKE MINNETOtJKA", Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property"); and Page 7 of 9 — t *r »f<’< f-**' *''•'r’""*' «'■'* * V ry . -— __ __ } \/ ____ ----------VII-------- - ’ ..... £"sT@' hr l»/tr f\9i —asas- --^hr-uk Mfe. av>»i> — ~ ... I 0%... ^K t \ \ ••••*%-. t :no \ i3'l". V; 1 trft''0\en pnti'C X' V f-•% • • ' >1 *)V 'MV . \( n^««»»»«<5.Arfx ('^fc^f\\\ \ \ vt* =»I .i;,\.<no h.v%i»iPM.'erc)J\ I ---------\ \\\ • ■ ,v ,«;• • m ^ * f ix r . ' '* * x.^v'i n t 1 .V..** "A__i^.f .vI^^^ l^i«» fflfe f • -V Xn\\C\^^y- Sj^.\ # /. t • .1,... .. ■ UXjr.jJ^ j‘V’ - 5 —‘-----------i" 1/ I ^ -y•'•' 0 '•t * :: U • •'31 r*. .V. *S ( TO m •I •.. • • •*A5-.- I % •\ ■Wyy^ ■• “ «r!; X W\.V'» —.• V • I ^. ..... 4 , . \ • / .*>. ..• .V '. .: .•; i-.-- rv! ••• ♦!... ■ * .'i •• ■• .;iV.-i ^ .♦'. •. —.» . %*«.■•••••■ mm 0^ • •. •. • ».. . • . , Z - ,> 8 4 78 • » V.\. t • $ • « ■IE ^ iw^fficr V'- -^ ,- ^;5w.k/w...a,^ -SS^Uc ^ V|M«e<e<^ nKA<«v W<r9«Kfiv )c^V«y**r V-.. ^ ^ >i\. '*^iMi! •*».*v / <^1 A’/WkU- iMUvi. /)»^,7 ■Sv-vn.14- -v>.-..i.,»|iL^fO Il-flO'V -AtVll U^vM-Aire^s. V ly~My\* W^* t4fn>-f i'.»Vt ■ “U .l*ii *i>«r»'*K- -A^ t=Uu6.iR>)(T V/Ali^ AiifJuw ftowu^ { To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator April 13. 1995 #2007 Tony Eiden Company, 2800 Countryside Drive West - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.03. Subdivision 19 List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - Application Plat Map Property Owners’ List Weckman Memo 4/5/95 Survey of Developed Lot Topographic Map Gustafson Report 4/13/95 Description of Request The applicant has begun to install an L-shaped berm between the shared lot lines of Lots 1 and 2. Block 2, Old Crystal Bay Road Addition. Both of the lots abut Watertown Road along their north lot line. Review Exhibit F. The majority of the runoff from the east flows through Lot 2 and eventually to Lot 1. The berm has been placed very close to the principal septic test sites on both lots. Weckman asks in his memo, Exhibit D, to readjust placement of the berm so that there is a 20 ’ setback adjacent to each drainfield site in order to provide enough area to direct surface water away from the drainfields. Unfortunately, the current proposal directs all runoff from the east between the house and the alternate septic site on Lot 1. The house on Lot 1 is a walkout design. The City is concerned that flooding problems will result with the current proposal. The City Engineer has inspected the site noting that if the drainage pattern proposed is to continue that it would be necessary to create a swale between the house and the ftitore drainfield sites to restrict flooding of the lower level of the residence. WeekmM asks for a ditch along Watertown Road to redirect drainage. The Engineer is concerned that this would not work because of the location of the remaining berms approved with the subdivision and also a potential impact upon the City’s bike trail. The only other alternative avaUable would be to redirect drainage along the shared lot lines of Lots 1 and 2 to Countryside Drive West. Zoning File #2007 April 13, 1995 Page 2 The Engineer in his report. Exhibit G, asks that the swale to the rear of the residence (Lot 1) have a mininium slope of 2 percent. The Cii\ will ask for a drainage easement over the swale because of the need to protect the drainageway. He also notes that the east side can be graded so that as much of the runoff as "practical" can be directed along the shared lot line of Lots 1 and 2 to Countryside Drive West. Staff Recommendation Per Weckman’s request we ask that the berms be altered so that there is a minimum 20’ setback from principal drainfield sites in Lots 1 and 2 in order to redirect surface runoff away from drainfields and as noted in City Engineer ’s report. Your recommendation should also include the condition that based upon the final resolve of the redirection of drainage that applicant must provide an amended/detailed grading plan to be drafted by a licensed engineer or landscape architect reflecting the altered berm and the method to redirect drainage away from septic and residence structure. The City will ask for a drainage easement over the swale in Lot 1. JJ- 5?-Ti 4**" C: U CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPUCATION PROPERTY LOCATION -t" , • 0, Sice Address ------ Typeo PropeiTV' Identincaiion Number (P.I.D.) APPLIC.ANT , Name U^-i Address «-l I Of- Phone (home') A^“2-^*4 Phone (^vprk) 5 ^ ^6 2.-S 1 Tin.’ - Zip—S ^4'4 ‘-W- 0\VNER (if different chan applicant) Name_____________________ Phone (home\ Phone (work) Address City Zip_ . f(dor(do^St) a?so own the ]^a«m parcels of lan^ (month/year) • ‘"°sToT^tt wi'*' CW app.ica.ion $125.00 Residential Accessory Use $200.00 Instimiional (church, school, etc.)^^.UU.UU luautuuiwiittA V ' $175.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ~ $150.00 Duple.x Credin'Bldg ~ $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration „ . , • Grading and filling - designated weUand or floodplamgs •g.sr'jir.a zsy "T*rv **< •«#*u ,4 4 i vf w; \U'itu a, . f| ' ^')Cv u ■ U te ■ ^ > PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $100.00 Renewal Fee (no change from onginal application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee . v« V i J v yv v;_ • • 1 w •» CHECK JL HECEIi' i~ . rdi. ^EEliBO .XI x:ji: ‘m* * M M OTHER '^200*TO™^creial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ^ $250.00 Vacation ^ $175.00 Easement Vacation $ 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) • k.____ ^ ^$300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ” $100.00 Appeals " Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPER Drac/ani Zoning District iv.iC* iPresent Zoning Distnct Present Use of Property___^^Residential Other (specify). REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Completed Application Form. CeSfied ProM^rVowSi List of owners within 350’ (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center. 348-3271). CenificTte of Sui^ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for surv'ey information. . . ^ ^ • j Attach lesal description to application if not mcluded on res 'ired survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land 'erations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the lesal names (include marital sams) of all pepons with an m* rest in th property. This would include name(s) of applicants) if not current owntav-L Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. vnil ARF REQUIRED TO SUTPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY SiS's - « s submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been mcluded. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete Initials of Clerical Staff:________________________—---------------- "uSai expenses « in revie;^|his application, and certif.es ttu. tiK .nformauon supplied is true and corr^cT^ the best knowledge. Applicant’s signature Date S^wner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this appliation and further entry onto the propertv^y City staff.^^nsultants, agents^ cjJ^Bswn members, and Council members for purposi :rty by City statt, cn investigation/fii uzn Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Com^ion cSmiSsion Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present a f I review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a sch^u please make arrangements to have an authorized agent anend in your place and advise Building & onmg cf this change prior to the meeting. i hb ^ jL.-rXTvrxT' } MM DATf 0S/07/9SMTCN 502 PiOP AOOO OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR filMER NAME TA)»AYCR NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAf« TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OMIER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR (»MER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO 0A-117-2S 12 OOOY 02800 COUNTRYSIOE OR H ORONO LXHZTEO PARTNERSHIP TONY EIOEN COMPANY AlOO BERKSHIRE LA PLYHOUTN MN 55AAA S8 OA-117-25 12 0016 02775 COUNTRYSIOE OR H ORONO LIHITEO PARTNERSHIP TONY EIOEN COMPANY 4100 BERKSHIRE LA PLYMOUTH HN 55446 58 04-117-25 21 0005 02845 HATERTONN RO MICHAEL J FITZPATRICK ET AL niCHAEL/PATRICXA FITZPATRICK 2845 HATERTONN RO LONG LAKE MN 55556 Si /5-118-25 45 0001 . MATERTOFM RO wKaEPH H ROSCH JOSEPH H ROSCH 6906 JAMES AVE S RICHFIELD m 55425 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY fSVOMUTION SYSTiN PROPERTY OHt«RS LIST 58 04-117-25 12 0010 02780 COUNTRYSIOE OR M ORONO LIHITEO PARTNERSHIP TONY EIOEN COMPANY 4100 BERKSHIRE LA PLYMOUTH MN 55446 58 04-117-25 12 0017 02755 COUNTRYSIOE DR M ORONO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TONY EIOEN COMPANY 4100 BERKSHIRE LA PLYMOUTH MN 55446 58 04-117-25 21 0004 00085 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO S THEO J MEYER ETAL THEO J MEYER 65 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 55-118-25 45 0010 00055 GOLDEN VIEN DR T 0 6 B A MCMICKLE TERRANCE 0/BARBARA HCMXCKLE 55 GOLDEN VIEH OR LONG LAKE HN 55556 TOTAL BATCH 502 00012 REPORT NO. PX45»60i PAGE 10 S ^%, „ : , ; ..ui/ J • . M M-X17-2S It 0011 02740 COUNTKYSZDO 00 H OnONO LIHITCD PMTHEOSNIP^ TONf EIOEN CONPANY 4100 KPKSHZPE LA PLYHOUTH m 55444 5S 04-117-n It 0020 00030 AOOPCSS PENOINO CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 30 13-110-23 34 OOOf 02045 NEAR CZR NEAR ENTERPRISES PARTNERSHIP NEAR ENTERPRISES PARTI«RSNZP C/0 NILLIAM N NEAR PO BOX 245 LONG LAKE MN 55354 30 33-110-23 43 0011 00055 GOLDEN VIEN OR V 0 i N L ERICKSON VAN 0 A NANCY L CRICK. ON 55 GOLDEN VIEN OR LONG LAKE MN 55354 % « •* vv. ••• t .v. >.'l ■ 1 TO:Jeanne Mabusih. Building and Zoning Administration FROM: Stephen Weckman. On-Site Systems Manager DATE:April 5, 1995 SUBJECT: Application #2007. Tony Eiden - Site Review The applicant proposes the addition of a privacy berm along Watertown Rd. on lots 1 and 2. block 2. Old Cry stal Bay Road Addition. The berm is nearly complete as work was initiated w ithout a permit using fill material from other lots in the same subdivision. Staff recommends some alterations to the berm size and site drainage if the berm construction is permitted. As the berm location is between two drainfield sites, a twenty foot setback must be maintained from each site. This setback is necessary to direct surface water away from the drainfield sites. The excavation of a ditch on the north side of the berm, adjacent to Watertown Rd. is also recommended to direct surface drainage west rather than across the middle of the applicants property. Currently surface drainage will flow from the three lots west of lot 1 across the middle of the lot between the house and drainfield sites. The applicants representative has agreed to the above staff recommendations Esioblished in IS82 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC.INVOICE wn 3745Q LAND SURVEYORS REGISTEIIED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 • 73fd A vmmm North 66M09S c o wn 651-22.23 gffAl P l» » 40* o Dfnotes Iron Monuintn! a Denotsf Wood Hub Sit * For ERCQVOlkNi Only A EIOEN CONSTRUCTIOM MinmapoUt, Mlnncaota 66428 ^tuntryori dnttflratr X000.0 Donotis Exiiling Elivotlon Donotii Propoiod Elovotlon ■ Dinotii Surfoco Drolnogi 7 Propoiid Top of Block ^^7*S propoitd Gorogt Floor ^77J7 Propotid Lowfit Floor Typo of Building • ' iod U.o 0UJ< /(. / — •'Z.es.cx? —\eo5Z. §I ^ I to O ^ o k- !n^ UTIU7Y i oeaif^AOC Ct$CMC.fJr . I Tff^j t^\ JXS^ IW cvti/i c _^fU^mining ■j\. LavvA\f)Li^S \0\^ 0dJivN&Wl« ^6.b \- z z 111 oQ lO L_ a .<& I- I I S 8|0-, f 0: * 1 - -vc?n.v-i>- 6PLiHTi2Y6ipe i-^ (UH6PA17CC7) Proposed building information must be checked with approved building plan before excavation and construction. \ Lot 1, Block 2. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD ADDITION TT)i only Mimtnii shown sii from pitls of mooid or Information provided by client VW hffsby cenify that thti la a true and correct repraientallon of a aurvey of the boundartea of the above deecribed land and the location of all buHdlr>ga and via- Ibletncroochfnenta, If any, from or on said land. Surveyed by ua thls.2i]L_dayof June Signed R<4fT>ond A. Prasch Minn. Reg. No. 6743 *!• \ ■ I * • 1. •'**.* %* • ly I Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& |\]| Associates Engineers & Architects April 13. 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City cf Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Tony Eiden File No. 139*2007 -------------------------- . f • II. « t** • ; • M •. A • • * •* * I « •• •• ' /. * • • .»-•? : » 1 ^ • • ' "A **•; • * r* • S « **jM. « • r ^ ** »• nr • H •»». • If".- •; *.v *•» • ^ ;.*¥ c ;> •• #• hv*» ' AI * ‘a.h • a »•. *%• ■ '% VlHI *•» s. »•* * MrM vw-fh*# "•£ •««t •> *, ' **y I • *S-*/*t ** **• *» -- l A ’• « • M • -t .1 V •% •’ V • • I .» •' e 4r Vu'.v* - •«. . 0^**'»*^ A • A • •*' •% J •*! ,• A V "•*•<•* '*•••, . C «*v *♦ II xb.* !•« • • V . « -1 . * . •*< If. tvw 5 • e :.,,r '£ *r :f \ **«*a •’! JS^t *. *1 if.' • C‘ • ' • r* * '* •:••• • il I* !• » .A*f • ^ ^;C* ,X’H •* ' « • .es *l , .1 A f • V. • l^; *.l ♦ • \f •»* . ?A?»* • V W.%!~ * XI Dear Jeanne. We have reviewed the berm constructed on Lots 1 and 2, Block Sotic engineering standpoint. 5s5." ssr j.sks- drainage swale due to the fact that the other lots must use it The east side of the Lot 1 should be graded so that at much of the runoff as practical can be directed to Countryside Drive. 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. ' Z3iS West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN S5II3 • 612-636-4600 TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:April 12, 1995 SUBJECT: #2008 Tessa Marchessault and Greg Becker, 3133 Casco Circle - Variance Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.22. Subd. 2 - Hardcover excesses exist within 75-250’ setback area where improvements are proposed. Review of Hardcover: A. 0-75’ setback area = 7,175 s.f. Allowed = 0 Existing = 116 s.f. or 1.6% (Code allows stairs at 4’ width) B 75-250’ setback area = 17,500 s.f. Allowed = 4,375 s.f. or 25% Existing = 5,166 s.f. or 29.5% (Hardcover fact sheet is in conflict with surveyor’s estimate of hardcover. Staff has used surveyor’s estimate) Proposed = 4,790 s.f. or 27.3% (Addition of 198 s.f., addition of 144 s.f. of portico, removal of 574 s.f. of concrete block patio and landscape area, 144 s.f. area of portico placed over existing non-structural hardcover.) Variance = 415 s.f. or 2.3% Hardcover decrease = 376 s.f. C.250-5(X)’ setback area = 8,325 s.f. Adjusted area = 5,558 s.f. (exclude 2,767 s.f. of driveway easement) Allowed = 1,667 s.f. or 30% Existing = approximately 100% as majority of this area is either occupied with landscape areas underlain with plastic or blacktop areas. Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C) - Review of strucmral coverage Total lot area = 33,000 s.f. Allowed = 4,950 s.f. or 15% Proposed = 2,920 s.f. or 8.8% No variance required. Zoning File i<f2008 April *12, 1995 Page 2 Lb. of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Propert>' Owners List Dl-2 - Hardcover Inventory Sheets E - Existing First Floor Plan F - Proposed First Floor Plan G - North/South Elevations H - East Elevation I - Survey Description of Request Applicants propose major renovation of the lower level of the 70+ year residence. Improvements will involve two additions. The ll’xlS’ addition at the east side and a 14’xl4’ entrance portico on the west side. In return applicants propose the removal of concrete block patio and rock landscape area located to the south or lake side of the residence. Note 14’xl4’ portico is to be placed over existing non*structural hardcover. Improvements will meet the required 10’ side setbacks and also not be located in front of the average lakeshore setback line, review Exhibit I. Hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area exists at 29.5%. Applicants propose a reduction of non-structural hardcover improvements at 376 s.f. or 2.3%. Review Exhibit I, hardcover unprovements within the 250-500 setback area are excessive. The majority of the easement area is occupied by a gravel drive and retaining wall. It is not clear who is served by the gravel drive that continues westward. Homes to the immediate west are served by portions of the drive that are south of the retaining walls and are located within applicants’ property outside of easement. The remaining portions of blacktop area provide an access drive to both the lower and upper level of the applicants’ garage and additional parking at upper level. Major areas of blacktop exist with drive that serves the lower level of the garage and note portions encroach within property to the immediate west. Statement of Hardship Review Exhibit A. applicants note the following: 1.Existing dwelling was built in the 1920s prior to standards for lakeshore development. 2.The house was originally installed on property where a street was designated between the cottage and lake. The proposed improvements are designed to reverse interior home to take advantage of the lake views. Zoning File #2008 April I2, 1995 Page 3 3. Hardcover is reduced in the 75-250 ’ setback zone. 4. 5. There will be no impact upon the views of the i^ighbors nor on required setbacks. There is approximately 176 ’xlOO’ of nonhardcover area within the lakeshore yard. The grass lawn is gently sloped and receives major ponion of drainage that comes in from the north. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. Should hardcover be further reduced in the 75-250 ’ setback area amended at 27.3% .^ Review Exhibit I, staff has noted certain areas that may be considered for hardcover removals; 340 s.f. of blacktop or 1.9%, 97.5 s.f. or 0.5% of paved walkway area leading to wood deck in west side yard. Other areas suggested by Planning Commission.^ Can additional reductions in the 250-500’ setback area be a consideration with the access easement and private drive that intersects rear yard? 3. Will applicants use lower level of garage for the parking of vehicles? Options of Action To approve or deny application as proposed; or To approve as amended. Any recommendation of approval must include the condition that hardcover improvements scheduled for removal must be completed prior to the footing inspection by the building staff for the new construction. ^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) r Ci f\\ I u- • » - ....Wt .i w ta.V VV V • ‘ » to -i V'A ‘to*»l.*1 -• 4 . T i ■ i U - ‘-- V ..“•ma ’ • ' .1 w' .4 • V .> t to* . PROPERTY EVFORNUTION Site Address .9/3 3 C:/^y c-,-' C7.//Zc L £ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)0 — / / 7 - Z-3 4-S g c. . i-^gar^scription ware if not L-.c!u^ad ot required survey. (=*- S - -a v, - J Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) {ido non also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: _£^residential -----other (specify) Zoning District:^ APPiirAvr ^ ^ Phone(home)_________________ Name ^^f^^.3Phone(work) ^ o - V ^ ^ d'_ City: — Zip. ,p Y OWNER (if different than applicant) Phon^ome) ^ Name^/^<i<7. iPhone (work)--------^---------------- AHHr«T T/ ^ City:__^:£o^±ff----------Zip:------------- DESCRIFTION OF REQUEST,,,^ ^ Describe request in detail: _________ ■ — ----- ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ •3 ^ Lot Width ___Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS . Describe undue hardship or practical dif- .-ulty or unusual property condinons ^ compliance with Zoning Code requirements: /)c^ ----— - ■77^-fZ s iJthS A- tfyJ _________________/2A-/2- d: ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All nf thP fnllnwinf infnrmation Hiust besihinitted the appKgatipn deadline in vJsL for vQur aDDli<*ation to be considered coinplgtea. 1. J. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Plai Map (obtained with property owners list). ^ • , . . . Cenificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor ^ UKto calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'A x 11 for Top^raphic sutvev (existing and proposed elevauons) if any changes i^xistmg grade are proposed. In Edition, provide one (1) copy 8%’ x 11 for Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8/4x11 ). List of the !«al names (include marital status) of all persons with an mterest m the property, nis would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). L LTddendum 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 r^ber ^ jaatt . __■:_4.:^^ eveamniotp if thc abovc information has not be^n included*variance Tte appl^ hereby agrees to provide all information required or AdmhSstrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covertrf by ongiaal fee I»^W “cStanI expense incmred in review of this appHcatiom aial cemf.es that *e information supplied is uye-an^ correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date 1/ 1 m^*r*here*by ^S^edges and agrees to this application entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commisston members, and Coun members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before to Plannii« Co^ssmn mS7 Planning Commission Meetings are held on to third Monday of toh mot^^ AppS.« “^ prton. at aU scheduled review meetings of the Phuming Commisston and Coiinca. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meetmg. please mate , “haverauthorixed agent aneni in your place and to advise to BuUdtng & Zonmg Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 y\ ... • • • • • ,«• GOVT LOT 6 • • •r.::••• • • •: •. • RUN DATE oi/a/nBATCH SOIraoR Aom ONNER NAMI TAXPAYIR NAMS/AOOII MOR Ato« ONNiR NAMB TAXRAYtR NAMC/ADDR MOP AOOR ONNCR NAHS TAHPAYCR NANE/ADOR f . ' . * • ‘ # • » •*. • I • i-. sa S4 0007osm CASCO CXR J P SUNNEt i E R SUHNER JOHN P SUrtlER EXtZABETH R SUMNER im CASCO CXR NAYZATA m SSS91 M I0-117-ES 45 00E7 05155 CASCO CXR NAT LUNDSTROM NAYNEA THERESA LUNDSTROH 5155 CASCO CXR NAYZATA HN 55541 5S E0-117-E5 45 0050 05155 CASCO CXR G C 5ECRER/T I HARCKESSAULT G C GECKERyT X HARCHESSAULT 5155 CASCO CXR MONO HN 55541 ... . • R ' CPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORMATTQN SYSTEM PROPERTY QNNERS LXST REPORT NO. PI455401 PAGE 558 Z0-117-E5 54 0008 051E4 CASCO CIR GERTRUDE H OOUGAU' GERTRUDE N DOUGALL 5100 MENTON AVE S HPtS MN 55414 58 A0-117-E5 54 007205127 CASCO CXR J HOHARO A 0 HOHARO JAMES i DONNA HOHARO 5127 CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN 55541 5f fO-117-ES 45 0028 05145 CASCO CXR MICHAEL r A NARY C SUTLER MXCNAEL P SUTLER 5145 CASCO CIRCLE NAYZATA MN 55541 58 20-117-25 45 0024 05155 CASCO CIR ROLAND C AMUNDSON ROLAND C AMUNDSON MINNESOTA JUDICIAL CTR 25 CONSTITUTIONAL AVE ST PAUL MN 55155 58 20-117-25 45 0051 00058 ADDRESS UNASSXGNEO THE CASCO CO THE CASCO COMPANY ROBERT 0 MACNXE 5155 CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN 55541 TOTAL SATCH 501 00008 X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PRC^ERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND RELIEF n n HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) CO-73’" 75-250’ 25-500’ EXISTTNO HARDCOVTR IN ZONE A. House X 500-1000' Leofili Width B. Garaec C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X I / / TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE *7 / r<iJ A ______________ + B < 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X _____________ Lcngdi ^iddi B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ B Uo X 100 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.zzz.* 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. % \ A B Tl • *. * A B SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* HARDCOVER C.\LCULATION WORKSHEET 25-500’ EXISTING hardcq \t:r in zone A. House u- -t- Lcc€t!i Widtfi -4- B. Garage C. Dnvewav X X X ^ c /C ■ftf-ac 72-X X /f D. Sidewalk 1 E. Patio/Deck (4-X I F. Laodscape Underlain Bv Plastic f ')X X G. Olbe: X X c u .P .av-TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPE^T^AREA IN ZONE Js*60*^ lOO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE 7^~ 2 :i C A. House _____________ *-------------------- SOO-IOOO' S.F. S.F. C ^S.F. L. ^ / / S.F. -------------S.F. S.F. S.F. ::S4-P S.F. S.F. 7 744-S.F. }S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 4^34 S.F. / C,(o S.F. S.F. ~2x^~T^ Widtb /q.^7 /<-X X / /rry> S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway Z^L / ^S.F. 72 X X //7 76 S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk 4- 7^X X o Cj S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X /<i 2j,^:i_s.F. S.F. F. Landscape Uoderiain By Plastic 45? 2-4 X X X 1 S.F. [S.F. 7 2------S.F. / <4^- G. Other 4-4 00 S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY .\REA IN ZONE - - A t^ffoo sfi - B 100 S:F. 'S.F. UTTT^ % 1^,c 0' V •1 A ?:*BV \‘7 c ; ^r 'a ^^4 A B fn i 1 •ilL.iLLJiU— T f j; —V-*' 1 4 1 '• i| K 1 i ; ! i . !____ik ^*t3? . \ .«• t -•• % . » ». •- ••...t - ..«■ «\ .'U t . f..»- j.■■ ..»ifcf r-. ajt «»-; mr !il - _. lilt j._ '! k <• .- Jli • ^BJfc , • V "< V nv -C '-V.. ».i f\V.V;:\S'VM'i :-r — jiLi * ^T 'kvc - I fjX- ^*>A 1 • • '* ■ I o O' Oo /< ale: r • 16' f^ier urn,TV • 347. m i/- •■• ■ carnmr oF t«f 4"Z ? ^ A '\ *®«« " lU4?«Te»-^ 1 r' *'*''*« -H * j ^ 5 /''j ?»4~a^|E ' ^-i!ItnV, i i n ! '«rsT‘T;— » Iiriml . . • E > fl A M C fi-4 ff 4 G C r * «t E>IVC4 - J l«. iftl pIKlOSrONK ; wrail I//./3 |44-\ ^ UCGA^^vC. |4X, ^FOUWO ITOW ■ fZ.T r—._LL^Tf ’V OO' . NO. ♦. i.-.A H r**• ••• ‘IGO.OC -75 rr s£re/» 5HOHc\.A V &N41 SuftvCYrOA^ TESSA MARCHESSAULT mOECKTY AOCNttSS: 3133 Cmco Octe. Spt«Q Park. MbWMOU LEGAL OESCfUPTION: lh«t pan of tfi« faaowHng #aact*«d preoan v l«4no lMi«<fv ol a tnp OravMi paraM «mth and 100 laa< Waiwtv ol tfta Eaiiailv In* ol La< 43 and nt aitanMna tfwraol: lota 42. 43 and 44; That pan ot Lot 4S Mnp Ea«i el a «na draani paraiel wtMh and 7t toe' Wau. meatwrad ai rtglti angtaa lfOn« d«e CaM ana of LM 44j That pan al Lm 64 daaer4Md aa baainwina aa die meat Wanhaiip cam e« lea 64; diance Seudieraatarlv la die meat Vdaaaadr cwnar al lot C ilianea Caat alan« dia Saudi Bna al lai 64 la dM Wardiaaai carnar d 42; dianca flonliarlv. a diatanea al 51.3S teat maio ar laaa la a pain mNeh ia an a bna drawn paraM wnli and 34.00 laat Saudiaaaiady. •naaaurad at rt|M anplaa fram dia Nonftwaaiarty Ina al lot 64 and distant 4 00 laat Saudnaaatartv atonp sad pardM bna trans iia mtaraacdan ««id« dia amnaian Nanh al dia Eaai bna al Lot 43; lAanc Wennaaaiaitr atonp acid aaradai Ina and ka a itanaia n. a ddta nca af 60.64 taoc mara arlesa la dia Nanhaaatarty Ma al lat 64: dianca Nommiaa sartp to dia paint al bapiniit np; That pan al iracaiad lake Sliara A«anua and dial pan al da pact ol barwaan sad a»anua and dia anara al Laba Mamasadd. al daacnboi bapt nwnp at dia Soudiaaat eenrn al lot 42; dianca \daai alano dia Sowdi bna ot lata 42. 43. 44 and 45 to an intarsacdan nadi a bna d> paraM «wdi and 75 faai Waal maaauiad at ripN anplaa Irani mo fa bna ol Lot 44; dianca Saudi atanp dia aita naia n ot sad paraM Ina * sbera of Laba btamatonba; dianea Cast atonp sad abora w its MaiM MMli dia aatansdn South el iba Cast bna al Lot 42: dianca NaniMo point ot bodaming, al as Spruip f arb. CCnririCATlON: dSi baraPv eartily that dus is a irwa ard cartaei rapraaoniadon at a aarway a heundanaa al dia land aha«a daacrdad and al dia tocodan al al biddnpa. d tr waon. and al stadia anereacbniania. tl any. ham ar an aad land. Dated did ISdi day af My. 1164. Oastaad diia I4tb day ol OctolMr. 1664. CGAN. nCLO 6 NOWAK. INC. 7^ Ja^Ooha. bimnasM Ucanta No. 30261 74li Wavtaia Bodavaidl bSpts.. UM Tatapn a na 18121546^7 K KNf / (76 ■ ‘ CO'/'Z-Zi-. 3s NOTES: t j'144.1 ICW.! Iba arianuMwi ot tba baaraip aystam sbown baraan « baaad m tha aasta* bna of lot 42. SfItiNO PAMt. wtacn la assumad M hasp a baarine ol Saul 00 daptaaa 06 mmwtaa 00 aacanda Caat. 2 NoMtawarbwatfurmabodlartbapraparatdnaldiiaiuirayiayaidy aiMiaisho. tha lopai datcrtpaan or dia aitatanca at any aasamanti tr arKwmbrancas. ii I • Q • 2. is *'-S 85*5T50 ‘^' cofiTouR link 3. Ataa Iba prepany dascnbad baraan d 33.000 iqama laat. Lake ibara to 75 laat - 7.175 squara Ibat. Laba ihora to 75 -25piMi . 17.500 aauarafbat. f7a'» -an *.»»►-€<. i,*5-7 , 4 Hard cover araaa are aa folows; euchtop area 6.360 tpaara Not Landscaped araaa 1.711 squara Nat SdawaNaraat 4«fapuataNai «• Oaeb and patd areas 637 smaraNst-L^**^, BuMnp areas 2.342 i«mi« feat ' Laba shara la 75 laat sacbKb ina 116 square laat 75 fool saibacb ina to 250 faei saibscb bna 5.166 aquara laat 20 foot dmmway aaaamant 2.767 aquaro feat ‘ MINNETONKA 2 /- *•3 »\ I t / / (A''i^r ru^ to'' I > 9->h .iOt. e u <0 Aof ^ X:'9fi4.^ •951:e 3.59,9' ;-25r: FT. SETBACK H LINE__________ f/ 9? '^^ouih line of Lof 64 \ \ •j6^ F^-.:9C4.S ' »• a rT N eoae or a4—- "tn r PL/lnt j;, ll?fI-»__ OF BL/>C)4 oFVJ' 'f 0 p 0^ blacktop -.^ 9SB.S- FL^G5T0AiC ill .-FOUND JUDICML LAh -966.7______________ corner of r^l.42 £4V'£s k l.ot- /^'f? ?opi-( •356.d - f.Of I I I i C®WOlriON£l» J^,r*^INDOW |LrV WCLL5 »C1 V 7V^»BLOSTONE W4U Tliat I omtUk •«|9fll f ^ Vi S2 V U-or’P.'i'^ N ^3 /j!)J> I'*-<••-* SCl Z/'V/S a/^S'** .•• I 1^2 u> 'oWt»----------|S*i»)^oJ> N ^ 2*l I (w :^».5t 'B P,I / y. -1 CbNCRE^f'- ■■■ Bi-0C.‘<-:./ fro fc4^^^^C Ijite ^SSS.S r r ( wne ft ^^53.7 *®^'S - /i lU N f'o '•■ °P t<n^ j co«, ^ .'■< O/’or/t/Tv '• A3 t>t-o ^ °^- f'O- 36Z7034 ^~manh 7l e* ‘ 942. G• • * »» •*• J'\ V^x iff - 5-;i/Kj? •> If.. s.iOF umi PER O0(V EASEMENT AS f NO. 36 2 7093 < '*‘F0UMD IRON 952.7 9S.£0 CERl Wah boun th«rf OatM Rtvii •'9'F't'_r -+—f y >5' /*•;•• •» lOO.OC “-75 FT. SETBAi K L/NE NOTE To:Chair Peterson are! Oroiro Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator Date:April 7. 1995 Subject:#2009 Tom and Maureen Palm. 1685 Concordia Street - Variances - Public Hearing Status of Original Application Approved for Applicants on December 12, 1994: Review Exhibit E. the resolution that granted approval of an average lakeshore setb^k, lakeshore setback and hardcover variances for a proposed second story addition over the existing principal structure. Pertinent Ordinances Involving Current Application 1.Section 10.22. Subdivision 1 (A) - Lakeshore setback. Allowed = 0 Proposed deck = 40 ’ Existing deck = 28’ ^ • i t, u Principal structure = 47.5’ (Cantilevered window extends 2.5 mto lakeshore setback, note roofed entrance, Exhibit O, at lakeside not shown on floor plan. Applicant to provide additional information.) Principal structure variance = 27.5’ Deck struemre variance = 35’ 1 2.Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) - Proposed deck encroaches 10’ in front of average lakeshore setback. 3.Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover, A. 0-75’ setback area = 3,750 s.f. Existing = 1,064 s.f. or 28% Original application = 1,064 s.f. or 28% Current = 986 s.f. or 26% B 75-250’ setback area = 8,940 s.f. Allowed = 2,235 s.f. or 25% Existing = 2,979 s.f. or 33% Original application = 2,876 s.f. or 32.1% Current proposal = 2,901 s.f. or 32.4% Hardcover decrease = 78 s.f. or 0.6% (original 103 s.f. or 1.15%) C.250-500’ setback area = 1,450 s.f. Allowed = 435 s.f. or 30% Existing = 594 s f. or 40% Original application = 594 s.f. or 40% Current proposal = 490 s.f. or 34% Hardcover decrease = 104 s.f. or 6% (original 40%, no change proposed) mat Zoning File #2009 April 7. 1995 Paae 2 D.Review of total hardcover. Lot area = 14,140 s.f. E.xisting total hardcover = 4,637 s.f. or 32.79% Original approved application = 4.534 s.f. or 32.06% Current proposal = 4,377 s.f. or 30.95% 4.Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of structural coverage. Total lot area = 14,140 s.f. Allowed = 2,121 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1,057 s.f. or 13.1% Proposed = 2,020 s.f. or 14.2% No structural coverage variance required. List of Exhibits A - B-1 B-2 B-3 C - D - E - F - G - H - 1 - M-3 K - Application Applicant ’s Addendum-Current Application Comparison of Original Findings of Approval Original Hardcover Statement Plat Map Property Owners ’ List Resolution No. 3507 Existing/Survey Existing Site Plan Existing Floor Plan Proposed Site Plan-Hardcover Map Hardcover Key/Inventory Diagram Comparing Existing and Proposed Structural Improvements withm Lakeshore Setback Site Plan-Average Lakeshore Setback M-1-3 Hardcover Comparison-Table N - Elevations O - Floor Plans L - Review of Current Proposal As applicant ’s addendum notes, in his discussions with various builders, he has been advised to proceed with a rebuild rather than the installation of a second story over the existing 20.5’ x 54.3’ structure, review Exhibit B-1. The current proposal involves the relocation of the principal stmemre to a 50’ lakeshore setback in line with the average lakeshore setback Ime, review Exhibit L. The proposed lakeside deck would extend 10’ in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The 30 ’ structure will meet the required 10’ side setback. With the relocation of the principal structure there will be a negligible impact now on the lakeviews of the adjacent residences. Zoning File #2009 April 7, 1995 Page 3 Hardcover reductions are shown in all three setback areas. More stnicmral improvements are placed out of the 0-75’ zone and with the reduction in the width of the driveway and the removal of the shed, hardcover reductions are reflected in both the 75-250’ and 250*500’ setback areas. Note the structural improvements are still held to less than 15 This'includes the roofed porch to the street side of the residence. Staff does not have any accurate dimensions for the roofed lakeshore entrance but it is still doubtful whether that portion of the struemre would bring the improvement over the allov ed 15% but applicant must provide clarification. The visual impact of the total strucmral envelope will not change significantly with the current proposal. The original application proposed a two-story 20.5 x 54.3 resideiKe and the current proposal involves a 30’ x 46’ two-story residence. The current proposal involves a 10’ X 30’ deck extending from the lakeside of the residence where the original proposal showed a 30’ X 10’ deck that also extended along the side of the house. As of this writing, the City has received a call from a neighbor noting complete support of new proposal. Statement of Hardships Applicant asks you to review his comments concerning the comparison of the findings of the original approvals, Exhibit B-2. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. 3. Does the fact that we are dealing with new construction have any impact on your consideration of this current proposal? Applicant is meeting with Ceil Strauss of the DNR to discuss his new proposal. Note the principal smicmre will meet the 50’ minimum setback of the State for General Development lakes. The applicant has asked Ms. Strauss to comment on the proposed grade-level deck without railings. Is the proposal too ambitious or is it consistent with the total improvements approved in Application #1983 ... or is it better? Does the fact that the City will more ‘Jian likely be dealing with die rebuild of a residence to the immediate south hav. any impact on your current decision. Options of Action To either deny or approve the current proposal as presented OR To table application providing applicant additional time to address any concerns raised by Planning Conunission members. i CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION \ Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variaiKc) Renewal Variance Fee SIOO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming sirucnires $200 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) t -/ • » • • • • . ’•'•W 7- ‘ .i 4 V VV'VV . • V » » • Attach legal description to applicattojuf now|;cl^ed on requned survey. Date Property' Arginred ^—£71J5-p_------------------------------ I (do) dpn^ also own the adjacent parcels ot 1^. Present use of property: X_residential -----^oiher (speci. Zoning District: id------------------------------------------------------- " APPLICANT Name Phone (home) Phone(work) ^7/ • Address: t ^ S Citv:JSS3BJ. OWTSXR (if different than applicant) Name_____________________- Phone(hcme) Phone (work)_ Address:. City:Zip: description of request - Describe request in detail: Ot' -----------------(attach additional sheets if necessary) Estimated Construction Cost S 17'S’jOO^ variances required Lot Area _ Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side yC Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship /description of UNXSUAL property conditions Jine ^^n^unduc hardship or practical diff.culty or unusual proi^v conditions preven compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ----------------- (attacn additional sheets if necessary) required submittals > ,h. fnlln'.ini. muit b« submitted hv tht appu<a«lw tfl grttt fnr vour api^licaticn to considered comp»etei 1 4. X Ust of owners within 150' (you “ust obuin to list from ^ Counts' Depanment of Finance. A-603. Gov. Center. 348-3271). f e'lf sfrvr - -- ~ ■^calculations as requireJ. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8A x 11 for f ^ "^riefarnle^t slnisf of all persons with an interest in the ^ orooertv This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 8. > As L addendum to to application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 9 Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The AoDlicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remeniber ^ XfiStt Sentinn enmnlete if the ahove infomtqtiW 1<83 np. DWH intlmteL information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date Tte^iKr^herrty aJmo^edges and agrees to this application and fii^r=br;bs.ss-S.2K ssr ^___________DateOwner’s Signature /rm Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before to Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third M^day ^-—-,1,551011 AoDlicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Md Cou^ If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please m^e . “tave“ aJtho “ed'^U^ attend in your place and to advise to Budding & Zomng Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 /V TO; CITY OF ORONO SUBJECT: AMMENDED VARIANCE REQUEST N « - / £ - ON DECEMBER 12TH, 1994 WE WERE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ADD A SECOND STORY DIRECTLY ABOVE OUR EXISTING SINGLE STORY HOME. IN JANUARY I CALLED FOUR REMODELING CONTRACTORS TO COME TO OUR HOUSE FOR AN INITIAL MEETING TO DISCUSS OUR PLAN. THERE WAS A GENERAL CONSENSUS AFTER EVALUATING OUR SITUATION. THE BUILDERS FELT THAT THE WORK COULD BE DONE, HOWEVER THE INVESTMENT IN A HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT IN 1955, HAS 1000 S.F. AND IS ONLY 20 FEET WIDE MAY NOT BE PRUDENT CONSIDERING WHAT HAD TO BE DONE. WE WERE TOLD THAT THE FOUNDATION WAS ONLY 32" BELOW GRADE, THE EXISTING ROOF WOULD COME OFF AND A NEW STAIR CASE AND SECOND FLOOR ADDED. NEW WINDOWS WERE RECOMMENDED TO MATCH UPPER WINDOWS AND PROVIDE BETTER INSULATION AND MAINTENANCE. ALSO A NEW FURNACE, WATER HEATER, EXTERIOR SIDING. AND CARPET WERE DISCUSSED. WE ALSO HAD TO OPEN UP SOME WALLS TO RUN PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL AND HEAT DUCTS TO THE SECOND LEVEL. TO FINISH THE PROJECT WE THOUGHT IT WAS ABOUT TIME TO GET RID OF THE ORANGE FORMICA COUNTERTOPS AND DARK WOODGRAIN VINYL FLOORING IN THE KITCHEN AND THE OLD TILE IN THE BATHROOM. ONE CONTRACTOR EVEN CAME UP WITH THE IDEA OF BRINGING THE MAIN ENTRANCE THROUGH THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE SO YOU DID NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE KITCHEN TO GET ANYWHERE! ”IF I WERE YOU I WOULD TEAR IT DOWN AND START OVER BECAUSE THERE WILL BE VERY LITTLE LEFT NEW WHEN WE ARE DONE ANYWAY AND WONT COST MUCH MORE" THIS WAS A COMMON COMMENT. THEY DID LOVE THE LOCATION HOWEVER. IF THE GUY FROM "THIS OLD HOUSE" NEEDED A GOOD PROJECT WITH EVERYTHING THIS WOULD BE PERFECT! WE SPENT THE NEXT TWO MONTHS LAYING OUT A NEW FLOORPLAN AND FOUND HOW NICE IT WAS TO HAVE 30’ TO WORK WITH RATHER THAN 20*. AFTER THE MODEL HOME SHOW, PARADE OF HOMES, OPEN HOUSES AND DRIVING THROUGH NEWER DEVELOPMENTS WE FEEL VERY GOOD ABOUT THE DESIGN AND HOW IT CONFORMS TO THE CITY CODES. PLEASE REVIEW THE LETTER FROM OUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION AND THE FINDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE FIRST APPLICATION AND HOW THEY RELATE TO THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. ALSO ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR EXISTING LAYOUT FOR REFERENCE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER. TOM, MAUREEN, MATTHEW AND KELLY CITY of ORONO RESOLimON OF THE Cm^ COL*NCIL • NO. 8 5 0 ____ y=\33 J. 4. 3 UfT^ CW , The property consists of 14,140 s.f. or .32 acres. Three members of the Planning Commission reviewed this application on Nove"mber 21, 1994, and recommended unanimous approval of the variances as proposed based upon the following fmdings; A. Th.c lets m the Concordia neighborhood were developed prior to zoning standards for residential development of lake shore properties. B. c. uess ^ Two-thirds of the residence structure is located within the lake shore protected area. The proposed second story e.xpansion will not result in an increase in hardcover. The lake shore view windows of the adjacent residences wUl not be neeatively impacted by the second story addition. 55*E. The homes on either side have panial second stories. Aj,rn to* sioe Vies 5. The City has received no negative comments from the neighbors who would receive the most impact from the improvement. The City has been contacted by adjacent neighbors supporting the proposal. The lot is 50’ in width and the existing footprint of the residence struemre is 20’. The structure conforms to the required side setbacks. The improvement would be consistent with current improvements on adjacent properties. The proposed improvement would not have a detrimemal impact on the values of the surrounding residences. The Citv Council fmds that the conditions existing on this property are peculwr to it and do not applv generally to other property tn this zoning distnct. tha granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor Page 2 of 5 I r»«Mos o*« > r-*-- ^ i'y <• • . >N.c^V TO: CITY OF ORONO SUBJECT: VARIANCE REQUEST \ r-' MAUREEN AND I MOVED INTO OUR HOME IN MAY OF 1988. THE HOUSE WAS PERFECT FOR OUR NEEDS AT THAT TIME. WE NOW HAVE TWO CHILDREN AGED 1 1/2 AND 3 1/2. AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE ENCLOSED LAYOUT OF THE EXISTING SPACE, THE BATHROOM AND CHILDRENS BEDROOM IS A PROBLEM AND WILL GET WORSE WITH TIME. WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS AT THIS POINT - ADD ON OR MOVE TO A LARGER HOUSE. IN TALKING WITH MIKE GAFFRON IN PLANNING AND ZONING REGARDING THE FIRST OPTION, BUILDING A SECOND LEVEL ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND NOT INCREASE THE GROUND COVER SEEMED TO BE THE ONLY REASONABLE OPTION BUT WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE. ADDING ZO THE SIDES OR REAR OR MOVING THE HOUSE BACK WOULD INCREASE OR MAINTAIN THE CURRENT HARDCOVER. EACH OF THE TWO HOMES ON EITHER SIDE OF OURS ARE TWO STORY HOMES AND ARE LOCATED SUCH THAT AN ADDITION ON OUR HOUSE SHOULD NOT OBSTRUCT THEIR VIEWS OF THE LAKE. IN TALKING WITH THEM THEY ARE Sl''»PORTIVE IN THIS PROJECT. I UNDERSTAND THAT A HARDSHIP MUST BE DEMONSTRATED AND THAT IT MUST BE UNIQUE TO THE LAND. THE HARDSHIP HERE IS THE 50 FOOT WIDE LAKESHORE LOT. THE VAST MAJORITY OF LOTS ON FAGERNESS POINT AND ELSEWHERE SEEM LARGER THAN 50 FEET AND KEEP GETTING LARGER. WHEN BOATING I NOTICE THAT THERE ARE VERY FEW HOUSES THAT ARE ONLY 20 FEET WIDE! MEETING THE LOT, LAKESHORE AND HARDCOVER REQUIREMENTS IS CHALLENGING AND IN LOOKING AT THE SURVEY THE PREVIOUS OWNERS SEEM TO HAVE CONFORMED. THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION THAT STRICT ENFORCEMENT WOULD CAUSE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP, AND THE END RESULT WOULD BE NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBORS OR EXISTING LAND USE. OVER THE PAST 6 YEARS WE HAVE BECOME ATTATCHED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS PROPERTY. WE LOVE THE WEST FACING VIEWS AND HARD SAND BEACH THAT HAS NO WEEDS. WE LIKE LIVING ON A QUIET DEAD END STREET AND HAVING A NICE PARK AND SKATING RINK SO CLOSE. WE DO NOT HAVE A LONG DRIVE TO WORK AND OUR NEIGHBORS ARE FANTASTIC PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT THE AREA. WE WOULD HAVE AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TIME TRYING TO DUPLICATE THIS ENVIRONMENT ELSEWHERE ON LAKE MINNETONKA REGARDLESS OF THE COST. IT IS TRUELY A WONDERFUL PLACE TO LIVE AND RAISE A FAMILY AND HOPE TO STAY FOR A LONG TIME. SINCERELY, TOM, MAUREEN, MATTHEW AND KELLY , t I b /) GOVT lot 2 :r c -V- </> *vc .-^ .*4 UO U^ -#* Oo ► v» .a! k HUH MTi 09/17/94BATCH S04 0000 ABM OIOIEO NAHC TAWAYCO HAMi/ADDO MOO AMO OMCO MAm TA)(OAYfO NAHi/AMO 0000 ADM OMNCO NAMi TAKOAYfO IIAMC/AODO 0000 ADM 0»t«0 NiM TAKOAYIO NAHi/ADM HCrtICOIN COUKTY OOOO^OTY INfOOKATION SYSTEM OROPEOTY (MIEOS LIST SO 17-117-ES tZ 0021 0I70S CONCOOOIA ST JANET JACOBSON SACHS JANET SACHS 7B4S 17TH AV SO OICHOIEIO m 5S42S SO I7-117-2S It 0024 0IM7 CQICOOOIA ST €LEN E OEttSTT OLEN E BENNETT 1407 CONCOOOIA ST NAYZATA MN S5S91 SO I7-117-2S 22 00S2 01400 CONCOOOIA ST LAD SESOK LINDA D SEBOK 14B0 CONCOOOIA ST NAYZATA MN S5S91 TOTAL BATCH 504 00009 SO 17-117-2S 22 0022 01405 CONCOOOIA ST T L BALM AHA PALM THOMAS L PALM 1405 CONCOPDIA ST NAYZATA HN 55S91 SO 17-117-2S 22 0030 01740 COrCOOOIA ST 0 J BELAHSKl A 0 C OEIAHSRI OAVIO J A OAYNA C BELAH9CI 1740 CONCOOOIA ST NAYZATA m 55391 . 30 17-117-23 22 0040 01435 CONCOOOIA ST HOHAOO 0 ALTON III IIOHAOD 0 ALTON 111 1435 CONCOOOIA ST OOONO HN 55391 I OEPOOT NO. PI43S401 PAGE 10 SO 17-117-23 22 0023 01495 CONCOOOIA ST 0 J A 0 0 DELAHSKI OaULO JOItl DELAHSKI 3019 COLORADO AVE N CRYSTAL MN S5422 SO 17-117-23 22 0031 01495 CONCOOOIA ST P HEONOON/K OOTHElER*liiONOON PAUL L HEIHOON 140 CAOLSON PKHY 0101 MIltaTOriCA rtl 55305 SO 17-117-23 22 0043 01475 CONCOOOIA ST HELEN K TOAINOO HELEN K TOAINOO 1475 CONCOOOIA ST NAYZATA MN 55391 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEFi DATE '^1 • t; } ,• • « r"; ! cr •• .•••/i • wl'- '' CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF TTjE CipT COUNCIL vrk O •T' A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO NaNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SLUDIVISION I (A) AND (B) and subdivision 2 FILE #1983 WTIEREAS, Tliomas L. Palm and Maureen A. Palmg-sr.rs?.*; The nonh 50' of Lot 16. Coffee ’s Addition to Shadywood Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin Counts ’. Minnesota (hereinafter 'the property-); and zon.» code s=oi3.S ‘;r Ee::sL“hf«i?rs^"harr^^^^^ srn i°o zi structure where these excesses exist. Minnesota: 1. 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. findings This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1983. The property is located in the LR-IC, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, requiring 21,780 s.f. or 0.5 acre in area. Page 1 of 5 wn Or CITY of ORONO resolution of NO___mCITY COUNCIL 6. nose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely SCV.C as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property rieht of the applicants; and would be in keeping with Uie spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Citv Council has considered uhis application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIO.NS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above fmdings. the Orono City Council beieby vrants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 (A), 1 (B) and 2 to Lrmit construction of a full second story addition granting setback and hardcover variances as specified above, subject to the following conditions: 1 Prior to the final inspection by the Orono building staff of addition, the storage shed within the 75-250* setback area at a 103 s.f. shall be removed. Applicants’ contractor shall obtaLn the required demolition permit prior to the removal of the structure. Hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback area shall remain at 1^ Hardcover within the 75-250 ’ setback area has been approved at 2.876 sX or 32 1% Hardcover within the 250-500 ’ setback area shall remain at 1,450 s.l. 2. or 40%. 3. Page 3 of 5 • • CITY of ORONO resolution COL'NCIL STATE OF NUNNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) , 199 ^ before me a Nppp’m the foregoing act and deed. ' insl^Xni, anllcknowledged dial he (±ey) a JAMIE LBOSMA N0™WW8UC-MI^ hennepwcou ^ My Comm. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) act and deed. day of_ 199__before me a Notary notary public Page 5 of 5 w • I > 4_ i. I SCALE 1/16" = 1 FOOT •/16/«4 ifL , ■ '“j ''i t :■:» -X. / • •• * ’Ii uh‘ ; EXiST7A>6- 'A'■tfPT* I6U5 CONCUHUIA STREET SCALE iyi6*' a 1 FOOT 3/17/95 HARDCOVER CALCULATICM WCF.KSHE1.1 SETBACK IONS: (CIRCLE CNE) 72“2wQ 250-SQ0' 500' • -iCQO Existing Hardcover in^^ne ' A. House 33 1 8— x - LENGTH •• ^50 WI DTK - 626 S.F X • S.F ^ X S.F / %•X • S.F J X S.F X S.F • \ Tt nt f \ A V X .S.F / X • S.F (fw CrnffWAi IT X S , S.F X V S.F /O K 30 ■ 3Pg-_ S.F E. Pat-io/ Decx m ,S.F 1 amhcpaDP X •S.F AREAS UNDERLAIN B V X S.F PLASTIC SHEETING • S.F X m S.F r OtuCD X — m S.F % Total Hardcover in • Zone -_ S.F Total Property Area in Zone 37SO_S.F -1 I 3 985 -IT) S7SO X100 -% i i m;rdcqver calculation hcrko ;^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0“73 Existing Har^cvcH in Zone ’* A. House , SO* S' - x length width 250-3C0' SOO-IOCO* £1^S.F.3 3. Garage D. SlOrWALK £. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN 3Y PLASTIC SHEETING G. O ther S.F. S.F. • V • S.F. K S.F. _ X SHtSt—-S.F. erifi- _36*^1- V M.S". ))I7 S.F. X------2—_ - _ £3.— • s!f. 70 V 3.s_■ • Si£l-S.F.7 33 , *^.75-■S.F.8 __fL__x /‘JS-. 78 S.F.9 Total Hardcover in Zone 390 [ Total Property A rea in Zone g9¥0 S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S .r B -f ITLSSi^ X 100 - .SSidi— 19 H.;SDC0'3 CALCUUTiOH _ c-.-r. c 0M=) G-75' 75-250'SETBACK ZONE: tC.nw-£ C.l-^ « > 250-5001 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House LENGTH WIDTH 3. Garage c. DRivrwAY D. Sidewalk E. Patio / D eck F. Landscape AREAS underlain BY PLASTIC SHEETING _ X G. Other Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone HSO S.F. S.F. S.r. S.r. S.F. ___________ S.F. H*)0 S.F. lO S.F S.F. S.F S.r S.F S.F S.F. S.F S.F S.F. S.F S.F.B jj^ /vsig X100 % i ■V r M SC.^ J J LAKE LEVEL 50* SINGLE STORY HOUSE rJ r I existing SINGLE STORY HOUSE / DECK m PROPOSED TWO STORY HOUSE / DECK L.,,.II rrwn r~tr *-TMT-TT -T»T ---------TrT -----■ I llfl T I . IJI"*", EXISTING - % 'i J n 1685 CONCORDIA STREET HARDCOVER BREAKDOWN 0-75 75 - 250 250 - 500 TOTAL HOUSE 697 416 0 1113 DECK 352 0 0 352 SIDEWALK 15 465 0 480 GARAGE 0 641 0 641 SHED 0 103 0 103 DRIVEWAY 0 1354 594 1948 HARDCOVER 1064 2979 594 4637 PROPERTY 3750 8940 1450 14140 PERCENT 28 33 40 32.79 APPROVED 1685 CONCORDIA STREET HARDCOVER BREAKDOWN 0-75 75 - 250 250-500 TOTAL HOUSE 697 416 0 1113 DECK 352 0 0 352 SIDEWALK 15 465 0 480 OARAGE 0 641 0 641 SHED 0 0 0 0 DRIVEWAY 0 1354 594 1948 HARDCOVER 1064 2876 594 4534 PROPERTY 3750 8940 1450 14140 PERCENT 28 32 40 32.06 •^•1 •■••fr' t ............Mntnm . » PROPOSED 1685 CONCORDIA STREET HARDCOVER BREAKDOWN 0-75 75 • 250 250 - 500 TOTAL HOUSE 686 615 0 1350 DECK 78 0 300 SIDEWALK 0 450 0 450 GARAGE 0 641 0 641 SHED 0 0 0 0 DRIVEWAY 0 1117 490 1607 HARDCOVER 986 2901 490 4377 PROPERTY 3750 8940 1450 14140 PERCENT 26 32 34 30.95 1 z H H > O ; Z o CO o 2 2n *1 3 % 5 I H ^1 3 I I 5 E? C^ 2r* n m S p •*^9 i:^ « sll - -1 . 7 '’ I 1 I f/'.: .'v._ ' \ > /V ' u :•?^ 8^ 1^ n 1 ** 3 f -n,J^ I % s 1 r nI X 9 o I —, . . ,-T,. 7 To:Chair Schroedcr and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator April 10. 1995 #2010 James and Joann Jundt, 1420 Bracketts Point Road - Variances - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances 1.Section 10.23. Subdivision 6 (B) - Side setback variance for the multiple use structure containing guest house/caretaker residence. Required = 30’ Existing = 4’ Variance = 26’ or 86.6% A setback variance is being considered as applicant proposes minor strucmral improvements to portion of structure located within 30 setback. 2.Section 10.03. Subdivision 9 (C)(2) - Allowed area for oversized stnicture. A variate once again is required to this section as a major structural improvement is proposed for a portion of the oversized accessory stnicmre. 3.Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover approved with Application #1992. 0-75’ setback area = 110,243 s.f. (20,591 s.f. of public road has been excluded from setback area consistent with requirements of code) Allowed = 0 Approved = 1,098 s.f. or 0.90% 75-250’ setback area = 317,893 s.f. Allowed = 79,473 s.f. or 25% Approved = 55,163 s.f. or 17.35% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners’ List D - Approval Resolution Application #1992 E - Site Plan F - Floor Plan G - South Elevation H - North Elevation I - Section J-1-2 Approved Hardcover for Application #1992 K - Survey-South Yard Segment-1" =40’ i Zoning File #2010 April 10. 1995 Pace 2 Review of Current Request Applicant proposes major structural improvements to oversized accessory structure. Planning Commission members recently approved major .strucniril improvem^ts to the greenhouse portion of the oversized accessoiy structure and the detached garage. The current Application involves an expansion of the roof for that portion of the accessory s^cture that still retains the Hat roof design immediately adjacent to the greenhouse addition. Refer to Exhibits E, F, G and H. Strucmral repairs are proposed to ponions of the oversized structure located within the reouired 30’ side setback. No expansions ot me existing building envelope are proposed within the 30’ setback area. The caretaker/guest house two-story unit is being renovated. The City already ^proved a condilional use permit for the guest house with Application #1866 approved in 1993. No other improvements ate proposed with this current application. Hardcover facts retnatn the same M shown on Exhibits J-1 and J-2 and as approved in Application #1992. Note hardcover m the ^ 75- zone has been adjusted to exclude the 250 s.f. of paved driveway that was Mated witlun the 0-75’ setback area. One of the conditions of that approval resolution ts that aU dtsturbed areas are to be restored to natural groundcover by June 1, 1995. All conditions of the enclosed approval resolution will still hold true for the curr^ application, specifically the matter of installation of an appropriate waste treatment system eit^ with municipal sewer or a new septic system to be finally installed within the construction penod of 1995. Statement of Hardship Applicant refers to the unique findings and hardships set forth in the approval resolution for Application #1992. Issues for Consideration Are there any other issues that Planning Commission members wish to raise dunng the review of the current application? Staff Recommendation To approve per the unique findings and hardships of the enclosed approval resolution for Application #1992. '\Q I f a- CrrY OF ORONO - varlxnce application Tnifial Application Fes S2C0.C0 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming stmcturcs $-00.00 After-±e-Fac: Fees (Double applicauon fee) PROPERTY EsTOR-VLATION Site M2Q Bracks 4 S.A ‘•i W * » ' W ^ .. • « ate' Pni 0 n Q 0020 Zoning District: t * ^ (month/year) Phone 612-78 6-7711 (Of Cons truction _____Phonc(wotk)^____________________ — ^V's&au— __ oirnrTir^ p^nrr*^^*^rnn<tnigtinnCostS 500,000.00 AttacHed SMtc.es S.-24A, n. SK-14 VARIANCES required Lot Area Lot Width X Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshorc Other (specify)_ _uincr '' -- --- - - - - - nnrth/4outn structure. ,_ - - - - - - (attach additional sheets if oecessaiy) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ■j r deadline date in order 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ■“ calcuUuons as required, to auuiuon. p arc proposed, to J ei-vaiion vkw$ (provide one (1) copy 8H x 11 )• X Sketches or plans of floor A cle ^ of aU persons with an interest in the - List of the legal names (‘f not current owner(s). - U- - or w oa« peno- :re«s ^ ----- . . ___If the ihftTf InfftlTPy"**" llTOi^y^ance ppplicatii APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE tofonnaiion required or requested by the Zoning ^Jflpplie.nt hereby egieei “toe S«^ by orijiael ^ Adoiinistiator, egreee to [gview of this epplfcaiioo, eni eertifiee Applicant's Signature _Date Owner's Signature —— "— ~ jSrrHr..nt murt have all rubmiiub ^Sir"* T?**- this change prior to the meeting. 8 null OAIE 00/24/9S BATCH OOA lltItIcniH COUIITV PROrtATY IHroWIATlOU SYSTEM PROPtRTV Wt«ns 11ST PtI’ORT 110. Pl^lS'iOl PACE 12PROP AOOR OniER NAtC taxpayer NAHE/AOOII 56 11-117-25 52 0009OlAOO BRACKETTS POIHT RO J R JUNDT A MARY J JIAJOT JAtCS R JUHOT BOX 1 CRYSTAL BAY 111 55525 PROP ADOR ntKR tIAME TAXPAYER IIAtC/AOOR 56 11-117-25 32 0017 01500 BRACKETTS POINT RO CEORCC S PILISOURY ET AL CE0R6E S PILISOURY A600 PIRST BANK PLACE HPLS IM 55A02 PROP AOOR OIRCR NAME TAXPAYER ItttlE/AOOR 56 11-117-25 55 0001 01420 BRACKETTS POINT RO J R JUNOT A H J JUMOT JAMES R JUMOT 60X 1 CRYSTAL BAY Itl 55525 PROP AOOR OIIIER NAME TAXPAYER IIAIC/ADOR 56 11-117-25 33 0006 01500 BRACKETTS POINT RC MARTHA S A A LACHLAN REEO lURTHA S A A LACHLAN REED 1506 BRACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA III 55591 58 11-117-25 32 001001265 BRACKETTS POINT RO MICHAEL E LY»»T 111 A HITE HICIUEL A JORJA LYttI 111 1265 BRACKETTS POINT HAYZATA MM 55591 58 11-117-25 32 001101420 BRACKETTS POINT RO J R JUTTOT A M J JIAUT JAICS R JUNOT BOX 1 CRYSTAL BAY »H 55525 58 11-117-23 32 0016 01220 BRACKETTS POINT RO ELLA P CROSBY ELLA P CROSBY 1220 BRACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA Tt4 55591 36 11-117-23 32 0019 01200 BRACKETTS POINT RO JOHN S PILISOURY JR ET AL JOIRI S PILLSBURY JR 4800 TIRST BAIAL PLACE MPLS Itl 55402 38 11-117-23 35 0004 01450 BRACKETTS POINT RO MARTHA S A A LACHLAN REEO MARTHA S A A LACHLAN REED 1500 BRACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA Itl 55591 SB 11-117-23 33 0005 01480 BRACKETTS POINT RO R A L HEADRICK ROGER L A LYIII C HEADRICK 1600 BRACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA Itl 55591 TOTAL BATCH 004 00010 T rtOTTrV THAT THE TACTS REPRESENTED ARE AM ACCURATE ANO TRUE5eprJsentati5!i inroRmTioN as it appears this mte on the recwos OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXAT10N» TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE ANO BELIEF. DATE j .J1 1 D A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 AND VARIANCES TO SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1(A) AND 2; SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9(C-2) AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9(E) FILE NO. 1992 WHEREAS, J-nes R. Jundt and M. Joann Jundt (hereinafter the "applicants") are owners of the property located at 1400 Bracketts Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as; Refer to Exhibit "A" attached hereto (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants h' • made application to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit to allow the reconsmic .on of a retaining wall and a variance to Section 10.22, Section 1(A) as retaining walls are located within the 0-75 ’ setback area at approximately 45’ from the shoreline where no such structures are allowed; a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9(C-2) as major structural repairs are proposed to a greenhouse addition of an oversized str. cture at 5.478 s.f. where only a 3,000 s.f. accessory structure is allowed; a va iance to S ^tio.. !0.03, Subdivision 9(E) as structural repairs are proposed to a three st^l garaoe in e; ss of 750 ‘ .f. f-at is located 0’ from a side lot line where the code would require a 15*side ytifd setback and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 for a hardcover variance in the 0-75 ’ setback area resulting in a 0.10% increase in hardcover where 0.80% exists and 0.90% is proposed and where none is allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1992. 2.The p ‘peny is located in the LR-IA Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requii i two ncres in area. The property consists of 13.8 acres. Page 1 of 7 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on March 22, 1995 and recommended approval of the conditional use permit and variances as amended based on the following umcjue findings and hardships: a. The property consists of 13.8 acres. b.The strucmres on the property were constructed prior to development of standards for residential construction on lakeshore properties. c.On-site septic testing has been completed for the property and testing has confirmed there is adequate area and suitable soils for development of on site septic systems to serve the principal structure and the caretaker residence within the oversized accessory structure. d.Structural repairs to the nonconforming accessory strucmres do not involve the complete restoration but merely partial structural or cosmetic repair. e.The retaining walls at the underground entrance to the greenhouse provide the necessary support and stability to the only exterior entrance to the lower level of the greenhouse. f.The paved walkway located within the 0-75’ setback at the east shoreline lias been installed at 4 ’ meeting the required width of accessory access stairs within the 0-75’ setback area for lots with steep slope. 8 The paved walkway will minimize erosion of grassed lawn resulting from the more intense use of the lake access stairs providing the only bathing and boating access to lake for this property. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the restoration of the retaining wall within the lakeshore protected area will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with ^ intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 7 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely ser\e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicams; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(A) to permit the restoration of retaining walls located 45’ from the shoreline of the property and grants variances to Section lO.O^, Subdivision 9(C-2) and 10.03, Subdivision 9(E) to permit structural repairs to two nonconforming accessory stiuctures and per Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 approves a 0.10 increase in hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area where 0.80% exists and 0.90% is proposed, subject to the following conditions; 1.Applicants’ contractor to complete the removal of 250 s.f. of driveway pavement located within the 0-75’ lakeshore protected area prior to City’s issuance of a building permit for restoration of structures. Applicants or applicants’ agenB shall be responsible for maintaining erosion control within disturbed area until groundcover is restored no later than June 1, 1995. 2.The City is in receipt of a letter (dated March 7, 1995) from Thomas Crosby, Jr., applicants’ attorney, confirming that applicants will install a conforming on-site septic system during the 1995 construction period failing to obtain the necessary approvals from both the City of Orono and the Metropolitan Council to extend sewer to the property. 3.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval or this variance will expire on that date (March 13, 1996). Page 3 4. 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of March, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of March, 1995, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of , 199__, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared_____________________^^------------—_ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregomg instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of , 199___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared-------------------------^^^ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing inslruraent, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) fiw act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of , 199___. before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared--------------------------------^—__— -r known to me to be the person(s) Described in and who executed the foregomg instrument, ana acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 7 EXHIBIT A f m ^ * > >.» - r**c*j^*'**'*? ---------------------- " iT^ T I---------- L/r-a ^ • ot Oror.o rointf* ^ *1' ^ ^ Q : ’n 5«%r’‘ttr-S-s^r.- of Orcr.o roir»* v*o Also! -f-*- ••«•-'’- -”;.l'"tv'».-.!i :4««:v •i ••>•■' »• A*/ 4^# 4 •• C<bRw^rl-r.^ 0*. ln£ descr'.ieoi lino: Sorchwea'^.oriy comer cir.ier Avsnuo S53.S*; p^^ni; tiier.ee acuti-.erlv^^Icr^ of L/.-- t. r.eerren£e=er.t of ^we-ce ecuthweateriy on e :;id oonierlino e di=ter.ce of 5 .m. ^ ^ dle- •;^n£er.ilel curve to l^•e ^'“*^*’'^,.v..«at%rly tenaent to to.id iMt :;^J.\'m^:ue’irl4l72 leet. e * rur*«*^ ♦ O 8%ld W o-nLiMrieov. thence f «eeterlv ...•.v^sd our/0 o dister.ee o.. ^ i-tsTt e dlatenco of 79.3 1; a. d..r«=/2 «b- nu v: oSSi-ro—• - Ai„ ts»t PU-. «£ ''“•'■•^ COTwr <i.41c«t.^ *.o :“j^aJaJer{v **-.«r.flon <'-^*‘* ^iw’o' '?;!;'';i‘uf ;«f iSt Sf « ;•‘cir.-. cr. ..iti»«'• ’;«"!?“,-ji-:-::.-. Ut- oj t.^-' the couth-est comer Oi. sale, J'* Tr'-utherly of eild erxive de- >*•”''* cf veceted Center Avenue ve^rt of the westerly !i“:^>;d vervendlculer line; end the westerly veceted Center Avenue lyms southerly c. of the northerly line of .line of :*-{f:;“d.^;vm eeateny at riant . :':V^^Zn oi said west- *" r....... Avenue froa the point of 4«iiowlr.a de- Page 6 of 7 of vacated Border *:!\5.t:,V-. of t^- 9 center Avenue er. '•id cu^ ar.d dscioi'.ed over -------------- , ir-i it:«»s I*.-, a: * ;-;.;T7une of soli C<n'.er AvoMS »=0 » ■«ior. uea iorfer Averse .-- "-‘"-.^•fitl.:?.: ^lire drevr. crawr. across sa.a - ^ ,^j,. qJ iniersec..w.. o- ird. ^«-es of said oorssr Ave.-« **- . descrlde-^^ ss fo; ^.:;v!^lAa of ssio 3or«r JClZiof said Csn^4r Av-v.ns canisr—«• o- , .« csnos.-f laidof ssii Border Avenue wiw a ...- —^v- ;rif oUrof V' tar^er.oiil cur/e to -j.*WMe*terly tangent to last sa-d tar.ce of 169.38 fset; t-en, .J® aouthwestsrly along J „ry. « of 4A0.73 oof o lV-f« “ i el::;; ;-diata«c. of 5. feet a distance ■jlal curve to the ‘ tangent to last sdld curve a ^ 110.25 feet; thence ,^,.u^.*ep.w along a tar.gentiai distance cf lOT.^O -e,.. . jg ^ distance of 19.7 ^ t?eS: i:;l.e;ry ^®f e.S feet; thence c* 63.9 feet: thence south- :rs iToifu. u:s;:on:*oi K -o-run. of ..f^ boo. ?;. AVO.-.UO, .nd ooll un. flier. Page 7 of 7 e i r«a^O>«iO^ r ( ) o •• \ ■-1. \ W i? ! » % 11 jj- -.-ii o 1i I ii -HI j- r -^‘r SETBACK ZONE: (CCRCLE ONE1 0-75’ HL\RDC0VXR C.-U.CLXATION WORiCSHEET 75-250’ 25-500’ 3-6-93 \ 500-1000’ E.TISTTNG H■\RDCO^~ER !>' ZO>T_ A. House __________ - Boat 196 s.F, Ltfng'Ji X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Gunge C. Dr.vs'A.av S.F. X D. Sidewalk Stone Steps ?atio/Decic ___ X X X X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic X X X G. Otier TOTAL R.ARDCOVER IN’ ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY .ARE.A IN ZONE A 966.5 ^ B 130.83d .x ICO PPnpn.SFD FLa RDCOVER in ZO.VE A. House Boat Lengtix WIddx X X X B. Garage C. Dnveway X X D. Sidewalk Stone Steps X X E. Patio/Deck Pathway X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other Retaining Wall TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 1 h9R B nn aid x ICO S.F. s S.F. 525 S.F. s S.F. 245.5 s.F. s S.F. S.F. s S.F. S.F. • S.F. ^,-r-a6 6.5 S.F. r 130.834'-^S.F. a .90 -196 S.F. m S.F. a S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ss S.F. 525 S.F. a S.F. 187 s.F. a ibU S.F. S.F. a S.F. a S.F. 30 S.F. 1.098 S.F. 100.03»- S.F.--liwr ^^ tO 'i.t ^ o. C 1 B I I . 90 in ! I *— /r/* •w . I SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONTl EXISTING FLARDCQ^'^^ ZONE A. House --------------- raretaker*s House a^VWJCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 25-500'0-75' X X X B. Gange______________- Caretaker's Garage C. Driveway______________ D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X X X X G. Other Tennis Courts x -----------— total hardcover ln zone TOTAL PROPERTY ARE-A LN ZONE * A 49.923 ^ B 31^1 X 100 ynopQSET) hard CQ v ™ ZONE A. House Lesftii raretaker's House Width X X X taker’s barage C. Driveway ----------------- D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X X X X oa,er Tennis Court TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * A 55.163 ^ B _31 / , q X 100 . W • V •• • 500-1000 ’ 8.386 S.F. 5.884 S.F. S.F. S.F. 1.400 S.F.h-srhr822 P'1 fl?7 S.F. S.F.r-N 229 S.F.i , 150 S.F.__ 1.600 JU5_ S.F. S.F. ? w,.. S.F. S.F.^ V }_S.F. 7.320 S.F. S.F.A S.F.B 15.7 % 8.386 ^ S.F. lO'*'5.884 ^ S.F. S.F. S.F. 1.400 V S.F. \ Ni 822 . - 23.827 V S.F. 57240 S.F. 229'' S.F. 150 ✓S.F. 1.600 " S.F. 30^T S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 7.320/S.F. • • 55,163 S.F. --------------S.F. A B 17.35^^ 13 » '•' t;^ ; • liOATI lOUSI: Ay DOCK ■\ Hisiof-Ncr. ‘7. ’’‘JA- ' ' ^<^«\V ^ ' ' ^ \ ' V ' ' • yy' ! , • I * ’ ' *. ^ •n*n*«* So 1 • .* I ■ • ’. ' * < W.';;/; ; ! ^ ■/ ‘ r >/: on9Bnmi|5 —\”.A., , ! : ; area 2X PpUPJ^NfAL \ ^ 34*H«n^ X I ^ 1 nm.^ A_ ' *% *.CARDbfi.-\ / I MA* V \ #;/ ■* *•*.•, I . . » « 1^ A ; I “7 >fY*‘ «pUJUC- ; I ' I ; f - I j * I « I ^ / * f * I , I • I »; V. ; < (^iUO) , V « ^.t0atS /a' r^-Avf*/' /tc^**«Ly*/-<-»«. *-n> < 1>c <) '^00,5 • / O of vOfU ^ ^ / ;/ # ./ / / • / t WMiL, *, t«* — i^t —f-; .';... .-^“‘ J--------—Vr^ Liuz>w \\ / / •;1 ‘ - rr.-fjT- - - . ______\ MKMHI I «l*« I ^ JCaH -"^_.T Z iWrvuiu^L __ . " ____ Remove portion of Service ^•^•— Access Road and restore to original condition. (3/6/95) '•itVi) /VRFA MQTF5: SEE AREA 1 FOR SERVICE COURT SEE AREA lA FOR WAIN TERRACE SEE AREA 2 FOR POOU TENNIS CO and PERENNIAL GARDEN SEE 30 SCALE DRAWINGS FOR areas not covered by ENLAR( OR AS noted 1 1 II I J (iMi: I'NE fT^.'.'U.icTOsis 222 Mir :net: ,*01(0 Aver^'Jt* 61 2-J M > I jXj f A ■r 12-4 1224 M. '^2' /ttV i?L^^ /r. A-» ^ €<2^*^C2^< t TO;Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. Ciw Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth. Buildmg & Zoning Administrator DATE;April 11, 1995 SUBJECT: Ji'ZOll Tim and Lorie Line. 4415 Forest Lake Lamling - VariaiKCS - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, total area = 62.660 s.f. or 1.4 acres; 55,500 s.f. or 1.2 acres in a 1993 application. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.02. Definition 13, "Building Height". Section 10.24. Subd. 5(A) - Height variance. Required = 30 ’ Proposed = 35 ’ (refer to Exhibit L northwest elevation) Variance = 5 ’ or 16.6% Section 10.22, Subd. 2(A) - Hardcover review. A. 0-75 ’ setback area = 42.450 s.f. No hardcover proposed. B 75-250 ’ setback area = 19,210 s.f. (13,700 s.f. in 1993 application) Allowed = 4,803 s.f. or 25% Proposed = 5,628 s.f. or 29.2% based on adjusted area or 41% based on 1993 area calculations Variance = 825 s.f. or 4.29% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicants* Addendum C - Plat Map D - Property Owners List E - Original Survey Application #1892 F - Current Survey G - Hardcover Inventory K - Resolution #3375 - Approving Application #1892 11-2 - PC Minutes 11/15/93 & Council Minutes 12/13/93 J - Proposed Site Plan K - Floor Plans L - Elevations/Section Zoning File #2011 April 11, 1995 Paee 2 Description of Request In the later part of 1993. the City granted a hardcover variance and height variance for a residence to be constructed on the undeveloped property-. The height variance involved a separate section or addition of the house that contained three stories. The current application involves a walkout design. Based on the height definition variance. Section 10.02, Definition 13. vertical height is determined at existing elevations not final or proposed elevation. Refer to Exhibit L. the northeast elevation and the northwest elevation. The code asks that a comparison be made between the highest existing elevation (943 at garage level) and the adjusted elevation of the basement floor (934+ 10* = 944). Vertical height is measured from the lowest of the two elevations. Top or highest point is measured to the mean distance between highest p<nnt of the pitched roof and the ceiling joist, refer to the northwest elevation. The legal height l5 35’ + . Refer to the southeast or lakeside elevation, the peak height of the structure from the lakeside is approximately 47 ’. As in the earlier variance application, the design aiKl shape of the house results from the unique shaped building envelope and need to conserve horizontal hardcover improvement. The property is surrounded by lakeshore on the three sides. Review Exhibits E and F. in the earlier review the total lot area was found to be 55.500 s.f. The current application shows a total lot area of 660 s f with an increase in the 75-250 ’ setback area at 19,210 s.f. (onginal was 13,700). Staff called the surveyor to question 7,000+ s.f. of additional area. The surveyor advised that the same field crew shot the elevations in both 1992 and 1994. The area is flat and they ^ot more elevations resulting in the redefined shoreline at 929.4. Staff has asked for the field information from the surveyor to reconfirm findings. The applicants’ consultant proposes a drainfield to maintain runoff from roof of stnicturc to offset the 4.2% excess of hardcover. Review Exhibit L, specifically the "Sections , note tlwt all outdoor use areas have been stacked to conserve on hardcover by placing ver^ immediately over grade level patio and topping veranda with a deck at third lakeside level. The property has not been assessed for sewer. Review Exhibits M and N, the sewer is approximately 120 ’ away from property boundary. It will be the applicants’ responsibility to extend sewer to the property. Sewer connection charge will consist of the following charges: Plant charge ^ Unit fee for 1970 LS-1 project o nn Lift station 10 by-pass charge 2.269.W Front footage charge $26.25 per front ft. (190’ x $26.25) 4,987.50 Total fee $11,744.50 Service availability charge $ 850.00 Zoning File #2011 Apnl 11, 1995 Page 3 Statement of Hardship Please review Exhibit B, applicants* addendum. Hardships are reviewed as follows; 1. Total lot area is 62,660 s.f. but only 19,210 s.f. lies within the 75-250’ setback zone. Unique topography. 3. 4. The propeny is located on a peninsula Standard lakeshore lot with 62,660 s.f. in area would have yielded much higher allowable hardcover within the 75-250’ zone. Issues for Consideration 1.Are the hardships still valid for hardcover excess of 4.29%. The City originally approved a 7.5% hardcover excess at 13,700 s.f. in 75-250’ setback area. Has this house also been designed to minimize use of hardcover? Is a 3,883 s.f. building pad reasonable for this property. Total hardcover for the property is at 8.98%. Stnicmral coverage is 6.2% (allowed 9,399 s.f. or 15%). 3 . 20% of the hardcover within the 75-250’ setback shall be treated within drainfield area. 4.Applicants’ addendum notes the following additional findings to support request for height variance. "Note that a small portion of the house does not comply with the 30 ’ height restriction. The upper level of the rotunda protrudes up beyond the adjacent complying roofs in order to capture light wh'ch then filters down to light the levels below." Bichanich then asks you to review the sections. Exhibit L. Staff asks that you review Exhibit K, the floor plans, if the purpose is to filter light to the interior, it would appear that walls are being proposed adjacent to all levels of the circular atrium section. The architect shall be present and will respond as to the purpose or need for the lighting. 5.Are there sufficient hardships to support the request for a height variance? Can the light need be satisfied with other adjustments or improvements? Zoning File #2011 April 11. 1995 Page 4 Options of Action To approve or deny as proposed: or To approve as amended. Anv condition of approval must include the following conditions; 1.Prior to the filing of an application for new construction, applicants must apply for the legal combination of the five separate parcels that make up the building sue. 2.Upon application for a building permit, applicant will make payment for a sewer connection charge at $11,744.50 per 1995 fee schedule and a SAC payment of $850.00 based on MWCC’s 1995 fee schedule. 3.The City shall require permits for the installation of the drainfield and extension of municipal sewer to residents. Applicants’ consultant/contractor shall provide all design and spec information for the review of the City Engineer. 6 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $1(X).00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-fhe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) r •-i X • .•••' PROPERTY CSTORMATTpN Site Address ^ I ^ i l—A’Xi, - . to . .. \ V' • %* Property THpnfification Number (P.I.^) 'U 7 ^ ^ ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired 1 ^ 4.__^------------------------- (^o not]) (month/year) Present use of property': X residential ^QT* other (specify) Zoning District;___________________________________ APPLICANT Name /JATE26 4 Phone (home) Phone(work) A Z. ■ > Ofe>A Address:(nr. \iiiaMM nC City:ppf .) pzXi tu|L.-----Zip:_S£24ii OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Tir-'. S L.Gg.ig. Phone(home) Phone (work) Address: f ^ City: -----Zip: SS354 DESCRIPTION OF REQLTST Estimated Construction Cost S ^00^0(10 Describe request indetail: ------------------------ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ____ Lot Width ^ Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore ')( Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unu^l property conditi^ ^v^tmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ATTACf/EP sHCfcTS----- (attach additional sheets if necessary) •• • \ va \ . ‘ <to REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order fnr vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surv'cyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8Vi x 11 for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existmg grade — are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'^" x 11" for reproduction.^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/^" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. __Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant- and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember tlm xfiiu: variance aPDljrafion is not complete if the above information has not iqtlWflCiL APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ^ u -r The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee paymem) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is tr^^i^c^t^^o^cbes^f his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature IZnru t ----Date —------ OWNER’S SIGNATURE ^ , The owner hereby acknowledees and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and mification of this request. Owner’s Signamre Date 3-.P3-fr' thi!^ change prior to the meeting. 8 March 23. 1995 1 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth; Factii • Lot Area - 61,500 sq. ft. • Main Level Area - 2472 sq. ft. • Garage Area - 768 sq. ft. • Drive Area - 1016 sq. ft. • Veranda Area - 528 sq. ft. • Walk Area - 374 sq. ft. • Protective Border - 292.sq. ft.^ - /tu t KEITH WATERS & ASSOCIATES. Inc. DESIGNERS & BUILDERS 10340 Vtktng Dri\e Suite 110 Edcf! Prune MN 55344 (612)942-1060 fax (612) 942-1058 License Number - 0001508 Total Hardcover 6664-sq. ft. 7 ." There is no proposed construction or grading within the 0’ • 75' zone. All construction lies within the 75' to 250' zone. Hardship Although the total lot area is 61,500 sq. ft. only 19,000 sq. ft. lies within the 75' to 250' zone due to the lots topography and unique peninsular shape. Twenty five percent of the area within the 75' to 250' zone yields only 4750 sq. ft. allowable hardcover. This is inadequate for house, walk & drive. A standard shaped lakeshore lot would yield a much higher allowable hardcover for this large of a lot. Proposed Solution • Limit amount of hardcover generated by utilizing space above and below garage as living space • Lower level patio lies under cover of main level veranda, which in turn lies under the upper level roof deck. This stacking of outdoor hardcover areas helps limit overall hardcover. The roof design allows for the collection and control of all preapitation falling on the structure. Heated roof drains collect water and direct it into dispersion tanks. Over 4000 gallons of runoff can be held within the tanks (the equivalent of 2" of ram falling in one hour). The runoff is then dispersed and absorbed by the soil in a manor similar to a septic field Only the runoff from the walk, drive and landscape borc'er would need to be shed onto the surface of the surrounding landscape. This area would only be 12% of the 75’ to 250' zone. Alternatively it would be quite simple to control alt of the runoff on the drive by using a curb’, sloping the dnve to a large grate drain, and then directing the water into our dispersion tanks and controlled runoff field. This method would reduce uncontrolled runoff by 5.4%. This reduction alone would bring the hardcover percentage down from 29 2% to 23.8% in the 75* to 250* zone. The site will be left in its existing heavily vegetated condition where possible. Note that 292 sq. ft. of hardcover is due to a 2’ wide protective landscape border. This Border can be omitted, but our experience shows that this border significantly helps direct water away from the foundation. Additional Finding Orono currently has a 60* street right-a-way on Forest Lake Landing, but only r^uires 50*. If 5' were vacated on each side and deeded back to the property owners, this wou d increase the 75’ to 250* zone by 740 sq. ft Please note that a small portion of the house does not comply with the 30’ height restriction. The upper level of the rotunda protrudes up teyond the adjacent complying roofs in order to capture light which then filters down to light the levels below. (See section) We ask that a height variance be granted for this limited condition. Sincerely. Blake Bichanich BB/hks Jll I! U- . \ i/ \ nc m ’Z') \\ m • .“2L li05 1 i'< ’3----------------------- !*c/ »f •> 1 •Ai t / / \ / / V* 5 T '^' s ^*■5* ' \ \!\*\ rt « . ’ 1 ! ’ ‘ ‘ ‘ !% _________V A \ *. »'«♦ 1 1 * 1 • » r ' g___ « # i ./ ,\ . '^oVuTZVC ! ‘ V.- sn-Sfe f • 4 ' RUN DATE 0S/2S/T5BATCH $07 PROP AODR OKNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AODR ONNER KAHE TAXPA'":R NAME AODR PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR HErMEPXN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMCRS LIST58 C7-117-25 IS 021A 000S8 ADDRESS UNASSIONEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO FLOOD CONTROL I UNDER HATER) 2/5/82 ST DEED tl«UA8 $8 07-117-25 2A OOlfc 04A50 FOREST LAKE LANOINO R L S V A KOLFF ROBERT L a VELMA A HOLFF ♦ASO FOREST LAKE LANDINS MOUND MN 555AA 58 07-117-25 2A 0018 00058 AOORHSS UNASSIGNED T LINE a L LINE TIMjTHY a LORIE LINE 4415 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUND W 55544 58 07-117-25 24 0005 04445 FOREST LAKE LANDING T M LEMSKE a A M LEM3KE timothy M LEK3XE 444$ FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUND MN 55544 58 07-117-25 24 0017 04440 FOREST LAKE LANOINO R S MULLIN a L F MULLIN ROSERT a LISA MULLIN 4440 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUNO MN 55544 58 07-117-25 24 0020 00058 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO T LINE a L LINE TIMOTHY a LORIE LINE 4415 FOREST LAKE LANOINO MOUND MN 55544 REPORT NO. PI455401 PA« 1858 07-117-25 24 0007 01184 MILONURST TR 8 0 RASMUSSEN/S J RASMUSSEN BRIAN 0 a SANORA J RASMUSSEN 1184 MILONURST TR mound MN 55544 58 07-117-25 24 0018 04415 FOREST LAKE LANDING T LINE a L LINE TIMOTHY a LORIE LIM 4415 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUNO MN 55544 58 07-117-25 24 0021 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIQ€0 T LINE a L LINE TIMOTHY a LORIE LINE • 4415 FOREST LAKE LANOINO mound MN 55544 ■ • - 0( % • • I. .■■-J * I •: i: ‘ -f’ a ‘ ♦ if • PROP AOPR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 07-117-25 24 0022 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO T LINE a L LINE TIMOTHY a I OKIE LINE 4415 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUNO MN 55564 58 07-117-25 24 0058 04445 FOREST LAKE LANDING JON 0 BLACKSTONE ET AL JON 0 BLACKSTONE 4445 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUNO MN 55344 38 07-117-23-24-0038 4465 Forest Lake Landing Jon D Blackstone et al Jon D Blackstone 4465 Forest Lake Landing Mound MN 55364 58 07-117-25 24 0027 01144 WILCHURST TR LYLE E RAHN ETAL LYLE E RAHN 1144 HILDHURST TRAIL MOUNO MN 55344 38 07-117-25 51 0057 01200 MILOHURST TR DAVID J KRUSKOPF 1 WIFE DAVID J KRUSKCPF 1200 HILDHURST TRL MOUND MN 55344 38 07-117-23-31-0037 1200 wildhurst Tr David J Kruskopf & wf David J Kruskopf 1200 Wildhurst Trl Mound MN 55364 I 58 07-117-25 24 0057 Ci>455 FOREST LAKE LANDING S H a M J ERIKSON SANfORO a MARGARET ERIKSON 4455 FOREST LAKE LANOINO MOUNO MN 55344 TOTAL BATCH 507 QQ014 * ■ 4 • . I t • . • I • • « , . ‘A • •• » • . ;v *4 • •• 4 . ‘ • i ■ * ‘ • . * » \ • ‘ - -ft • • *■ • » p • » * 4 <* V ; .r'"; . \ . •• •\ . V / 4 • *. ■ ••• i«OI75 IS .• f ^ Certificate of! Snrvov for Roqer M. nyboth of Lots 13-17^ Tonkaview Gardens Hennepin County, Minnesota I If' /^p/fsrr iAt(€ (Ijt/rf /^/A/A/rrPA/A4) /^a/?eTr /A/ce ( lAHS AtfAAA/er^A/MA) Legal Description Lots 13-17, Tonknviov; Gardens. This survey shov/s the location of the boundaries of the above described property and the topography of said lots. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments.'^■1 •i. SURVEY WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS S0O£ • * /r^A O * AimrArf- fcA ' j, -V /’OV'^yrV ^ ^:yCOFnN‘&=GRONBERG;;lNCh^j ^ G’y|’i||fl^y<;^grlv^'l^vlr>^^L^l^t 5/ipnVffSjfi\TfyiF>yr>^7‘3^o ;V.-4H2 fimor.KK"Avi‘nur>* iunl; GKM n 5S3?y\*i^fimor.KK"Avi‘nur>* iunl; ^ 5S3tf\4;: 4sce 0fAtf fcA of I^ts U-)7, "TONKAVIEW GARDKNS HENNBPIN COUNTY MINN. rs^ Sao £ jf. /•/. k . A'aAt-rr AAfre C£4 Af H ••# U'ynl _ncscri[)Hon . , I.ots 13-17, "TONKAVIKW GAWDIINS IIMNNEPtN COlINM'Y MINN.*' This sui’voy sliows existing contours artel two soil boring location oi. the above described proper,ty. It does not purport to show other improvomonts or encroachments. •: Iron marker found o: Iron marker sot _: I’.xisting elevation ^io^e.: Troposed sfroefures odddd S-29-35 il * ^1 * fi 't4 *1 £ • fi- el man Certificate of Survey for Waters Associates, FirS^. Security Title K Timothy and Lorio l»ine of I.ots 13-17, “TONKAVIEW GARDENS IIENNF.PIN COUNTY MINN." heyaj_, I.ots 13-17, "TONKAVIKW GAKIM’.NS MFNNEPtN COUNTY MINN." I . •• This survey show:; oxistin9 contours and two soil boring location oi. the above described proper,ty. It does not fiurport to s!iow (^thcr improveipcnts or encroachments. •: Iron marker found o: Iron marker set. fja--: Existing elevation :7rapo3cd sfrucforc9 added 3-^9-95 i I ComN & Gronberg, Inc I -I'L't M ■ ,'.M I V'l f'l'llWJil. k * looijl.iki M\ m: i!4i I lirrcby crilify th»U llns snrwy pii'p.iu il In mr or inuli i luy iliriil supri vision, and that I am a duly rc);isk'rcd Civil l:n|;inivr and Land Surveyor under the laws i»l the Slate ol Minnesola Mark S. Gi »nberi; Minnesota l.iiense Number l27a.S I. “ I'All //•ya-9^ |nii\o .♦ y* 1 • • *• • i * t . m:- • « • «l 1. •% .t m > ha RDCOVE SETBACK ZO?fE; (CIRCLE ONE) fxisttng haupcove R 7.0NE CULAliOiN vvoiuv:>nfc.t i 75-250* 25-SOO’SOO-K A. House S.F. Widdi Ltn|t!i X 91 S S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway %S.F. X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape __ Underlain ^ ^ By Plastic __ Of Fabric - X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PF PERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ S.F. X 100 S.F. O______% pnOPOSFD HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House S.F. Length WhMi X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage I C. Driveway S.F. X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain___ By Plastic ____ Of Fabric X • X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other total HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A g ^ ® ■ 4^4^ X100 - • S.F. ^3^5^ S.F. —y. A B W 4 # f ii 1 ■. •* •:! •T A B »: ;| it fa: * F 4r »>u \ k*» * • f. I' i I-r • • •» *1 f- LfA/£r ' SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) VVUKlOtll:.! t 25^0'500-1000' fvrynNC HARDC P* 7^0^ A. House __ - S.F. WidA LttigA X. X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage __ C. Driveway __ S.F. X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk ___X X ^S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Dcck X X S.F. S.F. F.Landscape _ Underlain ^ By Plastic ^ Or Fabric • X X 3f S.F. S.F. S F. S F. G. Other _ T( TAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PF OPERTY AREA IN ZONE S.F. B /<>2/i9 X 100 /42tO _ S.F. B O______%• proposedjl ^i )f;nvER in zone A. House /5«S.F. LtngA WMA X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage _2^S.F. C. Driveway _X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk „X X 333 S.F. S.F. d£n.AMOA E. Patie/Beck _X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape _ Underlain ^ By Plastic _ Or Fabric^- • X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other WAIA5_ to A S.F. total hardcover in zone TOTAL F ROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 5«<a S.F. Zs P- B X 100 « 'ik ■s ■ii A B » •I . •/i u CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _aLaj2_5__ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIMSION 2 AND 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) FILE NO. 1892 WHEREAS, Bruce Kehring (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 4415 Forest Uke Landing within the City of Orono and legally described as follows; Lot 13 - 17, Tonkaview Gardens. Hennepin County. Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (A), the applicant seeks approval of a height variance for a portion of a new residence that will be at three stories where the code allows only 2Vi sto.’ies and a hardcover variance within the 75-250’ setback area where the new construction will result in 4,462 s.f. or 32.5% hardcover where only 3,425 s.f. or 25% is allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1 2 This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1892. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 55,500 s.f. or 1.27 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 15, 1993 and recommended approval of the variances as proposed based upon the following unique findings and hardships; A.Total lot area is 55,500 s.f. where only 13,700 s.f. lies within the 75-250’ setback area. Page 1 of 5 tmm CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE Cm' COUNCIL NO. 8 3 ^ B A standard lakeshore lot with 55,500 s.f. in area would have yielded much higher hardcover allowances within the 75-250 setback zone. C. D E. The property is located on a peninsula. Tlie property contains unique topographical constraints The house has been specifically designed to limit the need for horizontal expansion beyond building footprint to provide additional outdoor recreational space. Surface runoff from 25.2% of the total 32.5% of hardcover improvements will be treated within a drainfield area and will not run directly into lake. G. A small wing of the new residenf'* will be at a three-story height. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would r.ot adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City suff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 granting a hardcover variance within the 75-250’ setback area of 1,037 s.f. or 7.5% and per Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (A) grants a height variance for a small portion of the residence that will be at a three-story height instead of at 2‘A stories, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 1 • • • CITY of ORONO RESOLUnON OF THE CIT\’ COUMaL Q Q «-O O * 'NO. 1 5. 6. Prior to the filing of an application for new construction, applicant must apply for the leeal combination of the five separate parcels that make up the buildmg site. Upon application for a permit, applicant will make payment for a sewer connection charge at $11,331 per 1993 fee schedule and a SAC payment of $750 based on MWCC’s 1993 fee schedule. The City shall require permits for the installation of the drainfield and extension of municipal sew'er to residence. Applicant’s consultant/coniractor shall provide all design and spec information for the review of the City Engineer. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (December 13, 1994). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 3 of 5 • • CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE Cm' COUNCIL NO. 8 3 r;_____ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of December, 1993. AttEST: D'^rothy M. ffalih. City Clerk Property Owner (s) . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of December, 1993 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. CAROtE A. HASEMAN NOTMT PUOIIC—umncsota HENNEPIN COUNTY wv OOMMISSDN CWMES MM Notary Public Page 4 of 5 1 o. o CITY of ORONO RESOLimON OF THE CITY COUNCIL N0..a3JL£__ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this 75^*^_______day of 1993 before me a Notary Public within and for said county , personally appeared f « r>4. Kon(s) described in and who e.<ecutiknown to me to be the pers^on(s) described in and who e.<ecuted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. r'cAPOLE C*/ •NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county , personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 5 of 5 10. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15, 1993 .-ta. rnmmissioner Nolan agreed, and stated he felt that steps should be XTto^essenye amount of hardsurface coverage. He supported staffs recommendation for removal of 7 square feet of patio. Commissioner Linriquist moved. i.l^. ihT, uj.i .i iniorr.oc AO Leaf Str^e^ with the under$t9 .Ddinq thgt there will fag n.Q— haiypon jg nes .rea and the ariolicant will submit a rev.sad suive: the U-- 5—ssii2—^7c;.'?Rn' <;prhack area at no more than 30%. showing tnP hardco ver within The ^ ---- .......................... -» “ dimensions on it. Commissioners Nolan, Schroeder, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye". Mntigrt carried- #1892 Bruce Kehring 4415 Forest Lake Landing - Variance • Public Hearing Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave «aled1h^"the seweJ Blake Bichanich. the architect for the applicant was also present, if ® ,0 was 150' away and the applicant will be able to connect to it. PP make a payment of a front footage charge as part of the sewer connection fee. Bruce Kehring. the applicant, explained that the roof of the house is “ an exterior entertainment area to avoid the use of patios f „''„Vth?house w® I be nnint Of the house is 30'. Ms. Mabusth stated that a small portion of the three-story and the ordinance allows for a 2.5 stories. The proposed house mee height requirement but will require a variance for three stories. ThP Public Hearing was opened. No one present wished to speak The Public Hearing was closed. Ms. Mabusth explained staff's position regarding the average lakeshore mere is no problem because the lots are separated by a P^'^lic roadway, and he property owner has no claim on the view. The current property owner, Roger Byboth, st talked to the neighbors and they were glad to see the proposal. Ms. Mabusth discussed the hardcover variance and parcel. Discussion ensued regarding the drainage on the property, . holding for the house was explained. The water will drain down from the roof into four homing 12. planning commission minutes CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15, 1993 the lot limits the area available for the building. tha rto^inn of the house in relation to the shape of the lot and fhlTunrnd^ngneisXrhood. Commissioner^Peterso^^^^^ :o:m:m:d"‘'he%'lt the'Tes^gn was Inconsistent with the r-elghhorhood. and Mr. K.hring responded that it was dictated by the shape of the lot. ^ I •mrirttiicr ea/~rhnrtpd. fof anoroval nf <^1892 Variance fOI CQmmissiQner I’^nHinn with thp hardcover^variance aP^Tvarignce fpp Rrucg Kehnng, ^1$ Fqrg^t ~:1> K.^arH nn rhP hardship of anj^"■r .Tfa:;’',: 'sg g--." >=s='- ~ Lindquist voted "aye". Mptign ^grri.gjl. 11. #1893 Christine Freeman 2240 Shadywood Road • Variance . Public Hearing (Rescheduled to January, 1994) 76rBroTR«7sLth - Variance - Request to modify approved Development Plan Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne ''J problems with the Up after Councii had approved the original plans. Commissioner Nolan mpygdi n _________ annroved Devnionment Plans for Tpm 6rQwng ^^0 Brp ^ntion report. Commissioners Nolan, Schroeder. Peterson, and Lindquist vo carried. rovft the modificati?^^ ' in the SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 13.2^61 Sirh^elT^rth "ire'.'ch ^0 Review for proposed subdivision Commissioner Peterson left the table for the following discussion. Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth Th^t^th^zoning and required no action by the Planning Commission. She stated that the zon 9 most important issue, and reviewed the staff report. 8 MINimS OF THE REGUL^ Of®?®>4 F.T T) DECEMBER 13> 1993 ,.r (.-8) #1880 CRAIG HERTZENBERG, 115 SMITH AVENUE - VARIANCE - resolution no . 3373 ■n.e am«r.d«l variance rcquca. was rcviewea by MabcsO,. . .'.c petitioner was presen. and had no additional comments. I. was moved bv Jabbour. seconded by Goenen, » adopt Resolution No. 3373 approving var*“.cr#1880Vor Cra.g Hertzenberg a. 115 Smith Ave-ue. Ayes 4, nays 0. #1891 BRIAN EHALXHON JARNES. 140 LEAF STREET - VARIANCES - resolution no . 3374 #ts9" Do“Tar"«:« HO ^e^t^ Ay« t nays 0. (•10) #1892 BRUCE KEHRING, 4415 FOREST LAKE I.AND£NG - VARIANCE - resolution NO. 3375 It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Ayes 4. navs 0, approving variance #1892 for Bruce Kehring at 4415 Forest Lake Lanaing. Aye (#11) 1340 BALDUR PARK - SEVVER CONNECTION “ fo-e- (#12) FLAG LOT ORDINANCE AT a »PnON ORDINANCE NO. 122, 2ND SERIES Gatfron reviewed the suiff report and sm-ed that su.T recomme.nded adoption of the flag lot ordinance. Mayor Callahan moved, Jabbour seconded to adopt Ordinance No. 122, 2nd Series, the Flag Lot Ordinance, as presented by staff. Ayes 4, nays 0. ■#13) B-2 STATUS REPORT (INFORMATION ONLY) I o m m 0 r mr TP 0 5mr •o z 1 I ^ • i-z 1^'•*i 7^ :EITH WATERS k ASSOCIATES. INC 10340 Viking Dr . Suite 110 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Line Residence iBMialt:wIm: - •Mm. $1 DESIGNERS dC BUIII>f<:RS (612)942-1060 fax 942-1058 4415 For«( Uk« Undno Orono.MN Lkcmc NwnbcteOOISa EITH WATERS C ASSOCIATES. INC. o cu *0m 9 r r •oi 0 9 3 C Z ? 9 Z 10340 Vikinji Hr.. Suite 110 Eden Prairie. MN 55344 ESIGNERS&BUimERS (612)942 1060 fax 942.1058 i •/ Mita:llMflM. Line Residence 4415 FofMU ail* landing Orono.MN l^cmcNunbei-OOOISail •1 > r " ■ ifj* Y £ITH WATERS ^ASSOCIATES, INC 10340 Viking Dr., Suite 110 Eden Prairie. MN 55344 Line ■1 4LSIGNERS & BUIIi)ERS (612)942*1000 Residence 4415 FofMt Lak* Undng Ororo, MN ^ z- M 19ai (D II \oz EITHWATKRS ;c ASSOCIATES. INC 10340 Vikini; Dr., Sulic 110 Kdcn Prairie, MN 55344 leSIGNERS & BU1U3ERS (612)^2-1060 fat <)42.I05» Line Residence (D mr 441S FoTMt Lake laming Orono.MN Lkcn*e Numbei yniSOn I \ rilMlM. ’ - t •, f t. ■ \\ 11 m^.<v44'4:%xl*;.-;^ V V ^ Ost» V.:. i ‘ ,••*.;■ •§ '■• t ‘ H.- ;'. -V','- • -4w* • t^i * - ■ * yrr. • V: rti liii i i 2tv: pji ill'-fe|!;Wm : i mW.. c ftT'*- 5^io' ' V;'r.'y'i-'-MIO;.*.r%cn ' *’<•nvi -:.• -J.C'- ;■• •••^ r?I-•^ V ' •> ■•IS A^r •* • • »• V ; Wi;. •r'.'t •* ' •SS-S-•or ,4V/'4: V. • ,‘.*. ■•' *.*- ;y^'r. *t: r'' • 4 ■ Jftr;4Ate»i4 ikj ' * ■•’•/ ‘ ‘XVin V’*'-- h ^--^5 * tn»•' ’3.!--- vs ' ■ ' • . • •• *<1' •, '■*- f I '■ ^ •; ‘ • '.|| * ^ ■ ^ 4. ^ .♦ jO^ -•■■ ■;•T4..4v•V.^.’;< ;■ ■•'.■•.•.■■ i\>- ■•■.•:• V‘. •/ .-, ^iVrr-'iV' •A-Vll■T0^h4^iH' ♦ I. •••*»'* • ‘ •V‘ /V.;.::-' >;.Vv.. • • '•. '*“V* \ ‘••‘I. ' / / • ,••:* n *1 ^ V- r/t o I : .’•• / ‘* ■•»• ■•!i •/. **1} /. t ■'., * . Vr ..-f r ■ ^ r 5* /S:x. . *.5‘x'‘••‘•.• a’.*■ Ail/.;:--. ; *. •v ii'f vv:4 •/'• »i*. iv';^A:A;VV.A^ t:'=■;• •••■■-■•y. ■‘ .»•X i *• >■ w ^ •/ftO .ov-:.'. ‘ .’•:.*.;» ,' I ,• ..-X .»: {'•'». > • • r'4'-. f---' V*~ ;*'.■• . <» •§ •4o:v- , J ; 4l '.oj,' O'Qr 1 ♦ • ’ -jf. ^ ' . ■ : •« . \'. >*• • ;'.i’'. Ct • •• ' • •: J X.-- ■n • '•V *><;• %S•o .t ».* • i ■' ♦ • ? >: . ►» *« • A,.{.JO ■ •■ ,.r * * 1 '•' • • •• ,m ...‘ .' ..•* ...w ••.V • I * * . ■ • ■ H ‘ • ’ . ‘ . . • V .• '••■ ’.' .11- • . .,. "1 7.' s 7';;477i^v;7^^^ V.- From: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusih. Building & Zoning Administrator Date:April 12. 1995 Subject: #2014 James Nystrom, 1745 Concordia Street - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A) - Lakeshore setback variances for proposed additions. Required = 75’ Proposed upper deck = 36 ’ Proposed great room — 45’ Proposed lakeside addition = 33 ’ 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) - Review Exhibit G. proposed major additions are located between 50’ and 100’ in front of the average lakeshore setback line. 3. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover. A. 0-75’ setback area = 5,630 s.f. Allowed = 0 Existing = 2,197 s.f. or 39.02% Applicant shows no changes in hardcover within the 0-75’ setback. B. 75-250’ setback area Allowed = 3,285 s.f. or 25% Existing = 3,233 s.f, or 24.6% Review Exhibits F-2 and I, plans show an approximate 12 x 20 extension at the southeast comer of struemre. The improvement results in additional hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area. Once again, applicant shows no removals. Applicant ’s hardcover facts do not account for structural additions. This will bring hardcover above 25%. C. 250-500’ setback area = 1,250 s.f. Existing = 285 s.f. or 22.8% No change proposed. 4.Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) - Side yard setback variance. Required = 10’ Existing = 1’ 6" Proposed = 1’ 6" for rear addition. Dimensions unknown. Proposed = 1’ 6" for great room addition. Variance = 10’ or 100% Zoning File #2014 April "l2. 1995 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Propert)' Owrers’ List D-1-3 Hardcover Inventorv' E-1 Upper Level As-Built Upper Level Proposed Lower Level As-Built Lower Level Proposed Survey/Average Lakeshore Setback Sur\ey/Upper Level Improvements Survey/Lower Level Improvements Elevations E 2 F-l F-2 G H 1 J Description of Request The applicant proposes major additions to the existing partial two-story residence located approximately V 6” from the south side lot line. Additions at the south side are a great room to the lakeside and a bedroom addition to the street side or rear. Lower level mprovements also include an approximate 3’ stmcmral expansion to the lakeside over the existing deck. Review Exhibits E-2. H and J. Note the great room will be two-story. To the lakeside of the upper level master bedroom there will be a minor stmcmral expansion towards the lake. A deck will be placed in line with the existing lower level living room (not within 3’ expansion). AJl proposed additions will encroach required setback areas either lakeshore or side The great room will be placed over in existing concrete patio and the approximate 12’ x 20’ bedroom addition to the rear will be placed over a portion of an existing sidewalk. Applicant’s hardcover facts have not been adjusted to include the new hardcover improvement in the 75-250’ setback area. Review hardcover facts. 24.6% hardcover exists in the 75-250’ setback area and with the proposed rear addition hardcover will be over the allowed 25%. There is excessive paving within the street yard that includes a paved ramp at the north lot liiw obviously for vehicular use. The purpose of this review is to provide applicant and applicant’s consult^ with concepmal direction regarding the redevelopment of the property. Applicant’s architect has discussed a possible lot line rearrangement with property owner to south where stmemres both encroach required side yards. The architect has noted that the stmcmral addition of the property to the south is an older covered porch area that could easUy be removed and rebuilt m a conforming location. It is difficult to see just what portion of the subject property could be given up in an equal area exchange. Staff has heard nothing from property owner to south. r Zoning File #2014 April 12, 1995 Page 3 Start has no information as to the age of the residence but our guess would be somewhere in the 40*s. similar in age to the residence to the south. The buildinii envelope will increase to double the size of the existing residence. Statement of Hardship Review Exhibit A. applicant notes that the majority of the house is located within the 0- 75’ setback area and located 1 + * from the south side lot line. Issues for Consideration 1.If we are to provide applicant with direction regarding the improvement of the structure Members should be prepared to address the following; Will vou approve major expansions within the 0-75 setback area? The subject structure extends 32 ’ closer to the lake than the residence structure on the property to the south. Will you approve major expansions to the existing residence located within 1-2’ from the side lot line? c.Will you approve major encroachments of the average lakeshore setback line? 2.Why must rear addition be installed in the substandard south side yard? Why can’t addition be relocated at least 10’ from that side lot line? 3.Are we dealing with another Palm-type application? In other words, will we approve major improvements to the existing older residence only to find out that applicant will be later advised to rebuild a new structure? What is the condition of the foundation and will it support improvements? Should applicant be advised to relocate all improvements out of the 0-75’ setback area and within conforming side yards? 4.If a residence was to be reconstructed on property, would applicant be required to meet the average lakeshore setback? The principal structure on the property to the nor^ is an older small cabin that was remodeled. Based on current improvement trends in this area, it would be staffs guess that this is not going to be a permanent structure for long. Staff has raised some of the issues. Planning Conunission members will probably have many more. Use the following list of questions for your discussion; 1. Will you approve the upgrade/improvement of the existing residential siruchu-e? Zoning File #2014 April 12, 1995 Page 4 2. If so, would you approve additions located within substandard setback area? 3 Should the applicant be advised to rebuild a new residence structure that conforms to all required setbacks with the understanding that the new structure would encroach or extend slightly beyond the average lakeshore setback line? 4. Would you recommend a lot line rearrangement to solve the applicant ’s dilemma? Staff Recommendation To table the application providing applicant adequate time to address/develop plans that consider the directives of the Planning Commission. ■J Ar I CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) h .■ >■.1 . -r U i. !* i . ■. w • w f • . ? . J. -------^■ V4-W W'V W.. V-.t A *• u W * • > PROPERTY" INFORNLATION Site Address •. V • a. V .. 1745 Concordia Street . V* Propert>' Identification Number (P.I.D.)„ 17 117 23 22 00^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propert>' Acquired ----------(month/year) L/aic —----------------------------------------------— - I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels ot lana. Present use of property: X residential -----^other (specify) Zoning District: applicant Name Greg L. Frazee 121 W. Franklin Avenue OWNTR (if different than applicant) Name James T. Nvstrom Phone (home) 920-2357 Phone(woric) 872-6849 _____ ritv:~ Minneapolis______Zip: 55404 Phoneihome) 471-1001 Phone (work)___781-3491 Address:1745 Concordia Street City: Orono Zip: existing older home._ _ _ _ _ _ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED X Lot Area ___Lot Width X Hardcover Lot Coverage X Setback:Front X Side Rear JL Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship /description of UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventmg complinnce with Zoning Code requirements._________j-------—j------ The existing home^ is located within the 0-75 setback zone (attach additional sheets if necessary) <3 I •S t'i - ^ - < 4* 3 ^ 3 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information h** «Jbniitted bv the application_de^<tlin^ |n.9r4€E for vour application to be considered complgtei < “ u / 1. 2. b ^4. 5. 3 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form ........... Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtam this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). , . . , ^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'A" x IT for Topographic survev (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8>^" x ll" for reproduction Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8 A x 11 ). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please anach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. .u- (n*'*i* > The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember to mu. varianre annlifatinn U not complete if the above infOnPitlPh IW <H»t <KeH IPCitllltfl. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ^ a. i. -r • The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zomng Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff lime not covered by onginal fee paymem) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this applicauon. and certifies that the information supplied is tru^;^!^c^t to the best of his/her knowledge. Date ^ ‘ ^ ^Applicant’s Signamre OWNER’S SIGNATURE '—' . waa The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and filler authorizes reasonab entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Councu members for purposes (^Investigation^ndjeripcation of this request. , Date /^§1 . submits i Owner’s Signature Annlicant must have all^'miLs into the City offices 25 days before the Planniiy Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each mon . AppUcants must be present at aU scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make ^rra^ments to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office o this change prior to the meeting. 8 17)6.11 •• v' ■>-'-:;^<i.'I > .».K • ^ ' \r* • V*’'vV % • ‘* t RUN DATE 0S/E7/95 BATCH 501 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INPORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OH«RS LIST REPORT NO. PIAS5401 PACE 1PROP AOORCMSR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR SB 17-117-ES ZZ 0014 017B5 CONCORDIA ST K T OULXN i B C OUilN KEVIN DULIN A BARBARA OULIN 1785 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA m 55391 58 17-117-23 22 001701741 CONCORDIA ST MARGARET L ANTOINE HARGARET/RONALO ANTOINE TRST ff7 SPY GLASS LA NAPLES FL 53940 58 17-117-25 22 001801755 CONCORDIA ST GERALD N RLECKNER GERALO N KLECKNER 1755 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA HN 55591 PROP AOOR ONNER NAM TAXPAYER NAM/AOOR 58 17-117-25 22 0019 01745 CONCORDIA ST JAMES T NYSTROM JAMES T NYSTROM 1745 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 22 0020 01725 CONCORDIA ST CHARLES N OLSON CHARLES N OLSON 1725 CONCORDIA ST S NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 22 0021 01705 CONCORDIA ST JAMT JACOBSON SACHS JANET SACHS 7545 17TH AV SO RICHFIELD MN 55425 PROP AOOR ONNER NAM TAXPAYER NAM/AOOR 58 17-117-25 22 0023 01495 CONCORDIA ST 0 J A D R BELANSKI DONALD JOHN BELANSKI 5819 COLORADO AVE N CRYSTAL MN 55422 38 17-117-25 22 0027 01740 CONCORDIA ST N D NOLO A S L HOLD MINTON 0 NOLO 12300 MARION LA N MINNETONKA M 55505 58 17-117-25 22 0028 01750 CONCORDIA ST PAUL J BCZONIE PAUL J BOZONIE 1755 EAGERNESS POINT RO ORONO MN 55591 PROP AOOR ONNER NAM TAXPAYER rUM/AOOR 58 17-117-25 22 0030 01740 CONCORDIA ST D J BELANSKI ADC BELANSKI DAVID J A DAYNA C BELANSKI 1740 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 22 0051 01495 CONCORDIA ST P HERNOON/X ORTMEIER-HER PAUL L HERNDON 140 CARLSON PKMY 0101 MINNETOTiU MN 55305 i TOTAL BATCH Mi 00011 • • • * • V I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURAH AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHAHON AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST . I OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE * i r M r MM^T^cf4gs4Cfc^ _ 1142 GiKjcote,;!. Sr O<i»oc. , 2'2 7~9S '^'HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET I SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)< 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone * • « A. H ouse X s StF. LENGTH WIDTH • • X B • ••S.F. • . X • • S.F.• A X a S.F. B rick X s 3S S.F. B. Garage _X .• S.F. • c. D riveway X .• S.F. - * V \ y X . • • S.F.1 ’i • • ’ . D. Sidewalk X _ • • t • t • • t •' • • a • S.F. A a X _S.F. Pat ^c ? X _7SO S.Fa X _ ■♦.2 \2.^** \t Zl‘=i S.F. F. Landscape X _ • StF# AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X • a • ♦ • S.Fi PLASTIC SHEETING X •• S.F. \JJOOO ?.7 _ X 2.7 1 \o • •• * - < S.F. G. Other X a S.F. h-' Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone . I • a » !•• •. ^/97 -rfT] 2 ^97 \ 3.P, S630i [T] - S9. 62 % ••••a X 100 I . •» *r # T w «•*, Lor (i HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' ^75-250^ 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House LENGTH B. Garage ^4.3 c. Driveway coNCAere D. SidewalkAWO *iTC^ E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS underlain BY , . plastic SHEETING X X G. Other WIDTH X ^ 2Z.S X _ ^ONC. y *67 VV/AU5 —- - - - - - - - - - Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone «33 S.F. • • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 5*42 S.F. Z07ot s.P ±iatls.f: 58 t S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. S233 t S.F. ■ 'y .< AOO i RE ApPR’->ic<'«^* 0>C ’?2SJ A B X 100 l3J4<? t [J] • •VM *m HARDCOVER CALCUUTION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75" 75-250' r250-500(^ Lot 2-^7- 500-1000' Existing H ardcover IN Zone • • • A. H ouse • X • 1 ^ S.F. • LENGTH WIDTH • X . • • •S.F. X • S.F.m •X • • S.F. «X •w S.F. 3.Garage ____X • S.F.* • C.D riveway _ • X m 20r S.F. X • • S.F. 0.Sidewalk • •• » • X _ • •t • • •• • _ • • • • 1 S.F. X S • F • •• .X # • i S.F. E.’at 10/ D eck _ X « . • • I S.F. ........... F. Landscape X • • S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X s • S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X •• • S.F. ' • • X • • m • ^ 1* • %•t •• S.F. G. Other X g. • S.F.• Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone 2SS 4-fTl /2 50_ i.r, I a ] X 100 - • ! \ V.N Ae-e^uiLir m -f. iU~i-4reTPfi=r1 f2£^c?e>Jc:c. f C>iiU‘hJ(3 I I I O Gvitda f^ror-1 f=to^<5i-l MAiJ plan. j/ II - iLLfl zT7^rr~n LT ■I——1 9i4,-rvl n 'He:r>4^Jl«aAL.1 — ** ‘-.5 , (■.. u Ae-e?uiur ____________ >J-t<grBtgH fg* iyr»ipg>-Lg. i ■ ^1 3 c% CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GREG FRAZEE OF LOT 13. COFFEE'S ADD. TO SHADYWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA HAS C o>sca U}[k "^. 0"POSJO # 7 V'. r-'T * I t-;: tTj EXACT LOCATION Of 929.4 CONTOUR /ISUNKNOWN DUB TO ICE HEAVE Noose locafton of c^nvektKiy oac/ ' "■‘owr./i m rfcts are^ltf, • (ctvO to KCft»»PtU' I I ♦-I LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: Lot 13, COFFEE'S ADDITION TO SHADYWOOD o: denotes iron marker set •: denotes iron marker found denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level .datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed uatum. This survey Intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of an existing house, existing garage, and all visible "hardcover" thereon. It does not pijrport to show any other improvements or encroachments. CoiTiN & Gronberg, Inc, I. ^ '' I M-n ■ . l.mnn. k \vi nvi • l.i'4l.ik» \J\ I hereby cerlify Ihnt Ibis survey \\\is prepared by me ur under my diri\i super* visiun, aiuflbnt I am a duly rej;islerod Civil l!nj;ineer and Land Surveyor under Ibe laws of Ibc Slale Minnesola. i'uu\ Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Niiimvr 12755iimvr DAII; 2-27-95* sc Ai.i: \**:30* jouNo. 9S-46 C-it/ •MIT I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GREG FRAZEE ~> HAS GoviCctout'^.OF LOT 13, COFFEE'S ADD. TO SHADYWOOD q^kjo HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA # " • Is f j i I ^ 1 ?V» ^1i E xact location of 929Acohtou\^ 'ISUNKNOWN DUE TO ICE HEAVE 22t e...EAST S %'r I ma I \<-7S'5erBACK I >1 ^^W'TTT’—-fr, ICm.A5>yr« I, JtStfj ~TTTrrT ■, ■ i|*«»«M»< >• r^iWd^, ! .*-J i:j r.i *•>.*!> t*tH •rX* *Li. * »tee f TctOfMin » tA»ifcHo**>»i «/ue Tr »e^ I~i/ 4«r«f« !. .« • I locnt*on of Jrive|May omc/ ' 'u/r-,/1 in r»iis are^lis J VnknO^H to $i(*^Sr*OiO S'2; if**-*v4-•wu ^■* • :3 Existing 3: 250* ^ SETBACk: I I <«'v. I*!.•• », O l A/mM^ m^fe ^V I »> A« WEST , 258.75 I i •■■> t %’... ® LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: Lot 13. COFFEE'S ADDITION TO SHADYWOOD l«5 s V 1s o: denotes iron marker set •: denotes iron marker found iWi/: denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level .datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed uatum. ! Ihis survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of an existing house, existing garage, and all visible ’’hardcover" thereon. It does not pijrport to show any other improvements or encroaefiments. Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. L I '• /,M, 1 ‘'«r,xvi’'' N^i r/htrA''* ‘i'2 l.iiv u.U V Avulni' * I i'li^I.ikt', M\ m: 4:V4UI I 1 1 ’.i’rcby ccrlify Ihal Ihis survey wis prepiUed by me or under my direct sujH*r- vision, and'that I am a duly regislercd Civil t;ngiiurr and hand Surveyor under the laws ol the Stale of MinncsL>la. Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Nuitloer 12755 DAiH 2-27-9S' SCAI.K I**s30‘ jouNo. 9S*46 " v» IT* Q f-1r- a vc * i IL •►I • • Q irirr»cn L Q.a fe>-&\pe4skB SlJB/k-CioisJ ost-lt * Dfanrl lax Uanrjnillal n»^mo 7671 L \tA.xEC. * CtrT^of-C3RoiJo Co ^ •apt *S^2.•fo84<1 4i*> C)5i6 fan# CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GREG FRAZjEE OF LOT 13, COFFEPS ADD. TO SHADYWOOD k1 H n\ I Cfe*Jcje. n4s <2*3ijcoW3ia.'^T. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA - Ac>DiriOKi -To, TO: DATE: ID. Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator Anril 13. 1995 SUBJECT: ^2006 James Bnice. 565 Leaf Street - Subdivision/Sketch Plan Pertinent Ordinances Section 11.10. Subd. 6, 7 & 8 - Sketch plan review. Section 10.23. Subd. 6(B) - LR-IA - Zoning District Standards Section 10.23. Subd. 4 (Section 10.20, Subd. 3(G-D] - Conditional use permit for guest houses. Section 10.44, Subd. 15(A-3) - Credit for wetland/drainage areas as property is served with sewer. Section 10.09. Subd. 19 - Conditional use permit required for land alteration involving filling/grading or movement of more than 100 cubic yards of material/earth. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Addendum C - Location Map D - Sewer As-built E - MUSA Line F - Sketch Plan Description of Request Applicant proposes a three lot plat of Lot 6 of the Stielow Addition. The property currently contains 5.9 acres. Applicant is proposing a lot line rearrangement with adjacent property owners to acquire 1/lOth of an acre. The property is located within the MUSA. Sewer is available at Oxford Road. Property has been assessed for one sewer unit. There is adequate capacity within the lines to serve the additional two units. Per Section 10.55, Subd. 15(A-3), applicant will receive credit for the drainage easement area and the pond/wetland to the north within Lots 1 and 3. Sewer will serve proposed Lot 3 from Oxford Road. Applicant will be eiKOuraged to place a utility easement close to a shared lot line of Lots 1 and 2 so as not to impact the building envelopes. Please note utility easement is not excluded from lot area. Zoning File #2006 April 13, 1995 Page 2 The applicant's addendum notes the existing guest house on Lot 2 shall remain as either a ^est house or be part of the future principal structure. Applicant must be placed on notice that if the existing residence on Lot 2 is to serve as a future guest house that applicant at this time should reserve additional 2 acres in area. Proposed Lot 2 at 2 acres cannot meet area needs for a separate guest house unit. The structure can be converted to an accessory structure as long as the kitchen area is removed and the City is satisfied that this structure could not serve as an independent residential unit. Applicant should be asked to comment on this matter. In light of our upcoming workshop to consider the issue of current driveway and road standards staff will not comment on an internal road. Based on the conceptual direction of the Council at their April 10th meeting, individual driveways could provide legal access for three residential units. In the case of applicant’s property, there is adequate width for the two residential units to be ser% ed at Oxford Road, a private road, and if applicant achieves a lot line rearrangement with the property to the north, mere is also adequate lot width at Leaf Street. The property is currently 199.98’. If the lot line rearrangement is not completed as shown, existing width may not be a problem. The access improvements to this site are developed via a formal drive at Leaf Street. The applicant has discussed relocating the drainageway within Lot 1 in order to open up the building envelope. This proposed improvement would require a separate conditional use permit review and should be included with the filing of the subdivision along with grading plans for the improvement. Review Exhibit D, two stubs are available to this property. Applicant will make a new connection to serve one of the three lots. Applicant must provide detailed plans for the connection to the municipal sewer to serve Lot 3. There is a shed on the south side of Lot 3 that has not been located on plan. Once the property is subdivided, the shed can no longer claim credit for the residence struemre on Lot 2. “nie shed would now become nonconforming. The City normally requires the removal of the sh^ within a year from the final plat approval date if a building permit has not been issued by the deadline. Applicant has advised that the mmaround and the roadway leading to the west encrMchi^ within Lots 1 and 2 will be removed. The property is located within the LR-IA Zoning Distnct and subject to hardcover controls. The property will be subject to review by the Park Commission to determine the need for additional land for trail or park use. If land is not taken, a cash payment is accepted in liei^ the dedication of land currently at the rate of 8% of the fair market value of the undeveloped property. Zoning File #2006 April 13. 1995 Page 3 Applicant will be responsible for the following if a formal subdivision application is filed: 1. Completion of a lot line rearrangement with an adjacent property owner. 3. 4. Filing of a Class III plat involving the dedication of drainage and utility easements along property lines and possible vacation and rededication of a drainage easement if altered. Filing of a conditional use permit with subdivision application if alteration of drainage way is proposed. Pavment of $24,225.00 for each sewer unit connection (property has already been assessed 1 sewer unit). i / 03 0?14:I Tr€ Ciri' OF (3R0M0 613 o • tI w I 013 P' { • #2006 CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION • • • V V PROPERTY LOCATION Site address ^66 T.g»af StrggJ: AuaUi^cgaldcsc^ - Legal > Lot 6, Bik 1, Stielow Addition applicant Name ■Tanes Bruce Address 1055 E> wavzata BLvd., ^22J Wavzata# ^tn •_____ Plionc(homc) 474-1059 City Zip5539i Phone (work) 475-2622 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ______f. Mrs, mc C qv Address 5 525 Hillside Circle City Phr>ne<home) 941-6920 Edina, Mn.Zin55439Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all paicels Residential; no. of units ^ Other (specify)_________ Preserrt Zoning District T.R-IA PROPOSAL Divi.sion for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rcarrangemeni Only (no new buildlmg sues) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sices Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Propos*^d Use (check) 1_____Uniu per 2 Acres1 uniu per z 87,120 iiq. Ft. Dry BuildaOle Land « Residential Other (specify) I !■ Ill I IM I II Wl 111 ^ ■ I I ■ n II ■klfe.i >1 m,i MINIMUM MATERIAL RtQUIKJt» i-UK --------------- 1. Payment of fees (refer lo “applicatioo fees listed ow. 2. Completed application form. 3. Prcliminao P'«‘ information on Certificate tj,,, h„ from Hennepin County Dcpaitmcot of Finance 4. Certified Property Owners List of owner* withm 350 <yoM must ow« A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). persons you wish notified of this application. 5. Ai an addendum to this application, please attach a sep _____________________________ Zoning Officiil*! Signature __ _ _ —- -—- --- -- ~ MIMMUM MATERUU REWUUiD if -wtatl.). 1. Payment of fees (refer to Ptclimmary S«t>division App 2. Si|ned Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. ____________________________ Zoning Official’s Signature____________________—-------------------------- I. APPUCATIO.N fees (Zoning Administrator to check (X) those which apply) -------- Subdivision of a Lot Line _____ Subdivision Application (Class ‘ ^ ^^5 00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) Preliminary Subdivision ApplicationJS3^ 00 -► Final Plat Application (Class HI) SI75 00 Legal Review and Filing: Subdivision only $75.00 ,,nn on --------Subdivisiuii w/ea.^mcnts and covenant min. $200 00 Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal ?nd Engineering Review Fees (aa chanvc from original application) Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision App ica i ^ ^ oq chanae from original application) -------- R..*..! 0. a«s .... Pr..im.W ..i,U». W>i«ioo. -------- Renewjd of Final Class HI Subdivision App .nation sioo.iA* o>o «- 6 Tot.'ll s Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + S.30/lineal 1i.: ^ - ___________ PHvAfe Road lin. ft. a .30 * $. Un. ft. * .3H » $_ ■ Proposed Saoiuiy Sewer Main Extension $25a00 + $2.Vstub " Proposed Waienaain Extension $2.50.00 + $25 stu ” $50.00/ncw lot proposed for on-sitc x , c. Flexible Ap’plIcaUon Fees/Misc. Fees Variance $2(X).00 mx nn —-------- --------Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision 5^5 .(W ______ --------PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelhog Unit CO Date --------------- applicant’s Signature Iwner’s .Signature Date Planninc Coimnieaion pp.ic». »« «V. .ubrni..^. .n.o .« " m ,ouT«e J A M K > WBruce K .1 > t / j \-V' •) DATE: March 20, 1995 TO; Members of the Planning Commission City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P. O. BOX 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 FROM: James W. Bruce Homes RE:Sketch Plan - Proposeed Subdivision of 565 Leaf Street (P.I.D. #0511723410014) PROPOSAL S 3 lots of 2 acres each, per sketch plan. (This requires that we acquire 1/10 of one acre from an adjoining property. Ue are talking with the New Thought Church and owner's of othf»r neighboring properties.) Lot 1 and 2 access from Oxford Road; lot 3 acc on existing drive. ess from Leaf Street Existing guest house on lot 2 remain as a guest housd, or be added to and become primary structure on that lot. Location of drainage easement on lot 1 be modified to provide more flexibility in building and drive location. All lots connect to sanitary sewer in Oxford Road. Lot 3 would have utility easement across lot 1 or lot 2 for sewer service. ENCLSQURES: 12 copies - sketch plan Application $200 application fee 1055 K. Way/.ata Blvcl.. Suilc 223. W’ayzata, Minnesota 55391 (612) 475-2622 F.-\X (612) 475-3026 uifi(n ;.'4C :»-» ^ eAYS^DE ~^~\fp*4Z Vi ' »*.^CO wo. 64) iOBV 2ill^2*0 eo .If* •f •. '•■•■ "-N ( ^ v» .1 B k •». • - £)*-'/ -i—^4B0 'i I add ^ klitzke t2 6 I ... ^ a^l addition A /3*0’ iV ins ?/o:> 104 7( -A’lr’oj • c I' _•-—:^ - X vV-kO%y /l«/ v' 4< t '* VOr' j 7 m m ... •.'0/ ? ^ # i'* 7**, / X 'C- ii09 iASr* . 0 . - f ^ 17 1*1* DrUCc M K U .1 ' ?»>.•*'••A. * / j •N ■ J DATE: March 20, 1995 TO: Members of the Planning Commission City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P. O. BOX 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 FPOM: James W. Bruce Homes RE:Sketch Plan - Proposeed Subdivision of 565 Leaf Street (P.I.D. #0511723410014) PROPOSAL: 3 lots of 2 acres each, per sketch plan. (This requires that we acquire 1/10 of one acre from an adjoining property. We are talking with the New Thought Church and owner's of other neighboring properties.) Lot 1 and 2 access from Oxford Road; lot 3 acce on existing drive. SB from Leaf Street Existing guest house on lot 2 remain as a guest house, or be added to and become primary F-tructure on that lot. Location of drainage easement on lot 1 be modified to provide more flexibility in building and drive location. All lots connect to sanitary sewer in Oxford Road. Lot 3 would have utility easement across lot 1 or lot 2 for sewer service. ENCLSOURES: 12 copies — sketch plan Application S200 application fee 1035 E. Wav/ala BIvcI., Suite 223. Way/ala, .Minnesota 553SH ‘ (612) 475-2622 F.\X (612) 475-3026 I‘1 ______\.. m : /•Jl\ • 1 Ovf*rhnnrl nnri ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR i\L\RCH 20, 1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present; Chair Charles Schroedcr. Stephen Peterson. Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist. Candace Rowlettc, Charles Nolan, Jr, and Janice Berg Building and Zoning .Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Sherry- Frost represented Stall Councilmembers Jabbour and Goetten were present. Chair Schroeder called the nweting to order at 7:00 p m SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC lNFOR>L\TION MEETING (#1) 7:00 P.M. #2000 CORTLEN G. CLOUTIER, 2480 CASCO POINT ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, CLASS I - PUBLIC HEARING 7:00-7:53 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted The Applicant, Mr. Cloutier, was present Mabusth reported that the application is for a division of legally combined lots 1, 3,4, and outlet 1, which is a type 1 classification of subdivision. These lots were origin^ly combined for tax purposes. The applicant is asking for a division of Lot 1, which meets all requirements. The issue is access The existing access will serve lot I The access currently serves the homestead parcel. The drive would be altered to only serve lot 1, wd the homestead parcel (combined lots 3 and 4) will be served by existing drive at Fredmck Street. When the land was subdivided, an outlot (20' wide) was created within the Tillson Villa Carman subdivision Lots 1 -4 could gain access from the road outlot and lot 5 from Frederick Street. Today, lot 2 achieves access from outlot and combined lots I, 3, and 4 from direct accesses at Casco Point Road and Frederick Street. At this time, Mabusth commented that it was important to determine what are the future plans for the lots, mainly, if there would be a future division of lots 3 and 4. The nw lots must meet requirements of current code and provide approved legal access. There is adequate area to subdivide lots 1, 3, and 4. The required area for each lot wnll depend on whether the lot will achieve access via a private road or driveway outlot. Lot I has access fixjm Casco Point Road from an existing approved curb cut. Lot 4 has an existing access from Frederick Street. The code states that only two lots can be served from a driveway outlot and that the back lot meet 150% of required area. The lines of existing sewer and water service to residence would need to be located and shown on survey. The location for the water connection for the original house is unknown. The sewer may come from Casco Point Road. There may be a need for an easement depending on their locations. A municipal sewer line intersects lot 4 at the northwest comer The City would ask for an easement over the sewer line. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#1 - #2000 Cortlen Cloutier - Continued) Mr Cloutier said he had nothing to add to the report and had no plans at this time for lots 3 and 4 He reported that he purchased 4 lots in 1965 The property was platted with a roadway on outlet 1 providing egress and ingress. Cloutier said he used outlot 1 for access at one time, and then he put in a guest driveway and now uses access off of Frederick Street The applicant said that the outlot 1 roadway has existed for over 30 years The driveway he created has been used for less than 30 years along with the access on Frederick Street The applicant reported he created the access so as not to inconvenience the residents of lot 2, the Paurus fiunily. Mr. Cloutier said he called the County tax division in 1967 and asked for one tax statement He reported that he was not aware that he had legally combined the lots, which was done. Cloutier would like to divide lot 1 to build a house for his son The lot division can be done through metes and bounds division through the City. The lot meet the area and width requirements With the lot division, the driveway through lot 1 would be removed, as it was never legally installed. The Commission members discussed what would happen with lots 3 and 4 if lot 1 wwe to be divided now. Rowlette said that lot 3 would become a back lot. Rowlette questioned whether access would be through a new road or an outlot for the back lots. Lindquist thought that since it had been subdivided in the past that it would have to be allowed to be so again Rowlette suggested having the city attorney penise the situation to eliminate a problem with subdivision in the future. Wilbur Anderson of 3555 Frederick Street asked how the lots were declared for sewer ^ water hook-up Mabusth responded that the property has been assessed for 2 water unhf but with this sewer project, by lineal footage along the roads were assessed. John Erickson, 1620 Shadywood Road, who owned two lots on Shadywood, which his parents had since 1941, said that people were asked at that time if they wanted one or two tax statements if they had two lots He reported that he has one statement but owns two lots with two sewer stubs. Mabusth agre^ that their land use planning was not consistent when sewer and water stubs were given out to properties. Schroeder noted that 3 sewer hookups would be needed if the lots were subdivided. Mr. Cloutier said that the house located on lot 4 is not hooked up on Casco Pt but hooked up through Frederick Street. When Casco sewer was installed, he had been asked where he would like the sewer stubbed in. There is a sewer stub to serve lot I at Casco Point Road. An easement runs through lot I for lot 3 for both ingress/egress and utilities. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#1 - #2000 - Cortlen Cloutier * Continued) If the lots have been combined, which Mabusth v’crifies that they have indeed been combined, then the Planning Commission would have to determine the size of the lots for subdivision and how access would be provided. Rowlette questioned whether lot 3 should be treated as an already designated lot or not. Mr Paurus asked about the boathouse located on the propert> He reported that it was old and unsafe and needs to either be repaired or removed Schroeder responded that this appUcation does not apply to the boathouse but did ask the appUcant what his plans were for the ftiiure of the boathouse Mr Cloutier reported that he wished to rehabilitate the boathouse He had installed a 3-season porch on top of the boathouse and said he had thought he had been given verbal approval to do so by the building inspector at that time. Mabusth said that the permit on file was given for a single story boathouse only. Rowlette informed the applicaiit of the City's desire to have no structures in tfie 0-75 zone If the boathouse is to be repaired, and the cost would be more than 50% of the value of the boathouse at the time of the 1975 code, the boathouse must be removed. No repairs can be done without a pemut. Rowlette said she would like to have the city attorney’s opinion on whether there would be any rights grandfathered to the property if it had been legally combined. Mabusth responded to the negative saying that the current code would apply to the property. Lindquist agreed that any further division of lots 3 and 4, once lot I was approved for subdivision, would have to follow the current codes. Nolan reiterated to the applicant that if he desires any future division of the lots, the commission needs to see the plan at this time Cloutier responded that he did not to be concerned with future division at this time, only the one lot as presemed. Schroedw emphasized that the present plan for lot 1 could mean that lot 3 would not be able to be subdivided in the future because of the issue of access and would be subject to standards. The commission members suggested to the applicant that he come back before the commission with an amended application with plans for all the lots. Mabusth said, once again, that the subdivision could be done with a simple m«w and bounds subdivision. Mabusth put the applicant on notice that any future sub^sion would need a new plat due to the access issue. The current code may not allow the division of lots 3 and 4 at a later date If the applicant’s intentions are anything ot^r t^ the two lot subdivision as stated in the applicant, the intentions of the applicant needed to be known at this time. The applicant said he had no plans at this time but that his children said they would like to see a future division of lots 3 and 4, therefore, requested tabling of the application. Mabusth said the property would have to be replatted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#1 - #2000 - Cortlen Cloutier - Continued) Schroder moved. Peterson seconded, to table application #2000. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#2) #1950 GLENN l-PTON, 36*5 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7;53-*:03 F.M. The Applicant, Mr Upton, was present. The application orimnated in the summer of 1994 for an increase in hardcover in the 0-75’ setback requiring a^variance for a deck. The Planning Commission denied the appUcatioa The applicant asked to go back to the Planning Commission with an amended plan. The amended plan is for 192 s f of additional living space and 484 s.f for an attached garage The amended proposal is for 52‘ lakeshore setback, where 75’ is required It does meet the minimum DNR required setback of 50*. A hardship list is included as well as a petition from the neighbors which support the second proposal. John Erickson asked where the property was located from him Erickson asked about the garage location, and how the proposal affects the deeded access and the public right-of- way. The original garage is being removed, and the new garage will be attached to the side of the house, ^e applicant said that the land crossing the pubUc access had been deeded to him by the county. Schroeder said that this issue does not affect the application. Rowlette informed the applicant of the city ordinance disallowing any boats larger than 20' to be stored outside on a property. Schroeder noted the 68 s.f increase in hardcover in the 0-75’ zone with the remainder of the increase in the 75-250’ zone He also noted the attempt by the applicant to meet as manv requirements as he could and the large number ot hardships pertaining to the application. Peterson asked about the status of the survey and side setback. It was determined that the survey had been updated last year with the filing of the current application. Mabusth and the applicant confirmed that the side setback requirement was met with 11.3*. Nolan asked if the applicant was willing to remove the shed and other items located in that area, which the applicant said he would. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve applicant #2950 as amended with the condition that all hardcover removal be completed prior to construction to include shed and miscellaneous items. The access garage could be retained until the proposed attached garage is completed. Ayes 7, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 («) #1979 RICHARD LITTLE, 1890 SHADY\VOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - WRITTEN RENOTIFICATION 8:0J- 8:09 P.M. The applicant, who was out of town, was represented by his son-in-law Mabusth said that the appbeation was before the Planning Commission in November and required an updated surv ey of the shoreline The proposed reconstruction of the 14x26 deck would result in 40 s.f of additional hardcover located in the 0-75' zone and the entire deck is located in front of the av erage lakeshore setback line. The Planning Commission had approved the application in November awaiting updated survey showing that the deck was not in the 0-75' zone Mrs Linle had given her approval over the phone lor the reshaping of the deck to eliminate the deck portion in the 0-75' zone. Their representative at this meeting asked that the deck remain as proposed sitting on the original footprint. The trees in front of the deck would remain Nolan said it would be out of character to approve any structure in the 0-75' zone. He asked the representative if the applicant would consider removing brick hardcover that extended beyond the dimensions of the deck above the patio to reduce hardcover to offset the reconstruction of the deck The representative said this would be acceptable. Nolan moved. Smith seconded, to approve application #1979 for replacement of the 14x26' deck as previously existed with the removal of hardcover extending beyond the deck dimensions in the patio area. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#4) #1999 DAVID AND VICKI VICKERMAN, 2475 DUNWOODY AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:09-8:22 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Vickerman, were present. Mabusth reported that the application would involve the removal of a 16x24' boathouse and replaced with a 12x15' deck and access stairs leading down steep bank to the lake. The problem with the structure is that it would be 10' above the lake and 9' from the shoreline. The code allows for a 8x4' landing with access stairs. The applicant reported that due to the steepness of the lot, there is no where to do anything to enjoy the lake without being able to walk out onto a deck. This would be the only access to the lake and use of the lakeshore itself Mrs. Vickerman asked if a wood deck coi ld be installed where the boathouse is now located. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#4 - #1999 - David and Vicki Vickcnnan - Continued) Mabusth responded that the only allowed structure would be the 4x8* landing as part of the access stair structure. Rowlette informed the applicant that the area where the boathouse is would need to be stabilized but could provide an area to sit and enjoy the lake but no deck would be allowed The need to eliminate hardcover in the 0-75‘ zone was emphasized. The applicant was informed that open-timbered decking is considered hardcover because the timber docs not absorb water. The deck as proposed would not allow any vegetation to grow underneath it and would result in runoff into the lake. Added vegetation on properties to improve water runoff was discussed. The applicant w as informed of the need for a plan for the removal of the boathouse with stabilizing of the area possibly through retaining walls If retaining walls are required, a conditional-use permit would also be required The Planning Commission would review the plans for approval which would be forwarded to the Council for final approval It was reemphasized that the code only allows for a 4.x8* landing on the access stairs. Schioeder moved, Nolan seconded, to table application #1999 until the April Planning Commission meeting. At that time, the applicam will pre^ a piM for the boathouse removal, hill stabilization, and landing; amcitding the original application to a conditional use permit. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#5) #2001 POWDER PACKERS, INCJRHONDA E. WILSON, 640 ORCHARD PARK ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:22-8:36 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted The Applicant, Ms. Wilson, was present. The application is for a front/strect setback variance where 100 ’ is requir^ for a 33x23' garage and 4x12* entry. The setback projmsed is for 75' at the entry addition and 71.7 at the garage addition where the existing residence is located at 75.7. There is an existiitg overhang that travels the length of the residence. The proposed entry would extend 2* beyond the overhang. Wlien the house was originally built in 1959, the five-acre zone standards did not apply. The property is 4 79 acres in a 5-acre zone, which had been changed after the construction of this house. The addition will meet the required 10 separation setback from the tennis court. Smith asked why the garage was moved forward from the rest of the house. The applicant responded that this provided a thru corridor right into the house entry door. The driveway plans were shown to the commissioners. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 {its - #2001 - Powder Packers, Inc /Rhonda WUson - Continued) Peterson commented that the plans are consistent with the neighborhood He voiced concern with the location of a water pipe he saw that was located close to the sewer It reponed that the pvc pipe was buried and came up at this point and fed off the mamwas well but adequate distance separated the well and septic Smith inquired of the deadline date for sewer connection The applicant said that although the number of bedrooms increased from 3 to 4, this did not increase the square footage. Applicant did note that the sewer would be updated during 1995. Mabusth reponed seeing water pocketing near the culsert on the west^ in the ditch area. The culvert will need to be checked to ensure it is working properly. Smith noted that the tennis court is non-conlbrming A variance would be required if any structural changes would be needed. Rowlette moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2001 for front street setback variance with the three conditions Usted pertaining to the septic, the culvert, and the tennis court. Ayes 7, Nays 0 (#6) #2003 ART AND KATHY HENNINGSEN, 975 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING S:36-«:54 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted The Applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Henningsen, were present The application is for an average lakeshore setback variance. The saeCT porch and deck improvements are *1) located in front of the average lakeshore setback line as are poitiuns of the house. of the shape of the property, the hardcover improvement is concentrated in li.v /5-250* zone. Hardcover exists at 32.49®/o. 1052 s.f of new hardcover is to be added and 1184 s.f of hardcover is to be removed. 712 s.f or 2.8/* ot proposed structural hardcover shall be traded with the removals of 1184 s.f of nonstructural hardcover. The grade level patio has not been included as structura hardcover. The brick patio is being removed as part of hardcover tradeoffs. The property is 2.3 acres in LR-IB zoning district, requiring one acre in area. The impact on the lake view for the neighbors was discussed. There has been no problem voiced Council member Jabbour, who is a neighbor, commented that he has no problem with the home location. Rowlette commented that the Gilbert family, neighbors of this property, hadn’t voiced any concern, and had also received the same average lakeshore setback variance. MH TES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON M.ARCH 20, 1995 (#6 - #2003 - Alt and Kathy Hcnningsen - Continued) There were no public comments. Mabusih reported on the drainage system for the property. Water drains from the wetland to the SE under two culverts, into a pond, to an underground 100’ culvert, located under the applicant’s driveway pavement, with an outlet at the grassed lakeshore yard draining along a line of pine trees cventuaUy to lake. No erosion was noted. Mabusthwas unaw are of erosion problems of lakeshore bank area. Once the plastic is removed around house, Mabusth and Nolan both said this might bring flooding problems to the lower level The applicam said that the builder assessed the hardcover in relation to drain^e. The builder plans to build up around the foundation with soil. Watw has pooled in the lower level entry. 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 viewpoints Schroeder is concerned with making a distinction between structural and non-structural hardcovo*. Nolan commented favorably on the use of natural vegetsuion between the house and lake. Lindquist tbou^ the plan was ambitious but had no problem with it. He earlier made irote of the large amount of up-front structure wnth the two patios and deck in comparison with the hardcover removals required. Rowlette noted the long narrow lot and how that resulted in the hardcover pooling in one area. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2CX)3 with the understanding that the plastic under the rock and hardcover removal be completed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Detail grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed by City Engineer. Ayes 7, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEWS (#7) #2002 WILLIAM SMITH, 2580 FOX STREET - SKETCH PLAN/SUBDIVISION Mabusth reported that this is a sketch plan for a subdivision of three lots. The French Lake Upper Basin has been redefined as wetland and is no classified as a protected lake. The property is no longer located within a shoreiand area. The RR-IB zoning requires two acres of continuous dry land. 8 MINXrrES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 - #2002 - William Smith - Continued) This plan is for a division of a rvvo-lot subdivision originally approved in 1985 There is adequate area to meet requirements of a back lot division with 7+ acres The applicant was advised in 1985 that tuture access considerations required access conforming to a 3- lot subdivision The City acquired no underlying access easement over the roadway in the adjacent RLS division. The owner of the RLS said he w ould never approv e any easement or curb cut This results in only two options, A and B. tor the applicant, not three as proposed Mabusth reponed that the existing driveway comes very close to the wetland. 26’ setback is required .A separate conditional use ar.d variance application was filed with the original subdivision application that would allow encroachment ot protected wetland for drive to north The bam on the property was placed in front of the principal structure also requiring a variance review The drainage comes (rom both the northeast and northwest into a large wetland and continues draining through a drainageway along the driveway to French Lake Basin wetland. Option A calls for the use of the existing driveway to serve all three The northern lot meets the back lot requirement but a 30' driveway outlot can only serve 2 lots per code. There is 2.12 acres to the west of the easement maintaining the required continuous 2 acres for the new building envelope. Option B calls for a 60' wide private road with a cul-de-sac along the eastern border. Major portions will be located within a designated wetland area. Mabusth said that in 1985, the applicants chose to develop a shared access drive and did not attempt to acquire an access off the RLS drive. Rowlette noted that this application is similar to the problem faced with the Cloutier application previously discussed Rowlette suggestol a possible new curb cut off of Fox Street to service new lot. Schroeder said this would require a new curb cut. Schroeder also said that during discussions with the neighbors, the property was always planned to have 3 lots Nolan asked about upgrading of the existing driveway to a road. Mabusth responded that the setback from a wetland prevented this option. Due to the narrowness of the available land for the driveway, it must remain a driveway but does need upgrading. A loop turnaround was noted to be in lot 2 for emergency vehicles. The Applicant, Bill Smith, would like to keep the driveway, making necessary improvements, and possibly upgrading it with a passing area if necessary. He preferred the aesthetically-pleasing look of the driveway to a cul-de-sac road. Smith said that one possible buyer asked about keeping the bam. Commissioners informed Smith that 3 acres are needed to allow the keeping of one horse. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MATCH 20, 1995 (#7 - #2002 William Smith - Continued) In discussing the RLS road to the west, the Applicant reported having spoken to the owners, and specifically, Keith Anderson, who pays for the maintenance. Anderson reportedly said he sees no benefit to others using the pnv ate road and does not wish to blacktop it Rowlette said if the applicant desires a third lot, this should be where the access comes from Another option discussed was a p,;vv driveway fi’om Fox Street, either with a new curb cut or the use of the existing curb cut with an immediate turn to the west. Mabusth said she would check with Gerhardson regarding a new curb cut, but at this time, she was not certain that this option would meet Council's approval During Commission discussion, Nolan said that the the current driveway would need upgrading, even if maintained with two lots, as no maintenance has been done on it. Nolan also said that this proposal has never been done in the past and sees no reason to allow it at this time Mabusth responded that we have discussed what the code requires and have not examined the statement of hardships prepared by applicant seeking v’ariaiices to code requirements Row lette said she w as interested in using the other curb cut off of Fox Street, ^ does not see the property as having three lots. Rowlette read from the 1985 resolution where this issue was discussed. The resolution dctcrrained at that time that the subdivision could only be done if code could be met. Lindquist feh that a separate curb cut and separate driveway were the only alternatives. Mabusth was asked if City had ever approved a 3 lot divirion served by a driveway. Mabusth referred to the Stronghold subdivision in the I980's that allowed for a variance and approved access via a driveway. Schroeder responded that an aesthetic argument is not a good reason for a variance and saw Fox Run as the best alternative. His second choice was use of the original driveway, and third best, another private road. Schroeder said the applicant needed to exhaust all avenues with obtaining the use of Fox Run as an access. If this is not obtainable, Nolan and Rowlette said it was their opinion that this was not a subdivision. Mabusth concurred that the use of the existing driveway, the new road off the existing road, or the new curb cut were not viable options unless the commissicn were willing to approve the necessary variances. The code calls for a private road to set e three lots. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#7 - #2002 - William Smith - Continued) Schroeder asked that the city check with the attorney on the affect on the lot as unbuildable if no variance were granted Mabusth said that the Comprehensive Plan allows for three lots on a driveway but the subdi\i«on code requires a private road. The attorney said that the code has precedence over the Comprehensive Plan Schroeder asked Mabusth about outlots Mabusth said that lot 2 has 3+ acres, and there would be no issue with the size of outlots 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 sec 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. Rowlette did not want to set a precedent with three lots on a driveway. She was unsure of her feelings on the "y”. Nolan agreed with this. Smith j. eferred Fox Run, then a new curb cub, and then the "y". (#8) #2004 ROBERT MELAMED, 920 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH - SKETCH PLAN/SUBDIVISION Robert Melamed and Ron Lauer were present. Mabusth reviewed the property and the issues involved. This is a 15 acre subdivision in a heavily wooded area, owned by the Carpenter family, with designated wetlands and types I and n not designated on City’s wetland maps. The applicant 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 flow^ from the north to the designated wetland, then east 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 imemal road as weU as a cul-de-sac This plan results in the removal of 660 trees and the filling of2400 s.f of wetland type 1 and 2, and rntyor 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. MrNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NLARCH 20. 1995 (#8 - #2004 - Robert Melamed - Continued) The applicant reported the ability to get adequate septic area for 5 to6 lots Septic sites were in non-forestcd areas. The covenant in future deeds would restnct removal of trees. It is the applicant's desire to create a development that does not look like one. and one which cannot be seen from Old Cry stal Bay Road The appUcant wished to create the least amount of impact on the forestation areas which resulted in 4 lots. The applicant said that this would be the minimum that is economically "doable" as there w'as no negotiation with the purchase price. Two safe access points can be located at the westeni boundary of the property. The most northern will provide a shared access to lots I and 2. If the access to lot 3 is changed to a shared driveway with lot 4. it would require a 300’ access easement for lot 4 The shared driveway would have an impact on the buildable lot or it could be replatted This avoids the use of the City road Smith suggested access to lot #l from the property to the north Then she su^ested dropping down between lots 2 and 3 and putting in a driveway with a "y" serving 2 and 3 south of the wetland Smith suggested no road from Old Crystal Bay Road but the use of the City drive to access 4 This would avoid the wetland areas The appUcant responded that the City would probably not allow this, and it also does not solve the private road issue. The applicant prefers plan A. If this is acceptable, then asks what to do with the City driveway Applicant said he is prepared to upgrade it but would Uke to consider the impact on the park and neighborhoods if upgraded to a City ^oad. He also reported having met with Zetterstrom from the County, who asked that fencing be removed, and would grant curb cuts. Nolan suggested leaving lots 1 and 2 as shown but accessing 3 where 4 is shown as the road has to be upgraded anyways. Lot 4 could be accessed at the eastside of City dnve. This would take out few trees and no wetlands would need to be crossed FUnt reported that this would be too close to the French Creek Preserve. He said the Park Commission has the right to ask for 8% for Park Dedication and has determined that the land on the east end, about 1 2 acres, approximately 600’ long, with a depth of ST, would be a good option. A house plan would have to be changed but this land is virtually forested. It could be left as a natural corridor and is consistent with the results of the survey It would act as a delinear park It now has a deer run which would be left open for that use MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANTsaNG COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#8 - «2004 - Robert Melamed - Continued) Flint also spoke of where the bikebike trail will possibly come in along this property The backbone of the trail is Old Crystal Bay Road which then extends to the new access apoint to Maxwell Bay Flint said one way for the trail would come down Old Crystal Bay Road but would be difficult to build Another way would be to come over Fox Street on Rainy Road, which is north of this area in question, and come down east ot the subject property. The trail is 8’ wide and requires a minimum of a 14’ easement Lindquist has suggested the trail running east of the MWCC lift station through the City property but Flint said this would impact the preserv e area Council Member Jabbour asked for discussion on the City/Park driveway becoming a road. Hint did not desire for this to occur Jabbour said it would be good to pool the CounciFs opinion on the use of the City driveway. Jabbour asked the applicant what kind of arrangement he now has with the City to get to his house, which is located near the subject property Mdamed said he maintains the driveway along with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Whoever gets there first, plows it. He has an easement to use this driveway. Jabbour said that preserving the area is the main issue. Berg questioned whether there is a 4th buildable lot. The applicant summarized his position. He said he personally will be imp^ed as a neighbor. Two curb cuts will minimize effect on park and wetlands. A third would be proposed located on the south side The applicant plans on redred^g the pond at the southeast comer to the shape it originally was before the City filled it. He will make it a natural wildlife pond. Smith would like the applicant to look at her concept. Smith would like to see lot 4 accessed from the City drive. The Commissioners gave their opinions of the project Nolan is in concurrence with the use of the City drive but would like to have a shared access at the City drive rather than a curb cut off Old Crystal Bay Road for safety reasons He would propose both lots 3 and 4 access at 4 or take 4 around to the east Rowictte agreed with Nolan. Liiidquist also agreed with Nolan, combining the access for 3 and 4. Lindquist also was in agreement with Flint and the dedication of the 8%. Peterson felt that the basic project was good. Schroeder agreed with Nolan's ideas on upgrading the City road. Schroeder commented to Flint if the main trail was on Old Cryst^ Bay Road and found less than 87' on the east, to maintain a portion for the west side. Neither the applicant nor representive were present. Rowtote moved. Schroeder seconded, to table Applnation «1800 unt.l the wHcan< could be present. Ayes 7. Nays 0. PL.A.NN1NG COMMISSION COMMENTS Nolan reported that the Crystal Creek were approved under the _ ,5, , ro*j^ even though aesthetically the Jundt applicauon reqmnng r^val of the -^■1^';“;^ „ see the not pleasing but noting Nolan said Applicant Perl did not come to the Jundfs pr^t P[“ .iXould «t on it at their nem meeting meeting Council moved ^ Thj I chedoff applicstio" was approved,with or without the presence of the appbeam The Ldmdoff ^ Nolan said the DNR changed its viewpoint, gnmg wroval to the 20 setback Wicklund application was approved as recommended. (#11) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION is to aUow all members an opportunity to become more tnvolved in the meetings. Schroeder suggested that Park Commission Chair Richard Rinl imend the tour at the "mert^itute as it woulu be a good resource for the Park Commission, Schroder moved, Nolan seconded, to change the meeting time of the Planning Commission to 6:30 p m. Ayes 7, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20. 1995 (#11 - Other Issues for Discussion - Continued) Rowlette nude several conunents on the meeting with the Park Commission. She said it was an important discovery that the Planning Commission could take land instead of money for park dedication. Rowlette felt this would be a great tool in future applications. The Park Commissioners had noted that they did not get copirs of Planning Commission acti'ities until after they had occurred. Mabusth said that preliminary subdivision application forms were now being sent to the members of the Park Commission. Rowlette suggested that the Park Commissioners send a representative to the Planning Commission meetings Mabusth said that Flint would like to see sketch plan reviews Schroeder commented that the Park Commission is a powerful planning tool for the Planning Commission He also noted the need to take into account the trail system in future planning It was reported that Park Dedication can take S% of any undeveloped land where a subdivision is going to be done. Rowlette said the Park Commission is also going to have available maps of large parcels of land to identify that land in which they are interested for future park development Schroeder commented on the need for the P^ Commission to come up with a plan for future park land for the City. There is financial incentive for people to give large parcels/easements to reUevc themselves of the tax burden. ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#12) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 22,1995 MEETING Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of February 22, 1995. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#13) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE APRIL 10,1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Dale Lindquist will attend the Council Meeting of 4/10/95. ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved, Peterson seconded, to adjourn at 11:10 p m. Charles Schroeder, Chair Person ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 7, 1995 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING - FOURTH WORKSHOP PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE TO ALLOW DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER AT PROPERTY' LOCATED AT 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present Chair Charles Schroeder, Stephen Peterson. Sandra Smith. Dale Lindquist, Candace Rowlette. Charles Nolan, Jr . and Janice Berg The following represented the Cit>' Staff; Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth. Assistant Planning and Zoning .Administrator .Michael Gaffron, and Recorder Sherr\' Frost. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7 00 p m. (#1) INTRODl'CTORY COMMENTS - CHAIRMAN CHARLES SCHROEDER Schroeder informed the public that this public inlormation meeting is the fourth in a series of meetings reuarding a proposed shelter in Navarre for Wesionka Intervention Project. Schroeder reported that this process has been a real learning e.xperience for all members of the Commission The Planning Commission has looked at the need for a shelter, how it operates, and the zoning issue At this time, enough inlormation has been gathered in the application process to solicit input from the public. A large number (205) of notices were sent to people in the vicinity of the proposed shelter site. The notification of this meeting was also posted in the City Hall, the Post Office, and published in two newspapers. The Planning Commission felt it was important to go be> ond the normal realm of notification to inform the public of these meetings and receive their input. iU2) REVIEW OF PROPOSED USE - DANIEL HESSBLRG, REPRESENTATIVE OF W ESTONKA INTERVENTION PROJECT Dan Hessburg, representative of Westonka Intervention Project (hereinafter "WestoiAa"), gave some background to how the project began. A committee was formed in 1983 in response to community problems in the west suburban area. Domestic abuse was a topic that fretiuently arose which led to the formation of the project. The Mound, St. Bonifacius, and Minnestrista areas were served until 1985 when the non-profit organization was formed and grant funding was received The service area expanded in 1988 to include Orono, Minnetonka Beach, Long Lake, and Spring Park. Maple Plain and Independence are now being added Westonka has spoken with other cities in the south shore area for ftiture inclusion. They are Shorewood, Tonka Bay, E.xcelsior, Greenwood, andVVayzata. The project serves about 150 families a month. Of that number, 10-20% request a safe home. In the last 12 years, Hessburg reported that they have not been able to place anyone in either of the nearest shelters. Sojourner in Minnetonka, and a Plymouth shelter, due to no space available. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON M.ARCH 7. 1995 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING - FOUTITH WORKSHOP PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE TO ALLOW DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD (#2 - Review of Proposed Use - Hessburg - Continued) The church in Navarre is the second location looked at for a shelter The first one was near the old Fina station on Three Points Blvd and 110 in Mound. Our Lady ot the Lake Church's convent was available but needed to be taken dowTi or sold by a certain date The sale was based on receiving permission for the use from the City There was some public opposition The project was not able to meet the deadline. Hessburg reported that the Navarre location is in the hean of their service area It is also close to facilities such as the police department, public transportation, stores, and on the bus route for several school districts, Mound-Westonka, Orono, and near the route for Minnetonka, allowing children to attend their own schools An offer was made and accepted with the Conservative Baptist Conference in the fall of 1994 The church offer was for $190,000 with $110.000 carried by the church over a five-year period. The project qualifies for Minnesota Housing finance and will receive a $210,000 grant Other funding possibilities are being followed up on The VTW in Mound has agreed to donate $6.000/year for the next five years The project also qualifies for funding from the Department of Corrections An architectural drawing of the floor plan was presented. The outside will remain basically the same with the exception of window changes to allow for egress in the lower level There will be a porch on the front The lower level will be the dormitory area with seven bedrooms, housing 20 beds There will be men and women bathrooms and kitchen and dining facilities on this floor The upper level will house the offices and counseling areas along with men and women bathrooms. Storage will be in the mezzanine area. A landscaping plan will be developed with the City Fencing is planned for the rear area for parking and play areas. The outside will be lit by mercury lighting. Hessburg outlined the process their project goes through with a victim. They get called from the police department after the initial arrest. Two advocates meet with the woman, who is informed of her rights and options av ailable. There is generally an order of protection received from the court system. The advocates will attend the court hearing and assist the victim through the court process. During this time, a safe shelter is seeked out and funded through a voucher system. This shelter which will have 20 beds will serve about 7-9 families at one time. There is an average of 2+ children per victim. The average stay is 17-19 days. Hessburg read to the public a statement of non-violence. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 7, 1995 PL'BLIC INFORMATION MEETING - FOLUTH WORKSHOP PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE TO ALLOW DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD (#3) PHYSICAL CHARXCTERISTICS OR SPECLYL SITE NEEDS OF USE - APPLICANT AND ORONO STAFF Schroedcr informed the public that the City of Orono's zoning code does not provide tor shelters at this time The Planning Commission has been in the process ot answering several questions .Are shelters appropriate in certain zones’ Is this application appropriate if a conditional use permit is granted ’ Mabusth went over the zoning of the area. The site is in a residential zone on the edge of the commercial district Mabusth reported that research and experience have found that a shelter is best located on the edge of commercial and residential districts with close proximity' to stores, public and school transportation The building can easily be converted aiKl easily accessed The building contains 5000 sq ft The building is located 265’ from east residential lot line and 205' from the other north residential lot line. (#4) REVIEW OF EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONLNG OF AREA - ORONO STAFF A) GENERAL LAND USE ISSUES The site is located in a LR-IC single family 1/2 acre minimum lakeshore zoning area. There is B-I commercial zoning on two sides of the property. This zoning allows for most types of business uses B-4 is for professional and business office, B-3 for shopping center, and LR-IB for one acre single family residential. B) SPECIFIC ZONING ISSUES FOR NAVARRE SITE Gaffron reported that the shelter cannot receive a land-use variance. The zoning would need to be changed in one of these zones to allow this use. The church was given a conditional-use permit. The options are to change the LR-IC residential zonii^ to allow a shelter as a conditional-use or re-zone to commercial and receive a conditional-use permit in a commercial zone. The problem with this is if the shelter were to dissolve, what would happen with the zoning. Galfron reported that the Planning Commission is leaning towards a possible conditional- use permit within a residential zone, LR-IC. to allow a shelter. There are parking concerns, especially with the need for serv ice trucks in and out of the area. The Planning Commission is agreeable with this site because of the proximity to public transportation, availability of sewer, convenient location and accessibility, a large site for this use, and the location being on a major road so as not to require any access through a residential area. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 7, 1995 PUBLIC INTORNLATION MEETING - FOURTH WORKSHOP PROPOSED /AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE TO -ALLOW DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2380 SHADYW'OOD ROAD (;f4B - Specific Zoning Issues - Continued) The shelter will have to meet certain limits and criteria which have not yet been determined. A public hearing will also be required The Planning Commission will need to ask the Council to direct them to make a zoning amendment. Standards tor the sh^ter would then be made E.xhibits G-H list the permitted uses in residential and commercial areas Schroeder reported that a conditional-use permit would be the vehicle tor the shelter if it is done GafFron has looked at other cities and their zoning laws Most cities i^ve not had codes allowing for a shelter until a shelter was proposed. (#5) PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS Phyllis O’Malley of Kelly .Avenue addressed the safety issue. She voiced concern over the lack of a fence for the area and more traffic being brought into the area because of the closure of Old Beach Road Hessburg answered that the site is two acres. A large fenced-in area will be created for children. Schroeder added that performance standards would be made in regard to the safety of children. Jackie Meyer of Mound said she was a ftiend of Westonka Intervention and has visited five shelters in Minnesota, Harriet Tubman, Plymouth shelter. Sojourner in Minnetonka, and two in St Paul. Only one of these shelters had a vacancy. She also noted that the shelters were not fenced around but had fenced-in areas. There were strict regulations and an intercom and a security s>stem in place. Children were not allowed to go in and out and were under the watch of volunteers. A form was filled out if a child was taken out by someone other than their mother. Richard Meyers of 2195 Bayview, Orono, ask if adolescents were handled in the same manner as younger children Hessburg said that policies and guidelines were in place for each group of children When victims and children come to a shelter, they must follow the policies or would be removed from the shelter. Schroeder said that one of the questions the Commission looked at were calls to the police department regarding problems at a shelter. Of the 30-40 calls, the vast majority were for parking problems, alarms, and keys locked in cars. There were no serious problems associated with the calls. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 7, 1995 PL'BLIC INFORMATION MEETING - FOLTITH WORKSHOP PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE TO .ALLOW DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2380 SHADWOOD ROAD (??5 - Public Comments and Questions - Continued) Greg Sichender. a Westonka Inters ention board member, reported that adolescent boys are not allowed or a limited number are allowed at the Minnetonka shelter to eliminate potential behavorial problems Schroeder asked Hessburg if adolescent boys would be limited but Hessburg did not know. Peterson said there was the neeu for safety but people should realize that not all of the victims even have children. Hessburg said that there has never been any violence in regard to a police call to a shelter in Minnesota. Sojourner had one call regarding a batterer possibly coming to the shelter but this never materialized. Batterers run the w hole gamut of social-economic class and arc people you see every day. The victim would be under court protection, and the last place the batterer would want to be w ould be at the shelter to cause himself more problems Val Hessburg reported researching police department calls. Home Free Shelter in Plymouth had 2 calls in 1992, 1 call in 1993, and no calls from January through May of 1994. Richard Meyers was concerned with calls to other parts of the community related to the shelter. Meyers was not worried about in-facility but outside-facility problems saying statistics show that problems don't come as a result of the shelter itself Hessburg reported that when a victim is unable to be in a shelter, the violence will be seen out on the road, at the store, etc If the victim is in the shelter, the violence will not be there. Peterson said that a batterer knows where firiends and family are located to find the victim but if at the shelter, they won ’t go there. Ray Pasch of 3300 Navarre Lane, was concerned when the victims are out in the neighborhood going to the bus, the store, etc. Children are restricted to the site but what about the victim He wondered if the batterer would be watching and waiting for the victim and incidents would then occur. Hessburg said by that time, the victim is under court protection, and any occurrence of violence would result in actual jail time, which is a deterrent to anything happening. Schroeder said the concern was if the shelter would attract an undesirable concentration of people. Pasch also asked about the location and drawing additional traffic through the area and not through the residential streets but by Co Rds 15 and 19 only. He asked if the access to the facility would be from the county roads only and what about the side vacated road. Hessburg said the victim would be brought to the shelter by an advocate and stay about 17-19 days. The traffic would be greater from the staff personnel. If a victim is working, they would use the parking lot. The lower level area would also create traffic with service trucks. Meyers asked if the access road would be deadended so the road would not go through the neighborhood. The Planning Commissioners thought that all access would be from the county road but will look at this issue. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNUSSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 7, 1995 PUBLIC INTORMATION MEETING - FOLUTH WORKSHOP PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE TO ALLOW DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2380 SHADYW'OOD ROAD (#5 - Public Comments & Questions - Continued) Mevers also asked about the tumaway rate If it is 60® o and there has iit .er been a victim from Orono able to enter Sojourner or Home Free, could the area people uet turned away from this shelter if it is tilled. He was concerned with the shelter being generally tilled with people from other areas Hessburg said that people could call to check on space available If there was an opening, it w ould be filled with people frcm our area but others would not be turned awav because they were not from this area. Meyer asked then if there would be no guarantee ot a bed available. Hessburg said that the shelter would be filled on a first-come, first-seized basis The shelter would be operated bv Westonka advocates and would make it available for local people il beds were open Schroeder said that you car not guarantee a bed, and the shelter would serve a bigger area than Orono. Meyers asked if the shelter would be expanded with the expansion of the service area. Schroeder said this would be addressed in the conditional-use per.mit Performance standards would oe set This shelter is limited lo 20 beds, and the Commission is not anticipating otr.er shelters Once an amendment ot the code is passed, outer shelters are conceivable in the area but performance standards would limit where this would happen. At present, there are no expectations of any larger facility than stated Hessburg said this structure is limited in size and there are budget constraints Peterson reported that he has worked for ten years at the Simpson House located at Lake St. and Lyndale Ave in Minneapolis Half of the people using the shelter at any given time are not from our state and are not turned away Peterson said to keep in mind that there are only 25 shelters in the whole state. Dee Smith of Corcoian who has also resided in M»> id. is a volunteer at Harriet Tubman Shelter a*id an advocate of W estonka, as well as a g.eviously battered person. She reported that the mothers are given alot of responsiblity while at the shelter They are given a curfew, must sign in and out, and given specific instructions to live by She is in favor of all communities having a shelter. Smith said some women w ho come are terrified while others just need to get away from a situation and are hurting people who need help and are not there to bring more violence to the area. Phyllis O'Malley asked if the side road was vacated. Gaffron said it was not technically vacated, just barricaded, and is a city dedicated road. MESXrrES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 7, 1995 PL’BLIC INFORMATION MEETING - FOURTH WORKSHOP PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE TO ALLOW DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2380 SHADVAVOOD ROAD (#5 - Public Comments & Questions - Continued) Eldon Frieze of Navarre asked for a clarification of the location for the children’s play area, the parking lot. and if any expansion of the lot was expected Hessburg said the architect will look at where the best location is for the play area A possibility is the nonhwest section of the back side near the walk-out area There are no state requirements on plav areas The shelter would be licensed through the state Schroeder said the Commission looked at what standaius there were from difrerent entities but found that there are no specific laws governing shelters, but because ot state tunding, there would be tfuidelines to be followed Hessburit said a consultant, who is familiar with the guidelir.is. has been hired to aide the shelter in meeting the guidelines Schroeder said the Planning Commission would look at all areas, such as lighting, and require that there be no ulare impact upo i a neighborhood, etc The kitchen operation would have a County Health Department license There are also fire codes, etc to follow Hessburg said the architect specializes in reconstructions ot schools and institutions and is familiar with the guidelines. Schroeder read a letter from John O'Sullivan, owner ot O'Sullivan's. He sees problems with having a shelter at this location and prefers rezoning the area for professional or business uses He wrote that the building does not meet zoning codes, and Orono is limited in the number of businesses in the community' It was answered by Schroeder that the site would not be rezoned commercial An owner would not be permitted to sell the property in the tliture for a greater value due to rezoning. The site will stay zoned as it is p.csently Marilyn Renicr, neighbor on Nav arre Lane, voiced approval of the shelter She said the building itself is battered and bruised and needs to be used. Peterson reported that there have been manv cases of v andalism reported to the police department. Richard Meyers said he thinks that this is a good commercial area. He asked if anyone has ever come forward to the Planning Commission to try’ to develop it commercially. Gafffon said there have been calls asking what can be done with the property People have been intbrmed of the residential zoning code and w hat can be done in residential areas Peterson said that this would not typically scare off a determined developer from proceeding with a rezoning request Hessburg said that the property had been for sale for six years, and no purchase agreement has been presented contingent on a use. He did not feel that this was a booming commercial area. Schroeder said that there are two commercial areas in Orono, one around the City Hall area and one in Navarre, but the City has received no application for anything business-related for this site. Mabusth reported that, in 1987, the City invited Navarre business owners to discuss re-development, but no initiative resulted from these discussions. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 7, 1995 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING - FOL'RTH WORKSHOP PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE TO ALLOW DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD (#5 - Public Comments & Questions - Continued) Eldon Frieze of Navdiic asked for a clarification of the location for the children ’s play area, the parking lot, and it am' expansion of the lot was expected Hessburg said the architect will look at where the best location is for the play area .A possibility is the northwest section of the back side near the w alk-out area There are no state rer^uirements on plav areas The shelter would be licensed through the state Schroeder said the Commission looked at what standards there were tfom dirt'erent entities but found that there are no specific laws governing shelters, but because of state funding, there would be guidelines to be followed Hessburg said a consultant, wIk* is familiar with the guidelines, has been hired to aide the shelter in meeting the guidelines Schroeder said the Planning Commission would look at all areas, such as lighting, and require that there be no glare impact upon a neighborhood, etc The kitchen operation would have a County- Health Department license. There are also fire codes, etc. to follow Hessburg said the architect specializes in reconstructions of schools and institutions and is familiar with the guidelines. Schroeder read a letter from John O'SiiHivan, owner of OSullivans. He sees problems with having a shelter at this location and prefers rezoning the area for professional or business uses He wrote that the building does not meet zoning codes, and Orono is limited in the number of businesses in the community It was answered by Schroeder that the site would not be rezoned commercial An owner would not be permitted to sell the property in the future for a greater value due to rezoning. The site will stay zoned as it is presently Marilyn Renter, neighbor on Navarre Lane, voiced approval of the shelter. Sne said the building itself is battered and bruised and needs to be used. Peterson reported that there have been many cases of vandalism reported to the police department. Richard Meyers said he thinks that this is a good commercial area. He asked if anyone has ever come forward to the Planning Commission to try- to develop it commercially. Gaffron said there have been calls asking what can be done with the property People have been inf ormed of the residential zoning code and what can be done in residential areas. Peterson said that this would not typically scare off a determined developer from proceeding with a rezoning request Hessburg said that the property had been for sale for six years, and no purchase agreement has been presented contingent on a use. He did not feel that this was a booming commercial area. Schroeder said that there are two commercial areas in Orono, one around the City Hall area and one in Navarre, but the City has received no application for anything business-related for this site. Mabusth reported that, in 1987, the City invited Navarre business owners to discuss re-development, but no ir:itiative resulted from these discussions. I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 7, 1995 PUBLIC INTOR\L\T10N MEETING - FOURTH WORKSHOP PROPOSED AMEMDMENT OF ZONING CODE TO ALLOW' DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD (#5 - Public Comments & Questions - Continued) Jackie Meyer said that during her visits to shelters, she saw only young children. There were single women too She felt that women will sometimes stick out a situation until children come along and then face the problem The plavTOoms she visited were large and contained tovs for young children She did not see any adolescent problems Pascb asked the reasons -vhy ti e Mound site was tound not appropriate tor the shelter. Hessburg said that after si.\ months in the process, it was determined not to a good location He said there were four reasons why the shelter did not work out for the Mound site I )council attitude. 2) site itself - monitoring wells and water condition, leaking fuel tanks, )) neighbor and community opposition, and 4) timeline The project ran out of time to solve the problems in the time frame allowed by the convent. Schroeder said that this is an emotionally charged issue. Property values should not be affected when standards are set and the shelter operates quietly Hessburg said that the Sojourner neighborhood found that their fears of lowered property values were unfounded Hessburg said the condition of the building on the Navarre site is deteriorating rapidly Schroeder feels that a residential area is not appropriate for a shelter but this location is good He feels the shelter will be used by Orono residents but will be filled by the larger community Diane Carison, on Casco, said that the neighborhood would benefit from the counseling services provided bv the project, without using the beds available, once they know that they may call for this service. She said she, along with several neighbors, are in favor of the shelter Schroeder reported that the Commissioners do not take c*^ianging codes and uses lightly. He feels that the site is good and would be an improvement to the neighborhood. 8 # MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 7, 1995 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING - FOURTH WORKSHOP PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE TO ALLOW DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2380 SRADYWOOD ROAD («:5 - Public Comments & Questions - Continued) A neiiihbor reported that he did not know this issue was being discussed until the last moment He felt that more ot the public would come to the next meeting. Nlabusth said that the notice for pre\ious sessions was posted in the post office. The three previous work sessions provided both Staff and Commission members time to study all issues voiced with this request . Jl three of the prior work sessions on 1/6, 1/20. and 2/21. were posted There have been neighbors present at the meetings This session was opened to a larcer segment due to the information now gathered Schroeder said that the Planning Commission went one step farther than needed by sending letters out to the nei^bors The next step in the process would be to make a recommendation to the Council to send the issue back to the Planning Commission to review all the information and have a public hearing for the conditional-use code amendment. The above-mentioned neighbor asked that the work sessions be advertised also in the legal paper of the community. Schroeder advised that although not legally required by law, that appropriate notification of the public is important. Gene Scanlon of Casco Point reported having been at the Mound hearing of the La^ of the Lake shelter proposal He said that the Mound Police Chief had alot of information on shelters and police calls Hessburg said that the chief did give alot of information on repeat calls He reported how well the system can work when the police, shelter, and intervention projects work together Hessburg said that Judge Davidson will contact the Orono Chief and others for a day forum of professionals who work with these problems and how they can be sened Scanlon reported on hearing the statistic that 85% of snidents at Mound High School have either experienced or know someone who has experienced domestic abuse in the home. Schroeder said that the shelter was an appropriate response to the domestic violence in society Peterson said that Judge Davidson had advised where the church was in these situations. The churches seem to reter the problems back to the family. Berg reported that Interfaith of Wayzata receives about five calls weekly from people looking for help with domestic abuse. Schroeder feels the Orono Police Department would welcome working with a group like this. O'Malley asked if all notices were in the Pioneer paper, which they are. Pasch asked if the parking lot w ould be expanded if the shelter was given approval. Looking at the topographical maps, Pasch noted that the land falls off in grade and asked if hardcover and drainage issues had been discussed. Schroeder reported that these issues have not been discussed but will be with a future application if Council approves a code amendment. NfINUTES OF THE ORONO PL.\NN1NG COMMISSION VfEETING HELD ON MARCH 7, 1995 PL'BLIC INFORMATION MEETING - FOLTITFI W ORKSHOP PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE TO ALLOW DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD (#5 - Public Comments & Questions - Continued) Mabusth reported on the on-going process tor the application It the Council agrees with a request to amend the code, the Council will direct Staff to place the application on an upcoming agenda of the Planning Commission Wrinen noti^cation will again be sent to the 205 neighborhood people advising of the public hearing tor the amendment to the code (#6) PLANNING COVLMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL - DISCUSSION OF PLANNING CO.MMISSION MEMBERS Schroeder asked for comments from each member of the Commission. The>' are as follows: Peterson said he struggled with the statistics shown by the Orono Police Department. Lt. Cheswick was present at meetings and was questioned about tlw need for a shelter and related police calls The records show that over the last ses eral years, only one hotel voucher has been given out Few have been taken to shelters The lieutenant had reported having had taken women to shelters in Plymouth and Minnetonka and had counseled women The lieutenant did feel that a shelter would be used Peterson voiced his approval of the shelter Rowlette was impressed with the Orono Police Department but felt women were left to their own devices. If a shelter was in Orono, it would save police tunc. There are no officers trained in handling domestic abuse situations. Rowlette feels the location is good. She liked the idea that the site could serve children from three school districts, Rowlette felt the shelter was needed. Berg reported hav ing had experience with Cornerstone Shelter in Richfield. She feels that domestic abuse is a closed-door problem. The site is excellent. She lives nearby and is okay with it. Nolan said he was originally concerned with possible violence. He felt that violence must be connected with it, but he now teels this is not true. He said that a situation must be bad if police are called He feels the location is appropriate for the greater Minnetonka area. He feels site planning can solve any problems associated with the building. Lindquist concurred with other commission members He reported that Judge Davidson was present at a meeting and said the courts were working with abuse centers. Batterers were being held in jail until coming in front of the judge. He feels the location is good, and it is the responsibility of the community to have a shelter. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION NtEETING HELD ON MARCH 7, 1995 PUBLIC INTORMATION MEETING - FOLTITH WORKSHOP PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE TO ALLOW DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD ?<> - Planninsi Commission Recommendation to the Council - Continued) Smith reponed that it was ver>- difficult to rely on the statistics available The police department had little information, and she found it very confusing She said performance standards have been set for the shelters in .Minnetonka and Plymouth The Planning Commission would be setting critena for the facility use and the parking lot ar^ answer the concern about vehicles coming and going. She suppons the project and residential zoninii with conditional use She feels there is no need for re/oning to commercial. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to recommend that the Council permit the Planning Commission to look at rev iew ing the zoning code with respect to a shelter of this type as a conditional use permit. StatT will look at controls and pertormance standards tor an amendment of the code and report back to the Planning Commission A\es 7, Nays 0. The public is invited to attend the Council meeting, formal Planning Commission meeting, and public hearings for the formal recommendation to the Council to change the LR-lC code for this use Smith invited the public to write letters e.xpressing their opinions. Schroeder reported that the Council ultimately makes the decision on the CUP for the shelter Mabusth reported that public comments of this meeting w ill be part of the official record for the Council’s rev iew Richard Meyer asked if this shelter would require oark dedication fees Schroeder indicated it would not since it is not a subdivision. The nearby park was reported as needing updating (#7) adjournment Rowlette moved. Lindquist seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Charles Schroeder, Chair Person T. ‘ ^ y-».4 * t V X't'!" :l it: I i:i :l ;s tT‘,!! -fk- hw «htv oescwpnoN Of RCCOBO AS 8UPRJS0 8Y nw« MW8M •» im PAMCEL 1; Ttm mm 7.10 mrm ol M Em OmW a» t» MntiMM Omnm «f nirm-r. Tr—n NM«i.flv9a2S.illMieft<««hPnnap«MMun.«idM Mt d t« EM Htf d ff« m«i 77 so lerai fli tM MMHdTdMEMHMrdM N b Mmm QUMW iiMg nerti of l«t WMMvfi AoM aMcrMd » Dopowngd — Mwth»Me0rMdMwwti7«OMOOOffhoEMCMMor»o>fcftnMQmndd* M MMn »l. tax* N h «i mrq tho EM Ino doMEM Hrtl d »» Sauft 97» ■ iWMfMdUoEMMtf dMNonno MOuMfdMrcodax.OOlM; - ' oMdM• WM p«M Mh «• nofV< kno d M Bout) 7.50 MM d M EM «M OiMor • «MK» d 1MOOIM. Mnn Sedn MdW Mt ■» d to n MdMCBwt Ml M WM mo d f« ooufi 7 ao aoM d no CM OUMW d M NodtoM Qutotor t m N b M Mono MO too to tw r«M d Mdrnna. oeeoMng to too UMM Stotoi fteMnonM auTM <N>«d tod MuMJ to Htomopto CouMy. ItovMM PAKCL2; Tito WM Quito d too & Outotor. toto ttol M Outotor hlB norto d tot.d<to^WtotoMMiMn»»«MinodMeWMtoto-liMtodtoo to>.dto M OMtor d Vto MofM Outotor. Vtoneo NoM. poraM Mi Md EM hno. • Mtonco d IK toM. totoM EM. d MdH-• dtoton f»"VMM MM dtotoMO to MO EM tno. • a«to>0 d 70 «Ht totoiM SOM MdW M atod <LM feno. to to* ernmtrm d atod idM. toaneo SedAMatoflv don# md cMtodto. to Vto EM Kto. OtofiM NM. dtoto HM EMI toto to to* voM d bogmwto MOtodtoe to too untod SUM OMrnnwM Stmy Bwtod «nd adudi to Htovtopto Counar. Itovtoooto • aoudi 27 ao acTM d t« dtod HI d fto to alVto MniMVto tod Wtototoan Ro1 d comar d iw aouto 7 90 «nd d too Em TM Ml d Vto EM »tod d Vw toPMCCL2 TM. EM HI d Vto HwtoaM Quator •* OMtotoad m MMto"0 ■ •« HcrtouM QMMd Vto IMtooMt Quito dSocBon 31 .ToMWhto til. Ranoo 22. Vtonc*Htoto dtoto Vto M ifto d itod EM HI d Vto aouto 27 90 aoM d Vto WM HI d Vto EM HI d Vto iMVtoM OMto a ddtowa d 3100 tod to Vto aefeid pnra d Momnot to Vto aelid pora d bogmng M dMttM VtoHM Gvtonutog Ntoto don) IN oM iTto d aM EM Had d 27 90 MM d too Wtoal Had d Vto EM Hd d Vw NofViaM Otortto to Vto VtoMOf. VtoHM Wtoat dono V* nM <»to d Vto aouVi 27 U MTM to Vto EM Had d Vto NodtoM OuaHar VtoAC* SouVtortf on Vto toM kna d Vto EM Had d Vto HofVtoM Oudtor d Vto caniarMto d VI Rol; Vtofwa SouViaaatorty dong add cantortno to M a Iflft-OO fodtoMdVtoMdknadVto aouto 7 90 aer* Vtoaeuto27 90 NdVtoMoomoi jfVtoEMHaddVto Md dto d Vto aouto 7 90 avM d Vto EM OMiar d Vto toNdViMdMiMandiOS jO <M «od d Vto «M dto d aad aouto 7 N MM. Ill M «M to a port i«A 00 tod torai d Vto aciud potoi d bogmng. VtoHM EM t W 00 tod to Vto aciud port d Morta d. aoowdno » Vto UMOV StdM d and idiidart n Itonnapir Coudv. UnaMa PARCEL4 ThdpldVtoWMona-iDufVidVtot Omar. BfOdion 31. loiMtoNp nv. Aango 23. 0 » icaMoiWtodOtoWdanotonncwd* 'a and pardM dto Vto Em toa d M^ VM Ouiar d Vto NonhoM Omr. Vtonoo toVtoMOuanordVtoN dngiv Ouanp IK tod. tod Md d. moodrtd VtoEMlnadM^VMdana toidh d Vto SouVtoM iMMaMEMtowato tod. VtoMto EM d ngN angtoa. a dalancc d tt tod to Vto port d Vognwig. ctoWMdndVangtoaMaadEM kna. adannad TOtool. VtoOM SeutopanM add EM ina. to Via caraa<«na d and mad. .nanca 0outooaawd|i. atong aad cadafOna. to aad EM kna. Vtonca NoM along tad LM ima. to Via port d Oagntoia acnmlng to Vw Untod SidM OowammaM Sun«v itorad. dd aduatod n Itonoapw Itto aoudt 7 90 acin d Vw EM Ouartw d Vw IwrVtoM Ouond d Sadon 3 toamnip IIV. Rwiga 23. ttonnapMi Carty. Mmaaun pi d Vto Vtoai Had d vw EM Hdi d vw NorvtoM Omni d aM SacWN 31. ndaatoaoiaa eadmg ai toa HoMaaal nmai d VW aouVi 7 90 vctm d Vw EM OmMi d ina NodtoM OMtar d and Saclwn 31. Vtonca nod I dong Via aM Wto d and Mtoai Had d Via Eaai Mdf d Via Nodfiaad Ouartar a dw& nca d 2V4 00 toat. Vtonca WM h Vto aouto kna d Vto NormaM Ouiar J and V Ouada> to Vw camarkna d toa tMdtr.mn FtoM ti along Md cantarkna to toa oast ma d and Vtoit Hak ol toa Em Had & toe Norriem Ouartar Vwnca norto dong anO ana to toa port d t<igdwnig PROPOSED DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL *B nid pi d Vto aeuvi lOSi .k tott d vw VMd Hdl d vw Em Had d vw MncViaM Ouartar d Sacaon 31. TonroTig 112 Ranga 23. Maraapn Caunfy. Mnnaaolo. Vwi Ma U EM d toa «M 33000 tool d iM WM Had d too EM Hdl d Vw MortTiaM Ouortai 2) Northaoawrlii d Vw contoflno d WaiMoafi Aai EXCEPTVIO tooraVom VM pi Vwrod daocnbod MtoVom Savmng d too Northnoat comar d w aouvi 7 90 ocra d Vw EM Ouirta* d Vto HorttiaM Ouwtor d add SacM > 31. toanca norto dong via aM Vna d add Wm Had d vw Em Had d mo •MViaM Omar a datonca d 204 00 toot VtoTKo wM MadP m tha aeuE wa d toa NorthoM Omar d MdSacVonSl.adMMcad lOSOOIad. toarva Sod MaM «« VwaMnw d add Waal Had d Vto EM Had d toa Northaan OMtor to toa caniortna d no Waiartoon Rol. toanca 5outoaMar*r dong m camorMw to too aM kna d and Wad Hdl d Via EM Had d tha Nortnaap Onnar. toanca noun dong n M kna to toa port d bagrtwig PROPOSED DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL C DwpIdStoEMHaddVto aouto 27 90 octm d :ha Waal Had d toa EM Hdl d too NortoaM Ouartar d Sacflon 31. Toimttip Hi Hanga 23. itonnapto CoUf. Mmnaaoia. Rwl Pm norto d too aouto 1091 49 toat d ina Wad Had d toa East Had d add NorthoM Ouartar AND Thd pl d Via Wad Ouartar d too Souto 3i« d am Northam Ouanar toat kM norto d toa aouto loai 46 tool d vw Wad Had d vw Em Had d and NorvwM Ouartai iJ t G n: CO LiJ O z<ocu_ p111 ll III! • o • •