Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-1995 Planning PacketORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 18,1995 ROIT The Orono Planning C'ommission met on the above date with the followi.ig members present; Chair Stephen Peterson, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Candace Rowlette, and Elizabeth Hawn Janice Berg was absent The following represented the City Staff Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Septic Inspector Steve Weckman. and Recorder Sherry Frost Councitmember Goetten was present. Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7 00 p m (#1) #2064 ROBERT S. OLSON & IRVIN T. GEFFRE, 4665 BAYSIDE ROAD - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT/VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS 7:02-7:18 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Gaffron reported that the application is a request for a lot line rearrangement between Lot 1, Block 2, owned by GelTre and Outlot C, owned by Olson This property was platted last year with an outlot for the 14 acre rear parcel The outlot was created for future development No septic tecting has been done nor any park dedication fee taken As part of the original proposal, Olson agreed to sell Geffre the portion of Outlot C with the shed on it, and outlot A. At the current time, Geffre has a I 94 acre lot, and the portion of Outlot C would add 35 acres Outlot A consists of .27 acre, yielding a total of 2.56 acres in a 2-acre zoning district and would, therefore, conform in area The remaining Olson property will total 14 2 acres The proposal would require a setback variance for the shed, which is over the 1000 s.f. standard and is, therefore, considered an oversize accessory structure subject to minimum lot area and setback requirements The proposed setback is 30', where 50' is required from the new south (rear) lot line. It presently exists at 12* from the northerly lot line. It will meet the required 30' east/west side setbacks. T!ie oversize accessory structure requires two standard variances; one for its size of 2450 s.f where 1200 s.f is allowed, and needing a lot size of 6 acre minimum The allowed footprint of all accessory structures on the property is 2400 s f Existing on the property is a detached garage, a small shed, a quonset, and the oversize accessory structure. These structures total 4182 s.f requiring a variance of 1 782 s.f The size of lot required to accomodate this much accessory structure is a 5 acre minimum. Gaffron asked the Planning Contmissioners to consider recommending a reduction in the number of accessory buildings to reduce the number of variances. I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 19<)5 (#1 - #2064 Robert Olson/lrvin Geflfre - Continued) The proposed lot line does not preclude the use of the Outlot corridor for a future roadway. To meet code and not impact future developnicnt, an option is to come down tlie west side of the properties requiring a 50' corridor, which will not be limited by the lot line rearrangement The City is requesting vacation of the utility and drainage easement Minnegasco has no interest in this being done NSP, thru a verbal communication, asked that the electrical lines not be vacated This would need to be conlirnied New dedication of drainage and utility easements is proposed to be required along the new lot boundary. Regarding the oversize accessory structure square footage v ariances, Gaffron asked the Commissioners if Geflfre should be required to remove the smaller shed or quonset to minimize the amount of accessory structures It was noted that both applicants were present at the meeting. Lindquist asked what the uses were for the quonset and other shed The quonset, which would be on the new lot, is used for storage The applicant would consider removing this structure The other shed is used for garden tools The applicant requested maintaining this small shed. The quonset is 1014 s f, and its removal would reduce the variance to 768 s f Peterson commented that Outlot C at 14 acres was large enough to consider moving proposed rear lot line hirther south into Outlot C The applicant responded that it would not be a problem to change the lot line 20' more to the south. When questioned by Peterson whether the lot line change would affect the future road, Gaffron said it would not affect the future road. Gaffron noted that as part of v ariance approval, the City should require the standard oversize accessory structure covenant stipulating that Geflfe's lot size cannot be decreased by a future division without requiring the removal of the oversize accessory structure. Rowletle asked that a date for the quonset removal be noted in the resolution. There were no public comments Peterson noted that there would be no impact on any neighbors. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2064 with the removal of the quonset 60 days from the final date of approval, an additional 20* be added to the south end of the lot, a covenant placed on the property requiring the removal of the oversize accessory structure if the lot is made smaller, and new drainage and utility easement be granted Vacation of the existing easement will be approved subject to confirmation of the interest of NSP. Ayes 6, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#2) #2065 SAMUEL MARFIELD, 2455 SCOTCH PINE LANE/NIR. & MRS. H. DOUGLAS HILL, 2425 SC'OTC H PINE LANE, AND WILLIAM TOLES, 2435 SC OTCH PINE LANE - V ACATION OF SCOTCH PINE LANE - VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITV EASEMENTS - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (REPLAT) 8:00-8:37 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicants, Mr & Mrs Marfield. Mr & Mrs Hill, and William Toles, were present. Gaffron reported that the request is for a vacation of a road right-of-way and utility vacation with a rededication of utility ea.sement and replat of the Dicon Addition The property was platted to create 3 buiidable lots and a public road in 1974 when it was a I- acre zoning area and consisted of 3-1 /2 acres The replat would allow the Hill property better lakeshore access A 50' utility easement runs east to west in the existing plat. The current plat includes a 50' dedication of CoRd 51 The proposal is to regrant easements necessary to accommodate existing and future utility needs. Gaffron noted that a letter from NSP indicates there is a distribution facility in the area. NSP will not give their approval for the easement vacation and any changes will have to be made at the expense of the applicants Gaffron thought if the existing utility lines were located that NSP would possibly approve the easement vacation in exchange for new easements. A Minnegasco letter said there are natural gas lines in the area, and the company objects to the proposal unless suitable right of way and rededication is resolved. Peterson clarified that the utility easements must remain as they now exist. Gaffron confirmed this Gaffron said City sewer was extended to the area in 1980 with 10' easement on either side of the line The City Engineer indicates 30' total width is needed for that utility easement. It was noted that the applicants have not provided a survey of where all the utility lines are located. This is required and is being asked for from the applicants. 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEXfflER 18, 1*^5 (#2 - H2065 MarfielcniillToIes - Continued) The paved portion of Scotch Pine Lane would be removed and the property replalted in this proposal The Hills would gain a portion of Scotch Pine adjacent ot their house as well as the majority of the cul-de-sac, giv ing the Hills a continuous single parcel tfom the County road to the lake Mr I'oles on Lot 3 would gain the end portion of the cul-de-sac area The Toles driveway would be revised to gain access from CoRd 5 1 Regrading would be done to eliminate the existing drainage pipe The Marfields would gain the west and southwest portions of Scotch Pine Lane A 20’x90‘ outlet is proposed for the shared portion of the proposed Martleld/Hill drivew ay Staff is concerned that the replat would result in a "backlot" configuration which would not meet the 15Wo acreage or setback starKiards The Marfield lot would appear to become a backlot under the proposal Another Staff concern is that with the area being zoned for 2-acre lots today, if this 3-lot plat was proposed, the ('ity would require platting of a priv ate road SO' w ide with a 100* cul-de-sac and a 24' paved road The application as proposed does not meet the current City codes, but wliat currently exists does meet code. Marfield commented that if the three lots had 6 acres, the lots could accommodate the roads. It was his opinion that all of the blacktop to serv e the three small parcels was too much He noted City officials in the past had agreed with this opinion. Peterson commented that requirements are changing. The Fire Department feels the road as it even now stands does not totally meet their needs and would ask for more road if that were possible, i e, larger cul-de-sacs or loop roads. Marfield said Scotch Pine Lane is the only public road between CoRd 5 1 and Bohn's Point. He would like this road to be similar to the other accesses in the area, most of which are driveways Hill suggested that the fire department use the grassed areas to gain access it was commented that fire trucks could get stuck in the grassed areas cieating new problems. Mrs. Hill noted that the fire department could not access the Toles property as it now exists Rowlette concurred with this notation. Marfield noted that, although Orono is into green spaces, it allowed this 3/4 acre of blacktop to be built where it isn't necessary. The Commissioners agreed that they too like the green grassy areas but trends are changing for emergency situations The police department has responded that they approve the proposal The fire department had not been notified of the proposal. It was noted that the public uses the road, even though it is marked dead-end, and are creating a salety hazard by driving 30 mph. Mrs Marfield noted that her grandchildren had a close call from being hit by such a car driving on the road. Other concerns were noted regarding security of the area. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (M2 - #2065 Marfield/HIIlToIes - Continued) Schrocdcr moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2065 until the Fire Department could give their recommendation regarding the proposal Toles noted that tabling N^ould upset his plans fui rebuilding on his piopeily tlris fall Galfron asked the Commission about the issue >\ith creating a backlot by having an outlet resulting in the Marfield property being more substandard for setbacks and area. He requested whether there is also a problem with the outlet to be owned by both Marfield and Hill Schroeder commented that he had no problem with it A letter from neighbors, the Levy ’s, favored approving the application providing the new driveway not be closer than 15’ from the lot line and the utility easements to their property remain in effect The neighbors to the west, the Luke's, also had no objection. They asked that the City stipulate that no additional buildings be allowed on the site Hawn moved. Schroeder seconded, to amend the tabling motion to an approval motion for Application #2065 subject to the approval of the Fire Department. Easements are to be dealt with, and the driveway must be at least 15’ from the neighboring property Galfron suggested it may be inappropriate to place the fire department in a position to approve or disapprove this request without further Commission input Gaffron asked the Commissioners to address the issues under item #1 in the Staff memo relating to the variances requested for replatting and rededication of easements, the wetlands delineation and dedication on the property, and whether special findings are adequate to define this as a unique request as compared to other three-lot subdivisions, or be prepared to grant approval to other neighborhoods making similar requests Rowlette said .she did feel there are specific findings in regards to this application noting the existing substandard access to the Toles property. There would be better access from CoRd 51 for emergency vehicles under the proposal Hawn noted the additional finding that removal of the cul-de-sac to allow the Hills to cross to their lakeshore parcel without crossing the road would be a benefit. Smith asked Gaffron if he envisioned requests from many other residents of .1-party cul- de-sacs to ask for removal, is this opening the door for similar requests. Gaffron said it could be opening a "little door", and that is the reason good findings are important here. Peterson said he was concerned that the Commission was moving this application forward to the Council in a messy form and requested that it be tabled. Lindquist said some of the issues may come back to haunt the Commission Schoeder agreed this could happen, and not only on the cul-de-sac issue, that there are many issues involved in addition to the fire safety issue. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1W5 (#2 - #2065 Marfield/HillToles - Continued) Hawn withdrew her amendment to the motion. Schroeder mcrv ed, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2065 to gain specific input from the Fire Department and general input on the issues Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 1, Rowlette, who would have liked to have voted on the amendment (#J) #2000 CORTLEN G. CLOCTIER, 24SO CASCO POINT RO.AD - CLASS I SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PLBLIC HEARING WITH RENOTIFICATION 7:18-8:00 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was present. Weckman reported that the proposal is for a two lot subdivision from property that had been combined from a 3-parcel property consisting of lots I, 3, and 4 The applicant had previously stated he had not intentionally combined the lots but it was done as a result of a request for one tax statement The two lots meet the area and width requirements. Weckman said the main issue is with the access roads on the property Lots 3 and 4 are the current homestead and have access from Frederick Street. A more recent driveway was established from Casco Point to the lots and is now a thru driveway with a circle. The applicant said this driveway existed between 1931 and 1985, but he allowed vegetation to grow over the driveway after 1985. The driveway was reestablished in 1994 The original subdivision shows an outlet with a drive circling around and connecting to the cul-de-sac, but the drive used as the connector cuts through lot 1. W'eckman asked for direction from the Commission on what to do with the driveway. With the driveway serving lots 3 and 4 going through I.Jt 1, the requirement of 1/2 acre contiguous on Lot I with the principal structure placed on the lot is not met. An option was noted to end the driveway as shown on the drawings, or since Lot I is being sold to the applicant's son, an option would be to allow the use of the driveway on a temporary basis while using the adjacent two properties and nol adding an easement in favor of lots 3 and 4. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, - #2000 Cortlen Cloutier - Continued) Peterson asked the applicant if there was a reason to leave the driveway uoin^ through Lot I Cloutier said when the propeity was subdivided in 1962, outlot I provided ingress and egress to lots I, 2, 3, 4 When lot 2 (owned by Mr Paurus) was sold, provision was made for lot 2 to use outlot I up to the lot line The applicant added that lot 4 has an easement right to use outlot 1 as well as lots I and 3 Cloutier preferred that only Paurus use the drive near his property in order to maintain privacy for all parties concerned The driveway through lot 1 is used to access Cloutier's lot 4 instead of the driveway through Paurus ’ lot 2 Weekman said there was no easement for that driveway to come through to lot 4 Cloutier said the driveway provides use as an alley to his residence and as the main drive for delivery trucks and other large vehicles Peterson suggested closing the access from Frederick Street or have the applicant decide between the Frederick Street access or the driveway through lot 1 Schroeder commented that any decision shcxild be based on the possibility of a future subdivision If lot 3 were proposed as a separate lot, the road by lot 2 could be used for access The problem with that solution would be the use of 3 properties on one substandard road Weekman w as concerned with lot 3 not having the 1/2 acre of land required with the structure Schroeder said the resolution would need language to address access for future subdivision Gaffron noted that lot width was also a potential issue for splitting off Lot 3 in the future. Cloutier said he had no plans at this time to subdivide lot 3. He did not wish to be cut off from the thru road. Hawn noted that emergency vehicles would have a difficult time accessing Cloutier’s property from Frederick Street. Hawn suggested extending the center road to the cul-de- sac from Frederick Street. Topography was found to be a consideration with this suggestion It was further noted that this option would not solve the problem with cutting lot I in half Weekman said if the 1/2 acre requirement could be met by relocating the driveway on I.^t 1, this would be an option. This would require new plans and calculations MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#3 - #2000 Conlen Cloutier - Continued) Peterson asked if there were any other issues to consider Weckman noted that no park dedication tee would be required The City Attorney said the property had already been subdivided as of record There was also a ditference of opinion on whether this was one parcel or 3 Weckman said Mabusth had requested language be added to note that any future subdivision must meet current standards and codes It was flulher noted that the property has been assessed for two water and one sewer connection but would require assessment of another sewer and SAC charge Cloutier responded that it was his belief this was incorrect as lot 4 was connected to sewer from Frederick Street He added that when water was provided on Casco in 1971, a stub line came from Casco to his property. Gaffron said he would follow up on the charge for the sewer unit W'eckman said if the sewer line crosses a neighbor's, the City would need to verify- and identify any easements. During public comment, Wilbur Anderson, 3555 Frederick Street, read a letter from Norm and Rusty Paurus The letter said the Paurus' approved the application if no changes were submitted from the 3/20/95 submittal, or asked to allow their feedback on any charges made. The Paurus ’ asked the proposed house be moved 5-6' to the northeast to save several mature trees and that all construction and driveways comply with current City ordinarices Peterson asked for Cloutier's comments on the letter The applicant was unsure what trees were being referred to as there was a solid line of trees on the lot. Cloutier did not believe it to be reasonable to redesign the house with the topography since there was no lack of trees on this or neighboring properties. Peterson said the proceedings cannot be stopped because a neighbor was not in attendance. Commissioners noted that the driveway was the main concern with the application. The lack of 1/2 acre contiguous on lot I because of the configuration of the driveway was the problem. Cloutier commented that lot 1 consisted of 3/4 acre and contained woods continuous over to Frederick Street. He asked for approval of the driveway for he and his son. Lindquist said he was uneasy with the proposal. The applicant was told that there would be a time when the property did not serve Cloutier and his son. Lindquist noted that the roadway by Paurus' lot 2 could serve both Paurus and lot 3. Rowlette asked if Frederick Street was used on a daily basis. Cloutier said he used the access from Casco. Rowlette noted that the Casco driveway was not well maintained. The applicant said red rock had recently been brought in but said further destruction of the driveway would occur during the construction process. Rowlette said she saw no reason for the middle driveway to serve lots 3 and 4 when outlot 1 was already in place to serve those lots 8 MlNUTtS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (# » - #2000 Corilen Cloutier - Continued) Smith opined that three drives for one house was unnecessary. Cloutier said he would be willing to close off the driv eway from Frederick Street The issue of the 1/2 acre contiguous would still he a problem. Gaffron suggested moving the driveway to the northeast and refiguring if the 1/2 acre was available Lindquist said if the 1/2 acre was present, it was his opinion that the application could be granted under the present code without coming back to the Planning Commission Gaffron said there would still be a subdivision needed to separate Lot I from lots 3 and 4 Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2000 for subdivision subject to Lot 1 meeting the zoning standards with the 1/2 acre of contiguous with respect to how the driveway bisects the property Applicant shall make payment to the City for a sewer connection charge of $1,284 50 based on the current 1995 Fee Schedule plus the service availability charge of $850 00. Applicant i< to provide an updated surve>- locating sewer and water service at Frederick Street prior to scheduling the application before the Council. Final resolve by the applicant is necessary concerning dedication of easement for Frederick Street access drive that encroaches Lot I Applicant will sign off on a resolution with the disclaimer drained by City Attorney, and clarification will be made that the property is one lot Applicant will work with the City to clean up the property of miscellaneous items. Lindquist asked if the applicant would consider abandoning the driveway from Frederick Street due to the number of driveways. The applicant said he would prefer not to but would do so if that is the desire of the Planning Commissioners. The applicant was told that an easement from the road to the west for Lot 2 cannot be vacated as it is a private easement. Schroeder said another alternative would be to dedicate some land for the roadway. The applicant made a suggestion of taking a portion of lot 1 to lot 3 and remove the boathouse. The 150®/o lot area requirement for a back lot on 3 was noted. This suggestion was not to be considered at this time. Vote. Ayes 5, Nays 1, Rowlette, who noted if Frederick Street access is not in use, it should be closed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING C OMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, (#4) #2044 GEORGE OLSON, 2775 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE • CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:37-8:4S P.M. Gaffron reported that the application is for a hardcover variance in the 7S-250' setback area for an addition on the lakeside The property is also near the Narrows Channel, which affects the 250' line The addition meets the required side and lakeshore setbacks as well as the average lakeshore setback Very little hardcover exists in the 0-75' area with a patio consisting of rock with plastic constituting 4.4% hardcover The hardcover in the 75-250’ area exists at 44% where 25% is allowed. The proposal calls for removal of rock beds with plastic or fabric underlayment reducing the hardcover to 31 .W». A new survey has been done on the property. It shows that some of the rock beds have been added since the 1988 deck was approved. This was not done by the current owner, who pui chased the property one year ago. The property consists of 28,000 s.f or 6 acres in a 1-acre zoning district. The lot coverage by structure is 1 \% where 15% is allowed A concern is the addition of the 3- season porch above the deck, which was built since 1988 without permits Staff is asking for an after-the-fact permit for the construction of the porch, which meets setbacks, without any penalty assessed. As to the hardcover variance issue, Gaftron noted there is no structure feasible to remove, just rock and plastic The shed on the property is needed for storage. The applicant commented that the 1987 resolution allowed for 37.6% of hardcover. With this proposal, the hardcover will exist at 31.7%, less than what was approved in 1987. Olson noted that the net square footage for the addition was 267 s.f Peterson said the Commission currently often trades plastic and rock for structure, and under the code. Peterson saw no problem with the application and noted it had no effect on the neighbors. Smith asked if the removal of rock and plastic included that in the from of the property. She is concerned with an erosion problem with removing that rock area. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Rowlette seconded, to approve Application #2044 subject to the removal of plastic in the beds. Rowlette amended the motion to include the 31.7% of hardcover would be the maximum allowed in the future and any future structural additions should only be approved by trading structure for structure. NflNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#4 - #2044 George Olsten - Continued) Mrs Olson asked on the hill portion of the property if it would be sufficient to perforate the fabric in order not to remove the fabric so as not to affect the area Peterson said she should work with the builder on this but the Planning Commission cannot distinguish perforated from fabric-laid areas A member of the public noted that the material under the rip-rap was not considered hardcover She was informed by the Commission that the rip-rap itself is hardcover so the material underneath does not matter V'ote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#5) #2059 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, 1485 SIXTH AVENtE NORTH - VARUNCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 8:48-9:40 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. MCWD Engineer. Andy S>verson, and Manager, Tom LaBounty, were present. Gaffron reported that the request is for variances and conditional use permit to construct a 2.5 acre wet detention basin/wetland. The purpose of the project is to renrave sediment and nutrients from the creek flowing into Long Lake from the north. The area in question is on the Pearce property, located southwest ofTanglewood Road and east of Dakota Avenue and Long Lake Boulevard, on an easement. The site is not within the City designated wetland but is on the national wetland inventory map It consists of type 2 and type 7 wetlands protected under the Wetland Conservation Act from filling or draining. The Wolsfeld Lake area drains southeast from Medina under CoRd 6 under a culvert to the 2-1/2 acre pond area. It would be a two cell pond with 4:1 slopes with a peninsula feature and contain an outlet with a fish barrier to keep fish from moving up creek. The type 7 wetland is a wooded wetland in a low flood plain area. Major excavation would be required, involving removal of 25,000 cubic yards. A gated access driveway would be constructed off of CoRd 6 for spoils removal as well as future access A concern is with the fill material being taken off-site and its affect on traffic on CoRd 6 it is unknown at this time where the materials would be taken. This would be determined by the contractor. Variances and conditional use permits would be required for the excavation. A variance to the shoreland ordinance is required as this is a creek/tributary protected area where no tree removal is allowed within 75' No intensive vegetation clearing is allowed within 75' nor grading or filling; all of which would be done NfINUTES OF THE ORONO FLANKING COMNASSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, (#5 - #2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Continued) The project has been in the planning stages for the past couple years and is slated to be constructed early 1998 The project will be done in the beginning of January to the beginning of February with re\ egetation and replanting taking place in the spring. Peterson clarified that the project would only occur and be effective if the Deerhill project in Medina is completed Tom LaBounty said the Medina project is in condemnation process at this time He noted that the easements for the other two ponds, one in Long Lake park and the other on the priv ate land, have been completed The object of the I,ong Lake project is to clean up the water discharging ffoin Long Lake to Lake Minnetonka to the corridor to the Mississippi and is part of the ov erall scheme Schroeder asked if there w as anything that would prevent the Deerhill project from being completed LaBounty said he expects an appeal to the condemnation proceeding but expects to have all the permits in hand by the end of September LaBounty cited the Gleason Lake project and the concerns regarding the disposal of materials from the site on Hwy 12 He would like to address the pri>blems relating to this project. LaBounty said contractual agreements have been made with the property owners when asked by Smith Performance stipulations have been set out The alum treatment of Long I.ake will occur after the ponds are completed. The effectiveness of the treatment will depend on how effective the ponds are and their construction LaBounty said alot of the effectiveness depends on the Best Management Practices in the sub-watershed The clarity level would be a progressive improvement. 5+’ is expected, which is a radical difference from the 1' clarity presently in Long Lake. When the revegetation is ocurring. the improvement in clarity will hit a flat spot, but will then continue to improve. Hawn asked about the sediment ponds. She was informed that 50% of the phosphorus would be removed by the alum treatment. Hawn questioned whether the remaining 50% would contribute to future water quality problems being created Syverson noted that while the phosphorus removal was believed to be 50%, the sediment removal would be a higher percentage, 80-90% This would result in a significant decrease of sediment to cover the alum. 50% is the typical efficiency found according to Syverson. Further gains would require more ponds and would be too large to be feasible. Syverson said the process is two fold The internal process would recycle the alum which would be taken out and sealed and then more taken out from there resulting in a higher percentage of 75%. Reestablishing vegetation then gives the lake a chance to work on its own. The project is a helping hand which allows the lake to work on its own. I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (MS - #2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distric* - Continued) Peterson inquired about long term maintenance. LaBounty said this would be done thru agreements. Long Lake has already entered into an agreement regarding a fish barrier If no agreement is made with Medina or Orono. the MCWD would handle the maintenance. Lindquist asked how often cleaning out of the sediment w ould occur Syverson said this is site specific and depends on facts such as erosion and development, which would increase the amount of cleaning done Syverson said the Orono project is two cdl. The first cell would catch the most sediment and need to be cleaned out in 3-5 years The larger cell would require less frequent cleaning projected at 15-20 years The maintenance is dependent upon the management practices upstream Hwy 12 construction was cited as an example If silt fencing were not done on the ponds there, more material would fall into the ponds requiring frequent cleaning. Syverson said the management is a cooperative effort Lindquist inquired about the Dickey Lake area Syverson noted this was a very small phosphorus loading area and the cost would not justify a pond. It was noted that the wetland area on the east end of Long Lake where there are streams works as a detention pond This area was noted to serve as a natural stormwater management pond as the water comes out of this area quite clean Schroeder inquired about runoff' from roads such as Hwy 12 LaBounty said this does exist but they tty to make up for it with projects such as the pond. Peterson asked for public comments. Bill Pearce, joint owner of the subject property, along with his attorney, Greg Fontaine of the Dorsey firm were in attendance and asked to present a summary of the conditions of the settlement agreement between Pearce and the MCWD. Fontaine said Pearce became involved when the plans for the pond were announced The original proposal was for a 3- cell, 5 acre pond south of 6, not Deerhill in Medina, with small ponds in Lung Lake. Pearce then retained an engineering firm to come up with a better solution. The size of the detention system on the Pearce property was then reduced which was a substantial improvement. Pearce said he understood the need for the detention pond on his property, although he would prefer it was not necessary, and was generally supportive, and still is, of the project. Fontaine said there have been design specifications and significant alterations made without consultation with Pearce. He cited an example with changes to the fish barrier upstream from Long Lake. LaBounty later noted the net effect of the change in the barrier would not affect the outcome. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER !8, l«95 (#5 • ^2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Continued) Pearce felt it would be to the City’s interest to include conditions in the ajtreement between OroiH) and the MCWD A summary of these conditions were given out to the Commission members The conditions are intended to reduce the impact of the area and be restorative of the area Fontaine said there has been ditEcuity with the MCWD cr iptying with timely notice to Pearce with regards to revision of documents and follow thru on design elements He believes it is in the best interest of the City to require as part of their review an artist's rendition of the area showing the revegetation, and explain the differences between (he specifications and what the MCWD is doing Fontaine said it also is necessary for th? MCW'D to spell out the maintenance requirements with who doing what, who paying, and on what schedule Specific recommendations were given in the handout for such maintenance Schroeder commented that the project was complicated and asked Pearce what costs he has bom due to the project Pearce indicated engineering costs have run $85,000, and the easement will only recover about $20,000 Schroeder noted that the Barr engineering report will have a positive influence on the project It was tdso his belief that another meeting is required for the Commission to look over the findings, especially in light of the time and cost consideration Pearce has given to the project. LaBounty said the project began in 1988 It was originally proposed to totally take place in Medina, then was changed to two ponds in Long Lake, then changed to include the Pearce pond and Deerhill, and now to include Long Lake, Medina, and Orono The phosphorus reduction amounts have remained the same LaBounty poimed out if no agreement can be acquired on the Deerhill Road pond, the project would be back to a 5- acre pond on the Pearce property I^ounty asked, regarding the 7 engineering findings, that while 1-5 met with the MCWD approval. #6 LaBounty would like the agency to be treated as would any other federal agency On #7, the special conditions under which hauling can be stopped. LaBounty said fines can be imposed on the contractor He further noted no fertilizer would be used and tree removal has been taken care of To control erosion, LaBounty said the slope down to the pond would be 4 :1 with a 6 :1 slope out of the pond. Peterson moved, Schroeder seconded, to table the application. Fontaine noted that LaBounty has only recently taken over the project for the MCWD and has done a good job with communicating with Pearce. Schroeder asked that copies be made of the Barr report for the Commissioners. Smith thanked Mr. Pearce for his time and cost considerations he has taken KILNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COmflSSION MEETING HEl DON SEPTEMBER 18. IW5 (#5 - <^2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Continued) Rowlette questioned item A on the handout and asked uhat would happen it'the Medina project WHS not completed prior to the Orono project LaBounty said it would be suificiem to condition Orono’s approval on the completion of the Deerhill Road prefect. LaBounty said !w would furnish an anist's remlition of the revegetation and wiU meet with Pearce. Vote Ayes 6. Nays 0 The Planning Commissioners asked to schedule a joint meeting with the Council regarding this project (#6) 1^2060 TIM FCYO AND KAREN FVLLER-FEYO, 4055 ELM STREET > VARIANCE RENEWAL - PLBUC HEARING 9:40-9:55 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Gaffron noted that the qjplication was for a renewal of a lot area variance previously granted in 1978, 1980, 1994 The property is located in the LR-IB single family iakeshore residential zoning district requiring 1 acre on Elm Street, west of Tonkawa. A 54% variance for lot area is requested for the 46 acre lot. The lot meets the lot width requirement as it contains 118’or 84% of the 140^ standard, where 80% or 112* is required for existing lots of record. Gaffron reported that the three lots were combined into one parcel and received approval of a conceptual fwtprint in 1994 with 10' side setback, 30' near, and 35 ’ front setback. The grading plan showing the driveway meets the satisfaction of the Engineer. Concern with the grading is from direct runoff traveling downhJi. A proposed downspout and underground tile w ill direct drainage to the road ditch at *he front of the lot, from which it flows to North Arm Peterson received confirmation that there are no changes to the application, and it is a renewal application only. Peterson inquired of the applicant if it was their Intention to do anything with the properly Feyo said it is their intention to sell or build. The Feyo's are in the process of securing loans. It was noted that the shed belonging to the neighbor is still located on the Feyo property. Schroeder inquired if there was a lot line problem. Gaffron said the shed still exists over the lot line and the neighbors still disagree Schroeder asked that the lot line be located and stipulate the location of the shed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 {i*6 - M2060 Tim Feyo and Karen FuIlcr-Fe>’o - Continued) Peterson said regarding this survey dispute, his position is to look at the survey submitted by the apphcant as the one by which to gauge the application. A neighbor's survey would only be considered if it differed from the one supplied by the applicant. During public comments, Herman Laue said he is conconed with drainage, hardcover, ami the lot line issue He said he is wr>rking on a surv ey and may pursue a Torrens mnion in order to settle the lot line dispute Peterson commented that Laue has not to date shown by documentation any discrepancy with the survey done by the applicant. Rowlette moved. Smith seconded, to approve the renewal of Application #2060 with the same conditions previously laid out Gaflfron noted receipt of two letters from neighbon, Laue and Wiley, opposing the renewal of the application, which w ere read into the minutes and are part of the application package. Another letter from Mr Wroblewski, 630 Park Lane, neighbor down hill from Laue, opposes the renew al due to a concern with runoff from stormwater It is his opinion that the increase in hardcover would add to the runoff problem and cause erosion to the public access Schroeder commented that any home built on the property would have to have an approved drainage plan that met City code Peterson noted that this was a case of diqxite between neighbors Gaffron clarified conditions previously stated regarding legal combination of the lots, setback and hardcover requirements, and detailed grading plans showing driveway and any tree removal, and retaining walls. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0 Motion carried (#7) #2061 ARNE WASBERG, 3135 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE RENEWAL • PUBLIC HEARING 10:00-10:02 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weekman reported that the application was for a variance renewal, which expired September 12, 1995. The applicant was not present. There were no public comments. MINLTI-S OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#7 - #2061 Ame Wasbcrg - Continued) Lind, -list commented that the application was a difficult proposal and suggested tabling the application until the applicant was present Schroeder nK)ved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2061 until the applicant was present Ayes 6, Nays 0. («S) #2062 TED ROZEBOOM/JOSEPHINE KNUDSON. 2967/2965 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARUNCES > Pt’BLIC HEARING 10:02-10:13 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant, Ted Rozeboom, was present GafTron reported that the application is a joint request for variances to certain perfotmance standards of the home occupation use in the 1/2 acre, LR-IC, single family lakeshore residential zoning district The request is to allow a home occupation to occur on a tax parcel not owned by the home occupation applicant, in a building not occupied by the home occupation applicant, and in a building wlwre the entrance to the home occupation is not gained from within the structure but has a separate dedicated entrance GafTron noted that Rozeboom lives at 2967 Casco Point Road The dwelling at 2965 Casco Point Road, owned by Josephine Knudson, the mother-in-law of Rozeboom, received building permits for remodeling to create an office area in the lower level with an existing dwelling unit in the upper level The remodeling involved a workroom area, office space, and sitting area During review of the remodeling plans, the inspector noted the need for a home occupation license and advised the applicant of the requirements. The space was reviewed in April of 1995 and found certain home occupation conditions were not met A letter of August 18 to Mabusth defines the use of the space by Rozeboom By ordinance, the only person allowed a home occupation license is one who is residing at the residence, which is not the case in this application If the lots were combined into Rozeboom's name, the resideiKe at 2965 Casco would be considered a guesthouse, not the principal structure, and would stilt not met the conditions of the code for residency. It was noted that the two properties were originally one with the residence at 2965 Casco being the original carriage house of the home at 2%7 Casco. The properties were sep>arated in 1968 by subdivision GafTron questioned whether the home ocupation use now proposed would be acceptable with merely a lot combination. Staff questioned if this would be a case of a use variance, a commercial use in a residential zone, but the City Attorney indicated it would not because a home occupation is allowed in a home in a residential zone. LVANUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMXDSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 13. |P05 (#8 - <<2062 Ted Rozeboonv'Josephine Knudscn - Continued) Gaffron asked Commissioners to ignore for the moment the fact that the properties are adjacent to each other and the relationship that exists between the two parties invoked. The property at 2%5 Casco would not be owned by the person conducting an occupation there, would not be lived in by that person as his residence, has the possibility of clients coining to the site for business purposes, and there is the possibility of a third party using tlw upper residential space This would then seem to appear as a mixed readentiat'commercial use and then possibly be a use variance Gaffron said if the Commissioners now factored in the adjacency of the properties and the family relationship, then the appearance of a use variance still exists if the lots are separately owned and not combined If both properties were owned by Rozcboom but not combined, it may be closer to the appearance of a home occupation Finally, with legal combination, this is imich more clearly a case of a home occupation occurring with performance standard variances Variance approval does require findings of hardship Peterson said he felt the ordinance was clear in that the home occupation license requires the person running the business to live in that dwelling Peterson said he would vote to deny the application Rozeboom asked if the type of business had any bearing on the application and home occupation use He was told it did not Rozeboom said he could change the reudence at 2965 Casco to be in his name and asked if that would hav’c any b«uing on the approval cr denial He was asked if he would then live in that residence, which Rozeboom said he would not Rozeboom said he w as an architectural consultant and the purpose of this proposal was to provide a place for his elderly mother-in-law to live. Rozeboom said if he combined the properties, he would lose the market value of the properties. Peterson said he would not consider changing the ordinance, to which Lindquist a^eed. Rowlette said there should be some way to resolve the issue without the need to lose value of the property by combining lots She saw no reason why the applicant could not w ork out of ihe residence at 2965 Casco when it was the original carriage house for his own home at 2967 Casco The applicant offered to remove the dock, stairs and asphalt to reduce the hardcover and be reflective of the neighborhood and of a home. Schroeder commented that a hardcover trade would not have any bearing on a variance for a home occupation license. There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (^8 - #2062 Ted Rozeboom/Josephine Knudson - Continued) Schroeder asked the applicant if he vsould be able to work out of his own home Rozeboom said he would lose the integrity of the Victorian stv le home and needed the space provided by the other residence Several idou were aired r^iarding a lot combination and a "skyway" cm' structure of some sort to connect tlw homes or ownership change of the residences. GaflPron commented that one option to consider absent legal combination but with common ownership was a "special lot combination" document that is filed on the chain of title of both properties that would define w hm may be done on the properties Hawn inquired of the applicant again if he would be willing to combine the lots. Rozeboom said he would lose too much market value but would be willing to put the other residence in his name and homestead it GafiFron read a letter from Mr. Henney. 2941 Ca^o Point Road, voidi^ his support of the application. Gaffron again noted the Attorney's opinion on the use variance as to whether it would allow the use in that residence Barrett opined that it would not be a use variance. Rozeboom asked, and receK ed confirmation, that if the "^)ecial lot combination" were to be done, it could be terminated if the lot ownership would change. It was further commented that if the relationship were to change or the readence sold, it could also be terminated but it cannot exist in the present configuration. Rowlette moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2062 with a special lot combination defining the relationship of the parties involved, with both parcels being placed in Rozeboom's name but not required to be legally combined The use would be allowed until Rozeboom was no longer the owner of both properties He would be required to meet the home occupation conditions except the three noted No signs or rental of the property could occur A portion of the blacktop would be removed and a landscaping plan be presented prior to going forward to the Council. Schroeder asked for clarification of what is a special lot combination document Gafiron cited an example of separate but commonly-owned properties located on two sides of a road. 1'he owner wants a house on one side but the garage on the other side. This mi^t be allowed under a "special lot combination" as the lots were sold together. Schroeder asked if the application was a typical example. Gafilron said it was an unusual example of the use but with the City's discretion, it could be done. The document would be on the chain of title, and if broken, it would revert back to its original intent. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#8 - <^2062 Ted Rozeboom/Josephioc Kmidson - Continued) Commissioners noted they would not w ant to see any outward evidence of a business or any parking. Vote Ayes 3, Hawn, Smith, Rowlette; Nays 3, Peterson, Schroeder, Lindquist. Motion fails The applicant asked if it would work if his wife owned the iwDpcrty Peterson said that wtTuld set a bad precedent Smith said specific ground rules need to be laid. Rowlette moved. Smith seconded, to table Applicatitm <#2062 to allow applicant lime to consider other possible solutions Ayes 6, Nays 0 (#9) #2063 GERALD AND CANDAC E ROWLETTE, 3775 BAYSIDE ROAD • VARUNCES - PtBLIC HEARING Lindquist tnov'«l. Smith seconded, to table Application #2063 at the request of the applicants Ayes 6, Nays 0 (#10) #2066 ROBERT AND IRIS WAADE, 1407 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:33>10:59 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted The applicants were present Gaffron reponed that the application is for a number of variances for a 3rd-level addition to a lakeshore property located off of Shoreline Drive in a 2-acre zoning district. The house currently exists at 21* from the shoreline with the deck 16* from the shoreline. A bituminous walkway is kKaied under tlie deck near the lake. There is an 8.3' side setback where 30' is required The average lakeshore setback currently encroaches 13' for the house and 24' for the deck and would remain the same under the proposal. Hardcover in the 0-75' exists at 28 1% for structural and 111% for non-structural for a total of 39.2%. The lot coverage by structure is proposed at 13.8% meeting the 15% allowable There would not be much of a change in the footprint of the house. The proposal is for what is by definition a three-story home by eliminating the existing flat roof and adding another level over the main level and basement, which is considered a story with its 18 courses The street side of the residence is a walk-in with the proposed story to be located above that I'he floor plan shows a car port on the main level, open with a roof, and proposed with a second story. The pitch of the roof would be 10:12. The height of the residence meets the ordinance at 28-1/2' as normally defined; but the house is 46' in total ground-to-peak height from the lakeside view. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO.MXnSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1«X)5 (#10 - #2066 Robert and Iris Waade - Continued) The variances required include lakeshore setback, side setback vsith no proposed change, second story 25 3’ from the side where 30’ is required, average setback encroachment with no change, and hardcov er in the 0-75’, w hich will decrease with the removal of the blb.minous walkway Pea gravel with no liner is proposed to replace the walkway The lou. Mid an existing portion of the driveway will be removed What will remain will Jlo cor to back up and enter the street as well as an apron for the garage, which wiil need to be redesigned to avoid encroaching the drainfidd The septic system will serve this 3-bedroom home There is no change to the number of bedrooms but a change to the bulk of the residence. Gafifon asked the Commission to consider the issues. The proposed third level is questioned due to its close proximity to the shoreline Staff que^ioned whether the replacement of the walkway was an acceptable form of non-hardcover The southerly neighbors are currently able to view the lake over the home As proposed. Staff questions whether the house would tower over and impact the neighbors to the north The hardcover would yield a decrease but are the additions and removals a reasonable trade for the 148 s f of structural hardcover It was noted that the existing overhangs average 4' in width and are proposed at 18" The rock and plastic between the driveway and front entry have not been listed as hardcover, a portion of which is below the overhangs. The backup/parking apron ivill need to be relocated as it encroaches the existir^ drainfreld. The removal of the concrete driveway is seen as a positive improvement, however. There are no feasible alternate septic sites available on the property The area is being considered by the neighborhood for seweiing. Staff questioned whether enclosing the carport and changing the roof pitch would be a viable alternative to the third story proposal. Staff is asking whether the hardships or justifications are enough to support the proposed changes Peterson clarified that the house will still have three bedrooms but the common rooms and master bedroom will be enlarged Lindquist was concerned about adding to the structure when it was located so near the lakeshore. Hawn questioned whether it was possible to enclose the carport and add a story above the carport to open up the view for the neighbors and not present such a massive structure. The applicant said he had considered lowering the structure by adding dormers and burying usable space in the roof line, which would reduce the height by 7-9 ’ to sofren the look. Peterson said the home was already substandard by its location encroaching in the 0-7S' setback area and did not see how the applicant could ask for an even greater impact on the property. NflNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEP! EMBER 18, IW5 10 - #2066 Ri^bert and Iris Waade - Continued) Rowflette said the basement consists of 18 courses and considers the home now too large. It was her opinion that no more can be added to the structure Gaflfron a^ed if there was any logic to changing the roof pitch from its present flat loc* The applicant said the roof was old and a flat roof was not conducive to the Minnesota winters It is his intention to redo the windows and plumbing The roof does not present any curb appeal and a low pitch rot)f would not help to improve the look The applicant felt the high pitch would aid in setting the second story into the structure and is currently proposed at 25' in height The applicant said the original house had the boathouse in the lower level, but now houses the utilitiess and that is the reason for the 18 course basement. The rest of the house has 8' ceilings. The applicant said the height would be 24* with the use of a different pitch Row lette said she could not approve the application as proposed. The applicant asked for suggestions. Rowiette said the applicant needs to soften the look, and she would be open to enclosing the carport area Lindquist and Hawn agreed. The applicant asked what the Commissioners opinion was of an addition of a 2-car garage with a rambler style home, while maintaining a regular rcH>f pitch Commissioners said side setback and lot coverage would be issues in that scenario The applicant was told to come back with an amended proposal Rowiette moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2066. Gaffron noted receiving acknowledgement forms from the neighbors o^ Mch side of the property. The applicant asked for an opinion on what could be done to the property. Most of the Commissioners voiced that it was their belief that very little could be done to the property. Vote. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) #2067 BRUCE AND TERRY CLARK, 625 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:59.11:00 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Aftidavit of Publication were noted. The applicants were present. GaflVon displayed a survey showing the proposed side setback variance for extending the existing attached garage. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#11- #2067 Bruce and Terry Clark - Continued) There were no public comments Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2067. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#12) #2068 PAT AND KATHY SMIfJA, 4040 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 11:00-11:06 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Gaflron reported that an application was proposed in 1994 by the previous owners for two additions including a 3-season porch This application is for a lower level garage with one level of living space abov e it. plus the 3-season porch. The property is a comer lot located in a 5-acre zoning district The code requires a 100’ setback from Watertown Road, which is functionally the front of the property ’ but is technically the side street A 50' »deyard setback is required north of the house and 100' from Orono Orchard Road. The lot area excluding the right-of-ways is 1 28 acres The setback variance to the rear results from the proposed addition at 32* and 46 8' for the 3-season porch The setbacks from Watertown Road are proposed at 25’ for the porch and 51’ to the house comer where 100* is required The house will remain at 3 bedrooms and not require any expansion of the mound septic system The well is being replaced on the property. Rowlette asked about the status of the property located to the north containing wetlands. Gaffiron said it has r»:ently been sold He noted a buffer area between the two properties. Smith questioned why the addition would be set back rather than brought out even with the existing house. The applicants said it was to maintain a view from the kitchen area There were no public comments. Schroeder moved. Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2068 for side street and side setback variances with the conditions as noted. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#13) #2069 CINDY AND STEVE HARRIS, 3850 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 11:06-11:09 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicants were present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#13- #2069 Cindy and Steve Harris - Continued) Gaffron reported that the application was a request for a variance to construct a swimming pool in w hat is technically tlie front yard of the property located between the road and existing house The code does not allow for such a structure in this area The residence and pool would be located in the center of a 25 acre parcel, 500’ from the road, and located in a 5 acre zoning district. Gaflion said Staff would request an as-buih survey once the poo! was constructed as the bam on the property is not shown on the current survey. There were no public comments Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2069 with the request for the as-built survey upon completion of the pool Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#14) #2071 JAMES AND JOANN JlfNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD - AMENDED VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 11:09-11:12 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Scott Crawford of Kraus Anderson Construction represented the applicants. Gaffron reported a request to amend the prior approval for excavation in the 0-75* zone to rehabilitate a tunnel with retaining walls to the greenhouse. During the repair, it was found to be in need of waterproofing, which would require the need to excavate and remove an dm tree This was not included in the plan previously submitted to the City. The applicants agree to mitigate the loss of the elm tree It was noted that the tree would have been a detriment to the tunnel if left in place. Applicant noted 2 maples were proposed to replace the elm There were no public comments. Peterson moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2071 for excavation and after-the-fact tree removal based on Staff conditions and with tree mitigation. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#15) #2072 GRAYDON K. NEWMAN, JR, 1655 BOHN'S POINT ROAD • VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 11:12-11:18 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was present with his landscape designer. Dale Gustafson. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#15- #2072 Gravdon Newman, Jr - Continued) Gaftron reported that the property is located on Bohn's Point and contains a house and carriage house The application is for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances and land alteration permit in the 0-75' zone to allow reconfiguration of lakeshore access walkways and shoreline improvement to include sand fill and boulder wall improvements The existing deck platform located at the shoreline was found to be encroaching into the neighboring property. The proposal is to remove the deck platform and construct a new 5' wide walkway laterally in the 75' zone leading to the dock, which will be moved over into the applicant's property The application is also to support the existing stone wall with additional stone and add another course of rip rap with sand and plantings between the rip rap and wall The Engineer suggested removal of hardcover pavers. The rip rap is located all along the property The plan calls for the additional stone in a smaller area. The deck itself will not be replaced. Smith asked why a 5' iristead of a 4' walkway to the dock. Gustafson said it was in order to use the existing heavy modular materials. Schroeder asked if 4' would work in this application and was told it would Gustafson noted the rip rap alone is not enough to maintain the shoreline on a busy day on the lake The stone pads keep the waves from eroding the area and undermining the rip rap it was his opinion that only way to help would be to add another course of rip rap. Smith said the present configuration seems to be working for the maintaining of the property Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2072 with the walkway amended to a 4' width and to leave the patio blocks in place There were no public comments Vote Ayes 5, Nays I, Rowlette, who felt the concrete blocks should be removed (#16) #2073 WILLIAM AND SUSAN DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 11:10-11:45 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicants were present MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#16 - #2071 William U)d Susan Dunklcy - Continued) Gaffron said the iq>piication is for a number of projects to update the property to include the replacement and enhancement of additional retaining walls of keystone-type product I - 2' lakeward from the wood waHs, which are 2’ to 4' in height The property is located on a channel to a lagoon area and contains a stairwell to the lake side The proposal also calls for refriacement or enhancemem of retaining walls to support the driveway Tlw Erqiinecr was coiKemed with tlw wood walls being left in place, which would eventually rot. The »cotd part of the application is for an entryway over the existing front steps to ease a drain^e prc^lem. This would add 100 s.f of structural hardcover to the property. The third part of the application is for the addition of a I0'xl6' deck and a IO'x33' enclosed porch area, to be located 19* and 24' respectively from the lake The lot coverage by structures is proposed at 16-1/2% where 15% is allowed Galfron reported thae is cxtcnsiv'c amount of hardcover on the property with the driveway, existing rock, and patio areas The 0-75' zone contains 49 6% of hardcover; the 75-250' zone contains 74 2%. for a total of 56 6% hardcover, which is double the DNR standards By removing all of the rock and plastic, the hardcov er would be reduced to 3^*0 in the 0-75’ zone and to 43% in the 75-250®/» zone Rock would still exist along the garage area Hawn asked what the reasons were for the wall The applicant said it was to rqtlace walls that had fallen over and to strengthen the walls The applicant said it was started by erosion of the foundation of the garage. Gaftron said the Engineer has recommended removal of the existing wood retaining walls ratter than leaving them in place behind the new walls. Hawn said with a new entry and new retaining walls and the three patio/deck spaces around the house, it was a densely covered lot. Hawn recommended taking the deck and turning that into a porch instead to reduce the stnictural coverage The applicant responded that there was no first floor family room and was putting a family room where the lower level and upper level decks were by the garage area so as to not impede the view. The roof line would remain the same. Smith agreed that the lot coverage was excessive Rowlette commented that the lot was maxed out in lot coverage as it now stands. She noted the driveway area was large and saw no need for that much space for a turnaround. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEET ING HELD ON SEFFEMDER 18, 1995 (#16 - #2073 William and Susan Dunklcy - Ccmtinucd) The appheani said there were two areas where rock could be taken exit and add grass and still do the breezeway as proposed Any other areas could make it difficult to maintain with the slope of the lot Schroeder said the rock renK>val should be <k>ne. and he would not approve an\ additional structure Rowlene asked to look at what could be done with tl» dri\*ew-ay The applicant said a sidewalk was eliminated, and the new driveway replaced whai was there already Rowlette added that the terdcover calculations arc then higher than what is listed. Schroeder asked if any of the poured drivcw ay could be *^emoved Smith questioned how alt the hardcover was approved when 25% is allowed and 74?'» exists in the 75-250’ zone (iaffron noted that he had advised the entry addition contractor that applicants should not redo the driveway as the Planning Commission would not look favora^ upon new hardcover appearing during a hardcover variance review, but it was completed without a permit Schroeder moved. Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2073 limited to the replacement of the retaining walls by the rfioreline, retaining w all and step along the garage, and to repair the retaining wall along the driveway. There were no public comments Hawn questioned whether the entry could be added without the addition of any more lot coverage. The stoop was noted to be a permanent part of the house as it covers the weO pit and is included in the perimeter of the house It was a^ed that the overhang not exceed 4' Schroeder said he would amend his motion to allow the entry due to the existing water problems with the condition that 2x the amount of hardcover would be eliminated elsewhere and all rock and plastic be removed No screened porch or new deck would be allowed Lindquist second^ After further discussion, (jaftron noted on the site plan the areas where hardcover is recommended to be removed. Gaflron noted receipt of letters from neighbors voicing their approval of the application. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. 1 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. SKETCH PLAN REVIEWS <#I7> #2043 GORDON J. BlIHRER, 2620 FOX STREET - SKETCH PI AN OF PROPOSED TWO LOT SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING The Certificate of Mailine and Atlidavit of Publication noted. Tltt applicant was present Gaffron reported that the property is liKated on Fox Street and abuts Fox Run The request is to split an existing 4 1 acre lot into two lots, 2 1 and 2 0 acres in size No drainageway or wetlands have been substracted trom this gross acreage The applicant proposes to split the land into an east lot with the existing house accessing onto Fox Run and a west lot with future access onto Fox Street The front lot line of the existing 4-acre parcel is along Fox Street tnit the driveway access is from Fox Run In conceptual plan I, the new building site would access Fox Street and front on Fox Street The existing house lot would also still front on Fox Street In plan 2, the only frontage for the existing house would be on Fox Run The vacant lot would have additional frontage along Fox Street Plan 2 avoids the need for a lot width variance for lot I The front lot line along Fox Run is only 19 6’ from the existing house where a 50' setback is required The existing house was tuilt in 1968 and required a 20' side street yard setback at that time Gaffron said the septic sites reportedly would conform for either configuration of plan I or plan 2 There is a buried tile in the drainageway which runs from White Oak Circle to an open channel to a po'^d No easement exists over this drainageway Staff recommends the requirement of a 15’ drainage easement the entire length of the tile and channel. The problem with this, according to Gaffron, is, after excluding the area of this easement, the property would end up with less than the 2 acre minimum for each lot A solution would be to redefine the drainageway and retile or rechannel. A perimeter drainage easement would allow for a credit of 5' or a lot area variance could be granted. Granting of the area variance with a new subdivision has only been approved twice since 1975, and this application is not so unique as to justify variance approval. The Engineer has suggested relocation of the drainageway A question would be if the dry buildable credit can be given for the entire 7 5’ easement needed in each lot. Gaffron said hydraulics and drainage calculations are needed to confirm the flood plain extent, and the City would need to know where the septic sites would be located. No septic testing has been submitted for the site. 1'he proposed building site is not shown The comprehensive plan suggested that new lots be serv ed by driveways accessing to private roads rather than directly onto public roads. I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MET ING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#17 - #2043 Gordon Buhrcr - Contimied) GafTron said the applicant has suggested that since the ps>nd at the southeast comer is man made, to fill in the pond to gain dry butidable acreage The pond is not shovsn on the national wetland inventory, but if delineated, it w(xild very likely be defined as wetland. Lindquist inquired about the driveway access onto Fox Street GalTron said there wcRild likely be good sight distance It is narrow, not arterial, but should be no problem The applicant said tiK current house faces Fox Street, and Iw prefers a iKmh sxith configuration He noted two ahemate septic sites have been located on both lots, percolation testify has been done, and approved for a mound system He asked if access on Fox Street would gain approval Rowlette said the nonh/south configuration would not work because of the drainage easement The easement would be excluded (rtmi the dry, buildable area except to add to the perimeter A I O' drainage and utility easment was noted to be no good for utilities if the ground was underwater Rdocaling of the drainageway seemed to be the only solution This could be performed with a backhoe Gaffron noted that the drainage tile continues to White Oak and on occasion may be plugged somewhere. The applicant would be better oflP with an open channel The applicant noted that 3/4 of it is now open and the area does dry out. Lindquist noted that if this was not done and no credit reedved, there would not be the 2 acres needed He saw no other solution to the p/oblem. If the drainageway could be moved in order to gain conformity, this could be done. The drainageway could then be followed for the lot line After the tile was removed, the remainder dKHdd be left as open ditch The rqiplicant noted that the survey for the property had recently been done by Mark Gronberg Hawn asked if the utility easements are excluded from dry buildd)le area. She was told they were not if on the perimeter easemem. The Commissioners advised the applicant to proceed as long as the lot area minimum was met with the rural 2 acre contiguous dry buildable excluding the right-of-way, easements, wetlands, and flood plain levels. Peterson asked for the applicant to work with GaflFron to work out the details MINlfTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING C OMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 («IS> #2070 L. E. BRUECK;EMAN companies , 372 HESTl^KE STREET - SKETCH PLAN OF PROPOSED T^O LOT SI BDIVTSION - Pl’BLIC HEARING The Cetlificate of Mailing and AflKlavit of Publication noted. Developer Loren Brueggeman and property oivncr. Dean Maeser, wTrc present Tlw property in question is located on Westlake Street The sketch plan is a review of a proposal lot liiw rearrangement or replat to result in two building sites frt>in a 1 99 acre group of 3 tax parcels This property is l<x:ated in the single family lakeshore residentiai 2-acre zoning distnet requiring 200' width minimums The home currently on the property overlaps lots 10 and 11 with a storage-type building on lot 11 Two rental cabins overlap lots 11 and 12 but are mainly located in lot 12 The property currently operates as one single property One sewer unit was assessed to the existing house but not granted to the cabins, w hich are non-conforming and are in need of removal Council directed the applicant earlier this year to connect the house to sewo^ and allowed the cabins to remain in use for two more years before they must be removed The cabins are using the septic system on the property, and the house must be connected to sewer immediately. The cost of connecting to sewer is $ 14,000 per unit The applicant decided to pursue a lot line rearrangement or replat of the property into two building sites The lots would meet the required setbacks with 50* front and 30' side but would create a back-lot situation. The potential rights of the owner to have an additional building site would be much greater if each existing lot w^ buildable but they are not as many variances would be neoled. If a back lot were created and replatted, it would not meet the 150^« requirement Lot area variances would be required The lot width as noted in case 1 is dependent on the 75' line but would probably meet the lot width required The lot coverage by struaure allowance is limited by hardcover maximums. An average lakeshore setback variance would also be required. In the question of a replat, would the City allow a narrow corridor to access the back lot or would 30' be required as per the code'!’ It is questionable whether two parcels would be allowed in this 2-acre zoning. The lots use currently overlaps resulting in the 3 lots functioning as one properly If a subdivision is not possible. City questions what relief could be given to the owner. Would it be possible to sell larnl to a neighbor? Developer Brueggeman passed out sketch plans to the Commissioners showring two potential building sites on rearranged parcels meeting hardcover requirements. One site would contain a 2-story residence, 3300 s.f, and the second site would contain a 4400 s.f footprint with a walkout rambler style home, square footage of which would be 4000+ s.f. with both upper and lower lev els Both would be on substandard lots but would be sellable according to Brueggeman 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, (#18 - #2070 L E Rriicggeman Compinics - Ct>nt»nucd) Gaflfron que$^ioned whether the driveway across the top portion of the property was induded in the calculations Brueg^eman said the parcel contained 49,680 s f He eliminated the area within the 75' zone, netting 28,000 25% of that figure equals 7000 s f and took off the driveway' for a net anKxint of4500 s.f Peterson quefiiomd the ability of the property to have two homes on one lot. Brueggeman said tNs is consistent with the hontes in the neighborhood at this time which average 7 to 8 acres with the largest at 1*1/2 acres These two lots would be 1 0 acre and 9 acre in si/e Rowlette said she saw this application as an opportunity to gain a 2*acre lot in the 2-acre zoning district adding that as a single txuldii^ she, h wcKild be beautiful. The applicant's concern is with property value and overbuilding for the homes in the neighbort Peterson said he liked tl» proposal but questioned whether it should be two lots when it b one to begin with. Lindquist noted that other lots built on were I acre in size. Hawn asked if the adjacent homes in the neighborhood were connected to sewer. Galiron said sewer was available to ail of the homes but not necessarily connected. Hawn asked if any other lots were combined in the neighborhood. Thoe was one other lakeshore lot that was combined and is a 100* lot. The rest of the lakeshore lots were individual lots. Brueggeman said this was an unusual case with 4 builditigs on 3 lots adding that the proposal would clean up the site Peterson commented that the cabins have been directed to be removed anyways regardless of the result of this proposal. Gafiron noted that the property has existed as a non-conforming use When the sewer came available to the property, the non-conformity was brought to a head. Maeser is looking at the options available. Gafiron added that the deadline of June 1995 for connecting the house to sewer has yet to be dealt with. Brueggeman said the rights of Maeser need to be considered by the Commission and Council, which he felt has not been done. It is his desire to solve the problems. Gafiron said the property is 3 separate tax parcels. In the sewered zone, it is required to look at each separately as to their buildabiiity. The current standards do not allow these lots to be buildable. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEI ING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (SI8 S2070 L E Brueggeman Companies - Continued) Lindquist commented that with one parcel, 2 acres in size, with the concerns of the property and the houses in the area on I acre or less parcels, it was his opinion that it would be diflkult to enforce the standards Lindquist suggested gaining the opinion of the City Attorney It was decided to gather more information, gain the counsel of the Attorney, and a^ the Council for their direction regarding the property PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS («I19) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER lU 1995 (DALE LINDQUIST) Lindquist noted the delay in the start of the m^ing due to a lack of a quorum. (#20) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVT ATTENDING PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4,1995 No representative of the Planning Commission attended the Park Commission meeting of September 4, 1995 (#21) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Schroeder will attend the October 2 meeting of the Park Commission. Gaflfron brought to the attention of the lake use committee possible meeting dates of October 4, 5, or 6. Gaflfron asked that all open space surveys be completed and turned in to City Administrator Moorse GafTfon said Mabusth has suggested a work meeting be scheduled concerning zoning issues ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#22) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 2L 1995 MEETING Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the Minutes of the August 21, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting. Ayes 6, Nays 0. 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 199$ («3) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE OCTOBER % 1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Peterson will attend the October 9 nieeting of the Council ADJOURNMENT Peterson moved. Schroeder seconded, to «ljoum at 12:34 a m. Ayes 6, Nays 0. Stephen Peterson, Chair Person PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1995, 7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COLTS’CIL REPRESENTATI\T; - Mayor Edward J. CaUatan, Jr. ATTENDANCE Applicants presenting proposals before the Commission are asked to move to the table at the front of the Chambers when their application is announced by the Chairman. SCHEDLXED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFOR.MATION MEETING 1. 7:00 p.ra. #2064 Roben S. Olson & Irvin T. Geffre, 4665 Bayside Road - Subdivision of a lot line rearrangement/Vacation of drainage and utility easements 7:30 p.m #2065 Samuel Marfield. 2455 Scotch Pine Lane/Mr. and Mrs. H. Douglas Hill, 2425 Scotch Pine Lane and William Toles, 2435 Scotch Pine Lane - Vacation of Scotch Pine Lane - Vacation of drainage and utility easements - Preliminary subdivision (replat) 3.#2000 4.#2044 5.#2059 6.#2060 7.#2061 8.#2062 9.#2063 10.#2066 11.#2067 ACTION ITEMS - Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. >000 Cortlen G. Cloutier. 2480 Casco Point Road - Class 1 Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing with Renotification #2044 George Olson, 2775 Shady wood Road - Variance - Continuation of Public Hearing Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, 1485 Sixth Avenue North - Variances & Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Tim Feyo and Karen Fuller-Feyo, 4055 Elm Street - Variance Renewal - Public Hearing #2061 Arne Wasberg, 3135 North Shore Drive - Variance Renewal - Public Hearing Hearing #2063 Gerald and Candace Rowlette, 3775 Bayside Road - Variances - Public Hearing #2066 Robert and Iris Waade, 1487 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Public Hearing #2067 Bruce and Terry Clark, 625 Old Long Lake Road - Variances - Public Hearing PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1995, 7:00 P.M 12. #2068 Pat and Kathy Smieja, 4040 Watertown Road - Variances - Public Hearing 13. #2069 Cindy and Steve Harris, 3850 Watcnown Road - Variance - Public Hearing 14. #2071 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Brackett.s Point Road - Amended Variance - Public Hearing 15. #2072 Graydon K. Newman, Jr., 1655 Bohn’s Point Road - Variances/Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing 16. #2073 William and Susan Dunkley, 2709 Walters Port Laiw - Variances/Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Sketch Plan Reviews 17. #2043 Gordon J. Buhrer, 2620 Fox Street • Sketch Plan of Proposed Two Lot Subdivision - Public Hearing 18. #2070 L.E. Brueggeman Companies, 372 Westlake Street - Sketch Plan of Proposed Two Lot Subdivision - Public Hearing Planning Commission Comments 19. Report by Planning Commission Representative attending Council Meeting of September 11, 1995 (_____________________). 20. Report by Planning Commission Representative attending Park Commission Meeting of September 4, 1995 (________________________). 21. Other issues for discussion. Additional Items 22. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the August 21, 1995 meeting. 23. Planning C mmission to select a representative to attend the October 9, 1995 meeting of the Council. Adjournment I I p ^ 50f\ l« V. *8 0 ** 3 '■I i>» ti M a TJ PBr^ 3t3 O. B- in *XJ & Oo B 35' 1/1 3 a V Jr-4 B •M O •i t J o -I IjI :?3 ^" In !? ^ X g a a [i ? ?: I / I O O 5?u> RV^ *TJ Oa <s I U1 Oc ao- 5'o ? C ii I j 0 -I 1 i ? O h ?r- n :r a- L/. O. -•I I Jo g •T3 O */« O o. <s no i? O 01 o 2 cin a: ^ 3 a B D. I ri I 03soJJ-B •ooB VOo tit Q. & Ra <s n •i Oo n S Cm u Ba •i I joo U3 Rn I ? I f § %>*uo CA O u r»aos a I? & ‘< lA 0 J? I KVi01 SCL <s a 0 1©00 -1 p ^J% ■tt ij •*• 1 i A8 01 8 1 J 8 a 0 0 to NO JO 0 ?X H rt Ii:R 3 3. CL ? S’ R <*B ^U T1 al J 5 B ti <tlQ q 0 ii •3 o ?r a f;t o Q r ig n ?a <s 0ag A •/«c IF a n I o'S' a O' . ^ n Xn a ua ?crtrn Sa S’ o; M • X f\ i I i 0 tJ I a0 p »J 01 o *oo */0o tia <u 3 p ga S’ o; 5? Ul Ul o & lAa 3 D P < R f» S’ R *r 0 1 S’o; o* Xn ua «u *T|ctao 5i •< 0 pa 01 1= lA Srt a npR ♦TJ r-' i| O’ a. ^ O x%‘ 2 9 |pua „ u 00 Ul (/i C* & Orto w3a O op :1 lA toa JOn R 5? ii I v: o & < p3 a JO 0a 1 Bn Cl nc 3 5 g co a o ?o*crn Kn -I 8 'O 2 to 4« K c ijii^ a o :§ 0 ^ s R « i^:1 ^El B ^ O it 2.1 iff ■s $. I"c ?Ea •3 . D •osn 0 s1o to sn n ?o 5 5: do X V R o O’ St i- B-Cl:p?i u R !I « RP R-S g g ” (IQ 2**0 r» ncr 8 nm I? i_ cr r% O 3 3 & or r»is>& 91 3^ S' 2 o^ D•M IS a ^ K* O ^ CL io 9 c oR 5 as ' / To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Steve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator Michael P. Galfron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator September 8, 1995 #2064 Robert S. Olson, Irvin T. Geffre. "4655"/4665 Bayside Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line Reairaneement - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB. Single Family Rural Residential, Two Acre Application: Lot line rearrangement between Geffre homestead property and Outlot B, Bay view Farms 2nd Addition. The rearrangement also involves vacation and dedication of drainage and utility easements, and combination of various parcels within the plat of Bayview Farms 2nd Addition. The proposal docs noi include the conversion of Outlot C to buildable lot status. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owne.*’ List D - Notification oi Lid‘y Companies E - Survey F - Resolution No. 3492 and Attachments G - Staff Sketch of Future Road Configuration Options Pertinent Facts 1, Proposed Combinations A.Geffre •Lot 1, Block 2. Bayview Farms 2nd (Geffre Homestead) 1.94 ac i •103’ X 148.5’ Parcel with 40’ x 60’ shed (Part of Outlot C) 0.35 Ac ± •Outlet A, Bayview Farms 2nd 0.37 Ac + 2.56 Ac ± B.Olson •Outlot B, Bayview Farms 2nd (Fumre road)0.32 Ac + •Outlot D, Bayview Farms 2nd (Future road)0.07 Ac ± m Part of Outlot C 13.7? Ac + 14.18 Ac ± Zoning File #2064 September 8 , 1995 Page 2 2. Shed Setb^k Variance [Section 10.03. Subd. 9 C (3a)) (Note that per Resolution #3492. Condition 9. Page 5. this 2,450 s.f. shed at the northwest comer of Outlot C is to be removed by November 14. 1995 unless Outlet C is further subdivided. (3effre proposes to incorporate the shed into his homestead per his prior agreement with Olson). • Existing setback from northerly lot line: 12’ ±, Proposed setback from new south lot line: 30’ Required setback from new south (rear) lot line: 50’ (20’ variance) Side setbacks: Existing Proposed Rgqui fSd East 41’ ji;. 41’ Jt. West 67’ ± 67’ ± 30’ 3. Shed Oversize Accessory Structure Variance (Section 10.03, Subd. 9 C (2)1 A. (Any accessory structure in excess of 1,0(X) s.f. is considered as an Oversize Accessory Struemre (OAS) subject to minimum lot area requirements). Proposed lot area with OAS: Allowed size of individual OAS: Existing size of individual OS: Variance: Size of lot required for 2,450 s.f. OAS per Code: B. Allowed footprint of all accessory structures property: Existing (proposed) square footage of all accessory structures: Detached garage 10’ X 16 ’ shed 48.3’ X 21’ quonset OAS shed Variance: 2.56 Ac 1,200 s.f. 2.450 s.f. 1,250 s.f. 6.01 Ac Min 2,400 s.f. 558 s.f. 160 s.f. 1,014 s.f. 2.450 s.f. 4,182 s.f. 1,782 s.f. 4. Size of lot required to accommodate 4,182 s.f. of total accessory struemres per code:5.01 Ac Min The proposed lot line rearrangement does not preclude future use of the roadway corridor for a conforming road as shown in Exhibit G. Zoning File #2064 September 8. 1995 Page 3 Discussion Planning Commission may recall that last fall. Robert Olson split off a 3 acre parcel with his residence in order to sell it, leaving a 14 acre Outlet C plus Outlots B and D as a future road corridor. This left the 0.27 acre Outlet A for future combination with the neighboring Irv Geffre property. The City required that Geffre be involved in that plat due to the need for use of portions of his propertv for future road right-ot-way. Olson, in exchange for Geffre s participation in the plat, agreed to deed Outlot A to Geffre and additionally deed to him additional land with the 40’ X 60’ shed, in the event that Outlot B is used for road right-of-way. Although that road use has not vet occurred, Geffre and Olson wish to proceed with the additions to Geffre s property. Shed Setback Variance The proposed new lot line 30’ south of the shed may have bt en located to not totally preclude the future use of an identified potential draiidield site south of the shed, which might serve a future residence on Outlot C. Because the shed is an oversized accessory structure and the line south of it is technically the rear line of the Geffre propertV', a 50’ setback would normally be required for this building. A 30’ setback is proposed. OAS Individual/Combined Footprint Variance In addition to the rear setback variance, variances are required for the size of this individual oversize structure, as well as the square footage of all accessory structures on the property. With Geffre acquiring the large shed, it may be reasonable to ask for removal of the quonset as well as the 10’ x 16’ shed, which would significantly reduce the degree of variance for square footage of all accessory structures. The variance for the 40’ x 60’ shed may be justified by the fact that it already exists, that it was built prior to any requirement for an OAS covenant (and no covenant was required with the previous subdivision), and that the structure will now be on a property that has a principal structure. Future Road Development Finally, note that it is inconsequential at this time whether Olson combines Outlots B, C and D, since Outlot C will have to be replatted in the fumre to make it buildable. However, a continuing condition will be that Outlots B, C and D must remain in common ownership until Outlot C is platted to create one or more building sites. In the event that Outlot C is platted without the need for Outlots B and D as road, then it will be easier to combine them with adjacent properties if they have not been legally combined with Outlot C. Staff has been contacted by numerous potential buyers of the 14 acre parcel as well as the Fred and David White property to the immediate west. Staff continues to recommend to all potential developers that the Olson and White properties be dealt with comprehensively when a future development occurs. Zoning File #2064 September 8. 1995 Page 4 Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation Staff has included in this review the vacation of existing drainage and utility easements between the 2,450 s.f. shed and the lot lines to the north and east of it. This vacation would be appropriate in conjunction with granting of new drainage and utility easements 5 eitlwr side of the new lot lines to the east and south of that building. Staff is unavaic of any current use of the existing easement by any utilities, and the utilities have been legally notified of the request for easement vjM:ation. None have commented as of this writing. Applicants should advise staff if they are aware of any utilities using the current easement. Issues for Consideration 1.Will Planning Commission accept the 30’ rear setback for the oversize acces.sory structure as presented? Should Geffre be requested/required to remove the quonset and/or the 10’ x 16 ’ shed to minimize the degree of variance required? 3. Other issues of concern to Planning Commission? Options for Action 1.Approve lot line rearrangement and Geffre combinations as proposed, granting variances for the OAS setback, individual OAS footprint and combined OAS footprints as proposed, requiring dedication of new easement in exchange for the vacation. 2. Same as above, except require Geffre to remove quonset and/or small shed. 3. As in #1 or #2 above, except require additional setback to the rear of large shed. A combination of the above. 5. Table, giving applicant direction how to proceed. 6.Other. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement and easement vacation subject to dedication of new easements as described earlier. Any recommendation for approval should include hardships and justification for those variances which Planmng Commission chooses to grant in regards to the accessory buildings on the property. I ( €~\ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIMSION ^ ^ .*^4 ^r~o^\m ^£-'2.7 -Cd(3> PROPERTV* LOCATION Site address _____ Property Identification Numb Please check one - Propcrt>'abstract or tone ns? Attach legal description to application. ^Q'YCdT APPLICA-Ny^^^^-^ ^ Phone(home)_^ : ly^F^t^nl^dianj Address -4l L^ City //'/*rp u ^/>T '>«• Canach list' if more than one) EXISTING LANT) USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Phone (home) V;3 7f Zip sy^r^ Phone (work) y 7.^ / ^ Os»- Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units K Other (specify) ^OTLuT~ rr^v r •“•-’0 W A : ' • L.J • •PROPOSAL rv A , r Division for Tax Purposes j ' Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildlmg sites) _ r:; - ,). Subdivision for New Building Sites c ‘'tfA _________Existing Units _________New Units Total Units Number of Building Sites ^ .* w • _A4 «(* fc’Ai f, * • ••h - -.•<<« ri A i • W .■■ .• / » Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ • ^ NDNEVIL'M MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELDUNARY .APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to *appIic«ioQ fees* listed below. 2. Completed applicatioa form. 5. ^ ^1^00. pl«« atucd . «P«.d. .U. of :oy cue, P«n^y->“ WHcofion. Zoning Official’s Signature----------------------------------------------—— ------ --------- • MINIMUM NUTERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preiimiaarv Subdivision .Approval resolution and park .ees if apptcablc). 2. Signed Certificate of Surv'ey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developed .Aereemeni and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official’s Signature __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to cieck fX] those which apply) A. .Application Base Fees: Sketc.i Plan Review (Class I. II HD S200 00 ^ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrange.ment S300.00 -----sSr.ST.s:5.oo.,o..Cd. m^dUnoo..«.d.d.idn ______ Final Plat Application (Class IID S175.00 ~~ Legal Review and Filing: Subdivision only S75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. S200.00 Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) -------- SISO 00 (No chdnse from orijiadl --------- ptnlwdl of Odd. III. Ptdimmd.> Sabdividiod Applied.,on 5150.00 (No chdoje from ongmdl dpp .cdc.on) -------- ReiK^rdl of FiMl CldS! Ill Subdivision Applicduon 5100.00 (No cbdnje from ongmdl dppl.Cdllon) Totals B. Special Improvement Fees: Proposed Private Roads S6(X).00 + S.fOAincal ft.; Proposed Public Roads S9(X).00 + S.SOAine^ ft.; lin. ft. X .50 « S lin. ft. -X .50 » Srroposcu ruuuw rvuauu* ----------- - Request for City to Accept Existmg Private Road S900.00 Proposed Saniury Sewer .Main Extension S250.00 + $25/smb Proposed Watermain Extension S250.00 + S25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) S200.00 . . . On-Site System. Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) S50.(X)/new lot proposed for on-site x_____new lots C. FIe.\ible Application Fees/TVIisc. Fees Varisince S200.00 ^ ^ ' Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $75.00 PRD Application with Subdivision S30.(X3/Dwelling Unit TTe^dd, beroby dgro« .0 provide dll informd.tan ro,uned or 2 SSS S Attorney. Planning Commission andCouflcjl nec^^ to process dm ap^cauon and further agrees p y. (established by ordinance. - 7 ‘ ^ ^ ' Applicant’s Signature Owner’s Signature Date Date Applicdd, mrn. bdvn ^1 "rlSS MM DATE 05/17/W MTCM SOSAOO« OMCR NWC TAXPAYER HAHi/AOOR IS 0A-U7-2S 21 OOOS OAMS RAYSXDE RO R A S RCWCSOHN RCTCR A SHARON Re^tCBOHN ABAS SAYSIOe ROAD HARU RLAIN IM S5S59 NCMCRIN COUNTY RROPERTY INFORHATION SVSTTH RRORCRTY OMNERS LISTSO OA-117-2S 22 OOOS 00100 NORTH SHORE OR N DAVIO L IMITE ET AL FREDERICK C MHITE 1A19S RAULS OR ROGERS tt< SSS7A RERORT NO. RXASSAOl . RAGE ASO 0A-117-2S 22 0009 OAAAS OAYSIOE RO J J RFEIFFER A K J RFEIFFER J J RFEIFFER A K J RFEIFFER AAA5 OAYSIOE RO ORONO m S5SAA RROR AOOR OHNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR I RROR ADM OMNER NANI TAXPAYER NANE/ADM SO 0A-117-2S 22 0010 OAAAS OAYSIOE RO X T A N L GEFFRE XRNXN T A HARJORXE L GEFFRE 4AAS OAYSIOE RO HARU RLAXN HN S5SS9 SO 0A-117-2S 22 OOlS OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIGNED R S I H N OLSON ROBERT S A HARCARET H OLSON SOlO HILLSBORO AVE N HRLS HN 55A28 SO 0A-117-2S 22 0011 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO R S A H N OLSON ROBERT S A HARCARET N OLSON 5010 HILLSBORO AVE N HRLS HN 5542S SB 0A-117-2S 22 OOIA ObOSa ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO XRNIN T GEFFRE ET AL CITY OP ORONO RO BOX AA CRYSTAL BAY m S5S59 SB 0A-117-2S 22 0012 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ROBERT S OLSON ET AL CITY or ORONO RO BOX AA CRYSTAL BAY HN B5359 SB 0A-117-2S 2S 0001 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO JEAlfC T ARNSTRONG JEAN T ARMSTRONG 2SS NORTH ARH LANE hound HN S5SAA t^ROR AOOR (amer name TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR I PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER '* NAHE/AOOR SB 0A-117-2S 24 0001 0021S NORTH ARM LA JEANNE T ARMSTRONG JEAN T ARMSTRONG ESS NORTH ARM LANE HOUND m 55344 SB 51-11S-2S 3S 0009 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO PAINTERS CREEK Ha«01MERS PAINTERS CREEK HOMEOHNERS C/0 CRAIG PASSQH 100 LUCE LINE RIDGE HAPLE PLAIN H4 55359 SB S1-11B-2S IS 0005 04A60 OAYSIOE RO BAN CUFF BOBBIE A NEVA CUFF 4*40 OAYSIOE RO HAPLE PLAIN N4 ^359 Sl-118-23 33 OOIMI* OOOTO^ AOOKESS>HfsSIGNED IRVIN ESk£RQM^ ET AL QUARTO jy 1424>MIMM PC>B209 mtsm 5540S SB Sl-llB-23 S3 0004 04720 BAYSIDE RO B PETER ACHEY ETAL HR B PETER ACHEY ROUTE 2 BOX BOB MAPLE RLAIN m SSSB9 SB 31>11B-2S S4 OOOS 00025 LUCE LINE RIDGE C H HATTSTROH A V A HATTSTMM CURTIS H HATTSTROH 25 LUCE LINE RIDGE HAPLE PLAIN IM SSSS9 * •l. t PROP AOOR 0»MER NAME TAXPAYER ' NAME/ADOff ) -■. • < f A . t • TOTAL BATCH 503 00015 38 31-118-23-33-0013 4680 Bayside Rd M D Sletten & M K Snetsinger M D Sletten & M K Snetsinger 4680 Bayside Rd Maple Plain MN 55359 I3\ -w$-z% ->3 axn. b. bwfiw sf •flf » * 1-.*' I • #• ■! :il •- Mailing List for Utility Companies for Application ^2064 Triax Ann: Tom Wimler 2381 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Minnegasco Attn: Kaye Skogman P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Minnegasco Ann: Bill Nord P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Wright-Hennepin Co-op Electric Association P.O. Box 330 Maple Lake, MN 55358 GTE % Jack DcAngelo 1010 Main St. Grinnell. IA 50112 -s cm* OF ORONO 27f0 Kellev Park^vay, F*9; Costal Bay, M>' ^ ^ Phone r612U73-T357 Fax 47j-0al0 notice ... . .. , veann^ in :te Council Chambers at -7S0 KeUey The Planning Commission wul no:a a ^uo - .Application :=C0o4, a Paric.vay on Monday, September 13. of '^e following descnbed property owned oy prooosed subdivision of a lot s'^Olson; Lot 1, Block 2 and Outlets A, B. Ir/in T. Geffre of-^665 Baysice Rcia2^d^ Countv, Minnesou: and for a %-acauoa ^ C and D. Bayview Farms becena Acani ’ ‘ centered on the adjoining lot lue 35.0^ there terminating. • h.dH -viii acc-ar at this time. Written comments are solicited. Plans Ail persons wisning to oe hearc .v ul app.-r at are avaiiable m the Cicv otuc-s .^r . .. City of Orono Bv; planning Comnaission Miciae! P. Gaffran. AsstlMt Planning & Zoning Administra.or To be published thdie week of September - and September 11. 199o. I * N 0*36'38 “ W co p cr 0c 30 00 S0*lb’00"E t7, I ■01"E ------- IV> -t» > §s = !> O D O -t» O -h H-l C H ji C O —ae o • < rt lA l/» r+ 00 O) ^ 3 00 Q, tn O O -ti 3 CL *o > »om f- o\ H- *4•* •vjcno^ inn *n r»- ft O C rt rt 3* —< O 1 ft TOo o 00 N> ro O O Z -*) C a ft rt —' >3-0 O TO ft O »-• lA o ft r- z o IZ in O 00 Ml -t» o TO n TO «■ o « -tt Qi O 3 C O. ft —* ft O Z ft TO O 3 ”0 *3 J» "I pa o O T3m or-tA TO Q. O TO (A O -1 in ^ 5 ? oo iO 3 « I *n ft Ln O) o r- o ►- —H '♦ in 00 « o 00 n • rr "Pft» - 3a. oo > 00 m> « ■< '»i»-• > nI'ro a m X zo o PItno PQ Oz tn 7 (P V'zpY< -tl >• o •jm ro o • TO n n z o X > ct O*^> n TO 3*■H -• TO lA lit > •-< -•*0 If •6o ft -•• O oz3 ta •—* =• 5 00 o •X 1—1 00 TO > o o>zt -< 3 -C -t^ •< O TO ►-t "»m TO n r**: rt *n »-• > o Oi oo 1 I I I MO aom$ r»a n* ■— un PROPOSED LOT DIVISION ROBERT OLSON Bal«bUab«d Is 1MI2 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY. INC LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA vaoi TU4 «••••• rnmrXh HlaaoMU 6A4M ^ururyorf (Hffttfirstr w WVOKX NO. 4C3 9 4- rBno_________ COUNTY ROAD ------ t ---454 49 NeyASOO’C NO anS’" r 0 ! 404 49 V • ■ R ' V ^ LX I L' ^ y^d/'-Av 4*4 ,’<‘r j w; :. . >!•»•«j^oo'c , ' ft * 14 8 so SS9*4S00'W 8.“ SRw S .-.i / *• Oy o Q: sr V '7 \\ ft X r% ^\ tr 0 ^ a * ^« 4 'j 4^ \r 0>' I U^iu J y ft DwaiNacc ^ar.t mpjt ■O ->H NB9-37 07“E 65756 -------- WsTTB^Ita^ Wval M tf«ck«« alta U«»«ma a*«' M«a*t ••(»>aU«n ar<< c«n»lf«icU«« ^ Tl«a ar*f «« asm ,» »•«•.« MaiMwtH.. r»-te«4 »r ciar4 •• ^i*r t^l tM* it • |>W« 0^ cortMl t«f«»Mrt|9l.an OI • M««r »t u«« aM«aar>«» «i «a«.« m ii«« *r i« »wi*an9« 0^ .iM*. 0w*Mc>»n*.,u » 0<r.l>0n 0r mt larKf Si»*«f»4 »r tiw» ^ *" M A V jO& SCALE: 1* -_i52l O D«w»l— a«0 O 0M4«a »m4 N* M fv My HKO0 0m4 w C«Ma.« N»niiii ClMrflw ■— O0»l*a Wf0c« ------------4.C0—a Top 0l »K* ------------a»0|Kw*d 6v«9* ra»«f ---------Itmmrnt riw *n» •* C r •'t’ r-n A- mSIlHC UC^CRIMIUNt. lot I. lUcR I. MTVirv FARNS 7N0 AOCmON Oimoi3 A.8.C ai.J 0. lATVlLW rARNS 7R0 AD01110N FropotMl OrttrlpKont; 7ARCCI A: (1II.S<7 Sq. Ft. - l.Sil Acres) Owtiot A. Lot 1. Iloci 1. oM tite north 103.00 ftet of the Mat 148.SO feet of Oullot C. All fn IAT11LM FA8RS Fan ADOITKM FARCIL 8- (6II.ISS Sq. Ft.' 14.187 Acres) All of Outlots I «o4 0 ontf Oullot C eacept tho north 103.00 feet of the west 148.SO feet thereof. All (n lATVIDf FARMS 780 AOOITIOH. Signed Royf/vond A Prosch. MinnRegNo 8743 PROPOSED LOT DIVISION ROBERT OLSON 9ururi)ors (Hrrttfirate COUNTY ROAD 8 -‘t 8oo NO 84 Lot 1, 0’ OUTLOTS Proposed PARCEL A Outlot A of the w 2ND ADD1 PARCEL n All of 0 feet of 2ND ADOl o I orl i f i Cc) Le of Sni vry lor IT V i II 1 . Ho f f r 0 ofloL 1. mock 1. nAYVlEW r ARMS llonnepin County. Minnesota copy QRQNQ ma liiil I'iiM si?! isiisnffiD •*> Coufi/y A OtitJ A/c •s I hereby cciliry lli«U this is a true uml correct repre sen t .i t i on of a survey of the houiularies of lot 1, Block 1, BAYVlEVi TAUMS. the location of all cx- Istliuj l)u I Id i mjs, if any. thereon, and I ho proposed location of a proposed addition. It does not purport to show any other iinproveiuen t s or encroacliiiicn ts. con iN & c.uomicur., nic. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Mark 5. Gronberg MN. tic. Mo. 1275S Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners long Lake, Minnesota Scale: 1 inch = 50 feet Date : August 23. 1909 0 : Iron marker tij • • • -TO AfPU CAA/r «.^?.7y O c. ,r* -D '0» I tr I * I fL I . Id i '8 C 0IJ N T Y ROAD NO (i-/ t PKELK.Hf!-r-Y R -'f OfJAYVIEW FARMS 2NCITY Of OROr^.'). COUiMY OF D ADDITIONMEttfCPW^ ^ «M tit «W* * __a V M« •• Is:-IS* * / * i / •} •y : • yir.t I.It.'-It-i % n*o-«: r» V - < 1 W .-^•1 _ii ,-i •f' k ------------ /•-- ------ . >«-* •' ■■■js . ' • '.. .. r ' •: : >-'v V/-;/ / \ ; > u SA- ' ■ ' ' I '. ‘ >-il; \! ii, ,1' ( /I /./ 1 >•;> \V' •A\ •O'-;. .rJliV. 'n X . 5. -ffl i.D \\ •'i' •' '(V ’' ’ .All / ? » o 7 ' ' IM V ■■-'f y . ; - ‘ »• .♦ •• \\i V' V>‘.“w:‘'~r--v;A•V- ;xAl Arv-; i miR / . •/ lor su^vfYS CO L *^o SuRv£ rC'fiS •x •« *«••« kw *•*•-»«• • » ••«*-•.••« t« l«« t% • •«• •« %«••• »*M U* Ul* «» ir« *•••• »• •«%• «-*«• ♦»«»* * •.# • .#•••• r« ‘,.Mt rx«*« ••»-«ll9 ?«»• *•• • <•■ -i \ ••»»•♦ ' ««i - .••• » «• i*« !U$ •.* • >M« I** • «« •« « *!• ^*1 !»*-• « I >»» •.-•-•• • ■»*t ».,t «r ••.4 -» ■«• -n*# • I•• I M •• I t«»l| 9$ •••• ••• «• ••. ••» l« »4I*«» ••» 4* •••••I I* t »• • •*« I |4 •• • 44 • •««« l4,»-«i 4*.l •*«4i« »• ««•*4laa 4 44 I »4«i4 I ••••ll* • •••» (•«-4f «4 ■•*•«••• •• «■•. •*« *9 9* >»•»*• <•••• •■ •• • t I 4<>>« !•>« 4tap44«w *1 4 4»4 I •••—••'4 4 i - 4*>«. 4 4. • ••• • I tt 44<44 . <to« -44 4 4 . • •*■ 44 • •b<4»- • • tl ••••44 •• I •• 44- »•• >.•••• % 99* M«44 I k«4 . • • I • •• *4»44 *41 »•**••••* *•• «»•••••• I* 4»4*-# *• It**! •!.• M«4-a ••■ «^ • 4 4,i«4 l •• •* t**# «.••# 4<.«*4« • •••• k4a4l»«4 ‘ TYPICAL LOT ‘I -------— — -1 .4 . I ,» »*♦••••'• I i I—-Ii *•* I I I 1*« •• • 4 . ----1 I *«4 *»t 4 44 > r4 4»*4a* 99 4 t.#*4 44»4l4« 4 44«44l«44« I* l4«* •! !•* %44»4 •••• # ,... ( \ r f4»|l^4», • •«•-•« • 9* • 4*a«4»4* 9*« • ••••44 ••• I • ». »44 < 4 • • ••■••a C44 4* ROAD %• • • • I • •B/w&rr I agreement Robert S. Olson and Margaret W. Olson, fee °^of^°sard hereb> agree c on tne attached nsh.bit A is repiatied lu ^ BavMCu Farms d.d,ca,cd or r.r.rv.4 ...h.o iSa. ' 1^00 .ho abov. aanroU »hich .. shona a. / .md S^ne L, a.ffre Iba. parues hereby agree to deed to ..>^n T. Gell ^ auached E'iiibit portion of Lot 2. Block 1. 3ayvie« rarms ' . bounded bv a line described A and a poruon of Outlet C as shown on ^ Block 1. Bayview as follows: Beginning at the Northwester > co - ^ Qjock 1. Bay view F.nrms; farms which is also the jl^^nce S 00 45* 00" E distance thence North 89 45' 00 ^ o feet, thence Northerly along r wesl'Tine^riof T Blo^ ^ vit^^^^Farm, to the point of beginning and there terminating Irvin T Geffre and Marjone L. Geffre. fiiurroltlo^ V'^d part Farms. as a consideration for such comrai m platting and any of future Outlet C. hereby agree to join dedication or reservation future plat of bu.ldable parcels which proposes luiurc piai o..fir,t r n* shown on attached h.shibit A.of Oullot B as access to Outlot t- as sno»n Signed lhisj2?43y of 1994 Fee o'vners of Lot 2. Block I Bavvietv Farms Margaret /K-P Prop^tLCS. Wc.^ , president Contract purchaser of Lot 2 Block 1. Day view Farms Bv: ^Donald R. Peterson A Irvin T. Geffre ^ _ / Marjorie L. G^^ffrc Fee owners of Lot 1. Block 1 Bavvic'v Farms, their heirs and ssigos cm of ORONO \ \ *•//A»/7 RESOLLTIO.N OF THE Cm’ COUNCIL NO. -3_4 £'V I t // Dated this 14ih day of November. 1994 Edward J. Caila^n.*^-. Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA )%; SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The fore-oino instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of November. 1994 by Edt^i;:^5/.^aTlahan. Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor & City Clerk o the City of Orono. a .Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument w as e.xecute on of the City. J 4-\ S. VEE r.C'A--' AUsi-.C • Mi;«n£3CTA hC.’NE'IN COUNTS My ccrr.n-.us.rn 6K?ire» 9-12-.S6 Notary Public ► Page 6 of 6 J CITY of ORONO resolltion of the cm' council NO. In the event B and elumnate direct access to Bayside Road. 6. No addiuonal right-ot-u ay for County Road 84 will be granted although Hennepin Countv has requested it. 7.Pavme-'t of park dedication fees and the dedication of additional public wX ^i^llots A, B. C and D will not be required until Outlot C is tunh-r developed. 8.The residence on proposed Ut 1. Block 1 shall ^ system within the time frame and requirements ot th. City code. 9.l^^ronl tear of“ nal ;\afap“^ruLra'compo'nnf subdivision of Outlot C has been submitted by that dai- The aforesaid plat shall be filed " «noted above. of Crono for subdivision review. Pase 5 of 6 I I CITY of ORONO RESOLITION OF THE Cm' COU?fCIL NO. 3 4 9-2. WHEREAS, the subdivide: has completed all requirements of ihw pla re2ulaiions of the Cit>', inc;uding. I Comolenon of tho requi:.-msMS of Resoiuiion No. 3483. Dod,cation on the plat of dramatte and titiUta' easements. 4 Gtamtng of road at,u utility easements over Outlots B and D. Granting of a driveway easement over Outlet B tn favor of proposed Lot 1. Block 1. m D. Payment to the City of legal review and filing fees of S200.00. vnu therefore , be IT Ri:SOLNTD. that the City Council of the City „ c™- w-'” Minnesota, subject to the following conditions. 1 Outlets A B and C shall remcm in common ownership until Out ot C is fLnhe. «=d. Outlet D shall remain in ownership with proposed Ut 1. Block - until Outlot C is further developed. n.„i s, t is considered an unbuildable remainder parcel and upon development of Ou 0 C Out“ A ihall be either comnined with Outlot B -d proposed 1. rr 1 if outlets B and D -= Hr^enftlfa 0^^:^ ani legally combined with proposed Lot 1. Block .. m me D are used for roadway purposes. outlets B - separate event that Outlot C is further developed without a nied ?or“se'o7'oudots B and D as roadway access, then Outlots B and D om be leeally combined with adjacent properties. loti Pa2c 4 of 6 «■ o o CITY of ORONO resolution of the CITY' COUNCIL vn ?A9 2-------- ^^-HERZAS. . ,s .he Ci.; inter, .h-^ - the hiture for road purposes .tat such ^ applicants shall is the City's mtertt ‘h"‘ L^uumv -asemen.s over Outlots B and D. It is the City's provide to the •vi.ho'ut -he need tor access via Outlots B and D. that ru"any'anhl^'tasenients will he-vaca.ed upon fomtal request of the property owners; and UlIEREAS, ins^hc D shall remahl in private common ownersh.p until mv-i- ■' until Ouiiot C is further developed, andcommon ownership with proposed Lot 1. Block . until Outiot t. is tu WHERE\S it IS the Cit%-'s intent tJiat at the time Outiot C is further developed. that Outlots B and D will in the future become a roadwa>. and WHERE A.S althou2h Hennepin Countv’ Department of Public N^^rks has r •>! Hahr of Aav for Coun v Road 84. no additional Countv' road right -of*w'ay wTtamqmrenf ihe developer consisien. with the standards for a collector road as defmed in the Orono Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, a driveway easement over Outiot B shall be granted .n favor proposed Lot 1, Block 1 for the existing driveway in Outiot B; and w-HFREAS the existing accessorv metal shed located at the northwest comer of Ourlo. C will --m^non-ta^ m^omomted^ra subdivision of Omlct C in.o buildable lots and made conforming at iha. rime; and WHEREAS, the single family residences existing on proposed Lot 1. Block 1 and proposed Lot 1. Block 2 require no further variances; and Paae 3 of 6 CITY of ORONO resolution of the city council NO. _3_4-9-£ U-HEREAS, in addition to prcposod Lot 1. Block 1 and proposed Lot 1. Block 2, four outlets arc proposed to be created with the following mtent tor each. , A n icre remainder parcel to be combined with proposed Lot f'^ock 2° « su^hTute fhat Outlots B and D are used for pnvate driveway or road access to Outlot C. nnrint B' 0 3" acre -0 ’ fumre road corridor providing access for ftitureOutlot B. " - rhe event that Outlot C is funher developed Block 1. (c) into one or more building sites. /-I ri At n- 0 O'' -'C’-e future road corridor segment to complete contiiiuous ?cc s fn corS^r^tion Outlot B for furure development of Outlot be legally combined with the proposed Lot 1. Block UTIEREAS, Outlets B and D provide continuous access to Outlot C Road. The plattmg 1. Bayview Farms tn favor of Lot Blt^k 1. Bay^^ ,„„ment atuched to this resolution « ™ .r whi"hta':i?mra/plicaiits' in.eit regarding the hrrure use and disposition of Outlets A. B and D: and WHEREAS, it is the City's intent that ® 1 and pCo^eTLolV^BTock'': s^ exis^ting direct driveway accesses to Bayside Road, an Pase 2 of 6 r<r«vm i • % CITY of ORONO resolution of the cm' council NO. 3 4 9 2____ F A RESOLLTION APPROMNG THE PL AT OF B\'i"VTEW F.ARMS SECOND ADDIIION - FILE NO. 1967 \niEREAS. the Cir>- of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws cf the State oi Mumesota; and 'AHFREAS. the Citv Couiicii of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of lana witiun tne Cnv . an- ^VHEREAS. the City Council has considered the application ror ^subdivision by Pcb-’^ O'^on of -i6-i5 Bavsidc Road. Irvin T. Geffre of 466o Propemcs. Inc. represented by Donald R. Peterson (hereinarter the ^undividers .. .ii UTFEREAS. on October 24. 1994. the City Council ^proved Re.soIution No. 34S3 granting prelimi.nary approval for a nlat at 4645.4060 Bayside Road, and %« j.rppp4< T'^opertv is located within the RR-13. SingL Fa.r.i»y R^‘4l • nT; A ’ :U:: a '.^.r^Tum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buildaole .andRsi^idcnuai z-Oiiui? DiSUic: ^ vw'ichin cjich n^wiy crested !oi, 3nd V\TTEREAS, tlie propeny contains a total of appro.ximaidy 19.o acres, ot v.hi--i. .t-nrov.rr.ately 1.1 acres lias been delineated as wetland; and • • WHERE \S. die proposed oiat contains two lots (designaieu as propos— L»./i. R' .-k ' a-id D^opoc-G I ot 1. Block 2). each containing an existing residence structure, propose- ?;Ai B ock 1 bein^ ^cres m area, and proposed Lot 1. Block 2 being 1.94 acres^m area. 1 1 techmcallv requires a lot area variance, but will retain o^vn-rsh-p <-f ‘.rri'monil 0.07 acre ouilot ind may jam ap .0 an additional 0.2S acres as noted oelcw. tn order lo meet the 2.0 acre minimum lot area requirement; and wfTVREA^ septic svstem serving the residence on proposed Lot 1. la-l-Cr. . . • - • t ;eplaced On-site sewase treatment system site evaluation aaia - ,r ::;if ;,;a"rand ^ues for current and future use are available »itb^ OTODOSed LoVi. Block 1. No septic testutg ts required for the e,xisiing residence on preposen Lot 1. Block 2 since it is a pre-existing lot; and Pase 1 of 6 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Steve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator September 14, 1995 ^2065 Samuel and Joyce Marfield;Douglas and Cheryl Hill/William Toles, 2455/2425/2435 Scotch Pine Lane - Vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and Easements Within Plat of Dicon Addition - Replai of Dicon Addition (Preliminary Subdivision) - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, Two Acre List of Exhibits A - Applications B - Plat Map C - Property Owners’ List D - Letters of Request 8/23/95 & 9/13/95 and Staff Letter 8/24/95 E - Existing Dicon Plat F - Existing Conditions Map G - Description and Map of Proposed Vacations H - Preliminary Plat Drawing I - Proposed Grading Plan J - City Engineer Letter 9/13/95 K - Air Photo L - Documentation from Original Subdivision 1973-74 and 1979 Variances M - Storm Drain Easement Sketch N - Private Driveways Moratorium O - Letter from Hennepin County DOT Summary of Request Subdivision Background Dicon Addition, comprising Scotch Pine Lane, three building lots and a private lake access corridor, was platted as a one acre density PRD subdivision in 1974. At that time, this area of the City was zoned R-IC, Single Family Residential, one acre minimum lot size. Based on a gross area of just over 3'/2 acres, the City apparently felt obligated to allow this three lot division with a full-Hedged cul-de-sac being constructed to serve all three. Zoning in this area changed to two acre minimum in 1975. Under today’s zoning, that VA acre tract would be allowed only one house. Under the one acre PRD standards in 1974, the City did acknowledge the need and did grant a variance for lot width frontage on a roadway for the easterly existing lot. Zoning File #2065 September 14, 1995 Page 2 Scotch Pine Lane was platted as a public road and the City has maintained it as such ever since. Such a road in Orono ’s rural zone today would be platted as a private road outlot. Proposed Vacation/Replat After many years in which only two of the three propeny owners in the Dicon Addition could agree, the new owner of 2435 Scotch Pine, William Toles, has petitioned along with the Marfields and the Hills, to vacate Scotch Pine Lane. Their intent is to use a shared driveway over the vacated roadway for 2425 (Hill) and 2455 (Marfield). Mr. Toles at 2435 is proposmg a separate driveway access directly onto County Road 51, abandoning his use of Scotch Pine Lane altogether. Further, the property owners have agreed on a proposal to split up the vacated Scotch Pine Lane, which they have to do thro- gh a replat since their proposed boundaries do not follow the normal center line at which the County would automatically split out the ownership. Referring to Exhibit E, note that the Hill property includes Lot 4 with their house plus Lot 2 which is the platted corridor giving them private lake access. They currently cross the Scotch Pine Lane cul-de-sac in order to get to their lakeshore. Under the proposed vacation and replat, (see Exhibits F and H) Marfield will gain the west and southwest portions of Scotch Pine Une; Hill will pick up the portion of Scotch Pine adjacent to their house, as well as much of the cul-de-sac. giving them a continuous smgle parcel from the County road to the lake; and Toles on Lot 3 will pick up the end of the cul-de-sac. A short (20’x90’) outlot is proposed for the shared portion of the proposed Ma^ield/Hill driveway. Planning Commission is asked to consider whether the replat results in a new "back lot” which won ’t meet the 150% acreage or setback standards. The Marfield lot would appear to become a "back lot" under this proposal. The property owners intend to remove most of the blacktop, do minor filling as necessary to essentially re-establish the natural grade, and mm the area back into grass. They are willing to grant to the Citv and the public all necessary drainage and utility easements, and have received preliminary^ verbal approval from Hennepin County Public Works for the additional access location onto County Road 51. Easement Vacation Referring to Exhibit G, note that a significant number of easements were originally granted as part of the 1974 plat. These include utility easements along the east and west boundaries; a 50’ utility easement running from the east boundary to the west boundary, and the road easement itself, as well as dedication for 50’ of County Road 51. The plat also showed a wetland to the southeast, but staff is unaware of an easement dedicated for that wetland, and no easement is dedicated in the plat language. Zoning File #2065 September 14, 1995 Page 3 Regarding the 50’ utility easement, that portion within original Lot 3 (Toles) was vacated in 1979 except for the southeast 10’ of it. A» that time the City- concluded there was no real need for that easement, and accommodated the previous owner ’s wishes to allow construction of a pool in the area of that easement. The portion of easement heading west from the cul-de- sac is still in existence. There is probably no good reason to retain this easement within Marfield’s property, except for the northwesterly 10’ along the lot line. Staff is unaware of any existing utilities within this easement. Additionally, in 1979 when the City vacated the 50’ easement portion, it required the then property owner, Whalen, to grant a drainage easement for die catch basin and outlet pipe within Lot 3, leading away from the cul-de-sac. City tiles contain a survey and description for that easement, but staff is unaware whether it was ever filed. Applicants propose grading that would eliminate the need for the storm drain. In the early I980 ’s when the City constructed municipal sewer from the center of the Scotch Pine Lane cul-de-sac westward to Old Crystal Bay Road, a portion of that sewer was constructed under Scotch Pine Lane and part of it within the Marfield property . Staff anticipates finding that this sewer easement was granted by Marfield, however, any vacation of Scotch Pine Lane right-of-way would have to be conditioned on retaining an easement for the existing sewer lines below it. The City Engineer notes this should be a 30’ wide easement. '’'o summarize, if the proposed vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and its associated Dicon Addition easements occurs, the City should retain or obtain the following easements (assuming the replat also occurs): 1. A 30’ wide sewer easement centered along the center line of the existing sewer in Scotch Pine Lane. 2. The City should retain some easement for access for sewer maintenance along the driveway that replaces Scotch Pine Lane. 3. Standard perimeter drainage and utility easements, being 10’ in width along the northwest and southeast lines of the plat extending from the County road to the lake; a 10’ drainage and utility easement along County Road 51 within the replatted lots; and drainage and utility easements 5’ in width either side of the new boundaries between the lots, extending from the County road to the lake. 4. Utility easements should also be granted for any utility lines which may already be in place, including gas, electric, cable, phone, etc. Zoning File #2065 September 14, 1995 Paee 4 5. Property owners will need to grant easements to each other for their sewer connections which may cross over what will now become private property. 6. Confirmation that the drainage easement for the storm sewer leaving the east end of the cul-de-sac is legally filed and in effect; as an alttmative, the need for this storm drain system may be alleviated by the property owners regrading the entire site as proposed. Access Issues, Policy Issues A review of the extensive files attached regarding the original Dicon Addition approval and the later Whalen easement vacation and variance request, suggest that former City Councils and staff may have felt that Scotch Pine Lane should never have been built. Mr. Marfield’s recent recollection of the extensive tree removal that took place when that road was built is confirmed in the City files. Apparently former City Planner Alan Olson, former Mayor Van Nest, and others are purported to have noted the road was excessive for serving just three lots. However, it is a fact that absent the lot areas being substandard, in the two acre zoning district under today’s Codes, these three lots would be required to be Placed with a Ptlv^ outlot road being 50’ in width with lOO* platted cul-de-sac and paved to a width of 24 ’, with 80’ paved diameter cul-de-sac, similar to what currently exists . As Planning Commission and Council are aware, the City is currently reviewing the issue of the use of private roads vs. private driveways, and standards for their construction. Planning Commission will Mitoinly recall the recent discussions with the Long Lake Fire Chief that lead Planning Commission to wonder whether current standards \^ere not strict enough. Further, there may be an issue of whether the current moratorium which "prohibits the granting of preliminary subdivision approval or other permits and approval for private driveways which serve three or more residences", applies to the current request. It was not intended, in staffs opinion, to necessarily apply to the case where there will be two private driveways, one serving one residence and one serving two residences, although one might interpret it that way. Additionally, while the residents have pursued this application with much zeal over the last month, staff has diligently attempted to make the applicants aware that there are policy issues that might derail their proposal. Not the least of which is the possible precedent set by adding a driveway access to a busy County road, when the City s policy has been to not only limit the number of driveways, but to require that private roads be constructed to City standards whenever three or more lots are created as part of a subdivision. Absent all of the compelling reasons why the proposed vacation is a positive improvement for this neighborhood (and perhaps will reduce City maintenance costs), it still seems to be flying in the face of what has been consistent City policy throughout the rural zoning districts. Zoning hile #2065 September 14, 1995 Pace 5 Applicants ’ Basb for Vacation/Replat Applicants in their August 23. 1995 lener provide the following reasons for making the request: 1.It will remove several thousand square feet of hardcover and lessen the runoff of sal^s and oil from the street into the marsh and lake. 2. 3. 4. It will save the Citv the cost of maintaining the existing street It will reduce the number of car trips to and from Scotch Pine by lost people It will reduce the casual driver from turning down the street looking tor access to the lake. 5. It will make the area safer for children. 6. It will increase security to the existing homes. 7. It will improve the aesthetic view from the !.ake. It is difficult to argue against these mostly factual justifications for removing the street. However, while the vacation may be the most appropriate action for this neighborhood, the City has many similar existing situations involving short private cul-de-sacs which might make many of the same arguments. Approval of this request may open the door to similar requests by many similar neighborhoods. Comments by Public Works and Police Departments Public Works Director John Gerhardson has indicated he would support the proposal from the standpoint that it will reduce the City’s maintenance cost of this significant amount of roadway serving only three lots. He notes that the proposed new driveway location for Toles appears to be a good safe location with adequate sight distance. Police Chief Gary Cheswick similarly indicates that he sees no safety concerns with eliminating Scotch Pine Lane and adding a driveway, noting that it is a safe driveway location and there are so many driveways along County Road 51 that this one additional driveway will not have a traffic impact. While we have not discussed this specific proposal with the Long Lake Fire Chief. Plan^g Commission will recall that in the discussion with the Fire Chief earlier this year, Ae Fire Department preferred the use of loop roads rather than cul-de-sacs, but was concerned about fire Zoning File #2065 September 14, 1995 Page 6 trucks damaging private roads and driveways, for which the Fire Department was often held responsible when damage occurred during a call. It can certainly be argued that Scotch Pine I unp as it exists is a better situation for fighting fires than »f we have separate narrow driveways in place. Hennepin County DOT Comments Dave Zetterstrom of Hennepin County met with staff and the properry owners on August 23rd. Zetterstrom verbally indicated that based on the proposed driveway location, and the potential benefits to the neighborhood, the County was likely to support the vacation/replat proposal and would issue a permit for a new curb cut for Toles. That has been confirmed in a letter received today (Exhibit O). City Engineer Recommends Denial City Engineer Shawn Gustafson in his September 13th letter indicates that the City should discourage an increase in the number of accesses to an arterial roadway such as County Road 51 and he recommends that the proposal be denied. From a policy stai^point, he indicates that the new driveway accesses to a County Road should only occur if there is no feasible alternative. He notes that approval could be considered precedent setting. Gustafson also notes that the wetland and floodplain boundaries should be delineated (and easements granted), and that a grading/erosion control/drainage plan should be prepared (received from applicants on 9/13/95), if the proposal is approved. Further, he suggests that all existing sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, electrical, gas, telephone and cable television lines should be located and shown on a survey. Note that while all utility companies have been notified of the vacation request, the location of utility lines has not been presented in a comprehensive survey. If the proposal is approved, such a drawing should be presented before final approval of the replat so that appropriate easements can be granted or utilities moved to match new easement locations. Staff Recommendation In order to approve this vacation and replat. Planning Commission must be able to fmd The necessary variances involved in the replat (lot width/frontage/back lot issues) are clearly justified and supported by adequate findings. It is in the public’s best interest to vacate the road. All utilities and access needs will be accommodated. This vacation is unique and supported by compelling jus Tications that apply to this neighborhood but not to other similar neighborhoods, in order that a basis to deny similar requests without such conditions existing, is possible (i.e. show why this vacation does not set a negative precedent). that: Zoning ^ile #2065 September 14, 1995 Page 7 Options for Action 1. Approval as proposed, subject to: Applicants obtaining formal Hennepin County DOT approval. Subject to confirmation of location of existing utilities, to be relocated or easements granted for them. Replat subject to standard drainage and utility easements. Subject to delineation of wetland and granting of conservation and flowage easement over wetland. Subject to grading and drainage plan approved by City Engineer/Public Works Department prior to final plat approval. Specific variances to be granted in replat include: • Lx)t area and width, all lots. • Lot area and setback (150% standard), Marfield back lot. • Others as may be subsequently found during review process As part of any recommendation for approval. Planning Commission should specify how this proposal for this neighborhood is unique as compared to other similar three-lot subdivisions, and defining why this one might be approved while others might not be. Table for further information (specify). 3. Denial (provide specific reasons). 4.Other. CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIMSION APPLICAT PROPERTY LOCATION Site address 0 t ^ ^ #2^ /i-i 7 •oa ?LUc /-AX/c" Propertv’ Identification Number (PID)___________________ Please check one - Propert>' abstract or ------torrens? u A u.. .• j » -k . t J. w . . I'V.- -^ ui. V rrv Attach le2al description to application. APPLICANT W/U./4M Tctot-t-' __ Name rtf ^r* I fc'^^ ^------ ------------— , ^ -Jr. r cn Phone(h°™ yV Cin- \jj h.'r 7A ^ _____________2*P Phone (work) .'j vfe ^ct ‘V ^v\- . j OWTVER (if different than applicant) Name __________ Address City Zip Phone (home) Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units 3 Other (specify) ______ Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Number of Building Sites Division for Tax Purposes / \ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites)^RB’PlA'Tj Subdivision for New Building Sites 3 Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ --------J Totals MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to 'application fees' listed below). 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. ... , i j «_ 4. Cenified Sperry Owners List of owners within 350’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). ... 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this app ication. Zoning Official ’s Signature ________________________________________ .MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR CO.MPLETE FINAL .\PPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision .Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official ’s Signature _______________________________________ ----------------------—--------------------- I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check pC] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I. II «S: III) S2(X).00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangerrica«-^96aJ20 ^ Subdivision Application (Class I &(II) S300.00 ~~T~ Preliminary Subdivision Application"$325:6e^"S25.00/lot (Class HI & all _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) S175.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only S75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. S200.00 Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class 1 and II Subdivision Application S150.00 (No change from original application) -------- Renewal of Class III. Preliminary Subdivision Application S150.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application S 100.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: Proposed Private Roads S600.00 4- S.50/lineaI ft.;_____Im. ft. x .50 = 5--------- Proposed Public Roads S900.00 + S.50/lineal ft.;______ lin. ft. x .50 = $-------- Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road S900.(W Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension S250.00 + S25/smb Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 -I- S25/stub_____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 non-residential) ■ On-^te System. Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) S50.00/new lot proposed for on-site x_____new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees Variance $200.(X) _____ ^ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision S75.(W —-------- PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/DweIling Unit ---------- The aoolicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engmeer City Attortfey. PlLining CoLiission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees Owner’s Signature Date ^ " -5-V Date Aoolicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Contusion meeting. agt^ttend in your place and to advise the Budding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meetmg. j CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATON _ Site Address < C C- ( ^ K Type of Application to be Filed______ Property IdenuTicaiion Number (P.I.D.) applicant , , Name M U ^ L S A OWNTR (if different than applicant) Name---------------------------------------- Phone uj 7 -o Y ^ Phone ( work) > W o ^ City A^.v^Zip /K.V— Phone (home) Phone (work) Address City Zip. DateProperty Acquired_______________;—■ -7- I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of la . fees - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - aonlication$ 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application 51 25.00 Residential Accessory Use ^ ^ S200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.; 51 75.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ” S250 00 Commercial/Industrial Use — - designated wcUand or noodpiain ------- Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. »f i,ic..hore ------- Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule . -------SlOO 00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) --------After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee -^aSco^i^ercial Si.e Plan Review (+ consulun. fees) 3?^ $250.00^acation ‘''STTSiSb Easement Vacation ^ ..... . " S 75 00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ■ ssoo'.oo Rezoning (PUD - refei to fee schedule) ” S300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ” S 100.00 Appeals ~ Other - see Fee Schedule present USE OF PROPER*^ Present Zoning Distnct Present Use of Property Residential ± 6 Other (specify) (month/year) T v"-ru ijzLV'OC- .•vC'*V I-/ 1-U»\ «* •0 V t I.vf'? w'w’V* C' • ^ ^ - REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. J. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Cenified Property Owners List of owners within 350’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for surv'ey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of ±e legal names (include marital satus) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11” X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Cenification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff; Date ______ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s signamre ^Date y ~ V- Pi,iL Vie OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please malrt! arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zomng Office of this change prior to the meeting. ■s .A'S PROPERTY OWNERS SCOTCH PINE LANE 3 •% X SAMUEL S MARFIELO JOYCE C MARFIELO 2455 SCOTCH PINE LANE H. DOUGLAS HILL CHERLY R. HILL 2425 SCOTCH PINE LANE WILLIAM MARK TOLES (A SINGLE PERSON) 2435 SCOTCH PINE LANE 08/24/95 THU 09:59 PM SSM fO-ll7'2,S ^3. OOO^ i ^2065 - Corrected Property Owners I 09-117-23 41 0007.0008.0009 Charles and Brigitta Schocn 2430 North Shore Drive Wayzau, MN 55391 09-117-23 44 0002 Duane A. L4ike 2465 North Shore Drive Wayzau. MN 55391 09-117-23 44 0004 Samuel and Joyce Mar field 2455 Scotch Pine Lane Wayzata, MN 55391 ^ ^77* 09-117-23 44 0006 William M. Tolcs c/o Tol-O-Matic 3800 County Road 116 Hamel. MN 55340 10-117-23 33 0001 Trust Real Esuie NW National Bank 7th & Marquette Minneapolis. MN 55480 09-117-23 44 0001 C. Steven Wilson 2485 North Shore Drive Wayzau. MN 55391 09-117 23 44 0003 Dorothy C. Ixvy 2425 North Shore Drive Wayzau. MN 55391 09-117 23 44 0005.0007 H. Douglas and Cheryl Hill 2425 Scotch Pine Lane Wayzau. MN 55391 10-117-23 23 0004 French Creek Homeowners c/o W'illiain Donald Larson 1205 French Creek Drive Wayzau. MN 55391 4:s r*.. .Vi- MPG 8/31/95 Mailing List for Utility Companies for Applioitkxi #2065 Triax Attn: Tom Wiinlcr 2381 Wilshire Blvd. Mound. MN 55364 Minnegasco Attn: Kaye Skogman P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis. MN 55440 Minnegasco Attn: Rill Nord P.O. Box 1165 ' Minneapolis. MN 55440 Northern States Power P.O. Box 63 Long Lake. MN 55356 U S. West r Attn: Carla Stenzel Room CO E2.36 700 West Mineral Ave. Littleton. CO 80120 August 23, 1995 Mr Mike Gafircn Cit>' of Orcno PO Bex 66 Crjstai Bay, Ma. Re; Scotch PIm Lane Dear Mr Gaf&on; Per our conversaiicn with Dave Zetterstren: cf Hennepin Counr\'. John Gerhardsen and yourself on August 23, 1995, we the hon-.ec’Ar.ens resoectfully request that the City ot Orono vacate Scotch Pice Lane. The reasons we would like to make this rctruest are* 1. It ^^^ll remove several thousand s^re feet of hard cover and lessen the run off of salts and oil irom th*e street into the marsh and lake 2. It will save the City the cost of maintaining the existing street. 3. It wiU reduce the number of car trips to and from Scorch Pme by lost people. 4. It will reduce the casual driver from ruminz down the street locbng for access to the lake. 5. It will make the area sa£^ for duldrca. 5. It will increase security to the existing hemes. 6. It wilt improve the aesthetic view mom the lake. Tnesc are some of the reasens for vacating the street We welcome the opportunity to make a verbal presentation. iis comforted aid pleased by the response and encouragement given to us by the p^le of Hennepin County and the officials of the City of Orono, This is awin-vvin situanon tor evcn'onc. TTiank you for your consideration, Yours very truly, sihtfjl S Marneld ' f/,/- -35Ky H.Do vLf-e. </ 7/-^^ Z- uiicun Tolcs A«Ll^«*nc<n-___ □ICON ADDITION Mr B R VV INC. Planning Trani^purtallon Engineering Urban Dei»ign Thresher Square nx) T.iird Street So Minneapolis. M\ tol2/370-07110 Fax 612.'37(M37*J Den\er Milwaukee Mmneapi^lis Orlando Phiienix Portland San Diego Seattle September 13. 1995 HAMD DBLIVKRKD Mr. Mike Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 RE: PRELZMXMARY SUBMITTAL SCOTCH PIME ADDITION fka DXCON ADDITION Dear Mr. Gaffron: Enclosed are copies of the following materials for our pifeliminary submittal for the Marfield. Hill and Toles properties. Note that in our original submittal on August 25th we had called the replat DICON 2ND ADDITION, but have now decided to call it SCOTCH PINE ADDITION. Our revised graphics are labeled accordingly. 1. 11" X 17" copy of the revised preliminary plat. Note that minor modifications to the interior lot lines have been made based upon input received from the land owners. Note also that we are proposing to dedicate a 20 foot wide utility easement centered on the in place sanitary sewer main which serves the properties. 2. 11" X 17" copy of existing conditions map for the project. Note that from a building setback standpoint, the existing and proposed building setbacks are either identical or they increase based upon the revised lot lines incorporating the right of way being vacated. 3. 11" X 17" copy of preliminary grading plan showing proposed grading, existing and proposed hard cover areas, notes regarding utility adjustment and abandonment a.nd erosion control. Mr. Jeffrey Sandberg is the engineer here at BRW who prepared Mr. Mike Gaffron Septejnber 12 , 1995 Paae 2 this plan. Questions regarding the grading plan should be directed to him. His direct dial number is 373- 6362. If additional materials are required or you have questions please contact either myself or Mr. Sandberg. Thank you for your assistance in this matter Respectfully Submitted, hi, RLS attachments cc:Mr Sam Marfield w/att Mr. Jeffrey Sandberg File 3233 A 00 scotch.klO August 24, 1995 CITY of ORONO MiinlHpal Offices Street Miress: 2750 Kelley Partway Orono. VN 55356 Meinni Mirtss: P.O. Ba o6 Cfyjtal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Scotch Pine Lane Residents c/o Sam Martleld 2455 Scotch Pine Lane Wavzata, Minnesota 55391 Re: Proposed Conversion of Scotch Pine Lane Dear Mr. and Mrs. Martleld, Mr. and Mrs. Hill. Mr. and Mrs. Toles: Now that 1 have had a chance to consider the merits and implications of your proposal, I still concur that the positives seem to outweigh the negatives. However, there may be some City policy questions which need to be addressed and which may or may not have an impact on your request. This letter is to advise you of those possible issues as well as define the process for proceeding to accomplish your goal. Potential City PoUcy Issues k , • Ignoring the question of lot size (your lots average about 1 acre each in a 2 acre zone), if you were to subdivide under current City ordinances and policies, a road identical to existing Scotch Pine Lane would be required to serve a three lot development. However, that road would be planed as a separate outlot to be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. • One of the goals of the above policy is to limit the number of curb cuts on our major roads. Therefore, your documentation that the actual number of trips will decrease as a result of the proposal may have a bearing. • The hardcover reductions, cost savings to the City, and anticipated increases in safet>', security and aesthetics, are all positive factors which the City Council ultimately wilfhave to weigh against Cit>* policy issues. • There is a moratorium in effect as of July 24th, which prohibits the granting of preliminary subdivision approval or other permits and approval for private driveways which serve three or more residences. This moratorium may have an impact on your request depending on how the City Council interprets the intent of the moratorium. Tdephone (6U) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510 Scotch Pine Lane Residents August 24, 1995 Page 2 The moratorium is intended to provide the Cit>- with the oppominitv* to review a number of issues regarding the use of private driveways and private roads. We are submitting your letter to the Council in their packet for this coming Monday night meeting, although diis item is not intended to appear formally on the agenda. A copy of the memo to the Council is attached. Approval process , u u Your request involves two defined applications which require review and approval by the Planning Commission, including a public hearing at the Planning Commission. These include a request for vacation of Scotch Pine Lane, and additionally a replat of the entire Dicon Addition. These two applications can be applied for concurrently and reviewed concurrently. The application packages for each are attached. I have discussed with Keith Dahl of BRW the general requirements for vacation and replat. While the specific submittals are listed in the application packet, basically you must provide a detailed cenificate of survey which includes all information shown on the original Dicon Addition plat, plus showing all improvements including house locations, existing driveways, actual sewer and storm sewer locations, etc. Additionally, the dimensioned location of proposed lot lines must be defined, along with proposed location and layout of the new driveways. As part of the vacation approval, the City will require granting of the necessary utility easements, and likely will expect you to redefine the wetland easement to match current wetland boundaries. Additional submittals listed in the application forms must accompany your application, including the cenified propertv owners list which is obtained from Hennepin County. The application deadline for the September 18th Planning Commission meeting is Friday, August 25th at noon. This deadline is necessary in order for staff to complete the necessary documents for publishmg legal notice of the public hearing required in these applications. If you were meet the August, ilh dMdiine a Dublic hearing would be held by the Planning Commission on September 18th, with Council review scheduled for October 9th. and potential final approval by the City CouncU on October 23rd. If vou can’t meet the August 25th deadline, the next deadline date would be September 22nd7which would result in a Planning Commission pubUc hearing on October 16th. with Councir review on November 13th and final CouncU action as early as November 27th. I am enclosing the vacation (general land use) application and the replat (subdivision) application packages, in addition to a memo with your letter which is being forwarded to the City Council. We should know after Monday night’s meeting the Council’s initial reaction to your proposal, and can proceed accordingly per the schedule dependent on when your formal application is received. B DICON ADDITION m i - - \ vy W-* '4v ^s O0CN01CS mON MONUMCNT iAS4S ^011 BCAIHN6S IS AtSUMCO • mmM • ? _ ..*• k'" — •* • JLLC1)"% 77’ V- 0 .'Sy' AUGUST 24. 1995 RIGHT OF WAY & UTILITY EASEMENTS VACATION DESCRIPTION DICON ADDITION CITY OF ORONO, HEN’NEPIN COUNTY, MIN'NESOTA DESCRIPTION OF RIGHT OF WAY TO BE VACATED ,-\ll that part of the right of way of SCOTCH PINE LANE, as donated and dedicated by DICON .\DDITION. according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin Count>’, .Minnesota, which lies southerly of the northwesterly continuation of the northeasterly line of LOT 4, BLOCK. 1, said DICON ADDITION. DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS TO BE VACATED All the UTILITY EASEMENTS in DICON ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County. Minnesota. dicon.kd9 KlOHl Ul? & UllLll 1 1 DICCMS ADDITION ORONO, MINNESOTA 6-*2^ DESOTE5 RIGHT OF WAY TO BE \ACATED DENOTES UTILITY EASEMENTS TO BE VACATED ^HWESTERLY CONTINUATION OF ’>f<THEA5TERLY LINE OF LOT 4 ^ • • . «• «» •* p -mmrmm LAKE ^ JLEVATION . 929.40 FEET(IS»4Wj *M?NNETONKA 2:26-"« J/ I Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engincefs & Architects A«.« V.. .**... a" a'nr.at,.. vt* .v.» .-t?0 O ««^S' Zm^^r• n •* * C Arc#- •« ^ t «i»rv « k !«-*••# ^ ^ # «n#r« C r^#r > P ^ ? c^e# • f •-«»•## tf \#*#s 'O *A c*A- • '#» V C i“JV Si-fO'S *f # TtorMM ^ 1 •. » 5 ? 4-^jr« >*f »8»t#» •! O. ^mmtM ^1. ^ A 4 /r-v A i^t^reof^. ^ C •»4 H : #«. * i .ITTl* 'J r®^»8C Septemter 13. 1995 Mr Michael P Galfron, .A>st. Building .»nd Zomii?. Adramistratof Citv ot Oreno Post Otfice Box '>0 Crystal Bay, Minncsou •‘rt-r-Ai A S^'lro • • FA«rr*^#c •! v:cr##’ C- ^ I- .#^•11 %rs^ML » & ,*.'r» 3 ^#fnstft. "I izztt j Affm^ •t A#—• Af««tn#n. PI. "f Vi*.'# A. 5#t0. P f umy J» vief •#• • ! « C*AA*A. A : A 3#A»«( J * L A ®«f# 5cp^*<*l PI r» # *. • t »►• ,? J C#S^P4 » p .•#f« r 'ATi-' t® »f ',4..#» & P| ^ ». o v'S PS. <aren w . Pf- iary Cf. Pruiot'ta P |. 4. P I p p*M*». • t A#tin < rae* *J J. PS 3. ^t#fi#fi. p t Cttrt* P f <#Af J. \jr*^#f pf •fW» 2 P*Pk.#' • f. • 3<xa#^ •§ C^4T\ 3. loyun. .■ L .«i#0f P • t. I^r# VI. 'ilafV^ • f C^»rt♦f 4 ffric»ct(v* ..«• M P»w« «## AlWlfW P» >»©A A^es VI .#^1 * '53:3 Re:Scotcn Pine Lane File No. l39-:0h5 Dear Mike. We have revie'-ved the propoval to vacate the rightMat-vvay for Scotch P:ne Lane, vacate ututy easements and rcplat the area to the three adjacent lots. The proposed arrangement fs shown on the prclimmarx- olat ot Dicon 2nd Addition. Wc have the tollowinj comments in regards to engineering matters. On an subdisistons or rerlats in the Cm- ot Oreno wc recommend the following easements be granted to the City as a condition ot approval; s.foot wide drai.naae and atilir,- casements along all lot lines. 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements along ail road right-of-ways, mcludm.g county roads. A minimum 30-fooi width for utility easements centered on ail existing or proposed samtar>' sewer, storm sewer and w ater mains. Drainacc easements across aU dramagcways. floodplains, ponding and wetland areas. The nroposal to vacate the utilitv easements is not appropriate anc. we would recommend denial. To facilitate discussion, all existtnz sanitar/ sewer, water main, storm se-.ver. electric, gas. tclepnonc and cable television lines should he located. The wetland Ksundahes and floodplain contour should he delineated. A n-adin«» erosion control .ind drainage plan should be prepared that would identic locations ot dramaccovkys on the property, should the roadway be remeved. These ur.iitics and features should be sur.-cyed and shown on t.he preliminary plat. Public'Work-s Director. Police Chief and Fire Chief ter comment regarding access and public satety. The Ciiv should aiscourage an mcrexse in the number ot accesses to an anerial roadway s^h a.s Counn- Road No unless there is no other feasible alternative to provide access to a property. This is not tnc case in this circumstance, and we would recommend that the request for vacation be denied. The City shLld certainlv look at an approval of this request .as a precedent setting decision and be cautioned th.it It would lav the ground work for numerous similar requests. Please contact me at thas office if you have any oucstions regarding this matter. Yours verv' iriiiy» ^ ^ ^ BONESTROO, ROSEN^E, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P E. / __ A ona wii —r , , ,. I ■■■■■ « 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 i W' wm.{ ■ <» JT m wM i *<Mm ■'v ,iMr; ■- - ^•: r '/- !TS I ^ ¥j? ♦ rt f ^ • . • : • .4 • f '.J I . i ••t © MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 16, 1973Mr. Stone of the neittiiboring Dairy Queen,a concern over problems* tiiat might occur because of rhe lack of parking. He felt that any establishment tnat would have customers stopping for .my length off time would not be able to survive because of the limitevi parking. Chairman Poisson expressed the desire to table this natter until the Planning Commission had received a statement from tlje owner of the property that adequate parking would be available for Mr. Jack's operation. Kullberg moved to deny the special use permit because of the parking problem that would undoubtedly be created. Motion died for lack of a second. Searles moved, Elliott seconded, that approval be conditioned upon no full-scale kitchen for the serving oif food be established and the serving of food should be limited to reheating pittas, sandwiches, and serving soft drinks. Motion, Ayes (7) - Nays (1). Kullberg Nay. r The Planning Commission felt that there should be provisions so the patrons will know that there is parking in the rear of the building. The Planning Commission questioned the street vacation proccv’ure which limits vacations to situations where there is a public purpose. The Ranstads explained that they would like the Village to vacate Hill Street west of Tonka Avenue so they could construct.a garage on their property. The Ramstads.explaincd chat the present Hill Street runs directly into the home on Parcel 2100 and so it would not\be feasible Pege 3SPECIAL USE PERMIT (Continued) L-l HILL STREET VACATION ever /■ extend the street. Chairman Poisson moved, Searles s a public hearing be called a liar Planning Commission meeti conded, the next on May 21, 1973. ^fotion, Ayes (8) - Nays (0) Hr. Richard Conry requested a division of Parcel S600, which is 3.48 acres, into three building sites. This request requires a variance In lot width of approximately 40* for one of the lots. Cnsch felt that granting a variance in an undeveloped area might set a dangerous precedent. (Continued) DIVISION Conry242S North Shore Drive .f .. -1*; tiflLaar::♦ . ♦ * j« • jr-- ■ ♦* I » *. ,V MINUTES OF A REGULAR ILCTIN’G HELD APRIL 16, 1973 Chairnan Poisson felt that this was the most logical development pattern for this particular piece of property. Because of the street pattern around the laVo and the shape of some of the olJ mints, it is difficult to avoid some variances according? to Poisson. Ryerse felt iiat it would be difficult to deny 3*i acres as three building sices. Aullberg moved, Ryerse seconded, that approval of the subdivision be based on the condition that a SO* road easement (rather than the 40* easement that is shown on the plat nap) be provided for. Motion, Ayes (S) - Nays (3). Hays, Gasch, and Searlcs Nay. Elliott departed the Council Chambers ay 9:50 P.>l. \s sw\L Mr. Winters owns land on Tonka View- - - , create two building\sites on the five lots 'that he owns. Since’^thc lots are narrow, Mr. Winters felt that., a variance would not be unreasonable. A variance of approximately 10* per lot would be necessary, for the lot •^widtn requirement. # Searles moved, Ryerse seconded, that given the amount of undeveloped l.and and the site of the variance requested,' this request should be denied. Motion, Ayes (8) - Nays (0)» Chairman Poisson moved, Ryerse seconded, tnat the Alan Sweetser request for a \vctlands variance be tabled until more information is presented to the Planning Connission. Motion, Ayes (6) • Nnys (0). Hoys abstained. f The staff will consult with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District to make aure f. Tanager Lake dock was not expanded or relocated onto the County Road ilS right-of-way. Poisson moved,/Kullberg seconded, fjj® meeting be ad|ourned at 10:10 P.M. Motion, Ayes (7) - Nays (0). i Respectfully submitted Dexter J. Marston Secretary \ Page 4 DIVISION (Continued) 1 DIVISION 5 VARIANCE Tonka View Lane m VARIANCE - ORDINANCE N012S Sweetser TANAGER LAKE DOCK ADJOURNMENT I •: • . It"• e. ■'M : O-* " TO:James Cosby FROM:Dexter Mars ton DATE: SUBJECT:. April :0, 1975 Division • Richard Conry - 2425 North Shore Drive The Placning Coaaission approved this subdivision ®50» wide street easo«ent. This request*was submitted late and I have not had a good chance to examine this request until now. Although Mr. •ccpt^aad SflJuIn the roa.l. If thii_;dld occur, every 1®* either to narrow, to small or both. The. reason for the **|*^T*P*”?][^ between Mr. Conry’s calculations, as shown on the map, and mine, is that he did not exclude the area included in the easement. If the Vlllaee were to allow the applicant to use the easement in its square foot calculations, a 20’ in lot width variance would be needed for Lot 2 and a 40* variance would be required for Lot 3% undeveloped area such as this, variances of this nature may b s g a dangerous precedent. Hennepin County has been notified regarding this division but we have not received a reply. y « . i •aNuTES OF A REGULAR lEETIUG HELD APRIL 23, 1975 Page 3 Butler noved, '.‘.'elsh seconded, to approve t.ie variance request of Mr. Crist with t.ie condition that no doch can be built on Outloc 4 and no Riparian rigiits are to be conveyed to Outlet 4. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). VARIANCE Lvdiard Avenue Butler noved, ilassencale seconded, tnat a oublic iiearing on tiie snecial use pernit for Ton Jack for May 14, 1973 at 3:00 ?.M. in tne Orono Village Council Chanoers, be called, .iotion. Ayes (5) - Nays (0). SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3530 Shoreline Drive rOorn noved, Butler seconded, to grant / conceptual approval to the Conry division as ‘ a Planned Residential Development preliminary plat in accordance uith Section 38.600, suojecu to tnc road wav witii a 50' easement oeing aeveloned to Village specifications, the filing of a performance bond or cash with the Village Administrator and that the water and sewer easements are given in accordance with tne requirements set forth by the Village Engineer. Section 33.650 of the Village code will >e ' complied with, witn tne exception that tne Planning Commission will informally nroTDOsal at its work session J ■ and* will foreward its comments to t.ie Village ■ Council. No area variance is required but a variance from 140' to 12/' on frontage ' Lots 283 would be granted due to tne uniqueness [• of the snape of these lots. Section j9.1/0 and i 39.130 of the Village code will also apply. 5 MotiL, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Mayor Obernauser abstained. Heilman Oorn departed the Council Chatibers at 10:46 P.li. and returned at 10:5o . ..i. •iassengale moved, Butler seconded, to table the 19-73. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Iassengale moved, Butler seconded, to table the /aaeiier variance to Ordinance imo. 1-5 ^iitil :hl Council’s next regular » L973. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). ^ Imran 'Tassen^yalc departed the Council ;SerHtnud returned at 11:25 P.M. niitler moved, V/elsh seconded, to approve the DlJiraSd SD«ifications for the 197a street lehU program « authorize the advertasanj for bids. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (.uj. division 2425 North Shore Drive • j DIVISION § VARIANCE Tonka View Lane VARIANCE - ORDINANC NO. 125 Wagener STREET SEALING PROGR-AM j ti Public VVorKs.pfiofl* 935-3381 32U Washington Av. South, Hopkins. Minnesota S5343kUY 7MW t Ca 0^^ HeNNGFIN COUNTY M«r 2. 1973 Nr. Otxtar J. Marston Zofilrf A^nlstritor of Orono P.O. Box 66 ;-CK3fStal.lBIf«. Ninntsota .S5323 :Pror,sed Plat - ’01/000 Subdivision CSAH 51 - Section 9, Township 117, Range 24 Hennepin County Plat No. 203 Review and Reconnendatlons r •! •>* • • r A Thank you for submitting the above referenced plat for our review. Me have reviewed the proposed plat and have the following recoettiendatlons. 1. Dedicate an additional 17.0 feet of right of way • a total of 50.0 feet from and along the centerline of CSAH 51. 2. Access to all lots should be frest the proposed street rather than fj^ CSAH 51. Streets and entrances from CSAH 51 will require penults which Mist be obUlned from the Mclntenanra Section of the Hennepin County OepartMnt of Public Works. 3, All proposed construction or altereclons witnin county right of way laust' be approved by the Hennepin County Department of Public Works. If there are any ruestlons please contact Craig 0. Spencer at this office. Vary tnny yours, irt 0. Klossner, P.E. County Engineer kf •i .• r- t • I r - a *••• . • $ 1 • ^osewolsfeld inc*\mm9% ®. bwh«^ r.l.t •«)«• s*t StSS mttk tilts c«Ml«r •It / Hay U, 1973 • • • 'A Hr. Bin Dickey . D1Con.Jnc. ;901^®llth9it# Office ‘ RC: »fPr®11*lH«ry Plat of OlCon Addition t i<r.' Deer Bill: It I. «y gl.d.rst.n<l1n, .ft.r hivins t.U.d "'‘J ;s;,rr:nr.«.d pr.H-1n.ry pl.t, last revised May 8, 1973. Th. pl.t .s«. i>.*« It Sn?*S!3i;itid'!t?«t Hsht-Sf-Ity!" mtern.l ttr.et .$ . "j'’!’' ?i?lfoon «t.bt1$h1n9 thr.. lots Also. th. put ilj;.! As Is .pp.r.nt Into •ccommodate single family d e something ?s .riaftisi \;vM\««• :rs.ir.i::;;i.’;ri?USb 5?.Vn y";c’»i u M’mltr5hit ’»ru"'thJ *ost r..son.bU distribution of tb. land involved. Hitb this lot .rr.n,e-.nt.^-.^.r.^«.hi-| luV"* ra • I r. r. t»• • * ii :4 |:-.711f I •—4 • a J i % Hr. Bill Dickey Hay )4, 1973 Page 2 Liw Chapter 305 of Minnesota Statutes in Bind we J*);* J® "JJ!® • k'« •u •a ■ ♦. •<*' #'< T. ^ ^ a; « % - • . ^ * •Hr ^ ■ . ,-., .,..................... pikost-ll OLSFELBW'INC4*'«/ ■« xO**a»* •<• • ■• « % • - • a •« . • . « • .• 4 .-• •*• . * • -.• ••• **• • - • «• *» ’. r. . gaMS' C. Boerhave, RLS JEB:sn . X . f, ' * ': V .# >%■ •’ • 1^1^ - - - - - T - I j - • m ww ^ ^ ^ ^>wi .VILLAGE OP ORONORegular feeting of the Planning Connisslon, May 21, 1973 7:40 p.;;. The Planning Comaission net on the above date with the following nenbers present: Acting Chairman Searles, Gasch, Kullberg, Guthrie, Paurus, and Ryerse. Absent: Elliott, Hays, Kokesh, Poisson, and Van Nest, Guthrie moved, Ryerse seconded, that the Minutes of tiie Regular Meeting of April 16, 1973, be approved. Motion, Ayes (6) • Nays (0) MINUTES The Acting Chairman announced that this was the time and place for a public hearing concerning the vacation of Hill Street from Parcel 2100 to Tonka Avenue. The Zoning Administrator presented the Notice of Public Hearing, the Affidavit of Publication and the Certificate of .'failing to affected property owners. PUBLIC HEARING Hill Street D The Raastads request to vacate rtill Street was initated because of a need for an additional 10* to build a garage. The Planning Commission members were in agreement that Brook Street, to the north of Hill Street, would more logically provide access to the property west of Bayside Addition to Lake rUnnetonka. r Ryerse moved, Kullberg seconded, t.’iat Hill Street, between Parcel 2100 and Tonka Avenue, be vacated, with the Village retaining a 20* utility easement down the center of the street* Motion, Ayes (6) - Nays (0). / Gasch expressed a concern about the applicability ! of the PRU ordinance to this narticular / situation. Gasch also felt that other people In similar situations IiaU not been informed ox* this alternative. DIVISION Conry-Dicon Paurus voved, Gutljrie seconded, that the Conry PRC application be approved with an easement to the east as was desired by Orr-Schelen- Mayeron, as well as a utility easement to the west, ffotion. Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Gasch abstained. .<.» Zoning Administrator reminded the Planning Commission that the area Mr. Sweetser wanted {0 dredge was not shown on the U.S* geodetic map. Kullberg questioned Mr. Sweetser about his letter where he states the depth of the pond will be S» plus. Mr. Sweetser assured the Planning Commission that because of the cost, he would go no deeper than necessary to prevent th. r.*ro»th of .quatle VARIANCE Sweetser I*. ( r • m • t V ‘ t I r" r\ OROlKANCF/a^ gi]' k. • • «» :t ’4'rr<^ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jin Ccsby Dexter Marston May 24, 1973 Division - Dicon - PRD ™ Th»r.'h.Y« b..n so.e hlw“”^d9Cld*iL to Mk* ,the .151^ public. The changes r P^Slfi^^ordln, « ‘tSr restriction. vUch will' assure that Lots 2 5 4 renain together. S *5;; sisssnj;: ;ri:!ii;‘;r?hr;Jc*p:f.d ' • hoses for Council reviewal. (« 4 *. * \* .1 . , •. Ir . ^ ••This waa t4 •• • .ecpted by the Council « the Mey 2», • • »• e • V •* • 1 /. #«s, ■% » • :0'-' • *■>•• -. N- 1* «. - :•• • n ••‘ V *. ■.- b* ■ w. ' c- \ liiNUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD Vl\Y 29, 1973 Page S Mayor Oberhauser offered the following notxofit • _Oberhauser aoved, Butler seconded, to give conceptual approval of the transfer of residential credits fron the IDS property, east of Highway #19 into a single tabulation and apply then to the IDS property on the southwest corner of Higliways #15 5 ^‘19. ^ Tliis is with the understanding that IDS will donate their remaining property that :s east of #19 to the Village for park and recreation purposes. Notion, Ayes (2) - Nays (3). Councilmen Butler, Massengale, and V/elsh Nay. Motion defeated. IDS PROPOSAL (Continued) Council deferred action on the Hill Street vacation until June 11, 1973, so that all Council members can go and look at the property concerned. STREET VACATION Hill Street ■ « mta; *..• rr — .zi-r-r. Massengale moved, Butler seconded, to accept the preliminary plat of Dicon addition along with the utility easements and subject to the Village Attorney review and approval of the home owners association agreement. Tne ovmers are also required to pay 5% of tne raw land value for Village par.< purposes. Tiiis approval is being given in view of recognizing the unusual shape of the land and the .lardship involved in trying to plat under normal orocedures. In view of the iiardsnip, the Council is allowing the use of a PRD this time for this small acreage proposal. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). DIVISION 2425 North Shore Drive Butler moved, Welsh seconded, to approve the dred'Ting permit for Mr. Sweetser for tne Council did Establish a fact finding conclusion tnat the prooerty is not a marshland as defined in Village Ordinance No. 125, the property is not listed on the geodetic map as marshland and the Village Council did visually inspect the property. The granting of tnis approval is subiect to the six conditions listed in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's letter of April 23, 1973. Motion, Ayes (5) - Ways (0) . DREDGING PER.MIT Sweetser and width of the driveway. Motion, Ayes (5) Nays (0). VARIANCE 2166 Shadywood Road L i • • t f • - ' • li t •r I' ■|i ■’ I TO* PAONt DATlt City Council Dick Benson, Acting Adainistrator July 17, 1974 I^I^I^Con 0«v^loFa«nt.-,»C^*W^^y,;.7.^Coun »o«d #51 I • fc. , 5 • ’ ^ • * xJVP J?*r • V A ^ t • ■ V"* z t ^ z T''7^ thm^tx!— 3cy«tAl B«y^“ x««« on tbm llding th«p ,-f.d«v«lop«d for tho DiCon !OttDty/lto«d #51 h** boon ~ >^thor~th«n troeo that would j£c^..tho :.«^oot. At'in th« futuro or £ro« dotOA tho policy shall be that-wxpiiiwv»o*not ^ly tho design but also tho,oc^w04.con«truction of any nowiy dOTOlopod Street in Orono. *3^Tbo Esglaoor's office has bo«^ date, tho policy shall be that-Ski •' . N S* • ^ * V.r. .1* 4 if I •ws }! • X . 'V.L* V- •/.< - ^ • *' Ouane and Wancy Luke Stew and Suzy Wilson Jred Van He$t lAl'01son I97<^ / « , iM Hirficid 4-m. •*4 % fact t1 onisr of Scotch^! enuorym 30. 1979 ke to 1 • * . :/ -f’ VJ 1. vacate Scotch PlneluiNrfi "7- Quote from the Cfty of Orono; wUnmMhMvwfU^^ >• • V'.' KV* «*» A *1*>‘*^' * I H' fiBllowing to.offert:•;>^>> ■ ;•• .1 •* * « • •; .*«* 1 ' ■ *-V i • ^ * ■* — ..- "Why do you choose to live on Orono? Any people spy they do because: . .v\,.,., of the lifestyle and quality of life available here. They describe ‘ -b;.«^,s. teicluttered views of woods and hills, quiet lakeshores, mrshes full of wildlife and iiobby farm acres with cropland and horses. For maf\y, the large lots offer a feeling of 1ndependence,freedOB and a place- to get away from the pressures of the worlt*e»d^ world.* .- •■ iv .■• f” •• V 8 Sr--* 8 • THE VILLAGE PLAN V*a"*:.» ’ J . : bX ’ -t •».ah»tx. has recognised the special attractions of Orono and 111 "Tlie City Council the special desires of the'people who live here. In 1974, they pre ­ pared a CoRorehensive Guide Plan to establish goals aimed at preserving this quality of life including the preservatlon-of lakes and wetlands and the maintenance of open spaces." I feel that our street is inconsistent with the "Village Plan" and with our neighborhood. We'have the only public street between County Road IS and Bohn's Point. There ts no need to have a cul-de-sac capable of serving 20 homes for our pretty 3-hone area. i:'' ^ n*'■ #■. ^. r *-A V * * *4-.* .-.’V V /2. Ke have Httlc orivacy. It SM-5 t*rat tfp rjral Style of life in Orono conflicts with the running of herd-surfacrd streets In front of our houses. If oor street were not in existence now and the City asked to bUcktop our little private are«» we Maid be Most upset, we cjnnjt keep the public out of our little eree; it should br private: Look at the nice privacy the Lukes and the Wilsons have. 3» City’s Error. l^aw spoken to sene efTthe counet1’'and'planning comrission^neiters ... ./about why this street went in. They^ofd it slipped bjrthnrbecause of a ‘ ;v. iprevioua planner's error. .^Tl>ey«witbtttghed*iiot:9owef1n;^0ur*cleaefneighbors^^ [dBlnetkllke this street eithefv|fAmHtfnoi’ieeioittfbrtScoteh'P1ne«lane..^^^^^^^ can get good aeoesenHflfeMSlWHeinHSinrfthduti^ ■renberq Gardens Tr*- ic*'"county plans to iraprove^thtj^fei'in thO’near future. Parking lo^r,- ‘/ buildings, walkways, etc. Hererarefsooe-cxerpts frpn their proposal: , • • •This site is located within the estate area of the Lake Minnetonka Pegicn ..." v. \ • ’ OWM ^ • • •Travel to the site from other parts of the Metropolitan Area is ' :v; by private auto and public bus transportation.* 'With existing bus service to the sit" from downtown Minneapolis, this site will be readily available to all population groups.* o Scoten Pine Lane is the only public street between County 15 and the gardens where "all population groups" can view the homes of "The tstato Area". 1 feel we nicht be on display during the warm months onct those gardens arc improved. That does not appeal to me. 5, Too much blacktop . I would like to remove all the blacktop from this street except for the area between Hill’s driveway and North Shore Drive. The City constantly discourages hard surfacing near the lake. Here is a chance to got rid of most or all of this blacktop that sends water running into Whalen's marsh. The access from the bottom of tiff present driveway to Hill's would be replaced by gravel. I also suggest that t'le driveway next to Whalen's H* removed and sodded. '.Y' ! i I \ V . . - J, V* r . .. . j . .r V.y.* .-. t , X-r ' • •• ...T « ^ • •“ TvrSt'•*-*." r-'>-.rV^ Here is ny plan: A. Petition »jte City of Oroflo to vacott the street. V* ^ . . *'Jkk: r * J .^•• t . ■- s,.--nr.u > V, •.- - **i • •» « . •"! ?.••. **.-■ 3. C. Pemove ?<o$t of the olacktop and replace It vfth grass, land* scaping and grave). g t Divide the street up as sceas fair to each of us three hoas— ^ V owners. » •* •• • •• * tkJ. - •; • • . v'-’T* iK' • * * >• •rVU. Plant trees and bushes. Try to replaoe seme of'the wooA that‘"'^^<:*4’r l5*i®gf5?%^*-ri'used to occupy Scotch Pfne Lane. This street used to be't dense^^"-.* woods that you could not seer^tnrough. *.et's do a little s : r.'g ♦ 1 . 4* A - . ■. *• I- .'Ij:'’’'- to bring some.pf,thM¥e9et>tiop;^q S-v'KPut a decorative iiilijwsjttiohfeitfenfInflinrToitairit^niir irrnT « ^to North Shore DrietiiiiOiiSiMiwtcoold^bwowde^gn along irith ' '* S».‘the word -PrivaU'4‘ « ml**•5-. i -w^! >•’“.i Hw_wiJJ_this be paid for? A. t * . •* • •• — • .v'i'ir**** ^ • *. *jr •y>wo^»« . . i:; *."". •; .* I •#* • t asked A1 Olson, City Planner, if the City would treat it as • public Improvement project, do the work, and assess it back against the benefiting properties. Ne said this aright be difficult, but tlMt:./' the City might want our street eliminated badly anough that they" might do the work. Ha suggested that we at least ask. He thinks the City would really be in favor of the vacation proposal. 1 * • T . • .-i*: .nr. 0. Each of us three property owners pay our shirt In cish. ♦« « w. I. . • • Sumruanf It would, I feel, be good for our three homes to be rid of our street. The val..e of our nomes would incrcu..e by several tines the cost of the project. We could tnen have houses that fit into the life style of Orono. It would be good for us, Orono and Lake Minnetonka. 0 fdlOS H- CAD3 STee-^ AT- ri/Htf 300 rReei/ /iwSHei ■A•ll - • * "" * • ■ ' *\- * V '*T9m ** ^i TO: FROM: DATE: Walter R. Benson Alan P. Olson, Village Planner Febmary 7, 1979 SUBJECT: Scotc'' Pine Lane .n. .tt.eh«l l«for».tton w„ yegardlns hla tentative proposal to vacate scotcn r«i I chink th« Council should coke rubllc not. of thl. ld« with any pertinent* comnents. , , Mt* Marfleld quotes tae incorrectly. On1 vould note that Martina q regarding the about January 30. 1979 Mr. Marfle taatter. In response to his 9«e»tlon, but that the might In fact look favorably on a ^jcatlo^ City would moat p^lva^e developers to pay Improvement that the City ri^^ioualy done such work on an costs and that the ►oid that he cotild make such a request assessment basis. ”® likely this would not be approved, of the Cotmcll, but that most y ^,jg5jnent policy. The Council mey «nt « co”"'"' d" ^ vt \ime»^4Aid WAS fldvls6cl th^t ^ fonMl I would also note that -r. . ^^nutred. That a hearing nnist be application. Including f^e. is q ire ^ owners must S^ov^-of“1Se wSuld^onslder the proposal. f t: f • (t. r- • V t rr' ii L‘-r- I ;•.fr ** {"* r- r •I. * IT- \ ' ■• « , • • 1- • • fi;: •y.. .• •r*.: •* « • •t#» I.* .. f • I . t .• i av r , ' /V.7 • • I .A* : V *. a. !?: i.. % * I • S’.“fv »•' t \ ^Xr.GULAR MEETIIir. OF THE OHONO COUNCIL, FEBRUAR- - •___I ^Page 23,...,>•,1 their concerns Several neighbors fron unwanted densities.u.^, propo»l.PRD/SUBDIVI? !?*■225 North Fern. . (Contini’ed)ine cuuc .».4w-*- — - T • f»rr.a Herfurth. «S sti’e that would occur with this prop IV’iywr Van Nest: Maybe ?*’°^'^^^^Jg‘^°ile*style proposedU'^Jppropriate here « and to assure that of values,so as not to allow din.inution Issues are: 1. PRD, Conditional ^ses units, possibly seven) 2. variance, to («n.ia.r a»endxn, 3. /attached versus detachea g J code R“1A District)Ci^ae ---------------- - 11 nv*« to present our reasons to Jim Bruce* We would like to p variances to the City. Mayor Van Nest moved, J^J*^?25*NorS Ferndale, 2S^ ^u..t ?' Motion, until further infonna.ion . ^ Ayes (3) - Nays (0). - - -• his letter of January SCOTCH PIUS Xietter “ Pages 24-IT Mayor van Heat «’™’'!;'''*,*5ei,'‘?ha°eMt ’ScK to X A petition i; J^«Se^rof-aU property o-ner. ;^CITY S ^ ^ :0F eORONO 475-7357 CITY of OROiVO Potl C(71c« Bcy 66*CotUl MmftmU 5S323• Mvfiio^} Officw On the !\t*orth Shore of Lake \finnrCvrika February 15, 1979 Hr. Sam Karfield 2455 Seoceh Pine Lane Vayzata, Mlnnesoca 55391 Proposed Vacation of Scotch Pine Lane Dear Mr. Marfield: On February 13, 1979, the City Council heard your brief presentation and discussed the relative merits of the proposal. Cautions were also discussed such as agreement among the nclghb>rs, •■•iffency vehicle access and County approval of any new curb cues onto North Shore Drive. Basically, the City is In favor of the proposal providing that the details can be addressed. If you do proceed, your first step will be to arrive at a preferred plan which Is acceptable to all three property owners. The formal application to the City will Involve: e 1. a petition signed by all three owners 2. a plan for physical changes 3. a legal description of the proposed division of rights-of-way (perhaps requiring a survey) 4. an application fee of $100.00 I will be hapvy to meet with you at any reasonable time to review the details of the application and to answer any questions that may arise. Sincerely, iX H I B I T Certificate of £ur~*f for :e%r«»rc«* .*, «h*l*n of tot ■*, «lo<r'< :icoo .cliltlaa i-enoapln County, »*lrj'.<"s«5:e •k ♦4<»l - 5!n' /4o^ ? Lv.*», C> (iti-cLi. cn oil •fio.* %iacd. T .1 -V ' r 4»f ^• ' .................... ^ ■ )^-_r .' - ^C> X / - :.. • I « or Cur»#yi i .-r C'^rtify thAt ! li j ind.^eorrtct rt : J.j'.Jon of i<jMwy^ ! V'.*j .♦: jr. .-rl«i o ^.. •■ • ' 1., .; •• jo Addiii t . ............ -r aU«i '^‘‘ * ■ . - ' : ' drived ^'•1 r*. . * * *tft ^ 4' 1 ■ ■ rrjvi*s»p.t*T( rrcf 'i'-.r• .• , • • ,• :r torcof. ;.. r..>- ; tr. ^vlc i.. .-i.'.uor lict;. No.13295 Lore . ...• V...' -r -.j-o .'LinB«r« ton^ , r lrn» i:.. *-a £rol«; I*" _ 5'’' OtU ; .•.-lV-79 o J Iroi. rer/irr I • •■f • temple ASSOCIATES me; V •■.!v •• • . n*y li, 1919 Mr. SajB Marficld 2455 Scotch Pin* Z.*n* Wayz*tJi« Minnesota 55391 REt Utility Easement Orono/ Mimiasota Dear Mr. Marfialdt In response to your questions concerning the future utilisation of the utility easement east of your property. I have the folloif- ing COfiBBOntSI 1.The easement could accoRBoodate sewer lines servicing the approximate seven acre parcel to the east. With the present two acre lot minimum there could be two additional lots subdivided in this parcel. The low area possibly would require a lift station which could access through the easement and serve the residences on Scotch Pine Lane. 2.easesientialso jCOuld-Hsicoomroodate a water main that would serve..the._resident*-, on Scotch Pine Lane and also . --k extend ito^serve^hthmwproperty:on the east. This..posalbly*;^ii^i^ ryV;,would,permlt-^a^yooping.'^jrof^the water system ' Waterr;maln design. TOiTabove-T^ablil^^ are *d e f*.the development of^aisewecrand water system in t - "f^without a comprehenaive:'*sewer'-and water plan it is di assess ;the actual utilization'^of the easement. Howev appears that the easement could be used for either one or ~v^:^sewer ai^ water... It ie my opinion-that the easement ehoaZd|nei9{P^|Pj||| .•:-,v,>^ba abandoned unlesa it can be shown that future water end design will not require an easement in this area. Sincerely. TEMPLE ASSOCIATES INC. Duane H. Teazle. P.E. DBTibjh 21 May 1979 . *• . \ • • HOWAIO OANltRIN ASSOCUflt;:'' COMaUkTINO Mk^% omt OftovckAMo rcfM»*et5^* Mi««lilCA»Okif» MiNMCiOTA » -'k'-'af • City Council, City of OrofW KUi'. John Shardlcw <■ ‘ ..a- rtdIKra. Nhalaa, Lot 3. Block 1, ^ ':^r"r* *. - * - t. a Varianc*. Koquested by Mr. aodlMra. Nhalaa, Lot Olctan Addition. for.tha<P jthair Front Yard .i-'v-«»• ■ of the Counclli-rf y t^ofL.-^^iaBln^.Pool.ia:^>^. . **• >^ 1 ‘ \ ^ V<l^ .- *i ’>** >T.‘* ^tir»'• ' '<1,:->rr V"'* 'v.. fhaaa recently been asked'^^S^S^^Uaie^LoMl.iBloek 1. Dicon .tlon to review the above-aantlonadWarianea'-raquoat «Ad advlaa hia - affect on his propertyJjf^Tha MarfJelda aovad to Orono to ^*ka advantage of the quality of Ufa afforded by Orone'a "Batata Araa* and are very concerned about the effect of tha Nhelan's prapoaal on thalr privacy and quiet life atyla. "nia Conprehenslve Plan for the City of Orono which vu pr^parad in 1974 racognized the City's special attractiona and tha apaclal daslrai of Its residents. The estabiishaant of soning diatricta with ganaroos parforaance standards provide the aaans of Insuring that tha goals sxprssssd in the Comprehr isive Plan can be aat. ^tmr reviewing the variance requeat and savarsl of tha unique oh“*cterlatlcs of this plan, we can only coneluda that this varianca as proposed, is detrunental to Mr. Marfield's interests. Csrtsinly one of the major reasons for this conclusion is the inclusion of s public street in the plat. We noticed with interest that this wss the only public street between County Rosd 15 and Bohn's Point and was cleayly ovor-desiqned for servicing these three propartiaa. lha area in which the Oicon Addition is locstsd is currently sonsd for two acre minimum lots with 200 foot ainlaia lot widths. Although none of the lota in the Oicon Addition confora to the rsgulrsd parforsMnea standards, we were unable to find any indication that tha City Intended to vary from the purpose and/or intent of tha LR-IA District in approving this plat. Consequently, wo can only coneluda that tha required nlnimum pcrforvance standards in this District should be applied to these lots, with the Indus-on of Scotch Plaa Lana in thla w - » » \r • \rn.4m rr- r. ' t ► V i. • .•* r; .#r % •. «» • r'». r • - . ^ •X- > v • ' .* •> *«♦ - 4 «<fc •■ 4 . —.*. _ • ^ * 4 « f ^ • • .♦ TOi City CeoBcil* City 9t Crooo f«9« Ttib t4 I i;$ . pL»t thm pool propoood on tho Vholon prcparey wiU bo locotod is. tta roquixad front yard «ro«. Tho roquoatod variaoco la, tborafoiro, act in » kooping with tho intone and purpoao of cho zoning dir^xlct in «tticb it im propoMda t - :t is tho axproaaod fooling of tho Karfialda t^Jlt a public stroit i« ,, not ooodod to aorvica thaao thraa lota. Xa tho City is a«sro« ho has,.; propoood that this atraat bo vacatod, tho black top raaovod« and tha araa laxgoly raforaatod. if tho whalana wars to agrao to this vaeatioa# thars would bo no nood for a varianca to locata thoir pool whora tbsy , ‘ currantly propooa to. Howovar. os long aa Scotch Pins Lana rMSiaa a public atraat, tho Marfialda wi 11 activaly oppoaa any varianca frca tha raquirod front yard satback for tha location of a private swiaBUng pool, Thars is auffieimt araa in tha Whalan'a back yard to locata a pool and aa long as Scotch Pino Lana raaaina, thi* ia tha appropriata loeatioa- for a privata pool. . • If Scotch Pina Lana is vacatod and tho po l la locatod wharo it is c'jrrantly propoaad, it should bo approprxatul.- » raanod froM Viaw and sufficiently foneod fer aafaty purpoaas. Wa thank you for tha opportunity to praaaiit this infonsation to you and look forward to , . workix^g with you to achiava a fair aattlcnant of thii problaa. .{ Sincaraly, HOWAS03 0AHLCB2M ASBCCXATSS, ZNC. John ^ -V- y -> o • • . .. tit -'K- Ti •ILv. *; '*4- 5 a-;-;.'*- I r ♦ c w. . » a . \ 'Afo'' t'* -- ; .‘a :.aj ». A a ., • 'r * O • • 'St • • f w • ^ 0*%* . ' I*('.• ' Vv^ • . •».« ft V a A a ;v: . iV •t a »: ~,#478 "ti 'Vi; L.J. VhAlmirr‘ »• *r^ » 2433 Seoedi- Fin* lum« .t=. - Condltleiuil 0i« Fcrsit . ’t. ~ ^ • exhibit 4 '*’i« “«1.« gTAFF ygrg » yxr 30. 1979 ;-'rV 'v*'#478 sld and found no conflict I e- r-* . St*ff located the exiatlag dralnfield and found no conflict with the propoaed location of the pool. Xr. Marfield haa vrittan a Iftter to the applicant atatlng chat he does not oppose the granting of a front yard setback variance for the pool. ^Clty haa not recaivad a copy.) Staff rsrrnisnrli approval of the front yard variance of baaed on the following hardship claims: feat ^ 4 * Vi'- I*.- 1. A location In the rear yard would Involve the raooval of oany trees. 2, Narrowness of lot with 2-acre ^LR-IA^ zoning setback requlremenfa. b:>' >v % Staff recocwenia approval of the 50' utility vacation because it f^i^ves no apparent purpose now or in future plana. The applicant muat furnish proof that the 20' drainage easement la r. *.orded In title of their property (tf Exhibit 8). If there la no such record, a 20' drainage easement must be granted by the Whalens and filed as a condition of Council's approval. £ — a• ‘. ftJLrmrr r •. '1 . ;t ■ :r*^K ■■ ■ '.*?r.i i-r ... i . W.-T- # * • •• . J, m - fj- -a • T^r f:,;. I- V - r:.f: 0^ • H-*. *; vv /.M-'V? ./*. > .4 * * %• - T‘•: IV# .•*■** ** ,, , . ^ , .•*• * •<t'*T —■“ V ** • « • ’ .t V - .; . ■• ' ; • •* ■. ■■•'<tv. ^ V •V*. MlfUTES or A PIANNINC COMMISSIOM MEETING HELD ON JUNE:il, 1979 A • • • - • 4 t.- f * i % i « i*» PAGE 2^'.’* ^ - V,'^•- M ■ * - V'*. .. - * , . 2, PaTToent of park dedication fee on the two new ?ots« 3. Lot E la to be designated as unbulldable. LARRY OSGOOD 365 Willow Drlva:Ife. SUBDIVISION' Public Info. Meetinf Cont. (#437) Kotlon seconded by Hannah. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0),-. Motion. Dsaoed unaninousIV. a-..• ------------------.................................................................................................................................. >eot eh^ PinetLane [S^^SeoMteli^ine''Lane. who had weadon^d^the utility casemencaiy.^«QaifK»^« '7^Luke, 2465'North Shore Drive, t^o **have"no'objection regarding the pool or vacation of the easeoent". Frahn moved to recommend vacation of the 50* utility easement and approval of the 24* front yard variance contingent on: 1. 20* drainage easement must be granted to the City and recorded In the Whalen's title. 2. Pool will be drained by tank truck when required. ed^o«TSanQ*IWe£i^^n»ublic-Rearing • "zra|Dbje^'d:dn?to^o||US 05 P.N. - 8:107P.M. csi^andrME^and*Mrs^^^^^^(M78) i'V; • • • m. ^ • • .1' '•• • % - s • /.• • * ^ a • * Motion seconded by Jabbour. Vote: Ayea (6), Nays (0). Motion passed Itw^nlmnintl v. Mr. Kana Hagen. Ban-Con Corporation, presented a proposed townhouae project (38 units) for Long Lake. The presentation was made because the property abutts a 3.12 acre parcel in Orono. The main discussion pertaining to Orono was that the lake access for the townhouae project could not be provided by the Orono- parcel, aa our zoning would only allow one residential dock serving a principal structure located on that parcel. APPEARANCE Ban-Con Corporation • •' • • ... • >'; - S Vr- * • . ^ •* a e#. .• ;.v * * %• - T‘•: IV# .•*■** ** ,, , . ^ , .•*• * •<t'*T —■“ V ** • « • ’ .t V - .; . ■• ' ; • •* ■. ■■•'<tv. ^ V •V*. MlfUTES or A PIANNINC COMMISSIOM MEETING HELD ON JUNE:il, 1979 A • • • - • 4 t.- f * i % i « i*» PAGE 2^'.’* ^ - V,'^•- M ■ * - V'*. .. - * , . 2, PaTToent of park dedication fee on the two new ?ots« 3. Lot E la to be designated as unbulldable. LARRY OSGOOD 365 Willow Drlva:Ife. SUBDIVISION' Public Info. Meetinf Cont. (#437) Kotlon seconded by Hannah. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0),-. Motion. Dsaoed unaninousIV. a-..• ------------------.................................................................................................................................. >eot eh^ PinetLane [S^^SeoMteli^ine''Lane. who had weadon^d^the utility casemencaiy.^«QaifK»^« '7^Luke, 2465'North Shore Drive, t^o **have"no'objection regarding the pool or vacation of the easeoent". Frahn moved to recommend vacation of the 50* utility easement and approval of the 24* front yard variance contingent on: 1. 20* drainage easement must be granted to the City and recorded In the Whalen's title. 2. Pool will be drained by tank truck when required. ed^o«TSanQ*IWe£i^^n»ublic-Rearing • "zra|Dbje^'d:dn?to^o||US 05 P.N. - 8:107P.M. csi^andrME^and*Mrs^^^^^^(M78) i'V; • • • m. ^ • • .1' '•• • % - s • /.• • * ^ a • * Motion seconded by Jabbour. Vote: Ayea (6), Nays (0). Motion passed Itw^nlmnintl v. Mr. Kana Hagen. Ban-Con Corporation, presented a proposed townhouae project (38 units) for Long Lake. The presentation was made because the property abutts a 3.12 acre parcel in Orono. The main discussion pertaining to Orono was that the lake access for the townhouae project could not be provided by the Orono- parcel, aa our zoning would only allow one residential dock serving a principal structure located on that parcel. APPEARANCE Ban-Con Corporation • •' • • ... • >'; - S Vr- * • . ^ •* a e#. .• ;.v )ki% ' |i jE X H I 3 I T _X ORAXNACC AND VTILITY EASCttENT A 20 foot drainage and utility eaaenent over* under* and aeroas x«ot 3* ABlock l* OXCOir'ADDITION* ^Hennepin County * mnnesota* according 4o the> reeord''d'<v' ■ Iplatr^beingraOX^OJ^eetT«^; jeachfrlde^y.theifolloelngv^ JaaorlA M^Llne tN^Conmeneing^ [atAtliefnoctheaat* comer of •^^JttjoCXaaidtBlock 1; thence ^ anraaaumed’bearing of th*3« degreea 49 minutea |50 saccnds Heat along the aouthaaaterly line of aaid Lot 2 a distance of 30.00 feat; thence South 21 degreea 20 minutes 35 seconds East 70.00 feet to the beginning of the line to be described; thence North 21 degrees 20 minutes 35 seconds West 60.00 feet; thence North 45 degrees 21 minutes 35 seconds Cast 85.00 feet and. there terminating. * I* ‘^inncton.f<A MeCOMBS-KNUrSON ASSOCIATES. INC. ■ •tl Ml 4CM PREPARCO POR' City op Orono I • I ORDINANCE 13S . 2ND SERIES INTERIM ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 462.355, SUBDFVTSION 4, PROHIBnTNG THE GRANTING OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OR OTHER PERMITS .ANT) APPROVAL FOR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS WHICH SERVE THREE OR MORE RESIDENCES. THE cm’ OF ORONO ORD.AINS; Tee Municipal Code of the C:c>' of Oroco is amended by adding Ordinance No. 138 , 2nd Series SECTION 1, Starerr.er.t of Policy . The City Council fmds that the City is presently faced with the potential of applications for private driveways which serve three or more residences. Such aoDiicacions mav anse in the conte.xt of new development or of * A. « rearrangements of e.xisting developments. It appears to the Council that the consequences of allowing such private drives may be undesirable, and may generate future problems for the safety and welfare of the City residents. The Council, therefore, fmds that it is necessary to study the impact of applications under Zonmg codes Section 10.02; 10.03, subd. 8; and 10.60, subd. 16; and of applications which mav also imolicate the Cirv'’s Subdivision Code Sections 11.03; 11.10; 11.32; and 11.33 that would allow such roads. The Council further Hnds that if, as a result cf this study, the land use controls and zoning provisions contained in the city code need to be revised, such revision is a process that cannot be accomplished until a study has been completed and a hearing held. During this period, it is desirable that the Council establish guidelines for the benefit of those who wish to develop properu’ in order to bring about savings of public and private e.xpenditures and to provide the public guidelines to future City action. Since enactment of an amendment to the code would u..doubtedly modify e.xisting regulations concerning permitted land use and zoning performance standards, the granting of preliminar/ approval of subdivision applications or other permits for private driveways ser/ing three or more residences would be contrary to the purpose of the zoning enabling ac:. Minnesota Statutes Section -162.351, et seq. The Council further finds that it woiid be unwise, improper and unjust to allow individual development to occur during this study. Therefore, the Council’s authority to grant preliminary approval to subdivision applications and for private roads and driveways outside of the subdivision context shall not be e.xercised during the limited terms of this Ordinance, e.xcept as provided in Section 5. SECTION 2. Study. Tne Council hereby refers this mitter to the Planting Commission to initiate a study regarding the impiicitions of its current ordinances governing private driveways to seive three or more residences and the potential need for amendments to the city code to implement the results of that smdy. Page 1 of 2 SECTION 3. Resmc::on5 nn rh.g GnntLn^^ nf PrgHmman- Subdivision Approval and Building Permits. No preiirriiiiary subdivision approval shnll be given by the Council for any subdivision or building pemut for ■^r’hich application has not already been made for private driveways to serve three or more residences. SECTION 4. Duration. This Ordinance snail e.xpire on September 11, 1995, without Council action, or it rnay be renealed earlier if the Council determines that the requisite studies have been completed and adopted and the appropriate evaluation and action, including any necessary revisions of the zoning code, have been iinaiized. The duration of this Ordinance may be e.xiended by adoption of a subsequent Ordinance tor a total or not more than 18 additional months. SECTION 5. Variances. The Council may grant a variance to this Ordinance if the Council finds aner careful review of ail the tacts that a proposal is not contrary to the intent of the comprehensive ccmmumr/ management plan, that it is compatible with the zoning and official control amendments being considered by die Cit\', that it does not adversely impact the health, safer/ or welfare of the citizens and that it otherwise meets the requirements of the Orono Citv Code and sute law. SECTION 6. Separability. Everv' section, provision, or pan of this Ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision, or pan; and if any section, provision, or pan thereof or action taken hereunder shall be held invalid, it shall not affect any other section, provision, or pan. SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be published in the THE PIONEER and THE L.\KER and shall be effective irrmediateiy. July .Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on the 24th day of . 1995, cy a vote of ^ ayes and nays. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Hennepin County JL An Equal Opportumcy Employer___________• September 12, 1995 William Toles 2510 Crescent Ridge Road Minnetonka, MN 55343 -M \j I » w w Re: Scotch Pine Lane 0 CSAH 51, Orono SFP ^.4 1995 Bill: As we discussed, Hennepin County will issue a permit for the new private driveway and any necessary revisions to the Scotch Pine Lane approach to Coun«-y State Aid Highway (CSAH) 51. However, the permit cannot be processed until the appropriate municipal actions are enacted regarding the stree* vacation, etc. Upon'achieving all municipal approvals the permit will be expedited. If there are any further questions, please call me at 930-2548. Sincerely, David K. Zetterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator c: Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Sam Marfield, fax 473-236? CKZ/saa Department of Public Works ! 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8496 (612)930-2500 FAX:(612)930-2513 TDD:(612)930-2696 Recjdtd Paper i Hennepin County ^ An Equal Opportunity Employer • September 12, 1995 William Toles 2510 Crescent Ridge Road Minnetonka, MN 55343 Re: Scotch Pine Lane 0 CSAH 51, Orono 4 » w V 1 '4 1995 Bill: As we discussed, Hennepin County will issue a permit for the new private driveway and any necessary revisions to the Scotch Pine Lane approach to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 51. However, the permit cannot be processed until the appropriate municipal actions are enacted regarding the street vacation, etc. Upon'achieving all municipal approvals the permit will be expedited. If there are any further questions, please call me at 930-2548. Sincerely, —■ David K. Zetterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator c: Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Sam Marfield, fax 473-2363 0K27saa Department of Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8496 (612)930-2500 FAX:(612)930-2513 TDD:(612)930-2696 Recycled P<^ 612 473 6392 From ; ntJ^lS G LEUY JR 'PHENTN b. J'6l2 473 6392 Sop. iB~199gr: 4135PH .: «1 3 ' -' 1 . -.t-" NORRIS G.LBVY. .TR. 2425 Northohoro Drive Vaysotii, Nil 5S391 (612) 473 S223 FAX - (612) 473 6392 FACS INI I.TRANSMISSION DATK: f><!ptpiiil)L»p IS, 1995 FAX TO: Cfimmlaplon ilitv »f 0»*ono FAX No.: (Gl?) 473 0510 _________ NIIMHFK OK PACKS: 1 incliiiHuf; cov«r rage Uo: A|»|»l Icrttlon 52065 Scotch iMno liatio To the Plminlnn Comml *-.olon : \/c‘ ore the ubiit.ting tho oubjuct property to Lhe P.ntt anil Hi t! I horcforc OJ-rectly otTccteil. We tavur i.l»c opprovnl of tlii« npplicntloii provliHnc thot the iollewlnu conditions affwliug oiir property nro eatlotlcil: 1) Thot no port of the propoaod driveway loiullnh to tliv Tolcw property nt 2A35 Scotch Kino Lane be clowor than iirtevn foot at o miiiiinnm to our property line aeporutlng tlie two properties. 2) Tliiii nny and nil utility oosewoiito lyliiy within this ftiihject property which extend to our properly line or Into our property remnln tit full force and effect. An Plnted nbove. if Ihoue eoiidltlonn nre notlafled, we fovor your f;riM»tin« npprovnl of tblf« oppllcntlon. C5X oTV>>^ ..X . t t wl* * * V ri. .•••. --v u. ,1 4.' - ... . .. •g.***^*- ------ . ^ ----- • . ........... SEP-18-95 HON 7:24 NS? SUBST/TPANS SVCS DE? FAX NO. 6123306530 P. 02 Northern States Powvr Company 414 Niccifef Matl Minnaapora. MInnoscta 5540M993 Talaphcna (3i2) 330-S500 Sept. 18. 1S95 City of Orono Attn: Michael P. Gaffron 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Vacation of utiltiy easement in Dicon Addition Dear Mr. Gaffron, office of Application #2C6S, a patltlon by Samuel and M Cheryl Hill, and William M. Tolas f««S 7 ^ as donated and dedicated by DiconAddison. NSP s Minnetonka area Distribution personnel have Informed me that NSP has Distribution facilities in the subject area, and will not consent to the vacation of utility easement in Dicon Addition, per Application #2065. Any relocation of NSP Distribution facilities will be at the requester's expense. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sinc^ly, ina OlsorT Asst. Real Estate Rep. 330-5983 cc: Lou Howard M 1 3 TO: FROM: DATE: Chainnan Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator September 12. 1995 SUBJECT: nOQO Cortlen G. Cloutier. 2480 Casco Point Road - Subdivision, Class 1 Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District > LR-IC Pertinent Ordinances Section 11.03, Definition 66(A-2) - Division of propenies previously combined for tax purposes Section 10.22, Subd. 2 Review of Hardcover Lot I Total area = 34.212 square feet 75-250’ setback area = 4,375 square feet - no hardcover recorded 250-500’ setback area = 29,840 square feet Existing = 2,227 square feet or 7.4% Proposed = 4.165 square feet or 13.9% (allowed = 30%) Lots 3 and 4 (remaining homestead parcel) Total area = 54,182 square feet 0-75’ setback area = 14, 238 square feet Allowed = 0 Existing = 1,122 square feet or 7.8% 75-250’ setback area = 31,685 square feet Existing = 3,547 square feet or 11.1% (allowed 25%) 1 Zoning File #2000 September 12, 1995 250-500 ’ setback area - 8,259 square feet Existing = 2,019 square feet or 24% Allowed = 30% Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B) Lot standards for the LR-IC zoning district Review of Lot 1 A. Area required = 21,780 square feet Existing = 34,215 square feet B. Lot width required = 100 feet C. Existing = 200 feet Setbacks - Proposed residence meets all required setbacks 30 ’ front and rear, 10 side Review of Homestead Parcel (Lots 3 and 4) A. Required = 21,780 square feet Existing = 54,182 square feet B. Lot width required = 100 feet Existing = 182.65’ Section 10.03 Subd 6B- Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited B. Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited. No platted road or road easement, which results in any segment thereof being less than the minimum acreage required for that zoning district, shall be allowed to be I Jt'. aHlWI -■ Zoning File #2000 September 12, 1995 combined with any separated parcel of land across the road for purposes of qualifying under the minimum acreage, open space, required yard, setback or sanitary or septic system requirements, nor shall building or density credits be credited or transferred between such parcels under any provisions of this Chapter. Each separate parcel must individually conform to the provisions of this Chapter in connection with construction of improvements thereon. Pertinent exhibits from original agenda packet. Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat map Exhibit C - Cenificate of mailing, property list, second notice Exhibit E 1-2 - Sewer and water as-builts - Original plat of Tillson ’s Villa Carman Addition filed 12/62 - Topographic map of property - location of existing access drives Exhibit K - Survey Current Exhibits Exhibit L - Planning Commission minutes of March 20, 1995 Exhibit M - Planning Commission action notice 3/28/95 Zoning File #2000 September 12, 1995 Exhibit N Exhibit O Exhibit P Exhibit Q Exhibit R Exhibit S - Cloutier to Barrett letter April 12, 1995 - Barrett to Cloutier lener April 20, 1995 - Cloutier to Barrett letter June 27, 1995 - Barrett to Cloutier letter June 28, 1995 - Cloutier to Orono staff letter August 28, 1995 - Original staff memo for March 20, 1995 meeting of the Planning Commission Status of Application At the March 20th meeting of the Planning Commission, applicant asked to table all review of the simple division application to allow applicant additional time to review other issues raised with the possible subdivision of Lot 3 from the original homestead parcel. Lot 4. It is also the obligation of the city to advise the applicant of all code issues that may impact this property with the division of one of the three lots now legally combined as one. Many of the issues raised by both staff and Planning Commission members with the future division of Lot 3 are no longer a concern for applicant as he will remain the owner of Lots 3 and 4 and his son wUl own Lot 1. If Lot 3 is to be divided at some fumre date, based on the standards of the code at that time, the applicant’s son may be asked to join in that subdivision if needed. Exhibits N through R, the leners between the City Attorney and applicant have been enclosed for your information. The concern of the applicant was the issue of legal combination of the Zoning File #2000 September 12, 1995 properties completed sometime in 1972. Applicant has no record of asking for this legal combination and claims no benefit. He noies now all the problems created for him with the legal combination for Lot 1 as an independent lot satisties all current code standards. Applicant had advised his main goal is to obtain a building permit for his son’s new residence. The ow’nership of the property will remain in the family and if the properties are to be further divided in the future, the applicant has been made fully aware that a future subdivision will be subject to the code standards in effect at that time. Review Exhibit R, - the applicant has asked the city to reschedule the original simple subdivision application before the city ’s Planning Commission. Members may wish to review Exhibit S, the original staff memo that provides the background on this property and code issues. The total property was assessed two water units and the homestead parcel one sewer unit. A new sewer connection charge will be required for the new residence. The rate per the 1995 Fee Schedule is $1,284.50 plus a ser%'ice availability charge of $850.00. Access to Lot 1 will continue to be provided via the existing drive at Casco Point Road which currently serves the principal struemre on combined Lots 3 and 4. The current plan shows the southeastern portion of the drive being removed. Applicant in recent discussions asked if roadway could remain in place and continue to serve his residence on Lots 3 and 4. An access Zoning File #2000 September 12, 1995 easement in that location would divide Lot 1 in half. The code would require a contiguous 1/2 acre for the building envelope, the code would ask that the area of the dnveway casement be excluded from the lot area and the easement would divide the required 1/2 acre building envelope. The access at Frederick Street that serves the existing homestead encroaches slightly within Lot 1. If the drive is not relocated, an easement should be taken over that portion of Lot 1 and be granted in favor of Lots 3 and 4. The location of this easement would not impact Lot I’s building envelope nor lot area. (Total lot area 34,212 square feet) Applicant also advised the Planning Commission at the March meeting that sewer and water service to the homestead residence is served via Frederick Street. The staff asks that this be shown on the survey to be presented to Council for their final action. Issues that remain for simple division for Lot 1 1 Access - Applicant should advise if current drive that serves homestead on Lots 3 and 5 k o-1 ^4 is to be removed or sh«« an easement IQ be created over the portion that encroaches Lot 1. 2. If there is a disclaimer in the resolution approving the division that states an access Zoning File #2000 September 12, 1995 easement could never be created over the driveway that currently serves both Lot 1 and the homestead parcel in favor of Lots 3 and 4, would Planning Commission members approve the informal use of this driveway while both father and son own the properties. Planning Commission should provide direction for applicant on this issue. 3. Park Fee - In discussions with the City Attorney he advises that in dealing with lots of record that unless there is an amendment of the park fee ordinance that the city can not ask for a park fee or land dedication. The city' has no legal right under the current code to ask for park dedications with lot area variances for undeveloped lots of record. The city had collected such fees until advised by City Attorney that the code did not authorize this action. 4.In light of the dispute between the city and the applicant with respect to the status of the land he seeks to subdivide, staff has asked the City Attorney to provide language that will memorialize or set the record straight as to both applicant and the city regarding this simple division. The division that will divide Lot 1 from Lots 3 and 4, Tillsons Villa Carman. The following language shall be incorporated in the subdivision resolution that will be signed by both the city and Mr. Cloutier, as applicant: In the course of this subdivision application, it became apparent that Mr. Cloutier and the city disagree about the status of the land which is being subdivided Zoning File #2000 September 12, 1995 herein. The city takes the position that the land being subdivided by this application had been combined into a single lot. Mr. Cloutier takes the position that the land combination was not authorized by him, that the land has never been legally combined and that the lots created by the subdivision previous to the combination are still in existence. The city has made clear to Mr. Cloutier its view that this and any future subdivisions need to be made consistent witli the zoning regulations in place at the time of the subdivision application, and that it will not recognize the lots as they existed previous to the combination. Mr. Cloutier disagrees, but has determined to proceed with this subdivision, recognizing that the lots created hereby are not, in the city’s view, subject to further division without a subsequent approved subdivision application. 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission or any neighbors notified of this second review. Staff Recommendation To approve the simple subdivision application of Cortlen Cloutier that seeks to divide Lot 1 from Lots 3, 4 and the Outlot 1 of Tillson’s Villa Carman finding all current standards of the LR-IC zoning district have been met and all pertinent standards of the subdivision regulations for a Class 1 subdivision. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 8 Zoning File #2000 September 12, 1995 1. Upon application for a building permit for new residence on Lx>t 1, applicant shall I make payment to the city for a sewer connection charge of $1,284.50 based on current 1995 Fee Schedule plus the service availability charge of $850.00. Prior to scheduling the application before the Council, applicant is asked to provide an updated survey locating sewer and water service at Frederick Street. 3. Final resolve by applicant concerning dedication of easement for Frederick Street access drive that encroaches Lot 1. 4. Planning Commission’s final resolve concerning the access drive that serves fumre residence on Lot 1 and its extension into Lot 3 and 4. Will it be allowed to remain as long as father and son own property and it is made clear in the resolution that an access easement may never be created or granted in favor of Lots 3 and 4. 5. Applicant understands that he will be asked to sign off on a resolution with the disclaimer drafted by City Attorney as set forth in Issue 4 above. 6. Others recommended by Planning Commission. CITY OF ORCT^O --SL^DIMSTON APPLICATION 0 PROPERTY LOCATION 'PrAD>\:^yj-AT7^JJlAi,>3'^'-*Cr/ Site address C dA:i(C Tl-Air- , ^^ Propeny Identification Number rPIDI ^ ---------tS—S'Property Identification Number (P^~>- Please check one - Property /^^abstraci or/ Attach legal description to application. torrens? .APPLICANT_____ ^ n jAU-nc'Z.Name 0. <-'iTri^ Q- C i-i, i-// / c. C/ Af7Address .. ---------------^ Citv LVA / Phone (home /^/^y'^*^^^**^ Zip ^5':?^/ Plione C^crk) OWTsTR (if different than applicant) Name C'L',?nt^\ C- C 4. dV/ p(=> /2-, 7/2-. (attach list ^f,iijp^rejf^n g}e)^-^•^r7^/'Z c ‘X EXISTE n G land use Number of Tax Parcels L------- Development Size j-S___ Acres Dry Land O Acres Wet Land .Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units________ Other (specify)_________ ^•3 Present use (check) Present Zoning District / £jL.^i ! A I PROPOSAL ^ Division for Tax ’ rposes ............ ^ " ^ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building SuCS Number of"Building Sites f— E.xisting Units / 5? New Umts ■7^>C- 3^ Total Units 0'^ • r»f V c C - * * - - • . J . — . w- w V „ . . .*» 2' .- v $ mm m ^ 2 w' V a w'A *- 1- .’.* . •- ; — •*■^A -Oli proposed Gross Density _Lj.____Units per Acres MitLum Lot Size ' Sq. Ft. D17 BuUdable Land/.. ^ .. Proposed L-se (checW -----^ “pacify)_______ 9^2* c ILA tVX ’UT7D 4 c1'a£.^ 10 ^Ujuj- l3cl MlNI>nJM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees* listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Cenificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’ (} OU must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to thi< application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official’s Signature______________________________________ Dale______________________________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official’s Signature________________________________________Date I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check (XI those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I. II & III) S2(X).00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement S300.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) S3(X).(X) Preliminary Subdivision Application $325.00 + S25.(X)/lot (Class III St all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) SI75.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only S75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determmed per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class 1 and II Subdivision Application S 150.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class HI. Preliminary Subdivision Application S150.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application S 100.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: Proposed Private Roads S600.(X) + S.50/lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. .t .50 = S______ _____ Proposed Public Roads S900.00 -i- $.50/lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 * $______ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road S900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension S250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + S25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 On-Site System. Site Ev^uation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) S50.00/new lot proposed for on-site x_____new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees ______ Variance S200.(X) Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $75.00 PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit Totals The applicant hereby agrees to [^ide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator. City Engmeer City Attorney. Planning pessary application and further agrees to pay all addittonal fees established by ordina^e.^^ /O Applicant’s Sigioatore ------LetH Owner’s Signamre 7^ Applicant must have all submittals inrfrl^ City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission tneej&g. Planning Coi^ssion meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Plannmg Commission r.id Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. -15/PLAT’00)^ H ^_roc 1.-Q SHOR B lIN^ -D R-^v («) (28)^ 'K T3 \% ,v ’ ~ ^ »VA-' ^ ^ '«>/ r uo ^ * N 140 *( 23)*40 n *^l ^ 9(M) * a.-'-».:.t» 140 X \ t40 a ^ (22)i ^ lAO N 1*0 il '<> 1^ 9^ (20 S ’ O \ '*'5 Ss '*'’ ^ 9^ f ^ (14) ^ ’7 ^ ^’ (20) ;5 s (15) - ^ ^ S 140 ^ 'f s ‘40 s ’* ,s 140 ^ *® 9V M6) r> o ^'*0' 19)140 A ~'^l oXC «*0 I93?<?3 8 »?9 ^ - ^ (50) '*•gl/ ounoT A 91 M(») 4> • • % *■ ~'7/:'p^/:'’>yT. * * OC ‘O ?9314C4 "’•^NS • \ •m JI'J 1 2 «?vi5 rc»^o prtceSS 6 CERTIFICATE OP MAILING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS. ) CITY OF ORONO ) I, Jamie Bosma, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #2000, was mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal RUK DATI n/l^fS DATCN 502 POOP ADDO 0NN20 NAME TAXPAYEO NAME/ADDO c SO 20-117-2S 12 0009 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED DAVID A BUTLER DAVID A BUTLER 4475 HIGHHAY 12 CNASKA MN 55318 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INTOk lATlQN SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 36 20-117-23 12 0010 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIONED DAVID A BUTLER DAVID A BUTLER 4475 HIGHHAY 12 CHASKA HN 55316 REPORT NO. PI455401 PAGE a 36 20-117-23 12 0012 02431 CARMAN ST JALMAR I AUNE A NIFE JALMAR E i GLADYS V AUNE 2431 CARMAN ST HAYZATA HN 55391 r . V # 1 PRW AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 36 20-117-23 12 0013 02443 CARMAN ST DIANE H FISCHER DIANE FISCHER 2443 CARMEN ST HAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 12 0014 02447 CARMAN ST T A ANDERSON A S L ANDERSON TERRY A A SHARI L ANDERSON 2447 CARMAN ST ORONO MN 55391 36 20-117-23 12 0015 02455 CARMAN ST J E SNELL ACE SNELL JOHN E A CLARA E SNELL 401 HOOSTER ST LOOI OH 44254 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 20-117-23 12 0014 02449 CARMAN ST BANK OF AMERICA TRUSTEE THOMAS A LINO 2470 CARMAN ST HAYZATA MN 55591 36 20-117-23 12 0017 03555 FREDERICK ST H F A P M ANDERSEN HILBUR F ANDERSEN 3555 FREDERICK ST NAYZATA MN 55341 36 20-117-23 12 0016 03545 FREDERICK ST JOHN S MCLEOD JOHN S MCLEOD 3545 FREDERICK ST NAYZATA MN 55391 .V- PROP ADDR CRtlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OltlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 36 20-117-23 12 0019 03560 FREDERICK ST L Y NENTON ET AL TRUSTEES BRUCE 0 NEKTON 3560 FREDERICK ST HAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 12 0022 02426 CASCO POINT RD S P J SKORO STEPHEN J ft JEAN K SKORO 2428 CASCO PT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 12 0050 00038 ADDRESS Ur4ASSIGt4ED HARO E EDHARDS ET AL RICHARD A EDMARDS 2460 CARMAN ST HAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 12 0020 02474 CASCO POINT RO LYLE A BUERKLE ETAL LYLE A BL>ERKLE 2474 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 12 0023 02406 CASCO POINT RD T 0 MICHAUD ft C L MICHAUD THOMAS D MICHAUD • CARRIE L MICHAUD 2408 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 12 0059 02450 CARMAN ST R C KUNCIO ft S E RALEIGH R C KUNCIO ft S E RALEIGH 2450 CARMAN ST HAYZATA MN 553^1 36 20-117-23 12 0021 02454 CASCO POINT RD J C ROBERTS ft J i ROBERTS JOHN C ft JANET E ROBERTS 2454 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 12 0025 03565 FREDERICK ST J D PUGH ft J A JOHNSON J D PUGH ft J A JOHNSON 3565 FREDERICK ST HAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 12 0040 02470 CARMAN ST T A ft 0 K LINO THOMAS A LIND 2470 CARMAN ST NAYZATA MN 55391 '11> % » i *. • 1 J ! . I ‘ 1^. • ’’ 1 * '• ,» f ♦ Isfl DATE 02/1A/9SAATCH 502 HEMCPIN COUNTY POOOCRTY INFOONATXON SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST ^R(» AOOR OMNER NAME TA)(PAYER NAHE/AOOR 50 20-117-25 21 0010 02500 CASCO POINT RO NORMAN H PAURUS ETAL NORMAN H A IRJA F PAURUS 2500 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55S91 PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 50 20-117-25 21 OOIA 02550 CASCO POINT RO T CHALUPSKY A 0 Y CHALUPSKY T CHALUPSKY A 0 Y CHALUPSKY 2550 CASCO POINT RO ORONO MN SS59A PROP AOOR ,0»t«R NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 50 20-117-25 21 0017 02520 CASCO POINT RD THOMAS H FRAHH ETAL THOMAS H FRAHM 2520 CASCO POINT ROAD NAYZATA MN 55551 PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 50 20-117-25 21 0020 05AOS SHORELINE OR N N SELL TELEPHONE CO US NEST INC TAX OEPT ATTN KLAUS COX A500 S SYRACUSE NAY STE EN6ELN000 CO 00111 700 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR TOTAL BATCH 502 00050 REPORT NO. PIA55A01PACE 5 wV. •/ ij• - V 38 tO-117-23 0012 00038 A008CSS UNASSIGNCD HARIS A SVANQ HARIS A SVAN6 AlAO IITM AVS S HRIS HN 55^07 38 20-117-23 21 0013 00038 AOORSSS UNA3SI0NS0 HllDRSO S NSRHAMSON HUORSO S HSRHANSON 4120 tORSH DRIVS HRLS HN 55417 i r i 38 20-117-23 21 0015 .02528 CASCO POINT RO HARIS A SVANC HARIS A SVANG 4140 IITM AVS S lO’lS m 55407 38 20-117-23 21 0014 02510 CASCO POINT RO HUGH R HORRIS STAL NUm R HORRIS 2510 CASCO PT RO NAYZATA HN 55341 r w 38 20-117-23 21 0022 00038 AOORSSS UNASSIGNSO VIL Of ORONO CITY Of ORONO PO BOX 44 CRYSTAL 8AY MN 55354 38 20-117-23 21 0025 03745 SN0RSIIN8 DR m SNG LUTt( SYNOD 6000 SNSPHSRO LUTN CHURCH 3745 SHORSLIM DRIVS NAYZATA MN 55341 ' f* V . > ^ a i ♦ r ■ •/* i '•V. . < 5B 20-117-25 21 0025 05507 SHORELINE OR F J NACNER t M L NAGNER TRST FRANK J NAGNER 1522 ROMONA LA BOULDER CITY NV B500S 50 20-117-25 21 0055 05701 SHORELINE OR CASCO RUN LTD PTNRSHP CASCO RUN LTO PTNRSHP C/0 LISABETN C CREAR BOX 12* MlNNETOliU BEACH HN 9S551 •i ■ ' 20-117-23-21-0036/0037 pending Cortlen G Cloutier Jr Cortlen G Cloutier Jr 2480 Casco Point Rd Wayzata MN 55391 .1 %" ■'i s# * ^ * I • t. I -■ . ,*•' . • •• if < •» . > RUN DATE 9Z/U/9S MTCN SOZ NEMCPIN COUNTY MORfRTY INFOmUTION SYSTCH niQKSTY OWCRS LIST REPORT NO. RI4S5491 PAR 10 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXAUON, TO THE REST OF HY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATE Z-n-K. i ¥■• • I \i *>• :* ■ ‘t{I i. f « 1 f * • * . •* .•. *• •. • .• .* . ( CITY OF ORONO NOTICE P.O. Box 66 2780 Kelley Parkway Crystal Bay,' MN 55323 Phone 473-7357 Fax 473-0510 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING SUBDIVISION APPLICATION #2000 COURTLAND G. CLOUTIER. 2480 CASCO POINT ROAD The applicant hai asked the City to reschedule his Class I subdivision application before the Planning Commission at their September 18, 1995 meeting. The application involves the division of a previously platted .7 acre parcel from applicant’s adjacent homestead parcel originally combined for tax purposes. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this meeting. Written comments are solicited. Plans are available for review although there is no change from the original request submitted by applicant at the March 20. 1995 meeting of the Planning Commission. CITY OF ORONO ./Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator \Tl ! •i. . # •i * • ^ \ * 11 • * . ;• * (29)(28)&s yi \ ‘iQK > ■?,I4Q ; r~ % *_ fi .1 ■■••*’ ¥mm 1 llf I ‘' ■ ■ ■%‘^•;f--i-" V ■ \. ■ .\-J><’*V '.^- I : Ji • « * " . If . % '•'yr^ ^ ^ f> '}jr ✓ V • .>. f • ‘X ' * ‘^.1 - : -jr -. .^ ’t -■r-; » . ?■*. - • i i» < y • - . • fi kixr^r-^^ ^ V* ■ 7 '. I - -% f!S^®p:-^: •'T' ■ m '■ E^ i'-.n-r-r • . * • » ♦ « » m wmm L^: - V ffit. '• *«i>r ..Mdsv-‘i Ir' •■•■■ ' V • • ^ •l» •» . V »5.< >'* ‘V • - ' . ..f^4^^‘if *>*'•'* *♦ ' 'i.;v * r -r^ I * . ^ »• 4 / ' . V. *. ... / ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINI TES FOR \L\RCH 20, 1995 L- ROLL The Orooo Planning Commission met on the above date with the follOT^g mrabers present: Chair Charles Schroeder. Stephen Peterson. Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist. Candace Rowlette. Charles Nolan, Jr„ and Janice Berg. Budding and Zomng Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Shcrr>' Frost reprinted St^ Councilmembers Jabbour and Goetten were present. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION sMEETING 7 00 P.aM. fl*2000 CORTLEN G. CLOUTIER, 2480 CASCO POINT ROAD - PRELLMINARY SUBDFNTSION. CLASS I - PUBLIC HEARING 7:00-7:53 P.aM, 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 outlot 1, which is a type 1 classification of subdivision. These lots wwe ongina y combined for tax purposes. The appUcant is asking for a division of Lot L which meets all requirements. The issue is access. The existing access wiU serve lot 1. The access (Ttrently serves the homestead parcel. The drive would be altered to onty serve lot I, and the homestead parcel (combined lots 3 and 4) wiU be senred by existing dnve at Fredcnck Street When the land was subdivided, an outlot (20' wide) was created within the T^n Villa Carman subdivision. Lots 1-4 could gain access from the road outlot and lot 5 from Frederick Street. Today, lot 2 achieves access from outlot and combined lots 1, 3, and 4 from direct accesses at Casco Point Road and Frederick Street. At this time, Mabusth commented that it was important to determine what are the future plans for the lots; mainly, if there would be a future division of lots 3 and 4. ^e new lots must meet requirements of cuirent code and provide approved legal access, pere is adequate area to subdivide lots 1, 3, and 4. The required area for each lot wiU d^end on whether the lot will achieve access via a private road or driveway outlot. Lot 1 has access from Casco Point Road from an existing approved curb cut. Lot 4 has an existmg 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 U- located and shown on survey. The location for the water conneaion for the original house ts unknown The sewer may come from Casco Point Road. There may be a need for an casement depending on their locations. A municipal sewer line intersects lor 4 at the northwest comer. The City would ask for an easement over the sewer line. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION 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 tor lots 3 and 4. He reponed that he purchased 4 lots in 1965 The property was platted with a roadway on outlot 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 otf of Frederick Street The applicant said that the outlot 1 roadway has existed tor over 30 vears The driveway he created has been used for less than 30 vears 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 family. Mr. Cloutier said he called the County tax division in 1967 and asked tor 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 were to be div.ded 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 pa't that it would have to be allowed to be so again. Rowlette suggested having the city attorney peruse the situation to eliminate a problem with subdivision in the future Wilbur Anderson of 3555 t^rederick Street asked how the lots were declared for sewer and water hook-up. Mabusth responded that the property has been assessed for 2 water unhs but with this sewer project, oy lineal footage jilong the roads were assessed. John Erickson, 1620 Shad>wood Road, who owned two lots on Shadywood, which his parents had since 1941, said that people were asked at that time if they wanted one or two tax statements if they had two lots. He reported that he has one statement but owns two lots with two sewer stubs Mabusth agreed that their land use planning was not consistent when sewer and water stubs were given out to properties. Schroeder noted that 3 sewer hookups would be needed if the lots were subdivided. Mr. Cloutier said that the house located on lot 4 is not hooked up on Casco Pt but hooked up through Frederick Street. When Casco sewer was installed, he had been asked where he would like the sewer stubbed in. There is a sewer stub to serve lot 1 at Casco Point Road. An easement runs through lot 1 for lot 3 for both ingress/egress and utilities. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANTSING COMNflSSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#1 - #2000 - Cortlen Cloutier - Continued) If the lots have been combined, which Mabusth verifies that they hav^ indeed b^ combined, then the Planning Commiaaion would have to detemune the size of the lots for subdivision and how access would be provided, Rowiette questioned whether lot a should treated as an already designated lot or not. Mr Paurus asked about the boathouse located on the property. He repotted that « '>'«* old and unsafe and needs to either be repaired or removed, Schroeder respond^ that this application does no. apply to the boathouse but did ask the applies, what «« for the future of the boathouse. Mr Cloutier reported that te wished to rehabOitate the boathouse He had installed a 3-season porch on top of the boathouse and said he had thought he had been giver, verbal approval to do so by the building inspector a. that nme. Mabusth said that the permit on file was given for a single story boathouse only. Rowiette informed the applicant of the City’s desire to have .» sm.«u«s « zone If die boathouse is to be repaired, and the cost would \k more than 50-/. of tte value of the boathouse at the time of the 1975 code, the boathouse must be removed. No repairs C3n be done v^ithout 21 pemiit. Rowiette said she would like to have the city attorney’s opinion on whethw ttoe would be anv rights grandfathered to the property if it had been legally combmed Mabus* remolded to the negative saying that the current code would apply to the L^quUt agreed rhat any further division of lots 3 and 4. once lot 1 was approved for subdivision, would have to foUow the current codes. Nolan reiterated to the appUcant that if he desires any future di^n of I®'*' conunission needs to see the plan a. this time. Clouner responded that ‘>0 be concerned wiUi future division at this time, only the one >ot as emphasized that the present plan for lot I could mean that lot 3 would subdivided in the future because of the issue of access and would subject “ standards. The commission members suggested to the awheant th« he come back before the commission with an amended application with plans for all the lots. Mabusth said, once again, that the subdivision could be done with a simple metes and bounds subdivision. Mabusth put the appUcant on notice that My fimire M^viao v Tu M need a new plat due to the access issue The cunem code may not afiow the division of lots 3 Md 4 at a later date. If the applicMt ’s intemions ue Mythmg the two lot subdivision as stated in the appUcMt, the intenUons of the appUcMt needed to be known at this time. The appUcant said he had no plans at this time but that his children s^d 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 rcplatted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION MEETING HELD ON NLARCH 20. 1995 (#1 - #2000 - Cortlen Cloutier - Continued) Schroder moved, Peterson seconded, to table application #2000. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#2) #1950 GLENN ITTON. 3685 NORTH SHORE DRIVT - VARLANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:53-8:03 P.M. The Applicant, Mr. Upton, was present. The application originated in the summer of 1994 for an increase in hardcover in the 0-75’ setback requiring a variance for a deck. The Planning Commission denied the application. The applicaiu asked to go back to the Planning Commission wth 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 Ust is included as well as a petition from the neighbors which suppon the second proposal. John Erickson asked where the property was located from him. Erickson asked about the garage location, and how the proposal affects the deeded access and the public right-of- way. The original garage is being removed, and the new garage will be attached to the side of the house. The applicant said that the land crossing the public access had been deeded to him by the county. Schroeder said that this issue docs 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’m hardcover in the 0-75’ zone with the remainder of the increase in the 75-250’ zone. He also noted the attempt by the applicMt to meet as many requirements as he could and the large number of hardships pertaining to the application Peterson asked about the status of the survey and side setback. It was determined that the survey had been updated last year with the filing of the current application. Mabusth and the applicant confirmed that the side setback requirement was met with 11.3’. Nolan asked if the applicant was willing to remove the shed and other items located in that area, which the applicant said he would. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve applieznt #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. M CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 •IIIZONING FILE #2i NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 3/28/95 TO: Courtland Cloutier 2480 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: COPIES TO:Brandi Anderson Homes Inc 1602 East Cliff Road Burnsville, MN 55337 Class I Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 3/20 95 VOTE:7 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: The Planning Commission voted to table your subdivision application per applicant’s request providing applicant additional time to consider and review all options available to owner concerning the future division of Lots 1, 3 and 4, Tillson’s Villa Common. As already stated at the meeting, if applicant proposes the division of legally combined parcels into three lots, each lot must conform to the current standards of the mumcipal code. Staff has enclosed many of the pertinent code sections for a property division within the LR-IC, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Staff would be happy to meet with either you or your surveyor to explain the various code sections included with this notice. The City Attorney, Thomas Barrett, has advised that you have been in communication with him and have posed certain questions that he hoped had been resolved for you. In any case, it is our understanding that Mr. Barrett will be preparing a memo to address many of the legal issues raised in your conversation with him. I have enclosed a new subdivision application which includes the schedule for upcoming meetings. If parcels are to be replatted, you will be asked to file a Type III subdivision application. Staff will be happy to credit any of the unused funds from the original application against the new application. Staff would encourage either you or your representative to meet with staff so that we may discuss or answer any questions you may have dealing with the directives of the code and the filing of an amended subdivision application. Enc. Code Sections 1. LR-1C, Lot Standards 2. Definitions Lot Width & Lot Area 3. Subdivision Regulations for Back Lots 4. Subdivision Regulations Private Road Standards /V s\i’ c;)FFf*."n CLOUTIER & CLOUTIER ASsrc^ATioN attoxseys at law :cc MIC'WEST ?LAZA '»EST ,‘c; n :ccuit mall V(l\\tArOU5. MINNESOTA 554CZ UCAL AsSiSTANT* COWTllA O CLCuTitR A. CUCVfn*A nfAwT N rwviCHti ItlCrHONS U7.£ICC TOLL vRi£ :.!v 0.a 7)»..I!U F.A•:^•!MILE <a U) MA-iZLJ JOkIN* K OLCSIfAd ThOMAl *. YHSSlN April i:, l‘^95 HAND DF,Ll\T^RgP Thomas J. Barrett. Esq. POPHAM. H.MK. SCHNOBRICH & KAUF.VL\N, LTD. 3300 Piper Jailray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Miiuieapolis. \IN 55402 RE; City of Orono Application for Building Permit: Lot I. TillAon’s Villa Carman Addition Dear Mr. Biurett: I appreciate the oppommity to express my view to you regarding the application for a building permit for Lot 1 Tillson’s Villa Carmim Addition. Pursuant to the concerns I expressed in our earlier discussion, I have reviewed the applicable City Ordinances and performed extensive research as to the legal aspects ot w/hat 1 understand to be the issues involved. HISTORY Tillson’s Villa Carman .Addition was subdivided into five lots and an outlet in 1962. All lots were approved and recorded as meeting the proper area requirements for buildable lots under the Citv's 1955 Zoning Ordinance. A copy of the Plat is attached. In 1965 I purchased Lots 1,4 and Outlet 1. In 1966 1 purchased Lots 2 and 3. That same year Lot 2 was sold leaving me with my ownership intcre.st in Lots 1, 3. 4 and Outlet 1. In January 1995.1 conveyed Lot 1 to my son. In February 1995, my son requested a permit to build u sincle family dwelling on Lot 1. The City refu.sed to issue a building permit to him, for Lot 1. despite the fact that Lot I meets all current area requirements under Municipal Zoning Ordinance sec. 10.25 (1984). I i Thoinas J. Baneit. Esq. Apnl 12. Pace Two Tlic Cir>’ has required nae to apply for re-subdivision of Lots I, 3. 4 and Outiot 1, betore it will consider issuing a building permit to rny son. Tlie Cit>' has required me to present a current ^ Mirv'cy of Lots 1. 3. 4 and Ovtlot 1, showing hardcover, square feet and dimensions. In an eltort TO avoid the delay and cost of litigation. I have med to comply with the City's demand for re- .suhdivisicn of Lor !. pursu.mt to the City’s iuterprention of its ld84 Zoning Ordinance. All of the Citv’ oftlcials, who have examined the suAey ot Lot I agree that it is in full compliance (as presently platted.) with the requirements of the 1984 Zoning Ordinance. Tlie .ipplication lor re- subdivision of Lot 1, which I was compelled to present to the City, was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting in order to give me time to e'. aluate the appropriateness of anplving for re*subdivision ot Lot 3 and Outlet 1. 1 was advised at the meeting, that if I did not apply tor rc-siibdivision of Lot 3 at the same time as Lot I, I would never be able to do so later, nor could Lot 3 ever be legally eligible for a building pemiit. a PPROPRIATF ORDINAVrE AND .\PPT ICABLE LAW The applicable ordinance governing .irea requirements for building on this type of property is Municipal Zoning Ordinance sec. 10.25 subd.(6)(b)(1984). It designates a minimum lot area requirement of 1/2 acre. The City of Orono has a "grandfather provision" in its Zoning Ordinance. It provides that "If an e.xisting "Lot of Record", in an "R" District, serviced by a sanitary sewer does not meet this and the other minimum requirementx, the lot may be utilized for single family dwelling purposes without council approval if the area measurements and width are within eighty percent (80%) of the Zoning Chapter requirements". .Municipal Zoning Ordinance sec. 10.03 subd.(6X*)(l)* This type of language is meaningless unless construed to "Grandfather" in previously recorded lots that meet the requirement.^. n«v v. Wright County. 391 .N.\V.2d 32 at 34 (Minn. App. 19H6). If the p«irty seeking the permit meets all the standards prescribed in the ordinance, the council has no di.iretion to deny the permit. Its refusal to grant the permit in such circumstances is arbitrary' a.s a matter of law and mandamus will lie to compel the council to grant the permit. llL, 34. Zoning Ordinances are in derogation of the common law and should be construed strictly against the City and in favor of the property owner. LL« ot35. In Hav V Wrifh^ roiintv. a property' owr.er petitioned the Coun to compel the Wright County' Board of Adjusiment.s tn declare his property' a "buildable lot" and grant him a building permit for it. Tlie property owner argued that the Wright County Ordinance on Zoning had a grandfather clau.se. deeming his property buildable by law. The Court found that the propeity ow ner was in full compliance with the ordinance under a grandfather douse and when these standards are met the City Council has no discretion to deny the permit. Ai Thomaa J. Barrett. adh I i:. I‘>'55 * Page Ihrec In my .imation. -Jie Let which is f fis^^uempting to (Lot n. It IS Lot 3 which IS Lot i and add it to Lot 3. making both Lots force me to re-subdrvide in order .0 * ^ .nhdivisions. .According to the Zoning within 100% of the 1 984 requirements *or .new • • ^ Record", within an Ordinance, tliis action is TefS 80^o of the current area requirement. Lot 3, "R" Distnet, sciN iced b\ a ^anita . .-«,oxim'Uclv 95% of the current area in tact meets the current Zdtr the grandfather provision, sec. 10.03 requirement. i Ins makes Lot « u r n/- mniAnctf rcuuirement. According to the subd.(6)(a)( 1 H1984V It explicitly‘ Lot 3 tod.iv. this jrandfathet clause language of this provision^f i ^ ,he commissions insistence that I re-subdivide would alloxv me to do if Theieiore. I c j fo, new subdivisions, is cle.vly a previously subdivided parcel, and adhere t h q fc-subdivision demand even 100% of the current requirements. The planning commission's bufaTone\mpla^^^ parce'* vievv^Lots l,3.4andOutlot 1 as septate " have mentioned the phrase However, nowhere in the Zoning Ordinance or the a reason why the Lots must be re-. nor did I fmd any requirement that Subdivision Ordimince bdivided. The only reference to "previously " \ class I Subdivision shall be exempt from platting by the City and shall be permitted subdivision by metes ana bounds wL described by a Registered Land Surveyor il i. meets one or^more of the following criteria: ....The subdivision is a division of property previously combined tor tax purposes, A cate ful reading of this provision, in context, will “opoirfo :"r‘;'pt u -yX -y ^ ^ misinterpretarion of its Umguage and intenf I believe the City Administration views must would require subdivision for further building. Coumv Assessors office. —b“- - - - w # f Thomas J. Barren, Hsq. April 11. 1995 Pige Four one P.I.D. number for txx purposes. This was done as an administrative benefit so the tax department would cnly need to send cut one tax statemc.m for all propertx' owmed instead of _ multiple statements. Dy no means was dtis intcnccd to change each lots designatmn as a ’lot oi record" or "buildaole lot". Proof of this lies in how each lot :s considered by the Tax Assessor. Each Lot IS listed as a separate buildable lot and is :a.\ed according to its value as a "buildable" Lot. VlTien they are combined, l.here is no change in ta.x consequences. The County .Assessors office supports my claim that its practice of billing tour individually platted lots on one ta.x state.ment. since 1967, ha.s no *cgal cttcct on the lots designation as a "buildable lor. No formal petition or procedure was involved in the four lots being combined and taxed together on one billing statement. Finally, an issue of equity arises since there surely was never any intent to lose my lot of record" designation, which essentially amounts to my future interest to build. It appears our impasse is the result of a misinterpretation and application of the Subdivision Ordinance. I believe you will agree ttu« the proper requirements governing my request to bin d are not found in the Municipal Subdivision Ordinance. Chapter 11, but rather m the Municip^ Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 10. I hope my analysis has been hclpftil for your con.sidcration of this situation. We would welcome an opportunity for lurther discussion to expedite this process of securing a building permit for Lot 1. CGC/tkf P O P H A M H A I K SCMNOSftICM A KAUrMAN, LTD. <«CUU9t«ie l.»w AVACTICI o» Masom , Fenwick * Lawhence . CtrAiLiSMto fSfi U t orvicct OCHv«». Cocovaoo Ttc SCS ttS I 200 Miami. ^ i.9« i O* Tiu a0S-990-OO90 WASMiwarOM. O c TtL 202 924 9000 Suite 3300 222 south Ninth Stacct MiNNEAPOLi*. M.NNftOTA 55402-3336 Tel SI2-333-4S00 • Fax SI2 334-SS88 Thomas J. Sassett , C sq. DisccT Dial (Sll) 3S4-2S7S • WiLtATlOMS; 9XIJIN9. C mimx TtL 01 1991 5199291 LCi'X'C CVWMANT TfL 01 I49-94I-49I9429 TtL 01 149-71 1-22992 April 20. 1995 2 1Cortlen G. Cloutier, Esq. R Cloutier & Cloutier, P.A. 1800 Midwest Plaza West 801 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis. Minnesota SS402 Re: City of Orono - Application for Building Pemut: Lot 1, TIIlson*s Villa Carman Addition Dear Mr. Cloutier Thank you for your letter of April 12. 1995; I have discussed it with Jeanne Mabusth at the Orono City offices, and I wanted to offer you this reply. Your son has made application for a Building Permit on Lot 1, Tillson ’s Villa Carman Addition and the City has responded that a precondition to the permit is a Type I subdivision which would allow you to treat Lot 1 as a freestanding lot The City is willing to allow you to subdivide the area described as Lot 1, but it has raised the cautionary note that if you do so without attention to the remaining areas, which you call Lots 3, 4 and Outlot 1, that you will find it difficult to further subdivide that area. It is the City ’s recommendation that you consider the entire area of Lots 1, 3, 4 and Outlot 1 for subdivision at this time. Your response is a legal argument which is essentially this: the effect of the lot combination which you requested on Lots 1. 3, 4 and OuUot 1. and which the City approved, left the lots subdivided for zoning and planning purposes and therefore able to be independently developed without further subdivision. The City ’s position is that a legal lot combination has the effect of ending the separate legal status of any lots so combined, and that separate development of the lots requires subdivision under its code. 1 have reviewed the language of Orono ’s zoning code at 10.25, subd. (6)(b) and subd. (6)(a)(l). 1 believe that the language speaks to an existing lot of record, and our 0S2/220794SI 4/2(V9S Corilcn G. Cloutier. Esq. AprU 20. 1995 Page -2- disagreement is whether or not Lot 1 is an existing lot of record. It is the City’s position that it is not, since the effect of combination (on any of the other lots combined) has been to create one large lot where several previously existed. It seems likely that the assessor must hold that view as well, since I suspect that the tax impact of holding three lots, two of which are not homesteaded, would be different from holding only one homesteaded lot Further, the City’s previous authorization of a boathouse on the combined property would be inconsistent with its zoning regulations as to accessory structures if the former lots were treated as individual parcels for zoning purposes. Indeed, that is the meaning of the language "combined for tax purposes" in Sec. 11.03(2)(66)(a)(2). The language assumes that simple subdivision will be allowed if the combination had only the effect of combining for tax purposes, and not the further and complicating effect of subsequent development which relied for zoning compliance on the area and characteristics of the combined parcel as a single lot Please let me know if you have further questions. 0 cc:ann? Mabusth 082/220794SI 4/20/93 Law OFFiCkS CLOUTIER &. CLOUTIER ?RwrifS:CMAL AsiCCIATiCN ATTORKBYS AT LAW CCRTVfN 0 CLOUT tUZAMTH A CLOUTiCW KBRMITM fffUCCHTI I^co midwest PL\2A west SCI NICOLLET MALL MISNEAPCUS, MINNESOTA 5i4C2 TELEPHONE (6125 )32-5lCO TOLL TREE ; «CC ST3-2JJ1 FACSIMILE (f!2) ?44.1Z:0 ISCAL ASSISTANTS jolinck cLosotna Thcmas .i ihissEN I June-7, lys>i H4\nnFf TVTprp 4 Thomas J. Barrett, Esq. POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH A Ky\UFMAN, LTD. J300 Piper Jal'tray Tow'cr 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 RE; City of Orono Application for Building Permit: Lot I, Tillson's Villa Carman Addition Dear Mr. Barrett: This is to follow our previous conferences and correspondence with you relative to my son's request for a residential building permit for Lot I, Block 1, Tillson’s Villa Carman Addition. Orono, Minnesota. You will recall diat ray son's application was denied on the grounds that Lot I is not considered a buildable "lot of record" because I allegedly "combined Lots 1, 3, 4 and Oiulot 1 for tax purposes," and our ordinances thereby require re-subdivision. We understand the City in relying on the factual accuracy of the following: 1.That I "combined the lots for tax purpo.scs,'' i.e. I combined my lots and received a real estate tax savings or credit becousc of it. To build on one of the Lots on this previously combined property, 1 must now re-subdi% ide - creating new "Lots of Record" . 3.In re-subdividing the Lot.s, the area rcquircmenli.- of the 1984 subdividing and zoning ordinance must be fully complied with. I homas J. Barren, Esq. June 27. 1995 Page Two I believe we all agree that the important qticstion.s th.it have to be answered ore as tollows: 1. Was there a record that 1 authcr.zed the combination lor tax purposes? 2. Did I receive a tax saving with this alleged combination? I was unable to find any record that I was involved in combining these Lots for tax purposes or any other purposes. Instead of relying on my memory, I contacted the City of Orono Assessor’s Office, the Hennepin County Assessor’s Office and the Hennepin County Tax Payers Service Office to see if there is some sort of record that would support the claim that I requested a combination of my Lots for tax purposes. They all reported that no such document exists. In addition, the City of Orono Assessor’s Office, who is verv- familiar with this propeny and our dispute believed that a combination of property of this size and value would not be wise. I agree. This has been my position. Why would I ever wish to lose a ’’lot or record" designation and essentially lose the potential value of my lots as biiildable lots without something of value in return? The City has suggested that I was motivated to combine the lo*.s because I received some tax benefit from combination, i.e.. that the "combination was for tax purposes.’’! have searched tlirough my records for the last 30 years and located most of my real e.state tax statements for that period. They clearly show that there was no tax savings to me, afrer my lots were allegedly combined. I was receiving the maximum homestead tax credit against the real estate taxes charged against Lot 4. on which my personal residence is located. The real estate tax credit for the owner of a homestead in .Minnesota in 1965, w hen 1 purchased my homestead on Lot 4, was the lesser of 25% of the general tax or $250.00. The homestead tax credit remained the same until 1974 when the credit was increased to S325.00. Since the general tax on Lot 4 has always been over $1,000.00, while I have owned the property from 1965 through 1973 (in 1972 the general tax on Lot 4 was $1,201.25). I was always entitled to and received the maximum homestead tax credit of $250.00 every' year without a combination of my lots. That was also true after 1974 when the homestead tax credit was increased to a maximum of $325 00, and in 1980 when the credit was raised to $550.00, and when subsequent increases were made in the amount of the homestead credit. There was no economic reason for me to request combination of my Lots into a larger homestead, because increasing the aggregate market value, aggregate assessed value, and aggregate general tax did not entitle me to a larger homestead tax credit. There was no advantage to me to combine the lots for real estate tax purposes, and there was no disadvantage to the City if I had combined the lots. Thomas J. Barrett, Esq. June 27,1995 Page Three receiving ci Sa.50.00 homes.eaa lax cr—a .u; l- tVip ncurecatc homestead tax credit was not changea a-om S25n.00, iO a lugner combination. Copies of my P.r.insn, rool osmt. tax statomoms are attached for yom review. The statements that arc missing can be located if needed. . hop. from your revtew of this new — its requirements arc creating great inequity u trvinc to satisfy the City’s demands about $3,000.00 to $4,000.00 for surveys and other 8^^^ losVbecause'of the delay, for a permit. A favorable mortgage I would like to avoid litigation which will amount to thousands over the term of the mo g p„ .his mart.., but no. ar .he expej.. ZZ on an \^v “^rh^ve dtis m»rt« placed before the City Counc.l as soon a, possible “ v^^^be no iss« as <o whether I h,av. exhausted all of my admims.rauv. rem.ed.es available to me. Thank you for your consideration and assistance with this matter. Very truly yours. CGC/tkf Enclosures !w/ \ r Pc PHAM H A1 K SCHNOSAICH ft K^^UFMAN, LTO. •^C;.w9'«« C*«» •••€▼>€■ O* MASOM, FCMWICK ft LAWflCNCl, CtTAftLtSHtO IftftI 6' u s om<* L t 4 T M OCww€M. COlOVAOO rcL 90S AAS-I200 Miami. 9uO«iO* T«c 909-920 0090 W*9HIMOTO«l. O C rCL S02-«t4'0000 Suite 3300 222 SOUTH Ninth Street Minneaaocis. Minnesota SS402>3336 Teu «12 333 4SOO • Fai S12 334 SSftS Tnchaas J. SamcTT, CSft* DfftCCT OtAL (fttS) Sft4-ft€7ft June 28, 1995 ■ Cmin* TtC 01 I••I•SI1S2•• LCi#ti«. OC9H*«iv Tf w OI 14 9-94 I 4S« 94 2 9 STuTTaAAT. Ot«MA«*« Tcl 01 149-7I I 22943 Cortlen G. Cloutier, Esq. Cloutier & Cloutier, P.A. 1800 Midwest Plaza West 801 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 JUH 30 Re: Application for Building Permit: Lot 1, Tillson’s Villa Carman Addition Dear Mr. Cloutier: I have reviewed your letter ot June 27, 1995. But I do not entirely understand iL Do you mean to say that your lots have not been combined, or do you simply mean that you never authorized the combination? The City ’s records show that the lots are combined. The City relied on that information when it issued a building permit for the boat house some years ago. The City ’s plat maps continue to show that the lots were combined. If you believe that the combination is an error, you should take that up with Hennepin County, since the City has no power to "uncombine" the lots other than through the subdivision process. Further to the tax benefit question which you discuss, combination for lax purposes does not improve the lax status of the existing homestead, but could of course reduce the tax burden of the other lots which are joined to the existing homestead by the combinadon. But ultimately the City ’s decision not to issue the building permit is based on the fact that the lots are combined, not the motive for the combination. 082/22086547 6<79/95 Cortlen G. Cloutier, Esq. June 28, 1995 Page 2 Finally, it is not my untterstanding that the building permit application was "denied" as you suggest in paragraph two of your letter. When the application was made, the City pointed out that you would need to seek a subdivision because two houses could not be built on the combined loL You applied for such simple subdivision and then, at the Planning Commission meeting where the subdivision was considered, asked to have the matter tabled. Procedurally then, you might consider the following: if you believe that the combination is not a legal bar to the building permit, you could dismiss the subdivision application, and then appeal the City’s denial of the building permit, which will be based on the fact that the combined lot cannot have two houses on it Alternatively, you may wish to continue working with the City to allow the subdivision you think appropriate which, if denied, would also be available for review. Please let me know whether you have any questions. Very truly yours, Thomas J. 082/22086547 6/29/95 L\W OFHCES CLOUTIER &. CLOUTIER r?CF¥5«;CSAl. ASSOCJATIOS ATTORNETS AT LAW CO<*TllH Q CLOUTtEB EUZA8€TMA ClCXlTiEB KERMITN ^RUECMTE I SCO MID'X EST PLAZA WEST SOI NICOLLET MALL MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 554C: TELEPHONE (6i:> J52-5100 TOLL FREE 140047S.:JH FACSIMILE (612) MA-1220 August 28, 1995 HAND DELIVERED Cit> of Orono Planning/Zoning Department 2750 Kelley Parkway Post Office Box 66 CiA stal Bav, MN 55323 ATTN: Jeanne Mabust Building and Zoning Administrator RE; Application for Residential Building Permit: Lot 1, Tillson’s Villa Carman Addition Dear Sir and Madam: UCAL ASSISTANTS JOIENB K OtOSBERG THOMAS J THiSStfi This will confirm my verbal request to Ms. Mabust at our meeting on August 22, 1995, that the Cit> of Orono consider our application for a residential building permit for Lot 1, Tillson's Villa Carman Addition at the next City Council Meeting. Ms. Mabust has advised me of the Building and Zoning Ordinances, and it is my wish to proceed at this time, with the building permit application for Lot 1. Respectfully, CGC/tkf TO:Chair Schrocder aiKl Orono Plannin2 Commissionw Ron Moorsc, Citv Adminisiraior FROM;Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:March 16. 1995 SUBJECT: #2000 Conlen Cloutier, 2480 Casco Point Road - Subdivision. Class I - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC Piertinent Ordinances Section 11.03, Definition 66 A-2 - Division of properties previously combined for tax purposes Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. Lot 1, total area = 34.215 s.f. 75-250’ setback area = 4.375 s.f. No hardcover recorded 250-500’ setback area = 29,840 s.f. Existing = 2,227 s.f. or 7.4% Proposed = 4.165 s.f. or 13.9% (allowed 30%) Lots 3 and 4, total area = 54,182 s.f. 0-75’ setback area = 14,238 s.f. Allowed = 0 Existing = 1,122 s.f. or 7.8% 75-250’ setback area = 31.685 s.f. Existing = 3.547 s.f. or 11.1% (allowed 25%) 250-500’ setback area = 8,259 s.f. Existing = 2,019 s.f. or 24% (allowed 30%) Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B) - Lot standards for the LR-IC Zoning District 1.Lot 1 A. Area Required Existing = 21,780 s.f. = 34,215 s.f. Zoning Memo #2000 March 16, 1995 Page 2 B C. Lot width Required = 100’ Existing = 200’ Setbacks Proposed residence meets all required setbacks, 30 ’ front and rear, 10’ side 2. Lots 3 and 4 A. Area Required 21.780 s.f. Existing = 54,182 s.f. B. Lot width Required = 100’ Access at Casco Point Road measured at the 30 ’ street setback is approximately 60’ Frederick Street - Total lineal footage along Frederick Street is a 137’. Lot width measured at the 30 ’ setback from the 104’ street line is a 100’ + . The property can also achieve access via a 20’ outlet located at Casco Point Road. It should be noted for the record that Lot 3 no longer meets the required lot area of the zoning district at 19,338 s.f. nor does Lot 4 meet the required lot width of 100’ measured in a straight line at the shoreline per 10.02, Definition 43 B. Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owner’s List D - Gaffron Letter 1/19/95 El-2 - Sewer/Water As Builts F - Original Plat of Tillson’s Villa Carman Addition Filed 12/62 G - Council Minutes 10/9/61 H - Planning Commission Minutes 10/26/61 I - Council Minutes 11/13/61 J - Topographic Map of Property K - Survey Zoning Memo #2000 March 16. 1995 Page 3 Description of Request Applicant proposes the division of Lot 1 from legally combined Lots 3, 4 and Outlot 1 for the purpose of allowing the lot to be developed as a single residential unit. As noted above, the lot meets the area and w idth standards and the proposed house meets the required setback standards of the LR-IC District. The total properu' was assessed two water units. There will be a sewer connection charge for the new residence. The rate per the 1995 fee schedule is at $1,284.50 (plus SAC charge of $850). Applicant proposes the use of an existing drive at Casco Point Road that currently serves the principal structure on combined Lots 3 and 4. The improvement plan shows southerly portions of that drive being removed so as to po longer serve the existing residence. The residence w ill continue to achieve its principal access off of Frederick Street. Note encroachment of that driveway within Lot 1. Applicant has the option to either relocate drive within homestead parcel or obtain an access easement over Lot 1 which will have no impact on the area o^ Lot 1 at 34,215 s.f. Background on Tillson’.s Villa Carman Addition Review Exhibits F, G. H and I, there is little information as to the intent of the subdivision which was reviewed by the City in 1961 and filled by the applicant in December 1962. Lot 2 of Tillson’s Villa Carman (2500 Casco Point Road) achieves access via the 20’ outlot and Lot 5 (3585 Frederick Street) achieves direct access off of Frederick Street. Lot 2 has an access easement over a portion of the outlot used to service their residence. The driveway within the outlot does not extend to the principal residence. The principal residence is served by both the drives at Frederick and the one that intersects Lot 1. Sewer/VVater Service The City has no confirmation as to where the existing residence on combined Lots 3 and 4 is connected to both water and sewer. Review Exhibits El and E2. We are certain that the sewer connection comes from Casco Point Road and possibly water from Frederick Street. Note the encroachment of a municipal sewer line through the northeast comer of Lot 4. If the existing residence is connected to sewer at Casco Point Road, a utility easement would have to be granted m favor of applicant’s propeny over Lot 1. Applicant does have the option to reconnect To the sewer line that intersects his property and to allow ihe residence on Lot 1 to connect to either of the two stubs at Casco Point Road. A water sn>' s * .liable for the new residence at Casco Point Road. Applicant must confirm the location of the nookups of both services to die existing residence. In fact, this information should have been provided on survey. Major concern for this current review is the issue of access. Review Exhibit J, based on the topographic information the access from Casco Point would provide little impact to existing development. Topographies are steeper along the south and east sides and there appears to be o Zoning Memo #2000 March 16. 1995 Paee 4 a low wet area at the west side. Driveway curb cut could be created but would involve major land alterations and tree removal which now provide natural screening tor surrounding properties. The 20’ outloi would not meet the recjuired width ot 30 for private driveway outlot for a backlot configuration subdivision. In review'ing the minutes of the Planning Commission and Council in 1961, there is little direction. Wc are unable to determine the true intent of the driveway outlot - - how many lots wete to be served .> We must deal with the current panem of development and the directives of the current code. Applicant should advise if he proposes to divide combined Parcels 3 and 4 some time in the future. If this is the case, then we must address the need for a conforming road outlot now with this subdivision. Based on current code standards, the applicant should be advised that two riparian lots would not be approved but it may be possible with a replat to create a non riparian lot. If it is not the intent ot the applicant to subdivide the remaining larger parcel, then the current layout with individual accesses (accesses that already exist) serving the three residential sites may be acceptable to the City. Planning Commission should be prepared to make a recommendation on the issue of access ls.sues for Consideration 1. If the applicant advises that he proposes to divide combined Lots 3 and 4 in the future, w ill you require platting of a private road with this subdivision? 2. If there is no intention of applicant to further subdivide combine Lots 3 and 4, will you allow access to Lot 1 via an existing curb cut at Casco Point Road or will you require access via the 20’ driveway outlot. 3. Should special consideration be given for lots previously approved by City in an earlier subdivision review where lots meet current minimum lot standards? 4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Options of Action To either approve or deny the current proposal; or Table providimi applicant additional time to address the need for an internal road providing access to Lots 1. 2, and combined Lots 3 and 4 and evennially a fourth lot in the future. Zoning Memo #2 March 16, 1995 Page 5 Any recommeiKlaiion of approval must include the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. If access drive to combined Lots 3 and 4 at Frederick Street remains as is. applicant shall create easement over portion of driveway that intersects Lot 1 in favor of combined Lots 3 and 4. Applicant depending upon the resolve of location of existing services to the existing residence, applicant shall either agree to reconnect for new sewer and water service to the existing residertce or create utility easements over Lot 1. The City would encourage the applicant to consider reconnecting so as not to further encumber Lot 1 with easements. Applicant to grant an easement over the municipal sewer line in the northeast comer of combined Lots 3 and 4. Resolve of access to Lot 1 either to approve the existing curb cut at Casco Point Road or to require connection to 20 ’ wide driveway outlot. Upon application for building permit, future owner shall make payment for a sewer connection charge based on the 1995 fee schedule of $1.284.50 plus a SAC charge of $850. A water unit has already been paid against the property. The subdivision is subject to a park dedication fee based on 8% of the fair market value of the property. Staff would ask the applicant what his intentions are concerning resolve of the various questions surrounding the boathouse stnicmre in the lakeshore yard. Applicant’s contractor had completed an expansion of an upper level without the benefit of building permits in the 1970s. During an after-the-fact review of the violations, the applicant was directed to remove the upper level and to top the boathouse with an upper level deck. The matter still remains unresolved. . S &rma/t 'JP. Satirfis 2500 CASCO POINT ROAD • WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 • (612) 471-8639 ^ .V 1 » I--'.CNO__1; I DATE: September 12, 1995 'SHPTO: City of Orono Planning Commission/Council FROM: Mr. and Mrs. Norman W. Paurus SUBJECT; Subdivision Application #2000 Re: Mr. Courtland G. Cloutier •1 '4 1995 Unfortunately my wife and I will be traveling at the time of the September 18, 1995 meeting, so in lieu of attending we submit the following. We, as the closest and most affected neighbors to Mr. Cloutier's requested sxobdivision, have no objection to the application, since we have been informed that the current request is identical to the March 20, 1995 submittal. However, if the Planning Commission and/or Council, along with Mr. Cloutier, change the application or the response to it, we wish to reserve the right to be informed of the changes and be allowed to comment on .them before they are approved. We additionally request that the house as it was shown on the original application be moved 5 to 6 feet to the northeast to save several well developed trees that would be destroyed otherwise, and that all aspects of the subdivision, house construction, drive­ ways, etc. comply with the current city ordinances. Thank you for your consideration. Norm and Rusty Paurus > TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Membe ’-s Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:September 11, 1995 SUBJECT: #2044 George Olson. 2775 Shadywood Road - Variance - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 1 acre Application: Request for a hardcover variance in 75-250’ setback area for an addition on the lake side of the existing residence. Pertinent Code Section Section 10.22, Subd. 2/Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L): Hardcover in 75-250’ zone limited to 25%. Existing Proposed Allowed 75-250’ Hardcover 8.011 s.f. (44%) 5.777 s.f. (31.7%) 4.553 s.f. (25.0%) 0-75’ Hardcover 306 s.f. (4.1%) 12 s.f. (0.2%) 0 s.f. (0%) List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letters of Request E - Survey F - Hardcover Itemization and Staff Revisions G - Construction Plans H - Documentation from 1987 Variance Approval Pertinent Facts 1.This item was tabled at the request of staff and applicant pending a new survey showing all existing hardcover. That has been received (Exhibit E). Applicant purchased this property in 1994. He notes that all existing hardcover predates his ownership of the property. Existing hardcover in the 0-75’ zone is approximately 306 s.f. (4.1%). All but 12 s.f. of this is in rockbeds with plastic, which are proposed to be eliminated. Zoning File .<^2044 September 11, 1995 Page 2 Area of “'^-250’ zone excluding the 20’ road easement is i 8.210 s.f. (this differs from applicant ’s calculation because it includes a portion of the ni*r?hca'.; comer ot the lot which is within 250’ of the Narrows Channel). Existing 75-2.>0’ hardcover is 8,011 s.f. (44.09b). The proposal is to again eliminate the fabric or plastic underliner from all landscape beds, resulting in final hardcover including the proposed addition of 5,777 s.f. (31.7%). The proposed addition meets the required side and lakeshore setbacks, and does not encroach past the average lakeshore setback. Lot area = 30,594 s.f. - 2,000 s.f. (easement) = 28,594 s.f. Proposed lot coverage by structures is as follows: House 2,030 s.f. Deck/porch 526 s.f. Shed 195 s.f. Addition 425 s.f. Total 3,126 s.f. -5- 28.594 = 11.1% (15% allowed) This property was the subject of a hardcover variance in 1987 for deck reconstruction. The 1987 approval was for 6,177 s.f. of hardcover which included areas of rockbeds with plastic. Further, the proposed deck and stairway in that approval was only 422 s.f., but the deck that ultimately was built is slightly larger, and an enclosed screened porch was at some point constructed on the deck, without a permit. Apparently this was done by the previous owner, and was not discovered by staff until the current application review. That construction meets all required setbacks. Staff would suggest at this point that the enclosed porch be accepted subject to an after-the-fact building permit being issued, subject to review of the consuiiction by the inspection department. Discussion The existing house is a one story with walkout basement which meets all required setbacks. Tlie proposed two level addition at the southwest comer of the house will sinularly meet the required setbacks but does constitute additional sunctural hardcover on the property. Lot coverage by struemre will be less than the 15% allowance. The proposed final hai Icover after landscape hardcover removals is 31.7% in the 75-250’ zone, while overall lot hardcover would end up at 20.2%, meeting the DNR’s 25% standard. i Zoning File #2044 September 11, 1995 Page 3 The only additional hardcover which could be removed to decrease the 75-250’ percentage is in the existing driveway, which varies from 16 ’ to 25 in width. Narrowing this may reduce guest parking ability. The 195 s.f. utility shed is a possible strucmral hardcover removal, but would eliminate needed storage space. Issues for Consideratioii 1. •y Are the proposed removals of virtually all landscape bed hardcover sufficient, or should additional items of hardcover be reduced.^ Does Planning Commission concur with staff that an after-the-fact building permit and construction inspection should be re()uired for the above-deck screen porch constructed without permits? 3. Does Planning Commis sion have any other concerns about this application? Staff Recommendation Any recommendation for approval should identify the hardships and justification for the hardcover variance approval; should specify removals required in order to approve the current request; and should address the issue of the screen porch construction. Options for Action 1. Approve as proposed. 2. Approve with further reductions. 3. Table for further information. 4. 5. Deny. Other. CITY OF ORONO - VARUNCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SlOO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S200 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) V 0% % . A V PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 2775 SR^DYtv .----V .'T I. A • W - w • ■ • •• « ^ ■ w• • ^ u** a w k. A w tov^v vvvv « •• • • titRQ\D ORON’O. >1N 55331 .17. XV--“•■v.V ^CU 7T-P7--7TProperty Identification Number (P.I.D.)_----------------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired______.ttt v ?i. iqqj .(month/year) I j^j^(do not) also own the adjacent parcels ot land. Present use of property: residential ___other (specify) Zoning District:_____tp-vr _______________—-------- APPLICANT Name GEORGE £. OLSON Phone (homc)____42l*9dd2. Pt»«(work) Address: 777^; crrjAnvMrrtn pnnp 0\^’NER (if different than applicant) Name BONNIE .K. OLSON. TPU Address: _2225_SHADXUQQD-ROAD City: npDMD Zip:553^ City: Phonethome) Phone (work)_ npnMn________Zip:_5Sm DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 60.000 Describe request in detail: NEED TO CX)MPLY/M0DIFY VARIANCE RESOTirrTON of ptty fYatNCiL NO. 711 nATPn 7-77-R7 pf.traprw-i^fxn tm nnnr-n mn MitfP ^nnT^T<i<iu Ti-i m-fTg ir ------ (attach additional sheets iT necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side XX Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) unusual property condUions preventing comnliance with Zoning Code renuiretnents: CURREOT HARDCnvER .UPPROVED BY RF.-mijn’TOd NO. 2115 FOR THE 75'-250* SETBACK ZONE CANNOT BE INCREASED. THIS REQUEST FQR_ &M\nnTTION WILL RESTTT.T IN \ NET DECREASE IN HARDCOVER, THKKF.FORE PHTTTNn THE opnprPTV TM BETTER CC?^T.TANCE i>fITH THF ORDINANCE THAN EXISTS NOW riNDEB------------ RESOUZL (attach additional sheets if necessary) V A 1. 3. 4. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted hv the aDDlication dg^adUne dat.Hn prdtt for vour applip^ififtn to b< considered complete; XX Completed Application Form . . r ,« XX Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obiam this list from Hennepin Counr>' Department of Finance. A-603. Govt Center, 348-3271). XX Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). . . . u ^ lET Cerrificate of Sur%cy (signed by a hcensed surveyor) and ,nc ude l«rdco«r calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i x 11 lor NA^mrapWc'survev (exisling and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade ~ are proposed. In Addition, provide one (1) copy 8W x If for reprt^ucr.on XX Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8 x ). List of the legal names (include marital stams) of ail persons with an interest in the oroperty This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). N^A 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. TTre Applicant and Propeny Owner must sign this application. Please remember that S2U£ —,ppiir^.inn is not comnlete if the abo ve infpnnjMwii h«i) IWt liwn intMtH. Th/tpplteal hereS^ag^^ provide all imdtmation required or requested |>y Admtoator. agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not coverrt °ng|^ f« p^i«^ and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this applicatton and cetttfies that the information supplied is tru^d correct to ihc^l^st of his/her knowledge. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. : tru^md correct to me oesi Date 7-11-95Applicant’s Signature '.S“c“r,r ^ members for purposes^pf invesugation and vMtfipation of this request. '-/d ^Owner’s Signatui 'Date 7-11-95 Applicant must nave at. sutmuJs 25 days before Ure Planning Commission this change prior to the meeting. 8 ^•0 Adjacent Propert>* Owners* Acknowledgement Form I (vve) THOMAS J. CASEY Qf 2785 SHADYT-JOOD RD. ORONO (print address](print name(s)j have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 2775 SHADYti/oOD ROAD also referred to as Land Use Application No.-------------. I (we) understand that in e.tecuting this acknowledgement. I (we) am (^c) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or,usi| a^uires Council approval. DateProperty Owner T HICH.ARD G. OGLE nf 2771 SHADYWOUD RD. ORONO (print address](print name(s)] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located 2775 SHADy»%OOD ROAD also referred to as Land Use Application No.--------—• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) mt “ Coundl l'T(tTam TaTawlrfZ'Z me“ro™«d ‘';eighbofs project or usc-cequires Council approval. Date /-y7- Property Owner Date AppIfcarn,“sub“To«^™^^^^^ ^'Bu»Vn4‘ Offi^at l/asUO ^ prio“r to the scheduled meeting date. MN DATE D7/1E/9S i ■ DATCN DDEDilOP AODK OMNEK HAHE TAXPAYER HAHE/AOOfl Si E1-117-ES IS CNIEl OEMO SNADYHOOD RO R SEVmXNSON SEE NOffHAN KENNETH SEVERINSON EiOO SHADYNOQO RO ENCELSXOR NN 5SSS1 HEWEPXN COUNTY PROPERTY INTOlHiAnoN SYSTIH PROPERTY CMCRS USTSi 21-117*ES OOOY 02775 SHAOYNOOO RO i K OLSON TRUSTEE BONNIE K OLSON 2775 SHAOYNOOO RO EXCELSIOR HN 55SS1 REPORT NO. PX4S5401 PAGE 7Si 21-I17-2S Ei 00S5 OOOSi AODMESS UNASSXGNEO S R 4 P A BECK STEVEN R A PEGGY A BECK 27YS SHAOYNOOO RO EXCELSIOR MN 55SS1 . ! PROP AODR CRtCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR Si EI-117-2S 2i OOiO 02740 SHAOYNOOO RO A J RLOTSCHE I J A KLOTSCHE ALLAN J A JUDITH A KLOTSCHE 2740 SHADYHOOO RO EXCELSIOR NN 55SS1 Si 2I-117-2S 24 0041 02700 SHAOYNOOO RO N R NITTMER ASK NITTMER N R NITTMER ASK NITTMER 27B0 SHAOYNOOO RO EXCELSIOR MN S5SS1 SO 21-117-2S 24 0054 02705 SHAOYNOOO RO T J CASEY A S 0 CASEY THOMAS J CASEY 2785 SHADY MOOD RO* EXCELSIOR MN 55SS1 ADOR Olf«R NAME TAXPAYER NAMi/ADDR r' PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR rv r>. Si 21-117-25 24 0059 02771 SHADYHOOO RO R G A N J OGLE RICHARD 0 A MARLYS J OGLE 2771 SHAOYNOOO RO EXCELSIOR HN 55SS1 TOTAL BATCH 502 00009 I 7' 5i 21-117-2S 24 0040 02745 SHAOYHOOO RO B L NILHELH ADI HILHEIH BURNIS L A DORIS X HIIHELN 2745 SHADYHOOO RO EXCELSIOR MN 55SS1 SB 21-117-2S SI 0002 02795 SHAOYNOOO RO S R A P A BECK STEVEN R A PEGGY A BECK 2795 SNADYHOOD RO EXCELSIOR MN 55SSI I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. 7-/3?5.DATE V i I rv */'U ’• * . i * I George E. Olson 2775 Shadywood Road Orono/Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 L>') August 27, 1995 Planning Coitrussion City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, W 55323 Dear Planning ConmissicMi; Re: Z(xilng File # 2044 Our application for variance was tabled from the 8-21-95 meeting and moved to the 9-18-95 meeting in order for us to submit an updated survey. Attached are foxir copies of the new, updated survey for your file and consideration. Please refer to City of Orono Resolution #2115 and to ray previous letter dated July 11,1995. IMPORTANT: We purchased the. property on 7-21-94 and we have net added any hardcover sinc3e the purchase. The following chart illustrates numerically what exists and what we cure proposing to do, if the variance is approved. Resolution 8-18-95 OLSON'S #2115 Survey Proposal O'-75*deck & stairway 12 s.f.12 s.f.12 s.f. Setback rock beds w/plastic 0 s.f.294 s.f.*0 s.f. 7500s.f.TOTAL 12 s.f.306 s.f.12 s.f. ♦estimate 75'-250'house 2,080 s.f.2,030 s.f.2,030 s.f. Setback sidewalk & stairs 120s.f.213 s.f.213 s.f. 17,500s.f.driveiray 2,797 s.f.2,316 s.f.2,316 s.f. rock beds w/plastic 758 s.f.2,659 s.f.0 s.f. deck & stairway 4 2 s.f.598 s.f.598 s.f. proposed addition 0 s.f.0 s.f.425 s.f. TOTAL 6,177 s.f.7,816 s.f.5,582 s.f. % HARDCOVER 35.3%44.7%31.9% Our propx5sal is, if you approve the addition, we will remove all hardcover from the rock beds and flower gardens. -2- The resxilting hardcover percentage will go from 35.3?S (corrected resolution #2115 percent whirfi was approved at 37.6%) down to 31.9% with the proposed addition. Loolcing at it another way, the proposed addition will add 267 s.f. additional* net hard cover (425 s,f, minus 158 s»f») which is only 1.5% more hard cover in the 75'-250' setback zone. Also* the proposed addition is well within the neighbors home setback from the lakeshore* as seen on the survey. We hope that this new information will result in the coBinittee's approving our variance reguest. Sincerely* • V George'C. Ofeon 2775 Shadywocxi Road Orono/Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 -2_ Plauining Cocmision City of Orcmo P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 July 11, 1995 Dear Planning Comnission: Request for Building Permit & Variance My wife purchased the property located at 2775 Shadywood Road in the city of Orono on July 21, 1994. We have a request for a building permit pending with Mr. Lyle Oman for an addition to the existing house. He told our builder that we \rauld need council approval. The prior owners were granted a variance oti Resolution of the City Council No. 2115 dated February 23, 1987. A copy is attached for your revie"-/. 4 N This variance states in part, "cin increase of hardcover will not be approved, auid might be approved only with concurrent removals of existing hardcover resulting in no net increase in Imrdcover on the property." /V N \ P This building permit request will result in a net DECREASE in hardcover on the property because we will ranove the plastic under the flower beds in the front of the house prior to the start of construction. The hardcover results will be as follows: 0-75' setback zone- No change 75'-250' setbaek zone- Current coverage 6,177'^/ft. (37.6%) Net addition + 200 ft. Ranove plastic - 758 ft. Net coverage 5,61^sq. ft.(34.2%) This request therefore results in a reduction of hardcover as to ’.^hat currently exists as approved by the Council in 1987. A copy of the sur/ey is also attached shcnring the proposed addition and th*» yvaa xdiere the hardcover will be removed from the rock beds. My wife and I hope this informaticai, combined with the information that Mr. Oman has. will be sufficient to warrant approval by the Council for a change in the variance, if necessary, and for approval of the building permit. incerely. ge E. Olson I I lake 2522-30 ScA6-<S\ 698 • ‘1 CD’ -T.; o -O % m s> %, .,.^ eeC-t’e^^ r Mtl t -J ' ________ is^- <• >=■ I \4 tw. ? / ^X/v /s/r" / Ec^tJurrro/^ AJ^' CITY OF ORONOi City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2115__________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) V.. _ _ _ _ _ _ day of ru.n.rti_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _» _ before me a Notary Public within and for sai4/county,personally On this <^Pr'c)198^ appeared ^,f~ ^ /. ffh F~/^i*LCh^yxOK^<^J)u^=:iytJ\rii- the person(s) described in and who exeodi'ted th to me to be person(s) described in and who exeodated the foregoing instrumentf and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. '^1 HENNEPIN COUNTY Mv eommtMlofl NOTARY PUBLIC my commission EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 198 . 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 PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 I i A CITY OF ORONOJ City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2115_ _ _ _ _ _ property shall be asMaximum allowed hardcover on the follows; 0-75' Setback Zone: 12 s.f. (0.16%) (consisting of deck and stairway) 75-250' Setback Zone: 6.177 s.f. (37.6%) consisting of the following: House 2«080 s.f. Sidewalk 120 s.f. Blacktop Driveway 2,797 s.f. Rock Beds w/Plastic 758 s.f. Deck and Stairway 422 s.f. 6,177 s.f. The applicant is advised that any further proposals resulting in an increase of hardcover will not be approved, and might be approved only with concurrent removals of existing hardcover resulting in no net increase in hardcover on the property. 2. The maximum allowed encroachment toward the lake is 3.0 feet as proposed per Exhibit A attached. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (February 9, 1988). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of February, 1987. CITY I II ORONO CITY City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2115 B) The concrete patio existing under the deck and stairway area is proposed to be removed except for a walkway. The applicant proposes to use very narrow spacing between the deck boards for safety purposes. The deck and stairway are at a second-story level. The deck and stairway should be considered as hardcover. C) The deck and stairway will be partially screened from the lake by existing shrubbery. 4. The City Council reviewed the application on November lOr 1986 and tabled the application requesting applicant to reduce the extent of variances needed. 5. The applicant subsequently submitted the proposal attached as Exhibit A to this resolution. The Council finds that the variances requested in order to construct the deck and stairway per Exhibit A are justified per the findings of the Planning Commission as noted herein. 6. 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. 7. 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 the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit the construction of a deck and stairway constituting 0.16% hardcover in the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone, constituting 37.6% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback zone, constituting a 3* structural encroach ­ ment into the 0-75' lakeshore setback requirement, subject to the following conditions; Page 2 of 4 CITY OF OrtONO City of ORONO H RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. -IIS_________ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 4 2 AND 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 PILE #1060 WHEREAS, J. F. Fleischhacker (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2775 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Tracts E and F and Tract G except the Northeasterly 7 feet thereof. Registered Land Survey No. 358, Files of Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 0 to permit the construction of a stairway within the 0-75' laJceshore yard, constituting structure and hardcover in the 0-75' la)ceshore yard where no structure and hardcover is normally allowed, and to permit construction of a dec)c in the 75- 250' laJceshore setbacJc zone constituting hardcover in the 75-250' lalceshore setbacJc zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed. Minnesota : NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1, This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1060. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 18 and October 20, 1986, and recommended approval of variances, finding that: A) The applicant's stated hardship is that there is no quicJc access to the beach from the upper level of the house without an outside stairway. The stairway proposed provides such an access without blocJcing the views from existing picture windows. Page 1 of 4 / M'>5 ■y-l/S^Ujcop Pts.pe»r Of?ff3KlO,. ** •. • h-^ ''nrr 1 :—• • — • -------------1 -''rrrl tXO-ef i--CJ .1 I :• I? * i--/W \ to } I Iri k ds ‘ 3 •/ or ^ !.T* .v*-^-Y ." ••. •*. ’ v.-uj w \t 1^ s 1 -9 Qs I *1 Ii g •> i % 2„ Uldi.gs= J'LO 0 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ C^75-250^ 250-500’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House :OVER E Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway _____fO^_____ D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic 2SS. HQ. 4H- \ \ X X X X X X X |7 G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY^AREA .N ZONE^ , ,„o PROPOSED hardcover IN ZONE A. House Length Width X X B. Garage /ix'evuDCb C. Driveway _____X tjUo.lg D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Ho lo.^ G. Other X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B X ss 100 = 500-11 3 0^^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 12^ I --1 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. . -a. S.F. "S.F. ^S.F. _S.F. S.F.ioaLs.F. % rz\ V, G, 177 A B dUS2 IL.'jjy S.F. 34 / : i>*f • . r •■■ ■“ • V* . T ^ . » - ^ t * • . . \ • j v :. :- .Li ;•■!•':f.- •• .f-- .»•>•: • ',-•>• • • • •*■ 4ir '• -• ........... 4 TW; .5 lh>" V in- __co\;«2._AjAi.^s-/Sy/z^i /g/O/VX____ i ■• ■tHlteip-iM,• / .1. *• i*, . '--w . r. < . 4 • $ ^-7r B)LL^rU±C, ? * ;• ‘< /Z ,Ll ______^CtL flA^TK, 0*-~ FA&iA.\C,________________________ _____________3 C? G». ._-h-7^o j . ^!^ ----------------- •. ' • » » ». . #« . < t . ' f-'4-V —12-.. si^., .jrbeci:. A37»V.^_ ■r :j. ■ S* ■: ..5 I - ..I '• 1: •t •*. 5-,. ;• ^ '< • ,r' * : • i;' * f ur i<! * <*•wir r: t •.i v.r'. ^i.-': 5?i: • *!:' :-'ki '. M • , ir •■•? •>•••ir, • ,^:‘ * M--' •• J;*r • • ];■r:,: , • ^ j;,--l«* * :'i.rv' t: ; M: n: ■ ^■•L t' ♦ - i- ■L k: ’iy\.* it:' • 4 <. ’ 'i; ;•; •. i t /< fI -y; ?, i n*;. ?Uv ) *5-. 2. ^_______ ------------f VS-Z-TD 3^A}Li^^YCA ie^tr^r’ A(UA ajo ^ >ji^g-A > JS>/&)_^(Vrxy^) ■ /8>^2JO ^//ST7/0G_=___Zo^O_-Ji _Ai 3__:;.C Aecei^/^T^s/sroof^^o __s:C. r^,oi/et>oA ’/_______________ 5^ S ■ ^(nr'io/B>€rKj£^_____ 2,L^°t sC. jl^c.y t>o/P^A^T7C ds:__sX_s.d fior j /s>.io ^ W.OX _________________________eq g-C _____ ___________________________2. / ^ y 4^ A9/2/>t^J5n:f^s/<ir oe>e/oyiAi^^ ^3 /L» sjP. L/gtiLne»V^ ^<?g> s-^. Patio _ ns~_^rC _________ s-pys.2,/0 ^ >7 *X _2.SO._-r!SPO. AiBeA: " '^^S77MG_ 1. f/Gg>9ose^ /:> r ,4 ^ o /> •*. .... • -i'af.: ' 0 J--.-.. • »J w*- • ‘ •4. *•> 4> 4/ . H < : rv=!% ::t. ) .% .T« ‘ v-Av V '.?*■•• ; >■ . •.'»• :■ .-I- ■M •-4 V'G^. •:. ■* % • r .,. W-; *: '^:' If • ■■ •/• ^•'^>. r ^;■ 4 .V^:- ;r/;v.- • i V.r - * <• i > . •. \ > •?«»• •-• l>^:-*. r^’ • ' • • * • 'A: • . V: • s ’-'1. •%; ? .i::-;■=,•.!;• r* •. % ;.' vft' • - ■ ■• '■■c'k.i. •4 . ^ ■r'<W^ TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: September 15, 1995 SUBJECT: #2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District/William R. Pierce Property, 1485 Sixth Avenue -•■t.h - V^ariances/Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acre. Application: Request for variances and conditional use permit to comtruct 2.5 acre wet detention basin/wetland. The purpose of the project is to remove sediments and nutrients (principally phosphorus) from the major creek flowing into Long Lake from the north. Variances/Conditional Use Permit Required 1.Section 10.03, Subd. 19-21: Conditional use permit required for excavation exceeding 100 cubic yards (25,000 cubic yards proposed). 2. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 - Shoreland ordinance variances: Live tree removal within 75’ of the shoreline of a protected tributary Intensive vegetation clearing within 75’ of the shoreline of a protected tributary Grading, filling and excavating within 75’ of the OHWL of a protected tributary Section 10.55: the floodplain ordinance defines this tributary and its floodplain as part of the "Floodplain and Wetlands Conservation Area" which requires a conditional use permit for land alterations within the floodway and floodfringe. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letter of Request E - Survey of Pierce Site/Area Maps and Sketches F - Construction Plans (Excerpts re: Orono Project) G - Design Report (Excerpts) H - Diagnostic Study (Excerpts) I - Summary of Project as Submitted to DNR and Corps of Engineers J - Corp of Engineers Memo 9/6/95 Zoning File #2059 September 15, 1995 Page 2 K - MCWD Memo - Finding *Jiat No EIS is Required L - Orono Staff Response to EAW 7/18/95 M - MCWD Response to Orono EAW Staff Response 8/7/95 N - City Engineer ’s Comments 9/13/95 O - Submitted Documents Referenced but not Attached: • Long Lake Improvement Project (LLIP) Diagnostic Study October ’93 • LLIP Feasibility Study October ’93 • LLIP Feasibility Report September ’94 • LLIP Design Report May ’95 • LLIP Environment Assessment Worksheet (EAW) May ’95 • "Phosphorus Removal by Urban Runoff Detention Basins" (William W. Walker) Site/Wetiand Status The proposed site of the wet detention pond is on the William Pierce property, on the south side of County Road 6 approximately halfway between Long Lake Boulevard and Tanglewood Road. The ponds will be centered over the existing creek which flows to Long Lake from Wolsfeld Lake and the southeastern quadrant of the City of Medina. The site of the proposed pond is a Type 2/Type 7 wetland shown on the National Wetlands Inventor}', but is not one of the basins historically protected by the City of Orono as part of its 1975 wetland inventory (sec Exhibits E). Therefore, administration of the Wetland Conservation Act regulations on filling of this wetland is the responsibility of Orono ’s designated LGU, the Watershed District. However, as noted above, a number of City ordinances are also involv^, and the City still requires the conditional use permit, variance approvals, and land alteration permit. Shoreland Ordinance Permit Review Guidelines Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J) (Topographic alterations/grading and filling), item 5, requires a number of considerations and conditions that must be adhered to during the issuance of construction permits, grading and filling permits, conditional use permits, variances and subdivision approval. Those guidelines are included as Exhibit P at the end of this packet. The effect of the proposed project on the wetland in regards to the six items of Subdivision 10.56, Subd. 16 (J-5a), are addressed in Exhibit K, the MCWD memorandum and resolution finding that no environmental impact statement is required. Further, the proposed plans and specifications generally indicate that the MCWD will be adhering to the standards of Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J-5d-k). Zoning File #2059 September 15, 1995 Page 3 City Engineer’s Comments Cirv' Engineer Shawn Gustafson of Bonestroo and Associates is in the unique position of also being the City Engineer for Medina. In that capacit>\ he has responded to Medina ’s many concerns regaining the basis and need for the Deer Hill Road project, the location, as wdl as construction concerns. That project is upstream approximately 1 mile from the County Road 6 site, and is an integral part of the Long Lake Improvement Project. In reviewing the Orono Courty Road 6 project. Gustafson was asked by staff to reyi^ew the construction plans and the construction process. His comments of September 13th are summarized as follows: 1. A haul route and disposal location map, construction phasing schedule, and a traffic control plan must be submitted to the City for approval prior to commencing with the work. 2. Written construction schedule must be updated or modified as necessary to accurately reflect the rate and progress on the project. 3. A preconstruction conference should be held with the MCWD, contractor. City, County and other parties involved in the project. 4 Traffic control for the project should include a minimum of traffic control signs and devices conforming to the MMUTCW, flag men, a street sweeper, a sanding truck and a bobcat. The equipment will be necessary because it will impossible to remove mud from tires before leaving the site. 5 The MCWD should be responsible for cleaning the surface of any paved public street that becomes soiled due to the construction activities on this project. When the MCWD constructed the Gleason Lake project in 1994, there were many problems associated with hauling on Highway 12. 6 Depending on the haul route proposed a lener of credit in an amount calc^ted by the City should be provided for potential damage to the local road system. This amount should be in addition to any repairs or overlays proposed by the MCWD. 7 For safety reasons in times of inclement weather or early thaw, the City must have the authority to stop all hauling activity until such time that the City determines necessary. The City Engineer also asks the following clarifications or that additional detail be provided: 1. What seeding mixture is proposed, will fertUizer be used, what is planned for disposal of the cleared trees? Zoning File #2059 September 15, 1995 Paee 4 2. What erosion control practices and methods will be used during construction? 3. 4. 5. The City typically requires 10:1 slopes which will increase the amount of the emergent vegetation and provide an additional measure of safety at the border of the ponds, unless the area will be fenced. What will be the procedure for maintaining the ponds assuming that beavers or dead falls will block the dramage? Will the easement be granted to the City of Orono? The pond will become an element in the City ’s drainage system . . . How will Long Lake ’s characteristics compare to the urban basms identified in the article by William W. Walker, Jr.? Specifically how would Long Lake compare in figure 1, table 1 and table 3? Environmental Assessment Worksheet The environment assessment worksheet is a 24 page document prepared by Wenck & Associates for the MCWD regarding this project. City staff reviewed the EAW and commented to MCWD on July 18th. Their response in the letter of August 7, 1995 is also attached (Exhibits L and M). A copy of the EAW is available for any Commission members who would like to review it. Health, Safety, Welfare Issues Staff is extremely concerned about the construction process. The City s experience during MCWD’s Gleason Lake project, in which thousands of yards of dredge spoils were hauled from Wayzata on Highway 12 through Orono to the Eisinger landfill site west of Old Crystal Bay Road, was less than satisfactory. The constant dump truck traffic was problematic in itself. The droppings of sloppy muck along Highway 12 made the driving surface dangerous. The contractor required numerous contacts from the Orono Police regarding the need for cleanup and closer monitoring of hours of operation. The County Road 6 situation presents some even greater concerns than Highway 12. Sections of County Road 6 are shaded and therefore whatever slop leaks from the trucks hauling will tend to freeze and make that road even more unsafe than it currently is in the winter. The proposed access road location has fairly good sight distance for the Orono County Road 6 project. However, staff is advised that the City of Medina may disallow use of Tamarack north of the Deer Hill Road project, forcing truck traffic from that project during the winter of 1995/1996, to go south to County Road 6 on Tamarack. The Tamarack/6 intersection is fairly dangerous as is with westbound traffic at legal speeds having perhaps 2 to 3 seconds to react to traffic entering from Tamarack. Staff wholeheartedly supports the City Engineer ’s comments regardmg the need for extreme safety precaution at this intersection not only during County Road 6 pond construction in 1997/1998, but this winter during the Deer Hill project. Zoning File #2059 September 15, 1995 Page 5 Staff Recommendation Following is a punch list of items for Planning Commission review and consideration. Watersh^ District representatives are expected to be in attendance at Monday night s meeting to address any issues of concern. Many of the issues noted below are addressed in the attached materials. • Are the iKcessary variances in regards to tree removal vegetation clearing and excavation within 75’ of a tributary supported by adequate hardships and justification? • Are the benefits to water quality in Long Lake provided by this project sufficient to balance the loss of vegetation, habitat, etc.? From an aesthetic standpoint, does plannin g Commission accept the revegetation plan as adequate? • Is the project necessary or are there alternatives? • Has MCWD adequately addressed mitigation of wetland per Wetlairf Conservation Act guidelines? Is mitigation for the loss of Tyj» 2/7 wetland in Orono going to be mitigated in Orono. or at least within the upstream subwatershed? • From a safety standpoint for the finished pond, does Planning Commission concur that the access road should be gated? Does Planning Commission have any concerns regarding the potential for this area to become an "attractive nuisance"? • Are there any concerns of the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Pierce, that the City should aware of and address? The following questions and possible concerns relate specifically to the construction process: • If Medina forces traffic from this winter ’s Deer Hill Road project on to the Tamarack/County Road 6 intersection, how will MCWD address safety concerns? While this is not strictly a planning issue related to the County Road 6 project. Chairman Peterson lives at the northwest quadrant of this intersection, and other Commission members live within a short distance of this area and use this road often, and may have specific comments . . . • Regarding the County Road 6 project scheduled for 1997/1998, does Planning Commission concur with staff that the conditional use permit/variance resolution should be written to not expire after one year, but extend to the expected start Zoning File #2059 September 15, 1995 Page 6 date? If not. the MCWD would have to apply for a renewal of variance/conditional use permit. In either case, a land alteration permit would have to be issued prior to the start of construction of the County Road 6 pond, and final conditions of approval could be written into that permit. Where is the disposal site for 25,000 yards of dredged material? Applicant should be advised that any receiving site in Orono that takes more than 100 cubic yards will require a conditional use permit, which is a minimum two month review process. MCWD has to-date noted that soil disposal is the contractor ’s problem. However, it is also a potential problem for the City. Are there other concerns of the Planning Commission or of the neighboring property owners and general public which need to be addressed? Options for Action 1.Recommend conceptual approval, directing staff to develop appropriate conditions of approval for further review. 2. Recommend approval without conditions. 3. Table, specifying what additional information or review process is appropriate . 4. Recommend denial, stating specific reasons. 5.Other. I i 0 »’ cm' OF ORON *r —-/ .^j***5v LAND USEf^PLlCATTON 510 ;4 PROPERTY' LOCATION Site Address 1485 6th Avenue North, Oro no.wasssriwaas»*“ APPLIC.\NT \ame Minnehaha Creek yacershec District Address 15 500 Wavzata Boulevard Phone (home) _ Phone (work) 4 76-7970 ^ ^ ^ ^ _________Zip 55 391 'welve Oaks Center,Suite 611 OW'NER (if different than applicant) Name V/illian R. Pearce____________ Phone (home ) Phone ( work) .-•.ddress 1435 6th Avenue North C:r.‘ Orono Date?ropen>- Acquired I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - X S 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application $125.00 Residential Accessory Use 5200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) 5175.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments 5150.00 Duple.x Credit/Bldg 5250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplam “T“ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 ’ of lakcshore X PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule . • ^ SlOO 00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER ■^“^™^ercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) 5250.00 Vacation S175.(X) Easement Vacation S 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision 5300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ~ 5300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment “ $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property _—x Residential 6 Other (specify) Zin 55356 (month.'year) • .. V . V * ■ • • • •-» , • . t • • • • 4 ^ » • V• • - • • W ! ■ r5/ ! REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. X__ Completed Application Fonn. X__ Describe request in detail. X Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’ (you can obtain tMs list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, j48-3271). X Plat Map. ^ • 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 A jriJii iVidp. ^ ~ Cenificate of Survey (signed by a licensed sur\ eyor) - refer to handout for surv ’ey information. X Attach lesal description to application if not included on required survey. X Topographic surv'ey (e.xisting and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). . V List of the legal names (include marital satus) ot all persons with an interest m the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). X Construction plan, if applicable (see statf for requirements). X As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons vou wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS FOR REPRODUCTION (11” X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SLIBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:____________________-------------------— APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ,, u u ^ The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administniior, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by ongtnal fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this appliMtion, and certtftes that the information supplied is true and correct to dw bes^f his/her^owdge. Applicant ’s signature _________^ Date / OWNER’S SIGNATURE . ^ ui,. The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Councu members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signature J Date AoDlicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commisston Meetmg. Comnission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at jdl schedided review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a sched^ed mwtmg, please make a^gements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Bmldmg & Zoiung Office of this change prior to the meeting. fHM DATE 07/11/9S•ATCtI S04^;-.rfK» AOM 'T^IpNNill NMC ^NMC/AOM ./ M X«-llt-2S 51 0004 01500 SIXTH AVC N JOHN R SHEEHAN JOHN R SHEEHAN 1500-ATH AVE NO UMS UKE m 5555A HENNEPIN COUNTY PR«»ERTY INFOBUTION SYSTEH PROPERTY OMNERS LIST56 24-11S-25 51 0010 01550 SIXTH AVE N N E BOHACH A S BOHACH HALLACE E A SUSAN ROHACH 1550 COUNTY RO 4 LONG LAKE HN 5S5S4 REPORT NO. PAGE56 tA-llS-25 51 0011 01075 KNOLL HANOR RO 6 0 CLEVELAND A K CLEVELAND GEORGE A KATHLEEN CLEVELAND 1075 KNOLL HANOR RO LONG LAKE ttl 55554 P1456401♦ . « • • . \ ■ . PROP AOOR . ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER ^ , ^,^1^/AOOR V ‘ 7' ; 'u-y . . y •*'1 - . PROP AOOR Q»fCR NAHE •• TAXPAYERwm/hoon S-' - ■ ■ ■ PROP AOOR >OIOCR NAHE ■’ TAXPAYER ' NAHE/ADOR H . PROP ADOR r • - OMCR NAHE , •: 'TAXPAYER . ' HA(1E/ADDR T.: ■ 1,-t..»■ ' ' • • * • ‘ ,‘^PIWP AOOR . '(MCR NAHE ; .TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR •• ■ ■ I “ «.• i ’ • ' »' 50 E4-118-25 51 0015 OlOGO KNOLL HANOR RO LOUISE 6 PLANK LOUISE i PLAM( PO ROX 4G7 NAYZATA m 55391 56 24-116-25 51 0014 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED D E KINGHAN t R R KINGHAN D E. KINGHAN A R R KINGHAN 2454 HUHBOLDT AVE S MPLS MN 55405 56 24-116-25 52 0004 01540 SIXTH AVE N ALBERT R^ NHITHAN A NIFE ALBERT R NHITHAN 8104 HIGIOKXX) OR 6Y324 BLOOraNOTON MN 55436 56 24-116-25 52 0015 01450 TANGLENOOO RD L E KEFtCDY A J KEttCDY LENIS E A JEAN KENNEDY 1450 TANGLEHOOO RD LONG LAKE MN 55554 58 24-116-25 53 0002 01490 LONG LAKE BLVD T D AfOERSON A C A ANDERSON TROY A CATHERINE ANDERSON 1490 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE m 55554 • * •T «» . • t • 56 24-116-25 31 0014 01040 KNOLL HANOR RD JOHN F A LAUREL H ALLENBURO JOHN F A UUREL H ALLEWURG 1040 KNOLL HANOR RO LONG LAKE m 55554 58 24-118-23 32 0005 01570 SIXTH AVE N J E NHITHAN A 0 H NHITHAN JOHN E NHITHAN 1570 4TH AVE N LONG LAKE HN 55554 56 24-116-25 52 0007 01550 SIXTH AVE N P N OROHAY ACS OROHAY PHILIP N/TASSANORA S ORDNAY 1550 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE 55554 38 24-118-25 52 0014 00058. ADDRESS UNASSIGNED NAYNE A HILLER ET AL TANGLENOOD HOHEQ»iCRS ASSOC 1520 TANGLENOOD RD LONG LAKE MN 55354 56 24-118-23 55 0004 01514 LONG LAKE BLVD CINDY J FREDRICKSON CINDY FREDRICKSON 1514 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE HN 55354 56 24-116-25 51 0015 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED D E KINGHAN A R R KINGHAN 0 E KINGHAN A R R KINGHAN 2454 HUHBOLDT AVE S MPLS m 55405. 56 24-116-25 52 0005 01540 SIXTH AVE N K L LARSON ASS LARSON K URSON ASS LARSON 1540 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE Itl 55554 56 24-118-25 52 OOOB 01460 TANGLEHOOO RO R G MAUSER ASK HAUSER ROBERT 6 A SALLY E HAUSER 1460 TANGLENOOO RO S LONG LAKE m 55554 58 24-118-25 55 0001 01464 LONG LAKE BLVD J N GARDNER A A L GARDNER ANITA L GARDNER 1464 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE MN 55354 SB 24-116-25 33 0005 01520 LONG LAKE BLVD RAYMOND GORDON JOHNSON RAYMOND GORDON JOHNSON 1520 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE 55554 . ./ • ■ • / * ‘'’ *- •! ■. I* •'.‘V t y . f . ip* • ' t • ’v'10 O- A ' * < LA t ‘ • r^fj 'jr. Mi• i’ ? '• •j O 'o*- . ■ . ir.;fv» n • ' r t'. *1 ■M ■ ■ i 4-l RUN DATf 07/U/9S ^TCH S0«HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PMJPERTY OMCRS LIST REPORT NO. PI4SS401 PAGE 10K «:-RROP lumR ; OMCR NAME •TAXPAYER • ' NAME/AODR PROP AOOR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER flAME/AOOR I ' • PROP AOOR OMCR NAME /TAXPAYER ^ . .1/ •j. V.NAME/AODR • ’1• ii A' ,'**•*• .PROP AOOR • OMCR NAME . TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR ■ i RROR A1 iCMCR NAME t,-taxpayer IV NAME/AODR *■•{ r ' ?' PROP AOOR OltCR NAME , ;^TAXPAYER i NAME/AODR ' ■r ■ . V ■ . k > >• r ’ • . t Sf' * /- f Sa EE-118-E3 33 0006 01530 LONB LAKE RLVO GRANT 0 EGGEmERG grant 0 EOGE»«ERG 1530 LONG LAKE BLVO IQNG lake MN 55356 SO E6-118-23 33 0010 00900 OAKOTA AVE OAVXO C LUNOBERG ETAL OAVXO A LORRAINE LUNOBERG 900 OAKOTA AVE LONB LAKE N4 55356 SO E6-11B-23 33 0021 00000 DAKOTA AVE D A C NOODHARD OAVXO A CYNTHIA NOOUIARO 000 OAKOTA AVE LONB LAKE N4 55356 SO 26-116-23 33 0024 00930 OAKOTA AVE THOMAS C OOEAN ETAL THOMAS C OOEAN 930 DAKOTA AVE LONB LAKE H4 55356 SO 26-118-23 33 0032 01600 LONG LAKE BLVO ROBERT A BENTS HARE ROBERT A BENTE HARE 1600 LONG LAKE BLVO LONG LAKE m 55356 SO 26-110-23 34 0005 01135 SIXTH AVE N E N A H S SPENCER EDSON H A HARRIET S SPENCER 1135 SPRING HILL RO LONB LAKE MN 55356 30 26-110-23 33 001600940 OAKOTA AVE B P A K M ARNE GERALD P A KARU M ARNE 940 OAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 30 26-11B-23 3S 0019 00000 OAKOTA AVE CHARLENE S MAROOCK CHARLENE S MAROOCK 000 OAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE N4 55356 30 26-118-23 33 0022 00900 OAKOTA AVE S R KNUTSON A J A KNUTSON SCOTT R A JULIE A KNUTSON 900 DAKOTA AVE N LONG LAKE Ml 55356 30 26-110-23 33 0027 01400 LONG LAKE BLVO ANITA A KEITH VANOER ORANOEN K R VANbEN BRANOEN 1400 LONG LAKE BLVO LONG LAKE Ml 55356 SO 26-110-23 33 0033 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO JANE 0 LEVERING ET AL SCOTT 0 A SHERYL 6 MORRISON 14510 12TH AVE N PLYMOUTH Ml 55447 30 26-110-23 34 0000 01295 SIXTH AVE N RICHARD ERICKSON/JULIE CORTY RICHARD ERICKSON/JULIE CORTY 1295 CO RD NO 6 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 26-118-23 3S 0017 00920 OAKOTA AVE LECH GENE GANRON A NIFE LECH A NANCY GANRON 920 OAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE Ml 55356 30 26-110-23 3S 0020 90004 DAKOTA AVE J M BENHAY A K J 6ASNER J M BEMIAY A K J 6ASNER 004 DAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE Ml 55S56 38 26-11B-2S SS 0023 00910 OAKOTA AVE T A K STEIMIE THOMAS A A KARI A STEIMIE 910 DAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 26-110-23 SS 0029 01405 SIXTH AVE N HILLIAM R A OARBARA A PEARCE HILLIAM A BARBARA PEARCE 901 MARQUETTE AVE S 82010 ra>LS Ml 55402 SO 26-110-2S S4 0004 01305 SIXTH AVE N MARY H DAYTON MARY H DAYTON 1305 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 30 35-110-23 22 0001 01465 LONG LAKE BLVO KURTIS A GREENLEY A NIFE KURTIS A GREENLEY 1405 LONG LAKE BLVO LONG LAKE MN 55356 I f •k V' • ' ! < »I’. •* * %. J I* > 11 * * kw i ' i '‘•k 'f •f ^ i t* i I ' CD '■I V : ^ I • :• "k ‘ 'i-r.’i I' ‘ \ M 4 • > .1. i , u * : J t'r; . ► ;i:* * • ( t •I > * • *-» i » I ‘ 9. • t ♦ ^ ■' .■ (■ .. A . . • • ••*n RUN DATE 07/11/W •ATCH SOA% -». ■> pM^ AOM ONNER mm TAWAYCi NAHE/AOOII 1 I > 2 •• A PROf AODR ; .:,OltCR NMi . TAXPAYER i' flMC/AOOR *• «% » • \ • f • * % * * 'tv. V. •• * 4 * • y \ \ s ‘A- ■ ♦ »■ • ' * ♦ ,.. .* j f. V % *<••.•*■• «.I •'*«•^ ' ■ .| -v' • ^ •• <» 'V .,V-l, h . -••• I.••'.f r f'.* i ' ♦ t ^ ,.r .' '4 >'V-MVVi^ V. ’ -'■■A': •• * :>r, M 35-118-2S 22 0002 01528 LQNO LAKE 5LV0 t N CAPKQN ETAL H/t ESI I n CAMON i HAAIE NEKDT I2S2 DOIL 05 ANCNOHAGi AR 99507 M 88-118-21 22 0008 014U LQNO LAKE 8LVD DQNAtO N LUND ETAL DGNAIO N LUND 1448 LQN6 LAKE 8LVD LQNB UKE HN 85354 • ;• > . * • • ■ V‘, i i* f “ * > 't *• ^ A ‘s ' t • * % ■ I% A ■ -:v5‘* i\' HEttCPIN COUHTY raOPERTY INfORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY GNNERS LIST38 35-118-23 22 000301509 LONG LAKE 8LVD THQHAS N CASHKAN THQHAS N CASHHAN 1509 LONG LAKE 8LV0 LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 U-118-23 22 0004 01405 SIXTH AVC N RAC FLIKT RICHARD N FLINT 3400 HULTIFOOOS 8LDQ CITY CENTER NPLS NN 55402 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1138 35-118-23 22 000401505 LONG LAKE 8LVD JANES 0 NEYHE JAHES 0 NEYHE 1505 LONG LAKE 8LVD LONG LAKE MN 55354 TOTAL lATCH 804 00041 a • • * • •<•;: 1 • •• ^ D ^ ■ , • * 1 I •»•1' ( r ’*• , > , 1. • . v|»V, i: •. • • >; !. - 1 • 4 .if ^ • • •' * • * #» ‘ ‘‘L. j \i»' '• 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF XtVORHAnON AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HErtCPIN COUNTY OEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE REST OF HY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. DAH ■». 7'/2~^5«Y . *. .1 . Environment^ • Engineers Wenck July 27, 1995 D Wenck Aoociatn. Inc. 1800 Pionper Creek Ctr PO Box 428 Maple Plain MN 35359-0428 f)12^ 479-4200 Fax <612’ 4-Q-I242 E-mail wenckmpdvxenck.com M.O. / / f-TzJ Ms. Jeanne Mabusth and Mr. Michael Gaffron City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Re: Long Lake Improvement Project Wenck File 0185-04-209 • * ' I r ' -'...a O Dear Ms. Mabusth and Mr. Gaffron: On behalf of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), we are submitting a completed general land use application form for the purpose of receiving a conditional use permit and a variance to construct a wet detention pond/wetland south of County Road No. 6. The following required exhibits are enclosed: Completed Permit Application Form Permit application fee for $250.00 Description of project contained in Design Report submitted on July 6, 1995 Cenified Property Owners List of owners within 350 ’ of project Plat map (3 full size and 1 reduced size) Certificate of Survey and Legal Description (2 full size and 1 reduced size) Topographic survey contained in design plans submitted on July 6, 1995 (3 full size and 1 reduced size) Legal names of property owners Construction plans submitted on July 6, 1995 (Note: Plan sheet 11 has been modified slightly and plan sheet 14 added to the plan set; 3 full size and 1 reduced size enclosed) Addendum to application: The MCWD has no list of persons we wish notified of this application Per our earlier discussions the MCWD wishes to be placed on the agenda for the August 21, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. MCWD will forward responses to comments the city made on the EAW as soon as possible. .NIS5 \04.3D9> Wofd VU1407305 . Ur • AES-Ijv ► Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Mr. Michael Gaffron City of Orono July 27, 1995 Page 2 Please call me at 479-4224 or Mike Panzer at 479-4207 if you have any questions regarding the permit application. Sincerely, WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. Andrew E. Syverson, P.E. Environmental Engineer AES/ljv Enclosures cc: Waverley Eby Booth, Popham-Haik Gene Strommen, MCWD N:«lftS^3D9\W<miaJM073QS.UfA£S-Iiv ea o LONG LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT H.C.S.A. HWY. NO. G PREPARED FOR WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. M s.. V. SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC^ 5*. V «- i-i« ! - ’HI • If U| flb^OCO*1; J '/20IOO RiM> /=t^»oc.fu//^/ \ X >1^f1 » J. ZONE C /• \ \CPi»w<«/>vr O I V/ City of Long Lake AHf A not INCIUOEO 1 ZONE A1 20NE c ten#64l *, Q ^ / _-'7nMC A1>' \ ;-'20NE Ali IEl *611 < o 2 Ctwl> CO«PuRATl Liv.ns V © ♦ C f » Iftcf M I»N COWVCtStON |m>»m »f% iA*i ■‘•A •» A***'" • »wciwrft ii» !»»• •!»«• e.iabtnAetf 1» dcir*minc H fl4M»i C VOUI • •! (tool 43t tt^o. U AMtOX MTIONAl |i FLOOD II CITY Oi ORON MINN BENNE< COMIWNI 270m PAGE ! Itll MA« 1 If -:0 STATES DEPARTfet?OF:TH M LiO I iV ?! ^PrfloiJH- u>eriAi^ii : i r I =EWC mi ry.••,. '<*">• v" . i’i'li'* s r ~ U, ^^\7 f - r/ wc«o H 1 s ? iR 1. r ^ ia 9 S 2 3W H H g ®SL-i2fepW' '*ycr,^ ro :z:o S HH r ^ o ^Z M Q a > r 33 > > W o ^ !0 ISws !»o <3 M w 2 H EC « W |5d O o «H HHW ^o H o H MMlifini \ Wenck W*Mk AmmUU«.Im. «00 VknMT Cf**k C«il«r <im «T*-«»00 tavUMMsUl taiUMM MaM* MHt, IM 9AU9 r««M«i3i «;i-«a4| a»«» mCHAHA CRCCK WATCRSlCD DISTRICT 1 »ftt fine 1 icvniaa OAfc LONG LAKE MPROVEMENT PROJECT MOO MIT H 7-ao-W curt' MAT MS om—Jll_ MOW M . "A \ "4- ^ / «s\% Wx\ «P / * i' * i ^ \ \ A" A m ' ....'h^4^i o t ♦ ^♦VY*’^< " * V''^ ’ «✓' \ «V\ '^‘ \ \ < ^ ' V.< >^^«\^^^ V ' * V^V.VXvt A '■<V A V \\ 0' AP \\ i mm .\ \ 4 / / A' -, / / \ / IS n/ y’2/ y / y / \ \ X y •■ _y O. 3JS —1 / / ©I \ 'Kj y \% § V \ ~ - >V'^^ r ^b ffi M • 'Cf , «y« ’‘\ 1 Q e s 11i iiiuMM jii Ml § If MC'lifBlMimi_JlflJlMK firB»ft<Maa»icwTin<i»tDw iii^^Wenck taaah «MMlalM.lM. *00 fWMr C<Mk U*l«f MaM7»-4>00 ■««iMia»ui to|i«»w* w«><t rwte.i« Mii* r«ci»u)«}i-«a4i tiH>€WMA CREEK WATERSHEO OtSTWCT LONG LAKE M>R0V£ICNr PftOJECT VCCt tltiC <!ua 0Alt>U4f MS wMHOia OArc m-Mie. mr^mll i/.A--' ''■' S \ \ m ,\\'\'-'-;.va®El;S';.v y - /^'3 iV «s I \ 'f*»'.s 11. I (> !v’ ! i \ ; (( , i\ m> \i'';( 7-^)! ■ //i■;p)T mm r s ■ --•"Si, ;b?|,' 55::' i ii'; -)[ ,, / I'l A y / / /s,' i(^ I.* r » \ 3SS 6 V X7 Z Tt) 1/^ ? 17 Vi I 1In ''cr. ■nisI I KIi I ^ x; p>I? ji si i .<o p 3om SI 3 I B g| i 5 Si“ 5 ui 5 ii s! ^*S i F|5»li S 9 S mom T \>» ifmeK ruMiRi UC4)NT13D9< l^^iAWenck VM«k Amm4«I*i.U«. moo r%0>»4t C«Mk c**lm Ul]l 47»-4KO istU*a«4BUl ta«i»Mrt a.KiM 9S})» f*.<4«U) 4T9-4242 >«>«« liNNEMAHA CREEK WATERS>€D DISTWCT LONC LAKE if>ftOVEMCNT PROJECT s»cn fmc 0ATf<U4T IM> MVtl04 OAU ThI ^ \ //A,’' i \ \C-/' A/A ^ ' \ ' -c/^'. '4 ..) J///i/''niitiH '''■Mii’M. •f 'A\ ll-Sl , '4 0 i -- ■{ •\ /' •••.. x'^<(^yy/A y ;■ - ■ ‘'-v) • yyy;y'^iy':y:y— , **\ **'' V / j-t-B^> --"M l^’'- hy ^ ..S'" j ^-XK-iX . tl:v-'{ • .A—- -------- - V. / , - . •" X- ^ ^ ^ * I -i:..-4- __. - — I '•0-: jj) ..- .V *•., >■<\ 7'-■7-*il -t '/■:.y \ '/./4*' \\_ /___ mi \W- V mi ,w\\l^\\0 ' II .-^ ; -'V;' ii r*v /' A\V 4'V - r® l\ \ / I-*’ Is -ijy^ I ,-=- -,\fP 7^\ ■'■ '' '-.O^J- " 'x'W \ f) I \ L iX .\v.y- ir Wv / /* )' I C-M AS AS?*<B P'S1^ li 05 nmsi ss HT) -Hl/J gS 8::9m »z s V /Ji y \ \ / \ /r^ \ '^ ^ \ \ \ \ ' s iAV\V' '■• ->i\ i^^Wenck t«Mk <MMlalM.lM. MOO AiwiMf Ut«» C«*i« UQI ■•«ir*MwUl t»|UiMra M«*t fwK m MU* r«i> ilttl in-*2*t liNNDUHA C«£EK WATCRStCD DISTRICT LONO imt MPROVEMEHT PftOJCCT MCI mil M Vi£W OAlI'liAr Mt9 MMUQMl OATC WYMP 0Ctan Aftso MM mm t io^ WM Jff MMO-Jlit. CLtVATIW IN FCCr i i § mPIii*1 i! rtSat-* e • ■’ ■ ■ ■ 1 P! / r4* 1 ......1 r 1 1 i Bi ^ 1 nn 1 ....... 1 1 1 1 1 1 ....... 1 1\n \............. 1 % i( 1 1 1 1 \|o i...... k.. : 's. : V. i-—-i 3 8-- I aH ifi* *ii s- KLCVAnON IN PICT i i ■ 1 A r ^ *T~! ic........ 1 P•N , 5 , H——1 ‘ » i fiiv«noH IN rccT CUVA1IQN IN PICT I i i 3 fllnllM IN fICI 8 I i ILCVATIIM IN mi I 13I V-*tP • i/. 1^1 'CT • itfi^^Wenck V«»»li AMMlalMklM. *M Mmw Oaa* C*«tor lllTJ 47*-«}00 ■•tlfMMNUl l*|UMr« M#4i PMk. f«t> aU) 47I-424} 7"^ MttCHAHA CHtEK WATEWSICD OISTWCT LONG UKE lyPftOVCIyCHT PAOCCT k«n Tine ( (i— OATt«uAr wn \ MWUJONI ITAtg >9ra^3ieL. 4*-0* 3 fsr ' i'-o* OfCMllll IN IMU1 ML1N0 I—p e ■ L1 -^ 1 ■ ■ ■ r ■ 1 ■ r-i* iib ^352 ? S liikdIWenck *«A«k «M Mm»« CfM* CmIw 4*t}l 47»-4}00 ■■flcMMiUl ■MiaMra Mi»*i AiKIM WM rM<Uai 4TI-424] iiNTCHAHA CWCEK WATERMO OISTWCT Mtf rmc OATiiiur mi acMSoa OMC MN __Ml__ 0T9-Wt, EnvirJnrr.^Ui E.ngtneer5 Wenck Xssociales. Inc. IdOO P'onw Cwk C:r. »0 Sox 42S xiioie Piain v\N 3 5 j 5'^v^^ Wenck j%\2] 4r9-i:?o ®ax ^12' 479-1:4: E-mail wenc^rro^enck.ccm June 21, 1995 Ms. Ceil Strauss Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St Paul. MN 551C6 Mr. Joe Yanta Department of the .Army St.'Paul District, Corps of Engineers Army Corps of Engineers Center 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul. Minnesota 55101-1683 Re: Long Lake Improvement Project Wenck File 185-04-209 Dear Ms. Strauss and Mr. Yanta: On behalf of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ^fCWD) we a permit application for the Long Lake Impr'vement Project, a S2.1 million project focused on improving the water quality tn 1. «... I' re. Intormauon on weU^d imoacts and miti^adon was previously provideu to Mr. Yanta during * appUcation meethig on May 31, 1995. That information has been detail and included as an attachment to this letter. Enclosed along with the pennit appUcation are supporting documents and relevant project mtormauon which mclude the following materials: #Environmental .Assessment Worksheet Design Report Design Plans (fuU and half size sets) Summary of Design Characteristics Exhibit I E.xhibil 2 Exhibit 3 and 4 Exhibit 5 appropriate regulatory agencies. Construction of the watershed improvements are scheduled to begin in December 1995. Tnnies of the E.AW for the project were forwarded to interested parties included on the attached official Environmental QuaUty Board (EQB) distribution Ust ^ June 9, 1995. A notice of the avaUabiUty of the EAW wiU be pubUshed m the EQB .N:VQII5^0*>2D9'XJ Y061 W.LTR-AES-I/v i Ms. Ceil Strauss Mr. Joe Yanta June 21, 1995 Page 2 Monitor on June 19, 1995 which begins the offidsl 30-dny Copies of these documents are available for pubUc review at the Di.tnct Otrice, and the Cities of Long Lake, Medina and Orono, project also involves the alum treatment ot Long ?loselv with the City of Long Lake. Medina and Orono to inco^rate the watershed improvements into the Long Lake Improvement Project. A technical advisorv committee has provided technical input during the planning and ?«tgn“7Kect. m cf nunee was comprised^f the cities of Lons Lake, Medina and Orono and BWSR, DNR, HCU, Mi't-A ana interested citizens. The various regulatory agencies have also been kept mtormcd the design of the project and their input was obtained during the preh^mma^ design nroce?s Regulatorv agency comments have been incoiTK)rated mto the final design to the greatest possible extent whHe retammg the overall project objecmes. A detailed evaluation of best management practices meoared in conducted during the planning phase of the project. A f^sibdity study prep^ed m October of 1993 evaluated the foUowing BMPs: Urban fertihzer management, yard wastrr^^aement Uvestock waste management, agricultural sod conservation nractices sffeet cleanins. chemical treatment, chemical algae conttol, detention bSins a^d aeration. With the exception of chemx^ algae control all of the above BMPs have been incorporated into the project as p^ ot the draf coooeradve agreement between the MCWD, the cities of Long L^e, Orono, and MeSia and Hennepin County. Site-specific numencal water qu^ty goals for Long Lake were developed in conjunction with the MPCA. To meet the implementauon coal both intemal^d external phosphorus loadmgs must be substanaaily reduced. To reduce external phosphorus loading sigmricant wet detention pondmg at both the CouiS' Road No. 6 and the Deer Hill Road sites is required. Due to econoimcs and Sal Constraints, the overall pond areas have been reduced somewhat from uhe S^d feasibdltv study. Therefore, it is important that the remaining proposed ^ be'constructed so as to not funher reduce water quality projections for Long Lake below the original water quality goal. Durina the planning and design phase of the project an exhausd^analysis was completS which evaluated aU altemadve detention pond sites. The foUowing N:MJ11504-2?WJ Y061« LTR-a£S-5« Ms. Ceil Strauss Mr. Joe Yanta June 21, 1995 Page 3 summarizes the alternative sites (dot^nstream to upstream) and the feasibility of their use for the project: DNR wetland east of County Road No, 6 wet natural be excavated, The private ”o"rrs“hlvetdicated they would Ld it is the MCWD'S opinion that any proposed work in the weUand wouia require a costly legal battle. Private orooertv immediately upstream from the DNR wetland south of County Road No 6 This area was originally envisioned as the best site tor the o^t^Cest^et^ention biin. Due to strong objections by ihe Pro^r^^ ^ ^ rp<vuit of a Icnsthv period of negotiations and evaluation o*. Ztraufp^rd cXraSnl'"fhi<^-D has obLi^ a «fmen. agreement SsSiiattl Snt to be constructed on the northern portion of the property m early 1998 as detailed in the project design report. Private property immediately north of County Road No. ,™5 fajs unsuitable as it is too small to construct any signmcant pondmg, is heavUy wooded with apparent on-site wetlands, is divided between two and would invoWe additional project costs by spUmng up the detenuon basins. * Lli'tJ^fsfcW W.^T“^nrife^VSNAri'ros area is not feasible due to steep topography and limited access. # Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area. This property a °f Dotential ponding sites but the MCWD has been nouiied in wnung that the dot proSted iea is absolutely off limits for a detention basm construcQon project. Private nrooertv located between Deer Hill Road on the north and WWSNA on me south. TOs area has a large area feasible for detention basm and wetland construction. Construction is proposed to Stan in me wmter ot 1995- 9 . Private property nonh of Deer HiU Road consists of smaU parcels with multiple property owners wim no significant ponding sites due to topographical N:’OlirOi-3»M-nf06l^XT»A£S*lhr Ms. Ceil Strauss Mr. Joe Yanta June 21, 1995 Page 4 compromised. Individual portions of the project involving impacts to ruitigation m^ures are described m the attached summary' As presented m the EAW and design report, the project is considered to and no additional wetland mitigation is proposed. It is our undersmdmg from the p^ anrjlicadon meeting widi Mr. Yanta and a phone conversauon with Ms. Straass that me Park projLt can be covered under a COE Nationwide Penrul and the joint DNR/MCWD general permit respectively. The County Road No. 6 and Deer Hill Ro^pr^ects would bom need individual COE permits and DNR Protected Water Permits requiring a 30-day pubUc review and comment penod. Please feel free to contact Mike Panzer at 479-4207 or me at any questions regarding this permit applicauon or need addiuonal mtormation. Sincerely, WENCK ASSOCIATEST^C. Andrew E. Syverson, P.t. Environmental Engineer AES/ljv Enclosures cc; Michael Panzer, Wenck Thomas LaBounty, MCWD Martha Hartfiel, MCWD Waverley Eby Boom, Popham-Haik Larry Zdon, MPCA Joe Lynch, City of Long Lake Jeff Karlson, City of Medina Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Ellen Sones, HCD Joel Settles, Hennepin County N:«IU'04.3)WJY«I»5XT»-AE3.I)* Long Lake Improvement Project Wetland Impacts and Mitigation Long Lake Citv Pack Ue existing sedimenQdon basins on the site were constructed tor the purpose of water qualits- treatment and are therefore not considered weUands. However, the proposed project involves no fiUing and will enlarae and deepen the existing basins. The project wiU also provide a 10-foot wide shelf with a 10:1 slope surrounding the basin where wetland vegetation will be planted. The MC\VD has budgeted S20.000 for planting of wetland vegetation. The MCWD feels the project WiU improve the quantity and quality of wetland habitat and requires no additional mitigation. County Road No. .Si two cell wet detention basin/weUand is proposed to be constructed within a 3.33 acre easement on private property south of County Road No. 6. The above basin wiU have a surface area of approximatelv 2.5 acres. The project wUl impact 2.5 acres of PFOIC fType 7) weUand. Every effort has been made to maximize the wetland function and values on site wtule stUl prov.dmg for the requited water quaUty treatment wet basin volume. The basm system ts a now through system so there is no bounce in water levels in either of the two cells. The second ceU wUl also receive treated water after having passed through the first ceU. Wetland fringe suitable for submergent, emergen, and wooded vegemtion will total 1.92 acres. The MCWD has budgeted $25,000 for planting of wetland vegetauon. In addition to die above fringe wetland, the project contains 1.25 acres of deep water habitat (depths greater than 6.5 feet). The total weUand and deepwater area is 3 17 (0 67 acres larger than the impacted wetland area). By considering the deepwater area from die second ceU (0.76 acres) to be credited as midgation, die MCWD feels die project is basicaUy self miniating. However, as added mitiganon for lost Type 7 wetland, the District is creadng an addmon^ 1.54 acres of wooded wedand a. die Deer HiU Road site (1.41 acres of the wooded wetland mitigation could be appUed towards the County Road No. 6 wedand impacts while the remaining 0.13 acres would be used as part of the Deer HUl Road site midgadon). N YD6193XTR-A£5-Jr* n^r Hill Road A tuo cell ue. detention basLVwedard .s proposed lo be constrccted «thln a i:.08 acre easem.o. u r.--. Uiii Ro^,H The abovc basin v^iU have a surface area ot on private propenj- sooth ot Dee. HiU Road. ^ of 7,5, approxintately 6.1 acres. The project wiU impact a total ot 7.67 acres ' acres of PE.MBd (Type 2) and 0.15 acres of PUBF.S (Type 4). Every effort has een ma H allies on the site while still providing for the required water maximize the wetland function and values on the site wnue 5 f ^ u • . 1 mr. The basin system is a flow through system so there is nocualitv ireatmem wet basin volume. Th y • a t r Lonce in water levels In e.ther of the two ceUs. Tftc second ced wall recetve J “ “ havinv passed through the first ceU. In addinon, the exishng wetland has been arttfictafiy dnc and therefore the proposed project can be considered in part a restoration prc,^t. suitable for submergent and emergent vegemtion wiU total 4.11 acres (not mcludtng 1.54 ac«s o wooded wetland mitigation area). Much of the above area ,s thought to be ot higher v ue » existinv Tvpe 2 wetland and the proposed project has more wetland diversity that what currently exists °The MCWD has budgeted $75,000 for planting of wetland vegetation. In addition to the above fringe weUand, the project conmins 3.74 acres of deep water habitat (depths grea^^ 6.5 feet) The total wetland and deepwater area is 9.4 acres (1.73 acres larger than the wetland area). By considering the deepwater area from the second cell (3.43 t^ « ‘ as mitigation and applying 0.13 acres of the wooded wetland mitigation towards the Deer Hil Road wetland impacts, the M(TOT3 feels the project is self mitigating. Siiminary “ zr rjr provide water quality treatment for a majority of the drainage within the Uing Lalte Subwatershed. To feasibility treat regional drainage for this Subwatershed wetland impacts are unavoidable. .S:«l»3^3»^UY06l?5XT«rA£S-^f• Design Report Long Lake Improvement Project I I Prepared for: >nNNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHTO DISTRICT 15500 Wayzata Boulevard Twelve Oaks* Center, Suite 611 Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Prepared by: WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P.O. Box 428 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0428 (612) 479-4200 Wenck File #0185-04-208 J May 1995 Table of Contents ESL&fi I. introduction • • • • •• • •I • • •• • • •• • •• • •• • • S: ......• • •• • •• • • I 3 n.COUNTY ROAD NO. 6 ^VET DETE.NTION BASIN/^VETI.AND • • • •• • • • • • X Wet Detention Basin/Wetland ............... B. Water Quality Modeling........................ ............... C Permitting Requirements........................ ,D \VET DETENTION BASIN/WETLAND • • •• • • • • •• • •• • • • • •• • •• • • • • • •• • •• • • 5 5 6 7 7 8 m. DEER HILL ROAi A. Wet Detention Basin/Wetland . • Dcsi§n ConsidcrEtions • • • • • •• • •• • • B IV. i: SrchmcrATalTuc^ Resul. and Considendons _. . . . .... • • Water Quality Modeling..................................................................... C. Permitting Requirements................... CITY PARK WET DETENTION .............................................................. S 8 9 10 10 • • A. Wet Detention Basins/Wedand . . Design Considerations • • •• • •• • • 1; S::Schnrc7A7ar;t.caI Results and Considetauons ^. . • • • • • B. Water Quality Modeling................... C. Permitting Requirements................... • • • • • • • • •• • •• • •• • •• • • 11 11 12 13 13 V.long lake alum treatment • •••••• • •• • •• • •• • • • • • • VI. vn. A. Design Consideraaons.............. •___ B. Permitting ...................................... wetland impacts and mthgation .... E«(VIR0NMENTAL assessment worksheet • • •• • •• • •• • •• • • 14 16 17 18 H:^\ I i Table of Contents (Cont«) \TH. ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS EX. PROJECT SCHEDULE............ 19 20 1 i TABfJS 1 2 3 4 5 Summa.7 . constructioo Cost Estimate S““"S n R„ Jwet^eSula^Wetland - Construction Cost Estimate Wrt ^tention Basins/WeUand - Constn.ction Cost Estunat. Alum Application Cost Estimate-Long Lake figures 1 ^TLi^ubwattBbed and Municipal Boundaries appendices A B C D E F Fmal Design Plans Geotechnical Data and Analysis Analytical Results Water Quality Modeling Alum Design Calculations Wetland Delineation Reports N:>01t5^30fVZ>M<i^KfT- AES-lf» Section I Introduction The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is undertaldng a project with the objective of improving the quality of the water in Long Uke. The project will also beneilt Lake Minnetonka, which receives drainage from the Long Lake subwatershed, .k project envisioned by the MCWD in the preparation of it's Water Resource Management Plan m 1983. A feasibiUty study was performed by the MCWD in 1994 to provide recommendations for watershed improvements to the Long Lake subwatershed that would optimize water quaUty improvement of the lake. This design report provides final design mformauon, water quality benefits, and updated construction costs of the proposed watershed improvements. A. PROTFCT Bf^CKGROUND In July 1975, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District filed a petition requesting the MCWD to undertake improvements in the Lake Minnetonka area. The purpose petiUoned imorovements was to alleviate water quantity and quaUly issues in the Lake Minnetonka watershed. A supplement to the original petition was filed in June 1977, requesting that storage and retention projects be constructed in stages and that the French Lake basin and Long Lake Creek Subwatershed be considered as a first stage. The petitions that were filed were consistent with the Overall Plan of the District for basic water management. Hennepin County subsequendy constructed improvements at the French Lake outlet with MCWD corroboration. The MCWD later undertook a study of the Painter Cree Subwatershed and ordered a storage and retention project which was constructed * 1 i* ■1i 1 oroiec- orovided wet deter.tion bddins etid other improveotents to reduce peak flows, Crw^rUv and ntana^e rou.H flsb. ..so .n .933, the MOV33 puPUshed .fs draft water tnanagement plan designed to speciflcaUy meet water quality and quanuty management ,oals throughout dte Distnct as mandated by the 193. Surface Water amended,. The intent to address water quality and quantity watershed trbutary to Lake Minnetonka was carried over .mo the dratt plan. Sfec. y. "'t were enTstoned in the Long Lake and O.eason Lake Subwatersheds m the Lake L— area. The O.eason Creek Project was imp.emented in petition from the City of Wayzata. Z P'an management plan involved numerous municipalines. two count.es and several ^e^«. • ^ . >,rf of 10 vears. Final approval of the plan was received from the MLneTotaTo'd of wLr and Soil Resources in 1993, enabling the MCWD to initiate projects contained in the approved plan. , ,„.ent Proiect was begun in late 1939. by the MCWD. with assistance • f and auanti^Y the causes contributing to the decline in diagnostic study to charactenze and quanuty the quality in the lake; the development of numencal water qu ty go . ■ of oerformance standards for a remedial plan to improve water quaUty to determinauon of .rerio^ance s meeting the water quality goals set forth in the diagnostic study. These stu ie^ undertaken with the support of the municipalities contribuung by a citizens advisory committee comprised of represenmtives tor interested parties. diagnosric study field monitoring was completed in September 1990. A draft ^ diagnosric/feasibility study report was submitted to the MPCA in " ' resubmitted in October 1993, after addressing MPCA comments. The MCWD also app 2 I • n .^h»r 1993. However, in spring 1991.'.‘le Board for a Phase H CWP S™!! apphoiooh i of Managers of the MC^VD ,„p,cut the admin.smtive burden detemnned that the proiec: co-d^-- and reouired to udUze a grant. .e-^ih . . approved by the MCWD at that -.o. * Viiiitv studv perfonned by the MCWD in s^» '«'■ irL.'»“ „«.... nrsitsrrr:i numents and sediment delivered to Lo , j This project was ortginally envts.oned as a ^ and a 2nd phase at DeerhtU Road ,f needed. As property owners the final destgn is as tollows. l^oad in Medina as a 1st phase and 2nd phase approximately 2 years later. 1 rh#» lake sediments and reduce internal ,.) Alum treatment of Long Ukc to s phosphorus loading. Hypoiimnettc aeratto , envisioned to reduce internal phosphorus ,ne more recent long-term operation and maintenance costs assocated aFT-AES-'l* . tK- cmi is for alum treatment of Long Lakeregulatory acceptance of alum treaLment, the 5mai design is in lieu of aeration. 3 , E.^an=...n: of cxisang sedi^-enadon baxin. in 0.C City of Lon* Ukn to r«inco the loan of nutrients and sed.mnnt to Long Uhe from the .>0 major storm s^-ered TT c Piahwav 12 through part ot Long Lake in subwa-ersheds. Planned improvements to U.S. K.ghway 5 199*' will increase the need tor these basins. Section II , j County ^ Detention Basin/Wetjand \VfT DETT^nN BASrV/^^"gTXANB 1. ppcign Cof vnderaDoni . ..o ceU w« detention «.dand .dU de «ed on priva. connoence of *e nonheas. .-.d r.onhwcs. tnbouncs draining to Long .P .0.0,0 waa nogooa,od . .0 o,„.e - sotuemon, agroomon, ^.ih thoj^and ow 0 ,ons.naction was delayed 2 years. 60% from the original proposal m the feasibility stuoy ^rtaiaonai wet TO augment the numient and sediment removal of the new basin designs an ad^Lon^ t de-ention basin/wetland originally envisioned as a 2nd phase wUl be consffuct m ^ northeast tributary at Deer Hilt Road in Medina (see Section IH). Final design p contained in .appendix A. . •„ h- at elevation 950.4. Maintaining a permanentA permanent normal pool will be create at eievauon normal pool is important for the followmg reasons; events. The permanent normal pool increases sedimentation efficiency and reduces sediment transport by dissipating runoff energy. The pool perimeter and berms i provide a habitat suitable for aquaue plants that will aid in the removal of soluble phosphorous. The basin is configmed into two ceUs and designed to promote plug flow conditions, improving poUutant removal effictency and minimieing maintenance costs. A 1.92 acre wetland fringe ranging from elevation 952.0 - 944 surrounds the open water at 4:1 slope. A summary of the proposed wetland impac-.s and wetland mitigation is presented m Section VI. The basin will not modify th.e existing hydraulics or water levels of the stream. The wet detendon basin/wedand has the foUowing design charactcnsncs: Normal pool elevadon « 950.4 Surface area at elevation 950.4 « 2.5 acres Maximum normal pool depth =■ 10.0 feet Average depth = 6.1 tect Total normal pool volume * 15.2 acre-feet Side slopes = 4:1 n ,4m • Sou borings were drUled at seven locations on the site. At each bonng, contmaous split spoon samples were coUected and Shelby tube samples were taken at selected locations and depths. Based on the geotechnical information coUected, the soils in the vicinity of the proposed two ceU basin are adequate to allow for 4:1 basin sideslopes (See Appendix B). One sou sample was composited from 0-14 feet from borings CR 1 through CR 5. A second sou sample was composited from 0-14 feet from borings CR 6 and CR 7. The samples were analyzed for the foUowing categories of chemical compounds: herbiades, metals, pesticides, 6 N:«l T pcsuc pa.^.e-..« w« dr.cc:cd o^c: d.an compounds badkeround concentration ranges (See Appendix O- B. ■■.■^TrR»"simMQB£U:£G ■ .h,. nee' Hill Road and County Road No. 6 .oul phosphorus -oval efficiencies we. esdmated usmg output data). Pfpv pTTTNr. REQlHBEMEgS The County Road No. 6 Wet Detention East in/wedand will require the foUowing permits: „f Eneinee's (COE) individual Section 404 permit and 1. U.s. Army Corps ot Engine * t _ _ ant accompanying Minnesota quality certification. Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Section 401 water 2. Deoartment of Natural Resources (DNR) Protected Waters Permit. 3.Conditional Use Pcnnit and flowage easement modification from the City of Orono. Hennepin County Road access permit. Section III Deer Hill Road Wet Detention Basin/Wetland A.WET DFTFNTinV BASI\'/WETLAND 1. Cjnsiderationi A two csll wet deter.iion basin/weUatid will be constructed on private property along the northeast tribuory in the vicinity of Deer Hiil Road, nie basin’s function is to reduce the hivh nutrient and sediment loading from the nonheast tributary prior to further treatment of both tributaries by the County Road No. 6 basin. The Deer Hill Road basin was designed to maximize basin area and volume to the extent that the original goals for phosphorus removal effictency, documented in the feasibility study, were achieved by the Deer HiU Road/County Road No. 6 basin systems. Final design plans are contained in Appendix A. A permanent normal pool will be created at elevation 964.5. the existing channel bottom elevation. The permanent pool is important for the same reasons presented for the County Road No. 6 Basin in Section II. The basin is configured into two cells and designed to promote plug flow conditions, improving nutrient removal efficiency and minimizing maintenance costs. The basin is designed with an extensive wetland fringe approximately 50 feet in width and ranang from elevation 964.5-958. The wetland fringe surrounds the open water and is constructed at a 8:1 slope. A 1.9 acre wetland IS inches in depth will be created along the eoit edge of the basin. 8 locations sumuoding th= to- A summary ot the proposed mitigation is presented in Section VI. T.C bas^ no. .edify e.sdn. hyd.uUcs or wa.r levels of the stream. T.e wet detention basin has the foUowing design charactcnsncs: • Normal pool elevation =« 964.3 . Sunacc area at elevation 964.5 = 6.1 acres • Maximum normal pool depth ® 10 • Average depth » 7.3 feet . Total normal pool volume - 44.6 acre-feet . Side slopes = 8:1 (from eievadon 933 - 954.5) .1 n-i „ six locations on the site. At each boring, continuous spUt spoon “rito and Shelby mbe samples wem tahen at selected locadons and dep.s. Based on the geotechnical information coUected. the soi. in die vic^,i of the proposed two ceu basin are adequate to aUow for 8:1 basin sideslopes (See Appends B). one SOU sample was composited to .30 feet to borings 0- 16 feet from boring DH-4. A second soU sample was composited from 0-20 feet fr TIH 3 and DH-6 The samples were analyzed for the foUowing categones of semivolanles. None of the above parameters were detected other than met^ compou which were aU within normal background concentration ranges (See Appendix Q. N:^0i B. WATER QUALITY MODELING The total phosphorus removal efficiency for the Deer Hill Road basin is approximately 60 percent. Phosphorus removal efficiencies were estimated using the Pond Net Detention Pond Model (See Appendix D for water quality model input and output data). C. PERAnTTTNG REOUTREAfENTS The Deer Hill Road Wet Detention Basin/Wetland will require the following permits: 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) individual Section 404 permit and accompanying MPCA Section 401 water quality certification. 2. DNR Protected Waters Permit. 3. Land Alteration Permit from the City of Medina. N: V) 1 t5>04.3arOMii^RFr-AES-Irr Section IV City Park Wet Detention Basins/Wetland A. WET DETENTTON BASINS/WETLAND 1. Design Considerations Two wet detention basins/wetlands will be constructed, on City of Long Lake parkland, at the outlet of Storm Sewer 1 and 2 with a drainage area of 613 acres and 20 acres respectively. The City of Long Lake currently maintains two existing unconnected sedimentation basins in the park with a total area of approximately 0.39 acres. The existing basins will be enlarged and deepened, to the extent feasible on the property, to improve nutrient and sediment removal efficiencies. In addition, flow from the enlarged Storm Sewer I basin will be diverted through a new pipe connection to the enlarged Storm Sewer 2 basin. This will improve overall treatment efficiencies and to alleviate existing stagnation problems in the Storm Sewer 2 basin. TTie basins are designed as a flow through system which diverts typical flows through both basins. Extreme flows will discharge over an existing outlet structure in Basin 1 as they do now. Final design plans are contained in Appendix A. A permanent normal pool will be created at elevation 945.5 in basin 1 and at elevation 944.5 in basin 2. The permanent pool is important for the same reasons presented for the County Road No. 6 basin in Section II. The basins are designed with a wetland fringe approximately 10 feet in width ranging from elevation 945.5 - 944.5 and 944.5 - 943.5 around Basins 1 and 2 respectively. The wetland fringe surrounds the open water and is constructed at a 10:1 slope. N:>Ol t5>04.3»\OwifB.KPT-AES>I)« The wet detention basin/wetland has the following design characteristics; Basin i • Normal pool elevation «■ 945.5 • Overflow elevation = 946.0 • Surface area at elevation 945.5 » 0.5 acres • Mxximun! normal pool depth = 10 feet • Average depth » 5.4 feet • iOtal normal pool volume =■ 2.7 acrc'feet • Side slopes = 3:1 Basin 2, • Normal Pool Elevation » 944.5 • Surface area at elevation 944.5 = 0.35 acres • .Maximum normal pool depth « 3.5 feet • Average depth « 3.7 feet • Total normal pool volume 1,3 acre-feet • Side slones » 3:1 OgQtCChnical/AnaJvtical Resuits and Considerations Soil borings were drilled at tour locations on the site. At each boring, continuous split spoon samples were collected and Shelby tube samples were taken at selected locations and depths. Based on the geotechnical information, the soils in the vicinity of the proposed basins are adequate to allow for 3:1 sideslopes (See Appendix B). One soil sample was composited from 0-14 feet from borings LL 1-2 and a second soil sample was composited from 0-14 feet from borings LL 3-4. The samples were analyzed for the tollowing categories of chemical compounds: herbicides, metals, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and semivolatiles. Low levels of seraivolatiles or PAHs were detected in both samples as weU a minor of the herbicide 2,4-DB. The metal compounds were all detected within normal background concentration ranges. .°esticides and PCBs were not detected (See Appendix C). It is not anticipated that any special disposal requirement wiil be necessary for the above soils. M:\CIUVM*30rvDi»ipLRIT-A£S-Qy B. water quality modeling The total phosphoais removal efficiency for the Cit> Park wet detention basins/wetlands is approximately 20 percent. Phosphorus removal efficiencies were estimated using the Pond Net Detention Pond Model (See Appendix D for water quality mode! input and output data). C.aitASliMil VG REOUTRENfENTS The City Park wet detention basins/wetlands will require the following permits: 1. U.S, Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Section 404 Nationwide Permit Number 26. 2. DNR Protected Waters Permit. 3. City of Long Lake approval. 4. Submittal of DNR permit application to the mayor of Long Lake and the board of supervisors of the soil and water conservation district. M:i)l U>04>3ai\0r«ipi.XfT'A£S*lhr Section V Long Lake Alum Treatment A. DESIGN CONSIDERATTONS Aluminum sulfate (alum) will be applied, in a liquid form, near the surface of Long Lake. The alum removes phosphorus from the water column by forming an aluminum phosphate precipitate or by sorption of phosphorus on the surface of polymerized alum.inum hydroxide. If sufficient alum is applied, the aluminum hydroxide floe that falls to the sediment continues to sorb phosphorus from the water or to form aluminum phosphate precipitate. By allowing a large dose of alum to reach the sediments, the phosphorus rich sediments supplying the "internal loading" can be inactivated for potentially long periods of time improving the trophic state of the lake. Long Lalce is approximately 271 acres in size with approximately 220 acres where depths are greater than four feet. It is proposed that only areas deeper than four feet be treated as long ­ term deposition of alum is not practical in shallow areas and would likely be transported to deeper parts of the lake by wave action and prop turbulence. Alum treatment should be performed after the significant external loads of phosphorus have been treated or reduced. Future deposition of high phosphorus concentration sediment could cover over the alum on the lake bed wasting phosphorus binding capacity and allowing the new sediments to exert a new internal loading into the lake. Alum treatment will be performed at a time when water temperatures are above 42® F and there are no severe algae blooms, preferably in the late spring or fall months. Alum dosagu was calculated by two methodologies. n.e tot yields the maximum dose a lake can receive and still maintain a pH above 6.0 (Cooke et al, 1986). A pH of 6.0 is considered environmentaUy safe from an aluminum toxicity perspeedve and meets MPCA water quality standards. The second method esdmates the actual required dose based on phosphorus loading data and the number of years the treatment is to be effective. Method one requi.es approxim y 280,000 gauons of alum (approximately 1,300 gallons/aae). Method two requues approximately 50,000 gallons of alum (approximately 230 gaUons/acre for five y^s of internal loading control). TTe alum dosages were calculated for Ali(SO,),. 4 H,0 and are equivalent to approximately 610 pound of aluminum/acre and 100 pounds of aluminum/acre respectively. The design dose was selected by multiplying the dose calculated by method two by an empirical factor ot 2.5 used in the industry. The above approach allows for uncertainues m phosphonis loading but lull drasUcally reduces alum quandties from an environmental and approximately 270 pounds of alummum/acre. representing the actual alum requirements. If it is later determined that addiuonal ^um« required to meet previously determined water quality goals for Ixmg lake, a second DNR approval for aiutc Application can be considered. ; ' i * • r B. PERMrl ri^ No fomial permits are DNR ecological services. required, however, the Districi needs to receive an approval from the Section VI Wetland Impacts and Mitigation The overaU project wiU impact eristiag wedaods at the County Road No. 6 Site and the Deer HiU Road site (See Appendix F for Wetland Delineation Reports). The project will also create wetland habitat around the perimeter of wet detention basins at the above two sites and in Long Lake Oty Park. The intention is to maximize wetland habiut around aU water quality basins while still allowing for a design with significant deepwater habitat to meet water quality treatment goals. The various wetland impacts and mitigation areas are summarized in Table 1. As the above table indicates, the proposed projects wiii convert 2.4 acres of existing upland to wetiand fringe and/or deep water habitat. The projects wiil also provide significantly mote drverse wetland systems than cutiendy exist and will include deep water habitat, submergent wetland fringe, emergent wetland fringe and wooded wetland. I i Section VII Environmental Assessment Worksheet An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been prepared for the project which includes all four project segments, the wet detention basin/wetland south of County Road No. 6; the wet detention basin/wetland at Deer Hill Road; the wet detention basin/wetland at Long Lake Cit}' Park; and application of alum to Long Lake. The environmental review process must be completed with a negative declaration in most cases prior to the issuance of the permits from the individual agencies. However, the two can be reviewed concurrently. The DNR definitely requires the EAW prior to issuance of permits, however, the USCOE does not need EAW completion but does require cemrication from the MPCA which may require that the E.AW process be complete. .S:\01 gjyj^aBIM5i*ipuWT*A£5-lh Section VUl Estimated Project Costs Estimated constriction costs tor the tour seaments of the Long Lake Improvement Project are as follows: 359. SL36I mil m.^ 119. c 15Q.0QQ S2.Q9S.mil County Road No. 6 Wet Detendon BasinAVetlar.d Deer Hill Road Wet Detendon Basin/Wedand Long Lake City Park Wet Detendon Basins/WeUand Long Lake Alum Treatment Total Construction Costs Esdmated construcrion items and quanddes are detailed in Tables 2. 3, 4. and 5. “1 " r“7 tables and reflected in the above project costs. Section IX Project Schedule PreHminary consmiction plans and sp«ificaiions for the project were completed in early May of 1995. A public hearing for die project has been scheduled by the MCWD for May .5, 1995. Subsequent to the pubUc hearing and approval of the final design by the MCWD, the EAW will be submitted to the Environmental Quality Board for pubUc notice and comment. Appropriate appUcations for approval from the various governmental agencies will also be submitted at this time. ■me project schedule will ultimately depend upon the MCWD obtaining the necessary permits and approvals to construct the water quaUty improvements. Assuming all required permits and approvals are received in a fimely manor, it is anticipated that the project will be let m early fall 1995. Construcdon of the City of Long Lalce Park and Deer Hill Road wet detention basin/wetland systems will be performed in December 1995, and January and February 1996. Construcdon of the County Road No. 6 wet detendon basin/wetland will be performed in January and February 1998. Alum treatment of long Lake will be performed during the spring of 1996. 20 M I I J 1 a j .'■j n 1 1 Long Lake Diagnostic Study Volume 1 of 2 Prepared for .VONNEHABA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345-1597 Prepared by: WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359 (612) 479-4200 Wenck File #0185-04-165 I October 1993 1 4 Executive Sununary Diagnostic and Feasibility Studies This repon presents the results, implementation plan, and cost esumates tor the Dtagnostic Feasibility Study on Long Lake in Hennepin County. The project was funded by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distnct (MC^VD) and the Minnesota Polludon Control Agency (MPCA). The diagnosdc study included a !Z-month water quality monitoring program and subsequent data and land use assessments which characterized the sources of the water quality problems on the lake, the feasibiUty study evaluates the various alternatives for water quality improvement and finally, develops the implementation plan for the project. Long Lake was found to be borderUne eutrophic-hypereutrophic with chronic occurrences of blue-oreen algae blooms and low dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations. Historical and current monhoring data suggest that dte lake is phosphonts limited. The lake has a relatively shore hydrologic residence time of approximately one year; thus, a reducaon ot the external an internal phosphorus load to the lake was determined to be the necessary action to reduce the blue-green algal bloom. Cutrentiy, the lake's phosphorus concentration is 114 micrograms per Uter Otg/1); » goal of 53 ng'l established. This goal is to be reached after all watershed improvements are implemented. Reduction of the internal phosphorus loading will be accomplished by hypolimnetic aeration. An additional benefit for the lake aeration is the improvement of the spore fishery. In order to prevent excessive fish kills, DO levels must be maintained at 5 miUigrams per liter (mg/1) or greater in the hypolimnion. It may not be necessary to have complete aeration of the hypolimnion. However, a refuge of well oxygenated water would be required to improve the fishery. i i ▼ ■J 3 i i I 1 I 1 In the feasibility study, a number of alternative^ were evaluated to reach the phosphorus concentration goals and increase the oxygen levels in the hypolimnion. These alternatives ranged from administrative alternatives such as fertilizer management education programs, to structural alternatives such as the construction of nutrient reducing detention basins. Each of the options was evaluated for its benefit in improving water quality, estimated initial and long ­ term (operation and maintenance) costs, and technical teasibility. The most technically sound and cost-effective options were incorporated into the implementation plan for improving Long Lake. The final plan elements include the foUowing: A local public information/education committee which will focus on informing, enlisting cooperation, and improving fertilization practices of local landowners. Street cleaning to capture potential pollutants before they are mixed with stormwater runoff and transported to the lake. Construction of deie.ntion basins to reduce the load of pollutants delivered to the lake via runoff from northern subwatersheds. Aeration systems to maintain areas of well oxygenated water in the hypoliminion, reduce mtemal phosphorus loading, and improve the sport fishery. Development of a fisheries management plan to improve the recreational fishery in the lake. The last element of the plan is post-implementation monitoring to determine the effectiveness of the plan. The overall result of the project is an estimated 77 percent reduction in external and internal phosphorus loading to the lake. This will result in a reduction of Long Lake phosphorus . . t t _ concentration from 114 ;xg/l to 53 ;tg/l. This in turn will result in a reduction of lake chlorophyil-a concentration to 15 ;ig/l and an increase in lake secchi depth to 1.6 meters. The project is to be implemented over a six-year schedule. The total project cost is estimated at S3.5 million. Major funding will be provided by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Grant funding will be requested for 40 percent of the project cost from the MPCA Clean Water Partnership Program. The remaining local funding will be in-ldnd contributions from the DNR, as well as the cities of Long Lake, Medina, and Orono. vu [ Everv effort was made to maximize wetland mitigation within the project design and area consents and a significant amount of money has been budgeted to ensure wetland mitigation be performed in an appropriate and successful marmer. Th.e proposed projects impact a large area of wetland but the impacts are much less than projects which involve filling or drainin-, subsequent development activities. Tne MC%VTD feels the net result of the proposed project is a more diverse wedand habitat as well as improved water quality for Long Lake. For the above reasons and the detailed informadon provided with the permit application, the MCWD feels the overall project is self mitigating with respect to wedands. N:FRM«A£S»lh» , „_____ (./,Tea PreriiPCe Par» iFCT NQT:PICA71CN Apo'.iCAT'CN PCHM LCC.aL ,:.a. A.= • ... ...~p«,ota r-isar-r-ert \arurai a»«ouf;8s. ane vouf '.aca. G.iv*r-r-*-t .r : r-is "2rr^ '3 -c^'*v 3C=!V *3 *“« J - 'v •O'cs :* • - • - ‘ __________jrix r--ir ur siSicTtcn zr,, ‘3,-n -- -o-v iccrv -3 -e J 3 -■•-'V _0'=s . - V •■_»• ..'.cr agerc:es sroc.a 30v.se vcu if t-e.r .ursdctien ;r s-r-:.- :f 3 srceoseo .va:e' .ve'-ero rr; e:: ;r .v-r, .v-.-.- -av a.i -v. • " ".J'J./j.vn aoccarcn fcr~s. =’I :u: t-.s ‘:r-, :sr-c.etetv a-s r-a.. * c:=v ,ou.r.r-er:s .v-tro -= :avs Scr-e .GU's -^av also -eau.re <..3 a oosv ‘or vcur ••=or=s -CU MUST CSTA.N ALL =.oC l: = £2 .vitn ciars '-acs. att. *o eac."’ or ti*e ageccies ..s:eo on •-“» 'eve'se o’ “* iUT:-CRCAT C:.S =£?Cn= =£G;.'JN1.'.2 ’.VC"' .-■ = >JCV 'JS= C\L^- LGU NUMBER MDNB NUMBEB:.3.5lkl5J____ ^CRPS NUMBER: aiccHcanr $ \arre Las:, -’rst. M : » Auirc-ztc ^ anv Minnehaha Creek '.vacershed Disrrlc; Ver»e V Lqsrciates. ino Accress strjit. B = =0* 'iui-cer. G-tV. otate -5 -ooet ^ ____ ^SjQl 155CflWayzaca 31vd., Twelve Caks uenrer, suite 61., .^u....a — . -Ga. Location ct o'ooosea croiec: attac- o-i.v'c i.-ov-ir; -O'.v to ;et to j'tei 612i 476-7970 uot. E5oc^. Sucaivtsico CCUNTV CUA.-E.SHC-ICNls, 5EC-CNSU, ‘to. rCLVN.r-.His. No. ^ANOcis. No Hennepin (See Page 2 EAW)_______26.3^'.35 _~—TTTT’.oip -p ^.BENc. 5CXN0.;CBPBC.E-ACC=Hi -P WATEHSCCY An-=C . =. ana N,^ ..F _______________________________ DNR Protecced Warercour se flowing to Lake ^60?)^^ ^ ^ ESTIMATED PBC.cCT ccsT s 2.1 nillion -aVt'"^nrLnxDi''—Mr = p n. — ___________________________—----------— ■ ■ ■ " " ■ r" " ________ vnriT' Ynu r^a\f SLCstiTut9 aimensionsi ; _____________________—-----------------------------------------------J.C-CSS PATH Z SSICCE ^ CULVEHT _ GAM | TYPE OF VjCRK ANC area .C.a ECX ALL ~^AT 3 SIPPAP - SANC61ANKET 1 - CONSTRUCT Z CRA iM ^ :,X...«va _z - , Z=j^ Z REMCVi w nlli^ _ _ chcREL NE XX/MTERWAY XX^VETLA-NO OTHER ,D£5CRI5E!: Ouclec scructure (sheet pile weir rill (i.oU'Ot^) and = =9CPCS=D TO 5= sn • =0 cRAiNED: HO draining; PTop<?Sfea-i. WETLAND VPEIS. AN^ ot,on of any orcooseo comoensatory n.,t,WETLAND -VPElSi "neiuCe'^Cescrio.io''n of any"orcoo.ea “oomoen,atory n^.tigation. Imoortanr: i^en vN t!"::r!::.:r:::r::^e:rDe:c:o, tn, .orK oe.ow: now . .VCO =, oon,: wnat eouicn^enr wo., .e usao. See AccachcienC________________________ PROJECT PURPOSE ' .vny 13 t".s croiect neeaea-wnat oensnts ivnl't srov.de 1. See Attachnent ______________________________________________„.,nod. tnat cou-d Be usea to acn.eve the purpose of VCur protect wn.ie avoiding or minimizing II. AL’ERNATIVES loescnoe any otrer sites or metnoas tnat COu-O oe usea to wetiand/water irroacts; Attacn aaditional sneets. .f neeceal. See Accachztenc DATES: Rroooseo start of activir/: December 1995 Proposed comctetion: summer 1998 [Identify anv conroieted worK on an anacneo drawing)------- ADJOINING PROPERTi' OWNERS 'Anacn list if more man two) AddressName Rpe Attach: State --------------------------------------------.. i.nt.r on R. or a.reaov acp.ieo for [enter an A. from: ^ DNn ^ AnMY CCRPS OP £nC in6£.RS "■"r'-'own'cr" clrmcr A. Has an arcnaeoiogtcai sur/ev of sroiect site oeen ^one CClaNTf ----1^11 .^1 < < < PLEASE CAREFULLY READ Ato^.COM^JrEtt TOCK OF > > _________' OATH:A f/9sl T nr.nUStnte-FpHprnl Water Rpsource Project Notitlrntion/Application Form (Addidonai Appiicadon Inronnaaon) V. VI. vn. IX. Appucable design plans ire coniained in .Appendix A of ±e design report, .•\ooiicabie wetland deiineadon reports are containec .Appendix t of the A A design report. A descr-paon of *e proposed wedsnd itopaca ^.d miugadon is comaiped in an anachment :o die permit appiicadon cover lener. .AU sods -Anil be disposed of off-site at an upland location to be determined by the contractor. There are no borrow areas on any of the three sites. The proposed wet detendon basins/wetlands -ao U be excavated during the winter months with eidter back hoes or crag lines. nro^f»r» is to reduce the loading of phosphoras to Long Lake. The Suto of ±e dia^Msdc smdv conducted in 1989-1990 indicated *at Long Lake is tord “toe eutrophic-hypereutrophic with chrome occurrences ot blue-^«n dgae blooms The imtjlementadon plan set specinc water quality goais lOr Lon, Lake. The proposed project includes -die key components necessary to acmeve the water quality goals for Long Lake. A analysis of alte-madve methods and altemadve project sites was completed dunng *e planning and design phases of the projecL Altemacva Jialysis is sumrnanzed in die permit appUcadon cover letter. Will be forwarded to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Minnesota Deparcme.nt of Namral Resources under separate cover. .Mi'fll ___^ <=iS-'c'Z-3( LONG LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Desisn Characteristics rniintv Road Vo. 6 Wet Detention Balin'Wetla^ Total excavation Normal water elevation (permanent pool) Surface area at elevation 950.4. Volume from elevation 940.4. to 950.4 Average depth Maximum depth Shelve slope Side slope Residence time Phosphorus removal rate 25,OCO cubic yards 950.4 2.5 acres 15.2 acre-feet 6.1 feel 10.0 feet 6:1 4:1 /.^3 ^ ~ w'<^ s C;' ' • 2.6 days 1871 Ibs/vr (overall removal including reduction ^ M w • « « 9 V Phosohorus removal efficiency uostream at Deer Hill Road) A 52 (overall removal including reduction upstream at Deer HUl Road) •nopr HiU Wpt Detpnfinn Basin/Wetland Total excavation Normal water elevation (permanent pool ) Sunace area at elevation 964.5 Volume from elevation 9’54.5 to 964.5 Average depth Maximum depth Side slope Reside.nce time Phosphorus removal rate Phosphorus removal efficiency 142.000 cubic yards 964.5 6.1 acres 44.6 acre-feet 7.3 feet 10.0 feet 8:1 16.9 days 1,538 Ibs/yr 61 fo I long l.\ke improvement project Desi2H Characteristics cm’ PARK WET DFTENTION BA5IN/’V^"ETLA>T) Total excavation 10,000 cubic yards Ncrmal water elevation (permanent pool) Surface area at elevation at 945.5 and 944,5 V'olume from elevation 935.5 to 945.5 and 936 to 944.5 Average depth Maximum depth Shelve slope Side slope Residence time Phosphorus removal rate Phosphorus removal efficiency Basin 1 g4$in_^ (overall yardage for boLh basins) 945.5 0.5 acres acres 2.7 acre-feet 5.4 feet 10.0 feet 10:1 1.3 acre feet 3.7 feet S.5 feet 10:1 3:1 3:1 5.1 days (overall residence time for both basins) 39 Ibs/yr. (overall removal for both basins) 19% (overall removal for both basins) T.rmg Lake Alum Treatment .■Mum = Aluminum sulfate Total lake area Lake area treated Minimum lake depth treated Maximum dose to maintain environmentally saie pH of 6.0 Design dose (A 12(504)3* 14H:0 271 acres 220 acres 4 feet 280.000 gallons of alum (aoorox. 610 pounds of aluminum/acre) 125.000 gallons of alum (approx. 270 pounds of aluminum/acre) 3 w V w «.«*•! ■-1 C i'..1 linn-hart- DATE:SeotP r.br r• 'rCrl:Long L-?ke . %c r\' -•'IG 1* »t*J s^W*./.' '■} ^ IVll*-'*'* »* 1 •»• : -? 1 c w ^f ^.* -I ,« 404 permit requirements. COE File ??95-03329-lP-JJY Wenck File ;i01S5-04-209 This memorandum include.'; a ilescription of ail the alternatives the MC\\T) considered bcfjie deciding on the use oi" wet detention basin/'wetlands. The memorandum will further ciiicu::^ ta.: rt'isof-s for choosin.'] ux '-f wet detent'on h;i.siri/w.;t:ands and hew cffciis w’re rT.-td- fo n.ii.'itnize impacts to •• :-ci< v ’.aiand.s. Infcrniaiion will also be provided about the fi’ ict-on rur v?*iiie ofthe now \vctitpd' ctd (ieepwatei habiiai and how the project rcauits ;n i-n overai: '*ri\'ironmenttl benefit .and i.v, therefore, conrirter.t v/ith the Memorandum Oi A5reement teiwcca FFA c;:d tlr COE regarding implementation ofthe 401(b)(1) Gutdelines. Description of /Ji ";rnatives The MCVVD considered numerous alternatives during the feasibility study stage ot the project (’ele. to c:i Icr.ei’ volume 3 of 3 Feasibility Study dated Octobf r i99j). .. lire Vv.ives consiwCiC'i inciucie the fodov-ing; Adr.-.ini; trativn Abernatiyes a. 0. c. Yard VVastt Management Llv'esToCK Waste ivlariakcment ' j CIU ■* : ] »‘a*« « a t 0. r Af^riculfjra! Scii Conserv ation Practices Street Cleaning Chemical Treatment V/I'-Siiiieal /kigae oontroi MOioy1-:'W^^vORI7.M■V.•^5 V> M l;v Joe Yanta Army Corps of Engineers Seutember 6, 1995 Page St;~uc.giral Alierr.a tn'ffj f. b. Deter, tier. Easinr Aernion # Agency (MPCA) goal for water quality. The implementation plan --eeommend., - . Construction of a 4.0 acre wet detention basin at Deer Hill Road. Construction of an 8.0 acre wet detention basin at County R.cadl'To. 6. Hypo'imretic aeration with ferric chlor.de addition. . Admimstrative and non-structural BNtPs inclusive of urban ferulizer manap.en:-;.!*. ya':- and livestock management, agricultural soil cc.nservatton practices an . street, vuu.n.s. The completed implementation plan estimated project cost at 3.3 rrdllion dollars. Due to concarP.s about the overall cost of the project, the MCVTO modified the project -n a September 19^^4 Feasibility Report to include the following project componenis. Construction of a 5.5 acre wet detention basin at County Road No. 6. ^ ^ HrJargemenc of two e;dsting sedimentation basins by a tctr.l of O.u 1 acre: in o -a /.'y vi Long Lake Park. Hypolimnetic aeration with ferric chloride addition. Cooperative agreement v/ith the cities of Long Lake, Medina, and Oreno reqm -.rg develop.ment of policies and disseminating mformatton on VJ^/^?s. V'“ MCWT? in the revised i.mplementation pic i estimates that the oroject v.-ill reduce pncsohcr.u* concentration in Long Lake to 70 ug/1 at a cost of approximately 1.4 million dollars. The MCWD ruriher evaluated and modified the project to address two major issues- j Inability of the MCWD to obtain required land rights needed to construct a :).5 -.ere basin on the County Road No. 6 site. Per a negotiated settlement agreerner t^a sma.ihr 2 5 acre bru-in was agreed to. This required the MCWD to include the Deer --uJ ..‘CiC. site as part of the implementation plan. The Deer Hill Road site had initially oaen viewed as a second phase of the project. O N ^JlS:\04-;09VWOIU7^liVD4««5 MEM-AKS Ifv Jne Yar.ta Army Corps of Engineers Sepieinber 6, !995 ’ Concern by t!.;? affecteH citicr over lor.g-ien:: operiticn and niiinienanon tccls asscf'ialed with the hypolinrif .'.:; sjat.O'i system, hi anditioi:, input vartO'-t: regulifc;y agencies irdicai.*"^ r preference fci a ’l ni treaimcrit over s.k r result, alum ircr'.tniP.n' va.s surct'tuied for aeration in the iriclcne'^atinn ^!rr.. Viie cun er.t d;-.aign of the project, us ref:acted in »rc- f.na: de.hg.i repci\ da.e:l Tv'ay • h''-;'-’ ihe following project components; Construction of a 2.5 acre wet detention basin cL County Road No. 6. Consfuction of a 6.1 acie wet daention basin at Deer rTill Road. Enlargement of two existing sedimentation ba.sins by a total of 0.46 aCie': in ib=: Ciiy of Long Lake Park. Alum treatment of Long Lake. Cooperative agreement with the Cities of Long Lake, Medina, and Orcao irqUiOrg development of policies end dir.r.en-nnai'r.g inform ttion in BMPs. I'lc project as di.>cusscd in ihe ren^ised irnplcrnentalion piari i.s skghrly more tffit-iant in ic*.‘O’.' n-_, phosphoats then projec* outlines in the September 1994 imulemen'ation p'an and the eshnv-.ted cost is 2.1 million dollarr. # II. Wet Detention BusirAVetlands Selection The feasibility study (Volume 2 of 2 October 1993) fbtmd wet detention basins to be the kev BMP in leducinn external ohosph-nrur loa-.’ir.g tc Long Lake. '.Vet detention tasi >e are widely accepted us effective ar/J raiinble ir-MFr v.'iih longevity lit t xc.eru 20 yci.v The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) shares the above acceptance of wet detention basins and stales “detention ponds are one of the most effective BMPs availab!.’ for treatment of urban runofT’ Pro.eclirt Water Quaiily in urban /.re:u, .'.’y 1951). During the planning and design of the project, ai. ex.naustive analysis was coiiipleiec' ’. /'•urh evaiuated all alternative we: detenuon basin sites The fehowing surnrmiriite: th*. .niternaiive sites (downstream to upstream) and trt fe..sibi!;ty of their use for :h;; y. oj'- - • .ONR wetland east of County Road No. 6 we: deioniion casin/' vetldr.d. This nrau: -.: wetland has been ditched and was e'^aluated as botli a wetland restoration site and .'. that any proposed the soil analysis completed found the soils were unsuitable for basin constructicn. N vOlt5^20^WORI^MJY(»065 .MEM ArS.Ij¥ Joe Yaiita Army Corps of Engineers September 6, 1995 rage 4 . P-iv-^tg cro-^itv irLme-'"iaieiv u'^stream rfom tbe D'n "R w-tland south cfCounty Road 1period orn=!;o.ir.,ons and evaluation of numerous pond conl.sriTauons, the ;,icV/D has obtained a setiiement agreement from the propeny owners. Ihe airr “ement allows a 2,5 acre bastn and associated easement to be c.oiistructed on t.ie n^rihtm por.ion of the property in early 199S as detatled m the project design report. . ?rv-te property immediate!'/ north of County Road No. 6 This are.t ts ut.suitable as it s io'o small to constmet any stgnif.cant ponding, ts heav.ly wooded “'P “P“ and apparent on site wetlands, is divided between two property O'wners and would involve additional project costs by splitting up the detention basins. • Private property between private driveway, nonh off of County Road No. 6, and V/cisfdd Wood's Scientific and l^Ytural Area (WWSNA). Thi.s area is not feasible due to 3ccsp tcno2i’^p'*^y lirpjtcci 2CC(^s5. . Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area. This property has number of ponding sites but the MCWD has been noiiried in writing that tne DNR protected area is absolutely off limiia for a detention basin constniction p.'’ojccv. . Private property located between Deer Hill Road o.a t he north and WSNA on the south This^area has a large area feasible for detention basin and v/et.and construction. Construction is proposed to stair in the winter of 1995-1996. • Private prope.'Tv north of Deer Kill Road consists of sir.a:: parceis with multiple property owners 'with no significant ponding sites due to topographi^cai limitations and the close proximity of pnvate homes and other improvements. In addition, by Iccaung a deteraion basin noah of the Dee^ Hil! Road site, Uio contributing watersnea area is rsouced 3Tid the iresuTieni criw*c;.iv*‘i:ncss co*:iprwA4J3ec-. III. Minimisation of Impacts to Aquatic Resources a. Avoidance ^As previously noted in an attachment to the .June 21. 1995 letter entitled “Wetland Imoacts and Mitigsticn”, in order to feasibly treat regional drainage from the Long Lake Subwatershed, w^tl’nd impacts are unavoidable 1 The only sites which allov.' the stream .^ows to be treated (see Section II) contain wetlands. Joe Yanta /\rmy Corps of Engineers September 0, 199j Page 5 b. Minirnizalion Minim^^aticn of imparts to ^•'oo..!ed T’/po 7 'vet!ai:ds w.=rc accomplished by g/cafly rc'-ijcing ."iac of:!:'' proposed wet detention basin ?t the Coimiy Koad Nc. 0 site. Addiiion-1 mmi rizctioi' oflmpactc were cccomplished by ^vosdv'g al! wooded Type 7 weilaridr. at the Deer Hill Road Site and limiting Mte sotnhwes'ern extent of the proposed wci detention basin. Oniy a minor amount of wetland fill is proposed to create a berm south of the Coun.y Koad No. C basins and no wetland fill is proposed for the Deer K'M Road site. Therefore, the project lias irJnimized wetland impacts to the extent possible, while still allowing for the project to meet its objective of providing water quality poriding. IV. Function and Values of Wetland Mitigation The proposed project is self niitigatii;?. with resoect to vv'iiahds *.f the standa.'’d '^OE criteria of one-to-one replaccm.ent of functional values is used. In addition, the project should be considered a panial restoration as the largest v/etiand impacted (7.52 actes at Deer liiil Road) has beer, partially drained for agricultural purposes. Using the Coard cf Water and bon Resources functions and values conv’euion rn^.i.»x, both the County Road No. 6 and Deer fiill Road sites are self mitigating. N \0I«J'04.20^WORDV^tiY09065 MEM-aES-1;v CCUT-^TY ROA^ NO. 2.50 Acres Tj-pe 7 (PrC) ^ Converted to : 0.76 Acres Type 7 (?i“C) + 0.53 Acres Type 4 (?H?) 0.63 Acres Type 5 (PA) + 1.25 Acres Deep Water (LI) 1.29 Acres/1.0 = 1.29 Acre: i SS Acrcsa.5 = .1.25 Acigs r2.54 Acres OEER HILL nOAD 7.52 Acres Type 2 (r‘E3) and 0.15 Acres Type 4 C^HF) 7 7.6/ Acres Converted to: 2 44 Acres Type 4 (PcF) + 1.54 A.crcs Type / (PFC) 1.67 Acres Type 5 C'^• + 3.75 Acres Deepwater (LI) « 3.98 Acres/1.0 = 3.98 Acres 5.42 A.cresT.5 = 3 61 .A;res 7.59 Acres TOTAL PROJECT tr.inrfionr. & Values 2.50 Acres 7.52 Acres 0 1.5 Acres ]vTitigated Functions & Values 2.54 Acres 7 59 -Acres i 10.17 Acres '*• 10.13 Acres « Miiigated Sinction and value involves i;.57 acres of wetland and deepwater labitat Q.q e-A 1 Project Number imp^c-.«ci VUilundi r.T :____;c/c M V'.-rTL/..‘iD --YPS wvon°?G!C WOT OI/.TCT * LOCAL TU3UC VALUE tr-'=^llFvACfMarT »'TSW^ hydrologic unit //>o/n '57 Imoacttd Wetland Raolr.cprront Watl.*rd Ratio inlet and Otmrr characteristics (from 'C tmpactad WaUand Raplacamant WatUnd Ra'J •. local public value fepdonM/l Imp actad Watland Raplacamant Watland Raua 1). OUT-OF-KINO TOTAL V.INIMUM RATIO Ul-J >M%crA».Urvl 0 2=’ < 60% .«</Non-Ag-U-vl F. K-.NAL REPtACEVENT RAT.O c-r-MW MM* ,..o O* t-v. ,>.,rcrr,,o, « *----------tin*#*....ic/»f Type MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 15500 Wayzata Boulevard Suite 611 Twelve Oaks Center Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 WATERSHED BOUNDARY » Office: (612) 476-7970 fax: (612) 476-7973 ^3AR0 OF MANAGERS: John E T^c^as P^esidert. G Vice P'es ce'^t Va'V'a Hartfiei. Sec'etary. Tnomas .V lacojnry. Treasurer Vonica Gross C .Vcccrc.v LOve, lomas Mao ’.e -r. D.stnct C.'ectc' E-cene R Sr:-r-.eo. LAKE MINNETONKA TO: FROM: DATE; RE: MEMORANDUM Intel ested Parties The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District August 16, 1995 JlJ^i fSEP wser Record of Findings Supporting the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District’s Decision on the Necessity of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Long Lake Improvement Project Enclosed please find a copy of the record of findings supporting the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District’s decision on tiie necessity of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Long Lake Improvement Project. At the August 10, 1995 meeting of the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Managers adopted the enclosed record of findings as its formal declaration that an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed for the Long Lake Improvement Project, Recycled • 30*« Posi-conyumer RESOLUTION NO. 95-08 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Determination by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District of the Necessity of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Long Lake Improvement Project August 10, 1995 Manager LaBounty moved, seconded by Manager Maple, that the following be adopted by the Board of Managers as the Negative Declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Long Lake Improvement Project. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), as the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) under the Minnesota Environmental Review Program, Minnesota Statutes §§ 1 16D.04 and 1 16D.045 and Minnesota Rules 4410.0200 et seq., is responsible for making a determination of the necessity of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Long Lake Improvement Project (Project). This document and the documents listed below constitute the determination by the MCWD on the necessity of an EIS for the Project. The record of decision for the EIS determination includes, but is not necessarily limited to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. this document the Feasibility Repon for the Project dated September 15, 1994 the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) prepared for the Project and submitted to the Environmental Quality Board on June 9, 1995 comments submitted to the MCWD on the EAW the MCWD’s responses to the comments received on the EAW the minutes and proceedings of the MCWD Board of Managers meetings information contained in the permit applications submitted by the MCWD to regulatory authorities draft and final Design Reports and Design plans for the Project correspondence between the MCWD and any regulatory authority or individual regarding the Project information presented and discussed at public presentations/informational meetings any and all documents referred to or referenced in the above listed documents the Diagnostic Study and Feasibility Study for the Project dated October 1993. SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT The overall purpose of the project is to improve the water quality in Long Lake and downstream receiving waters by reducing phosphorus loadings to Long Lake. The Long Lake 066/22090508 8/11/95 Determination of the Necessity of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Long Lake Improvement Project Page 2 Improvement Project involves four separate project components: (1) construction of a two cell wet detention basin/wetland at County Road 6 in the City of Orono; (2) construction of a two cell wet detention basin/wetland at Deer Hill Road in the City of Medina; (3) the enlargement of two existing stormwater sedimentation basins in the City of Long Lake; and, (4) the application of aluminum sulfate (alum) to Long Lake to control internal phosphorous from the lake sediments. Studies discussing the use of w'ct detention basins as useful tools in improving water quality include Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Urban Runoff in the Washington Metropolitan Area (1983) and W.W. Walker. Phosphorus Removal by UrbaQ Runoff Detention Basins. Lake and Reservoir .Management. Vol. Ill (1987). Smdies discussing the use of alum as a useful method to control internal phosphorous include R.A. Freeman and W.H. Everhart, Toxicity of Aluminum Hydroxide Complexes in Neutral and Basic Media to Rainbow Trout. Trans Am. Fish Society No. 644-658 (1971) and R.H. Kennedy and G.D. Cooke. Aluminum Sulfate Dose Determination and APPHcatiOji Techniques. Restoration of Lakes and Inland Waters, EPA 400/5-81-010 (1980). The various regulatory agencies that have authority over the permitting of the Project have been kept informed of the design of the Project and their input was obtained during the design process. Regulatory agency comments have been incorporated into the final design to the greatest possible extent while retaining the overall project objectives. In addition, a tech^cal advisor^' committee has provided technical input during the planning and design stages of the Project. The Committee was comprised of representatives from the Cities of Lons Lake, Medina and Orono. the Board of Water and Soil Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Henneoin Conservation District and interested citizens. 4 An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared for the project and submitted to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) on June 9. 1995. Notice of the availability of the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on June 19, 1995 and the comment period on the EAW closed on July 19. 1995. None of the commenlers requested the preparation of an EIS. The .MCWD, as the RGU for the project, received six (6) sets of written comments on the EAW. The MCWD has responded in writing to each of the comments and provided a copy of the responses to the conunenters. Additional information regarding the project can be found in the documents listed above and incorporated herein. 066/22090508 8/11/95 Determination of the Necessity of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Long I^ke Improvement Project Page 3 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS An EIS for the Project must be prepared if either (1) the Project falls within a mandatory EIS category as set out in Minnesota Rule 4410.4400; or. (2) the Project has the potential for significant environmental effects according to the criteria and procedures set out in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700. Pursuant to Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, the factors to be used in deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; the extent to which environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and. the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or of EIS’s previously prepared. Pursuant to the suggestions of the staff of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, as set forth in their publication Guide to the Rules of the Minnesota Environmental Review Program (1989 Edition), the MCWD’s findings of fact regarding each of the above four facto.'s will be organized according to the various types of environmental effects listed in the EAW. A.Land Use A complete description of recent past, current and proposed land use of the Project is set out in sections 9 and 26 the EAW. The types and extent of the Project’s effects on land use have been examined by the MCWD as indicated in Section 9 of the EAW and the responses to the comments. As for reversibility of the effects, there are no potential negative environmental impacts on adjacent and nearby land uses that would need to be reversed. The cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects has also been considered by the MCWD in making its determination of no significant impact. There are no related projects and there are no reasonably foreseeable future projects that, combined with the current project, would result in significant environmental impacts on land use in the area. 066/22090508 8/11/95 Determination of the Necessity of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Long Lake Improvement Project Page 4 As noted in section 8 of the EAW. the project is the subject of extensive review by various federal, state and local agencies. These agencies will address any potentially negative ramifications of the project on current or future land use in the permitting process. Specifically, the Cities of Orono. Medina and Long Lake have the authority to control current and future land use to protect against any possible environmental impacts. After consideration of the factors set out in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, the MCWD determines that the Project will not result in significant environmental etfects on current or future land use. B. Fish. Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources, Secuon 11 of the EAW discusses type, extent and reversibility of the Project’s impact on fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources. In addition, the Project s impact on fish wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources has been the focus of past and on-going discussions with the Minnesota Depanment of Natural Resources (DNR), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), among others. The overall project will create more diverse wetland and open water habitat than currently exists. The increased diversity will provide an overall benetit to wildlife and, therefore, the project would not result in significant environmental impact. The cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects has also been considered bv the MCWD in making its determination of no significant impact. The underlying goal of the Project is to improve the water quality of Long Lake, which, as discussed above, will have a positive effect on fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources. As noted in section S of the EAW, the project is the subject of extensive review by vanous federal, state and local agencies. These agencies will address any potentially negative ramifications of the project on fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources in the permitting process. Specifically, the DNR and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must approve the Project and has authority to mitigate any adverse effects on sensitive resources during the permitting process. .•\fter consideration of the factors set out in .Minnesota Rule 4410.1700. the MCSVD determines that the Project will not result in significant environmental effects on fish, wildlife or ecologically sensitive resources. 066/2:090508 8/11/95 Determination of the Necessity of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Long Lake Improvement Project Page 5 C. Physical Impacts on Water Resources Section 12 of the EAW discusses the physical impact of the Project on water resources. The EAW discusses the types, extent and reversibility of environmental effects. Although, as noted in the EAW, the project will involve work in DNR protected streams and jurisdictional wetlands, the Project will have an overall positive impact on water resources. The overall project will reduce the phosphorus loading and improve the water quality of Long Lake and downstream receiving waters. The project will also increase the overall diversity of wetland/deep water habitat at each of the three Project sites. The cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects has also been considered by the MCWD in making its determination of no significant impact. The underlying goal of the Project is to improve the water quality of Long Lake, which, as discussed above, will have a positive impact on water resources. As noted in section 8 of the EAW, the project is the subject of extensive review by various federal, state and local agencies. These agencies will address any potentially negative ramifications of the project on water resources in the permitting process. After consideration of the factors set out in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, the MCWD determines that the Project will not result in significant environmental effects on water resources. D.Water Use Section 13 of the EAW discusses the types, extent and reversibility of the Project’s impact on water use. The cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects has also been considered by the MCWD in making its determination of no significant impact. The Project is not expected to result in even minor environmental effects and, thus, as a result, will not contribute to cumulative negative environmental impacts. 066/22090508 8/11/95 Determination of the Necessity of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Long Lake Improvement Project Page 6 E.Water Surface Use Section 15 of the EAW discusses the physical impact of the Project on water surface use. The EAW discusses the type and extent of the effect on surface water use. There are no negative environmental effects on water surface use that would need to be reversed. The cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects has also been considered by the MCWD in making its determination of no significant impact. There are no reasonably foreseeable future projects to be undenaken by the MCWD or other individuals that will increase the number of watercratt on Long Lake. Potential environmental impacts on water surface use are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. As noted in section 8 of the EAW, the project is the subject of extensive review by various federal, state and local agencies. These agencies will address any potentially negative ramifications of the project in the permiuing process. In addition, future surface water use is subject to ongoing regulatory authority by the municipalities. After consideration of the factors set out in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, the MCWD determines that the Project will not result in significant environmental effects on water surface use. F. Water Quality • Surface Water Runoff Section 18 of the EAW discusses the Project’s effects on surface water runoff. The Project will not have an adverse effect on surface water runoff and will not be creating additional surface water runoff. To the contrary, the project will have a positive effect on the quality of surface water runoff entering both Long Lake. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures, as set fonh in the EAW and construction specifications, will used to minimize any potential impact on the receiving waters during construction. The cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects has also been considered by the MCWD in making its determination of no significant impact. The underlying goal of the Project is to improve the water quality of Long Lake through managemern of surface water runoff. Any related or future projects undertaken by the MOVD would serve to continue this goal resulting in increased positive environmental effects. 066/22090508 8/11/95 Determination of the Necessity of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Long Lake Improvement Project Page 7 As noted in section 8 of the EAW, the project is the subject of extensive review by various federal, state and local agencies. These agencies will address any potentially negative ramifications of the project on water resources in the permitting process. After consideration of the factors set out in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700. the MCWD determines that the Project will not result in significant environmental effects due to surface water run-off. G. Water Quality - Wastewaters There will be no environmental effects on water quality due to wastewaters because sanitary or industrial wastewaters will not be produced or treated at the Project site. Ground Water - Potential for Contamination There is no potential for ground water contamination since no toxic or hazardous materials will be used on site. I. Solid Wastes. Hazardous Wastes. Storage Tanks There will be no adverse environmental effects due to solid wastes or storage tanks because no solid wastes will be generated at the site and there are no storage tanks present at the Project site. As noted in section 20 of the EAW. alum, which will be used in 1 ,ong Lake, may have potential toxic effects on aquatic communities or lake species. In an effort to address this concern, a dose less than 50 percent of the maximum dose considered environmentally safe based on lake alkalinity and pH will be used. In addition, the DNR has regulatory authority over the use of alum and must approve its use. Environmental effects associated with the use of alum have been the subject of numerous studies. These studies include, but are not limited to the following: 1.R.A. Freeman and W.H. Everhart. Toxicity of Aluminum Hydroxide Complexes in Neutral and Basic Media to Rainbow Trout. Trans Am. Fish Society No. 644-658 (1971). 2.R.H. Kennedy and G.D. Cooke. Aluminum Sulfate Dose Determination and Annlication Techniques. Restoration of Lakes and Inland Waters. EPA 400/5 81-010 (1980). 066/22090508 8/11/95 i Determination of the Necessity of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Long Lake Improvement Project Page 8 J. Traffic and Vehicle-Related Air Emissions There will be no environmental effects from traffic or vehicle-related air emissions because the Project will not result m an increase in traffic. K.Stationary Source Air Emissions There will be no environmental effects from stationary source air emissions because the Project does not involve any stationary sources of air emissions. L.Dust, Odors. Noise The type and extent of possible negative effects of dust, odors and noise are addressed in Section 25 of the EAW and in the .MCWD’s response to the City of Orono. Dust and nc'se would only be a concern during construction of the Project and, as noted in the EAW, construction activities are scheduled for a time period which will minimize the dust generation. Noise during construction is not anticipated to be significant. The Project is not expected to generate odors. The cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects have also been considered by the MCWD in making its determination of no significant impact. Because dust and noise will not be a long-term concern at the Project site, the Project will not result in a minor or collectively significant impact. As noted above, the Project is not expected to generate odors. Potential environmental impacts due to dust, noise and odor are subject to regulation and. if necessary, mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. As noted in section 8 of the E.-^W. the project is the subject of extensive review by various federal, state and local agencies. These agencies will address any potentially negative ramifications of the project in the permitting process. After consideration of the factors set out in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700. the MCWD determines that the Project will not result in significant environmental effects on due to dust. odors or noise. 066/21090508 8/11/95 Determination of the Necessity of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Long Lake Improvement Project Page 9 L.Sensitive Resources I.Parkland Section 26 of the EAW discusses the type and extent of the environmental effects associated with the expansion of the sedimentation basins in Long Lake, which will take place in a designated park. As noted in the EAW. less than half of an acre of existing open space will be converted to a wet detention basin. The cumulative potential impacts of related or anticipated future projects has also been considered by the MCWD in making its determination of no significant impact. There are no related Projects and there are no reasonably foreseeable future projects that, combined with the current Project, would result in significant environmental impacts on the park. Any environmental impacts of the project on the park is subject to ongoing oversight by the City of Long Lake. The City may deny construction of the Project or require mitigation of any amenities lost due to the project. 2. Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area Section 26 of the EAW notes that the WWSNA is located within 1,000 feet of the County Road No. 6 basin and 50 feet of the Deer Hill Road basin. The EAW also notes that the Project will have no impact on the WWSNA. After consideration of the factors set out in Minnesota Rule 4410,1700, the MCWD determines that the Project will not result in significant environmental effects on sensitive resources. M. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services The type and extent o'* the Project’s impact on infrastructure and public services is discussed in section 29 of the EAW. The Project requires minimal public services and will have a minimal impact on infrastructure. Unlike construction of homes or business, the Project does not require hook up to City sewers or water. m There will be no cumulatively significant impacts on infrastructure or public services from the Project and other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects. As noted 066/22090508 8/11/95 Determination of the Necessity of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Long Lake Improvement Project Page 10 above, the impacts of the project on iofrastructure and public services is extremely small. There are no related projects. After consideration of the factors set out in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, the MCWD determines that the Project will not result in significant effects on infrastructure or public services. N. Other Potential Environmental Impacts No other potential environmental impacts have been identiiied. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers, by a vote of 7 yeas and 0 nays as follows: An EIS for the Project is not necessary because (1) the Project docs not fall within a mandatory EIS category as set out in Minnesota Rule 4410.4400; and, (2) the Project docs not have the potential for significant environmental effects according to the criteria and procedures set out in Minnesota Rule 4410.1/00. The question was on the adoption of the Resolution and there were 7 yeas and 0 nays as follows; BLIXT GROSS HARTFIEL LABOUNTY LOVE MAPLE THOMAS Yea X Nay X ^ rA X X Upon vote, the Chair declared the Resolution adopted, Dated August 10. 1995. 066/a2090S08 8/1 l/^S Determination of the Necessity of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Long Lake Improvement Project Page 11 «««***«*•* I, MARTHA HARTFIEL, Secretary of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, do hereby certify that I have compared the above resolution with the original thereof as the same appears of record and on file with the District and find the same to be a true and correct transcript thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of said Watershed District this 10th day of August, 1995. Martha Hartfiel, Secretary (SEAL) 066/22090508 8/KV95 i o o . .:•> ■V. July IS. 1995 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Mike Panzer, District Engineer Wenck Associates, Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P.O. Box 428 Maple Plain. MN 55359 L CITY of ORONO Muiiidp«l OfHc®i Post Office Box 6i Cnstal Bay, Minnoott 553234)056 : Long Lake Improvement Project - Environmental Assessment Worksheet 1. Dear Mr. Panzer; Regarding the Long Uke Improvement Projeet EAW for which the comment period expires July 19, please note the following; „ count, er" eXTi: and variance from the Lity or utronu v qh.„i,.d Overlay Distr ct; tree excavation in a protected waterwav vvithm tl^e Shoreland overlay removal within 75 ’ of a protected ..ater%vay). ^ofI'viedarom™ "ari^»' downstream is a City-protected wetland. The City Council is aware of this project and has Ji^cuss'd U representatives^ but has not City staff and Andrew K wmTaL a fonnal CUP/yariance application for reyiew by the Orono Planning Commission at their August meeting. Please consider the following comments as you proceed with the approyal process; telephone - 473-7357 • FA:< - 47WB10 MC^T) Julv 18, 1995 p. 2 „i,.„o.«, o™ "s” S—.h-. mitisation nnv be accwptable sinCw . I nm=d d,. presence of norrPem pike in Road 6 last year. A f.sh bamer this have any :-::;:pa“^“ travelma upstream? - Exr;.rrxi:i ‘“s.s;=^ priority. The Citv is concerned about transportation of dredge spoils on County Road 6 ^dMke County Road 6 even mote treacherous than tt is m normal wmter conditions. . It may be appropriate that a gate be instaUed at the entrance to the service driveway to preclude public access to the site. Andrew Svvetson was advised to provide as pan of the CUP/vatiance J^plication evidence that other similar pondmg projects have successfully resulted in phosphorus reductions in downstream waters. period ff pLible rather than the notmal one year period, to avoid the need ,nnnu-^l renewals in the interim. o „ hi,< acknowledged a number of the above concerns in his letter of July 5, ^^«'*ASnal concerns or questions may be raised by the Planning Commission and I MCWD July 18, 1995 p. 3 Council as the CUP/ variance process goes forward. Please feel free to contact me at 473 MINNEHAHA CREEK WW WATERSHED DISTRICT• ■B9 • 15500 Wayzata Boulevard Suite 611 Twelve Oaks Center Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 office; (612) 476-7970 fax; (612) 476-7973 KWRO CMi/WWGERS: jcnn E '■"c-as ^'es cent Parre'aG S ii-T Vice Var^a S Ha't'ei. Secretar/, Thomas ‘.V uaBou^r/ Treasurer Monfra Gross C .Vcocrc.v icve THoras Mar e Jr. Distnct D rector t^gere R Strcn^-ren August 7, 1995 .B 1395 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 (AUG Re: Long Lake Improvement Project Response to EAW Comments from the City of Orono Wenck File #0184-04-209 Dear Mr. Gaffron: Thank you for your comments on the EAW for the Long Lake Improvement Project as provided in your letter dated July 18, 1995. Responses to the seven comments contained in your letter are provided below: Response to Comment No. 1 Every effort has been made to maximize wetland mitigation on the County Road No. 6 site in Orono. The project will also increase the wetland diversity of the above site by creating emergent and submergent wetland habitat as well as deep water habitat. Due to site constraints, additional wetland mitigation will be performed at the Deer Hill Road site in Medina, which your com.ment letter correctly noted is in the same subwatershed as the County Road No. 6 site. Your comment letter also noted that the wetland in which the project is proposed is not regulated by the City of Orono. Response to Comment No. 2 Fish barriers will prevent upstream movement of all fish over a certain size. This part of the project is required by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and is supported by local fishing groups and the City of Long Lake. N:^li3>*>4'2W'Woid\l>4GOW75.Lu-AES-IJv bU®o Recycled • 30*« Posi coosumef Mr. Michael P. Gaffron City of Orono August 7, 1995 Page 2 Response to Comment No. 3 Wooded wetland vegetation will be planted as indicated in the design plans. Upland wooded areas will be largely undisturbed with minor impacts associated with wetland mitigation areas and the proposed access road along the northeast part of the site. Response to Comment No. 4 Specifications for the project will require no leakage from trucks hauling material to offsite locations and mud removal from tires before leaving the site. Response to Comment No. 5 A gate will be installed across the access road per plan sheet 11 revised July 20, 1995, Response to Comment No. 6 Attached article by William W. Walker, Jr. compiles and analyzes data on phosphorus removal by runoff detention basins and urban lakes reported in the literature. The above article provides monitoring data for 14 detention basins and eight Minnesota wetlands or urban lakes. The article documents numerous monitored successes of detention basins similar to the basins proposed as part of the Long Lake Improvement Project. Response to Comment No. 7 The District acknowledges the cities intent to grant the CUP/variance required for an extended period rather than the normal one year period, to avoid the need for annual renewals prior to project construction in 1998. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will consider the information contained in the EAW, comments received on the EAW, and responses to comments in making their final decision on the need for an EIS at their August 10, 1995 meeting. N AES-ljv Mr. Michael P. Gaffron City of Orono August 7, 1995 Page 3 Thank you for reviewing the EAW for this project. Sincerely, WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineers for the District ______________ Michael A. Panzer, P.E. u District Engineer MAP/ljv Enclosure cc: Board of Managers, MCWD Eugene Strommen, MCWD Waverley Eby Booth, Popham-Haik 3WVWo«dM-MGOKn3.Ur-A£S-ljv 9-14-1995 7:0GAM ^^0* * 5w^'■5S ' — ww A££.*C if i Bonestroo MM Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects September 13. 1995 Mr. Michael ?. Gaffron. Asst. Building and Zoning Administr Cit\’ of Orono Post Office Box 66 Cixstal Bav. .Minnej^ota 55523 Ci:» G iiantsr^c *JSr KSi?r*e Pf C A-»e'i*». • ! V2^\ 1 ^ St .e-P • ! K.cnafS I *4 G.e.-*^ • Caoa. t M>y»t .•’sset i Sc.i'wT. cr.:. V ffDr.'iir* c ^ A • • Ss-r c- Carsw 'Ilf P 1 « » ana ♦Aiccate: Iftc ‘I Affi-»*#T?vf Aru^>CcoofSvhnjr Lr^y AJ atcr A. S^?2'3 t»*#t » ^***'e*.f ^ t a Fc:r*f ^ * d ? •dfac:* PI A I A A io.-'OOr* • * Vt4/A A msnidn ^ ^ c •ta <• f.#*5 P L T^S'ra; I Ai> P AC-eTn^'* ?' ■* € CcnA.C C • f ’’r»C'~4-'. Svf«t ‘'Ji ^ ede*^ < ; ^ 5 Jimee* vurT.odi P £ T^O—IX A P‘ett*;cr* Pf v :.*ee C. •yhcA a I ^ V» tn- Af Jtftf Z Aertrw* •! SC'??: - Aff*n«e. •£ Re^^AXA P Pt Merc n to<r: PC Va-f A 5f.C PC Uc"v tfc' Md/ie-i P C *s^ • Qefv^on A • A Oe.-uei 4 Id^artor.. • L A Pirk lcA»*n}5J P I C#*e A OfOvp Pi A"»<t 9 -• CPTWt*f •.! Vi'k D ysrtJi.? P5 *1 ff .«nien Pf w *hi»M9 G'CV r' P f *9re-* c. 'A' err»«*» Gary 5 K' StOf'tt. Ag t-ir» < G97». pf p 7&d««ei?tr Af re th p •! - ^tt^o l P F. L-.dwn O Ow'ttl*tof\ PI. C#e*t»« e »A*P^ P-f. cea«t J >i P5n«f. Pi A*^ a. N^wef Pf P Gd'dcr P t. i-dh D ••vwm. PP >r*fey J t'lrvct* P t .attph R ?••«?.*?. PI Ve «Acnr< P£ C. .!'•»? A Cr;cX30h .f? V*. P*»*e *• C.it'' •-} Jt—tt • f'-t'-jidt Re: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District File No. 139-2059 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the proposal to construct a wet detention pond within a wetland on the propern- owned by William Pearce. We recommend that the following conditions be made a part of the conditional use permit. A haul route and disposal location map. construction phasing schedule, and a traffic control plan must be submitted to the Cit>- for approval prior to commencing with the work. The written construction schedule must be updated or modified as necessarx' to accurately reflect the rate and progress on the project. .A pre-construction conference should be held with the MCWD, contractor. Cih-, Counw and other pardes involved in the project. The traffic control for the project should include a mlajmu.m of traffic control signs and dcvws contormme to the M.MUTCD. flagmen, a sueet sweeper, a sanding truck and a bobcat. The equipmenf wiil be necessarx- because it will be impossible to remove all mud from tires before leaving the site. The MC\\’D should be responsible for cleaning the surface of any paved public street that becomes soiled due to the construction activities on this project. When the MCV\T> constructed the Gleason Lake project in 1994. there were many problems associated with hauling on Highway 12. Depending on tlic haul route piopo^d. a letter of credit in an amount calculated bv the Citv* should be provided for potential damage to the local road system. This amount should be in addition to any rep.-xirs or oyerlav-s proposed bv the MCWT) For safct\' reasons, in times of inclement weather or early thaw, the Cit>* must have the auehoritv- to stop all hauling activin- until such tunc lh.it the Citv deienmiies necessaiy. The project specifications should be provided to the Citv- for clarification of details such as the following: what seeding mixture is proposed, will fertilizer be used, what is planned tor disposal of the cleared tree's? The plans do not appear to show any erosion control dunng construction, this should be addressed. The slopes just belovy the water line are shown at 61 (horizontal to vertical). The Citv tvpically requires iO:l slopes wh.ch will increase the amount of emergent vegetation and provnde an additional measure of safety, unless the area wUl be fenced. What will be the procedure for maintaining the ponds assuming that beavers 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 Mr. Michael F. Gaffron Cit\ of Orono Page -2' September 13. 1995 or deadfalls will block drainage? Will the easement be granted to the Cit>’ of Orono? The pond \%t11 become an clement m the Cit>'s drainage system.I : It would be interesting to see how Lone Lake s characteristics compare to the urban basins identified ir he article by William W. Walker. Jr. Specifically, bow would Long Lake compare m Figure 1. Table I and Table 3'' Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours vciA' truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. A.NDERLIK Si ASSOCLATES. INC. Shawn D Gustafson. P.E. i / ^ o 31 4 UXc ASO SES£??VCM MANAaSMEJn’. VCLUMS » I PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL BY URBAN RUNOFF DETENTION BASINS V/illiam W.-Walker, Jr. Environmental Engineer Concord, Massachusetts ABSTRACT An •mpineai mods< prBvieualy ammiaomd for prodictiaQ pnespnorut rotonOen in rooorvoin lo Mtod againit M ufOon loKB/ettomion pond dmtM tot Dotomion pond cnfnm Ooviopod undor tho EPA't Nooomwdt Urton Ajnoff Progrmm (NUBP) iro ovmlu«od ytinp tno modol. For tommor proeipiuoon and njneir quatity typi­ cal ef St Paul. MinnaaoUk a baain doaipnod aooording to NUAP entana ia aatimatad to hova a tong-tarm-avoraQa pnetpnorua ramoval atfibancy of paroant For a Qrvan loading ragima. pnoapnorua ramovai ia shown to Pa mora tantitva to pond daptn than to aurtaea araa. Spacifie datjgn faaturaa for anhanang phoaphonja rtmovaJ (daapaning, promeong infiltration, promoong plug flow, and chamicai traatmant) ara diaeuaaad. Tha mathodoiogy can Oa uaad to avaluata wat datanoon pond dasign entana m othar ragtont. with aupsttution of appropnata practpitauon artd runoff quality cnaractana- tica. INTRODUCTION Caus*—effect relationships linking urban watershed development to lake and reseniroif eutrophication are well esublished. Urban watersheds typically ex-. port 5 to 20 times as much phosphonjs per unS area i per year, as compared with undeveloped waters sheds In a given region (Reckhow et al. 1980; Athayde et al. 1S83: Dennis. 1985). Summaries of urban runoff data collected under the ERA'S Nation­ wide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) indicate mean _ concentrations of 420 ppb total phosphorus and 150 ppb dissolved phosphorus (Athavde et aL 1983). In ^rr.ntrast lakes with total Phosphorus concentrations exceeding 20-30 cDb rnay expenence nuisangg algal growths (Vcllenweider. 1976). NURP con ­ cluded that “lakes for which the contributions of urban runoff are significant in relation to other non­ point sources (even in the absence of point source discharges) are indicated to be highly susceptible to eutrophication and that urban runoff controls may be warranted in such situations" (Athayde et al. 1982). A relationship between urban land use and phos­ phorus export for watersheds in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area is shown in Figure 1 (Walker. 198Sa). In­ creases In phosphorus export associated with urban watershed development primarily reflect increases in impervious area and surface runoff. Runoff tends to have much highar concentrations of total and dis­ saved phosphorus compared with base flows that are fBtered through the sofl column before reaching stream chann els or lakes. SpeeflSe urban sources (lawn.Wtlizera. leaf faU. pets) and s^eambank sroaion isaifliln(J from higner peak flows also con- tributt to urban phosphorus loadings. Physical, economic, and Institutional constraints make eontral of nonpoint phosphonjs export from watersheds i difficult problem. While the con ­ cept of "source control* is attractive, the sources are generally too dlvarse to permit control of a major fraction of the total loading by targeting one or more specific components. Devices and management practices such as catch basins and street sweeping are generally irWfective at controlling the export of fine particulates and soluble nutrients which have the greatest poterttial for stimulating lake eutrophica- tioa Performance monitoring conducted urxjer NURP (Athayde et al. 1983; U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency. 19a . has shown that detention ponds, which intercept, store, and treat runoff before releas­ ing It to receiving streams or lakes, can be designed to provide significant removals of many urban runoff poHutarUa. inctuding phosphorus. This paper compiles arid analyzes data on phos­ phorus removal by runoff detention basins and urban lakes reported in the literature. It describes the basin design criteria for suspended solids removal developed under NURP. An empirical model for predicting phosphorus removal efficiency as a function of watershed characteristics, basin morphometry, arxl dimatologic (actors is described and tested. The model is employed to evaluate the NURP design criteria from a phosphorus removal perspective under Minnesota dimatologic condi- tjons. Specific design features which may enhance phosphorus removal are discussed. NURP DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SUSPENDED SOUDS REMOVAL Athayde et al. (1983) eonduded that wet detention basins, in which permanent water pools are main­ tained. are potentiaily effective for reducing loadings of suspended solids, heavy metals, arxj nutrients I « lose- It, (f^Cs')E S 10.56 a For novement of 1-100 cubic yards of j3^ Por movement of more than 100 cubic yards of material an^here in conditional use permit approval by the city t.ounc- addition to the requixa^land alteration permi . ^ ^ _ _^5 ^he following considerations and to during the issuance of cojisJ:ruct^^conditions must be\^d|;^«^<3 to aujrxuy '^'^jTZV^nai ncp. nermits.permits, grading and^illing permits, conditional use permits, variances and subdivision approvals. a. Gradinc or filling in any Type 2, 3, :irl^si*;el ’y°lb* pr^V/sfa rcfivlty^:cu\“d-s/fsVr 7ori*cwiS ” functional qualities of the wetland: (1) and retention;(2) Sediment and pollutant trapping Storage of surface run-off to prevent or reduce flood damage; (3) (4) (5) (6) Fish and wildlife habitat; Recreational use; Shoreline or bank stabilization; Noteworthiness, including spe- ■ m « . t— J X- _ Ai. C ^ mm cial qualities such as historic significance, critical habitat for endangered plants and animals, or others. This evaluation roust also include a IXara|e"Te"s 'inc!ud?:*'but limited to -^“Sfittd'Tte'tes Minnesota Department of Matural Resources, or the United States Army Corps of Engineers . be Alterations must be designed conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of are g?oSnd is exposed for the shortest time possible: c. Mulches or similar materials must be ^ necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage, and a pe%tanent"reg:ta"fo\ cove must b"e established as soon as possible, d. Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature mus be used; ORONO CC 376-15 (2-24-92) I 1 s 10.56 e. Altered areas must be acceptable erosion control standards conservation office technical guides of the local soil districts and the United States Soil Conservation Servi Pill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope; g. Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be lopes of continued slope stability and must not create finisnea sx p 30% or greater; h. Fill or excavated material must not jjg placed in bluff impact zones; High Water Level o£ puoiic ‘"“7;:., Resources under MinCommissioner of the Department of Natural Resources^un Statutes r Seciton rtJ5T+2-; /o> __,———-—■' ----------- ... -^ A_______vnt%e‘Alterations of topography must only __• A- ^ ^ 12S6S -i A1 u©'rax:iuns ui. ------ he allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses ^d io not adversely affect adjacent or nearby property: k. Placement of natural rock rip rap, including associated fn^sh^d^ slop^^ not exceed ?be Hilb water l^vel does not ?ed%^em\n^« Se^t^'k Toforlubd^ivL^^o^ns^I.r^/A^d .4^of this zoning code. 6. Connections to Public Waters. Excavations where the intended purpose is ^\re^prohibrted theboat slips, canals, /®50ons, and herbors^ are pro^ Ordinary High Water Level. Such excavations approval of the Srpa°rfm?n\^^"^''at-a! rso^uro^s ani other agencies with concurrent jurisdiction. K. Storm Water Management. The fSund^in^lection^"'*^!^^^^^^^ Municipal Code; 1. When possible, existing natural and veqetated soil surfaces must be used to con^^yTstVre, filter and retain storm water run-off before discharge to public waters. ORONO CC 376-16 (2-24-92) I i 1 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement is entered into by and between William and Barbara Pearce, husband and wife (collectively referred to as "the Pearces"), and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ("MCWD"), on May^, 1995 (the "Effective Date"). WHEREAS, on September 22. 1994, the MCWD Board of Managers at a public hearing approved a feasibility report designating property owned by the Pearces and located on County Road 6 in Orono. Minnesota, as the site for a three cell wetland detention pond to be constructed for the purpose of improving the quality of stormwater runoff before it enters Long Lake, and the MCWD has indicated that it also planned a second phase, wetland detention basin to be located further upstream in the subwatershed draining into Long Lake, near Deer Hill Road in Medina; WHEREAS, a dispute arose between the Pearces and the MCWD concerning the scope and location of the three cell wetland detention pond at County Road 6. and on October 21. 1994, the Pearces commenced litigation against the MCWD under numerous legal theories, alleging that MCWD’s administrative actions violated, inter alia. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103B. the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. the United States and Minnesota Constitutions, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; WHEREAS, the Pearces commenced an administrative appeal of the MCWD’s administrative actions to the Board of Water and Soil Resources, alleging violations of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103B. Minnesota Statutes Chapters 116B and 116D, various sections of the United States Constitution and the .“5.^7/22080000 5/2.1/95 Minnesota Constitution, and claiming the MCWD’s actions were contrary to a restrictive covenant on their land; WHEREAS, the parties believe it prudent to avoid further litigation and administrative action to resolve their differences by agreeing to a revised design and consuuction schedule of the two phases desciiheJ above: and. WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to a full settlement of all issues in dispute between them; NOW. THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises made in this Settlement Agreement, the MCWD and the Pearces do agree as follows: 1. Granting of an Easement. The Pearces hereby agree to grant to the MCWD. pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth below, a permanent easement to construct. operate, and maintain a wetland detention basin on the property described and identified in Exhibit 1 attached to this Agreement. This wetland detention basin shall be located in an area identified in Exhibit 2 attached to this Agreement and is referred to hereafter as the Easement Area. The MCWD, within 30 days after the Ettcctive Date, shall cause a survey, mutually acceptable to the MCWD and the Pearces, by a registered land surveyor selected and paid lor by the MCWD. to be completed to identify the precise boundaries of and providing a legal description for the Easement Area., 2. Easement Docum entation . The parties agree to execute on the Conveyance Date (as defined in Section 8 below) a separate easement agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 3. incorporated herein by reference (the "Easement Agreement"), to be filed and recorded in the Office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles. The MCWD, at its 537/22080000 5/23/95 sole cosl and expense, shall file and record said Easement Agreement with the Office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles within three business days after the Conveyance Date. 3. County Road 6 Project . The MCWD. in its sole discretion and ai its .sole cost and expense, tuay, upon excLUi;on of the Easement Agreemenu construct a wetland deU'r.iion basin and associated access road within the Easement Area (hereinafter referred to as the "Project"), provided that construction of the Project shall not begin prior to January I, 1998, and provided further that the Project shall meet the following requirements: a. The objective of the design for the Project shall be both (i) to further the MCWD’s Long Lake water quality improvement goals and (ii) to create a Project and adjacent land within the Easement Area that has a natural appearance consistent with the native characteristics of the Pearce property and that has a minimal aesthetic and economic effect on the Pearces and their property; b. The MCWD shall prepare and deliver to the Pearces and their consultants on or before May 12, 1995, for their review and approval, a final written design plan addressing in detail all of the requirements of this section; c. The Pearces shall complete their review and approval of this written design plan no later than May 22. 1995, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld and shall be deemed given if not specifically withheld in writing by no later than May 22, 1995; d. The wetland detention basin in the Project shall be located and shall be of the size, volume, and shape in strict conformance with the conceptual design set forth in Exhibit 2 to this Agreement; 537/22080000 5/23/95 e. TTk MCWD shall not locale permanently wiihin the Easement Area any equipment, buildings or other stnictuies except the outlet structure identified in Exhibit 2 hereto, provided that the MCWD may temporarily locale equipment in the Ea^ment Area for construction or maintenance purposes; f.The access road for maintenance of tte wetland (tetention basin shall be ali^iCd as set forth in Exhibit 2 hereto, shall follow the natural grade of the site without excavation or other modification of the existing landscape, and shall have a cleared right-of- way width not exceeding 20 feet, with a natural surface not covered with gravel, rock, or impervious surface: g. The wetland detention basin shall be constructed and completed within six months after commencement of construction activities, provided that the MCWD may extend the construction schedule to respond to a force majeuie event beyond its control, and provided further that MCWD shall use its best efforts to minimize any such necessary extension; h. In constructing the Project, and thereafter operating and maintaining it. the MCWD shall require its employees, contractors, and agents to use the best reasonably available techniques for controlling erosion and for minimizing disruption or damage, either temporary or permanent, to the property, resulting from clearing, grubbing, excavating. damming, ditching or any other construction activities and the equipment and personnel associated therewith; i. After the Project has been initially constructed and/or any operational or maintenance activities thereafter performed, the MCWD shall cause its employees. 537/22080000 5/23/95 contractors, and agents to employ promptly the best reasonably available techniques for restoring to their original appearance and characteristics any and all areas impacted by said construction, operational, or maintenance activities and the equipment and personjiel associated therewith: J The MCWD at all times shall properly operate and maintain the Project, and shall conduct such periodic maintenance as is necessary to keep the Project in good repair, to maintain the natural characteristics of the Easement Area, and to prevent tlM deterioration of or damage to the Project or the Easement Area through erosion, eutrophication or any other means. The design plan required under this Agreement shall include a minimum maintenance schedule. k. As part of the Project. MCWD shall develop a landscaping plan for review and approval by the Pearces, said approval not to be unreasonably withheld. The Pearces must provide their comments within 30 days of receipt of the landscaping plan: the failure to comment within this period shall be deemed approval. The MCWD shall allocate and expend the sum of $.30,000 from Project budget to implement the approved landscaping plan: The landscaping required under paragraph (k) above shall include trees. shrubs, grasses, groundcover, bankcover^ or such other vegetation as is suitable for the Pearce property, taking into account native plant characteristics, soil and drainage conditions, sunlight or shade conditions, and other pertinent factors. This landscaping shall be intended, inter alia , to preserve and enhance the natural appearance of the Project and Easement Area, promote erosion and runoff control, provide improved wildlife habitat and increased plant diversity. 537/22080000 5/23/95 ami screen (through vegetation located either near the wetland detention basin or the Pearce house) undesirable views. 4. Access. The MCWD agrees not to enter the Easement Area except through the access road identified in Exhibit 2. The Pearces acknowledge and agree to provicte access prior to commencement of construction of the Project to the MCWD or its agents and other permitting agencies for survey and permit consideration purposes. The MCWD shall provide the Pearces with at least 60 days written notice of Project commencement before beginning construction of the Project. After completing Project construction, the MCWD shall provide the Pearces with at least seven days written notice before entering the Easement Area to conduct any scheduled maintenance or other activities involving the use of heavy equipment, provided that if the MCWD must conduct such activities on an emergency basis, or in all other circumstances where it is not feasible to provide seven days written notice, MCWD shall provide the Pearces with as much notice as is practical. 5. Deer Hill Road Project. The MCWD, at its sole cost and expense, shall construct a wetland detention system at the Deer Hill Road site identified in Exhibit 4 attached hereto, and said system shall be in general conformance with the size, volume, and other design elements set forth in Exhibit 4. The MCWD will construct said system by January 1, 1997, provided, however, that in the event that unforeseen circumstances cause delay in the construction of the "Deer Hill Road project. MCWD will cons rucl that project prior to commencement of the County Road 6 Project 6. Compen.sation for Ea.sement, As compensation for the execution of the Easement Agreement referenced above and immediately upon filing of a Stipulation of 537/22080000 5/23/95 Dismissal as discussed below, ite MCWD agrees to pay the Pearces bv check the sum of $20,000. 7- Contingcncies/Conditions Subsequent. The rights and obligations of the parties under this Agreement are contingent upon satisfaction of the following conditions subsequent within 120 days of the Effective Date, subject to renewal as provided in Section 8 below: a. Deer Hill Road . This Agreement is contingent upon MCWD obtaining without resort to condemnation all property rights necessary to construct the wetland detention basin at Deer Hill Road in Medina. Minnesota: and b. Permits, This Agreement is further contingent upon the MCWD obtaining all necessary federal, stale, and local permits or approvals for the construction of the wetland detention basin on the Pearce property. These permits and approvals include: a Public Waters Work Permit from the Minne.sota Department of Natural Resources; a Section 404 Permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers: a Section 401 State Water Quality Certification from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; and A conditional use permit and a flowage easement modification from the City of Orono. The MCWD agrees to seek promptly and diligently all necessary permits or approvals for Uie Project, to take all reasonable actions necessary to obtain said permits or approvals in accordance with the terms hereof, and to advise the Pearces in a timely manner (including reasonable advance notice of substanuve meetings with the permitting authorities) of any .S37/22080000 5/23/95 relevant developments regarding same; the Pearces agree to support the MCWD's applications for permits or approvals in conformance with this Agreement and agree not to interfere or otherwise impede the application process for such permits or approvals; c. City of Orono. The MCWD shall obtain from the City of Orono a written approval, addressed to both the MCWD and the Pearces, of the Project and a written modification addressed to the Pearces and provided in a form acceptable to the parties hereto and suitable to be filed and recorded with the Office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles, of the llowage easement the City holds over an> portion of the Easement Area; d. Mortgagee Consent. The Pearces shall obtain from any mortgagee which holds a mortgage on the Pearce property written consent to the conveyance of the easement to be granted to the MCWD hereunder, and a written agreement that any rights said mortgagee possesses under said mortgage are subordinate to the terms of the easement to be granted to the MCWD hereunder. e. The MCWD may waive the conditions in Paragraphs a and b of this Section. 8. Best Efforts to Satisfy Conditions. Stay of Litigation. Renewal. Each party shall use its best efforts to satisfy each condition subsequent for which it is responsible hereunder within 120 days of the Effective Date. The parties agree to stay all litigation and appeal activities during this 120 day period, and immediately upon the execution of this Agreement to execute a stipulation to continue the litigation pending dismissal attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 5. The parties shall by mutual agreement schedule a closing meeting to be held within 20 days of the date on which the last of these contingencies is satisfied to 537/22080000 5/23/95 convey and execute the Easement Agreement. Stipulations of Dismissal. Withdrawal of Appeal, and any other pending necessary documents, and this closing date shall be referred to as the "Conveyance Date" for purposes of this Agreement, and all pending obligations hereunder shall become final and binding on said Conveyance Date. In the event that notwithstanding the required best efforts of the panics, any of the conditions subsequent identified in this Section are not satisfied within 120 days after the Effective Date, then this Agreement shall become null and void, provided that prior to the expiration of the 120 day period, the MCWD may renew this Agreement for a second period of 120 days upon payment of a check to the Pearces in the amount of $1,066. 9. Release of Claims. In consideration of the foregoing, and effective upon the Conveyance Date, both the Pearces and the MCWD release and hold the other pany harmless from any and all claims, demands and causes of action which either of them or their representatives may have against the other party or their representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, arising from or in any manner related to the siting of the Project within the Easement Area; provided, however, that the Pearces and their represent.' fives do not release or hold harmless the MCWD or its representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, with respect to any claims, demands, or causes of action not related to the siting of the Project within the Easement Area, including without limitation those relating to any acts or omissions of the MCWD or its employees, contractors, or agents with respect to construction, operation, or maintenance of the Project; and provided that neither party releases or holds harmless the other party or their representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, with respect to any claims, demands, or causes of action related to breach of this Agreement. .S .17/22080000 .S/2.1/9.S 10. Waiver. The MCWD agrees, elleciive upon the Conveyance Date, that the Project within the Ea.senu*ni Area as .set forth herein is the sole and exclusive project or improvement of any type whatsoever that the MCWD will ever construct on the Pearce property, provided, however that the MCWD reserves the right to construct or reconstruct any necessary refinements to the Project within the Easement Area which the MCWD may deem necessary, to meet the performance standards established in the approved design plan described in Section 3 of this Agreement, and provided further that any such refinement must be in strict conformance with the approved Project design described in Section 3 of this Agreement; the MCWD agrees, effective upon the Conveyance Date, to waive and not exercise any right or authority it may have to condemn any portion of the Pearce property for any purpose whatsoever. 11. Indemnification. The MCWD hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Pearces, and each of them, and their representatives, heirs, successors and/or assigns, from and against any and all suits, actions, causes of actions, claims, or proceedings asserted against the Pearces or either of them, or their repre.sentatives heirs, successors and/or assigns, arising out of the Project and/or the MCWD’s construction, operation, or maintenance activities in connection therewith, or any other acts or omissions of the MCWD or its employees, contractors, or agents in connection with the Project, except to the extent caused by the negligence or wrongful conduct of the Pearces. 12. Stipulation of Dismi.ssal and Withdrawal of Appeal. The parties agree that they shall cause their counsel to execute, or they shall execute themselves, a separate Stipulation of 537/22080000 .5/23/9.S Di'imissal With Prejudice and Withdrawal of Appeal With Prejudice in the forms attached hereto as Exhibits 6 and 7 immediately on the Conveyance Date. 13. Fees and Expenses. The parties will be responsible for the payment of their own attorneys’ and consultants’ fees and expenses in this matter. 14- Settlement Agreement Binding on Successors and A.s.sipns. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding on the parties, and their heirs, representatives, successors and assigns. 15. Notices. All written notices required or permitted to be given hereunder, other than those relating to the design plan described in Section 3 of this Agreement which shall be delivered personally, shall be deemed delivered when personally delivered to a party at the address below, or if mailed, three (3) business days after deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: If to William and Barbara Pearce: 1485 County Road o Long Lake. MN 55356 With a copy to: Greg Fontaine, Esq. Dorsey & Whitney 2200 First Bank Place East Minneapolis. MN 55402 If to the MCWD: 15500 V/ayzata Boulevard, Suite 611 Twelve Oaks Center Wayzata. MN 55.391 537/22080000 5.'2J/95 With a copy to: Louis Smith. Esq. Popham, Haik. Schnobrich & Kaufman. Lid. 222 South Ninth Slrceu Suite 3300 Minneapolis. MN 55402 16. Surviv’al. The obligations and indemnifications set forth in this Agreement shall survive and not merge into any deed or other form of conveyance given by the Pearces to the MCWD. 17. No Waiver; Entire Aereement The failure of cither party to insist upon strict performance of any terms, covenants and/or conditions of this Agreement. oi to exercise any right or remedy herein contained, shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment for the future of such term, covenant, condition, right or remedy. This Agreement and attached Exhibits constitute the entire Agreement between the paries with respect to the litigation referenced above. 18. Construction. It is mutually agreed that this Agreement shall be construed and interpreted as if drafted by each party and it is further acknowledged that this Agreement is the product of negotiations between the parties and shall not be construed or interpreted against either party based on such party having drafted this Agreement or any portion thereof. 19. Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 20. Dispute Re.solutirm. It is agreed thwl any dispute arising between the Pearces, or either of them, and the MCWD with respect to the interpretation of this Sett'cmeni Agreement shall be resolved through binding arbitration. The parties agree to select an arbitrator from among the Administrative Law Judges of the Office of Administrative 537/22080000 5/2.1/9* Hearings as follows; the parlies will first request the services of Administrative Law Judge Bruce Campbell; if he is not available within 60 days of the request, then the parties will request Administrative Law Judge George Beck: if he is not available within 60 days of the request, then the parties will request Administrative Law Judge Allan Klein. If none of these persons is available to serve as arbitrator within 60 days of the request, then the parties will lake the list of remaining full-time administrative law judges which according to the Office of Administrative Hearings are available to serve as arbitrators within 60 days of the request, and beginning with the MCWD, alternately strike a single name, and the last person remaining on the list will serve as arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to enforce this Agreement. The expenses of the arbitrator and the arbitration shall be divided as follows: the prevailing party shall pay twenty-five percent (25%) and the remainder shall be paid by the other party. In the event that no one party prevails, the arbitrator shall specify the percentage of expenses to be contributed by the parties. 21. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence hereof. 22. Severability and Enforcement. Each of the terms of this Agreement is essential to the purpose of this Agreement, and the parlies do not intend for the remaining provisions to be enforced if any provision hereof is adjudged invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, unless the parlies otherwise mutually agree. *37/22080000 5/23/9.** IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ihe parlies hereto, have executed this Agreement on the day of May, 1995. "Grantors ” William Pearce Barbara Pearce "Grantee" MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ayy,cJr<^ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of M A 1995, by William and Barbara Pearce, husband and wife. ' CANDACE J. KRALL N01MW eUMJO-IMMEtOTA ANOKA COUNTY My CmwlMlM gipIfB JMt 31.2000 Notary Public 537/22080000 5/23/9.1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ' ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing insirument was acknowledged before me this r^^ay of |TY»» i 1995, by President of the Board of Managers, on teh^lf of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distiict. aOnkr^^K^ of the State of Minnesota I A7H q (X h Notary Public QJMaX X ] THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd. 222 South Ninth Street Suite 3300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 333-4800 oebralhakrunq iwwwrwmw mmmvk HEMNEFIN OOUNTV **************** ******^*-*tnAriAAAfuinj 537/22080000 5/23/95 Tho Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has approved a plan for improving the water quality of Long Lake. This plan designates certain property south of County Road 6 in the City of Orono, identiAed in attached Exhibit 1 (hereafter referred to as the "Subj^ Property") as the site for a two-cell wetland detention pond with associated weirs, fish barriers, access roadway and other structures (the "Orono Project"), designates certain other property near Dear Hill Road in the City of Medina as the site for an additional two-cell wetland detention system (the "Medina Project"), and improves two existing detention basins in the City of Long Lake (the "Long Lake Project"). The MCWD conimitted to the ^''Uowing conditions in its agreement with the owners of the Subject Property: a. The MCWD will complete the Medina Project in accordance with the plans included as attached Exhibit 2 prior to beginning the Orono Project. b. The wetland detention basin in the Orono Project shall be located and shall be of the size, volume and shape in strict conformance with the conceptual design set forth in attached Exhibit 3. c The MCWD shall not locate permanently within the Subject Property any equipment, buildings or other structures except the outlet structure identified in Exhibit 3, provided that the MCWD may temporarily locate equipment on the Subject Property for construction or maintenance purposes. d. The access road for maintenance of the wetland detention basin shall be aligned as set forth in Exhibit 3, shall follow the natural grade of the site without excavation or other modification of the existing landscape, and shall have a cleared right-of-way width not exceeding 20 feet, with a natural surface not covered with gravel, rock or impervious surface. f. The wetland detention basin shall be constructed and completed with six months after commencement of construction activities. g. In constructing the Orono Project, and thereafter operating and maintaining it, the MCWD shall require its employees, contractors or agents to use the bes; reasonably available techniques for controlling erosion and for minimizing disruption or damage, either temporary or permanent, to the Subject Property resulting from clearing, grubbing, excavating, damming, ditching or any other construction activities and the equipment and personnel associated therewith. h. After the Orono Project has been initially constructed and/or any operational or maintenance activities thereafter performed, the MCWD shall cause its employees, contractors or agents to employ promptly the best reasonably available techniques for restoring to their original appearance and characteristics any and all areas impacted by the MCWD's construction, operational or maintenance activities and the equipment and personnel associated therewith. i. The MCWD at all times shall properly operate and maintain the Orono Project, and shall conduct such periodic maintenance as is necessary to keep the Orono Project in good repair, to maintain the natural characteristics of the Subject Property, and to prevent the deterioration of or damage to the Orono Project or the Subject Property through erosion, eutrophication or any other means. j. As part of the Orono Project, the MCWD shall develop an acceptable landscaping plan. The required landscaping shall include trees, shmbs, grasses, groundcover, bankcover or such other vegetation as is suitable for the Subject Property taking into account native plant characteristics, soil and drainage conditions, sunlight or shade conditions, and other pertinent factors. The landscaping shall be intended to preserve and enhance the natural app>earance of the Orono Project and Subject Property, promote erosion and runoff control, provide improved wildlife habitat and increased plant diversity, and screen undesirable views. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the following additional conditions in connection with the design plan changes made by the MCWD without consultation with the owners of the Subject Property: • The MCWD shall, before the City Council meeting to consider the Orono Project, provide an artist's rendition, with views from both the south and the east, of the physical appearance of those portions of the Orono Project that will be located above water level, and a landscape architect or designer's delineation of the specific types and locations of the various vegetation to be included in the emergent wetland edge, wooded wetland and any other landscaped areas in the final design for the Orono Project. • The MCWD shall, before the City Council meeting to consider the Orono Project, identify any differences between the conceptual plan attached as Exhibit 3 and the design specifications approved by the MCWD (for example, increasing the height of the sheet pile weir, adding a baffle weir, adding fish barriers) and shall address any issues raised by City staff concerning such differences. • The MCWD shall provide an acceptable schedule for maintenance of the Orono Project by the MCWD, including at a minimum plans for (i) removing debris from the detention pond and control structures at least once per month from April through November of each year, (ii) cleaning out algae and other floating vegetation at regular intervals during each year, (iii) inspecting annually the physical integrity of the structures and access road, maintaining the structures and road as necessary, and repairing damage due to storm events, ice loading or other causes, and (iv) removing sediment on a periodic basis. EXHIBIT 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION _arcel_J.. Thai part of Loi 1 lying West of a line drawn parallel with and 395 feet East of measured at nghl angles to. the East line of the West 1/2 of the Southwest Quarter of Section 26. Township 118, Range 23 and the same extended, and lying North of the North line of Lot 2 and its Easterly extension; that part of Lot 2 lying North of the Easterly extension of the Northerly line of Tract A. Registered Land Survey No. 1379; ail in "Auditor’s Subdivision Number 291. Hennepin County, Minnesota", according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County. fo^ows^ Government Lot 1. Section 26. Township 118. Range 23 described as Beginning at the Northwest comer of Lot 2. "Auditor’s Subdivision Number 291. Hennepin County. Minnesota", thence West along the extension of the North line of said Lot 2 and along the South line of Lot 1. said Auditor’s Subdivision, to the most Westerly line of Lot 1. said Auditor’s Subdivision; • thence South along the extension of the most Westerly line of Lot 1. said Auditor’s Subdivision, to the South line of said Section 26; thence East along the South line of said Section 26 to its intersection with the West line of Lot 2, said Auditor’s Subdivision; thence North to the point of beginning; except that’ portion thereof embraced in Registered Land Survey Nos. 934 and 1379; and except the West 50 feet of that part of above described Government Lot 1 lying North of the North line of Registered Land Survey No. 934; and except ^at pan of Government Lot 1 lying Southerly of the Easterly extension of the Northerly line of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1379. Certificate of Title No. 601905 That pan of Government Lot 1. Section 26. Township 118. Range 23. described as follows: ^ Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly extension of the North line of Lot 2 Auditor s Subdivision No. 291, Hennepin County, Minnesota," with the East line of 0 nston s Rearrangement of Albee ’s Long Lake Addition; thence North along said East line ^d along the East line of "Albee ’s Long Lake Addition" and its extension to the Southerly line of Dougl^ Estates; thence Easterly along said Southerly line to the Northerly extension of the most Westerly line of Lo't 1. "Auditor’s Subdivision Number 291. Hennepin County. Minnesota ; thence South along the last described extension and along the most Westerly line ot said Lot 1 to the Westerly extension of the North line of Lot 2. in said "Auditor’s Subdivision Number 291. Hennepin County, Minnesota"; thence Westerly to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof. Certificate of Title No. 608676 . ____________________________________________^ ___________ _: ' " ' //** \* ' iccfss noAO—f\ •>.a.i■K \'- . 1 * f ^ ZcaaTNACTOir ra ^liw^oiCJi wili MOUscrAJW ^ i | > ~v' '. 2ftSc?ftj2p To^B^SVV' uaiciii \ 'i; F'3 fvi'.v'.N , \ '^-'- • n:. i-. ' ' i • \m ir 'i'T::^.- ! P's" ‘ . '-s ■ • '^•' .-Cs'\ .• \ • ,!-.,V./' ' --A i! j' ■ ■: J'_-'hlV:'l']l/__1 _________tl,__^.2_^Z---.-''~V"r^^ 1'7'■; '\ —"Z“rj~ * /\i • *•' M A anm^ ^firyririf '^“1 — ' ^ ' A( ^ ^ ^ I ■ ;"i Hi:- ,■ ',.-T'«A‘ ' ; >-r.:A'''■ OCtiCATni ' ••V.vrf% i/iv , wtrtM€ / I: / \ -f 4- ^ -------r-; I \ -L L ' • -Cl 1^. ‘‘ '/ ••V’'' Mb £ iCLSfCLO VOOOS SCICNTIfIC AlO luTuac a*£a ...j •'r . ^ \ ••'7.. . ■ <1 \ • I LECENO•— LMi%ftm cicvArioi ^ GOitQUA'AorauiOBiTaSI0 CUVAflCH— H «— imiiNcrcici--------------------- MtarcATT UK • UlsriK POKJI PKC '^////■'. I KffrSHS?™' H+fl Ml SSSS'rRSr’ aitfa Bll/IV KTtAMO___________ I* toot cmjSMCo LIICSTONC l«nOOT CLASS V typical access road detail •iflrro scale ■“" ” "e fetfose^ Tei^^s /f^ lf^et>ifip< EXHIBIT 2 m iTv-'^v . > ^:a i il I o ! 1 EXHIBITS Project Description PesiRn Parameters: * 2.47 acres surface area * * aggregate volume (Both cells) 16.2 acre feet * outlet elevation 950.4 feet 'I % 000 LO, RU. NC..»6TaLg \V > a[\ 'C. • 1^ ^f V X s /-> / / tASEUtf^f / / MAWTEN/VNCe / ; ^ASI wa )' S<0.8 i ( / 4- \\J^Mk,,, 3NI 30SSV MDN3il III '\\\ Q \ \\ \ 1 K ••• .** 2 f 0 ICO ^ ^ ^ * 1 f ■ f . I V»J , . , . *^nALL IN F££T 6Lt ZT9 rvj so.-rr c«.Tr-c.. pi- / TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Cin' Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator September 13, 1995 SUBJECT: #2060 Tim Feyo and Karen Fuller-Feyo, 4055 Elm Street - Variances Renewal Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre. Application: Renewal of lot area variance previously granted in 1978, 1980 and again on September 12, 1994. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey/Proposed Site Plan/Topography/Grading & Drainage Concept Plan E - Resolution #3462 F - Recent Background Re: Boundary Dispute G - Memo and Exhibits of 9/8/94 Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B) A. Lot area Required = 43,560 s.f. or 1 acre Existing = 19,920 s.f. or 0.46 acre Variance = 23,640 s.f. or 54% B.Lot width [per Section 10.03, Subd. 6 (A-1)] Required for existing lots of record = 112’ or 80% Existing = 118’ or 84% No lot width variance required Discussion Please review the staff memo of 9/8/94. Briefly, the request is for renewal of the previously granted lot area variance for construction of a single family residence. A residence can be constructed on the property meeting all the required setback and hardcover standards. The property is similar in size of neighboring developed properties, and there is no adjacent undeveloped land to make the property any larger. Zoning File #2060 September 13, 1995 Page 2 The 1994 application was made jointly by the Feyos and the Etheringtons who intended to purchase the property from the Feyos. That sale ultimately did not proceed, and the variance expired September 12th. The site plan and grading plan submitted in 1994 was reviewed by the City Engineer who concluded that the site development as proposed was acceptable from an engineering standpoint subject to installation of gutters and downspouts on the proposed residence, which would connect to a drain pipe extending north to the edge of the existing roadway ditch. This would prevent an increase in runoff to the adjacent lots. He also noted the driveway would be somewhat steep but acceptable, and prior to construction of a new residence on the property, a full grading plan needs to be submitted and approved. Lot Boundary Dispute Planning Commission may recall that the westerly neighbors to this site, the Laues, had Questioned the location of the west lot boundary. The DeMars-Gabriel survey submitted by Feyo showed Laues’ metal shed encroaching on Feyo’s parcel. Laues’ surveyor has confirmed that the shed is encroaching the lot line. The Laues and the Feyos have both engaged attorneys to represent them. Laues apparently intend to begin a torrens action, claiming adverse possession. Feyo’s attorney indicates he feels the essential elements for a successful adverse possession claim are lacking. The Feyos have constructed a cyclone fence along both side lot lines. As of this writing, staff is unaware whether the Laues have in fact filed a torrens action. It is staffs impression that the adverse possession claim is unlikely to succbed and the lot boundaries and area are as presented. In the worst case, however, if Feyos were to lose 15’ along their entire west lot line by adverse possession, the lot width would be reduced below the 80% standard and lot area and building envelope would shrink somewhat. Staff Recommendation It is staffs recommendation to proceed with the variance renewal request in the normal manner unless or until a torrens action is commenced which would leave the lot area and width parameters undefined until the torrens action is complete. In that case, staff would recommend holding final action in abeyance until the torrens action is complete. Planning Commission should review the variance renewal request and determine whether the findings, conclusions and conditions of Resolution #3462 are still pertinent. If so, a recommendation for approval of the variance renewal is appropriate per those conditions. CITY OF ORONO - VAJUANCE APPLICAiION • % // *• A Vo.- Inidai Application Fee S2C0.C0 . « ? (S50.00 per each acdidonai vanance; h2ss Renewal Variance Fee SIOO.OO :Wrr^ (no change from original appiicauon)^ j > Variance for non-conicnning stracnires Arier-the-Fac: Fees (Double application ree) PROPERTY' I^TOR^LATION Block 9 lots 7,3 & 9 A---ess an SB Sim street (Minn^rnnka Suimt ■Sue Au^ess------------^\nfi-i 17-23 41 0081 •**T ’i/ •l:-v * 1 -‘rdhl. 1;^‘ • • I -r*;:- .r;;?.... 06-117-23 41 0083 Site .^cdress_jO!LgI^JHggH^^ 41 QQ82^ Prccerr/ Identnication Numcer (P.i.iJ- ^^jded on reauiren survey. Atuch legal ceacnFt.on Date Properrv Ac-une-_____________—TTTTT-rd I (do) (do cot) also^own *e o'cter'csjecify). Present use ot property • ------ Zonins District!__________——^— Phone iTinn.e", 633-2247 Phone(work) r-:r./-~v^ Rr-inhton. IVlrL.— Zlpr^snz\ame Tim Feyo & Karen Ftil Iftr-Feyo Address: ifi77 Tnm OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address________ .^r-cMTircx Estimated Construcdon Costs. description of for lot area Heguiranerm Describe request in deem: ------------------ — Phone(home). Phone (work)_ Zip: (attach additional sheets if necessary) variances reqetred ^ Lot Area _Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Averase Lakeshore Other (specif)') ------------------------------ a^rosmiJEScsOTioN-yjgsgsagsss --------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) (Z^f. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the follnwnna information must he submitted hv the applimrion deadline^ ! for vQur to be considered complete. 1. -7 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed AppliCauon obtain this list from Cenified Property Owners List or o\vne*^ - Center, 348-3271). Hennepin County Department or Finance, A-o , Plat Map (obtained with ^ survevor) and include hardcover Cenificate of ^-ey (signed b^ ^ ,,, calculations as required. In aaaiuon, y reproduction. ^ elevations) if anv changes in existing grade Topographic survey (existmg P P g,,^qj. reproduction, are proposed. In addition, provide one U) copy 8 - . ot/,- v n"'). Sketches or plans of floor & with an interest in the vou wish notified of this application. '............ . •____ r^rm^»^rpci VOU Wish notiiiea or uii:> Additional items as may be requested by City statf. AppUcan. APPLICAM-’S i^-onMtion required or request^ by the Zoning The applicant hereby ^ P /"craff rime not covered by original fee payment) Adminirnaror agrees » Applicant’s Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNA^ ^ appUcation and further authorizes reasonable The owner ^ ^fty staff, consultants, apnts, Commission members, and Counc members for purposes^* investigation and^rification of this request. y Owner’s Signature Date ,«„cr have Jl subimtt4 into the Citv offices 25 days befo^ the banning Co^ission Applicant m^i have Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Meetmg. ^ aU scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commissionts“e pr"^'^ sSU"?eview meetings of the Planning Commission this change prior to the meeting. 8 I 4 8 1 w » 15 /• (105)a- ' s R u « ^ 3 a R 11 aj 4 a R (90) ** i (9?) * a"i If a'! • a a '0 *’/(97) ^ 0 1 \?% B 107.2fe.^- aa t f , .# ft ;"9 ob < ;• ;■ '• (96)a ^ F" 1?5 n '30.^ tUUu " m bn’ a a i 125 f s^JTw lb . ^66.6 ^ a i ’ r" j 125 fX 40 ^ i"= ■c» 5\«r>^»?E « i(i» ' «l,:5" -a 36.33 r* 31. n 0.04 RUN DATE 06/17/95DATCti 507 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR \ PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR Olt€R NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR QltlER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR i n r HfrtCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIAIS^Ol PAGE 1636 06-117-23 61 0001 0C036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED S N A B D RUDD STANLEY N I BETTY D RUDD 601 PARK LA LONG LAKE MN 55356-^/Al 36 06-117-23 61 0060 06100 ELM ST T P CARROLL ASK CARROLL THOMAS PETER CARROLL 6100 ELM ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 06-117-23 61 0072 06030 ELM ST 6 M ROSCOE A K M ROSCOE GEORGE M ROSCOE 6030 ELM ST . LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 06-117-23 61 0060 00615 HirtAETONKA HOLD LA L H NILE A M J LEE LANCE M NILE A MARTHA J LEE 615 MTKA HIGHLAND LANE LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 06-117-23 61 0066 00596 PARK LA HERMAN LAUE A NIFE HERMAN LAUE 596 PARK LANE LONG LAKE K4 55356 38 06-117-23 61 0065 00566 PARK LA HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO STREET A DRAINAGE 5/23/66 SD 166503 36 06-117-23 61 0066 00566 PARK LA HErtCPIN FORFEITED LATE) CITY OF ORONO STREET A DRAINAGE 5/23/66 SO 166503 38 06-117-23 61 0091 00601 MINNETONKA HGLD LA C CURTIS LEE A NIFE C rUPTT<i IFF 601 MINNETOTiCA HIGHLAND LANE LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 06-117-23 61 0106 06061 OAK ST NIKLAS A DAMN HATtlARBERO NIKLAS A DAMN HAMMARBERG 6061 OAK ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 06-117-23 61 0106 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED K L FULLER-FEYO ET AL N/L EST KAREN FULLER-FEYO 1677 LONG LAKE RO NEN BRIGHTON MN 55112 36 06-117-23 66 0003 00650 MINNETONKA HGLD LA J L BERG A S R BERG JOHN L BERG A SHARON R DERG 650 MINNETONKA HIGHLAND LN LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 06-117-23 66 0005 00669 MINNETONKA HGLD LA S V SHANTEK A P G SNANTEK STEPHEN A PATRICIA SNANTEK 669 MINNETONKA HGLD LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 UJ 36 06-117-23 66 0006 00659 MINNETONCA HGLD U R H A K L SPEETER RICHARD H SPEETER 659 MINNETONKA HGLD LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 66 0016 00630 PARK LA N E A J M NROBLEHSKI H1LLIA!1 E A JOAN NROBLEHSKI 630 PARK LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 507 DOOM Si| 3' Hi 5 1 Wfr-n 11! N * ill ! Mi’?%t*-'^U‘' V^ iij vfeit! ■ ^ ill iiiil. I lit ^ ^ ^sfSf i ^ § II !§ (■ ',) S /'ft O 25 IE §?$a (O(/»c® 2 S H 40 TJ I omzo Hincm 3oz sos 2rn 5 \ ■/ Va 4 h I ! I 5 i S SJLt ’* //7/^^^0//or> f f^!^<^ioyro/a^y ^t7 »r‘ ^//^ on<^. ^/S^/’^y/. S.lhil th<| •! 1 iruf and C0"#CI It'D'' ol‘4 »u'»r* J' of tha abovt datcnbad ’md md o* ihe •o.*j*'P'' o' a» bu-«dn*(j» •'. and all wtnbii fncioachmanu .♦ ar*v '»'>«' o* O'^ u-d I*'h1 l^.lf Nf. SZS2 C£er//7CdTS .•...«,. -r^ . d..o, 4i^(,r Pj*#- ...................................................................................... JA4-S v*l<sc//^i/sr CITY of ORONO RESOLLTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL xNO. 3 4 6-2------- A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO >nJNlCIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) file no. 1944 WHEREAS, Bradley Eiherington and Dina Etherington (hereinafter "the applican.-) property located 4055 Elm Street wtthin the C.ty of Orono and legally described as follows: Lot 7, 8 and 9, Block 9, Minnetonka Summit Park. Hennepin County. Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and residence on a property that consists of 19.920 s.f. or .46 acres where 43.560 s.f. or is required. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, findings 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1944. 2.The property is located in the LR-IB Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this renewal variance application on both July 18, 1994 and August 15, 1994 and recommended approval of the variance application as proposed, based upon the following unique fmdmgs an hardship: A.The property has been assessed for a sewer unit and the assessment has been paid and sewer is available to the property. Page 1 of 5 • \ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 8 4 6 2-------- B.The lot has sufficient depth and width so that normal setbacks for 35’ front, 30’ rear and 10’ side can be easiiy met. C.The 19,920 s.f. lot is consistent with developed lots within the neighborhood ranging from 12,000 s.f. to 37,000 s.f. D In a repon dated September 8. 1994, the City Engineer confirmed that the proposed drainage plans for the developed site wUl not impact adjacent, developed properties to both the east and west side of the property. 4.The City Council fmds that the conditions existmg on tlus property are pecuhar to it and do not apply generally to other property m dismcL ^at <rranting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to a eviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserv-e a substanual right of the applicant; and would be in keepmg with the spint and mtent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.The City Council has considered this application including the fmdmgs and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above fmdings, the Orono City Council hereby arants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24. Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the comtmctTon of a new residence on ore propeny located at 4055 Elm Street and grants an area variance of 23,640 s.f. or 54%, subject to the following conditions: 1.Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new residential consOTCtion, applicant/future owner must apply for the legal combination of Lots 7, 8 an Block 9, Minnetonka Summit Park. 2 All residential improvements on this site shall meet all required setback and hardcover standards of the LR-IB Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page 2 of 5 CITY of ORONO Ikv resolltion of the city council xn 8 4 6 P------- 3. 4. D. Upon application for a buUding permit, applicant shall provide a padmg X showing proposed driveway grading, tree removal and/or retaimng wall. Authorities granted bv this variance run with the property not with the applicMts. btf a ™K™“s.ve onlv and must be exercised by application for a buildmg peJmh w^tto one year of the date of CouncU approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 1995). Violation of or nonncompliance with any of the terms and conditions of tWs resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically any authority granted herein, and shaU be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6.The undersiened applicants and current owner have read, understood and hereby asree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their he^s, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution m the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of September, 1994. tn JifiS C l* J . •• CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 846i>_____ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) u The foregomg instrumeni was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of September, 1994 by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor and City Cle^ of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public , 199*4 before me a Notary STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ttEfWEPfN ) . , On this 10^ day of ^ Public within and for said county, personally appeared / _ / J ^ known to me to be the perron(s) described m and who executed ^e^f^re^ng instniiii^^and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act andodged LYNN M. KRAFT , NOTAiT RUILIC - IMNHISOTA rtr*'rJ my COMVISSIOI fXPiRts w»-- • January 3t. icco NOT \Lpvn TH, ARY PUBLIC ^ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. (their) free act and deed. NOT.\RY PUBUC ■ ^wvvwvww^^^aaa^aaa/\aaaaaaaaaaa ■ Page 4 of 5 GINA B. KRAHN NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA RAMSEY COUNTY My Conntiuion Expirn Aug. 2S, 199S 1 . r * • »* CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL !vn 8 4 6 2-------- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dav of , 199 before me a Notary Public withinand for said county, descnb.d in and who execu^ me foregoing u^trumem. a^ctaowlcdgcd that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary PublicWithinandforsaidcounty.p«„on(s) described in and wO® me foregoing iustrument, aidlcknowledged that he (mey) executed the same as his (their) ftee act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 \ v'j Tr ^•» »• % '\:f^ ) I '%J 1677 Long Lake Road New Brighton, Minnesota 16 September 1994 Mr. Sc .Mrs. Herman Lane 594 Park Lane Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lane, I am sure that you already know, the variance request presented to the City of Orono Planning Commission and the City Counsel has been approved for the Lots East of your property. What you may not be aware of is that all requirements requested by the Planning Commission of the applicants have been fulfilled, including a resolution of the dispute concerning the survey discrepancies. As per our conversation after the planning commission's meeting in August, we contacted our surveyors and pointed out your concerns about the property line between your east lot and our west lot. At our request, our surveyors, Demars-Gabriel Land Surveyors Inc. contacted Schoell Sc Madson Inc., and a representative of each business met at the lots site to review the discrepancy. According to Demars-Gabriel representative Mr. David E. Crook met with Schoell Sc Madson representative Mr. Ted Kemna. Both Mr. Crook and Mr. Kemna reviewed their data and discovered that the Scholl Sc Madson survey was in error. Both individuals double checked their data and discovered an error of three (3) inches by the Demars-Gabriel survey (prorated equals one (1) inch for each of our three (3) lots.) What this all comes out to, is that the survey that Demars-Gabriel Inc. conducted, and the one presented to the Planning Commission and City Counsel, is the latest and correct survey to date. We understand that Mr. Kemna went and spoke to Mrs. Laue to report on the finding and errors of the original Schoell Sc Madson survey. They even went out and reviewed where the property line is located. With the correct property line now firmly established, it is evident that your utility shed is clearly on our property. (To your East) I Wc request that you remove this structure off our property immediately, now that the survey reviews are concluded. We request that thi'^ structure be removed no later than 23 September 1994. Failure to remove this structure by this date will only result in forcing us to take one of several actions. One option is to take legal action which would be expensive to both of us . I’m sure that neither of us wants this matter to get that far. As we have stated, the surs ey review is over, your structure is clearly on our property, we request you remove your structure. We thank you for all consideration regarding this matter and we hope that this letter will resolve all differences. .0 //< lU'CiJ'U; karen/FuIler-Feyo and Toothy Feyo I i jrui-—IS — Tue s : 3 s r- • ^ #o Ti r:»v : 1 • J ■\ K .« • SCHOELL S MADSON, IIMC. - 'iU engineers • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ^ SOIL TESTING • SNViRCNN^ENTAL SERVICES icsec WArZATA BCULEVAFO • SU.TS 1 • ^/:N^,5T=NKA. *^85303-1389 cenz) B«B.7eoi • «^ax cena) B^e-soea July 17, 1995 Timothy and Karen Fuller-Feyo 1677 Long Lake Road New Brighton, MN 55112 Subject:Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 9 Minnetonka Summit Park Dear Tim and Karen: We have reviewed the survey done by Demars-Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc. snorwJrealy on the Demars-Gabriel survey. The location of the shed being across the line was shown to Mrs. Shirley Laue in September of 1994. The west line of your property is the east line of the Laue property. Vt/hich is Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 9, Minnetonka Summit Park. Very truly yours, SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. Theodore D. Kemna TDK/cj cc: Mrs. Siiirley Laue . —rr • * ■“** A . ;=Q'.JAL SMPUCV5P5 I ROGER W. REED Rm< Pmparfy Law SpadatSaT PAUL U POND Camtlad Ova Trial SpaclailsT REED & POND, LTD.ATTORNEYS AT LAW5424 SHCREUNE DRIVE P O. BOX 9MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-0CX)9 * C^fled by ttm Mlnn^sotM StatB Bar Association PHONE 612/472-2222 FAX 612/472-2254 UNOAESENTHER DONALD F. NOACK« JR- ANN C. THIES KAY L. DUNN NANCY C. REHBERGER Legai Assistants July 20. 1995 •7rf ^ * t j] • *. • t •*> Mr. Tim Feyo and Ms. Karen Fuller-Feyo 1677 Long Lake Road New Brighton, MN 55112 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Feyo: 1 represent Herman Laue who purchased Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 9, Minnetonka Summit Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota in approximately 1962. At that time, he was furnished a survey showing iron markers set along the East line of Lot 10. Mr, Laue has relied upon those markers and treated that at his lot line for more than 30 years. Your recent survey has shown the East line of Lot 10 approximately 15 feet further to the West. Assuming that your later survey is correct, then the Laue’s have acquired title to approximately the West 15 feet of Lot 9. Block 9. Minnetonka Summit Park, by adverse possession. Because they have used it as their own for more than 15 years in the manner prescribed by the statute, they have in fact acquired title to the approximately West 15 feet of said Lot 9. They intend to begin a Torrens action to prove that this 15 foot strip of property is theirs and ask that the county records be corrected accordingly. Meanwhile. I would suggest that you refrain from trespassing on this 15 feet of land and I recommend that you consult with your attorney. 4 Very truly yours, REED & POND. LTD..7 Roger W: Reed RWRiwII CL-^/ cc: Mr. and Mrs. Herman Laue 25 July 1995 cTja** ^ f J ! ' N -■ .' 1 ; ' :1 Mr. & Mrs Herman Laue 594 Park Lane Long Lake, Mn 55356 Dear Mr. & Mrs Laue, This letter is to advise your that your shed, located on the your east side and half on the west side of our property, has not been removed from our property You are hereby directed to remove the aforementioned shed from our property within 10 days. This is your final notice. Respectfully, Karen Fuller-Feyo & Tim Feyo 1677 Long Lake Rd. New Brighton, Mn. 55112 cc: Attorney ( STL'ART E. GALE LAW OFFICE VailcT Office Park Suite 210 10800 Lyndaic Avenue South Bloomington. Minnesota S5420 STL’ART c. GALE s vakkes gale STEVEN M GALE July 27. 1995 Phone; (612) 8UO920 Fkjc Noi (612) 8M-92)t rrMr. Roger Reed Reed Sc Pond ltd. 5424 Shoreline Drive * ' — P O Bo.x 9 Mound, MN 55364-0009 Dear Mr. Reed: Your letter of July 20th. 1995 addressed to Tim Feyo and Karen Fuller-Feyo has been delivered to me for response. As I interpret your letter, and based upon the intormation furnished to me by the Feyos, your client is now making some unsubstantiated claim of title by adverse possession to 15 feet by 180 feet of my client’s property. As I understand it, all agree that the survey that my clients have of the premises is now correct. I have discussed the moveable tin shed that your client has constructed, which encroaches a few feet into my client's property, and which constitutes an ongoing trespass, although only for the past few years. At this point in time, we politely ask that the same be removed within ten (10) days. I say that, because my clients have presently lost a sale of the property, because ot your client s encroachment, and continuing trespass upon my client’s property.. That fact subjects your client to a claim of substantial damages because of the loss of this sale I have also discussed thoroughly with my clients any claim of user by your client. My clients have owned their land for a long time, and are well acquainted with any use of their land. It is clear to me that essential elements, which must be present, if one is to attempt to claim another's property by adverse possession, are lacking in this case. The tin shed for example occupies less tha.'. one percent of the total area you claim to have occupied openly, notoriously, and adversely to the ownership of the Feyo’s. Mr. Roger Reed July 26, 1995 Page Two Other than this easily movable staicture. there is no evidence of user of any kind to support a claim by your client that he continually trespassed on the Feyo's property over a 15 toot wide stnp of land covering the entire length of the lot for purposes of establishing title by adverse possession. Under the circumstances, and in order to avoid what would obviously be some costly litigation, I strongly urge that your client remove the offending structure trom my client ’s property so that they do not have a problem with marketability of title. With respect to vour proposal to commence a land registration proceeding, I can assure you that mj’ner would soon be removed from the Examiner ’s office, because the Feyo’s damage claim for the lost sale as the result of your client's trespass. Let us hope that this situation does not come to that point, SEGkm cc; Tim Feyo and Karen Fuller-Feyo I ! ■ i t i 4 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 stnictures After-the-Fac: Fees (Double application fee) / i PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 5‘S’ E: ^rv^ 1 X /"» / i *w • Tf w » w» » JkUU X te*WV^ V VV'V'V' •»f 'TVVA wu;trLrri* t/uii^wA »u • i"*. iCO.Oi Actach tegal description to application if not included on requned survef - Date Property Acquired_____^- I .''do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels or lana. Present use of property: k residential -----other (specify) Zoning District: applicant Name Address: Phooe(work) ^7V_-3?25 M J OWNER (if different than a^licant) Name _ ~ ^ " Address ^dtricrem tnan agu.^u, Phone (work)j2l24^Lc2I'^ Name yi»,«-et\ K^llt r v ■ Phone i^Qme)«.^33"‘ ^ 3 Zip:. Phoneriiome) ^ ^ ^ 7 ^zio: description of request _ ^ ^ EstigatedConsmKtion^stS_ VARIANCES REQLTRED V" Lot .Area _ Setback: Lot Width Front ___Side Hardcover Reax Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore ___Other (specify) ----------------------------------------- Ha BDSHIP/DESCRJ^ION Otg”"t;::sssassa.''5'n (attuch additional sheets if necessary) 1. 2. j. 4. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the foUowing information must be submitted by the appUcation qatC W ordei: for vour to be conside red coniplgtet ~ Tm of owners wiUiin 150’ (you mus. obuin to list from Hennepin Countv Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, j48 j2 ). ----calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy Sn x 11 ^opC'phic 'surs ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade - Im pfo Led. in addition, provide one (1) copy 8'.- x - repr« Sketches or plans of Ooor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SA x 11 ). — St of the legal names (include marital stams) of all persons with an mterest m the ----property This would include name(s) of applicantts) if not current L L^dendum 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 ^ 3^13Lnl.ea.ion is no , comp lete if thg information hag nPt D«B miviSiL The*aoSteam herebv^ag^*ra provide aU information required or requested by the Zonmg information supplied is tr^^correct to the best of ^^er knowledge. Applicant’s fe^Date^jl^ ‘0 diis application and further entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents Commission members, and members for purpLs of investigation and verification of this request. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Owner’s Signature rlLr «Cot£tntee ‘Slg“ and couned. If pl.ee and to advise the Building & Zoning Office ofto have an authorized agent attend fhi< change prior to the meeting 8 ' \vr-i J^*ct (i- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; September 8. 1994 ITEM NO.; ij. Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #1944 Bradley aral Dina Eiherington, 4055 Elm Street - Variance Resolution Review of Application The renewal variance application was review by the Planning Commission at both the July and August meetings. The application was tabled at the July meeting subject to applicant providing an updated survey and having lot comers staked so that Planning Commission members could view the actual building site. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B) A. Lot area Required = 43,560 s.f. or I acre Existing = 19,920 s.f. or .46 acres Variance = 23,640 s.f. or 54% B.Lot width - Per Section 10.03, Subd. 6 (A-1) Required for existing lots of record = 112 ’ or 80% Existing = 118 ’ or 84% W No lot width variance required List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F • G - H - I - J - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Drainage Plan/Lot Area Survey Topographic Map Council Minutes 7/78 Council Minutes 6/80 Planning Commission Minutes 8/88 Planning Commission Action Notice 8/17/94 i Request for Council Action continued page 2 September 8. 1994 #1944 Bradley and Dina Ethcrington, 4055 Elm Street K - L M N O P Q R S T U V Survey of Lance Wile Residence at 615 Minnetonka Highland (not as-built survey) Enlargement of Original 1976 Survey Current Drainage Plan Wile Memo 9/2/94 Etherington Memo 9/6/94 Preliminary Grading Sketch of Driveway Hardcover Fact Sheet Hardcover Site Plan Elevation Floor Plan Current Survey Engineer’s Report 9/8/94 Description of Request The owners of the subject property have initiated their fourth variance application to allow the sale of property as a buildable site, review Exhibits G, H and I. In 1978 and 1980, the City granted lot area variances to the Fullers and in 1988 a variance application was filed but applicant failed to complete the review. In the earlier reviews there was never a development plan included with the proposal. The current application filed by the Etheringtons provides development plans for the development of the site. Review Exhibits Q, S, T and U. The subject lot has adequate depth and width to allow construction of the residence without the need of any setback variances. The property is located in the 250-500’ lakeshore setback zone and would be allowed 5,976 s.f. or 30%. Hardcover is proposed at 4,686.5 s.f. or 22.7% . The subject property is similar in size of neighboring developed properties, review Exhibit B. The property is located to the immediate south of the property at 4030 Elm Street that was granted an area variance earlier this year. There is no adjacent undeveloped lands available for purchase to make this lot any larger. In fact, it appears the subject property is the largest of the lots on the south side of Elm Street. Note variances were also granted to 601 and 615 Minnetonka Highlands Lane (part of Minnetonka Summit Park plat) in 1975 and 1976. Ever since the inception of the zoning code and area standards, this area has been zoned one acre minimum lot size. Minnetonka Summit Park subdivision was platted in June of 1912 prior to any zoning standards for the City. The pattern for development has been the combining of the various substandard lots into single building sites. Request for Council Action continued page 3 September 8, 1994 #1944 Bradley and Dina Eiherington, 4055 Elm Street The propert}^ is served by municipal sewer and the three lots have been assessed a third unit for a total of one sewer unit. The assessment has been paid. The lot has steep topographies but not so steep as to suggest any difficulty in constructing a residence. Review Exhibits M and P. The Engineer has reviewed the preliminary drainage plan and reaffirms the use of underground tiles carrying drainage to the street and away from adjacent properties. The undersrcHind tile system will minimize the removal of trees on the property which would be the case if swales were to be installed. The Engineer has met again on the site with City staff to review anv concerns with the proposed location of the driveway. Gustafson confirms that the percentage of slope will be 20% but sees no problem with the proposed location. In fact, it will minimize the removal of trees in the street yard. Review Exhibit E. The property owners at 594 Park Eai^ and 615 Minnetonka Highlands Lane have raised several concerns concerning the accuracy of the current survey. Note the encroachment of the shed on the Laue property at 594 Park Lane. In the Wile memo of September 2, 1994, they note discrepancy in a setback shown in the 1976 survey and the current survey. Review the enlargement of that survey, Exhibit O. Note the setback is at 42.4 . The current survey shows that residence at 42.2’. Note the staircase and the upper deck at 41.7’ were not shown on the original survey of 1976. They are apparently later additions. Review Exhibit K. Note the survey of 615 Minnetonka Highlands is not an as-built surv^ey but rather a proposed location for a house. Staff sees no concern with the issues raised by the property owner to the immediate east. As for the property owner to the west, the Uues had announced at the August 15th Planning Commission meeting that there had been some field survev work done recently that reaffirmed their concern that the lot line was not correct. On September 2nd, the Laues asked for additional time before the City made any final recommendations on the current variance application until they could provide an updated survey as their surveyor had been away on vacation and were unable to meet the September 2nd deadline. The Etheringtons have met ail requirements of the Planning Commission at their August meeting. Please review Exhibit O. They ask that Council act on their variance application because of the time of year and the need to proceed with construction before the colder weather. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously voted approval of the renewal variance application, subject to the following conditions: 1. Legal combination of Lots 7, 8 and 9 prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction. Request for Council Action continued page 4 September 8, 1994 #1944 Bradley and Dina Etherington, 4055 Elm Street 2. 3. 4. All improvements shall meet setback and hardcover standards of the LR-IB zoning district. Conceptual grading and drainage plans are to be provided to the City staff for review prior to scheduling the application before the Council. Staff to review neighbors’ claims of survey discrepancies and evaluate whether such claims have potential validity sufficient to cause the City to delay action on this application. Neighbors making such claims were requested to submit their documentation no later than September 2, 1994. It has been three weeks since the original Planning Commission meeting of August 15, 1994. Options of Action To adopt the enclosed approval resolution drafted per the Planning Commission’s recommendation; OR To table action on the variance application until the Laues have provided an updated survey that must be submitted no later than Tuesday, September 20, 1994. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolution; OR To table application pending receipt of new survey for 594 Park Lane. w.ie d)1 db 36 3D »•o -<o - o C2 S IS(10)^m0 ,.1 r. mM p V 1 5® u iO ^ !6«<.,S6 <D u, *\> Sm^ 90• • • • • \M w"^ s 90 90 90 90 HUN DATE M/Z2/9A MTCN oian» AOOII OltCII NAME ' TAWAYER HAHE/ADM PKQR APM OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HEftCPXN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST5« 0«-117*25 A1 0001 OOOM ADDRESS UNASSIQNED S R I D D RUDD STANLEY H 0 DETTY D RUDO 001 PARK U LONO LAKE tOI S535A-97AS SO 00-117-2S A1 0072 040S0 ELM ST 6 M ROSCOE A K M R05C0E 6E0R6E N ROSCOE AOSO ELM ST LONO LAKE (tl 55356 (SO 06>117-2S 61 0659 06001 OAK ST H NANHARBER6 A 0 HAttttROCRO D HAHHARDERQ A N HAMMARDERO 6001 OAK ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 SO 06-117-2S 61 0000 00615 HINNETOMCA HOLD LA L M NILE A H J LEE LANCE N NILE A MARTHA J LEE 615 MTKA NI6NLAND LANE LONO LAKE M4 55S56 REPORT NO. PI635601 PAGE 50SO 06-117-2S 61 0060 06100 ELM ST LUCY L GULLICKSON LUCY GULLICKSON 6100 ELM ST LONG LAKE MN 55S56 SO 06-117-2S 61 0001 00030 ADDRESS UN^IGNEO KAREN FULLER KAREN FULLER 1677 LONG LAKE RD NEN ORIGNTON Itl 55112 6 • t \ n» Aom CMCR mm TAXFAYtll HAM/AODR 50 06-117-25 61 0002 00050 ADDRESS UNASSIQNED MRiN RILLEII KARIN FULLER 1677 LONO LAKE RO NEN ORIGNTON Hi 55112 50 06-117-25 61 0005 00050 ADDRESS UNASSXGNED KAREN FULLER KAREN FULLER 1677 LONO LAKE RD NEN ORIGNTON m 55112 50 06-117-25 61 0006 00596 PARK U NERHAN LAUE A NIFE HERMAN LAUE 596 PARK LANE LONG LAKE m 55556 f7 : . • •** > ; PROP ADDR OWER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR *. V. PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR V; PROP ADDR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR V- * W./. 30 06-117-23 61 0005 00506 PARK LA HEMCPIN FORFEITEO LAND CITY OF ORONO STREET A DRAINAGE 5/2S/06 SO 16650S SO 06-117-23 66 0003 00650 MINNETONKA H6L0 LA J « PFRG A S R BERG t BERG A SHARON R BERG >if0 NfMETONCA HIGHLAND LM . •;*» < U(E MN 55356 S« 06-117-23 66 0016 006S0 PARK LA N E A J M NROBLEHSKX NILLIAM E A JOAN HROBLEHSKI 6S0 PARK LA LONO LAKE MN 55356 30 06-117-2S 61 0006 00506 PARK LA HENNEPIN FORFEITEO LAND CITY OF ORONO STREET A DRAINAGE 5/23/66 SO 16650S 30 06-117-2S 66 0005 00669 MINNETONKA HGLO U S V SNANTEK A P 6 SNANTEK STEPHIN A PATRICIA SNANTEK 669 MINNETONKA H6LD LA LONG LAKE ttt 55356 TOTAL BATCH 010 00016 30 06-117-2S 61 0091 00601 MINNETOIACA HGLO LA C CURTIS LEE A NIFE C CURTIS LEE 601 NXNNETOMCA HIGHLAND LANE LONG LAKE 55356 30 06-117-23 66 0006 00659 MXFMETONKA HGLO U R H A K L SPEEHR RICHARD H SPEETER 659 MINNETONKA HGLO LA LONG LAKE MN 55S56 « * rH • * M • p:;:-.: ' .. T ■ ; ? «I .. - ♦ ‘V. I -' I ' • 4’ I • * 5, -.y I • ‘tv • • 4.1 -V •*. ,*■ -- f ■ ■ : T •. • • •r -. i -> -''-"I ) ‘ ' A ^ ,f V »f •r . >■ X 'e Xj :j I C x/i^cate of Z.Z. WINO€N & associates, INC. LAMO SU«V|TOti T*l •*9-3*A* nei tuitii iJ.. SI. **ui, 35io«^/UJJTS Locs 7,. 8 and 9, .Block 9, Minnetonka SuBunit Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota iHtMON AMO MU vismi extoaCHMiNTs. «» amt. rtOM o» on iaio i o. CaiaS >Ai( June - .V . ^ 0. It! 6 c A* w«MO€H a .A$soc^*ts»,'mc. a . « V . • *, . .•: »>• ^♦av* f^ * • • • t ..•-. f ___ T^-iC ^ .t •» • -. A- •••,•*’ • A. . V T*^ ' ' •Ti ^ U' ± '' I • • • I 1 j u 0 i C'^x _ yCfv^^y- «. ^/n. ^J/v^^Y• * / ef - /t; ^ n, Soc A^ Ooo "7^0 4^ occ ^ TPdy APOL^ V«i!lP V - rV'-0*OMO;COOHCXL, JULY 25, W7I IncSS ^ Orono which*?s-“rix^Sv.^ City Council and tha ovarlivI'?S?li*J.^^ ®2* “P ••varal vIJflV ®5wi5* ^ praaant issuaa tovarious othor agancias as raquirad. Councilasabar Massangala infoznad tha Planning *?* walconas input from citizans.Good public ralations is a nacassity. !?*«^^#^*** Mast diacusaad tha fee schedule suggesting P*^***^*”ca for an hourly i.ate versus a fixed rate. The City Council requested Bruce Malkerson, City Attorney, to review tha proposed Agreement and present to the City for signatures whan completed. l^ssangala moved, Pesek seconded, to request the City Attorney to redraft the proposed contract *PP®^**ting the firm of Isberg, Riesenberg, Chelse^ * ^sociatas, Inc. as Planning Consultants to include ho^ly rates as opposed to fixed fees, cost of materials, and to authorize the Mayor and Dick Benson, City Administrator, to sign-off when ready, to be effective upon signing. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). CITY PLANimia:Banrzi (Continued) '' • «I -' . V ^ k- #> * •% irX* ,V!^] ‘ “VI Nobody present concerning the rezoning request of James McCleary, 3445 Bayside Road. Deferred until the next meeting. REZONING 3445 Bayside Road 1390 - Janes McCleary Mayor Van Nest moved, Pesek seconded, to adopt Resolution 1922, A Resolution Approving A Lot Line Rearrangement For Michael Ankeny And William Noll. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). RESOLUTION #922 Michael Ankeny William Noll Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner# .entared'into: tha4:«~.\ record the: request for a variance of George:Matchett, 4005 Elm Street, dated June 21,..1978, which^statesir- Thu applicant wishes to construct a new hone on an existing vacant lot. The property consists of three Buparato parcels totaling 19,920 sq.p ft..j (0.457. acre). t liXn « t • I. ■\. • • • ••. • • *••• **' •• • ...-i.:. - - • t w 1. S .itl V.-> • j.'r ■. u.ifc VARIANCE . ... 25 4055 Elm Street 1401 George Matchett (Continued) *. i .'"1 JULY ,J5. 197$jr. ®f«»p^d. th. hou« xoction iSS. ?"• ‘® eonfoni toI'wW^XiirotSS'^niSki *® eonfora ” i Variaaoti .r«quir«dt width t Varlancsi fc An 4>kZ Iwl i» on« acw^r unit^ thr«« lota (1/3 unit par parcal). 34.452 - Lot araa and lot width <3,560.aq. ft. i?'??® ft.23,640 aq. ft. . 54% 140 ft. lie ft. 22 ft. - 16% Hardahlp, „o additit.n.1 land availabla. Planning Comiaaion Maating - Juna 26, 1978 2®c22iJ?*;joS";::rAavrMfoS®;? think m hardahlSa J ha did not QuaaUona ware railedQuaaUoni ^ danonatra review of drainaae -nd i*® •PP}l<=«tion pending b. p~..nt staff Note - June 28, 1978 street which ditch*^ia along Eln The ditch flowa waat to thi rlght-of-v«y of Park Av.J5j proporty. i* °« the .object sr'&iiS: worka department Aleo public nuat be such as to prevent Procedures of the ditch at all^times. clogging The following table compares adjacent properties Subject Loti !?i 2^' »l9hlands: 615 Mtlca. Highlands: 594 Park Lanai 4100 Bla Street! 4060 Ela Street: 4030 Elm Straat 19-p920 aq. 19.500 sq. 17.500 rq. 12.000 sq, 24,700 sq. 15.000 sq. 35.000 aq. Pag* 15VARZANa . 4055 Bljs Straat .(Continued)(9- Variance approved SrlO-76 variance approved 6-24-75 r • A. (Continued) ■■ ' -'*.■■ •• • • : a:iidv« ’ J »• • mi • -e. • . ,,» • r 'iAw-» • r- *r^famuLmBOjaa or tbb oaovo coomczl « jolt 25, i97iVi./ ---- • . *1 •riaaiii|jif CoBiissioB HMting*- July 10, 1970 .•\ •• •*%i«-*• * V.* ••* • •**4 ^ C • ***'S r^. io'. i-_ ■_■ jT • V . *'^*** r, jVARXAIICS I’U r. apMOVAl of varioBCOs flading proposal.................. iflth tho Boighborhood and a tiardahip bflBoi^Bidltloaal land availabla, aubjaet to no Botbaek ▼ariaBoaa, to loyal lot coabination and to '^appxoval of drivMay and culvert by tho City Public WoxkB. Snporriaor. a OouBeil Mooting - July 25, 1978 » I Potior Movod, Masaongalo aacondod, to approvals roquoat for a varianco of Gao.*gj Matchatt, 4055 BIb Straot, par tho Planning Comaiaaion rocon- ■aadationa of ^uly 10, 1978. Motion, Ayaa (4) - ■ays (0). Nr. Alan Olaon, City Planner, prasantad tha City Council with a lattar to Ruaaall WenXatam, 645 North Am Driva, dated July 19, 1978, which atateat •Tha City Engineer haa reviewed the aewer connoction aaaaswaant fomula as applied to this property. Consistent with other such unusually shaped properties, and with average aasassment charges in this project, tha lateral charge will be baaed upon tha average lot depth, in this case 150 ft. (as opposed to tha actual lot width of 355 ft.). o Therefore, the City Engineer’s assessment calculation is as follows: 4055 BIB Street (Continued)•* wf V . *-e • . . » -••f •» r. » *» :c< . .•' r 8ENBB. A88BS8MBNf8 •' < v 645 North Am Drive • 383 Russell Nenkstem S 134.20 2,745.00 3,859.05 $6,738.- ' Plant Charge - SllO.OO/acrc X 1.22 - Lateral Charge - $18.30/ft. X 150 « Unit Charge - each “ Total due with connection End of letter Mayor Van Nest moved, Pesek seconded, to aoprove the aesessroents for Russell L. V^enkstern, o45 llortr Am Drive, in the amount of $6,738.25, per the above. Motion, Ayes (4) — Nays (0). Butler BBOved, Pesek seconded, to waive the Planning Cooaisaion review for a variance request of Gloria ..QQtzenroth for 3085 Casco Point Road.* Motion,>o/.'. Ayes (4) - Nays (0). . ».e e VARIANCE 3O85.CascO7P.oint Road Gloria .Dotrenroth (Continued) . V-.•j June 28. 1978 George Hatchett 4055 Elm Street page 2 . t . • • .t * • » • ' •• •*•-Ml“..tkV-'v* ‘■r; T.\v The following table cotnparea * • ’ r j‘". *^ t 1 Subject Lot: 601 Mtka. Highlands: 615 Mtka. Highlands: 594 Park Lane: 4100 Elm Street: 4060 Elm Street: 4030 Elm Street: 19,920 19.500 17.500 12.000 24,700 15.000 35.000 adjacent propertlaat ; • Cl ft * ^«: £t! V.rl.nc. .pprov«l 5-W-76 -XJ*; .j sq. ft. Variance approved 6-24-75 sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft.• r. planning commission - July 10, 1978 Recommended approval “"‘^ad^ltlonn^UnriinU^ the neighborhood and a hardship J “°"*imblnatlon and to app^:ea\^of"dri:ewry^ard1:i::r; by thf City Public Works Supervisor. i ■• -a' • :";• » V i* •%. .1 . ■ / - _ _ _ _ __ J I . A n 1 H 0r D CC'l-NCn.. ^ •v. rr'NG ■'■ ’ ' 'V ....... . „ .., ,,m ion«J: c.bjcc. to the fol^ouM. - < m i D ^ ‘1. !;hvc \c ..1 M-.orov---cnts: roHewing ; ”- tiT.« » . 2 3 owing :>hy«ic.-.l i -. ..y,,.«icnl P^-^t . ...,v. .cv.« nnd «=t-c ^ r .*g-. l.ou-^el loc.'tion, _• g. y S2.5* - ‘O , r_f r.>;t>>ndcd !r‘ X.n« ..nd t» -"‘r r.'-rvn'^ },.'! -,on (three «:*,’.Ud oft--*'-’* j,,.bine ,c . . ,^,„,„hocrc CT'’ a U inprover^n.. . . .^,;..u .\tc v lipi'.ed to • • - -oiterr-ons anted to r-- 4. conditional u3C per-.- . only* council r-.ootino - ■''• oiscus.ion i5«>;:f,?;r.e'«T.h. probl'-T.*. and . , . .„ i,blo the recuesb paurus novc ' _ ..^ftenson, j.c,juest stat. to ° = /f:r;ditl=nal thU nrcl address the^adve^e^e,^^ tratUc P'>=hJ,'”„, tcqeir=- . entered into fhrrecrrrtp;rjo.ee3;orfjf,-rir/l^^ street, *°r which states: r.t*»c 21*'' Hw’^ 1T ^•^205 Arher Street (Cont j n-jed) street- states: ■ « ;« a renewal Che iiart '•“i*''„rUr«i^th^';^^‘ltcrrunrinr»l°5Si r=rt“or tor ?rop« ty “»/t;rp'bi u -a tsrlppuca- -U-d::"rntni Sire ol edWett driv^«rto proposed house. meeting. rhelr dun. 9, l’»» the “idth^and^ ".‘planning Cb^i”‘° P„, ler bat.a „^j„t »"* " n^bdiacent lana . f^'t^riolii-iha condrtrons. * K 0 ^ I • . t* Vs* ‘ J.* . I 1 * » I'. MEETING OF THE OROSO COUNC-E. JUNE 30. 1«0% w- nA ■»< one bUilding» 7 8 fc 9 r.ust be ccribinodLots 7, B. *site.rage 221.VARIANCE 4055 Elm Street (Continued)Jk ^ ^ •,n construction to coot setback of the tenin, district LR-IB.public WO-V.S Coordinator to dcternine culv_r liA for proposed driveway. council .Meeting - J^ne 30. 1930 Paurus roved. Mbtion. Ayes M. - •'•a> dcann® Mabusth. Zoning 2690 Pheasant Road, record the Man 3,,,es: for a va'-iance. oateu VARlANCr 2690 pheasant RoaO • 5G5 Alan Dale zoning District - LR-IB 1. Side yard variance: Required: 10 proposed: i__ 3* IT 30% 2. Variance: Hardships r». .. - in a) b) „o adjbcent lend house location on lo. :i V /: r A >' 'd 1 . •• *■ tariAAi / ^ « Dl iiwV4^^ ^ 20 * The D,les have iU°rt“irst%?ctric«l extendin, T- 5rbM'?“ifnci,hbor;s property «,e of the porch is side property Ji" ■ ^ require « set an encroachment ’dvised that the neighbor to t-erience. «e »eve been ad/ise the "t'teS ?oLcntx nor did he make an ^;^eira«rt "turret ion meetinq. Council Meeting - >7une 30.1980 Butler moved. Hurr the^va?ia^erreiuest. jraft a resolution app Road subject to the ^^MaS Dale. »30 a’part of the porch never being ®"‘^J^^o^the chain of *Jw.house, to be entered in directed to the that the - Nays (0).south. Motion. Ayes (4) ^ t;.. \ I > ■xaum or m puunnKS commissiom mextiiic hkju ) aogost is, I9ii tonae rzLS tin? coanausD approval of application #1317, per ataff recoofflendationa, fiadioga and condltiona. Motion, Ayea>6, Naya>0, Motion paaaad. IlSlt SOM) ■. AZAKAEI 1749 rOZ BTMKT vaiiATm POBLZC ■BAaiWS The Affidavit of Publication ar.d Certificate of Mailing were Qotad. The applicanta were not preaent for thia aiatter. It waa aovad by Kalley, aeconded by Johnaon, to table #1318 until the next Planning Coouaiaaion meeting ao that applicant can • 1319 KAUa mUJOt 4055 SLH PVBLZC HKAJLIBC The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Hailing were d. __— The applic.-nta were not present for thia matter. It was moved by Kelley, aeconded by Johnaon, to table (1319 until the next Planning Comniasion meeting ao that applicant can be present. (1330 DL AMD MRS. ROBBAT DRAMDEMBORG 719 MIHMrrORRA UCULAMDS LAMB ▼BBTBTB PUBLIC BBR4ZHC 9tl7 P.M. TO 9t22 P.M. Tha Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Hailing were noted. The applicanta were praaant for this mat er 4»^ 3 -V, 4 th« lakaaida of thair bona. The existing deck was years ago with untreated wood and Is j:.r^';^',.0B££roo axplslBad that the applicants were seaking approval ' ^/<;;],‘M’hnBdoovar varlanaos to reconstruct a screen porch and existlnu: ' ’ ‘^'Jack' op lakAfliAA nf ^heli* home. The eaiahlna Aer>k wee coBBtruotad speroxlaatBly 10 years i "''-'‘'la'peor eonditioa. They would like to raplace the structures in , ,tber‘Sa«a location but'witb a different configuration. Thera .'.V^ would be a revision to the existing walkway. The replacenent 'V’' struetoras will enoroaeh no further into the view line and will be invisible fron the neighboring property to the northwest. . There is virtually no increase in hardcover in the 75-250* aone. There were no cuseianta fron the public regarding thia matter and the public hearing waa closed. - r CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #1944 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 8/17/94 TO: Bradley & Dina Eiherington 4631 Aquila Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 COPIES TO:Karen F. & Tim Feyo 1677 Long Lake Rd. New Brighton, MN 55112 Lance M. Wile 615 Minnetonka Highland La. Long Lake, MN 55356 Herman Laue 594 Park La. Long Lake, MN 55356 Stephen & Patricia Swantek 649 Minnetonka Highland La. Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance DATE OF MEETING: 8/15/94 VOTE:4 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1 . Legal combination of Lots 7-8-9 required prior to issuance of building permit. 2.Provide grading and drainage plans for proposed house to be reviewed by staff prior to submission of variance for Council action. 3. 4. Improvements shall meet standard setback and hardcover requirements. Staff to review neighbors’ claims of survey discrepancies and evaluate whether such claims have potential validity sufficient to cause the City to delay action on this application. Neighbors making such claims are requested to submit their documentation no later than September 2, 1994. If you have questions, contact Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Mike Gaffron at 473-7357. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of grading and drainage plan. Deadline for the September 12th Council meeting is September 2, 1994. , I I Zoning File #1944 August 17, 1994 Page 2 If the applic^t has trouble obtaining additional information, please contact the Zoning Department (473-7357). If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. 1 c-xvi y/u<yyy^. ;''-..! ■ ■ -Plat of Sxirr^y • for Rlehorti A. Wright 6, Block 9, HlnnotoxilaL Stanilt Park r; Herjseoin THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MICSflfllMED ; • • i « r- K «•• • f*. • • • *. • • • *r M* » • fW- • K^;'' \. m ■••• J '• •• • *.t‘* »• , AW • .4» •.*.*: *^ J ‘ . •wt *■ *■•' ■Cartiflcata of Sunraj. . - , . .. * I b*r«b7 certify that this Is a tr*j« and correct r«p*»s*otatloi» of a ■* * sor^of of tho botaidarlcs of Lots 4^ .5r'sod >6|: Bloek'^j*Klanotcnka Suimit ;Phrk/the location of all existing buildl^, if anjr;^tl»reon. .Ifdooo^; 1 *,*, 'not imi'port to ahow inprcTennnts or-encrcachiants- ottorythan. building.-> STRff^"in •» • 0 OcnoVcs \t-on P\ocec( DenoVes Iron Foul'd U. - ♦ .*.•/• **l*»»*li. *».*. '.•• * . A^'•’■•-•• k"'*- 1?^ _• » teVil I £l : 6il-ii.ii-7613 Ssp 2.94 7:3* Na.OOl P.Ol Po»Mt * brand fax transmittal memo "6T1 »or?i9#** j Notice of Planning Commission Action Notice Date: 8/17/94 ^ f thi 4 OzrMt)4a C V Co b«pt To:City of Orono -N From:Lance t Marti Wile 615 Minnetonka Hiahlands Lane Long Lake, MN 55356 Date:September 2, 1994 Re;Zoning File iil944 We hereby request the Orono City Council to delay action on Che above variance application until such tine that the discrepancies over the lot lines are resolved. When lots 7, 9, & 9 were transferred from the Matchettes to Karen Fuller, this transfer was based on the 6/17/76 survey. This survey indicates that the Wile residence (615 Minnetonka Highland Lane) was 47 feet from the lot line. This same survey was used when the Etheringtons made the offer to purchase lota 7, 8, & 9. Therefore, they were under the impression that Che land was located 47 feet from the Wile residence. When the Wiles purchased their house in 1988. the purchase was mac.-' based on the survey dated 8/14/75 which indicated that the house was 44 feet from the lot line. Trees were flashed many years ago, marking the lot line. One of Che trees is 47 feet from the Wile residence. The most recent survey indicates that the Wile residence is 42.2 and 41.7 feet from the lot line. We do not believe Chau this survey is correct. In addition, it appears the Laues do not agree that the most recent survey is correct. We would like to work this out with the prospective buyers of lots 7, 3, & 9. We will be hiring a surveyor in order to obtain a more current survey of our property. We will advise the results of chat survey when they are available. One additional concern we have is that we have large trees which border the property line. Because it appears a lot of grading/earth removal will be required to install a driveway, we ask that the 10' setback be observed for any area where there is a tree that is a minimum of 10 Inches in diameter. This is to protect the root system of these well established trees and to preserve the overall aesthetics of the existing neighborhood. 5ept. 6, I90a To:Orone City Council Frowns Brad -and Dina Ctne-; ngten 4o3l Aquila Avs. Msw Hepa, MfJ 55A23 I9e:Addendun to Coning File #194i.a Thane is ho reason app1ication. o delav action on this varianca We have suoplied all iteme and information requested by the Planning Commission and have met all deadlines. The neighbors have failed to provide a currant survey bv the deadline stated in the Notice of Planning Commission Action dated 0/17/9^. According to Jeanne Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator, the Wiles' survey dated 8/1A/75 was based on a proposed house and is not an "as built" survey. We have provided a survey dated 0/A/9A prepared by DeMars-Gabr ie 1 Land Surveyors, a top-'*ated company in the state o*‘ Minnesota. At the time we made the offer to purchase this property, we requested that the owner arrange to have a new survey done prior to closing. We realized that measurements were approximate, and did not base our decision on anv implied or sxoressed lot lines cr proximity to surrounding struc tures. m ‘ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SET3ACK zone: (c.acle OHt) 0-7S' 75-250' (25^ 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone (If^ bZ.O K f2o 29S '>( 1^0 tZ A.HntiPP 3c:> c X 3'*o c>S.F. length 2 o X WIDTH o S.F. z ^X /o-o 2 00 S.F. m /7.«X 3- o S.F. X S.F. 3. C. ft A O P / 3 ■ o THr O X /& . o 3'2 o 23^0 2 6^-0 S.F. ¥'Ho 1 \yc ’^ A V 3 /(% . 1 o ) I'l- 7 X i 2» • o |2 -V /(^ f a o 5^. 3 S.F. ^ // • / d) ^0. n X /2.V tf.z- S * 0 (/is,3 S.F. 3. :S idewalk C>.'2 X a. 7 3'? ?S.F. 7 o X 12.^S.F. /2.. O X /V.rat //^0^^S.F. E.^ATIO/ Deck X /y.o o S.F. C 1 AMn^TAPP • X 81 •S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN Q V X S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X 8i S.F. X S.F. G. 1 > __ Ithpq X ss S.F. Total Hardcover IN Zone S.F. Total Property Area in Zone S.F B %B6, r ^m yp^yo-^ X100 = 22•'2.— % PLUM INC TEL: ! “Pl2-3-"?-0021 ■fiep 7:42 No.001 P.Ol To:City of Orou'*' Fron :Shirley 6 Hein.-,n hau.' Lance i Marti Wil© Dat e:Scptenti'or 18, 199*^. Re:Coning File H2(>*>0 Post-It * brand fa* non'o 7'671 • of p«9»t * j £/ Ot KC i\a r^u),h. ' Co t 1 Co CepI r*" 415-0$io W© az^ oi.pos.^^d to th© gicH'ting of th© renewal of a lot width v<3rfiO*» for the pr*,'ip©rty located at 40&b Klt’i Street. pvevicu^ va1'■'o**'’. wer© approved because it was d©fno!i«^tr.nte.l thar there was a har.Uhip There is not currently a hardship It's ou. undersianding the existing owners sold the lot last year and the sal© fell through because of a lot line disi.ute. On several ocrasions the neighhors have offered to purchase the Lot for more that. tl»e p» ic« it was being sold for last year. Thos* offeis were declined. Secoriil, the above merit toned lot line dl><put« has not yet been recc-lved. Third, ain.e the tim»- the (cuirently ©xi«ired) varian.j© was granted, we expected the lot to confotn with the neighboihoorl and the essential character of the locality. However, a chain linK fen<"© has been con.srtiucted on t-ro aides and "NO THKSPASf>tNG signs were hung on aH four sides Is this in conforniam-e with the essential chara.-tet of the locality? (Section 10.08) Finally, e.-!ch neighhoi on this street has at least 40' side setbacks from their house to the lot line. We recpectfully rec'teit that a coven.mi be ad.led which would require a 40 side setback. This would serve to alle'.'iate some of the run.aff piolilems which were considered an is.su© during a previous council meeting as well a.s serve to conform with the essential character of the locality. c: \917orono 7. TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Chainnan Peterson Jeanne A. Mabnsth. Building & Zoning Administrator September 12, 1995 SUBJECT: #2061 Ame Wasbcrg, 3135 North Shore Dri\-e - Renewal Variances Zoning District - LR-IB Total Lot Area - 43.529 square feet Pertinent Ordinances - Section 10.03 Subdivision 14(C) Review of Sinictural Coverage Allowed = 6,529.3 square feet or I5?c Existing = 4,461 square feet or 10.1% Proposed = 4,923.4 square feet or 11.3% No structural coverage variance required Section 10.22 Subdivision 1(A). Lakeshore Setback Variances. Refer to Exhibit E A. Existing principal strucmre = 30 +: feet Proposed principal structure = 30 ± feet B. Existing deck — 27 ±. feet Proposed deck = 27 +. feet Variance for principal strucmre = 45 feet or 60% Variance for upper level deck = 48 feet or 64% Existing gravel area underlain with plastic is to be removed and is located 20 feet from lagoon shoreline. 10.22 Subdivision 2 Review of Hardcover Variances A. 0 - 75’ setback area = 29,974 square feet Existing = 3,694 square feet or 12.3% Proposed = 3,195 square feet or 10.7% B Hardcover reduction = 499 square feet or 1.7% 75 - 250’ setback area - 13, 555 square feet Allowed = 3.388.7 square feet or 25% Existing - 5,131 square feet or 37.8% Proposed = 3,242 square feet or 23.9% Hardcover reduction = 1.889 square feet or 14% Zoning File #2061 Arne Wasberg September 12, 1995 page 2 of 3 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F 1 Exhibit G - Application Property Owners List Plat Map Existing Site Plan Proposed Site Plan -3 - Elevation Resolution #3461 Description of Renewal Request The new owners of the property have applied for a renewal variance application for the variances that were granted in 1994 to the previous owners (1941 Lee and Wanda Fischbach). The owners have advised that they wish to live in the resideirce to determine the design modifications needed for their level of use. The applicants have not revised the hardcover calculations, although they noted to staff that they have already removed much of the plastic underliner beneath the landscape areas around the house. They have also advised that they would like to remove the existing driveway at North Shore Drive that currently serves the residence and to relocate a new access at the existing driveway to the south. This will also result in a reduction in hardcover. They would in turn plant trees along the North Shore Drive yard, providing a landscape buffer to the noise and activities on the county road. The original application involved a two story addition at the lakeside of the residence. The existing upper level lakeside three-season porch would now be replaced with a two-story addition plus upper level deck. The existing upper level porch is 30 feet from the inland lagoon or lake. The proposed two-story addition would extend no closer to the shoreline referred to Exhibits D & E. The proposed upper level 3’ deck at its closest projection is 27’ from the lagoon shoreline and would extend no closer than the existing upper level deck. The two story lakeside addition was to provide for an expanded family room and living room on the upper level and an exercise room and family rec room at the lower level. No grade level deck improvements are proposed beneath the three foot upper level deck. There is a lower level 4X14’ deck proposed below the cantilevered upper level expansion of a master bedroom area. The improvements also included a new entry addition at the street side of the house requiring no setback variances. Major decreases in hardcover are proposed and strucniral coverage held at 11.3%. At their September 12, 1994 meeting the Orono Council approved the application as recommended by a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission, The enclosed resolution records the conditions of the Planning Commission’s original approval. i Zoning File #2061 Arne Wasberg Septonber 12, 1995 page 3 of 3 Staff will not get into any funher detail on these improvements as it is clearly not the intention of the current owners to proceed with construction. The new owners will present a new and less ambitious plan in the near future. Wanning Commission Action The Planning Commission may adopt the findings and conditions of the enclosed approval resolution. It is not clear to staff why the applicants wish to renew the previous application for improvements that they do not plan to implement. The variance application officially expired on September 12, 1995. Applicants may be best advised to withdraw the application and file a variance application when they are ready to proceed. CITY OF ORONO - VARLYNCE APPLICATION -- • h 'ft >.r i Initial Application Fee S2C0.C0 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $ ICO. 00 (no change from original application) ^ Variance for non-conforming structures S-00.00 After-thc-Fact Fees (Double application fee) t •L w « * * . ■ r « *.*s^ ^ ^ - ? - lOPERTi' CSTOR>LATION . / ^ ^ yOj^ Propem ’ Idenaiicauon ^umoer yr.x.^-i—^ , aJa nn rrnuired survey Actach l=S3l description to applicati^f not jncluded on required Date Propertv- Acquired I (do)<<tl5li^ also own me auju^cm h-— - Presenfef properts-: j/residential -----other (specify). Zoning District:_________________— (month/year) Phone (home) ^ APPLICAN^ y Phoni-iwork) ■ <g Address: OV^’NER (if different than applicant)Phone(home) Phone (work) description of request __Zip:_,^3S? Describe request in detail: roncmiction Costs (attach additional sheets ’f necessary) V*\RLANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width l/' Setback:Side // Hardcover t^^ear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) waunSHIP/DESCRIPTlON OF L^XSUAL PROPERTY CONDfiTONS ^^^D^cribeundue "r^rrirni difficultv or unusual property conditi .•V I hSp or practrcil difficulty or unuaual propert>^conditions p«v»^8 (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTAES All of the follo<vin» infnnn.-ninn n,..« h, s..hmiltfd hv the appHt^tjpn I" octo for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. Completed Application Form Cenified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain list trom Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603. Govt Center, 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). ^ Cenificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and me ude hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy . ,x or Topo<yraphic survev (e.xistina and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade ----are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy x IT for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8Vi x 11 ). List of the legal names (include marital stams) 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 Propertv Owner must sign this application. Please remember yjUlE variance aDPlirnfinn is not complete if the above information ha$ not \)^n inplud^ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE u u 7 • « The applicant 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 appUcation. and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. .Applicant’s Signamre Date / OWNER’S SIGN aj ^ivl The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this appUcation and further authorizes reasonahie entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and CouncU members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request Owner’s Signature J^-Q/ Applicant must/^ve all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Plannmg Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this 'Change prior to the meeting. 8 WN DATE 08/tt/M . MTCM BM * 1 HENNEPIN COUNTY PHOKHTY INFOMUTION SYSTEN PROPERTY QMCRS LIST REPORT NO. P«6f PX4S5401IP u PROP ADDR ONNCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR M 0R-117-2S 52 0004 05000 NORTH SHORE OR DANIEL J HC6LYNN DANIEL J NC6LYNN 5090 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA HN BS391 58 09-117-25 52 0007 05120 NORTH SHORE DR 0 R PONIJE A P L POniJE DAVID R A PEMUE L PONIJE 5120 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA N4 85591 58 09-117-25 52 0008 05140 NORTH SHORE OR R A ZULLO A J A ZULLO KEMCTN A ZULLO 5140 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA m 65591 . I .1 *. / 9* •* * . . ( PROP ADDR CRfCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR sa OH-117-25 %Z 0009 osiao NORTH SNORE DR P J iLOHDERG a B J BLOMBERC PAUL J a BEVERLY J BLOMBERO SiaO NOKTH SHORE OR NAYZATA m 55S91 SB 09-117-2S S2 0010 0S1B4 NORTH SHORE DR F P PACOVSKV AML PACOVSKY FREDRICK P PACOVSKY MICHELLE L PACOVSKY S1B4 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA rtl 55S91 SB 0f-117-2S St OOlS. OSIXB NORTH SNORE DR RXCHARB J OLSON RICHARD J OLSON S115 NORTH SNORE INI NAYZATA ft! B5S91 - \ •*. PROP AODR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 58 09-117-25 52 0014 05105 NORTH SHORE OR X 0 LUNOqUlST ACT X 0 LUNOQUIST ACT 5106 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA HN 55591 JOHNSON JOItCiQN 58 09-117-25 52 0018 05155 NORTH SHORE OR S A NAS8ER0 A A H OECANDIA S A HASBERO A A OECANDIA 5155 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA M4 55591 J 58 09-117-U II 0001 05158 NOilTH SHORE OR RONALD D LAUER J L HANDEL A P HANDEL 5l5S NCMTH SHORE OR NAYZATA Ml 55591 ■1• .9 CO 8 1. r-v^ r . S.. PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER * NAME/ADOR SB 09-117-2S SS 0002 0S165 NORTH SHORE DR NILLXAN TOLES NILLIAH TOLES 5145 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA HN 55591 58 09-117-25 55 0009 05175 NORTH SHORE OR H A C RUSSIN . . HICHAEL A CATHERINE RUSSZN 5175 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA m 55591 50 09-117-25 55 0015 05145 NORTH SHORE DR HARTHA J SHEDE10ORO HARTHA J SNEOCraORO 5145 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA IM 55591 PROP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER ' NAME/AOOR 58 09-117-25 55 0014 05185 NORTH SHORE OR T A S ENLOH THOHAS C A SUSAN S ENLOH 5185 N SHORE DR HAYZATA m 55591 t • I TOTAL BATCH 506 OOOIS , 0* • • . - < ■' ■ MM DATE 0a/t2/9f J ■ BATCH M« ■ I f t •« •I *, •» f ^ wA •*A*. . l\ ».1 • *VV. ,. I • ^ m;- r V 5 HEMCPIN COUNTY MOKRTY INFORNATION SYSTEh RROPCRTY IMCRS LIST REPORT NO. PX4SBA01 PACE EO %• •m ^ T'' -:t I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFOMUTION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEfMEPIN COUNTY OEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY T^TXON. TO THE BEST OF HY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. »J?BY VDATE r L. ■,C « < . * . • • * *•. j OUDURbAINI V-la in 8 '■ /'■ *A I ^g D -E '• ,, M -4 ^ N9 1111d=j ^ -a % w ’ fL ’ if I «lil ^1 m'II^ ^S ssss O ■X o3 £1 :s: *■ Hto •t. £E ? 5 »i . si Jf if -■R ' *"'K ='M §^ 5f ^ '^f'e /22.00 \ '‘r^a 5‘A •_ 8/ N ''h cV'^** :sA \^ 232 '^SSS -«,la 'iiiiui •aatm V' «»»*»^ (v. ' Ps: £S> S ^. ?r ■ Gssr G#>3» r- S^i'^- f>r^S •Vl-4 ------------ ‘%X •’^Ss4 C:» zVor//? w.Ti-'SS'SSi'" /^^ 00 |g|gy 7^' 2 T1 \ • 1 ■'*? • i t • *, t . r: .teiii"' ,r ; . • ■r. • • . • '< . . k ’.■' v\ RESOLUTION it 3461 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) CITY OF ORONO ) Minnesota do r; rrft srs;'"ctr'^ proceedings 2eptember^l2 ____. 19^. and that the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ■ 8 4 6.J_____ On this .—JcLnuo-cj.199^ before me a Notar>' Public within and for said counts', personally appeared _|/u/kVa L. hvhpark, --------- known 10 me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he tthey) e.xecuted the same as his (their) free act and deed. CAROLE A. HASEMAN wmrMuc MWNPon HHCF INCOUWTY My Commission Enins Jin . 31 . 2*^ a NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this Ik i^\______, 199 -^ before me a Notar>' F^bHc within and for said count>'. personally appeared J ■ f:<> chbuch , day of F< known to me to be the persoh(s) described in and who executed me foregoing instrument. anTIcknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. LINDA S.VEE HOtt(rfW0UC4iNM ^ /i NOTARY PUBLIC Paee 5 of 6 % CITY of ORONO ^v.RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO__g 4 fi 1_____ 7.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigr^, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property'. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of September, 1994. ATTEST: // Edward J. Call^n, Jr., Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of September 1994, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor «t City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. ^ ^ y y y LINDA S.VEE RypueuMumNCSff leMEPMCOIKTV MyCammissionEjqilniJn)! / // , y\ i 71 ^ ’.I * Notary Public y^ y y ^ y ■' Page 4 of 6 I i CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF TTW^CpTi' ^UNCIL NO.34 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER /VND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby approves a setback variance of 48’ or 64% for the lakeside i»o sto^ “‘i‘^'“°1n'TV“^!!hLci7odeck and a hardcover variance within the 0-75 ’setback area of 3.195 s.f. or o j the following conditions: 1. 4. Upon application for a building permit, applicants must provide an updated survey showing location of all existing and proposed improvements to be accompanied by a detailed grading and drainage plan. If it is found that new addition will encroach any closer to lagoon than existing structure, applicants wi be required to file an amended variance application with both the City and DNR. All landscape areas underlain with plastic shall be removed prior to the footing inspection for the proposed new construction. Applicants to provide necessary erosion control along the shorelme of the pond and wherever deemed necessary by the Orono Building staff prior to any land alterations on this propeny. Applicants have agreed to replant specific mature evergreens to be removed as a result of these improvements. Applicants have submitted a site plan mdicating existing and proposed plantings in the 0-75 ’ setback zone included as page 6 o this resolution. Plantings are to be completed prior to the final inspection for the new construction by the Orono Building Department. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a buildmg permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this vanance will expire on that date (September 12. 1995). 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. Page 3 of 6 i .• -/ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY’ COUNCIL NO. 8 4 61_____ 3. 4. 5. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 18. 1994 an August 15, 1994 and recommended approval of the variance application as amended based on the following unique findings and hardships; SOS'? of the total prnpeny is unbuildable. B. The original strucaire was placed on propeny in 1973 prior to current lakeshore setback standards. C, D The majority of the existing house is located within the 0-75’ setback area. The interior lagoon connected to main lake by a dredged channel is considered part of the main lake placing greater setback restrictions on building envelope. The current proposal involves decreases in hardcover within the 0-75’ and 75-250 ’ setback areas as follows; In the 0-75’ setback area there is a 499 s.f. or 1.7% reduction and in the 75-250 ’ setback area there is a 1,889 s.f. or 14% reduction. 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 applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial pro^i^ right of the applicants; 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 staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 6 I % f CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 4 I_____ A RESOLLI'HON approving VARI/VNCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22. SUBDIVISION I (A) AND Sl.lumVLSION 2 PILE <;^1941 WHEREAS, LeRoy J. Fischbach and Wanda L. Fischbach (hcrcinatlcr the applicants") are tiic owners of tlie property located at 3135 Nortli Shore Drive within the City of Oiono thereinafter City") and legally described as follows: Tiact A, Registered Land Survey No. 1113. Hennepin County. Min.nesota (hereinatier "ilie property ’), and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City lor a variance to NIunicipal Zonine Code Section 10.22. Subdivision 1 (A) to permit consti-uction of a two story addition aiid upper'level deck liiai would extend IT from the shoreline ol the adjacent lagoon where a 75 .setback is required and where the existing structure encroaches within 27 of that shoieliiit an a variance to Section 10.22. Subdivision 2 as hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area is proposed at 3.195 s.f. or 10.6% and where 3.694 s.f. or 12.3% exists and wheie none is allowed. NOW, 1’HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. Minnesota: FINDLNGS I. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1941. The property is located in the LR-lB. Lakeshore Residential Zoning District rcuunine 43,560 s.f. in area. The property consists of 43,529 s.f.requiring Paee 1 of 6 TO;Chair Peterson and Orcno Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:September 12, 1995 SUBJECT: ^^2062 Ted Rozeboom. 2967 Casco Point Road/Josephine Knudson. 2965 Casco Point Road - Home Occupation Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC. Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre Application: Request for variances to certain performance standards of the home occupation accessory’ use/home occupation license codes to allow home occupation to occur. on a tax parcel separate from that occupied by the home occupation applicant in a building not occupied by the home occupation applicant in a building where the entrance to the home occupation is not gained from within the structure but has a separate dedicated entrance. Pertinent Code Section 1.Section 10.02 - Definitions of "guest apartment" and "guest house" Section 10.20. Subd. 3 (G) - Guest house and non-rental apartment conditional use permit ordinance. 3.Section 10.20. Subd. 4 (C) - Home occupation accessory use standards. All the following conditions must be met: A. Home occupation must be engaged in only by persons residing in their dwelling B. C. D. E. F. G. No employed assistant allowed. Home occupation is conducted within the principal structure only. Evidence of home occupation may not be visible from the street. No signs permitted other than those permitted in residential zones No excessive stock in trade is stored on the premises. No over the counter sales are involved. 1 Zoning File ^2062 September 12, 1995 Page 2 H. Entrance to the home occupation is gained from within the structure. 1.Use must not adversely affect the character of the uses permitted in the LR-IC zone. J.A professional person may use his residence for consultation, emergency treatment or performance of religious rights, but not for general practice of his profession when such general practice will involve the need for more than three off street parking spaces for the occupant and visitors. 4.Section 5.40. Subds. 1 and 2 • Home occupation license is required and may only be issued if ah conditions are complied with. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letter of Request E - Photos F - Site Plan and Various Surveys G - Construction Plans H - Mabusth Letter to Applicant 5/1/95 I - Home Occupation License Review by Building Official Lyle Oman 4/26/95 J - Documentation from 1977-1978 Subdivision Pertinent Facts 1.Mr. Rozeboom owns and lives in 2967 Casco Point Road. His mother-in-law, Josephine Knudson, owns but does not currently live in 2965 Casco Point Road. Rozeboom proposes to conduct a home occupation in his mother-in-law’s property at 2965. Building permits were issued earlier this year for remodeling of 2965. Those plans indicated a complete dwelling unit on the upper level already exists, with the remodeling taking place in the lower level to include a work room, office, and filing spaces. In reviewing those plans, the building inspector pointed out to Rozeboom the need for a home occupation license and the requirements to obtain one. Such an application was immediately submitted. i Zoning File #2062 September 12, 1995 Page 3 3. In April 1995 during the final inspection the building official reviewed the space and the home occupation license application and concluded the applicant did not meet certain requirements for such an application. Jeanne Mabusth discussed the issues with Mr. Rozeboom (see May 1. 1995 letter), which led to the applicant’s August 18th lener of request (Exhibit D). "PJig only persons qualified by ordinance to operate a home occupation at 2965 are the residential occupants of the dwelling unit in 2965. That might eventually include Rozeboom’s mother-in-law and his son (see letter of request), but not Rozeboom under his current occupancy of 2967. 5. If the two properties were combined into one tax parcel in Rozeboom s name, this still would not allow home occupation in 2965 since its status becomes that of an accessory, non-rental truest house, not the principal sirucmre. A home occupation can only occur within the principal structure. It is not known whether an option for Rozeboom is to have 2965 transferred to his ownership and combined. 6. It is interesting to note that these lots existed as one tax parcel prior to 1978. They were separated via RLS #1470 in January 1978. They were separated because the Cit> xi tsed the then owner, Hamilton Moran, that the code would not allow rental Use oi « s,; -nd dwelling unit on a single property. The "live in one, rent the other" situation o.-: -hi property dated back to the late 1930s (see application File #2089 documents). Summary of Issues 1. If Rozeboom neither owns or lives at 2965, he doesn’t meet all the criteria for a home occupation license in that building. If he acquires 2965 and legally combines it with 2967, he still doesn’t qualify for the home occupation license because the home occupation would occur in an accessory building, not in the principal structure. 3. In order for a home occupation to occur under the proposed circumstances, the City would have to grant variances to the three performance standards not met by the applicant. 4 An additional question to be answered is whether or not granting such a variance to both the zoning code and the licensing code is a "use variance", or whether it is merely the granting of variances to performance standards of the home occupation accessory use. 2. Zoning File ^2062 September 12. 1995 Pace 4 Discussion Please review the letter of request and exhibits submitted by the applicant. Also review the May 1. 1995 letter from Jeanne Mabusth. The issue of what variances are required with this application is fairly straight forward, yet the question of whether the granting of variances w'ould constitute an illegal use variance is quite vexing. The historic use of the'combined pre-1978 properties was resolved by a subdivision in 1978. Staff does not see as clean a solution for the current request. Special Lot Combination Maybe an Option If Planning Commission concludes that granting of the performance standard variances would not be considered a use variance, then if Planning Commission feels the use as proposed is acceptable, it might be appropriate to document any conditions of approval in the chain of title, via covenants or perhaps via a "special lot combination". Such a document might, for instance, allow the home occupation use of an accessory structure that also contains an'accessory guest house. That would require legal combination of the two properties. This would effectively eliminate any potential for Rozeboom to rent out the dwelling unit at 2965. His letter does not suggest that he intends to ever rent it out. The other option might be to not require combination, but acknowledge the ownership relationship that currently exists, and allow the combined dwelling/home occupation use of 2965 only as long as that relationship exists, i.e. only as long as Knudson and Rozeboom are the respective owners. This could be done as a "special lot combination" document, which is a resolution to be filed in the chain of title of both properties, specifying the basis for and conditions of approval. However, see the "Use Variance" discussion below. Denial Option Denial of this request as proposed is certainly a viable option. City staff is unaware of any similar simations where a home occupation has been appro-jid in a building not owned or resided in by the home occupation applicant. It can be argued tliat the home occupation changes to a clear cut business use of residential property in these circumstances. The case for this being a business use would be more clear if Rozeboom was paying rent to Knudson for the space... Use Variance Issue The City Attorney was asked to review this request, and give his opinion as to whether granting a variance to the standards would be considered a use variance. If so, the City cannot grant 1 Zoning File #2062 September 12, 1995 Page 5 those variances legally even if ii chose to do so. If on the other hand this would not be a use variance, but merely variances to specific performance standards of an allowed use. then the City could grant variances under whatever conditions it teels are appropriate. City Attorney Tom Barrett has advised that there is no clear cut definition of what is or is not a use variance. There appears to be no significant direction in the statutes, and little case law dealing with this issue. Therefore, he suggests that it is up to the City to determine whether proposed variance request is a use variance or merely a variance to performance standards. Staff discussions w ith Barrett lead staff to offer the follow ing comments regarding use variances: • One wav to specify whether a property is occupied for business use, as opposed to a residential use, is if the space is rented by the business occupant. However, the City should not place itself in the position of having to enforce its ordinance by approving whether exchange of rent is occurring, since that is potentially a futile task. • In order to gain a clearer piemre of the issues involved with this request, the City should ignore the special relationship between Knudson and Rozeboom, and should ignore the adjacency of the properties. Without those two significant factors, 2965 would appear as a residential property currently not owner occupied, with a business use occurring in the basement. The business occupant travels to and from the property on a regular basis, and may have business clients coming to the property. Then, suppose the dwelling unit is rented to a third party. This would appear then to be a mixed residential and commercial use. Whether or not the dwelling unit is rented, the scenario suggests a clear cut business use which would not be allowed in a residential zone. To allow it by variance would clearly be a use variance. • Now, factoring in the relationship between Knudson and Rozeboom, and factoring in the adjacency of the properties, staff would argue that granting the request "as is" would still be a use variance, as long as the separate ownership exists. The business use would drift towards a home occupation status if Rozeboom owned both parcels but didn’t combine them. The use would come even closer to a legitimate home occupation status if Rozeboom owned both, and then combined the properties. Then, and only then, would it be reasonable to consider the proposed use as a home occupation, since it would then be occurring on the homestead parcel of the business user. Zoning File ftl062 September 12, 1995 Page 6 Staff Recommendation In the opinion of staff, it would be inappropriate for the Citv' to grant a home occupation license where the licensee is neither the owner or residential occupant of the property on which the occupation occurs. Further, if the licensee owns the propertv ’ on which the business use will occur, but does not reside on that property, it still looks and tastes and smells as a business use in a residential zone. However, adjacency of the business user ’s homestead and his "business property" suggests a special relationship which might be formalized and approved via a "special lot combination resolution" that could place specific limits on the use and occupancy of the business property, as well as establish conditions under which such a use might be required to cease. Finally, it is staffs opinion that the cleanest way to approve this request is to require that the homestead and "business use" parcels be legally combined under the ownership Rozeboom, which places the structure in which the business use will occur on his homestead property. A case can then readily be made that this is truly a "home" occupation, with variances to performance standards that are reasonably defendable. Planning Commission is advised to first determine whether or not the home occupation is appropriate as it is being and will be operated within the surrounding residential neighborhood. If Planning Commission determines that it is appropriate. Planning Commission then should define under what conditions ("as is"; "common ownership with special lot combination"; or the "legal combination" method) is appropriate. Options for Action 1. 2. Approval as proposed without conditions. Approval with specific conditions, which may include legal combination or a special lot combination. 3.Table for further information, or to have staff draft a special lot combination resolution for review. 4. Deny, specifying reasons for denial. 5.Other. ( cm' OF ORONO - v.\riance application Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SIOO.OO A (no change from onginal application) i I..r? Variance for non-conforming structures S20Q.OO ^ After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) •€- 9 * ■ j PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address (jy^LD Pbirit* ^ *$63^1 j Propertv' Identification Number (P.l.D.) ___________________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required sun'ey. Date Propert>’ Acquired ^______________(montL'year) I 1^) (do not) also own the adjacent parcel* of land. Present use of piopern-; / residential y/ other (specify) Zoning District: .\PPLICANT Name 'TMhlpOOnTA .Address: V\iT[ CC\^^ PbiiTt libg^V ;) 4*1 l-iyF7 ' 4"\'?A'iO Zip: 66m OWTsER (if different than applicant) . Phonahome)Qi<'ff^t' \CAit Name Scf>^Ci^irjLy • \0 kliO) Phone (work)___________________ .Address: \l^xA City: VYV»V Z:p:_66Mi__ DESCRIPTION OF REQliEST Estimated Consoniction Cost S Describe request in detail; rfYiUf^T ng/ G<, 0^\CL anZl /Xp^xfHKHidr (attach additional sheets if necessary) - »v.» VARIANCES REQLTRED Lot .Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore y Other (specify') C6 hCHVL-- ^OT QglOS\AH)n^ dptjphlMjxdb ^ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF L’NUSUAL PROPERTY CO.NDnTONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual propertv conditions preventing compliance with Zonmg Code requirements: dttZlzKgdl ________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SL'BMITTALS All of the following information mu«rt be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete 1 n Owners List of o».ncrs wiihin IJO' (vou must “bain this list trom ^ Hennopin CounP; Department of Finance. .A-603, Govt Center, a48-aatl). - ^Cenitote‘°o “Tuneris^^^^^^^^ 'b>' licensed surveyor) ..^’’Tr^irr calculations as required. In addition, provide one ( ) P> 6. 7. 8. 9. ■fopograpnic survey . renroduction. are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy <- v n"') Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S/i .x 11 )• S o^ L leeal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the oroDerty This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). AS rnTddendum to this application, please attach a separate list ot any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City stati. information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature -yrihJfLmt.Date h«e^v tknowledces and agrees to dus application and funher “‘bonzes reagrable Imrv onto the property by City staff, consultant, agents Commtss,on members, and Coun n^eSbers for purposes of investigation and vetftcatr^of this «que ‘ _ DateOwner’s Signature '^’’iroTneU Uan appSis unable to anend a scheduled meeting, please make attangement m tve an aJo “edt-^ anend in your place and to advise the Budding & Zonmg Off.ee of this change prior to the meeting. 8 RUN DATE Q8/lS/fS RATCH 502 PROP AOOR • 0>t«R NAME : TAXPAYER HAHE/AODR •' « PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAra TAXPAYER ' NAME/AODR •*» ■:5 • *’ PROP AOOR ' ONNER NAME TAXPAYER V. NAME/AOOR P.vi* . ; 1 PROP AOOR , , ONNER NANE f{>TAXPAYERSi*WIC/MOR 1* V ^ ‘V ^ ■.. r. . ' t • n j . ; .-s- iv* HEf#€PIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY CM€RS LIST38 20-117*23 31 0035 02340 CASCO POINT RO R J FUST SR ft K A STEPHENS R J FUST SR ft K A STEPHENS 2340 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55331 38 20-117-23 31 0047 02341 CASCO POINT RO HILLIAM N NENTSY NILLIAM H HENNEY 2341 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55331 38 20-117-23 21 0060 02370 CASCO POINT RD J ft 8 MARTINSON JERRY ft RONNIE MARTINSON 2370 CASCO POINT RO S NAYZATA MN 55331 38 20-117-23 31 0064 02367 CASCO POINT RO TAD ROZEBOOM THEODORE ft DEBORAH ROZEBOOM 2367 CASCO PT RO NAYZATA m 55331 TOTAL BATCH 502 00012 I * 38 20-117-23 31 0036 02348 CASCO POINT RO ROBERT C LAPINSKI AND NIFE ROBERT C LAPINSKI 2348 CASCO POINT ROAD NAYZATA m 55331 38 20-117-23 31 0048 02333 CASCO POINT RO A F 6AUISTEL JR ETAL A F 6ALLISTEL 2333 CASCO PT RD NAYZATA Ifl 55331 38 20-117-23 31 0061 02380 CASCO POINT RO C N HAACK ft P MULLEN HAACK C N HAACK ft P MULLEN HAACK 2380 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55331 38 20-117-23 31 0065 Q0038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF ORONO THE CITY OF ORONO 1335'BRONN RO S CRYSTAL BAY m 55323 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 238 20-117-23 31 0045 02375 CASCO POINT RD STENART R PERRY STENART R PERRY 2375 CASCO POINT ROAD NAYZATA MN 55331 38 20-117-23 31 0043 02327 CASCO POINT RO FREDRICK JOHN HEY ET AL F J HEY ft H A FRAMPTON 2327 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA m 55331 38 20-117-23 31 0063 02365 CASCO POINT RD JOSEPHINE B KNUDSON JOSEPHINE B KNUDSON 2365 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA m 55331 38 20-117-23 34 0027 00038 ADDRESS PENDING JAMES R ft CATHERINE HARTZELL JAMES R ft CATHERINE HARTZELL 2387 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA m 55331 r. f » . ». • * >•«• * i •' • t • i *:\r- •S !• { ■ . ^ 4 * . -••• I i ; > » • • • «■ ; ■: IP J"Ih , • •<> *■ * r .- i• « * . >/ . *# •* 4 ^ . • : i ’ % / J \ t-.>' .1 Aueust 18. 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabu.sth Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, .MN. 55356 Re; Application for Home Occupation License Variance Application Dear .Ms. .Mabu.sth: .My wife, son and daughter live at 2967 Casco Point Road, as we have since 1982. Our home is located on property that is contiguous w ith 2965. the property which is in question. Until several years prior to the purchase of our home. 2965 served as the carriage house for our home. Because of our appreciation of the estate's history, every summer families come back to visit the home they grew up in or spent their summers (including 'riielma Jones, author of “Once Upon The Lake") and our desire to care for extended family; it was our dream to renovate both homes and make one family estate. Our opportunity arose as a result of several almost concurrent events; 1. We realized that my 75 year old mother-in-law. Jo Knudson, was nearing the need for extended care. We feel it is our obligation to care for immediate family if at all possible. 2. Hamilton and Louis Moran, the previous owners, decided they were ready for a nursing home and wanted to sell. They were good friends and aware of our dreams. We agreed on a market value and purcha.sed the property. 3. We want to be able to provide an apartment setting for our soon to be 18 year old son, who is mentally challenged and will require help with life skills as a young adult. This carriage house provides him w ith independence and Debi and I the opportunity to help him when necessary. 4. I have had a twenty year dream to own my own small architectural consulting practice. After tw enty-four years of working in large architectural firms, the last 14 with Hammel. Green and Abrahamson in Minneapolis, where 1 ser\ed as a Principal for their education practice. 1 was finally prepared to begin. So. with all of the above thoughts on our mind, and with Jo’s assistance, in October of 1994, we purchased the carriage house. ~We then pulled a building permit in January of 1995 to begin remodelins the lower level of the house for my office. Approximately the same time, my application for a business was submitted to the City of Orono. We are hopeful that with the following response to your letter of May 1. 1995. and an explanation of how we are improving the residenti^ character of the property, that you will see that we are treating this as our home. 1. It is true that the properties are independent. We had to purchase 2965 as an independent parcel and feel, because it has 25 feet of lakeshore. that its value is higher as a separate property. Combining properties could devalue 2965 and would be di.Ticult for us to absorb, as most of our family’s assets are wrapped up in this investment. However, we are improving the property as if it were our home and not a separate struc­ ture, including reducing hardcover both at lakeshore and the shared driveway, reducing parking (including garage stalls), and climating the dock and lake stair at 2965. We would also be pleased to eliminate the storage building at the lakeshore of 2965 and reduce the size of the laiteshore porch at 2967. 2. The property is currently zoned residential. LR-IC, Lakeshore Residential, allowing only single family residential. In reading the purpose of this zoning it is clear that protection of Lake Minnetonka as a natural resource and “the effects of intense development ’ and maintaining “medium density residential development ’ are primary objectives. My family is very ’ concerned about these same issues and would like to take steps to improve the residential character ot the carnage house and. at the same time, reduce the impact of past construction both aestheticany and storm runotf. 1 believe we are meeting the pnmary objectives of this ordinance. 3. In Orono. a home occupation must be conducted w ithin the primary residence. By legal definition, we have two separate parcels, in every other way. this is my family ’s residence. I am currently operating my consulting practice in the renovated lower level of 2965. In addition, my office provides space for my wife to tutor local children with special needs and an area for my children's homework that requires computer support. This type of space w ould have required an addition to our home, a solution with the potential for a greater impact on the neighborhood than renovation of the e.xisting carriage house. Again, we are treating this as our home. 4. In Orono. a second residence, if the properties are combined, cannot be used for rental purposes. In addition, a guest house or non-rental apartment requires a conditional use permit. I am not sure whether we complyon this point, it’s a bit confusing. Nevertheless, we would like to keep the properties legally separate and. ultimately, provide a home for my son and mother-in-law in the very near future. Our agreement for responsibilities while they occupy the carriage house will be a family issue that has not been discussed. 5. The inspector observed a second workstation in my office when the final inspection occurred. This workstation is still there and serves as a consultant workspace on occasion for my projects and space for my family. 1 have no employees, additional architectural/engineering support is outsourced to firms with which I have agreements. These include HGA, The Leonard Parker Associates, and Studio Five Architects locally. Any work that I cannot handle, is accomplished in their respective offices. I am their consultant. This approach is not new. but receiving more attention recently as the desire for home-based professional services grows. For example, I will be working with the City of Orono on the Ice Arena project, if funding is successful, in the near future. I will be HGA’s consultant on this project, with the vast majority of the work being done in HGA's office in Minneapolis. I want to thank you for the pleasant conversation we had regarding my variance application and the advice on how to proceed. I remain hopeful that with an opportunity to meet with the Planning Commission and the support I am receiving from neighbors, that we will have your favorable consideration. There appear to be few solutions available to us. short of moving from a community we dearly love. Thanks for the help. Sincerely, Ted Rozeboom Resident, 2967 Casco Point Road SI lur.ci ruuPKiM v nioro addi ndim f-r ’• •! *•>*•“ • (•■T-vS , 5,'W J , 4- ■■. f lluiitington CiMik Rc«l I'.'Jiitc ScrvK C« 5100 l^irnvrn Avrnuc Suite 22H MiiuK-lonVn. MN 55515 l.irNo 9SMY217 I RONT VIEW OF simjEcr i»RomM V at .- 2967 (’nsco Point Road Orono, MN 55391 Appraised: 5/16/95 fcLjztftSt'’' ■' -S. ■. ^ „, , n^tnr ,- -- A-'® ^ *^"7 i: . - i »• ? I JihL REAR VIEW OF SUIUECT PROPERTY 01 cr SIREET SCENE f;- V.? ::i t * SimjFCT PROPERTY PHOTO ADDENDUM lltinlinglon Co»*k Rcul F.Mate Services 5100 Tliimv^n Avenue Suite 228 Mini>donk*, MN 55345 (612) 470.1508. Tux (612)470-1885 ffiii . - V* . ‘-.Vi-. * •' * ,, '-...a; • *, . > V- ' ^ ' Xx i.ieNo 95MY217 LAKEVIEW 3® :! •■ 4 ■■! -W- V , \ 7 V/i-v ’ ,1 ^.;.f(.,-^^-i ,j:L •* ■ ^ — T t: T V^^SS:* J Hi GUEST HOUSE-(nol incliulcd in npprnisnl) * ■/ fc I F-t PLat of CHinroy for H. Hamilton Moran In Lots 90, 91, 102, nnd 103, Spring Park Honnopln County, Minnesota 5 I • * ^ Vs^»4ji.«rd;»«^ 4« 4U pu4 • f Sfrw%^ rm/%\tA r#«4 j/i// •k«/#r mmt^ t " lUi ^ Lol ^ Certificate of. Surrey: I hereby certify that this la a true and correct repreeentation of a survey of the boundnrlea of Lot 91, and that port of Lot 90, Spring Park, including that part of vacated Lake Shore Avenue and that part of the- tract of land botvoen said vacated avenue and the shore of lYiko r.innctonka all descritod as, beginning at tha noat Northerly comor of said Lot 91; thence Southwootorly along the Northueatarly lino of said Lot 91 and Its extension to the shore of Lake Hinneionka; thence Snutkeastorly along said chore to*an Intersoetion with a line drawn parallel with and 80 foot Korthwcstorly, moasured at right an^ae, fron the extension of the Southoanterly llna of Lot 89, Spring Park; thence Northeasterly ftlonp snld parallel lino to the Wosterly lino of vacated Lake Shore Avenue; thence Nortlioaatarly l/»7 foot to n point which in 75 foot Northwesterly, meaeursd at right angles, from the Southeasterly linn of Bald Lot B9; thonce Northoastorly , oarollal with the Southensterly line of Aald Ix)i B9, to the Westerly line of Central Avenue ae shown In Rogiotai*od Land Survey No, 461, fllos of the Roglstxar of titles; thenoe Northerly along tlio v;oaterly line of sold Oontrnl Avenuo to the Northeasterly lino of said Lot 90; tJience Northwoaterly along the Northnaatcrly lino of cold Lots 90 end 91 to tho point of beginning; and Lots 102 and 103, oxceot that part thomof lying Vlastcrly of o lino drawn from a point on the Southoaatorly line of said Let 1C2, distant 45 feet Southxicstorly from tho most Kosterly ix>lnt of said Lot 102, to a ;iolnt in the Northwoat- erl/ line of said T-ot 103 dlatsnt 24.5 feet Southwootorly from tho moot Northerly comor of sold Lot 103, In Spring Park, Lako Mlnnatcrks, and nf tho lorn lion of all buildings thorooA, and nil violhlo oncronchments, if any,* from or on said land. For pur- poenn of this survey, tho Easterly line of Lota 102 and 103, and tho data for cold F^iaterly line, have been asaumod to l>n AS shown on sold olat; and tho Knstorly lino of Lot 90 has been assiinvid to be dotcnnlnod by the Woatorly line of Central Avonuo oa shown in Registered Land Survey Ho, 461, Vp :1 SenIn: Dots : o ? 1« C 40* 11-14-75 Irrn rrnrV<'»* Gordon R. Coffin Ra^No. 6064 Lend Surveyor and Planner » Long Mlnnnsotn REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO.l4lo eor/»#r of !ok /0 5 y 5pr$nf /brir. 80s o DENOTES IRON BEARINGS SHOWN MONUMENT ARE ASSUMED jB^nthmorii ft o chi$ftft^ V" on bot# of corner of pumphoutt of 6ro«*j Boy Dom , ^ii.$7 htf, NBVD. - 172 known woftr eUvofion /j 930.it fetf, , Qccprdtny ho rocor<dt of Mion. Dtp'i of Con30r¥of/on. Woftr #/€K on OoctfTth^r /?, /f77 wot 92 B U fttf, KGVD. - . toufhtoiftr/y tift€ of lot df, Spring f{$rK One/ ifs Soufhwotf tr/y iifennon GORDON R k coffin LAND SURVEYOR AND PL ANNE. LONG LAKE , MINNESOTA SHEET P OE P SHEETS •i jj|OCj0 mu t - 5 - < < S sli'iit. ; I a n §2||i m ii® ^ 3I; cz g si I 2 2f|js5S =1^ • *• ' '^^.'1 o5" Mav 1. 1995 CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street iasress; '750 Cr:ro. «N -355 M Mailine Address: 3 0. 5cx 65 Cr/s:ai 3ay. MN 55323 CC35 Ted R. Rozeboom 2967 Casco Point Road Wavzaia. Minnesota 55391 Dear Mr. Rozeboom: Casco Point Road. Your application P°«t ;‘f;;;°“/cici'crunS Aricln^e ^rrmldin^re^U^^^ occupation liccnae „ %965 Caaco Point Road, the budding official ServotwiraCe occuTa'ntenae ap'pUcation that set forth specif.c sunt^^ rta1fth±:edTa"r^^^^^^^^^ the office area. Staff also advised that the building contains both upper and lower le residential living 3xeas. ,n reviewing our files, it appears that both properties at '.965 and 2967 continue to be independent and have not been legally combined for ta.x purposes. licrino reviews either violations or potential zoning issues concerning your ^o^cT^d Se^rr-f^iV residential property located at 2965 Casco Point Road: 1.“£S7,.i%r„r.E£'; prohibits the granting of a use variance. Your business use ot the 2965 cannot qualify under the home occupation license and is considerea independent commercial use. A home occupation is considered an accessory use and per the zoning code must be conducted within the principal or homestead residence of the individual. Telephone (612) 473-7357 ♦ FAX 473-0510 Mr. Ted R. Rozeboom May 1, 1995 Page 2 J. . u- « rh^ ornn^nies the second residence on the If you -.vere to legally combine residential unit was to be propern- would use. .A guest house or oca- used tor non-renul purposes suen a:> _ renul aparanent requires a conditional use pennti. 4.Based on the 'lilf occupLfo^n SyltLL^^ ^ •'Otne occupation busutess must reside in the dwelling.” I would recommend that >nu conu« the ^ ^e^do^i "c se«“rof'the code that will cover the issues discussed above. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/ch Enc. cc;Lyle Oman, Building Official Bmce L. Vang, Field Inspector i riTT OF ORONO ».0. Box 66, 1325 So Brov.'r. Ra rystal Bay, 55323 Aooli.02t.ior. Date: ^ 4k Dace License Appooved:, License Expires: = t4i joi fTtilr'. - -.__-___ r3r!eraoicn:_____L*‘’*-'jt,*. _v. «• ii.T«>i'>i'S:aoicn. :ame .__ DDRESS o. or c; Business u= be opersuei:. ^^s^^hair£ave-fi^ icense may be revoked if any '^^°^.^‘^°°.t5*aate and make a recommend^xon srtnsinlss d.ys in s!o ' » 5.03. 1* a /i'* arsoant to Orono Municipal tine will be extended to «» <-0^ JsL%’si'd“ey." -ri?c^-;e/p|lWo^«f^f^^ SSfel“S=“tir, held pursdant to section io.*.Dr •oh'b'oec Hcne Cccopaoxcn ?rac—.ces..cn.^--e- a= a here occuoatxon oo rt is unlawful fo_ ----lice.nses. engage rn o«e«a — o.. * . ^,j__ V. —’’s*" reside in the ewe—.—* ,♦ P.11 oersens engagec -.1 ---- - . . ,• ^ -Vow. -V.-- siens oerorttec —* — No ccrnercial srgns ...e---------e- residential zone. ,.„ev “ace aav be stored on the ptenises.................-- . -No excessive s-oc.. -—* - - «;a''es is net allowed.over t.he counter -e-a— sa- .-v.-n ^he -.•o- -us- be Gained freo wrth^n v.he -- .vv,- le cccuoat-cn ..*us- i^e .Entrance to -ne ...-lae v- . ^ s«*:*we===*«=*»““=“=**”“'“*“'T-r^”cond'tions quoted above from the 0-ono ,e undersigned hereby the City may requxre. — ”!c-oal Coce and any -------------—.-.W — t.'w— , I iJT 2r?-lioant: cwxng: _ ature cf Coning Official: ature cf Eire Inspecoor:^ : Date: W A • ■ t .. *‘- . • : >V.tfCV«rr -• ? *v.** -'W.t r - u c •.jIuu A ri Z-1' • TO:Jeanne A. Mabusili. BaJiJing & Zoning Adminis trator FROM:Lyle Oman. Building Official DATE:April 26. 1995 SL'BJECT: 2965 Casco Point Road - Home Occupation License Application On January 17, 1995 Ted Rozeboora of 2967 Casco Point Road submitted a building permit plication to remodel the lower level of a house at 2965 Casco Point Road. When I accepted I e application. I noted that the space was proposed to be set up as an office. I then informed Mr. Rozeboom of the City’s home occupation ordinance. He stated that he was a principal m a firm downtown and did not plan to work out of the space but would take the application with him ''just in case". A plan review was completed on January' 12, 1995 and the permit was issued on January 19, 1995. On January 18, 1995 the City received the home occupation license application. The application was held until the space was tinished. On .April 25, 1995 a final inspection of the space was scheduled. The inspection was condu. by Bnice Vang and myself. The space is set up with two work stations and a meeting tabi. the center. Mr. Rozeboom was not present at the time ot the inspection but there was a per. working at one of the work stations. The applicant does not comply with the following home occupation license requirements: All persons engaged in the business must reside in the dwelling. Mr. Rozeboor resides next door. The employee working on site may live in the upstairs of th-. building but wis not listed on the application. 2)Entrance to the hor.v occupation must be gained from within the structure. The space is accessed from doors directly to the exterior. 3) The applicant is using the space now without a home occupation license I k listing op EMPLOIESS: NAME:__ ;u:dksss r^TY: Vx “ OF BZTAt^V^ NAME .m-A :r?:_22S CITi 'date of BIP.THr . • • SIP: date of EIETE: NAME: I:d HESS: CITY ________ — date of s-P.— • " — o •»•- • NAME: ADDPEISS: rtTV* • w— - - • .TS OF 3IP.TE: NAME: ADDRESS: rr»v date of BIRTH: ^ o • address : -----• DATi 0^ 3x?*^^* r» • ADDRESS: w— ^ • date of EIRTE DIP: • % r* •% • • . . .'^ t - 7 -2- S 5.40 SEC. 5.40. HOME OCCUPATIONS. ^ wt»auired. It is unlawful for any Subd. 1. a home occupation, as that termperson to engage in, or carry on, ^ h ^ity Code, without first is defined in the Zoning Chapter ot , having obtained a license therefor ^rom the City. ''iihH 7 ^^»aulation Licenses will only be issued if&r-:rrr.7 comolied with. I License Required. It is unlawful for any person to 'o/ais^fbote. « commonly referred to as mace, without first naving license therefor from the City. Subd. 2. Limitations. A. Only persons who are duly authorized and licensed appl^to* official sales to, or purchases from, the City Police Department.---------------- --------------- - SEC. 5.42. BUSINESS AND JOINT USB OF LAKE FACILITIES. ^ Subd. 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Action, linn have the meanings given them:the following terms have the meanings given them:^ c A "Boat Slip, Water" mea^ns a structure, space,' including mooring posts, buoys or other devices. other thingpermanently on land adjacent to a lake, wnetner ir off the of Docking, Mooring, or. Storing Boats ’ ?o%-^aoc-n1r\°/orfn^g*or-o^r7nV^4^^^^ persons other than the owner, or occupant, of the property. D. "Commercial Boat Dock Business" means space for docking, mooring or storing boats for a fee, uled in a trade or business, including, without limitat^o^ P^^^ ing rented spaces, boat .buoys, space in licensee and held for sale, display, rental, or otnerwi connection with a boat or marina business, and spac «aid docking of boats during or pending repairs or raaintenanc boats. ^ ORONO CC / /126 (4-1-84) S 10.20 D. Public Service Structures. Public service structures* including but not limited to electric transmission lines, buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure regulating stations, wells, and plumbing stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electrical power substations, provided no building shall be located within 50' from any lot of an abutting lot in an "R" District. Prior to granting such permit it shall be found that the architectural design of service structures is compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be located and thus will promote the general welfare. Public service structures as defined above that have been approved by the City at required public hearings for public improvement projects shall not require a conditional use permit but such structures shall e subject to all other appropriate standards set forth in this section; amendments to approved plans involving design and/or placement of these structures will require written notice by the City to all affected property owners 14 days prior to the adoption of the amended plans by the Council. Source; Ordinance 29, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 E. Greenhouses. Commercial greenhouses provided all outside storage is fenced in such a manner so as to screen the stored material from view when observed from the public street or adjoining lot. Commercial greenhouse structures shall not be located in a required yard area, and are subject further to the general zoning code requirements pertaining to accessory structures. Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-09 F. Recreation Areas. Private gun clubs, archery ranges, ski slides, provided the area is fenced and no part of the principal use is less than 150 feet from any lot line. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted; 7-14-86 G. Guest Houses & Non —rental Guest Apartments. 1) Guest Houses. A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house. Source: Ordinance 29, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 ORONO CC 280 (4-1-84) S 107 ^ 2) Non-rental Guest Apart.’nents. An apartment within the principal residence structure on a lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal residence» including their domestic employees or non-paying guests. There shall be at l«ast one access door to the apartment from within the principa structure^ and such door shall be the primary access to the apartment. Application for such a guest apartme* t shall address the concerns of parking^ sewage treatment^ entryway and interior access method. Such apartments shall not have utilities metered separately from the principal residence utilities and shall not have a separate street address. Source: Ordinance 29, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 H. Planned Residential Development. Limited to detached single family dwellings only and subject to the limitations of Section 10.32. I. Duplex Credit. One duplex may be located on a single lot as a conditional use upon application therefor provided that public sanitary sewer service is available, and the lot adjacent to a commercial or industrial district,^ and the duplex^ is constructed within 200 feet of the commercial or industiial district. A duplex is defined as a two-family unit residential building. J. Apiaries. K. Antenna Structure. One independent antenna structure with antenna or combination of antenna attached thereto, subordinate to and servicing the principal use or structure o” the same lot and customarily incidental thereto that is not attached to another structure provided the height of the antenna structure does not exceed 65 feet and the antenna structure is set back from any lot line a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure. L. Farms (Crop and stock). Provided that the area is ten or more acres. M. Animals. The keeping of domestic animals for non-commercial purposes including horses for the use of the occupants of the premises. A minimum of one acre in aggregate, exclusive of one acre for the principal building, must be available for each animal unit, except as hereinafter set forth. A minimum of two acres of open pasture must be available for a single horse and one additional acre must be available for each additional horse. When the horses are kept stabled and do not require pasture for feed purposes, the minimum pasture requirement may be adjusted at the discretion of the Council. Such minimum pasture acreage shall not include low lying lands unusable for pasture or grazing. Any person keeping such animals must comply with the provisions of the City Code. ORONO CC 280-1 (4-1-84) I/ S 10.02 I 1 • a huildinq or one or more portions 19. Dwelling - ^ occupied exclusively for resi- thereof designed or “ ,ooms in motels, hotels, nursing dence purposes, but not ^. tents, cabins, or trailer c:::h;s!°“““nVVharr to include lodging rooms. 20. -cwelling-Attached- - A which is^joi^ned to another dwelling at one or more sides by a par.-'/ w 21. "Dwelling-Detached- - A dwelling which is entirely surrounded by open space on t.he same lot. 22. -Family- - An °^,:?h«"irflin|!e hou^%\%^rU'un?;,"r “a“group of not more than four persons not so related,'maintaining a common household. 23. -Family Dwelling-Multiple" - Any structure made up of two or more attached dwellings. 7A -raraae-Pr’vate" - A detached accessory building or portion of the principa £ bui Iding^ inc ludin^^ lfu%\^o/T^riila^%ac’itr"o! L%”:o"r thlfo^V and one-half tons. 25. -Farm (Crop)" - A parcel of land comprising an area of ten or more acres that are in agricultural use. 26. -Farm (Stock)" - A parcel of comprising an area of ten acres or more that is used to house and feed six or mor animals or for the raising of food. 27. -Ground -J.^.t„%Yv?flet ort\V?Sun^^^^^^ finished ground surface lated to Li^t of building °Lirbe^teaVur%T/^^eTe"r%^^'LVild\V^ lot. " ^ ^7 fa) "Guest Auartment" - An apartment within a IpIrSnent" frtrSit)?“n®\hV principal structure, such door being the primary access to the apartment Source: Ordinance 29, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 ORONO CC 244 (4-L-84) _____S 10.02 — w accessory separate dwelXingr ^ .„\=“%%\smi%naiviaaa^l=t for tHe^soIe use_o.^t.e 1 / occuoants, including their recuiar lot requirements / / guests, of the primary cwexli-g- aii . I shall be met by the guest house. ■^omisg":—Municipal coae_^ Effective Date: 9-14-6/ n srtv ^t’^ucture# biaclctop or other 29. "Hard Cover “ - % w'th the direct absorptionT.ateriai which interferes to any degree w-th .ne of rainfall into the ground. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective. .-Date; —- / / / 30. "Home occupation-^- Yn‘'“on\V /all of the following 'that Icoupation is conducted residing in only, when evidence of the oocupa- within the principal siens other than those tion is not visible -.^om excessive stock in trade permitted in "R" Districts ^^® P”|®e^counter retail sales are not is stored on the premises, occuoation is gained from within involved, and entrance to his residence for the structure. A P^°5V/eatment^or perforM^ of religious rites consultation, emergen / _r,c*-ice of his profession when """ or"ac4c"e ^i^J! in^o^“rth%" need for^more than three off- ^^-?e®e\ packing Spaces for the occupant and visitors. I I ORONO CC 244-1 (4-1-84) h. ;:\»:iLTc:; • ?oi:<T r :ati •.TA, 55391 FlA.'WrC C0KKIC3I0** CITY 07 CBONO P. 0. BOX 66 C3YSTAL BAY, 5^^; Plans Pualop John Cuthris Hicharrt Kaasel Oors* Hoafisld Jo SUsa Hurd Gloria HcDonal'* Csntlsasnt * I With to pot**ntL*\ln»»i»ww pvw-'V«r and abovs those alrsariy paid on^ ;*^of July 3, 1977, covorin- %n:atin^ of land h/ Horan to the City of . aari lArtzelli aa^cwnwin* propeawl ^Ti^n o* the mcU, thor. th ."Gxur*' fa ther • on the ""/tCMt Ibe request of •a :*.:i .tin5 •I, tor': *■ gDvuv'. -■•— "T" f imX a‘^he*^<7> oi^fhr''' * vv:''- -N . ‘ r>ru">:'trrL/v‘^tr»,e raanninc fW^^oaaiael«7*^and the City -'•x'.ril ;\t neetin®?*ln'’'eonnectlon vith'the (cimnted) Horan ••<^. «^v*’applloatlon for a care.T“ vrirlAnc**, when the inaccuracies of the Plat at the HennepinC, ■’^■^^•CoBBty Ao(later of Deed's v»'r' -:a > nanifest by the Moran surveyi and appLleantS' uaie• .'.jrT^jca^aeated* as the City ha-' •''' >j '“et to do this, to provide at the oumts * expense, ».- '{j^'ran'aceuxate eurvey arK* rr*''v>r description of the actual road‘and the propertiee7 be vacated, with all thrr« ~ro*erties concerned Joining in this.so the City could -^;->tahs action to correct th« It - an’ County Records to confom with location and usageV%*g . ^ ■ , . . ^ -------------------------- ainee the roa.'’ war. in circa 1931* Ihis has bsen dow^per ap^i^tion, at mse of tin* ar.' noney to applicants, to do s done by t.V tcwnrhip or county bsck in 1931* the saee psotin. ~ *’__________ — « *w» m «s<M«arww ><‘.'^*1??.'^ •.'•■. i. ‘£.j^ '(►Ar** .• ;hc >’omns were urged to divide the Moran propscty to?'' *^; ’I■M^’pcovlde a asparate tarabl' lot for each of the two resideacea that have exieted on..^' the'Property aince circa , with one or the other being lived in V.r and the other ranted since nb^ut the..................... * *" * * ’“'' the Noxmns in this connectir . late thirtise t and the only costs aentioned to . '.•tiM fNsane ux wus connecter:; that of ths application fee and the rather conelderaMe ..^^astxa survey end legal w^r'; rr^uir«<’ as coapared with continuing the present HQraad^tte l^Jatatne, “•‘Ve were not aade avarr at any tins of the poesibllity of a ^000 *Psric ij^BMalty for doing what the lit'- had requested, utnil aTter-our application waa subuttM, VT uSd f)Ml thikt it irould be ^ntir^^ly unjust to assoss such % psnaltj for slapl/ dnvlxiS ’ ^____________«------------------------------- -- »e^ --------lino botvMfi 2 rosl<*enceG thnt have existed hero for 60^70 jmts end boon jeylnff folX ^ ^ --------------------------- d*------;taio tljiw - whilr :ity was Havliv auhalttad a conbL-.'?'* ar'^licetlon and ot^tarwiao cce^Liad^et^oanars* axpanao • of the -Ity, V#* f#»oi that it irouXd im aa^klr# Da PoaVf^tOt to aaaaM^^ paiH with tho apTdicatloOu • X . • ..• • y\:-’ •’ * ^ ^ a pro.-npt cecision on this , , ^ ^ poosiblo cn OU3* application, . •^1. .1 • »■• >7. »■ >r*;. HantT{U^jMi'VIpainietzmi %, 555^ ■. •*• * * *.1 A *, • * '• 1 I ti ( TO:FIVM: MTE: SUJECr; PlwninK Cosnission 5 Council A. P. Olson, -\s5t. ZoninR Aiiiinsltrstor July 13. 1977 HMdlton Morm • Ca^co 5®J^Li?*vacatlonSi^vision (Prrlininary) and Street Vacation #28 Hr. Moran Is requesting a division of his uould ttiMd tm) separate hones. heSTlil^iA sU^Uy exceedliif themult In t>*o parcels, each wi^ ^e^ tte honM ana eaoi^ ^ i - - **- --• (21,780 sq. ft.) area re^T^^tOJ WS «£ uiy line as lots is bs5ed IS50O a revision tere. but narrcMa to .62 ft. 1/2 iv: f «■ ^ ‘.w'* ^.^requirewnts. T1 letbeck variances.1IW ; • 4 1 revision involeasr right of way to t^“ street location : "S.* - L«e A ^ Proeoaed ad^tionai vacatiou acrvia ... .-...- - —~ - .rmmai OS utesani VK»o^ ®* “r is 1KdSS/S- vtopoa^ rm^(Sed'riiht if -.V is _______ Yawping with City requirements for a 50 ft. to w xi. A pi^lic hearlaf has been scheduled for August 1, 1977, at 7.45 p.o. _ PLMMINC OOM4ISSIGN fCETIiT. - August 1. 1977 Andicmt.« pr««t • no othor intorest-l i-rtles. 2wne>m of alloirtnp the subdivision to enable each separate duelling to its o2i*lndividual pr^rty. Discussed the disadvytages lSe^ioce«^(caiTOt*^Ii^ minimr: dock setback the earlances required for the existing building^ ***** **"•fleets of the concurrent proposed street rl^t of way changes. Ptd>lic hearing - Street Vaca-ion. Di*9®*^*J* ^ri»t*ofpStttog ptSfow. but also the necessity haying si^iciart rl^^ width to be pemanently adequate. Planning Cowaisslon felt t^ wepr^?®^ 10 a. offtf^fwi theHic—widaticn of a SO ft. width (.5 ft. offtW was wroiuwx^ ^ effteu 60 ft. width fbrp»d)lic streets. Planning Coartsslonjais«najrnBa of this on other Casco Point properties and on this prepoaw *wdlvlslfln, M» uM hTIouU b. teluetmt to <tedie.t. ««. thm iO ft. B nnlltt OOMiulon t*led both 5uh(Uvlslon «d v»e«a«w eP^lH!'--H'V:for .staff » ‘ V' _________ *. o • • - . . . j;,..., nij ••i . , . K *• '■■ • » . ■, e # • . w r .‘v.'aV - • •’ .^•« »,• * -..' • ••■***“ . - v,: • 's .* • a- #a89Hadlton Mwm • 2965 Casco Point SiMvlsian 6 Street Vacation Page 2 STAFF - August 2, 197/ /•■nterline of ^ this pn>nos>l: rmrm\vw^ 1 400 t*t. ffOBI H* MOTW- gJi;ssS ’ ^ fr s-SJJ??•; Citr*»c.t« j ! hS»uCity voceves 3,*oo sq. it. to .t «Uti^vs. effect on proposed^ • ■ . • • •«* • • • i»- « ^. •••*'-• - —“ “ > V * • r. “*•' '** Stt'^acre I ^i '■ ''\/“«■., /„T- C- -T^J- Ai. A- dWi-nmM proposetl 2T 2V 2X 20 20 ?S:S|| - 'i,'-' n -"nill'iiiii^ ,443 acre ,423 ocre • '-t: • wr “ »»”'" “”i“.?iii‘i!*.sssyr! f*^£"rjf “■ '“5, lot* . . • ..V.:- ■ -•>. :^^iot Vu •• .Cwv^ It*' -r T /> yiOCo tvUWiM 0GM4ISSICN ^fELTI.‘JG • Au??ist 15. 1977 ss“»JSs S fKrcTK*"-K ”^s ?«« 'ciioflstaioes. Tabled. ..-s. • vStAFF • August 16, 1977 ;SSfJSS!-5.i^rg.gJ^^ :: %«-BAh soponrto «pp2i“«®" :.,. .'. • .-v‘m .. .-i ^ ‘ • ,^•^.'^>•1 v.->. ■ . .•> *1 •*#• ►•V. •*• . * I it I.$ }; T #» • * r •.I • I?v I 1 « ;■{ .1 ft U I • I I. .1 li !!.-Brilton - 2?63 Ct'-cc “r;*.: ~'idPage 3 J t// ^Fvri'TrR'S RF\'TEK* TIic Cit'" " ••'ir.'c'r ."Uid I visited the site again ^d rexic^cd the oT ?hc •• ,.nVro;..rty. the 10 ft offset is at SC pavement be>-ond x^hich is .v-r-' i ..t-'Iy ’ ft. of ditch and then anotlxcr S ft. jo S^ft. -:o ••.c’ditdi. Hierc arc trees near to the top of "^1 tixe Perrv nroperty there exists a wide ditcn xn ... .__________L 1C h/.vnnd fhe navenent edB( of cut earth hank which en’"' the bank and alwiR it*; ton .. ’ t!ie renr prorercy Vv:‘::veiV>nt edec. culvert opening. Hie top * e ’itch is v^ry near t° • • v being fh the Hartrcll property is .i tc-nis - airt and a fire aydrant, the h)drant g approxinatclY 10 ft. off i\: • v—rit edge. Ili5 r«comcnd.tion$ to no .o -..t :!.c City sl«.W Tiri.fn- r- t^« court«bejgBn1r^iTr-*^r! - '• ^c. but.the p.rh^* would be'^ ’be "'r.in \-acatlon, ut#ditc] i would be private*. On l’.c ''r.m \^catlon * " - * - City 5h''n!d 117 lintennee can p ^in the f'ltiire wi lard Omo >itroe Knt. V / iUJCruMJ * -t i. - - t* ■ 1 • •> • ^. ■ t. ditdiawid renain p»i>lic. ^ the: I'pCT'.Mf, '< «r ■' ■ ■: ’ r ■' ::SSJ^ SB’.tv' etionv chfside aff that d allow o reduce » City •.ttorrev to he ^ clear p-.Mic rocor»«^»«»i^jiiii ssrto the tax rolls. The proposed de<hcation. s-^t^-er rjJJ should retain ?,"2 ^Tcl^l Srticr fhl'T.irtl^ SSjiTJ'lMfvia-Uy acted on for each affected oreperty. COUNCIL POUQCt Council will ’'e ^pc< August 22, 1977, neeting.• . t V)COTCIL MEETING - August 22, CC-Kll discussal the S»''-i-.-^-::”T"LJ^th%,«oS‘%.J^^ b'“»5l.r “" -■ S'aJ^'bouw'Stita Sot”‘r-’r!'is Killing to rol?n<,ui$h and not ptcas for the entire width. STAFF - August 24, 1977 Field neasuresnents arc .«^hctn cn the attached copy of the survey, ofj^t at the dedication area. Recoppcnd a 12*13 ft. . •‘i V; •a* f •• eV» . ’ ••• , •*' be r* »■* « ■'••. *• •j* 1 ' • > * . V J / .*, %f ' •'* .-1^*' V ’. i « . •*•’. ^1* ^’* • ■'.* *■ W 4 Ifandlton ?tonm - 295S Ci<co rnrir "'.end Subdivision - Street VacationP»«e 4 #289 5 I ReviCMed Cotncil and Staff direct >n .ind latest infonnaticn. Recorrended the following: Morm Subdivisian (Preliniaan-i : '•^rox-al cf the subdi\'ision including all necesMfy variances for cxi^tinr '-'lildinr setbacks, lot area and lot wdth, subject to * dedication of land for a rtM ic street in the anoimt of ll ft. fra we centerline of the existing travel led read. Recomended no park dedication fee due to bo hoaies existing for mnv ve.ir'j. .Vacatioa: Vacation of all o'" • Central Avenue” (Casco Point Road) beyond 30 ft, ||j|gjj||||M of the cMStin^^«gjM|gi^|^^ of the rx,st^a|H||»|M ition of ol 1 ft. offset wilj vbile let'll iring;^ > • ing all utility L ^Sap tea ber 12, 1977 ^ AoMoeid separata resolutions to \>acate ^ mMlJM of travelled Casco Point Road. An»ro^ pwiimnwy^* S «Stj« »f' j «:A^J?S!i‘*5Jr*LJKiS^S2t2S Sd SS"— COUNCIL MEETING - Septeirher 21'. 1?‘" f^p pgof^ all thrae street vacation resolutions: ^teran, Perry* Hirtxell. ... • OOmCIL - January 23, 1978 Approved resolution of final plat approval. No park fee due. Tract C oast.be dedicated to the City. - -V'-V '\:v' • i: - - . *.• ii I ■ *.« *V ' f.4^. R • V 4 e% », • . V * * ^‘v . ■ • » • w ■. * -t.S *“V W:> ... . -^... • ^ / -n*.; •%*- ‘ •*. t* V*-.». * «••* ^ • • • •» Sf -:.V :■»• •■* •-•■S'-■'■*-•■ - :<r ■ . f . . ; w ... . . - * %' ..- ^ .•., ' • ‘. \ *1-; .* V ; r* . • > ••1 ijif S5S )in Sqjtembcr 5, 1995 • * w SIP ^ 1995 Planning Commission City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE; Land Use Application #2062 Dear Sir/Madam: Brenda Henney and I are the owners and occupants of 2941 Casco Point Road. We support the Application of Ted Rozeboom and Josephine Knudson. Sincerely, wp6.l/orooo To:Chair Steve Peterson and Qfono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator From:Michael P. Galfron, Assistant Plantting & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: September 7, 1995 #2063 Gerald and Candace Rowicre, 377c Baysidc Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA. One Acre Single Family Lakeshore Residential. Two Acre (Sewered) Application: Request for hardcover and setback variances to reconstruct existing deck within 0-75’ setback zone Pertinent Code Sections 1.Section 10.22, Subd. l/Section 10.55. Subd. 8/Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (C) - Required lakeshore setback = 75’. Section 10.22, Subd. 2/Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (L) - No hardcover allowed in 0-75’ setback zone. List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - Application Plat Map Property Owners’ List Survey 1976 beck Plans Hardcover Calculations Resolution #2492 (1988 Approval) 1976 Approvals Pertinent Facts 1.Existing deck is located 58’ from the shoreline at its closest point. Existing deck was constructed as pan of an addition to the house in 1976 pursuant to variance approval (see 1976 constnicticu plan). 3. 4. Deck was constructed at a 10’ rather than IT 9" depth shown on the plars. The deck is deteriorating and needs to be replaced. Applicant proposes to replace the deck in kind I ( Zoning File #2063 September 7, 1995 Page 2 5. Hardcover in the 0-75’ zone is 4.0%, comprised as follows: House Deck Patio Rock beds with plastic Retaining wall 434 s.f. 423 s.f. 170 s.f. 107 s.f. 8 s.f. 1.142.s.f. (4.04%) 6.Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 31.1%. of which 7.8% is landscape beds with plastic or fabric. 7.Applicants received a variance in 1988 to coniiruct a small sunroom on the street side of the house. That approval required removal of a 146 s.f. portion of the concrete patio on the lakeside of the house. TTiat portion was removed. Discussion The existing deck was constructed almost twenty years ago per previous City approvals, and applicants propose to replace it in kind. It was noted during the 1988 variance approval that applicants had never removed the 20’ x 20’ concrete slab at the walkout level, which they had agreed to in 1976. As part of the 1988 variance, applicants were required to remove the southerly one-third of that slab, but were allowed to keep ihe remaining 14’ x ?0’ due to an ice build up problem in that area (see documentation from 1988 and 1976 variances). Per City policy as recently reiterated by the City Council, excessive hardcover contained in plastic or fabric-lined landscape beds should not be considered in variance applications. Council’s intent is that applicants be required to remove such excesses as a matter of course. Therefore, the rock and plastic in the 0-75’ zone (adjacent to the west end of the house and in a small part of the free-standing rock bed west of the house) should be removed. Although no work is proposed in the 75-250’ zone, arguably that rock and plastic should also be removed. There may be justification to not remove the rock and plastic adjacent to the house where it serxes a drainage purpose, but the free-standing rock beds (portions of which are not included in the calculations because they are in the right-of-way) could be made non-hardcover. Issues for Consideration 1. Should additional ponions of the concrete patio be removed? What ponion of the rock and plastic on the property should be removed? Zoning File #2063 September 7, 1995 Pace 3 3.Does Planning Commission have any concerns regarding in kiiKl replacement of the existing deck ("in kind" is intended to mean replacing it in its existing footprint and confieurationV? 4.Anv other issues? Options for Action 1 3 4 5 Approve deck replacement with certain hardcover removals (specify them) Approve replacement with no hardcover removal conditions. Table. Denv. Other. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION 0^ 0 Initial Application Fee $200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Rene'Aal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conlonning stractures S-CO.OO After-the-Fact Fees (Double application lee) Tf ’i ?41 PROPERTY INTORMATION U-^ ! i\ ^ Hr AllSite Address_____ ___________ Propcm' Identificauon Number (,P.I.D.'>^_------------------------ Arach legal descnpuon to application if_not Date Prppec5c<Acquired_____ tCc<^ir^----—LX-------------------------------' I (dojfl^ not)Also own the adjacent parcels of lana. ^ PreseVtST^r^ropern': X .residential -----other (speciry)^---------------------------------- Zoning District: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- DOT rravT Phone (home) 7 i~^/ /CO------- "tie d. cL:0AC fJ^cL'2B. APHre.7 ^ c- Ir cw_-J!2£i£^----------Ztp. ^SJS^ 0\\'N'ER (if different than applicant) Name___________________ Phono home) Phone (work)_ Address:Cin*:Zip: description OF REQUEST - Estintat^ConstnictionCostS,,,^; fi?V‘ 00 Describe request in detail; ^ —--------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Width Setback;From Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) or imusual propern’ conditions preventing comoliance with Zoning Cede requirements: (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1. 2. 3. 4. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of Ihf f«llo'»ir. infnrn.ntion must b« submjn?'l hv thf i^pplication deMiia^attiaariig: for vour application to he considered comDjete; Completed Application Form , • t.- Cenified Property Owners List of owners within 150 (you must obtain this list from Hennepin Countv Department of Finance. A-603, Govt Center. j48o-/l). calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S/z x ll for Toposrap^^^ sursey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/:" x 11 for reprc^uction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S/i x 11 ). — Usi of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the nropem'. This would include name(s) ot applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list ot any other persons you wish notified of this application. __Additional items as may be requested by City statf. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The Applicant and Propertv Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your .■ori..nL A.miirp.inn ii not' compl«f if Ihe above information has nol hetn iiUjluteL The*apptoiu Lreb>* agrees to provide all infomution required or requested by the Administrator agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by ortginal fee a" corl^utonfexpenses' incurred in review of this application and certifies that the inl'ormation supplied is true and correct rojh^est of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature ^ ------------------------ ^e^w^r^here^v tclll^edges and agrees to this application and further entrv' onto the propertv by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification ot this request. DateOwner’s Signamre ________—-------------------------------- Anolicani must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Coi^ission Meetinc^ Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each mon ^ ADoUcLits must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission ami Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meetmg, please m^e arra^emen to have an audiorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Buildmg & Zomng Offic this change prior to the meeting. 8 N Jt j\ •■«1 i ut '^ «w CMOks CMOH<J»V*i!IIIIk.C««•3 1n °1 4 <*• ■k C ^• 4It>4 («l U)J id 5j )C ' V) M m C4 ii. M » 14 ^ f« ‘AJ h ‘0 M t i V. <4 3 0 •J* 1 ( s *30 || J,<4» ■M <«y • • • i\ .4* -J r. %ouuol i\5i^fy A> \itnM t/ ^ <.4-JV«>-« ■•" / *. •, i- A 7 (LANDMARK DR)/^ \ AllLY NO* lb‘4€*t \ • 4 ► « ^ «. 0 c»M \. 40 141 ^ 0 r\t ».J 'Jlf 53 •*4 Ol_ . ■ ■■' ; *1 • • ■b Crf rsj cn '4 0* •* •. ••...* 0;X n------- Ul ,'.V 69. T6 *0 6^ 98 » 9 50’0^-4?-f )<9.68 o ^ \ *4 fTi rr .CD |*^« -1 fb7 61 NO*65'4>'f . 1 si S; 1• ^ ! »o 4 • WJH DATE 07/ia/^MTCN MS HEItCPIN CCXJNTY PDOPCRTY INrODHATlON SYSTEH PROKITY QNNERS LIST MOP ADOK (M€R NAME TAXPAYEII . NANE/AOM MOP AODR CMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR V PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR r- PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR '♦*% % * % » PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR n rs PROP AODR OI«4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR * ^ ' M I « . .• » ♦ SR 05-I17-2S 21 OMR 0S7M BAYSIDE RO D J PARR HOMES INC D J FARR HOMES INC 11405 ROTH PL N PLYMOUTH m 55442 SR 05-117-2S 2S 0034 MOSR ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LANDMARK DR HOMEONNERS ASSOC LANDMARK DR HOMEOIO€RS ASSOC C/O LEE C HARDEN 175 LANDMARK DR LONG LAKE MN 55354 3R 05-117*23 24 0100 OOOSR ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SAC GARDINER STEVE GARDINER 3770 BAYSIDE RO LONG LAKE HN 55354 3R 05-117-23 24 0103 0003R ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SAC GARDINER STEVE GARDINER 3770 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 05-117-23 24 0112 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND S8 05-117-23 24 0119 00038 ADDRESS PErJDING JOHN A MARY JANE BURGER CHRISTINE A GARY VALERIUS 3750 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55354 REPORT NO. PI43540I PAGE R38 05-117-23 21 0020 03750 BAYSIDE RO JOHN A MARY JANE BURGER CHRISTINE A GARY VALERIUS 3750 BAYSIDE RO LONG LAKE Hi 55354 38 05-117-23 23 0035 0003R ADDRESS UNASSIOCD DIANE EVANS ET AL MARK A CARENA CASEY 255 LANDMARK DR ORQNO MN 55354 38 05-117-23 23 0037 00255 LANDMARK DR MARK L A KARENA S CASEY MARK L A KARENA S CASEY 4320 ENCHANTED DR MOUND MN 55344 3R 05-117-23 24 0082 0003R ADORESS UNASSIGNED DANIEL P CAHILL MRS DANIEL CAHILL 224 N 5TH ST DELAVAN HI 53115 38 05-117-23 24 0101 03770 BAYSIDE RD SAC GARDINER STEVE GARDINER 3770 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 05-117-23 24 0102 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SAC GARDINER STEVE GARDINER 3770 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 05-117-23 24 0105 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HErtlEPlN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO DRAINAGE A CONSERVATION 5-18-90 ST DEED R173541 38 05-117-23 24 0111 03775 BAYSIDE RD 6 R A CE ROHLETTE GERALD L ROHLETTE 3775 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE Hi 55354 38 05-117-23 24 0115 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 154753 38 05-117-23 24 0114 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO CONVEYED 2/8/82 ST DEED 141148 ■•X f TOTAL BATCH 505 00015 • . • I \\lih.il l.v i! (1- Jl* o -O zm i^fs *S52 §ig H5Cg >m :• L «5 *5 S«9 t:'!!. ?* |1 *t MHI |s» i!t »• • #i Pi ii> 5 ^ « I i: .i iT::U f •• :if; M ZT !! it * * l\ t ■ = Q _£03)05j?s n-' \ o mO oooni mmm / V)V - x'-V\\ X. \ h CS"” 2 mo5 z5"SSiS< SSK® > W'-Wl>' I ;»mmM V,” ^ I ■ \ . ! !l : 4lop/g 1 > i t ! I! ■yrr r* • . » _<<rM * '*'• M 5^ • » f --------- gL»VATIPfl|9«i!V.17C -p-riftPCP J^iVfc « M>U Cupir*(i ■OUTH ■l,«VATtOM ". ■ ?• X .> •1WOllTM KLKVATiOM 4 nmiiii Hc#Te€.: Hev4 ir^cci^cp Of* iiize iHpicKpc^ M&C |zAk5Kc5f£i-i \t^P\Ck^V P4^ Mxe 1- 6^‘* •cf T *^».u wars r» E>t\*SX ^•Cr<Er^ evist au.^s ^-4C»\r«a Vihppr** CiUze AUu Hck» W w-CupEp ■i.«VATICllW gWiPB TtrJff^sp J4. # Ad.t puo\r^ VOO^ s ^ • • $\ VJ Unn '«'! Ill (.1 • !'!■ il 1 x-i'-t," V ' y. ‘V- * fL.f-^ rt- * *1^* ^ m 9t\ .' ' ‘ «» t « f ♦ * * ■ i ^ I • * *•«• * • •'^ * • * \ ' • . ,r^' V.f ;• •, ^.^:.*-y. . ;*•' * .: if;.lI'V- i'l-jc' tt r - 4. ‘ ' t -»■ r ». • RKSs::: tsrz--: I WT «t.KVATIOW ■•< ■'; ' ■*••' 1- • . .-v:* ' n * \\ •’»■r -# ■ * *• '.1?. i « ♦*“ '*. *v ^ *% ■‘ i' .. • ;' ; •' “'^ M-L e»\«l ^iwr^o, T& »»HOvCC> Bn-OMt'fJJL) bux* in:<ipBP • 14/ ccpf^ putMccp W‘<l^:»’>^XTtrH»s ‘o.c *ArfMCt? dvJecit,At.|: ^^»<:ViPE. X* fU*^WrVi MA* v-U?B\x^r^v- tF»r1 M.U fir* ir^HU PrW W/ » PtrL:^.s ifkvte. ' .5 U“ . ». ^ / , '*• •% • / !r^ ip f j ♦V 1 4 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING hardcov er IN ZONE hardcove r CALCULAy<jj^s vri5^5^fE:eN. ^ ' ) , ;o^ 25-500! ' > ,;-=«500-1000^: v \ ,4; w ly ^ ' S.I-. 1 Length X WuiL*l i dip R>HP ;i 1 DOCJ<C 1 1 X s.^ 1 w B, Carace ^ A ‘i *.C t Drivcwav *' — • • • • • ^ > . J Xn% ^ . 4 <«•.* «• •• • D. Sidewalk ^ — • • ,»X Hr '■1 E. Pai ’o/Dcck ^ - 1 il X PAT to P Landscaoe - • Underlain ^ - Bv Plastic ^ - 1 •; Or Fabric y/ooO ■. r. Other / 8» * - a f; ' • r •i TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A (M2 - B _ /• 4*PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A Hou^e . ^ -• • « t Length X WiiJth BS. SS' «« • • •• • B. Cange C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabrie X X O. Other X X X X X X X X X total HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area IN ZONE ^ ♦A* ' • * • - ——’ • at ■ -«««« M • # • • • • X 100 "• .1 ( 123/ ) S.F. €xccuj>fi m •• • H ( ) S.F. • ••• S.F. S.F. S.F. r« S.F. i S.F. 4ES'S.F. /7^.S.F. l(?7 •S.F. S.F. • - • » S.F. s S F. JHZ S.F. Aza. ±•S.F. B 4.% • « • • • • S.F. •S.F. S.F. S.F. p 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 ■ ...........—--------S.F. B % % fr# • 4 :v >* Roujcfrr^ hardcover CALCULATRI j^L VVUKKiUEEj SETBACK ZOiNTE; (CmCLE 0^^:) 0-75 ’75-250 ’25-500’500-1000' EXTSTINC HARDCQVT^R IN ZONE A. House __________ */ ~?03 S.F. Lenf;h Widiii X X X •S.F. ‘s.F. ‘s.F. •»« • •• • • « B. Garage S.F. C. Driveway X X 610 S.F. S.F. D. SidewaJ):X” X ii5.S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. .S F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric- X X X 830^S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other PAO 16 2.6 z S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 132 7______^ B /r? . *7/^ X 100 3327 S.F. 70.-7to t S.F. tO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ ^S.F. Length Width “ X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage S.F. C. Driveway X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Paiio/Dcck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X •S.F. ' •• S.F. S.F. Or Fabric • . • • • t «* f • • i — t S.F. G. Other I* total hardcover in zone total property area in zone + BA _____________ X 100 - • S.F. " S.F. ■" % • % • • • •• 14 A B A D 1 CITY OF ORONO City of OROIN'O RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2492 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO municipal zoning code SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 PILE #1314 WHEREAS, Gerald ^ 7 Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property ), and WHEREAS, the applicants 6^^V) t” p*erm*it"hl to Municipal zoning Code Section 10.23^ existing residence, to be located construction of a sunroom addition street yard setback is normally rf"exrs\\Vg“SVv^?“isTn^ O-ll I'aheshore setback tone where no hardcover is normally allowed. Minnesota; HOW, THEREFORE, 3E IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile il314. 2 The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Risidential Zoning District. ^5. f,88°rnd%«o™enIed°:^p%“vri rf^th^prop^ef v^HncrblSef uplh the following findings: l'^n|-'!rs^*nd"^°oof“iinenrt1,e"%x^^^^^ merely f’H^in an existing indentation in the house. underneath. C) The proposed sunroom addition wi^l not have any jj^nifioant offset on the character of the neighborhood nor will it en upon any neighboring views of the lake. Page 1 of 4 CITY OF ORONaii City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^^92_ _ _ _ D) The applicants were granted a variance in 1^76 to major additions to the house» which were approve^ lake- conditioned upon removal of a 20'x20* concrete patio the lake shore side of^the house. That patio has never been applicants' hardship in needing that patio or a ^ T•o^a^e«! to ice build-up and winter access to the house in ^LS^iinction with his existing wooden deck. The existing concrete TlabTs in three uLts, and the southerly portion can easily be removed without causing damage to the f®”?coie? portion. This will result in a 146 s.f. reductxon in hardcover in the 0-75’ zone. E) Although the total hardcover on the property is less square fiotage then would be allowed within the 75-250; «ne, the fact that a significant portion of , hardcover,is amcle justification for reduction of 0-75 hardcover, especially in this case where that hardcover was previously required to be removed. 4 The City Council has considered this application i^^cluding the f*indinos and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by cJty st\f£? co^ents%y the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5 The City Council finds that the conditions properly arJ peculiar to it and do not apply generally to ^her vrorertJin this zoning district; that granting the variance would not Adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely se , oLIZniLce to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demon­ strable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial nronertv right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLOSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Rased upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono rouncil hereby grants a variance per Municipal Zoning Code Section Subdivision's %) to permit the construction of a sunroom addition 10.23, street lot line where a 50* street yard setback is nl™aAv reguired, and grants a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to additTonal structural hardcover on the property when a significant lorlion of Ihe existing hardcover is in the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 4 CITY OF ORONa City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2492 1. The applicants shall remove the southerly 7.5'xl9.5' portion of the concrete catio in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, and no buillinrpermit for the sunroom shall be issued until the concrete patio section has been removed. 2. Hardcover on the property is allowed as follows (in 0-75' and 75- 250' zones): Existing House = Existing Attached Garage = Existing Driveway » North 2/3 of Existing Patio « Existing Deck Not Over Patio = Existing Walkways & Rock Beds Underlain by Plastic Sun Room Addition == (over existing hardcover) 1,509 s.f. 552 s.f. 552 s.f. 263 s.f. 329 s.f. » 615 s.f. TOTAL 3,820 s.f. (per Exhibit B, attached) The applicants are advised that the maximuin allowable hardcover on the property is 4,850 s.f., and that no additional hardcover will b allowed in the 0-75’ lakeshore setback zone. 1 Authorities granted with this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be medication for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 12, 1989). 4 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. 5 The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree *-o ^he terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their 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 12th day of September, 1988. ATTEST: ✓ }uaj2j2x:^___ /frothy Hallin, City Clerk ____________ CITY OF ORONOJ city of OROiN'O RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. __________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 198$^ -.pea.. the person(s) describea in an /thev) executed the same asinstrument, and acknowledged that he (they) execu his (their) free act and deed. C:-E . :• =c"EnS0N ^ ‘nnesota jMY MY COW )ss. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) j „ f » 198_» before me On this_ _ _ _ _ _ __ - said County* personally appeareda Notary Public within and for said to be the __ _ ___ _in and who executed the foregoing instrument, !n “°a"ckno«lldg^d that he (they) executed the same as hrs (their) free act and deed. notary public MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 t.CAU^lir ACortlfloiito or Survoy;I horcli/ cortify tlvit t'du Is » tru j and coiTOct rcnrcscntf.Llfin of i rnir\oy oi ’ tbo iK'unl'irl'JS of (A)Lctr. 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, U, 19, 20. ?.l, 22, 23, and 24, Utt.ovillc on L'>kn I-'.lnnolonka , KXCiJ''' art i f 3'.Id Lot;; Vj, 1^ , 19, 21, an-l 22 lyluL Sr\ilh'»rl:' of II lln« c<rnuTi UMrallel vilth and 30 fuit Lorthoa starly, -------- ' r/janurnd at rl* Lt nnido: , fron i. I1r.ii iior dnn .'t.jr ;••! .Vrra.! to i.r. "Lino H" .» ild "i.liio twin. dororUi'd ut •'ol (k. jf«-nolnr uL Lho Lorihu.ISt cornerr of t,)>o ticutloast quirUr of ILo LortLvio^t i.uirtor of A:c- flin 3. Tcunshl-.i UV North, k-inro 23 .tost of U<i 'Ah .'rlnclo.il Morlrilr.r; Uionoa ;lruth nlonr the '.lost Un.; of said :iontiii..is L qi i.rtor of th« llorthuost r « cllsOirce of 234 foot; M-oiioo doflocUnf ’ riK».t dorrcos n dlctonc o. /) 11.0 iKjint of Imrinninf of .said "Lino H"; tLonoo doriortin,; loft 83 doproea to tho ooiith- erly OKtonsion of the itast lino of s.sid Ix)l lt>, ..ml saKl "Lino !- thoro cnolr.,]; (B) TJint port of l.nke 7iou Wonno ,.nd U.ko. Street as dodlct.ii! tn the jilat of ‘ £‘s;„:=:,Sri, IWstorly un|?ml u. 5nl.l ™r.e > dl'.r-i of 802.•• ..Ion.- .. l«ne^nU..l c..rvd t i rl'- > l^^UaLd curve u. . 300 feel „r.d coul r.l am lo cf 4'. d.,rrm c » dlctanrc of 234.02 f.mli U,.„.co f i mro^MlI^.. Dolnt on the V'.** t line of U.*; .'.outlv a.st i ii.nrtor of .'-.aid Nortliueat uiwrter of o-jction otul a«l n-in» A" ^ fending P^m: . o?nf th- ;.oinl of Ui.-lonlnr of the .ro:.rty U;ir... aoscrii-id. th-co T'^rv la ‘oruko’. to Its Ir.tcrcecUoa ulih the f.crthorly oKtcr.slon of the LesUrly Im. of Taeroia \ Minnotc,th. nre Lout.h.ir ly .-.lo.ir : -.ld Lortherly extension U- the ikuthcrl ' line of said ' ^n.traL. nraalHiaat uasLorlv elonr said :>out: orly line cf Lake Vlou A''«n.io to the ikst line of sal * Lake .^Lreut; thone.- ooi.th al«.n|. aal<1 U« Jr uirstn.i trj.rijl..rac ’rticn ulU. a lino dr.aun ...rallcl vllh and 30 ruci 8„rlh.,.,alorl,. n.,:,aumd at r.^ht .ndlca. from a line L-Jivin.ftcr referred to ns "Lino D", snid "Lino h" JsiinK .lo.srrilr;d os loLLoua: u.c t 11 n.r ' Co«»cncin,- ..t U... Cortr.vcat errmr cC m.ld t2.ut.lv,.,at ...v,rl.,r „r Ih.. turtt.vcat 'I""'’''-:; ^JuUn... of lK)uthefi:.t Qiinrtor of tho l:ortliwest q\iarter u dlnisnr^i of 234 U.«!nrc icfloctini ri| * RT ^ of *;0 fo^l to the ,..lnl of 1., innln,: «f said "Line H"; Ihe.u-e duflecttn,- loft 8.3 decrees said Ust line ot Luke Street, nr.d sal i "Lino there ondlnij, . . lu v. «,i Hm. rf Ue Soul.he;ir.t qmirter of the North- tl.enco Northwesterly alon,; snU nrallel lino to its In terser tj or. 1. '• ^ ,«rt of sale Hix^c-doccrlLod property ^et quarter; thence North alone »«id Ltisl line to tl.-) ;x)lnL o; «t^rm,nc, kvOtu. T « “t ,«rt of . m "JuK llorthcLv or 0 linn 33 r»«t Ooulturly or, nenaurod ot rlchl nnr.lca to nod |«n.llul vlU,. old Llo, A , (0) ' That ,ort or tl.o llorthc.al ..unrtor or th. Oou-J.uoat o..,rl..r or ""'jf ’ knr., 23 tuat or the 5th ITlncl«,l Mnrl.llan, H??'V n» sMd'unJ A" "uJJ n“ l-LlrJjJJrlbJcl ll roUoua. eosterly of a line hureinuftor rtif'jrred to as Lln> I) , t e f\^ t aimrter of Iho Ilorthweat quiiPtor; thence ConEonnln,! at tl.o Kortlionat crro.ar or aald „r tho Nortlmoat i.uiirtor n dutnnee or 234 root douth oloOG the East Iloo or said rorthccat “f the .«uttoat ^ ^ „„ to tho point of bei/innlne of sold "l.ino A ; thence donoctinp r ( ni f«« thence deflectlnr 83 decrees to Bold ^Llne A" tiiera ending, said |x)int lieln..* the point o'* beginnlnc ot sold "Line B , thence tieliectinc "rt u line drawn parallel with and 30 feet Northoaatorly. «oasured at right anirleo;. frwm said "Lino B", auhjoct to on existing easomont ter road purposes, _ • . . i wr TO: nCM: a\TT-: =“. ?m^on f». P. ^^ich. -ti Oit-> Mfirch :5. 1P76 o{c*isrd Pc'flette • 377S Btyside Rosd V.iri^nce - Lakeshore std Street 5ietback Mr* IV*¥lette rrerntW r»irch*5ed the old Bett property at 377S Bayslde This Is th. vith tdiich p^vlous problew of rifht-of ^ way encroachment resolved In 1975 thru a reaiTaivieiaent of Lake Street. •%% • TTie location of the rTirtin? <fc<ellinx does not confbrw to the street Ji.v- setbaeit wouirenmt of ft. and hardcover and lakeshore setback require- pant of >3 ft. Mr. Roviette is nor requesting variances from this set­ back reqatrement for nn addition to this existinq structure. TTie proposed 36* X 2S* a^itioi consists of a dininq room, second eatinq space ard a t?fO car qaraqe. The setbacks of the nroposed addition would be 66 ft. frop the lakeshore and 2H ft. from the street oropertv line. Therefore, the variances requested would be 9 ft. frop the lakeshore set­ back requirement and 3o ft. from the street setback requirement mid variance from the 75 ft lakeshore hardcover setback of 37S sq. ft, for the existinq construction and 400 so. ft. for the proposed addition for a total of 778 sq. ft. of hardcover. The existinq structure Includes a 20* x 20* concrete patio deck facinq the lakeshore. Mr. Rowlette has a greed to itpove this 406 sq. ft. of hard ­ cover and replace same with a larger open reibfood deck if the setback vaiimicri are approved. The naxmain area of this nroposed addition extending Into the 75 ft. lake- shore setback would not exceed 200 sq. ft. This would result in a net de­ crease of haidcover of 200 sq. ft. PUWiNH owTssiw .^fnrrrvr; • Anrii s. 1976 The Comnission recomended to the Council approval of the lakeshore and street setback request conditional unon removal of the 26* x 26* concrete deck being replaced br e non-pervious tvr>e decx because the City would gain a 206 sq. ft* in hardcowr. CDwaL «Enwc - aphi 12. 1975 Approved * .1 1 AmiCATION FOR BUILDMC PCRMIT AND ORTinCATE OF OECUPANO vnuoi OF OFONO, minnisota DMfCTlOHie 9ACCSNUMKMCO 1 TMlHi 13 MUST Sf ^ILLCO >N (KPOUf MMMT rs rsuf O or Tv^l 1 SlTtAOOIItS W 3363 3 OATS g-lc-Pi * V j' vV: S AUCMTtCI .* * • SUttOCS • : *A« |Tol. Mi I ? TTFtvwom • Sizt or STSUCTUSt (WMii) (Oi»») ^24-II. conniTnNMTC I 114 rm OR cowthuctiw 17 mONTr YAHO I NO or srorics ia. morcfiTY oiMfNSiONs IS. MorcrTYAAfA « rr_________ It ftEANYAtO riMATEO COST10 EJTI •'/f.(9aa 13 NO or families (If Apo<»cMii^ It LOST AOEA rtN EAMItY 30 ILT__________________ 19 SIOC TAMOS 2A -/-/-?■ •7(<' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SIGNATURE: tw adton F»r*«i rvqutttod, Wwl ••• •••••*"•***• •'o and «tal all wof* Fiarain mantiooad will b* dona in accy yct wil »a ordinane# of Iho VtUAGE Of OiOPIO, 9» Stalt of Miwwada. and rulinga of Vw IKiildino OapaHmanl ITUM aCOMlT Ml stati mi /V. ^2 00 ^/sir.oototal rtt ZONlffC OfSTINCT riAE ZONf agcmegate floomamea FLOOM AAf a MATK> MATERIAL FILE WITH OrrSTREET rARRMO CONSTRUCTION FOOTING___ FRAMING FINAL. ctRTiricArE or occufrnct nmo ,. mM [ TO: DATE Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator September 8, 1995 SUBJECT: #2066 Robert and Iris Waade, 1487 Shoreline Drive - Variance - Public Hearing Zrming District: LR-IA. Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acres. Application: Request for side setback lake setback and average setback variances to constnict third level addition with pitched roof over existing two-level residence with flat roof (additions are above existing structure). Pertinent Code Sections 1. Sections 10.22, Subd. 1/10.55, SuM. 8/10.56, Subd. 16 (C) - 75’ lakeshore setback required for structures. 2. Sections 10.22, Subd. 2/10.55, Subd. 8/10.56. Subd. 16 (L) - No hardcover allowed in 0-75’ zone. 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 - No average setback encroachment allowed. 4. Section 10.23, Subd. 6 - Side yard setback required = 30’. Building height maximum 30 ’ nr l^h. stories. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey with Proposed Additions and Removals E - Staff Sketch (Site Plan Before and After) F - Hardcover Calculations G - Structural Coverage Calculations by Applicants. H - Building Height Ordinances I - Construction Floor Plans Pertinent Facts 1.Lakeshore setback House Deck Existing 21’ 16’ With 2nd Story Proposed 21’ 16’ Requirai 75’ 75’ Zoning File #2066 September 8. 1995 Page 2 2. 3. 6. 7. Side setback Existing garage (attached by rooO Existing house Proposed 2nd story/roof Existing 8.3 ’ 25.3’ Proposed (no change) (no change) 25.3’ RS3BSI 30’ 30’ 30’ Average setback encroachment Existing and proposed house: 13’ Existing and proposed deck: 24 ’ 4. 0-75 ’ hardcover (0% allowed): Existing Proposed Structural Non-structural Total 2,832 s.f. (28.1%) 2,932 (29.0%)* 1.124.5 (11.1%) 564.5 (5.6%) 3,956.5 (39.2%) 3,496.5 (34.6%) 5. 75-250’ hardcover (25% allowed): Structural Non-structural Total Existing 684 s.f. (4.2%) 1.953 s.f. (11.8%) 2.637 s.f. (16.0%) Proposed 732 s.f. (4.4%) 1.059 s.f. (6.4%) 1,791 s.f. (10.8%) Lot coverage by strucnires (proposed) (15% allowed) House 2,205 s.f. Garage 1,032 s.f. Deck 427 s.f. 3.664 s.f./26.620 s.f. = 13.8% (No variance required) Building height (30’ allowed, maximum Vh stories): • By definition : 28 ’2": • Lowest walkout level to highest peak (for illustrative purposes only ): 46 ’9" • However, because a portion of the lowest level is 12’ in height, it is considered as a story by the Building Code, hence the proposed house will technically be 3 stories in height. Summary of Proposal Applicants recently purchased this one story walkout residence which was built in 1959. He proposes to eliminate the existing flat roof, and add a third level to the main portion of the house, plus 10:12 pitch roof overall. The addition and roof expansion adds significantly to the I Zoning File #2066 September 8, 1995 Page 3 bulk of structure within the 0-75’ setback zone. Virtually the entire house is within the 0-75’ zone, portions of it being only 21 ’ from the shoreline, with deck only 16 from the shoreline. Likewise, the proposed addition is entirely within the 0-75’ zone, and will raise the lakeshore facade from its current approximately 20’ height to approximately 46 ’ height at the new peak. Clearly, adding this much mass so close to the lake will have a significant visual impact as viewed from the lake. This 0.6 acre lot is subject to the 2 acre standards, i.c. 75’ setback from the lake, 30’ setbacks on either side, and 50’ setback from the County Road. If the house was to be tom down and reconstructed, it would be further limited by location of the existing septic system south of the looped driveway, the driveway seizing the neighbor to the south, and the purported Indian mound between the driveway and the County Road. The septic system is conforming but there appears to be no location for replacement if needed. This property is within the Bracketts Point area for which the City is being petitioned for municipal sewer. However, at best municipal sewer would not be available to the property until late in 1996, if that project goes forward. There is no proposed change in the defined number of bedrooms, it will stay at three. Planning Commission is advised that Mr. Waade realizes the third level addition may be too intense, and is willing to consider other alternatives to yield some additional living space, with the intent to end up with at least three garage stalls and converting from a flat roof to a pitc^ roof. He has indicated that he is interested in removing driveway hardcover and is requesting direction from the Planning Commission if approval of the third level proposal is not acceptable. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. 3. Is addition of a third level as proposed, justifiable given the close proximity to the shoreline? Applicants are willing to remove the bituminous walkways on the lake side of the house, and would like to replace them with pea gravel with no fabric or plastic underliner. Is this an acceptable form of non-hardcover? Will expansion upward of this house lakeward of the average setback line have a negative impact on views from neighboring properties? Additionally, will the additional height within the substandard side setback encroach on sunshine enjoyed by the neighboring property to the north? Are the proposed hardcover additions and removals (yielding a net hardcover decrease of about 460 s.f. in the 0-75’ and decrease of 846 s.f. in the 75-250’ zone) a reasonable trade for the approximately 148 additional s.f. of structural hardcover? Note that the existing overhangs averaging 4 ’ in width have not been factored in as hardcover but Zoning File #2066 September 8, 1995 Page 4 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. comprise some 1,400 s.f. which would be reduced by approximately 60% with the proposed 18" overhangs. The area of rock and plastic between the driveway and the existing front entry has not been listed as hardcover by the applicants and a portion of it is below the overhangs. This area is approximately 400 s.f., of which about half is below existing overhangs. While removal of large portions of concrete driveway is positive improvement, the proposed backup/parking apron (item G on the survey) needs to be relocated, since it encroaches over the existing drainfield. Knowing that there is no feasible alternate septic site, what degree of improvements to this property are justified? Should any improvements be allowed until/unless municipal sewer becomes reality for this property? Would mere transformation of the carport into an enclosed garage, and conversion of all roofs to pitched roofs, be acceptable as part of a remodeling of the existing house withm the existing footprint, as an alternative to the applicants’ proposal? Further, what is Planning Commission’s view of changing the carport to livin2 space, adding one or two stalls to the end of the existing garage and placing a pitched roof over the entire struemre? Clearly there is an issue of additional side setback encroachment, but at least the additions would be in the 75-250’ zone . . . Are there specific hardships or justification that support any of the above scenarios which add to bulk of struemre in the 0-75’ zone? Is it reasonable to allow the creation of a pitched roof to replace the flat roof, justified merely by the aesthetics, or can applicants provide technical reasons why the flat roof is unacceptable (is it leaking, is it a maintenance problem, etc.)? Options for Action 1. 2. 3. Approve all setback variances as proposed, including proposed hardcovet removals and additions (subject to relocating backup apron out of drainfield). Approve only placing pitched x)f over entire garage/carport/one story house struemre, with proposed hardcover trades. Table for applicants to bring back a revised proposal (give applicants direction as to what additional information or parameters are required). 4. Combination of the above. Il Zoning File #2066 September 8, 1995 Page 5 5. Recommend that no changes be allowed that recpiire variances (i.e. only allow interior remodeling). 6.Other. CITY OF ORONO - VAIUANCE APPLICATION Initial Acplicatioa Fet S2C0.00 ^ (S50.00 per eaca additional vanance; Renewal Variance Fee SICO.OO (no chanse from original application) Variance fo’r non-confcrming sL-acnires S-CO. Arie:-the-Fac: Fees iDoubie application *e-) .V o i ■ -r*v r* . ■. i ‘ • • ;OPERTY I>TOR-)UTION ,7)^. Site Address__l^A-4—^ r n i J----------- Procertv' Identificauon Nurrxer C 'jr „q, included on required survey. Atuca legal deacnpuon to a^hcauon 'f ______________________(monAvyeax) Date PjX£er:v.^.Acquired_ nj i ^ * ^larZ I (do)(5dTn^lso own *'___other (specify)--------------------------------- Present use 01 propert>. ‘ Zoning Dlstrxt:----------------------------- Vome r^O ^— ■— —r-rc- ^ddreslITSlSSb ^r-11 ^ iDTi — OW'N'ER (if different dm applicanO Name _ ------ Address: Phonethome) Phone (work)_ Zip: cctimnrpri Consmiction Cost S_, 0, I C(X^ > description of REQL-est . Describe request indetail:n\ risk v Cdhshe-<^\ SCES REQUIRED ^ ___Lot Coverage Lot .Area -----Lot wiatn ----- __ Average Lakeshore Setback:Front Side ___Other (specify)------------------------------------------------ „:^SK.»,»ySC^»S•sssssssr^r^ in<,Jii'ir.LUIDSHIP/Dt^c^-- property conmuou. » ♦ a!£3S:? ?f»S§Sr, lArcl. ea^«i ‘ CWO «ieMM.cL f-v't- cHu-V-Vur -to 0.ca.vV fc£.:> CfyrUP^'Ca J REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All Of th« followin. informaiion tnu^ h> o.hmitted bv the appli.;atipn deadline jal; i.^ordex for vour application to be considered complete: 1. '—w j. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. C°Sfie“prop«.^'X “nc^^ of owners within 150 ’ (you must obtain to list from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603, Govt Center, j48 j2/ ). Plat Mao (obtained with propert>’ owners list). .... u 4 Cemficate of Sur^•ey (signed by a licensed sur^•eyor and mcludc hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one ( ) copy ^oJ^mpSrsurvev (existing and proposed elevationsHf any c^ges in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 81^ x 11 for reproduction Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'A. x 11 ). List of the legal names (include mantal status) ot all persons with an mterest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). AS L addendum to this application, please anach a separate list ot 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 to application. Please remember tot Han anniicntinn ix no( complete if the above infonnntion ha.s not heen mtlMdsd. ^JTapplicant hereby agrees to provide all infotmauon required or requested by ^8 Adntostrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff ttoe not covet^ to and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of to apphcalion and certifies tot the information supplied is true^ correct tojhe_^st of lus/'her knowledge. Applicant’s Signatun Date X members for purposes ^f^estigatio^d verifiwuon of this request. Date ^Owner’s Signature this change prior to the meeting. 8 i ^ data "•»637.0^ T-161. 47 1071.9 CRIEH TREES OH TAHACE* LAKE GOVT LOT 2 '.I - «. • •: *ik‘> i <4! I ■ 4I I• » LLb»^L Ut SCRIP ri UN IfiMJRMAlION INQUIRY CQDC 103 PROPERTY ID 11 117 23 SCH DST 278 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST XFPROJ f EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .SO OWNER D n Ik E A SCHHITT « PROP ADDR *14 7S*“ SHORELINE DR ' TAXPAY N/A DOUGLAS R & ELLEN A SCHMITT 02/18 147S SHORELINE DR UAYZATA hN SS391 LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID 11 117 23 SCH DST 270 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ f PAGE 23 0002 HUNIC 38 DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG CONDMN t * LOT PREVIOUS OWNER NEXT » PSC C PLAT 41311 PARCEL 4417 VERF legal BLOCK APPROX PARCEL SIZE IRREGULAR TRAM TtATFA A^/Oa/R'l NEXT* PSC C PLAT 43340 PARCEL 1010 EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE OWNER C MOORE INO SPECIAL TRUSTEE PROP ADDR 1491 SHORELINE DR TAXPAY N/A RICHARD HARRY EVANS 05/15 C/O CELESTE MOORE 05/17 13325 SOUTHRIDGE RD MINNETONKA MN 55305 .00 PAGE !3 0000 MUNIC 30 DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG CONDMN • PREVIOUS OWfiER R H EVANS APPROX PARCEL SIZE Ul75X245XL105X190 TRAN DATES 11/01/94 02/08/93 / / LOT VERF legal BLOCK LEGAL DESCRIPTION INI-ORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID 11 117 23 J3 0009 SCH DST 278 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ t EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OWNER ELMER S CONOVER A WIFE PROP ADDR 1409 SHORELINE DR - - ““ TAXPAY N/A ELMER S CONOVER 1489 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 PAGE MUNIC 38 DIV STATUF LAST STAT CHG CONDMN I PREVIOUS OWNER NEXT ■ PSC C PLAT 43340 PARCEL 3025 VERF LEGAL LOT BLOCK APPROX PARCEL SIZE Ul30X245XL132X245 -^4U LEGAL DESCRIPTION lr4F0RMATI0N INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID 11 117 23 23 0010 SCH DST 278 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ • EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OWNER R L UAADC «i I L UAADE PROP ADDR 1487 SHORELINE DR TAXPAY N/A ROBERT L 4 IRIS L UAADE 1407 SHORELINE OR UAYZATA MN 55391 MUNIC 30 DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG CONDMN # PREVIOUS OWNER PAGE 1 NEXI ^ PSC c PLAT 43340 PARCEL 5200 VERF legal BLOCK APPROX PARCEL SIZE U130X210XLi20X24S LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID 11 117 23 SCH DST 278 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ 9 EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OWNER D L I. M H VERGEYLE PROP ADDR 1485 GREEN TREES RD TAXPAY N/A DAVID & MARGAREf VERGEYLE 1405 GREEN TREES RO UAYZATA MN 55391 LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID 11 117 23 SCH DST 278 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ • EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OWNER C & S PLATOU PROP ADDR 1400 GREEN TREES RD TAXPAY N/A CARL & SUSAN PLATOU 1480 GREEN TREES RD UAYZATA MN 55391 PAGE 1 NEXT « 23 0011 PSC C MUNIC 30 PLAT 01120 PARCEL DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG 04/10/81 VERF LEGAL CONDMN I LOT 001 BLOCK 001 PREVIOUS OWNER APPROX PARCEL SIZE S4B5X240XL180X196 TOAM nATCC 1 1 /A1 /9A A'l/AQ/9'1 A / PAGE I NEXT • 23 0016 PSC C MUNIC 38 PLAT 01128 PARCEL DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHQ 04/10/01 VERF LEGAL CONDMN # lot 006 BLOCK 001 PREVIOUS OWNER APPROX PARCEL SIZE IRREGULAR legal DESCRIPTION INFORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID 11 117 23 23 0017 SCH DST 270 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ f EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OWNER C 6 S PLATOU “PROP ADDR 30 ADDRESS UNASSIONED TAXPAY N/A CARL N 6 SUSAN PLATOU 1400 GREEN TREES RD UAYZATA MN 55391 MUNIC 30 DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG 04/10/81 CONDMN # lot PREVIOUS OWNER PAGE 1 NEXT • PSC C PLAT 01128 PARCEL VERF LEGAL BLOCK APPROX PARCEL SIZE IRREGULAR LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID 11 117 23 23 0010 PAGE 1 ' I Vv IT • • SCH DST 270 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ f EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OWNER GREEN TREES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC PROP ADDR 30 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED TAXPAY N/A GREEN TREE‘S HOMEOWNERS ASSOC C/Q JACK 0 rOST 1515 OREEN TREES RD UAYZATA MN 55391 ADN GREEN TREES ON TANAGER LAKE MUNIC 30 PLAT 01128 DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG 04/10/81 CONDMN • lot PREVIOUS OWNER NEXT ■ PSC C PARCEL VERF LEGAL BLOCK k ■ r * METES / BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OUTLOT B TREATED BY DIV 9 801290 DATE 80/12/01 APPROX PARCEL SIZE IRREGULAR TRAN DATES 02/08/93 ADDN DATE FILED 11/17/1980 PREV PROP IDS - - - - - - - - 11 117 23 23 0003 i: 117 23 23 0004 11 23 23 0005 11 11/ 23 23 0006 11 117 23 32 0012 SUBSEQ PROP IDS ef'i ti- I:;' t:,- « ■ t * .V •. ♦ • • 1 > r I / - Jli 1* ■ I >■ >• r i I -V :X rt :• 1 # C“>. ?> •;a:ero \ >■.} ill H? [i j*«. - s li Hii ^4 f A ?U t ?5 r t 5 .I' ;ji ill ti: A ' iS‘ •D m *D j)mo o:o /r^‘.c - 'C?# * • '1 -C^’r^T^-'-. ■< .j0- • »•. m'^4M / A % • ^m. / v.\ * rvy o ^ ■-Sj- HI rUMIf ^-d ‘>-’y ‘1 ro.\rouk , trvc 1 i .-I.^1 ■4 ''V r1 (r^\# •< .* • ’v- >\ r S.X * r.J . t t 1 • # « \ V.'V li y',' 'll y/w^o LA>^ \ I «• ) I .. fOOTS . //ijSPi^cT'/OMj- S>€VTT M/i-C e:^J(i./Aj €"tr/i//0G Dt^ P5>t/A)bA^f70AJ AT A)^ a•si i > > ii' I rr .n <4 1 V I '' 1 M€-^ F*f^T fX0o€.p«M •tlos %m IT p(ZDpt>StfCi |'^<W Ft»oi€ t •*'•• £/l57rAid> IVIa/AJ ^U x>(K S 10.02 m 11. "Boardinghouse" - A building * definite hotel where, for compensation and by periods, meals or lodgings are provided for three or more persons, but not to exceed eight persons. 12. -Building' - Any structure having a roof which may provide shelter or enclosure of persons, animals *each Shen said structure is divided by party walls rate portion of such building so separated shall be deemea a separat building_^ 13 "Buildinq Height" - The vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above thl lowest ground level, whichever is lower and the top of the So°p%"^o'srpo “iL^“ Trou^l o^%fhJr af="h type rol or t.e'average building height. Source: Ordinance 101, 2nd Series 14. "Bulk Station" - Distributors ''f® materials which are stored in tanks above ground in aggregate capacity on the site of 6,000 gallons or more. 15, "Carport" - An automobile shelter having one or more sides open. 16 "Cellar" - That portion of the building having more than one-half of the floor-to"-ceiling height below the average grade of the adjoining ground. I6fal "Clean Fill" - Clean fill shall consist of all -• .oiit as described in the Unified Soils classification considered clean fill. source: Ordinance 47, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-22-88 17. -Commercial Kennel- - Any premises where three or more domestic animals over six months of age, are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale. 17(a). "Commercial Operations" - ^'Id^r K is conducted bv the sale or exchange of goods and/or selviles on site for money or other valuable consideration. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 ORONO CC 18 "Commission" - The Planning Commission. 243 (4-1-84) § 10.23 Subd. 2. Lakeshore Set Back, Hard Cover, and Tree Removal Regulations. {See Section 10.22). qMhr? 7 Permit-ed Uses. Within the "LR-IA" One Family LaReshore lesidentia^Mst^'rct' no land or s^uctures shall be used except for one or more of the following uses. A. Any permitted use as regulated in the "R-IA" District. subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any "I',''-!*" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no oermit*be used for the following uses except by conditional use perm . A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-IA District. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any Jh^ll^^e^a Lakeshore Residential District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory use: A Aiv accessory use as regulated in the "R-lA District and 'private docks' sub] applicable regulations, including boat storage npnfii .,y - - - iubd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thilty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. be observed: lots. The following minimum requirements shall Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard S ide Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street__ Rear Yard rs^es 200-feet 30 feet 30 feet 50 feet 50 feet SEC. 10.24. LR-IB ONE FAMILV LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. purpose. The "LR-lB” One Family Lakeshore n.iai District is intended to provide a district which willResidential District IS residential developments and allow a Planned residential developments iav'be alibied by conlftionai use permits. The proposed land ^ 4.nHanaer the auality of storm water runoff into Lake may ‘ Because of the location of the district Minneton a *or Long Lake, special regulations are to protect these natural resources from the effects o dlnle development. This district shall have immediate access highways and public sanitary sewer. ORONO CC 284 (4-1-84) I*: ti; < I !'i I < dr WAAt?e >- N,,/l5 ’ 6-'2' fc'«>-«! S »•; ‘,iu?T cov;eiiACie e=^ *.iB,ocrruitj& it I Ir ;•» !*• I I'. I! !’i I •I Hou*?e- DS<HP 2.1 OS 462. tp 4-2.1 t}> (^1 4-■Z£>i&ZjO * U«H% iXfT &\2€.t>2o (,1«> (4fco 1*40 (f««ewA»( 'at") • 2<», CrZo ) Auuovo/wppte- sTUociolie. oooew-6,€.: , V?7o «T- 2<^,620 » i. |, *4’ c>VA»^S| : 14*2/2-ktcuetfCL • I t« 1 r^l M ii ! . :;l»•! J'i >' ■ ‘t. i;' M ‘ I • j :7-‘2'<-Tjr lAJ&ftDS- ^-1 f j :- •' O- C4>0 6{2^M2:»€- I*-* pfZoruX S’lClH'T L-IwC tKlST. V^'sC' - qci^^r. P€cjp'. t>Zo 4-Ln ifc 1041 <P fiBvJ ^Ci^foo p.^eot2- ■' 4?>'2- tp Exi-sr. Poof. •STPocTurte AP-'SA' o " '7^ z^/o^ •f' o*vfA^<a:5 :5^.-^ tb i<5>-•zofje » 4’ poof- ^3 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _________ 250-500’ L«nfih Which .t B. Carag^ C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X n s TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ■ A - B X 100 PROPOSED hardco ver IN ZONE A. House______________ Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL AREA IN ZONE B \o I X 100 500-1000 ’ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 6M- A- S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. {uSy^.i^ S.F. /5".‘76» S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 'Xh'l ‘‘’V S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. rnj_^o_s.F. O S.F. % 1^5 V • *• . ‘‘A, A B A B HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) FXTSTINO hardcov er IN ZONE A. House_______________ 75-250’250.500*500-1000* Length Width B. C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/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 S 100 ppnPOsr.D If Annrnvrn IN ZONE A. House ______________- ■' ---- Length Width X X X B. Carafe C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X total HARDCOVER IN ZONE X 100 s.r. s.n. M s.F. L f s.F. ^5»cx?S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^A.\9s S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^ s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. s.F. tV _s.F. s.F. <1 A B A B • m ^ji To: From: Date: Chair Steve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron. Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator September 5, 1995 Subject: #2067 Bruce and Terry Clark, 625 Old Long Lake Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, Two Acre Single Family Rural Residential Application: Request for side setback variance to extend existing attached garage List of Exhibits A - Application B - Adjacent Property Owner’s Acknowledgement C - Plat Map D - Property Owners’ List E - Survey F - Site Plan G - Construction Plan H - Topographic Map Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.28, Subd. 5 (B) - Required side yard = 30 ’. = 23.7 ’ = 23.4 ’ = 30 ’ Pertinent Facts Existing side yard setback Proposed side yard setback Required side yard setback Variance = 6.6 ’ or 22% Discussion Applicants propose to reconstruct the existing attached 20 ’ x 20 ’ garage and extend it rearward an additional 10’ to make it 20 ’ x 30’. The side wall of the garage is not quite parallel to the side lot line, hence the setback of the extended portion will be a few inches closer to the lot line than the existing garage. This addition will slightly raise the roof liiK above the garage, but it will still be below the roof line of the house. The neighboring residence is approximately 30’ from the lot line, hence the separation between the two houses is approximately 50-60’. Lot coverage by structures including the proposed garage, existing house and decks, is 5.2% of this 1.0 acre lot. Applicants ’ hardship statement indicates that the existing garage is in need of major repair, and the location of the existing house constitutes a hardship The neighboring property owners are aware of the proposed addition. Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission finds that there are no reasonable allemalives to the requested vanance and that the hardships presented support the variance request, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. Planning Commission motion should include the hardships and any conditions of approval. I f CITY OF ORONO - VARL\NCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S 100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) V *. j r: V . ▲ w • ‘ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^ ^ Propertv' Identification Numoer (P.I.D.)____________Jij ~ -^003 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Dale Pro^rty Aciired___________________________________________(monlh/yeart I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels ot land. Present use of property: s/ residential __other (specify) Zoning District:_____ •• < .* .* Phone (home) _ Phone(work) ¥77- YY 77 _ Address: A/- Cit>’: --------Zip: APPLICANT Name Phondhome) y7S~ C o i nrry Phone (work) Address: ^.City:—(2^231-0.---------- ^P*--------- OWNER (if different than ^applicant) DESCRIPTION OF REQLT:ST Estimated Consn-tt :.on Tost $ ^ > Describe request in detail: P" At S r 't^A— A VARIANCES REQLTRED Lot Area _ Arr /T"/c? (attach additional sheets if necessary) c Ptt Lot Width "yL Setback:Front 2<Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF LTsX'SUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements: prtfienT —6 ----Ll— . /T' /s /AT A/treP___q _EL___Af/fjajz ----. / (9 ■ 9 A // 'TA /( kr f ^ ^ ^---- -7% ^ 7-VO^ O t^. ______oll J/i Ar- j>rf ^ t7 c /o ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 4\ > 7~f Tlu 7~ C A AAo /f a/ ^ nf A. ! S o REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the follo\»in2 information must be submittprf hv the application 4?adline date iq order for vour application to be considered comoletei 1. >2. J C°rtffct«o/tnxy’(Signed by a licer^ed suneyor) and mclude ^haricover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy So«apWc survey (existing and proposed elevanons) if any changes in existing grade S7ofe^. In iddiuon. provide one (I) copy 8^ x or Sketches or plans of floor & elevation vie*s (provide one (1) copy 8-4 x II ). L^t of the legal names (include mantal stanis) of all persons with an mterest m the property This would include name(s) of applicantis) if not curreni o»n«(s) 7^Tddendum to this application, please attach a separate list ot any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Aoplicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that youE annlicniinn Is not colPriMe if the above infpntiatiQn hpi not hwn liKlMdcd. ^ife7nplfcrhe«b?at^^ provide aU imortnation required or requested by the Zo^g r! aerew to pav additional fees (statf time not coveted by onginal fee payment) ^■rc?r7imnfe7-«’^torred in review of .to application and certifies Uu. the information supplied is tniejndcorrect to ihe^besuililis/her knowledge. Date 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. -Applicant’s Signature OT’NER and agrees to r^isapph^^on and further authorizes reasonable ^ry^r rprop"Q“^, consulta|r^. Commission members, and Couned members for purposes^/estigation^^nficaoo of this request. ^ ^ ^ DateOwner’s Signatun . r nr m„« hive all submitta/^to the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Applicant must h ^ j jo^Ieedngs are held on the third Monday of each month. this change prior to the meeting. 8 I j eJ- A y i J -• ^ ' y V J ■•] r>_ nN.nerV Ackn^N^fcdgement FomKAdjacent Pro pern 0"Tier , of [print rume'vS)] ;/ I (we) 1 Z.WT oM /on^ fal«^ <0*0 [print adi^ss] ^ .•f^nrove-'-nt or proposed use of the property located CJV Q ^— I (w., un..:snnd t,-.. in a? project or use requires Council approval. .xec.d.g uus z r“ ter project or use requires CouncU approval. Property Owner Date Date to ihe scheduled meeting date. I iUN DATE BATCH 507 HEMCBIN COMH BROKRTY XNFORHATICM SYSTEH RROKRTY OMCRS LIST RENRT NO. RI4SS40I RACE 12 » I PROP AMR CMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAIC/AMR 38 34-118-23 31 0004 00038 AOORESS UKASSIGNEO STATE OF HINN STATE OF Hl^il lOHRI I LUCE ilNE TRAIL! 38 34-118-23 31 0007 000l8 AOORESS UNASSIGNED D R i A C NARNER DALE R NARNER 37S NAREFIELD RO MAYZATA m 55381 38 34-118-23 31 0017 00375 NAREFIELD RD D R I A C NARNER DALE R A Alii C NARNER 375 NAREFIELD RO NAYZATA 111 55381 • t PROP ADOR OmER NAHE TAXPAYER NAK/AODR 38 34-118-23 32 0003 00425 OLD LONG LAKE RD 8 D CLAiaC ATS CLARR . BRUCE D A TERRY 8 CLARR 425 OLD LONG LARE RO NAYZATA m 55381 38 34-118-23 32 0004 00445 OLD LONG LARE RO J 8 CROQR A H L CROOR JANES 8 A NARY L CROQR 445 OLD LONG LARE RO NAYZATA NN 55381 000838 34-118-23 32 M340 RUANN RO 0 S RNIGHT AHA RNTOIT GERARO A HARY AI8I RNI6NT 340 RUAm RD NAYZATA NN 55381 ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 38 34-118-23 32 0010 M350 RUAm RO PAR STUDE8ARER PAUL T A RAY R STUOEBARER 350 RUAm RO NAYZATA m 55381 38 34-118-23 33 0003 00038 AMRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF Him STAU Of mm (MR! I LUCE LINE TRAIL! 38 34-118-23 33 0004 00050 HYRTLENOQO RO S A H CNAHPLIN STEVEN R CHAHPLXH 50 HYRTLENOQO ROAD NAYZATA m 55381 I OmER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 38 34-118-23 33 0011 00030 HYRTLENDOO RO J 8 8ESSE-LASC0URS/S S RIETZ J 8 8ESSE-LASC0URS/S S RIETZ 30 HYRTLENDOO RD NAYZATA m 55381 38 34-118-23 34 0001 00038 AMRESS UNASSIGNED NAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB NAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB P 0 BOX 151 NAYZATA m 55381 TOTAL BATCH 507 00011 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AM TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHAHON AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEmEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF NY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF . \ •i r CERIIFICAIE OF SURVCf FOR BRUCE 0. CLARK III FHE UCSI 1/2 Of THE SU 1/4 OF SEC. 36-tie-23 MENREPIN COUNtr. MINNESOTA -M A 0 lEGAl tiCSCRiniUM 1li4l PAM u > lil^ Nest U4|T Ol llic Southwest quirter ni Sertion 36. towii'.hlp ltd North. Itanqc 23 West of tl.*‘ Sth PrlncirAl Npridlin. descrihed is follows: Peginnlng it the point of 'ntcrsfcttoil of the Cisl line of Slid West hilf of the Southwest quarter ind the noriheily line Of the MInnesoti Uestern Riilwiir; ihenre north ilong the Cisl line of Slid Ucsi imH 21I.46 loel to the centerline of touniy Roid No. 2/; thence deflect to the left 93 degrees 21 nmutes ilong me centerline of the roid 239.IS feet; thence sniitheflr to 4 point in the northcrljr line of Slid N iiImijp r i giit‘Of • wi|. which point IS 23U.G** f«r. wtMerIv. «eisurrri 4loi»q Slid Riilwir r i giit • ol • wiy . frun the point of heqinniMii. iiiwurr «4Mnr*v a Ioihi seid Pjil«4jr ri9M.nf-»4v to the poinl uf t••glnntn9. U4te S-21 -ill Scilc: I" . t'V • Iron iSi ker this survejr shuw\ ti ' locitiun uf in tkisling house m relwiion to the boundiries of the i* tore cJcscrited proierty. It does not purport to Show 4h|r other laprovePenls or encroich»entS . Ileirinqs showit |ir iSSuned ililua. 1 )iun<l :j m Vo /"' so’ I hereby certify thii this Survey wis prtpirtd by >e or under ay direct supervision ind thit I i« • duly registered linU surveyor under the liws of the Stitt of Ninnesoli. COfFiN I CRONBERG. INC. «• «« *1 rt£NN£=:‘i rOUNTY. MINNESOTA . ! CI k 5* / ^ //* < r. > j. •✓ fcr: . ^ i/ ^ ' A . » ^ ^ V'«* ,/> "V ^ •^-~ ^ '* P// :^>crO «>/»••»* /*■ ^ .. ^ •d •* c i) * ■.' I 1!• » • ! 1 j • 1 ♦ i f 1 i » ! ; 1 j 1 * t .1 (^v-fu'^^rTy^ ,?w/' ;> ^/ CO P ^ t 'f d /' / // S^S'l r- /(• /^c <5 ;t.o ^5 .vw/r r/r^if-f A-icy,' /*'/ S/^ftuf'^S,V-y */ /5X7 (J/JzJzzii'!' '^<-- <=^CP (»<• l)/i r 905Tftrrr^/r • Tw»»vBr/FrT • TERRVBUiLT • TERRYBVJLT • TERRYBUILT • TERRYE v/ I / •■' mj \n G'^- A r-•-.> ^ /- y /^<0 ij/i// \t 3 5/ !(> it Q) Pe .t^cvr TVu ^/<- c ^ . •/C <- .1? C7 ;•:u/' A C i>^e kJAli » Z'' // ^ .^c./' /•'<' (?j?A< .^:c7>f<r (fJtTl, i/9i< V * * ^ yf ^CcuriCi S\zt^ r I {?tft. $ • txo^ /r,// po^f~ (??/ A^/» //> v;'© fix) Pco^ D^. - 'Tc'oovWrrfr'T • ‘Te*»wv»frfr.'T • 'PwrowvRrrrF.T • TfrryS IT •'•rS ^(T% V.* -^, '**' v. V*' 1 \\.X^ i*<x ■ f / .,c^ *X / - [4 <.■•$« .( j^ ^ Q\J(>‘ ^et^D ^oor /<rTc ^ ^ (0 ^O'' 1 . '¥'«*?»«»vWrrTT'T • 'Tb'oovUrff?▼ • 'TwoovRrrfF.'r • 'TwrwwvRrfrr^T • TKRRV^J TO;Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM;Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE September 6, 1995 SUBJECT; #2068 Pat and Kathy Smieja. 4040 Watertown Road - Variances • Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IA, Single Family Rural Residential, 5 acre, Application: Request for setback variances to construct two additions to the existing residence. Pertinent Code Section 10.27, Siibd. 5 (B): Required front yard/side yard adjacent to street setback required side yard setback = 50’. = 100’ List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Site Plan F - Proposed Floor Plan/Elevation Views G - Screen Porch Addition Proposal from Application #1956 H - Site Plan from Application #1956 I - Resolution #3465 J - Staff Memo 8/10/94 Pertinent I mU 1.Based on the zoning code defmitions. for this triangular shaped lot the lot line abutting Smbbs Bay Road is front, the lot line abutting Watertown Road is the side street, and the northerly lot line rear of the house is acmally the side lot line (see Exhibit J, page 1 of August 10, 1994 staff memo). ■J Lot area excluding right-of-ways = 1.28 acres. 3. Lot coverage by strucmres is proposed at 2,230 s.f./55,900 s.f. = 3.99%, well within the 15% allowance. i Zoning File #206'^ September 6, 1995 Page 2 4.A.Side street setback (Watenown Road) Required = 100’ Existing = 30’ Proposed = 51 ’ (Large addition east of existing) Proposed = 25 ’ (3-season porch addition, west end) Variance = 75 ’ or 75% B Side setback (north lot line, to rear of house) Required = 50 ’ Existing = 42’ Proposed = 32’ (Large addition) Proposed = 46.8 ’ (Three season porch addition) Variance = 18 ’ or 36% Application #1956 The previous owners of this property, Tom and Chris Smieja, were granted variances on September 12, 1994 to construct a 1.250 s.f. footprint garage/living space addition directly east of the existing house, plus a 14’xl6’ screen porch at the west end of the house. That proposal included a new basement plus two stories, and would have required significant grading work. It was approved subject to fencing off the septic system, removal of the detached garage, and review with possible revision of existing vegetation at the driveway entrance which inhibits wight lines. Current Proposal The current applicants, Pat and Kathy Smieja, propose a less intense addition. With a 36’x28 ’ (1,008 s.f.) footprint, the addition will be only a lower level garage with one level of living space above it (see Exhibit F). The proposed screen porch addition at the west end is also included in this request, although the current applicants may delay work on that part of the project. Note from the elevation views that the new addition will be vertically offset from the existing house by approximately 3’. Only minor grading is expected to be needed on the site, however, a grading plan should be submitted with the building permit application. Other than a reduction in footprint and height, the most significant difference betwwn the previous and current applications is that the easterly addition will now be set back approximately 10’ from the front line of the house, ending up approximately 12 5 ’ behind the rear of the existing house, approximately 32’ from the north lot line. Note that the neighbor ’s fence is approximately 10’ north of the actual lot line. Zoning File #2068 September 6, 1995 Page 3 Existing vegetation screening along the north line as well as along the Watertown Road boundary, tends to decrease the visual impact of more than doubling the size of the house. Further, applicants have removed the 684 s.f. detached garage which formerly abutted \bc north line, in favor of the proposed attached nick under garage which consolidates the garage into the principal residence sirucmre. As in the previous approval, the location and capacity of the septic system rt a concern. The proposed addition will not encroach the existing septic system or potential alternate sites, although those sites are to the east of the driveway and need to be protected during construct!^. The capacity of the existing septic system is for three bedrooms or 450 gallons per day. The existing and proposed tloor plans submined confirm there will be no more than three bedrooms total as a result of the addition. The well is located below the existing entry way at the east end of the house. The proposed addition will make that well not accessible. Applicants have stated it will be replaced with a new well in the yard as part of this project. Statement of Hardships Please refer to applicants’ letter. The property is 1.28 acres in area but is subject to the 5 acre zoning standards. Also: The property is of an unusual shape. The residence has existed on this property for over forty-five years. There is adequate septic capacity to serve the proposed improvements and adequate area fc." ^ future alternate septic site on this limited property. Issues for Consideration I. Is the proposed improvement appropriate for this property? 2. Is there sufficient justification to grant the requested setback variances, specifically the 25’ setback from Watertown Road for the screen porch, and 32’ from the north lot Ime. 3 Other issues raised by Planning Commission Members. Options of Action 1.Any recommendation for approval or conditional approval should state the hardships and justification for the granting of the requested variances, and include the followmg conditions: .n — ■! Zoning File #2068 September 6. 1995 Paee 4 4. a.Existing septic system and area to the south of the septic system must be fenced off prior to any land alterations or construction activities at the property. Propert)' owner shall review traffic visibility at the driveway access and remove plantings as necessary to create a safe access. c.Applicant to provide a site grading plan for City approval prior to bsuance of building permit. Table for further information (specify). 3. Deny (state reasons). Other. i i CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SIOO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S-OO.OO After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY' CSTO^N^TIpN Site Address ^ Qhj 'O 5^^ _ u >> *• • • * ' / fl'Ai2A _» ■ Propern- Identification Number (P I P ) ___ Attach legal description to application if not^included^ti.r^3iiyed Date Propern' Acquired - ' L I (doytdo ndVfaiso own the adjacent parcels of land. Presenrusd^property: X' residential ------^other (specify). Zoning District: (month/year) Phone (home) II AT-i i > A.;/ ^ citir/ih-ijo ^' ■ ’<->Z / < --5 OW'NER (if different iha^ applicant)^ Name . Phonethome) Phone (work)_ Address:Cin:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUl^T, , Estii^tedConstiuctionCostS Describe request in detail: f- • —n ' / (attach additional sheets if neceslsary) /m:Ci f nece^ary) ^ VARLANCES REQLTRED Lot Area _ V Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Lot Coverage y Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNX’SUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual propert>' conditions preventmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements. (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1. 2. 3. 4. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AH nf the foUowifH, information must be subpiittinl hv the appUcation aea<Uiqg d4C IP.Orfgi: for vQur application to be considcff^ complctei X Completed Application Form , \ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin Count}' Department of Finance, A-60 j , Govt Center, 348-3271). Plat Map (obQined with propert}' owners list). V Certificate of Survev (signed by a licensed surveyor) and mclude hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8«A" x 11" for / Topoc^raphic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade ” are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 ‘A" x 11" for repn^uction y Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8/i x 11 ). ~ List of the legal names (include marital sums) of all persons with an ii*terest m the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). y As an addendum to this application, please atuch a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. J_ Additional items as may be requested by City suff. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ■me Applicant and Propen>- Owner must sign this application. Please remember that ISBU: annlicnrinn is not comnlele if the above infomiatiob ha? me applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoi^ Admiistrator. agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by ongmal fee paymem, and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this applicauon, and certifies that me information supplied is tn^ and correct to^,best ofjiis/her knowledge. Applicant’s ci„n,n,.e a: ft Date ^ OWNER’S SIGNATURE ^ . . . The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City suff, consulunts, agents. Commission members, and Councu members for purposes of investigation and ve^fication of this request. Owner’s Signamre^r-^ Aorlicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Co^ission Me-tina Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. ADDUcLits must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Plannmg Commissioa and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arra^^en to have an authorized^agent anend in your place and to advise the Budding & Zomng Office of this change prior to the meeting. and venrication or u Date 8 k - \ UyixyTLuutj l^oMiSic/. /m£. hjzj U) ^ ^ 3S' hn.L<u^, <dd yjyim- /}?^-u^Lcd- XVA i'^AJ' ,1^ Ol r^J ,AioLd/uixc^ "t ..! -^» b*^ ;7 J:\ f ' T7^ /•' *1 :' d tr '"'*^ •• '- ' / / (.“Sc^ XV.^ \A J. *>i I t» •*f.1 I .a > !.| J*l ■rr • * . t 11 AS 4n*. > - 8 non \' y ^ 4-0 ?P Nf09*'."*» ^f 3 / -/^ / / LA r> LA iP «£* — 08 >\t —o /-//F *Z5 ' 9^- .............. 'n ^f 1 r^- , •H k>* ^ (S=)k>—^ I oZ-//^'2 5 'ZJ ^y-ne-?^ c D 52 i:MN DATE Oa/24/95 BATCH SIB A t . MOB«AOM OMCR NMC TAXPAYER MHE/AOOR % ..i \ •r AOOR 0M«R NAME TAXPAYER • HAME/AOOR • • % /AOM :oHmn hahc l TAXPAYER k! , ' i % .M r< -i- V ;; i name /aoor ■t ? » • «• PROP AODR a»MER NAME ; TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR •. 'i . < •••A' ■> • •%' *• I'i! t • ‘ »«• •A • •! A',*. VJ • . . * / .A' ■ .. .t • A*'. \ I •. I t''' ?. ■ •i - O' -/.-n- 1.* '4?- ■* I.‘4 HEMCPIN CCUNTV PROPERTY INPORHATIGN SYSTEM PROPERTY (»tCRS LIST58 Sl-llB-EI lA 0007 04100 NATERTOMI RO DEBORAH H SHOU DEBORAH H SNOLL 4100 NATERTQHN RO MAPLE PUIN MN 55SS9 I IIIL'SB Sl-llB-tS 41 0410S NATERTO»OI RO 0 610UERE 0 A 6I0UERE PAttULEE MARIE SANCHUK 410S NATCRTOMN RO MAPLE PUIN HN S55S9 SB S2-11B-25 25 OOOB 00440 ORCHARD PARK RO ROBERT J 0 LORRAINE E ROOEN ROBERT J 0 LORRAINE E ROOEN 440 ORCHARD PARK RO LONB LAKE Ml S5354 TOTAL BATCH BIB 000D9 ■ s .• 4 V*'-''' oi; ■ J . -.1. • »• • . *• * » REPORT NO. PA«PI45S40140SB S1-11B>25 41 0001 04040 NATERTOMI RO P A A K P SMIEJA PATRICK A/KATHLEEN P SMIEJA 4040 NATERTO^ RO MAPLE PLAIN Ml B5559 SB 51-11B-25-41 0005 04045 MATERTOMI M>0 S B 0 S KELLEtMERGER DANA A GREGORY KELLEIBERGER 404B MATERTOMI RO MAPLE PLAIN Ml SS559 SB S1-11B-2S 41 OOOS 040B5 MATERTOMI RO C P DALE A 0 L PAULSON CHRISTOPHER F DALE 6ERI L PAULSON 40BB MATERTOMI RO MAPLE PLAIN Ml B5559 SB 51-118-2S 41 0012 0402B MAnRTOMI RO J S A P 0 RICE JEROME STANLEY RICE 4025 MATERTOMI RO MAPLE PLAIN Ml 55559 SB 52-11B-25 52 0002 059B0 MATERTOMI RO ORCHARD PARR FARM INC ORCHARD PARR FARM INC 5900 MATERTOMI RO MAPLE PLAIN HN 55559 SB 52-110-25 52 0005 05M5 MATERTOMI RO DAVID N STUBBS ETAL DAVID N STUBBS 5945 MATERTOMI RO MAPLE PLAIN Ml 55559 38 32-118-23-23-0010 460 Orchard Park Rd Robert J. & Lorraine E. Roden 460 Orchard Park Rd Long Lake MN 55356 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TmJE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS OATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE F. ^ < .f\V. * * ? -. \ • r. ' • J1 • Pr.--, f f' \ ^» I 4f •. .1 , ,' « * J •I V 1 I » • f t • •j-i-'ir. • • 4 •«i t 7 -^ •• I S f't If’ i ‘ • • J J'. *. ■ . \ {': I'l-v -•*:* ‘ f *• I I** • « 4"-« “It' • 4,' > 'V. . • . 1 ‘i ’• ■ ‘‘'J' ' -i' “■ ■ ^ 1 ><♦ ■i t '' » I ♦. *4 l! r 1 ru ot O ? A 7 TJ9 (.1 i ■t^ r— 01 o«ut p- &<• § Mo o (Jtu» Ol 0) H •< a on 8 CA d n H{ 1 p ?sm Es3 fl S 1 t nir\o>S r*O • o >2 s PI M t> 30mo 7i O ni (/) X 3 L [ i V ___,.J6i i .'P* Cfl 3 j H* *. n rt> > O W H f O A* n o o M* r-* u H-0911 ft.* ri w o :j; rr A> 55 <0 H'3 *0 fti Q. n Q. M '/) ft nC/) O cn O' 3 o I-. O M •• r* H 3 .‘??pig-5:e} ^rs S 2 2'S i*'5»>.oiji 3 *1 n 9, an'Hi •• cu 6* o ft» isi o) <Wi • H CO UI o • 7a3*M0irt • C lrrp.<^'«^rTsrHi rir «i p o acS* n p MMitt S fD ui - n |-k H* (A (b o b o n (A Wo vHt >:9 ^ w c H*UO •• . ••■»<> ^ § -In ^ A 03 n n (I - -S***^ n A rt O H*3*3 A o s: 3 A. .. » ft rr n >« ... • rt " M rt H. fti 3.0 Om • rt* •0.0 '^ /CA-'^>\v| SfY\id\Ar l^A. % • VT'" '» Kn aM.I JS.3 l2kV I3k YV Ruar^/OtfA^ ■I-------^ 9*^ poe^vru-.* •• LlViAij '^otfr*^. 33 ^i:x 'f*' ^ I 0«0€U PcxcV >♦ tc;4-cKei\ |3VI\ i*i ----7.T«w«l^ I C* * 4-Dia^ PCKC K S' EHJli I «-5 ^J.3 (mC 11 (?c nrtflrej fi»»\ - rew p^4*i«»* 'S’ Wtjfiau %»Vi r 'OcO«A/^ \oQ^ 1M.CIO0 i»C QCm. gX/Sr/A)<Sy^^‘g^ cM^«?s I 1 Pf^ i loA-W^ ^ JS.3 c«<«« I 6«il p*rc.k K»'A UCK Hct*^ore^ *,. I fi«»x - ivew WJa*- «-££)/'\aed«^'k ■ I Ug^ lMA<i6- iiA.' (j€ak . c-i ose^ Q' TI I . •- • *• * • ; . • •••• •••*,** , *• *• •• •• • • V * * ^ • •• V* I . • 1 -M ./| ./ . ' ^0 I t i ! X / \i ^■1 I i t I ! I \ » ! . I1 --------- -V ^---------------- ------ t-4 1 I ' Pl^ i I ,u'^‘ ! tft I V ( i i ' |- • ••• *•••-•» • •»- .«#.»••••• 3^'! -'y I r I 1 : t ! ' I I I ! • -«iw ••• . .•• • <a««^ • ».»• - -»«»• ■ I 1I I I t I ? • • * i ! I i *'•? CTV!V il • f * Si-'' J •' # q ^ f I • J / I ! I ?<2jD(bs6^ A i ! : • t*. ft I.j I i LJf '■»- -r .. . r;^ .1..i r t - •- • V , \'V. .^1 - i I -- V—y L mm 'm0~:} : •*. N I -•' y> ■ V > fiKj^yMm. i..-'. . .. t' k f- *»■• ■» •»- -« ^ I > « * • - •4 .. ■“ fvJ -V-: i 1 •- ' ' • I-....................r n"- i - .,;'l - i IT =1t ti • -I* K..Ii;i: :•.J’ I % I . I V- ^eoAir €i^«r?ioAi >" M ^ * tfises ipH.-i' IL;' OD / jf .-f I T \ • . *•*/ . . '>V«», • n • •— t I5 Dl >.•>■■■r t. / -v: / • It • • • Zoning File #1956 August 11, 1994 Page 4 2. 3. 4. Applicant must obtain a dcmoUtion permit ** removal of tbe detached garage. '/“A*--* ADDlicam and funite owner of site should review WMtTown Road. Dense plantings at street lot line Woek view of vehicles leaving property. Others recommended by the Planning Commission. ^-(D ■ i ♦# • I Zoning FUe #1956 August 11. 1994 Page 3 a triangular shape and equals approximately 1.28 acres in area and is subject to 5 Mtc zoning sed>acic standards. The additions require a street side setback variance and a si^ variance. The structure will extend no closer into the side yard as existing stricture is 42 from the side lot line. The proposed new addition at its closest point will be 43’. The applicant proposes the removal of the existing detached garage that encroach^ the side lot line. Based on the recently amended height definition, there is no height variance required for the proposed addition at the east side. Structural coverage is proposed at 4.47%. Weckm^ confirms that the proposed improvements do not involve bedroom additions nor an mcrease m the number of fixtures or water use devices, review Exhibit E. He coi^irms that the to be occupied by the new additions would not be suitable for sqitic expansion but alera iqipucam to the need to protect the area to the cast of the drive and to the south of the existing septic system for future use. Weekman asks that you condition the approval of this variance on applicant’s fencing off the existing septic area and the future alternate site before any land alterations take place on this property. Statement of Hardships 1. Please refer to Exhibit A. The proper^ is 1.2 acres in area and subject to 5 acre zoning standards. 2. 3. 4. The property is of an unusual shape, The residence has existed on this property for over 43 yca« There is septic capacity to serve the proposed improvements and adequate area for a future alternate septic site on this severely limited property. Issues for Condderation 1. Is the proposed improvement too ambitious for this property? 2. Other issues raised by Planning Commission members Options of Action To approve or amend the proposed improvement plan for property located at 4< Watertown Road. Any approval must be conditioned on the following conditions: 1.Existing septic system and area to south of septic system must be fenced off prior to any alterations or construction activities at diis property. * ^ ^ n ■ 11 ■ UT ■■■ ~l i I !■ f ^ n« mi ■ rt . II II t ' r ^ rr •AM Zoning FUe #1956 August 11, 1994 Page 2 3. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of stnieWfal coverage Total lot area = 55,900 s.f. or 1.28 acres Allowed = 8,385 s.f. or 155S Existing = 1.743 s.f. or 3.1% Proposed = 2,501 s.f. or 4.47% ' \ 4. Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) A.Front/Street setback Required » 100’ Proposed * 100+’ No variance required. B.Side street setback Required » 100’ Existing ** 30’ proposed * 38 ’ - principal structure addition proposed * 25’ - three season porch addition Variance * 75* or 75% C.Side setback Required = 50 Existing = 42’ Proposed * 45’ Variance * 5’ or 10% List of Exhibits A - B > C - D - E - F - G - H - Application Plat Map Property Owners’ List Survey Weekman Memo 9/3/94 Floor Plan, First and Second Floor Levels South/street Bevation and Basement Floor Plan North/East Elevations Description of Request The applicant proposes a 26 ’ x 48’, 2Vi story addition to the east side of the exi^ residence and a 16 ’ x 14’ single story three season porch to the west side. The property is of /J To:Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: D^: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator August 10, 1994 #1956 Tom and Chris Smieja. 4040 WaKrtown Road - Variances - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.02 - Definitions. Definition 35 - Lot comer. A lot situated at the junction of, and abutting on two or mote intersecting streets. Dermiiion 38 - Lot line. The property line bounding a lot ei^ ttot of a lot extends into the public righMf-way or a proposed public right-of-way, tbe line of such public right-of-way shall be the lot line. Definition 39 - Lot line fiont. That boundary of a lot which dedicated public street, and in the case of a comer lot it shaU be the shoitest dimension on a public street. The lot line adjac mt to Orchard Park Road would be the front street lot line for a determination of required setbacks. Definition 40 - Lot line rear. That boundary of a lot which is opposite the lot to. If the rear lot line is less than 10’ in length or if the lot forms a point at the rm, the rear lot line shall be a line 10’ in Imgth within the lot, parallel to and at the ni^yitnum distance from the front lot line. The rear lot to would be approximately 110’ from the point at the western side of the property Definition 41- Lot line side. Any boundary of a lot which is not a front lot line or a rear lot line. The northern lot line is the only side lot line for the property, ^ <mntinn 11 03 Definition 24 - Lot area. The dry buildable area must be exclusive of Adjusted lot area — 55*900 s.f. or 1.28 acres. ------ CITY of ORONO resolution of the cmr council NO. 3 4 6s------ J.Applicant and future owner of property shall review sighting at inieKection of Watertown Road as dense plantings at street lot line block view of vehicles leaving property. 4.Authorities granted bv this variance run with the property not with the appucams, but are permissive 'only and must be exercised by application for a buildmg permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 12, 1995). 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of t^ resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automaocally terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of September, 1994. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. C i, Jr., Mayor .O -^LU\C{a 01. SfUi.iiC Thomas R. Smieja Applicant(s) C:hristina M. Smieja Susan Kokesh Property Owner Page 3 of 5 -a 1 CITY of ORONO resolltion of the cnr council NO. 8 46 5------- c. D.■nwre IS adeqiLiie septic capacity to serve the proposed improvemeM ^ adequate ara^or a future alternate septic site on this severely limited property. 4. ri^of the applicant: and would be in keeping with the spint and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.The City Council has consideted this application inciting the findings and recomn^ons of the Planning Commisston. 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 findings noted above, the Orono City Council K «.hv orantc variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit STran^on of a 26- X 48'. Vh story east side addition a^ tte 16; x season porch west side addition approving a side street mt^ variance of 75 or 75* and a side variance of 5’ or 10%. subject to the followmg condinons; 1.The existing septic system and areas to south of septic system must be fenced off prior to any land alterations or construction activities at this property. 2S : Orono Building staff for the new construction. Page 2 of 5 N.e.e'anfc.aV *T**'.'~**ir i tttlA i«hl. i.^ ff v CITY of ORONO resolution of the cmr council NO. ^ ^ ^ 5--------- RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO .MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.27, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) file no. 1956 WHEREAS, Thomas R. Smieja and Christina M. Smieja (hcrciMftCT the applicants ■•) have an interest in the property located at 4040 Watertown Road within the City of Orono and legally described as follows; refer to Exhibit A. attached (hereinafter ’’the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for varia^ to Mi^cipal Zonine Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) to pennit construction of a 26’ x 48,2 A addition to the east side of the existing residence and a 16’ x 14’ smgle story, ^ . to the west side to be located 25’ from the side street lot line instead of the required 100 and 45* from the side lot line where a 50’ setback is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City CouncU of Orono. Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. *7 This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1956. The property is located in the RR-IA Single FamUy Residential Zoning District requiring 5 acres in area. The property consists of 1.28 acres exclusive of adjacent public right-of-ways. j. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 15, 19^ and recommended" approval of the variances as proposed, based upon the following unique findings and hardships; A.The property is 1.2 acres in area and subject to 5 acre zoning standards. B. The property is of an unusual triangular shape Page 1 of 5 4 3 m 13 TO:Cbair Petenon and Orono Plannii^ Commission Nfem^^ Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:iber5. 1995 SUBJECT: #2069 - Cindy and Steve Harris, 3850 Watertown Road - Variance -Public Hearing ZMrfng Dittrkt: RR-IA, Single Family Rural Residential. 5 acres. Applieation: Request for varUnce for constniction of swimming pool loct^ nearer the front lot line than the principal residence structure. Pertinent Code M » Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (D) - "Location. No detached garages or othw accessory buildinp shaU be nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. . ." List of Exhibits A - Application B-Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Neighbor Acknowledgment E • Letter of Request F - Survey/Site Plan G - Location Diagram & Constructk H - 1988 Plat Drawing I - Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (D) J - Topografdiy Map Showing Existing Structures on the Pn^>erty Plan Summary of Rcqnmt ADolicants propose to construct a 12’x24 ’ in-ground swimming pool with grade level patio surround. The pool will be adjacent to the existing residence, which is located in the ewiter of a 25 acre parcel. Unfortunately, the pool is considered an accessory structure tMt, per ^uon 10.03. Subd. 9 (D). must be located to the "side" or "rear" of the principal residence, i.e. not between the residence and the road. For a 25 acre lot where the house is set back mote than 500’ from the road, this code requirement may seem ludicrous, however, it was likely adopted with smaUer lots m mind, to k^ detached garages, pools, tennis courts, etc. out of the front yard to maintam an attractive residential character in the neighborhood. 1 Zonii« File #2069 September 5. 1995 P^e 2 The proposed pool locition is to the fiioctioiuil rear (walkout level) of the Hams home, and sits approximately 35* higher than Watertown Road. The pool will be virtually invisible from neighboring properties or from the road. The proposed pool location is appropriate based on existing grades around the house as well as the layout of the house, garage, driveways, porches, etc. Please review the applicant’s letter of request. As-Buill Survey Recommended The survey submitted for this proposal is the same survey used for constrtKtkm of the lesklence in 1988. It does not show the as-built house footprint, which varied slightly from the detail shown on that survey. Further, the existing bam "to be removed" u now gw, but the survey HQi show the ocher, much larger bam located further south (see Exhibhs F and H). It is perhap* nocewortli^ that the location of the house built in 1988 is more distant nom the road than the large bam which has existed for decades. It could be argued thtt placement of the house at that location should have required a variance to the code ^tkm in question. If that bam had appeared on the 1988 survey, a red flag might have bw raised. The house has existed since 1989, and the City will not require an after-the-fact variance for it. It b however staffs recommendation that once the pool is completed, an as-built survey showing the corrected house footprint, pool, and existing accessory structures be submitted by the applicanc as a correct record of structures on the property. Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission finds sufficiem hardship and jusdficatira for the requested variances for pool location, a rectHnmendation for approval would be appropriate. Staff recommends that wh approval be conditioned on applicant providing an as-built survey once the pool b complete, showing the corrected house footprint, pool, bam, and all other buildings existing on the property. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Iniiial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Rewwal Variance Fee SlOO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming strucnires S200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ;—V -r •.t * t W. . » * . . • •» - V • • . f PROPERTY INFORMATION Ort f■'o^-Vv,T^Ste ]^I^A+<iiLyy fO/q—UKvai _ • . ^ • _ vT ____1____mr T\ \ ^ Property Acquired (monih/year) I (do) (do not) also own ^ aldjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential other (specify) Zoning District: APPLICAjyr Name____ Address City: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name -------- Phone(boine) Phone (woric)__ Address:City:Zip:, description of REQipT Desc Estimated Coi T p„i- ^ rS u of CAi>i hDii^ rmts ^;QOO. w ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Width Hardcover Lot Coverage y( Setback: JX Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) conditions pteveming compliance with Zoning Code retjuiremenis: -------------- (attach additional sheets if necessaiy) i • ♦ I jdinaianihiMihTjtit^ae I REQUl ^ ’ u\Lc/ O ky\ ^■ SUBMfrTALS ; , ' ' CiTt-v. i:)3M All of the following infonnation for vour to he o /imust be submitted hr thcj BlCtfiL pikatioa dea«Mtiie dMc In order y. 1. 2. Completed Application Form 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. V Certified Property Owners--------------- - obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). ^ u _• Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and inctuM hardcover calculatioos as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V4* x 11" for reproduction. . j Topographic survey (existing and proposed clevatioiis) if any chaises m exis^ grade arc proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V4" x 11" for reproduction.^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) c^y 8'A" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all j^rsons with an interest m the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not oinent owner(s). As an to this application, please attach a separate list of any other per you wish notified of this applicatton. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicam and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember ^ ^lE 1 1^ mmpl#tg if the above infermation has not been Inchwlcdi AmJCANT’S SIGNATURE ^ w .w- The ap p lr*"* hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by originil fee and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information suf^lied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. ^ A ^ Applicant ’s Signature Date " t) OWNER’S SIGNATURE ^ , The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and ftirther authorizes r^nable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and CouncUCIUTY UlUU -----y--------- ' T - . . ^members for purposes ^ investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature ‘5;< Date ^ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning CommissionMeetmg. Kianiimg .— Applicants must be present at all scheduled review i and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a schedi ___:__^ tvt vmtT Sfld tO __ _________ luled meeting, please make arrangements igent attend in your place and to advise the Building St Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 I nro6»a 1 —r 1 1 1 I 1 3 f. in UL 5a- ire- (2) #2069 l»i 1 -----------giMtiartr^rM «w--> MHMfi mmm, •? $ •iAtpi am MOME^XN OOUNTT■< i M tt-llft-tl tl MMUMsnoc*UNnwniV.-' I i n. IM77 • • ’ >>I i ■ ♦ M U-lM-tS II MM M7M NimTWN M CAINMXNi A OUM CMMAUM A CAM STM NATmaMi m MMI MAIN MN SOM '• f ■ -■ : < I /'•s TtMMTn M St*lM-» St MM MMS NATfUUMI M TIMV L KUrt TiMv I nin HMI/AIM SMS MAnAIMM M NIPU SIAINNI SSSS9 ■f OMCA « TAWAtk-- • ■ M- . •. ■ SA St-llA-tS IS OOM ASMS NATtATAMI M CATAAAXM A CAM CATAAAXNi A CAM STM NATtATAMI M NAAU MAIN m i .•< . 1, * <• TAMAAYfA . * NMC/AOOA TOTAL AATCN SOA AOAlt / • .• t r ' VA/t f y • 1 •q-.v. ■ ■■ rNJ, r p * t 4 \ ■V ■ . 9. I } .J« • . \ *■»' ® * ' I • * • ^^•4.1!. • . • •• V- t V V*• * V i;*f! ' . f .? ' f i ITT WraOMTXON SVSTtNrrr amcas listM St-llA-n M AAAM AASAMA WASSWMAi Lmt VnUAMAI JA tr AL AACNAM AAAA TAAN XNC SMA NATtATAMI M MPU HAW Ml BSSM . SA It-llA-n St AMI AS9M NATtATAMI M V N A A A NtUN V WILIAN A KATALIIN A NtLW S9M NATtATAMI M NAALI ALAW IM BSIS9 SA st-iiA>ts St eoes ASAM NATtATAMI M A N A C A NAAAn STIVtN H AAAAIS . NIAU AlAW Ml S8SS9 SA St-UA-tS SS AAM AIAtS NATtATAMI M L V A A A AUTTtAPmA L V A A P AUTTtAPmA SttS NATtATAMI M NAAU ALAW Ml SSSSA 1 • • •! •t. ^ ! r .V • •1 • .■ < iV:. 1 •«• * /■ V- i .. >•;• ' I- ■. : f SA St-UA-tS SI AAAS AASM STINAA MY MT A tCNUAA A J N TMOTHV A/JCANtTTI NlA N SA St>llA>tS St AAM ASMA NATtATAMI M aCNAM AAAA PAAN INC AACNAM AAAA PAM HC SMA NATtATAMI M NAAU ALAW Ml BASSf SA St>llA«CS SS ASTM NATtATAMI JMtS P AMORS JAMtS P AAOOKS NAAU AUW Ml SA St-llA-tS SS MIA AMW AAAAtW IMASSII L V A A P AUTTIIIPSIU L V A A P AUTTCAPltU SMB NATtATAMI M NAAU ALAW AN SSSSA • «< •f -il*- • I • ■ t% .1 > ♦'" f s#«. ^ A m • • • » • h A Vv tVj < if . * * * - ’ f M •: V • 4 ; ■-. i ll' f ' » * ■ ^ I \ V M ' ■ ^ V * ^ ■4'-’ ■. /!. .-V'/Kv’- ' • : if : r ■ f'V '• \ • «'M O A Sii 'M I( AajaceoK rruji**•.» • -***- [print nanic(s)][print address] havejevi ew ^oLins for the i[L^^wuis< Council that 1 (we) am (are) aware or the unproxement p«na project or use requires Council approval. I (we)[print name(s)l [print address] have at I (we) understand that intoSfcity S totT^iera^toS” ware” of to improvement pUn. and that to pn^ » project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Date the review of this Land Use Property Owner to the scheduled meeting date. etata 1 • t t • J J ‘ ^ e ''W^'9 Jl, (2uSu,'t /??, l/tAiP . ^^^/r\gv- Um'h'AfcwyC^ /2(rziJZ^ /^XUlct^ -4Ai JmrCL ffvM heu^ -f^u^ /Qia lvr\L<Li ik 1-co' ~p\ji*^ Afr^D^__. A//Vgg^ J fLfcajuui^. j^jr^ Cf\jL\__AtfVC^^ TQ r\4l4' kovyf jr</^<Lt dckiL^ CX/yQ A Gmac * /H&njD 0 -rkjL. (o/yi^) ~f^_d/'SjoL/yy Jr-i. iky^lAfi ,^> Al/fJ)-P Ur^Qj) Hrrf AJnffJj A4^». —7^^^^ cSf^ ■H oaa ^ ^■■•mAtv k£«r«’ r R a .1. ik.^uxsREtf .u -r -n —^>r.ARa«RaAayaf ■ -;r^ ift ~iniii~ ■ i i < CtIUiriCAII: OH SURVEY forAI Ilirscli A Suns ConsLnicL ion oH lot I, lUock 1, llillaway Farm lUMiiiopiii rotinly, Miiinosulii m nis BEEH OtCono , E| c/-7=b" CITY OH OHONO ^ :'irciA:i X ' i'.'.! II ’I TU a I I I I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 1, Block 1, llillaw«iy Harm, and of an existing building and the proposed location of a proposed bouse thereon It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. COFFIN & GROUIIERG. INC. Hark b. Gronberg Hn. Lie. No. 127F5 Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners Long Lake, Minnesota Scale: Pate : 0: r* = 200* 10-26-08 Iron Marker ^4 •I • o V) & 1 Tl OCC/l LLtr»TtOM mmr 6W0£ stmc£ * Him #»• urta.mvet' «DM MMC«C«MS. ^ ^ ~MM NMir JMCr. ^ — — jcucr 4cfiMi 0OM nett ettmroM tftmmn to mio$e.^ «u ttnnt mtemetpm *u mu a» nm$ nmr NAT.I. 'SStmSummSJm r ro^ tt/U MKlt tee etM^«N|OMi«l Mtf NAr.1.tfso"jnca M«a eaHKMsJf4MS U’5 TOP VIEW / cALt xrea utalu j«j* I 6Mr.J ’Sf util • mil rtmee MOUUM '<H.L0W all local ■UILOINO cooet ANO MOULATIONt ' —im/ete 23 si' jvr ttm Auu£ PSi cntif mil mi iMtt mufii sr yer rsl _ X SfD€ ^IPW j^MiD mm 5LCTiQN 'I3'-3j - A cuino SMK iia tk ^ STfmifr 5MT* uoio. rarmc hp MM- 300 3Q n e□Mvw imM tmu ifitf oai»Mi*M‘ PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CATHARINE A CRAM IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32-118-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA CXISfinC LEGAL UiSCRtPriOri IhU pdri of the Southeast Quarter of lf« Suuth>«cst Quattcr. Section 32. ro~<iship MO. Njmjc 23, 0;tcrlbe<l as at a point on tf»c last line uf said Southeast Quarter of the Soundest Quarter ulstant e<rj.€2 feet South from the northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; U«nce West, at right angles to said Last line, a distance of t6S feet; llicncc South, at a right angle to the center line of Urooo Road ho. AS. (also known as Htnneapolls and uatertown Roadl; tlience Southeasterly along said center line to the Last line of said SoutfNfosl Quattcr of llie Southwest Quailcr; tl«nco north along said Last line to U»e point of beginning, .ucor(lln<j to the Covcmnenl Survey Utcrenf. lhat put of the SouilMCSt quarter of Section 32. luwnship MO north. Ro<tge 23 dost of tl« Sth Principal Nvridlan. described as follows: Ueginriing at a point on the Last line of said Southwest quarter distant 403.32 feet South, as iK*asuied aloivj said Last line, from tite northeast cuiner ol said Suuthwesi quarter; tiicnee West parallel with the north line of said Southwest quarter a distance of S/S.OO feet: tlience South parallel with said East line of U« Soutltwcst quarter a distance of 3SU.U0 feet; ttKMicc west parallel with s.ild north line of tho Southwest quarter a distance of 44S.OH feet; tltcncc North' parallel with said Cast line of the Southwest quarter lo said liorth line of Soutliwcst quarter; thence Uest along said north line tu a point 9'JO.QO (cel Cast, IS i«casured along vaid north line, from the hurihweti curncr of said Southwest quarter; thence South parallel with ihe sicst line of said SoutlNCSt quarter a distance oi 43'3.JI feet: thence west parallel with said North line ui the Sculirwvsi guji tcr a dlvtancu of 31i>.S0 feet; Uerve :>uUi|>vall?l w|in said tint lire of lie S(uUm*sI qjortcr a dist.sce of 43).3I feel: Ucncc u.*si turallel with said tuth lire of Ue SouUvest quarter to a point S20.S l«et Cast Measur ed aloiig said parallel line frcM the West line of said Soulliwest quarter; thence South parallel with said West line to the South lino of Said Southwest quarter; lircnee Last along said South line to the Southeast corner of the Soutliwcst i|uarter of said SouUiwcsl quarter; thence North along tlic last line of said Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter to the onlcrlircof Watertown :(oad; thence Southeasterly alor>g the center lino of said road to trie Last line of said Southwest quarter; Ihcnce North along said Last line of tfie Southwest quai icr to the point of beginning. LXCEI’f that part of said Southeast quarter of the Suulliwesl quarter descrlUcKl as beginning at a point on lire Cast llr>e of said Soultreast quarter of tire Soutliwcst quarter distant 449.62 feel South fto« lite hurliicast curncr Of said Southeast quarter of the Soutliwcst quarter; tlience west, at right angles to said Last line, a distance of ICS feet; llioncc South, at a right angle, to the center line of Watertown Road; Ihcnce Southeasterly along said center line to tlie Last line of said Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter; tnence North along said Cast line to the point of beginning. ALSO LXCCFI that part of the Soutliwcst quarter of Section 32 lying within railroad right of way as described In Oook 742 of IVcds. Page 612. as DocuiM*nt rio. 6830SO, ALSO LXClM that'part of said Soullwesl quarter of the Soutliwcst quarter described as follows: Oeglnnlng at lli« Southeast corner of said Soutliwcst quarter of the Southwest ipiartcr; tlience hortli along the Cast line of said Southwest quarter of the Soutliwcst quarter to tlie center line of Watertown Road; tlience Nortliwesicrly along said center line lo Its Intersection with a line drown parallel with and lO'J.IO feet Westerly, Measured at right angles, from sold Cast line of tlio Soutliwcst quarter of the Soutliwcst quarter; lliencc South alo<ig sold parallel line lo the South line of said Southwest quarter of the Soutliwcst quarter; thence Last along said South line to llic point nf t>eglnn|ng. * f ■f* I hereby certify that tills survey was prepared by mc or under My direct supervision, and that I om a duly licensed land Surveyor imkIci llic lows of the Sidle of HInncsola. Scale: I Inch • 2U0 feet Dale : February 19. I9(U) 0 : Iron inarker corriN I wowm,, inc. I. I27?{s curnil I CRUtiQLRG. INC. Engineers, land Surveyors. Planners long lake. Hinnesota Hark S. Gronberg HU. tic. No. #1257 p I ' 1//1 (l/vV aim J \ / :i'i'v. - // / / / ; \\ ' / /»i i I \ \ \ \ y \ /1 i / \I ;} ) / / V \\ , ^ '■ A 7 \ A \ N N >0>w \ ««M.S /<\ .\ - '7;-v ,\' \7-^7 f li ti M \ »c r7-/<\ \ 7: V V s> N V A ,1V A !•••. V,v V \ rJ !\ - 'W jN A ^ \ •«S • r l\ ’Ml.t t t h \ ftt.a >9«J.S mi n V K.'T-C, //! •0flt 4 •«*■• CS \\ ; y ( \ >• V \ \/ s: \ »*.J • tM.J I y »«N.« r > A / / tfio.l '/ /__• .»» ■J:ri 7\ y't- \ V 0. I0tf.« I 1 rd \ \ i \ \ ^\ \ -'r>‘H diMS.t ttt.l \ \ 9 ^ ^ 0 / f /\ •Mi.f I • • ii. If the property is subdivided, the oversize VYot that meets the structure will be located given size of accessoryminimum lot area requirement for the g building. 1 iii. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure as defined herein shall remain. such covenant shall be binding on owners and shall be filed in the chain of txtle of the prope y Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 r.n Location. No detached garages or oth^r I accessory buildi;, »hall be located nearer the front or I line than the Principal buxldin, on that^lot on 1 1 ^c^7s.lrrb “^%in;.^ccJ’l:d^"i^^^^^^ ,£i%‘”rntV o'rie&1o!S!^ t“oc\Ved^?S^f^7r/rVt^rsbf£^^^^^^ ««iln°shV‘l*l*not app*ly to lake.hore lots divided by roadways or corner lots. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 isra;. ""the lakeshore and the allowable buxlding line. 2. Variance From Lakeshore Setback, JSfl^^'bV^^f/rrld* Sfs«“c“ for It. approval before final action by the Council. Source: Ordinance No. 155 Effective Date: 2-14-74 ORONO CC 255-2 (4-1-84) .-.A. - TO;Chair Ptterson and Orooo Plannii^ C Ron Moorse, City Administruor iissioo Mei ntOM;Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Plaimin| & Zoning Administrator DATE:September 11, 199S SUBJECT: #2071 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road Amended Variance - Public Hearing District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acres Application: Request to amend prior approval f( access to greenhouse. (No change in hardcover.) Pertinent Code Sections 1. Sections 10.55, Subd. 8/10.56, Subd. 16 (J): No grading or fiUing allowed within 75’ of lakeshore. 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 19: Conditional use permit required for grading in 0-75* zone, 3.Tree removal regulauions - permit required Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B > Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Site Plan E - Site Detail F - Letter Re: Elm Removal in Relation to Tui G - Resolution #3539 H - Shoreland Ordinance Tree Regulations I Cit)r Enginaer’s CoaMnems J • Documentation from File #1992 !l Work Summary of Request In March 1995 applicants received variance approval for rebuilding the brick and stone waUs located at the entrance to the tunnel leading from near Bracketts Point Road to the basem^ of the greenhouse. Not shown on that plan nor discussed by applicants’ contractor was the intent to waterproof the tunnel. This requires excavatitm of all soil material from above and adjacent to the tunnel, then applying waterproofing treatment and filling/tegrading to pre-existing conditions. 1 * m Zoning FUe #2071 September 11, 1995 Pige 2 In pfepantk>n for tb»» activity applicants removed a 36" elm adjacent to the tunnel and in die 0-75’ zone. Apparently it was at this point that staff became aware that the addidonl waterproofing work and gradii^ in the 0-75’ zone was intended. The current request is for approval to complete the excavation, wttetproofti^ and re­ establishment of existing grade. Further, this is an opportunity for the City to have the applicants mitigate the loss of a 36" elm by requiring replacement plantings, perhaps in more strategic locations where they will not have a ftiture impact on existing structures. Is for Consideratii 1.Given applicants’ comment that the removed elm was in poof condition, what degree of replaming does Planning Commission feel is appropriate? 2. Does Planning Commission have any other concerns regarding the proposed work? Staff Recc Any rec(Hnmendatk>n for approval should reference this as an amendment to the approval granted in Resolution #3539 on March 13, 1995, should require that the areas disturbed during waterproofmg should be sodded as soon as practical after grades are restored, and s^d define the number and placement of trees to be replanted in mitigation for loss of the 36" elm. Opdoas for A( 1. Approve variaiices ^nd conditional use permit with conditions as noted above. 2. Table for further information (specify). 3. Deny (state reasons). 4.Other. MMSnBSiko.u4ufu,«na 1 crrv or orono - variance application - » Initial Appikatioa Fct ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SlOO.tX) (no chanpe from original application) Variance for nonK;onrormiiig tinicturea $2C After-tlia>Fact Fees (Double application fee) A M v;f'i “(••.VI .V .. .. • • • •• t« • « i c.-*v i-‘ ♦’wrrvw • -uw*I• V'* t; i PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 1420 Brevdeetts Point Road, Orono - MN 55333 Property identification Number tP i D-^ Anacb legal description to application if not included on required survey Date Property Acquired (inontli/yeir) 1 (tio) (do not) also own U k wbacent parceb of land. Present use of property: x residentiai o ther (specify) Zonmg District: APPLICANT Kraus-Anderson Construction Cenpany, Midwest Divia ion Phone (home ) Ptimiefwaik) 612-786-77U 8625 Rendova Street NE Citv: Circle Pin^Zip;_55flJi ___ OWNER (if different tlian luipikant) Name James and Joann JuJundt PhoiMfliome r 612-473-9524 Ptwne (work)_____ . Addrets: 1400 Bracketts City: Orono Zip: 55221 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST listimaicd ConstnicUoii Cost $ 150,000.00 Describe request indeiall: E>diibit "A** and **b" (attach addiUonal sheets if necessary) VAIUANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot WidUi Hardcover Lot Coveraga X Setback:From Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) IIARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preveuimg compliance with Zoning Code requirements; The existing tree that was placed along side the tunnel, caused and eaccelerated the deterioration of the tunnel wall and rubble wall. - - -- - (attach additional sheeu if necessary) 7 . l: k£quir £o submittals AMnfliMfi rt inm inforMiatloii nnnl 4-i bmltti lylgigr j»- _ •*■ 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ^S3nrtPl^SS!rchI^Su.iofOWI^ withinUO’. lrt*U ~ obilia OUs and ina|i ffom Henncpia County Dtpattme.n of Finance. A 603. 1 SSf£r':/t?^V ’(.i.n«* by,. flif^jaiinny §s fccjutrcd. In lUilUioiif pfovidc one (1) py ^ l^otn^l^ survey (exuUng ***** P"**^*^ tfs PfOposed. lu iddiUoPf piovid® ou6 (1) copy mx* » 1 * Sketches or pUni of floor X elevsilon views (provide one (1) *^°Py inier-st iii the ^ Lilt of the Iml nf!^« (include mariul stitui) of all persons wiUi an - n«ne(.) of eppl«.) As an iddtndv*” to this application, pieaie attach a separate Its y perso you wish notified of this application. Additional Items m may be requested by City staff. ♦these items have bezm previously submitted to the city cf - ... .....___.it....:.... Dlnk*a<>. rrm* ----- *niESE ITEMS HAVE BEZM PREVIOUSLY SUaUTTED W OOi K^xin (JXX93, The AppUceot end Property Owner muit situ Uu» e^ieuwu. HUilllOLlBIlHii^^^W* ** ***** cmnolete If the abOYC IHi<inil*r*°** ***i 11™ im-.MMu.nn. infomiatloo supplied is true 9$ cpiyec0o the best of lui/her knowledg i Applicant's Sigiature y Date l^y iSed,e. «*i «tee. lo thi. mvlfcrtion end fiirthef 2ly^ KphfV by Chy rteff. conadunt., Coa«urtK» meud«.. «*l CouncU ifJ?!.... for puip^s of inyeiUg.lion and venBcetton of UUi lequert. Owner's Signature Date Apphca«m«ri--.u.^^ held on the third Monday of each njoulh. A *^.£Lte Si SuiSSSsd review meetlni. of the PUmulng Conunlis^ If in appUcanr is unable 10 anend a scheduled meeting, please make tayou.puce «dtowivte d» Bnildhtg & Zoning Offle«f this change prior to the meeting.this change prior to the meeting 8 1 1 t ^ = ♦ '■ Mil 0A1I M/t«/n NLiaOIii iuuifiv raupiRiT uv;<tutraOKIIfV OMCRS LIST •\i.i vm« ••v«* * *r«cf uMTCN M«M 11-117-tS S2 OMf m» MWR tlM* MACMTtS POINT I OHNCi NMS J R juar • lURV J JUNDTTAMpmi jams r junrt NMC/MM MM 1 CRTRTU. RRt IffI SSStS SO ii-nr-ts sz ooioOltM ORaCKETTS POINT RO mCNML I LYNN 111 « HITE HlCIUtL I JQRJ* IVtM 111 1S«S ROaCRtlTS POINT HAVZATA HM S5ST1 SO ll-117-» SZ 0011 OlAZO ORACRETTS POINT RB J n JUNOT A N J JUR>T JAtSS R JUNDT OOX 1 CRYSTAL RAY Itl SSSZS . PROP AOOR Of RR NAME TAXPAYER lIMK/AOOR SR 11-117-ZS SZ 0017 OISOO RRACKETTS POINT RD CEORGC S PILISOURY ET AL CE0R6E % PIUSBURY *000 flRST OMR PLACE HPLS IM SSAOZ SO 11-117-ZS SZ 0010 OIZZO ORACRETTS POINT RO ELLA P CROSOY ELLA P CROSOY IZZO ORACRETTS POINT RO HAYZATA 1M SSSfl SO 11-117-ZS SZ 0019 OIZOO ORACRETTS POINT RO JOIRI S PILISOURY JR ET AL J0IR4 S PILISOURY JR 4000 PIRST OMR PLACE HPLS Itl S540Z •^Li OHIRR NAME taxpayer NANE/AOOO 10 11-117-ZS SS 0001 014Z0 ORACRETTS POINT RO J R JUNOT A N J JUIRIT JANES R JUnT OOX 1 CRYSTAL OAY IM SSSZS SO 11-117-ZS SS 014SO ORACRETTS POINT RO HARTIIA S A A LACm AN REEO NARTHA S A A LACHLAN REEO ISOO ORACRETTS POINT RO HAYZATA Itl SSS91 SO 11-117-ZS SS OOOS 01400 ORACRETTS POINT RO R A L IIEAORICR R06CR L A LYTII C IKAORICR 1*00 ORACRETTS POINT RO HAYZATA Itl SSS9I ■. ^ j PROP AOOR 0I9KR NM« TAXPAYER NMK/ADDR SO 11-117-ZS SS 0004 OISOO ORACRETTS POINT RO HARTIIA S A A LACHLAN REED NARTNA S a a LACIN.MI REED ISOO ORACRETTS POINT RO HAYZATA Itl 5SS91 TOTAL OATCH 004 09010 f 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESEMTEO ARE AM ACCURATE AlO TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECOROS OF THE HEItNPlM COUNTY OEPARTTNMT OP PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE REST OF NY RN0HLED6E AND RELIEF. OATE t • • • . I • .. . •• . Ttr-Wi.iw MIR.J V-. - ^'.■ '>"i./: C % ^ 1 ' ' ' • '^' ■ ' 'J/ '^- \ ' ^Vv 'A ' \ \ \ *' y «' \'' '■ \ " "' ' \'' \ '. \'' '■ 'Sc-----' 'V ';<> '> % \ . '. V\/ '•. \ - C-s'M :'w'P ''^ '«• \^XoTv^ \'\ K ' \ • \ * ' \ X \0-—____ '.'.'• \ ■■. v<'-''^"% >5.' = fTlOATUOUSI; DOCK iO. AJto* Z^AiixS 'S. V /jTtWMCwOLW < O' > ' '' ' L--A • ' 'X* -v k:yy\'. ' \ '.__ ^ y . \' '' ' \ ' ' •'^^.' 1 • ''. . '• 'Vjio, '!,'■* ,• 1**1 -\t ! I* ; I • . ; '. ‘ ( ^ ' r * / * * ' : W • / * /' ; ' : .1 /f' '. \ '' ' S^hy^l ’ » ' ' 1 \ '\ - I > ' '! v^» /- -T* *-^‘, /•; : 1 V// ' \PpUI-HNlAL \ / AREA, i ^ \ I /i.vnni.M /444 i> • ' , I I, . V I « Ti :^>r *{w0 ifHAOi / \i •c 14'H • <15<T .GARDLrt- iAi*. J i-?*K.% •<WP COoi pvA a . m 14-1 A I # I I “'TH) ' \ I 7>V •AC* • 0)_____ - " • I I f r ^.CJIWkA ’•(1>6 1) A4-Uplt3<M '*^^J r1"V CAO^C ( IK. 4) i9' fy<.w»*y .f-ci^fr .tir AMK^* /a ^wOp '»',o, fo* H^r I, "x N N If H»fvX '• \ Y’' ■' ■' V / ' // / I, »6*nj H.\Lk X .* II* CiO»«4* :.'_______. ^ -?•?-- - iWT KAfU,< Remove portion of Service Access Road and restore to original condition. (3/6/95) -fiLEriToNl > -. < / ' ** / > WUlMllt>*ll \ —a 'i.-jT AREA NQTE3: SEE AREA t FOR SERVICE COUR l SEE AREA lA FOR MAIN TERRAC SEE AREA 7 FOR POOL, TENNIS CtMA SEE AREA 7 FOR POOL, TE g ^pH AND PERENNIAL GARDEN SEE 30 SCALE DRAWINGS,FCm areas not COVERED BY ENt OR AS NOTED *•. : 4* %. •. J V»•% • • v: -'ll <j "■ * .r- ■'t* * ■ '.c.'w-v-j i“‘. •• t' •• .*4 ,• ■ ‘^4 mm 'ey OSTVIG TRFE, INC. SINCE 1933 A Traditioii ol Excelknce HnNDOilBIT "B August 14, 1995 ; t Kraus* Anderson Attn: Ramona 1400 Bracketts Point Road Orono.MN 55391 > •. Tj'y -• * •. 1 I • 4 %• .• • Dear Ramona: This letter is to follow up on our telephone conversation of last week concerning the elm tree next to the greenhouse. That particular elm was in very poor health. We had removed a large portion of it last year which had died back. The excavation of the soil around the tunnel, in my opinion, would have caused so much damage to the root system that a healthy tree would not have survived. A tree that was declining, as the one in question, definitely would not have been able to survive that kind of treaunent. .Also, with all the supporting roots being removed the tree would have eventually become a safety concern. Any high wind would easily be able to cause it to fall onto tlie road so we felt it was best removed now. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns you may still have about the above information. JDO:kao Suite 200 • 1421 E. Wayzata Blvd. • Wayzata, MN 55391 Butinesg; 473*0534 Residence 479*3711 Fax: 473*7863 A Family Owned Biisines* For Three Generations i tf f CITY of ORONO ^ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 5 39 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 AM) VARIANCES TO SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1(A) .AM) 2; SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9(C-2) AM) SECTION 10.03, SL^BDIVISION 9(E) FILE NO. 1992 WHEREAS, Junes R. Jundt and M. Joann Jundt (hereinafter the applicants ) are owners of the propeny located at 1400 Brackens Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: Refer to Exhibit "A” attached hereto (hereinafter the "propeny"); and WHERE.AS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit to allow the reconstruction of a retaining wall and a variance to Secuon a 15- 'side yard setback and a rariancc to Section 10.22. SuMivision 2 for * ^ in the 0-75- setback area resuiting in a 0.10% increase in hardcover where 0.80% exists and 0.90% is proposed and where none is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVXD by the City Council of Orono. findings 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1992. The-property is located in the LR-IA Ukeshore Residential Zoning District requiring two acres in area, the property consists of 13.8 acres. Page 1 of 7 * I CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 5 39 3. 4. 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 unique findings and hardships: a. b. The property consists of 13.8 acres. The structures 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 propeny 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 lo the nonconforming accessor)' struewres do not involve the complete restoration bu* 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 has been installed at 4 ’ meeting the required width of accessory access stairs within the 0-75’ setback area for lots with steep slope. g The paved walkway will minimize erosion of grassed lawn resulting from the more intense use of the lake access suirs 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 neighbonng propenies. nor will its use depreciate surrounding propeny values arid that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 7 4 • ' 1 ^ I I < I toy'll I “h f i tm ^ vi.# j CITY of ORONO RESOLUnON OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. H ^ 5.llic Ciiy Council finds that ilie conditions exisung on lliis property are peculiar to ii and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variaiKC would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring proper*ies; 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 richt of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Compreliensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Dased 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 i^ierniit the restoration of retaining walls located 45’ from the shoreline of the property and grants variances to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9(C-2) and 10.03, Subdivision 9(E) to pciinit structural repairs to two nopconforming accessory structures 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’ lakcshore protected area prior to City’s issuance of a ^ _ A __i?_______________ ________building permit for restoration of strucnires. Applicants or applicants’ agents shall be responsible for maintaining erosion control within disturbed area until groundcover is restored no later than June I, 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 of 7 i o. o CITY of ORONO >-2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, NO. 3 5 8^ ___ 4. 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the tenns and conditions of this resolution shail 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. llin, City Clerk ncr(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) OrLo. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instmment was executed on behalf of the City. JAMitBOSMA MB«0«IOOUN1V Page 4 of 7 I > ’ -■£rii-Ai-.rv-w.r.-vt*n'itK£3Mraf3V^iVrw-r.*r.» •i CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 5 39 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Cinthis day of _______199 . before me a Notary Public toownTm^e m l^''ihe li’rson(s) de'scnbed in and whiUxeadted the ^going ii^strumem. and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. JAMCLBOSMA Ngumrau&MMa WWWCOUWT Mr Com HM w EiM M. 31.2QV STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of UcttL^ within and for said County, personally appeared •« fl * . 199^ . before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appcarcu rharrtcJ.----: known to me to be ihe persons) described in and who executed the forejotng tnstnitnent. and acknowledged that he (they) exect^ the same as his (their) free act and deed. jcouMir __ b«liMaf«.31.2tviO , Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. , 199___, before me a Notary PublicOn this___________ day of ___________________ Notary Public Page 5 of 7 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 5 39 exhibit a -*rviTrTC f»rt? ■*» ------------------------- . - Cit Gr^"3 r'Oir.w* L/i*s **L/i*9 Ti ----- ^ . ^ « in 5«4r-tr-:fe=«r.*. ci Crcno .-"'nr.*, w.a nse: tilt v«-. oi ;w.«lv -5 •;•■» ••“f in dt-criied Ur.«: irca’thJ Sorthwean^rlY «^.er Gtr.x»r ftv^r.u« 1o 3.Sj “**• % thtr.x^ soutr.ftrry rf L/.-- r.«%rrsr^^=^*« «- i--r.ct scuthw^txsriV c-r. » ♦ 1^*- curve •o r.£nt teriaer^t to l^t •n..Z*oi 169.39 3oux'r.we8*^rly 6- .irxt-t'i curv«: I.o fr.8 rislv. ^ tni-s of AA w4.-.xorJftA 8r.d '-.itr-s •«-:*jJ::*^‘ "tnl-s o! AA cx£f«3,^‘ r—8T.d '-r.tr8 xei-ir.»-. ;;*el :i “• '-•c- ^ ^ ^ ..id Oinx-tr AvWAt x\9n th«.t part v%c4*.»d C*nxe. Aver..*_^^^^ Crono « tM i««.len o'. tJ:.kr-;.''a?«!T.w£.r;Ji:»*r;v ■■^T—*,j..«a ••‘.st.T'ly 'f "so. S3 lo.t r.or-.Mrly Jroa r-— -oaxh'-^sx wcTAT 0- S4*t- .rj.«tr.8rly cl s^-td 4rx<v«9 i. f.; rii i-"iv-.o; ?r:;n^-U ^ 1 kv^rrifi irca »r.s 7c,i>*«* ®* . ^ »•_.,•j * ^ * * ft ti c^**^e* f* •• ^ ot •••■^ . •.—T- ,.4^u fc drt.wn 10 leeL ci saitt w..lirm ••ttn iL centeri#*— • Hue! v»«3C—i!?CS %••“ ^ ^wC* ^ ftsQ T*ort**erw •• . £ xer .AVfcruc r’lCr-c* scuxT.sriy dt- nisf vUraTodtSl? S'...l7 iooo . O. u.-- , ^ s^id Itr.e there endiri^o • % Page 6 of 7 . .r'lmjiMvi..A CITY of ORONO resolution of the city council NO. 8 5 3-^ \ .»leo ^ ever 1 '-ier «.nue oron^io'-.:^ ^ ««« t, vhich Ues ^ s»id Border of tndtri*c-,icr. c- , line cirrvn ‘"i:....- .‘venue frea «r.e .^.crlbed ^ !o;-; side Unee of ***'^ "tl Vj-dcr Avenue *4td Center Av- I •«.•. S«--r--.l« Jj in'^rthcrlv C4n-.*r A««>. ,1 dlsw.r* of 5 .eet* ^ rediue o: 1 curve e d.ettnce “ a redtufl o* "^*i*«* curve e Vkl curve »o t&afient *-o lea.# 9 curve 10 •cut**e';y c”^* "® **•’ ****feet; iher.ee aicni i --her.ee aouth- SS%r. - of 78.1 feet to -v.ere endini*.i,ve.-.ue. end eeU Ur.e -uer. Page 7 of 7 i! r«eMH l»i»*e« i.H'W IIWM ITITM.I I'" '(Tl / f Ml 6. Facilities necessary to provide shore area ac q§p^^O physically handicapped persons shall be allowed provided dimensional and perf ormance standards of subitems 1-5 A:^^omp]J|tedIif^ddition to the requirements of the Minnesota ReAulaQc^^ C|[a|0r 1340. A building permit shall be obtained for obstruction of stairways » lifts and landings regardless of whether such improvements are constructed above, at or below grade. I H G. Steep Slopes. Any applicant requesting a permit for construction of sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes, shall provide adequate information to allow the City to evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and developmentvisibility from public waters before such permit may be issued. When determined necessary, conditions shall be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. H. Height of Structures. No structure within the Shoreland Overlay District shall exceed the height limitations set forth in the standards for the underlying zoning district. r I. Vegetation Alterati 'J^1. No live tree within 75 feet of the shoreline/^with a diameter of 6 inches or more (or 19 inches in circumference or greater) measured 3 feet above the ground may be removed without first obtaining a permit from the City staff provided that at least the equivalent number of replacement trees of a size and nature found acceptable to the staff are planted at the same setback from the shoreline as those removed. Appeals of staff determinations as to type, size and quality of the trees to be replaced will be to the Council. Removal of trees that are dead shall not require a permit but such trees must be inspected by City staff prior to their removal. 2. Intensive vegetation clearing within 75 feet of the shoreline and on steep slopes'within the Shoreland Overlay District is prohibited. Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than 6 inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees of any size is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accomodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lock boxes, provided that the screening of structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. J. Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling. 1. Grading and filling and excavations necessary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways under validly issued construction permits for these facilities do not require the issuance of a separate grading and filling permit. However, all grading and filling activity approved permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways shall adhere to the grading and filling standards of this section. 2.Grading, filling and excavating is Tinner A • 5 .’m i I /r CITY OF ORONO VARIANCE APPUCATION [BIT AX: I 1420 Brackett! Point Road Orono, MN nFSCRlPnON OF REQUEST Repair and rebuild existing stone wall at tunnel that connects to existing Greenhouse. Construct a new Greenhouse structure on exisung foundation and rebuild existing brick wall at Garage Service Court Area. Repair and rebuild existing garage on existing foundation and repair existing brick retaining wall that runs east and west on property. J \ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINC MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22,1995 (#3) #1992 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1420 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMITA’ARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - S:01«8:40 P.M. Scott Crawford of Kraus Anderson represented the applicants. Mabusth ^evie^ved the application noting this property has been before the Planning Comiiussion for review several times. She explained the need for variances for the structural r^air of a greenhouse and existing garage and a variance and conditional use permit for the ry^ of retaining walls that support an underground opening into the greenhouse located in the 0-75 The comprehensive improvements application also involves the reinstallation of 6 high bnck walls along the side lot line and along the front street setback. The walls are 50+ from the street yard meeting the required setback. Another issue is a paved path located in the 0-75 setback area that was not calculated in the original hardcover review. The appUcant has install^ a 4 path instei^ of the 8* path and this request has also been included in current application. On the onginal plMS there was also a 12* grassed access drive that was to have an underliner of gravel to be covered with grass, which would not be considered hardcover. A 10* paved path has been installed instead which now adds hardcover in the 0-75’ zone and requires variance approval. Peterson questioned how the applicants could be allowed to install the path in the 0-75' zone when it was not approved on the original plan. Crawford commented that the path was instaUed in the "heat of construction" to ^ce the pool and terrace area. The portions of the path in the 75-250’ setback area are not a hardcover pro«^; Crawford questioned if the entire path would need to be removed or just the portion in the 0-75 setback area. Schroeder questioned the amount of hardcover in the 0-75' setback area. Mabusth responded th^ 21 557 s f or 16 47% was approved in earlier reviews. The additional 4 paved walkway, 10 pa driVe and retaining wall repairs in the 0-75’ zone brings the property to 16.76% har^over in th^ 75 ’ setback area. He did not object to the walkway but did question the dnve. Other members agreed. Peterson commented that in the 1993 review members questioned the foundation of the greenhouse and were told that no further improvements were planned. Crawford responded they wwe not Dlanned at that time. Peterson asked if there were any other violauons staff had observed since previous approvals had been granted. Mabusth responded that the BuUdmg Inspector works very closely with Crawford and was not aware of any other violations. Smith asked Crawford if there were any other improvements planned for this property in the near future Crawford responded that there has been some discussion of restoration/structural repair ^ the caretaker house. Variances would be required for a side setback and repair to an oversized accessory structure. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING minutes for FEBRUARY 22,1995 Smith confirmed the retaining walls were to be repaired with no changes. Nolan asked the purpose of the underground walkway and retaining wall Crawford explained it ^ the entrance tr IhTrooi cellar and basement of the greenhouse and the only outside access to the greenhouse. Schroeder asked why the grass drive did not work. Crawford responded that seiyice and Schroeder asicM y g continually require grass repSr U used .0 access the back areas of the home including the garden., tenms Peterson asked why the grass had not been tom “P,Xfdif^“aJ^ been done on a regular basis Crawford responded the pool was located in a differen Mabusth miterated Peterson's conmtents that much of the l«d<»^ in the 0-75' zone was approved because of the fact that there was only about 17% in the 75-250 zone. Nolan noted that only necessaiy items, not item, of convnuence. should^ ^idered for the 0-75' zone. He agreed with the walking path and retaining waU but questioned the drive. Cchroeder asked if other options had been considered tor the lO* drive such as two asphalt paths with grass between Mabusth asked about the possibility of connecting a drive to the Lead of using another curb cut. She did not feel membm were convinced there was a hardship to support a variance for the portion of the drive in the 0-75 zone. «™.h odred about the septic system issue. Mabusth stated a date is requited for the instaUation of a new seotic system since the snidy on areas to be considered for sewer has been completed a^ the Brack^ Pota area will not be sewered. She asked that Crawford submit a wntten statement wA , ^t^dica^^ for installation. Crawford responded that the owners were revteimng infonnanon property would require a Comp Plan Amendment and would take a long time. There were no comments from the public. Nolan moved, Peterson seconded, to deny Application #1992 as proposed. ri- -:«n r>rmtinued recardina the proposed variances. Nolan commented that if the 10’ dnve were from the 0 75' zone there would be no need for a variance for the drive. He did not object irthrfemaining variances.’ Peterson commented that the Planning Commission tUa. lakeshore orotected area and the greenhouse repair is a similar situation. K4 K°*!h°noted the uniqueness of the property and the hardship for the retaining wall at the beulg *e only grade level access. Schroeder would prefer to see the *ive connect to in Hrivewav rather than use the 0-75'zone. Mabusth indicated an amended plan vv^d be n«e"^ showing there was no increase in hardcover as a result of road paving in tte 0-75 area. The app7-"» could choose to put the drive into grass or connect to the mam driveway. I rsT:£> J-J annrove ADoHcation j#1992 for James and Joann restored to its pre-existing grassea condition. The applicant p presented to Council. -Ayes d, nays 0.prescmea to t^ounuu. - ,«) ».9»3 CXLVTN C. KORTH. 900 DAKOTA a VKNOE - APPEALS - PUBLIC HEARING This application has been withdrawn by the applicant. There was no one present to discus, the application. Candy Rowleite arrived at S;42 p.m.Candv Kowieuc auivtu as w.r..... «„4 ROBERT WOLFE, 44£0 FOREST LAKE lANDDIG - VARIANCES - PUBUC HEARING - 8:47-8:54 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Wolff were present. Mabusth explained that the applicMts have they are now a lO'xld' three season porch addition. , STihis re^'ts "d" ** changes.cnanijcs. Nolan asked if the apptwant would consider replacing the concr«. pad with stepping stone, »d grass. Wolff indicated .le would. There were no public comments. Nolan moved. Smith seconded, to app^- Ayes 5. nays 0. 309 WESTLAIGE STREET VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEA(#6) #1996 GREGG PERL 8:55 -9:05 P..M- Gregg Perl was present. Mabusth explained that ^TaiSn — rS!" “ -eve. •« Uie southwest «mer. The roof ^ STton «panded in the substandard side setback requiring vanance approval. 1 _______^. «j-rtc'D nriAD - VACATTCARLSON easement - RESOLUnON w-J . to «Jopt Rejolulion #353« &f Robert W. Cariton of Gocncn moved, Kelley secon ^yes 4, Nays 0.710 CJander Road for a vacanon of easemenL710 Gander Road for a vaciuon ___‘innlirants. CONDI 1 VI.?*- ------------ cat, Benson cfKtnu. .^^detson Construction represented the spp.ic»ts. ■ __11^ 0^ Gary Benson ot Kraus • t'r>r hardcover variances in the 0-7 5\ a variance of the upper portion ot 8"'"!'°“* ^ variances for structural repairs to Ae repair of brick foundation w^s. «d se;:;s2rs'^replacemeni oi a iciou-a.^------ TM jwBWiy *“to ^itooto. car garage include new fasaa, roof, of 15’ and will require variance garage lUso does not meet the add a pathway on the east shore approval for structural repairs. vvas origin^ shown at S’ but was Z ia the 0-75' to the “ve “. ^ ^stinB r«*i«^ “ cottsttucted at * and 30 s.f. ofwaU were not melu^ to be restored. The ^ ;rnnrnv«nent nlw showed e 12 wi rtriffinal hardcover facts. Thcongiiial P ...^ eka» would to be restored. The 160 s.l. ot waii^ay ^ ^ wide access dnve. original hardcover °"*^an underlying gravel bed that would not have It was shown as a grassed dme 'vn found no acceptable hardship to aUow considered hardcover. The Planning . f nf additional hardcover in the 0-75 a new curb cut on the public roa^^way and 250 s.f replaced with setback area. An amended s«c pl^ show, area are after-the-fa« nrr » go onto the nrighbort preperty to make the requped repmre. •me Planning Commission ^*^^^^005. atnended excluding the be remo«d and The iff wide , r|^ Applicant must provide written S.W ,«=w »«- - detached caretaker residence are to be instaOed. t * Mabusth co,^'^i, notootte ho^s^^Us'^ ^j_ rrbfpick«. up«^u“toS** tri^Tw~=‘foaV«riM if sewer is not approved for property. sramed in liic near fumre. ,„^lc to removini thi paved roadway Mr Benson reported that the applicant ^.^^cr be chanfid to a time of two“s=rju%*. ■»•■ 1V c—. June I was acceptable.rr rrrjo-of .0... *0.-. up .0 Sircoisb.r^=^ __tj^rtiiition ^3539 vdth th< reiterated the need tor a nv'^.v-------- . . * j^bbcur mov«l. Go«.« --* WESTLAKE STREET - VAWANCE(m GREGG PERL, 30!» >vm * crdTsE or not applicant is present.or not applicant is present. «iq«7 sally ANP JONATHAN LEBEDOFF, UOl TOWDAL vl^NCES - RESOLUTION «S40 Mr. Rob«t MitcheU r.pr«ent«l the .ppttc»U5. Lwch boU. have 75' se*.ck requueymi. wl a 75% ,e property U m a tivo-acre ^ ^back. lo<«rf ’ ...fv .^ce. The smicture a loe;^ at a au^»^ „ a en the weft IHleW “H^!*Tbc property isliso encroached by the Sped plain at 931.5 w thCr-r ' vvidth variance. from the main lake line wnciB aw-------- needing no variance. The elevation L / TO:Chair Ptterson and Oroi» Plannu^ Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM;Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Plaisning 8l Zoning Administrator DATE: September 14, 1995 SUBJECT: #2072 Graydon Newman. Jr., 1655 Bohn’s Point Road - Variance/Conditional Use - Public Hearing ZoaiBg District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre. AppHntiw Request for haidcover and lakeshore setback variaiices and land alteration permit in 0-75 ’ zone to allow reconfiguration of lakeshore access walkways and shoreline improvement includiiv sand fill and boulder wall improvement. Pertinent Code Sections 1.Section 10.22, Subds. 1 and 2/Section 10.55, Subd. 8/Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L): No hardcover allowed in 0-75 ’ zone; allowed exception b 4’ walkway leading diiecUy to the shoreline, per Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (F). 2.Section 10.22, Subd. 1/Sccuon 10.55, Subd. 8/Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J): No grading allowing in 0-75 ’ zone. 3.permit required for land idteratioiis in 0-75' zone. Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Site Plan/Constiuction Plan F - Cross Section G - Hardcover Calculations H - Code Section re: Lakeshore Stairways Pertinent Facts 1 Applicant recently purchased thb property, and upon obtaining a survey found^t his pre-existing deck platform located at the shoreline was encroaching into the neighbor^ property. Further, applicant ’s dock was also found to be encroaching the extended property line, not meeting LMCD setback requirements. Zoning FUe #2072 Sqxember 14, 1995 Ptge2 2.To make these stnictures conforming, af^lk:ant proposes to remove the 600 s.f. deck platform, and replace it with a 5’ section of wakway paralleling the shoreline for a distance of 30’. The purpose of this walkway section is to coimect the proposed new dock location with the existing coiKrete stairway system within applicaitt ’s property located approximately 20’ south of the side lot line. 3.Additionally, applicant proposes to make certain improvement to the shtmline in or^ to reduce pre-existing hardcover, and provide additional stability to the existing shoreline riprap as weU as the 2-3 ’ fUgstone retaining wall located 10-15’ back from the shoreline. Applicant ’s landscape architect proposes to add an additional 6-12" in height to the shoreline riprap; place boulders against the existing inner retaining wall for additional stability; and add approximately 12" depth of sand between the ripn^ and wall above the existing concrete patio block surface. The intent is to add native grasses in this sand area. Hardcover Review Hardcover in the 0-75* zone is 3,654 s.f. or 14.4%, made up of the following items: Wellhouse (SW end) "Boathouse" (near dock) Stone stair (SW end) Cone, stair (near dock) Cone, walk from house (near dock) Patio & deck (near dock) Stone & cone, walls Cone, stepping stones (along shoreline) 47 s.f. 40 s.f. 65 s.f. 96 s.f. 192 s.f. 604 s.f. (part over water) 1,030 s.f. 1.580 s.f. 3,654 s.f./25,360 s.f. = 14.4% Proposed removals Patio & deck Cone, stepping stones under sand 604 s.f. ±100 s.f. Proposed additions Wood walkway 5x9 at bottom of steps Wood walkway (2.5x30) + (5x6) to relocated dock (portion over ripn^) 45 s.f. 105 s.f. Net reduction = 554 s.f. 3,654 - 554 = 3,100/25,360 = 12.2% The net reduction of 554 s.f. in the 0-75’ zone reduces 0-75’ hardcover from 14.4% to 12.2% rrirair >iii Zonii^ File #2072 Septen^r 14, 1995 Pigc3 City El !Cr*S CoBBMtS The City Engineer in his letter of September 13th advises that the proposal to add u additional course to the existing riprap, install sand behind riprap and plant native grasses, is acceptable from an engineerii^ standpoint. He also noted verbally to staff that the proposal to place 2^<iditinnai bouldcrs to suppott existing walls may increase their longevity and is okay from an engineering standpoint. He ai«n suggests the concrete patio blocks be removed prior to installing the sand layer. If not, that area should be considered hardcover (this would leave final hardcover at about 3,170 s.f. or 12.3%). He also suggests that top soil may be more appropriate than sand for establishing grasses and that erosion control should be installed along the areas to be graded, if any. Appiicant’s landscape architect. Dale Gusufsoi established within the sand as proposed (see proposed to leave approximately a 10 ’x20* area Issues for Consideration 1.What is Planning Commission’s opinion regarding the hardcover status of patio blocks under 6-12" of sand? This generally would be considered hardcover under past City practice. Applicant is willing to remove, but notes that they may provide sonie stability in this area of shoreline where waves apparently commonly suimoum the height of the riprap and wash into the flat walkway area. . 2.Does Planning Commission have any concerns about the width of the walkway to the dock, which is proposed at 5’ rather than the standard 4’ width allowed by code? 3. Does Planning Commission have any other concerns about this project? Staff Recommendation Any recommendation for approval should address the removal of the deck platform, the addiUon of a lateral walkway along the shoreline leading from the existing steps to the new dock location: and should address the proposed sand fdl and new stone retaining wall support proposal. The recommendation should also specify the hardships and justification for allowing the hardcover variances as well as the variance (if one is granted) to the 4’ stairway width standard and the need for excess length to extend to the new dock location. 1 r>- 1 CITY OF ORONO - VARUNCE APPLICATION ^ iLl iJ Inidai Application Fss S-CO.CO (S50.66 per each additionai variance) Renewal Variance Fee SICO.OO ^ (no change from original application) Variance for nonn:onfcrming su.jcnires — Af:er-the-?ac: Fees (Double application *e-; •i J I ? • • .• Propcm' Identificauon Number (F.LU.j j r-quired survey. Attach legal description lojppj^atio^jf^t me.____________________(momh/year) >aDc^;Da^ I mired i — own tte other (specify) P^t use of properu'; J<_resiae..tiai----- Zoning District: applicant Phone (home)_Sif£zjL2^lS---- Address: O — . __ Phonahome)jQXlS2?4 OWNER (if different Phone (work) Name ^nf A4 ^^ A/_Z^P-.g>. description OF REQUEST Describe request in detail:------ Estimated Construedon Cost S (attach additionai sheets if necessar^ VARLANCES REQUIRED Lot Area «.Lot Width Setback:Front Side X. Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify)U lucl ,„.i —------- mz< r --------------------------— (attach addidonal^hees if necessary) k. .-^1 > # 1 .y e »*f;<pr«w-wuwmi nw 'niwju>*.v-*—^ js •J REQUIRED SUBMITTALS A.. ,1.. inf miTtirn m- mVnttim ilwdliM In gcto fnr vour annUcation to hg considerfd coippklfil 1. 1 3. 4. Jt_ Completed ApphcauoD Form ^ ,15^ Mt Certified Property Owtters Ust of ottners tvit^_^i.u r 348-3->7n ~ Hermepin County Depirtmem of Finance, A-60a, Govt Cente., j48 j. ). Plat Map (obtained surveyor) and include hardcover altlomprovide one (1) copy . U" for 5. V '^ptSp'S'rurvey (e.tisting and P™P»s^ ol«v.tiona) ifa^c^m^S are p?opLd. In addition, provide one 1) copy 8W * “ 6. . Sketches or plans of floor & eievauon vic>v. ^ ^ you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 8. 9. nw Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please it--------- if ■ho'ho ” infonnurtpn to initluBi Induite L information supplied is Sxe and/cortBCt U the best/f hj<a»cr knowlcdr Applicant’s Signature OVOJER’S S^NATI^ ^ UusClKMion *'«»« aMlioti«s reasonable CiW^^tlBiiB. »*«>“. Commission m«nben. and Council Owner’s Signature iaamIaa^T^ate A „iir,nr must hav^^ submittals into the City offices 2J days before the Poin ting ComrrtitBion Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third M^> <f wh rn^ h» nresent at all scheduled review meetings of the Pla nning Commisslo If aTawlfcm is unable to mtend a scheduled meeting, please make ana«^ “2ave“ »tiJoS^ attend in your place and to Mvise the Budding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 • » i I . »A. I .• >» '• *:-v ■UN BATE Mm/f§ BATCN fit TAMMVei NiK/AOM TAWAVfi CM« NMi TAXPAYER CMNER NMS TAXRAVER MM/AODR 11 • • # MOB AOM CMCR MHE TAXBAYER NAHE/AMNI • • NDMEMM COUNTY nBKtTY TNTOWtfcTlCH SYSTCNEOTV ONNias LISTM U-117-2S 22 0002 OUOO OOMO OOINT M too OUNUO OAVIO J 0 OtMC J OUNLAO lAAO iOlOB KUNT 00 NAVZATA »0i iSSOl SO 17-U7-2S 11 0001 OlAAi 00MN5 OOmr 00 raCNAIL N CASIOOM mCNAIL N CASMHIN IT 00 tnoiNAVZATA m OOOASO 17>117*2S 11 oust OONNO OOINT 00 0 0 HOStifY A S 0 HOSCLIV STtONCN P A SUSAN P HOSIUY UU MMNB nUNT 00 NAVZATA IW tSSOl 10 17-117-2S 11 00010 AOMCSS UNASS1GN20 JO A N N C ICMMN4. . \ NSCMiLLi N C NENNAN lAis iOMtt raiNr 00 101 sssoi so 17-117-2S 11 0012 OOOSO AOOOCSS UNASSlONiO 0 K MDOIAN JO A H N C ICMIAN OOAVOON K NOOMN JO NICtNLLE N C NEIOIAN UBS OQHNS MINT 00 OOCMO m S5S91 A' SO U-U7-2S 22 01720 OONNO MINT 01 0 A 0 ANOtOSON AT AL BAS ANOtOSON 1720 00IM5 OOINT OOAD NAVZATA m BBS91 SO 17-117-2S 11 0002 oiASB ooNNS oomr 00 0 R NPONN JO A N N C NDOWH OOAVOON R N0OIAN JR NICNiUf N C fCNHAN IASS BOHNS POINT 00 m BSS91 so 17-117-2S 11 OlAAB OONNS POl J L COMKO A 0 J J L COMCO A 0 J 0007 ENT 00 PAULUCCS PAUUUCCI lAAB OOMS POXNT 00 NAVZATA Ml BBS91 SO 17«117>tS 11 0010 OOOSO 0 R NDOOM JR A N H C NICNILlt N C NEMIAN IASS OONNS POINT 00 SSS91 SO 17-117-2S 11 OOlS OOOSO AOOOISS UNASSlONiO 0 R NDOIAN JO A H N C NDOUN OOAVOON R NPOIAN JO NZCNELU N C ICIOIAN IASS OONNS POINT 00 OOONO Ml BBS91 REPORT NO. PlASOAOl PAOt S7SO 1A-117-2S At OOOS 0172S OOMM POINT mCHAEL N CASMNN SO NICNAEL M CASNHAN SO 179S0 BREEZY POINT 00 NAVZATA Ml BSS91 • • SO t7-117>SS 11 OOOA OOOSO A000ES8 UNASSIGNED 0 A S NtOSOII ET AL OAVtO A HAOQENi PON lAAB OONNS PT AO NAVZATA Ml ASS91 W 17>117-SS II 0000 OOOSO AOOOtSS UNASSl 0 R NEMIAN JR A N H C OOAVOON R NEMIAN JR NICNBLLI N C NDOIIN IASS OONNS POINT 00 BSS91 so 17-117>2S 11 0011 OOOSO AOOOESS UNASSIONEO 0 R NEMIAN JO A N H C NEMIAN OOAVOON R NEMIAN JO raCNELlE N C NEMIAN IASS OONNS POINT OB 101 SBS91 TOTAL OAfCij Bit 00014 •I.t.•t i 1 I n 7 J i ;m • ■ > r•» . ^ -nr 17-//7t« r %}% 4 - <s'^SL %: K^"/ </i (5; I •1 i?--’ ! *■ y. •m I ••••*• •• •••.• •. •••.*•• • • 1 • I ' ! «t I».I ■ ir*. ^ ____>..■.* . .. w.^ ,c,4 gustafson design # ilir W>^------ August 26,1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 !J 1 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 • ^„2 •• . »• I Dear Ms Mabusth: In reference to the Newman application we intend to propose to do the fbHowing work: Move the dock and canopy to a conforming location. Remove the existing norvconforming sections of deck at the lake shoft. Add a connecting deck walk over to the new dock location. Add a course of riprap to the existing riprap. Install sand behind riprap on shoreline, approximateiy 6 cubic yards. Plant native grasses to stabilize the area behind the riprap. The plan included with the application delineates the detail of this proposal. If there are further questions, please call my office. Dale A. Gustafson 1845 Wisconsin Ave. No. Golden Valey, MN 55427 tel (612) 544-4215 ■h, V 1 ^ bOOll^K.) • i«W«t gffirt f>t «**<••• «« MMCf*«r»fS«?|l•^•3Ml I M • Mf Mvitiam 1*^ \v0*t9m tmrn fmt t«*t w •■■«t«l« •* MatMIA. mm <»■IMff lioo.. hm „ ki^i CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for ORAOY t SHELLY NEWMAN •SMMW* Existing Boat Hous o ' Ex. Maplel Add Sand To Replace Concrete Increase Rip Rap Height Existing Lannon Wall Add Native Grasses 01 * j1 V . • V G'l ^41:?«Tn> r(^S>S '5^CT70Ai SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) (fO-TSI 75-250’25-5UU*sW'iMwr £ A. vIKII''4G hardco ver in zone •7^3 _ S.F. i!'£Uf/a>^ Liwk 'A'idlb X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B.(..3 6.^Q'O S.F. C. Driveway X X S.F. S.F. *»C ^T^iC if- D. Sidewalk /9^- X ^ ^&j2.------ E. Patio/Deck ^^>0/2- -fz S.2^=- S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. o. OU.cr total hardcover in zone total PyP^ARE A IN ZONE ^ . 100 S.P. S.F. % A B PpnPOSED ha pt^»ve « zone S.F. I I '. f A. House Lcofih Width X X S.F. S.F. S.F.t r.-'l S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway X X S.F. ' S.F. • t. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. ‘V / E. Paiio/Deck X X S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other total HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ __ . S.F. "S.F. A B B X 100 = SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ fyiCTiNr. RiinncnvER in ZONE A. House_____________* Length Wkhh B. Garage C. Driveway X X X X X D. Sidewalk ---------- E Patio/Dcck '7'Z^ * ----—-— ^ArtP% iWM F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE . • total in zone ^ y- ppnposED ZONE A. House --------------- Length '■t Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X 3, !z^ s.F. r //Z-s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^ S.F. /CJ 7 Cg_6^ l(, (^0(^ s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ;.F. % S.F. 8 A B S.F. S.F. ^ •’ S.F. S.F.,;;^''---i S F._ , S.F>^^ G. Other total HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property AREA IN ZONE A_ _ _ _ _ _ _ B X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______ Lengdi 7, 7^ Widlh ^ S.F. 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/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X S S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY.AREA IN ZONE^ S.F. S.F. A 6^7-5^---- fROPOSEP HARnCOVgy IN A. House Ltogfh Widih X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE . + B X 100 S.F. % B ....... S.F. V.S.F. S.F. s S.F.•» y 1 ♦ mk S.F. / # » ' S.F. S.F.• S.F. • Jt * ' % 3,S.F. r ^,cS.F. S S.F. ^ ; •S.F. s S.F. S.F. S.F. . S.F.A S.F.B % i SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’75-250’25-300'3UU-iUOU‘ FXTSTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Lxngiti Wkiih X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landsc^ Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPER AKEA IN ZONE^ // ppnposKD t^i^pprovER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Leogth Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. "S.F. __1* S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. F. Laodsc;^7e Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property AREA IN ZONE A_____________-i- B X 100 S.F. S.F. % A• ^ B iJ A B ( S 10.56 6. Average lakeshore setback. No or accessory structure shall °o|^existing residencethan the average distance from the shoreline of |xisting buildings on adjacent lots, Further, the average stairways, lifts, landings, classified lakes, and shall lakeshore setback shall ^PP^y lakeshore setback line shall not apply to tributaries. .he a ^ lakeward protrusions of the be a straight line connecting uhe most lakeshore lots, residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore _ . • _ _ requireiients of that section. Section 10.55, Subd. elevation shall be established within the Shoreland 7 of this code. All structures including basement, Overlay District shall have t. eir ^^an the regulatory flood placed at an elevation no lo ,ia+-r>T-v flood plain elevation protection elevation. Where the elevation at which the cannot J^®asonably be deterained, placed shall be determined lowest floor, including basement, may oe pxa^cv* as follows: 1. For lakes, by placing the 3 1 1 .)• least 3 feet above the highest known water lev®!' feera\ove\he”rdinary%igh Water Level, whichever xs hxgher. A • 2 For rivers and streams, by placing the lowest floor at least's feet above the flood of record. E water-oriented Accessory Structures. E. allowed to be located nearer the water-oriented than the normal structure setback as Ordinary High Water ^e a lock box no greater than 20 ^""=^“Att^”in'^a«a “nd“no" higher tLn il\"nches in "height. Such a requires a building permit from the Cxty.__________________ alterations for stairways, lifts and landings shall be |irored^‘’in'the%h”V-se4‘ack zo"ne and must meet the followxng design requirements: 1.Stairways and lifts must not exceed 4 feet in width. 2. Landings for staiirways and lifts shall not exceed 32 square feet in area 3. Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. ORONO CC 376-12 (2-24-92) r V /S. S 10.56 4. Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the and built-in a manner into the ground, provided they are design that ensures control of soil erosion. on conditions, whenever pract-.cal. 6.Facilities necessary ^o^provide shore area are compxex:ea xn Regulations, Chapter 1340. 7 A building permit shall be obtained for construction oi stai^ays lifts anj lan.in.s^ «he^ such improvements are constructed above, at or oexo -j---------------------- ------------------------G Slooes. Any applicant requesting a permit for construction" of V«Xemii«‘:rie*er driveways, structures, or other ® evaluate possible provide adequate information visibility from public soil erosion impacts and ^ued. When determined waters before such “tf/attachld to issued permits to rrrvrnr^erosi"f air^reseive existing vegerat^ Liiaie“?f%ubiic^i^aVersrtss°^rng si^e^r^relfii vegetation. H Heiqht of Structures. No structure within the !• Vegetation Alterations shorel?ne,with a becircumf erence or |reater^measured^3 above___ ^ J ”tha5°at least the equivalent nu^er /e"tta”cf T/cm-r tl staff f«b®-^"Jf®'^t.e"loih “coincil! Removal of trees that nre dead ■ sLli" nit require a permit but such trees must be inspected ! City staff prior to their removal. #• OkONO CC 376-13 ^ I . • S ' *121 1 J { 2-24-92)^"^ I I 13 — 1 S35 1 ; 26PM BC-NESTPiCC • A£SCC P. 1 J/1 Bonestrco Rosene «n| Anderlik & ^ 1 Associates Engineers & Architects September 13. 1995 §>^%Troc ^os*nt Anarr..« ^no Aisoc>Jt«t. t*»c • A^f ve a -:-c^ frwj’ Cn«»o>C' O^O 3. HDr^ifca »J ^C0OC'T A f.9*er^. » f • .,as#3« C. /\ACe^-k. «3TVi- w f L K «-x'j • rw*T^/.i*L G e-!* ^ Coo« £ .**fc/CJ *r G ir*»ur*:-L •-£ Wje*' V «i,<* c •> * • >e^ or HOwera A S»Afo*a Kt A Gordon ^ £ ^OD^t ». Hester**. » f rc^*2 M •etr*r s f 0 LCikora raoef? r:. A.r • -e*^/ A. eo-?ca«. Ma** A •^*nion NT r->e; T Tesik -.c.c..»£ “'r»cr?'3';* A.:>. C •£ A ^ £ ;rr^« : M*r;,#*«r *r £ £. Tnom>- M d«.r»»for v*c«»d« C '.;»*‘C» • • Jomc; t Moor>C • f >#rry D. trrr*i.*n • £ Sect! J Arq.’mtf PI Atnnotn *r Anoerson «»1 M«Hl A. »9t*S MdfH A. S»iO. G**v VI' Mof*en • f • .* c^nnyn • I f SAr:f> 4 ftf^#r:o^ • £ A ^»^eve • ? t••**•& j ':£(<¥• ; ^c vi)*<€ ? u'» .*♦ f Z VI. ei fi A £ fn.*va • L f.A'en t a. .cn»r*r- ■» j D Kr • f •' ^ *, c#gft. f Todd fo::e*. f t «cttf> A. Yjod fJL CoogiiS J Pd«o.i. ^ e tn#wn 0 G^dtsen. • • CeoKo 0*'vi«r * S Aoni « Wd^nor A1 •lu* G Hrw. •i • Qzrae* Af D*^ ? io>*\*tr • I *e*'*ey • ff^iff.noef. j^.ran p • L .♦f M V.-r*n PC Z^y *: A f» w-::* M N{ O.io*' A^ei M Jjmtif C.Ajeyi^rd? Mr. Michael P. Gatfron, Asst. Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 CrN-stnl Bay. Minnesota 55323 Re: .NewTOan Residence File No. 139-2072 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the proposed shoreline alterations on the Newman property at 1655 Bohns Point Road, located on the north shore of Crx'stal Bay. The proposal to add a course of riprap to the e.xisting riprap, install sand behind the riprap and plant native grasses is acceptable from an engineering standpoint. We offer the following comments: The e.xisting concrete patio blocks should be removed prior to installing the sand layer unless the area will be considered hardcover. An alternative to removing the blocks would be to crush them in place. A layer of topsoil may be more appropriate than sand for establishing native grasses. Erosion control should be installed along all areas to be graded prior to the work to protect the lake. Please contact me .at iliis office if you have any question.*; regarding thi.s matter Yours very tiuly, BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Shawn D. Gustafson. P E. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 I to. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Peterson and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator September 15, 1995 #2073 William and Susan Dunkley, 2709 Walters Port Lane Variances/Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre. Application: Request for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover variances for a number of proposed property improvements: 1. Repair of driveway, retaining wall around driveway, front walkway in front stoop. 2. Replacement of retaining walls along lake. 3. Replacement of retaining wall and steps alongside garage. 4. Addition of front entry to house to alleviate water problem. 5. Three season porch along channel side. Pertinent Code Sections 1, Sections 10.22, Subd. 1/10.55, Subd. 8/10.56, Subd. 16 (C): No structure aUowed within 75’ of lakeshore. 7, Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B): No encroachment of average lakeshore setback allowed. 3. 4. Sections 10.22. Subd. 2/10.55, Subd. 8/10.56, Subd. 16 (L): Hardcover regulations. Section 10.03, Subd. 19: Retaining walls in 0-75’ zone require conditional use permit. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letter of Request from Applicants E - Lakewood Lawnscape Proposal F - Survey Zoning File #2073 September 15, 1995 Page 2 G - Site Plan H - Entry Proposal I - Three Season Porch Plan J - Retaining Wall/Landscaping Plan K - Survey with Staff Interpretation of Where Retaining Walls are Proposed L - Hardcover Calculations M - City Engineer ’s Conunents Pertinent Facts 1 Please review the applicants’ letter of request. This is a many faceted proposal on an extremely limited property: Lot area = 0.56 acres nor\ Lot coverage by structures = 15.1% (proposed - 16.5%, allowed 15.0%) 0-75’ hardcover = 49.6% (proposed = ?, allowed = 0%) 75-250’ hardcover = 74.2% (proposed = ?, allowed = 25%) Overall hardcover = 56.6% (proposed = ?, DNR standard is 25%) An usually large proportion of the property is covered with rockbeds with plastic or fabric underliner. The driveway includes a fairly large parking area, and the existmg patio area only 10-15’ from the lake also adds to the hardcover excesses. Some portions of the pre-existing retaining walls have been removed, and driveway reconstruction is underway. Exhibit K, provides staffs interpretation of the retaining wall replacement plan as described by Lakewood Lawnscape. Certain of these walls are near the shoreline but above the floodplain elevation. While the landscaper proposes to set in a new block wall just shoreward of the existing wooden wall on the channel side of the house. City Engineer suggests in his comments that it would be better to remove the wood walls since they will eventually deteriorate and leave an unstable area. Associated with the retaining w 11 replacement is replacement of landscape b^. Planning Commission should carefully review which hardcover landscape areas might appropriately be eliminated as part of this project. Additionally, the Dunkleys propose to construct a new entry at the mid-p»oint of the house on the street side. They suggest that not only will this provide a needed ^emty for the house but will solve a water problem in this area. This entryway will not be visible from the lake, and will not impact any neighbor ’s view of the lake. However, it is within 75’ of the lake, as is the entire house. Also, this entryway adds to the lot coverage by structures", which is already just over the 15% allowance. Zoning File #2073 September 15, 1995 Page 3 6.Finally, applicants propose to construct a screen porch and deck on the lake side of the house, comprising additional structural hardcover, increasing the lot coverage by structures to 16.5%, and will be located 19-24 ’ from the lake (see Exhibit F-2). This addition may have a slight impact on neighbor s views of the lake. City Engineer ’s Comments City Engineer Shawn Gustafson indicates that the proposal to construct m^ular block retai^g walii y acceptable but he would like more information regarding the specific product identified by the la t Iscaper. The engineer also requests a cross section of the proposed wall construction. He note. that although the landscaper suggests placement of the new block walls just outside of the existing wood walls (leaving the wood walls in place), this is not a recommended practice because the wood walls eventually will decay, leaving an unstable slope. Staff would note that any individual walls in excess of 4 ’ in height must be engineered. The City Engineer further notes that the driveway presently drains to the east and north down the neighbor’s driveway. The new driveway should be constructed so that drainage is directed westerly down the lot line to the lake without impacting the area of the neighbor’s house and driveway. He further notes that the paver walkways would appear to cause an increase in hardcover. Staff would note that existing hardcover numbers have been submitted, but no proposed final hardcover worksheet was submitted (see below). Finally, the engineer makes a general comment regarding letters of credit for imunng projects are completed. The City normally does not require letters of credit on individual residential construction projects, although there are some projects such as the extensive Lear retaining walls on Dunwoody, or the extensive driveway retaining walls for the Bangert project on Bay side Road, which perhaps should have been subject to a letter of credit. However, the current proposal does not seem to be subject to the same risks as those projects in staffs opinion. Hardcover existine rockbeds be converted to grass (when not part of a narrow wall system) or have the fabric or plastic underliners omitted/removed where retaining walls systems would make mowmg problematic. Zoning File #2073 September 15, 1995 Page 4 Staff has not attempted to calculate the square footage of the odd shaped rockbeds on the property, but from the hardcover calculations they comprise 2,538 s.f. in the 0-75’ zone and 2,155’ in the 75-250’ zone. Totally omitting hardcover from these areas would reduce 0-75’ hardcover to 35in the 0-75’ zone and 43% in the 75-250 zone. Entryway Addition The footprint of the proposed entryway addition is approximately 100 s.f. Its roof system will actually be approximately 2’ higher than the existing roof, but in the context of the house it is a minor addition. Further, applicants’ suggestion that this will resolve a water problem gives the project some merit. However, the lot coverage by structures increases from 15.1% to 15.6% as a result of this addition. Proposed Screen Porch and Deck Applicants propose a 10’x33’ enclosed screen porch on the lake/channel side of the house. A portion of this porch is over the existing paver patio, but a portion is over existing lawn area. The 330 s.f. porch (in conjunction with the 100 s.f. entryway addition) result in a final lot coverage by structures of 4,004 s.f. or 16.5%, 1.5% higher than the 15% allowed. Further, the porch and deck constimte an additional approximately 230 s.f. of hardcover over existing grass area. And. the deck and its railing, by virtue of their height above the shoreline, constimte a visual encroachment of approximately an additional 11’ into the lake views of the neighboring property owners to the north. The deck as proposed will be 19’ from the channel. The northwesterly comer of the porch will be 24’ from the channel. The southwesterly comer of the porch will be 34’ from the shoreline. Issues for Consideration 1.Is there any justification or hardship to support approval of the 10’x33’ porch or the 10’xl6’ deck on the lake side of the house? If so, how will the additional hardcover and strucmre be mitigated? Is there sufficient hardship and justification to allow construction of the 1(X) s.f. entry on the street side of the house? How will that additional stmcture be mitigated? 3.Is there sufficien. hardship and justification to allow replacement of the wood retaining walls with a keystone type block wall system? Will the keystone wall system be more visible from the lake? How will it be screened? Will applicant remove the wood retaining walls which will be replaced by block walls I Zoning File #2073 September 15, 1995 Page 5 4.What areas of hardcover can be removed in order to bring this property into some reasonable and acceptable level of nonconformity? Is there justification for making the making the driveway smaller, or does the "dead-end" nature of the narrow roadway suggest that parkins'should be provided on this property for its occupants and guests. 5. Does Planning Commission have any other issues with the proposed work on this property? Staff Recommendation Anv recommendation for approval of the various facets of this proposal should define exactly what improvements are being allowed and what actions are required in order to mitigate those improvements. Options for Action 1. Approval as submitted, applicant to provide retaining wall details per City Engmeer ’s request. 2. Approval or partial approval with conditions and specific hardcover removal requirements. 3. Table for funher information. 4. 5. Deny. Other. I :: •^1 CITY Oi' ^RO?f5^^EN^RAL L.W) l SE^PLICATION 4 * • * I t - t •- a w - - •■ -. •• V. * V..'. PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2709 waiters Por*" tnr.e. Or Type of Application to be Filed “opr^MM Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT Name VJilliam M, & Susan K. Dunkle^^ Address 2709 Walters Pnri- T.r-^nf^Citv' Phone (home) 471-9447 _________ Phone (work) 557-lllj or 339-1 290 Orono _____Zip 55331 _______ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name william M. & Susan K. Dunkle Address 2709 Walters Port Lane Phone (home) 471-9447 ‘V _ _ _ _ Phone (work) 557-1111 or 339-1290 City Orono__________------------------------- Date Property Acquired ____July 1984 (month/year) ■ ^ ^ L W A A- W A W ▼ * * W V ^ I (do) (do aot) also own the adjacent parcels of land. ttoo FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - SO %, S 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application YA/2. $125.00 Residential Accessory'Use ,J S200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ” S175.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments j $150.00 Duplex CredityBldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use X $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplam Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more % Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 ’ of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $100.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS , r x $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) S250.00 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 PROPERTY Present Zoning District______ Present Use of Property xx . Residential Other (specify) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Cenified Property Owners List of owners within 350 ’ (you can obtam this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603. Government Center, 348-3271). Plat Map. , . j r Cenificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surv eyor) - reter to handout for sun-'ey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (e.xisting and proposed contours) if land alterations mvolve changes in elevation (grades). . List of the legal names (include marital satus) of all persons with an mterest m the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU .ARE REQLTRED TO SLTPLY 30 COPIES OF FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) 8. 9. 10. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Cenification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff __________________________Date--------------------------------- OWNER’S SIGNATLTIE .. .. ui« The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. _______ Date 8-23-95 __________Owner’s signature vviiiiam w. LAmKiey Aoolicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at dl scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled please make arrangements to have an authorized agent anend in your place and advise the Budding & Zonmg Office of this change prior to the meeting. i CITY OF ORONO • VARL\NCE APPLICATION Inidal Application Fes S2C0.00 ,i (S50.00 per each addiiional variance) ^ Renewal Variance Fee SIOO.OO *' (no change from original application) ^ . V^ari^ncc for non-confonniE2 sirucrurcs S-i.00. After-ihe-Fac: Fees (Double application fee) V I \ .3^ Jk V*• PROPERTY ESTORNLATION Site Address 2709 Walters Po ri- Tv^ne. rvrnn. .MM— Propert)' Identification Number (P.I.D.)----21-117-21-21-QQ4 5Arhlegrd^c^i^ .0 appUction if^ndudcd on required suney. Date Propertv Acquired______julv , 1984 —---------------------- I (do) (4e-net) also own the adjacent parcels of Imd. Present use of propernu XX residential -----other (specify)-------------- Zoning District: ---------- -------------------------------------------------- (month/N ’ear) APPLIC.ANT IsJame william M. IXmkley Address: 2709 Walters Port Inne Phone fhome) 471-9447_______ Phone (work) 557-1111 or 339-1290 Cirv: Orono ___________Zip: 55331 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name same Phone(home)_ Phone (work)_ Address:City;Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQL*EST Describe request in detail:____ Estimated Construction Cost S (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQLTRED Lot Area ___Width K Hardcover Lot Coverage K Setback: 2L Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) compliance with Zoning Code requirements; ----------------------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All nf th> follo^-in.. infonnaiion mu" chnUtt.d bv tht app|i(;31ion tejUne date in prda for vQur aDPlirnTinn to be considered complete.: 1. 2. j. 4. Plat Mao (obtained with propen>' owners list). ^ ^ . j ~ CenincAte of SuiA'ey (signed by a licensed suneyor) f" calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8-. x 11 for Topo^npSc sur%’ev (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade — are pr'opLed. In addition, provide one (1) copy x 11 for 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 mterest in th property. This would include name(s) of applicants) if not current As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list Oi any o p you wish notified of this application. __Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your v.rifinrp nnnlicntinn is not complete if the above informatign haj QQt be^n mcludgd. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further aulhorues reaAOMWe entry onto the pr^rty by City staff, consultants, agents, Conumssion members, and Council members for purposes of investigation ant^’vetificauon of this request. Date 8-23-95Owner’s Signature _______ William M. Dunkley . . this change prior to the meeting. 8 GOVT LOT WM DATE Oa/21/95 i^NI4EPIN COUNTY mOPERTY If^MHATIQN SYSTEM PROPERTY OMIERS LISTBATCH 509PROP ADDR CMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR . •» PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR r^v r'. PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR '•« • *•• *: • • • -?, ;Ni IB 20-117-23 lA 0007 02495 KELLY AVE SAN KAPLAN GARY BIRNBAUM 2495 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 3B 21-117-23 23 0040 02701 KELLY AVE T R A N N 8T0RLIE TED R A NENDY HEINE STORLIE 2701 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SB 21-117-23 23 0043 02705 HALTERS PORT LA 0 J BELL ASK NESELY DOWLAS BELL A SUSAN NESELY 2705 HALTER'S PORT LA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 30 21-117-23 23 0044 02710 PENCE LA DEAN E TERRY DEAN E TERRY 2710 PENCE LANE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SB 21-117-23 23 0049 0003B ADDRESS UNASSIGNED DAL UPNOFF DARYL L A LUCY S UPNOFF 2499 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 32 0007 02715 PENCE LA R E EZERSKl A L 0 EZERSKl RONALD E A LESLIE D EZERSKl 2715 PENCE LA ORONO MN 55331 38 20-117-23 14 001203275 CARMAN RO SORAMAE G NALLADAY SORAMAE O NALLADAY 3275 CARMAN ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0041 02499 KELLY AVE DAL UPNOFF DARYL L A LUCY S UPNOFF 2499 KELLY AVE EXCELSim MN 55331 SB 21-117-23 23 0044 02707 HALTERS PORT LA H 0 BLUNT ADM BLUNT TRSTES HUBERT D BLUNT 2707 HALTERS PORT LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0047 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ANDREH J MCDERMOTT 111 ANDREH J MCDERMOTT III 2702 HALTERS PORT LA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0051 02710 PENCE LA DEAN E TERRY DEAN E TERRY 2710 PENCE LANE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TOTAL BATCH 509 00014 REPORT NO. P1435401 PAGE 2838 21-117-23 23 002502745 PHEASANT RO STEPHEN L BAKKE ETAL STEPHEN L BAKKE 2745 PHEASANT RO EXCELSIOR m 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0042 02703 HALTERS PORT U HILLIAM H REESE JR A NIFE NILLIAM H REESE JR 2703 HALTERS PORT LANE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0045 02709 HALTERS PORT LA H M A S K OUNKLEY HILLIAM M A SUS*N K DUNKLEY 2709 HAITERS PORT LAIS EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0048 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ENVIRONMENTAL PLAttaNO INC ENVIRONMENTAL PLATtaNG INC 4530 IDS CENTER MPLS MN 55402 » I* - 38 21-117-23 32 0005 02789 PHEASANT RO PAUL L POHLE ETAL PAUL L POHLE 2789 PHEASANT RO RR 2 EXCELSIOR m 55331 i ; - I I I •. .1• f » • I • ■ . * * I • * » /4' '■••f r: ;.j • -1• til A 4 1 ^ ;4 ;» August 23, 1995 TO:City of Orcno <3^ [) 'v^il ^ FROM: William and Susan Dunklcy RE:2709 Walters Port Lane, Excelsior, MN 55331 Following is an itemization, followed by descriprlons, of work we hope to be permitted to complete on cur propenj” 1. Repair of driveway, retaining wall around driveway, front waJbvay and front stoop. J. Renlacement of retaining walls along lake. ▲ Replacement of retaining wail and steps alongside garage, 4. Addition of front entr:/ to house to alleviate water problem. 5. Three-season porch along channel side. We purchased said property in 1984. The house is approximately 30 years old. We sit on approximately ____of an acre. We have about 150 feet of shoreline and 140 feet on the channel that serves five other homes on Waiters Port Lane. Several years ago. during the 'TOO year rains." our side retaining walls, which were stacked limestone, gave way. We rebuilt the wall and it has now given way again. Our brick on the back of our garage on the channel side has cracked and moved. Eneineerins reports are attached that indicate our foundation was faulty, and to our dismay, not covered by insurance. We have removed the garage floor with permission from the citv to reinforce the wall and foundation. We will replace our 30 year old cement driveway at the same time. (The driveway has serJed and cracked over the years.) Our retaining walls will be replaced with Keystone-type matenal covering the same areas as before. While the trucks and mess are on site, we are requesting that we would be allowed to comolete r.vo re-hab jobs that mil enhance, not just repair, the existing problems. The fint job 'vould be to remodel the front entiyway. Although we only want to expand it a few fee’ on the front of our house, this should address a water problem we have had over i ^ ^/f \ the past eleven years. Our front entry' is indented and water collects in this area and runs down the inner wall to our lower level. We hope to correct this problem and enhance the front of OUT home by pulling the entry out and roohng correctly to allow more water to move away from the foundation. Hard cover requirements for our lot arc probably grandfathered m. We arc very' close to the water. Our home, although over hard cover requirements, gives the feeling of being in a very natural, wooded setting due to all the wooded property next to ours. We are requesting permission to enclose a 20 X 10 foot area up and doum on our channel side to allow us to use the two existing deck areas free from mosquitoes and bees. The lower deck is now a paver-brick patio and the upper deck is wooden. We would prefer to install a three-season glass porch, if possible. This location is close to the w’ater from the channel at this point, not the main Carmens Bay. This porch would not be blocking any other residenfs view of the lake since the area we are hoping to enclose is behind our garage. We will present our plans to the neighbors before the council meets to make sure we have full agreement from everyone involved. I i Lakewood Lawnscape %.% *»* 'J ^d 1- ia 'y J Ciintpiete YaarA/ound Professional Lawn Maintensrce 1546 143fd. Avenue • Ham Lake. Minnesota 55304 * 612-767-2317 To whom it inav cooccm. lakewood Lawnscape is contracted to do the landscapt reno\’ation at Bill & Sue Dunkle>-'s property @ 2709 Walters Point Lane, Orono, MN. Hie project >vill go as follows. 1) The driveway area (peximetei) install Ie^*eler pad, 1 lei'cl Pisa H 6" interlock block and revers-a-cap ivi^ one Hghted block e\ciy 15 feet, 2 sound q>eakers in front .irea. Replacement of rock and re>shmb front area Paver walkway will be installed between the front door and driveway. 2.) The north side of the property along the garage, a new retaining wall will be built 3'9" high leaving the existing wood retaining wall in place. The block retaining waA will go just outside the wood retaining w all. Block lighting will be used. Along driveway an addirional level will be added to come up to the needed heiglit. A paver stairway will be added to this area to replace existing stairway. Four over grown shrubs will be replaced and new rock will be added. 3.) Along back side or west side of property a block retaining wall will be added just outside existing wood retaining wall. The hill along the lake wiQ be landscaped with additional shrabs installed along the hiU. 2 paver walkivaya wiAbe installed. Landscape rock will be changed along house as needed. Mowing • Fertilizing • Weed Control • Deihatching • Seedutg • Tree Removal Sodding • Pruning/Trimming • Landscaping • Design • Snow Removal • Sprinkler Systems Y Ki!iSlil M ^ i| o « >r f> o ill si Sa 85 9-» 3-1995 11 :33Af t BCNES~-C3 *M \ 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene m |M Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects sonr>.‘^ra. COir^# * .’'no Asjcc 3T»X. -“SC i5 «H A^r.rA*-jiCiv« Ac: oh/?ak*ji Cocorrun»»y Cm9ioy*r September 13, J995 A San'r.'j •‘J C Ly^f* PL F. C K9 P L ^Odvff icicle. •£.*kk zr A. . 9 £t p £.e Toatf P')5;^. PL. . C. Fi 0. P^'frzcJ^. Pf.PL W. -•ittc'. ® 5 i<7l* r*jgjn€*. Pf.Ooci^ot 9^o«c PL t Tj:r0f. •> i S C. .osAOtl. .* £jor., PL. Cienn K P L VOM’T C A 1 A P. Po*f7.CfC.iio Cfw'tr. • L r^r-4* f. rj9V*i. f i...eTy A. iowrean P f A. $o!D. PC J * sgn<r. P £. C ** S A. HArtian, P £«*/ V4<>*‘#^ PX •am C P.L £5?*’:a CPA’T 9«vrtiv«an#» P •-*>5J J C.VSftCA. A f A P G*faef. • 5. 'tJ A PL J •oe^*in p£0. P f. • Vh:#- iSn A: A A 5 . C* » f ;«#?rry J •* £ •* Po^f''#’*♦'•.*1. ii A Ci-9ve P g P p r ro-j j c. Sw./c3'j' fri ■•'ll U J Fg ..ec V. Marn £ A. '.fva .»£• £Cranes a. Sr*ct%nn S'TUe' c f' a •£*.r*» M Pjwe'rPy ' vrr«r< ‘-»rr rr» * e - •“*.11.5 Cr.:»e' • •.."ir* M V'cr P .7.?vi ^ f t. X Pf Vt Con i* *D •.r P £f rn-- "afc; Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Building and Zoning .Administrator City of Or<?no Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Alinne.^ota 55323 Re:Dunkley Residence File .NU J39-:056 Dear Mike. Wc have reviewed the proposed driveway, retaining wall, and w-alkway replacement on the Dunkley property at 2709 Walters Point Lane located on the north shore of Carman Bay in the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 21. The proposal to construct modular block retaining walls is acceptable, except that more information is needed for the proposed Pisa II interlock blocks and revers-a-cap, including the raanufaaure's specifications and installation recommendations. Across-sectional detail of the retaining wall should be submitted that includes the maximum height proposed. Wc do not recommend that the new walls be constructed "just outside of the c.xisting wood retaining walls" as proposed. Tliere is a potential for problems to occur as the wood walls deteriorate with time. The c.xisting walls should be demolished and disposed of at an approved landfill prior to constructing the new walls. The existing driveway presently drains easterly and then north down the neighbor's driveway. TIic new driveway should drain north to a curb cut and/or a spillway where the drainage is directed westerly down the lot line to the lake, without reaching the neighbors ’ driveway. The paver walkways are accepuble, however, it docs appear that there will be a net increase in hardcover proposed on the property. The amount of increase should be calculated and included with the application. Erosion control should be installed along all areas to be graded prior to the work to protect the lake. The City should discuss whether a letter of credit should be provided for private construction projects as a requirement of approval. Tliis would give the City a mea.surc of control during construction and may insure that the project will be completed satisfactorily. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions reprding this matter. "V'ours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. .ANDERLIK & AS.^^OCIATES. INC, Shawn D. Gustafson. P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 ti J ^’-zr-9S SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE 0*NE) ~L/VJAi^re^te.^ HAW)COVER CALCULAliUlil UKKS«±.i:. i 0-75’ EXTSTIN’G R\RDCOVTR IN ZOME A. House Lengch X X X B. Garage C. Drivcwav X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F.Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic # Or Fabric • X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A S/3^ - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway \ X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Of Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in zone A _____________- ® • 75-250’"25-500’500-1000' Widu*i ss S/B3 49/S X 100 7^.gg wudi 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, *0 S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • ‘S.F. " S.F. S.F. S.F. . S.F. S.F. • S.F. ■ S.F. X 100 -% • 14 A B A B ___?-2t - 9S T>U»fl£.C€/^ 3 WAi^ r^.M^ < y^4±Zl i HARDCOVTR CALCULATlOiN VVORKbHlLt- j SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250^ 25-500’500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER FS ZONE A. Hou 5C ______ Length X X X B. Drivc'.vav X X D. Sidewalk __ /-51?•9T > E. Patio/Deck cec.K 2^*5 X X Landscape Underlain By Plastic^Io^ Or Fabric • X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE SS77 ^ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Length X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other - s.F. Wui;h • s.F. S.F. »S.F. « 449 S.F. 30 / • .»• 389 s.F. « .S.F. no - Z33 SF. */o » /Z.C? S.F. • = ■ S.F. - 29/ SF •- S.F S.F. 2 «f4t S.F. S.F. >S67n S.F. •S.F. nz^o X 100 - 4^.^/ ...• S.F. Width S.F. at S.F. S3 S.F. at S.F. • S.F. «S F. as S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. s.F. S.F. aa s.F. S.F. ^ s.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B X 100 - • • Id A B ------- j JK A B f i ^ moo O Xm r • i §■ S.- * tr H u _-< • I if 1 rr X (T -9-r /7. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2043 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: August 23, 1995 TO: Gordon Buhrer 2620 Fox Street Wayzata. MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: COPIES TO: Sketch Plan Review DATE OF MEETING: 8/21/95 VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL COiNDITIONS: Tabled because applicant was not present. Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as; Planning Commission Monday, September 18, 1995; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. You should attend the September 18th meeting or send a representative in your place. Please contact Mike Gaffron at 473-7357 if you have any questions. n TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Cit>' Administrator FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator August 14. 1995 X /I SUBJECT: #2043 Gordon Buhrer. 2620 Fox Street - Sketch Plan Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre. Application - Request to split existing 4.10 acre parcel into two lots, creating one new rural building site. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Concept Proposal 1 D - Concept Proposal 2 E - Topographic Survey with Plat Map Background F - Staff Concept Sketch - Drainage Easement (existing route) G - Staff Concept Sketch - Drainage Easement (reroute along ne'A ’ot boundary) H - Subwatershed boundary map I - RLS 1249 ^ iC- Pertinent Facts 1. Existing gross lot area = 4.10 acres. Proposed Lot 1 = 2.1 acres: proposed Lot 2 = 2.0 acres. No drainageways or wetlands have been subtracted from this gross acreage. 3.Applicant proposes to split this into an east lot with existing house accessing onto "Fox Run" (Tract E, RLS 1249), and a west lot, with fumre access onto Fox Street. 4.The front lot line of the existing 4 acre parcel technically is along Fox Street, although the driveway access is from "Fox Run". In Concept Plan 1, the new building site would access to Fox Street and front on Fox Street. The existing house lot would aiso technically still front on Fox Street. In Concept Plan 2, the only frontage for the existing house would be on Fox Run. Vacant Lot 1 would have additional frontage 'Jong Fox Street (see Exhibits C and D). Concept Han 2 avoids the need for a lot width variance for Lot 1. Zoning File #2043 August 14, 1995 Page 2 5. Under Concept Plan 2, the front lot line along Fox Run is only 19.6’ from the existing house where a 50’ setback from either the front lot line or from a side street lot line is normally required. The existing house was constructed in 1968, when the zoning was R-IC, 1 acre, and required a 20’ side street yard setback. 6. The split into east and west lots rather than north and south lots (which would on the face of it make more sense w ithin the context of other lots on Fox Run ) is proposed apparently due to septic site availability. An existing drainageway also has an impact on the usable land and therefore the layout. 7. A buried tile line and an open channel constitute an existing drainageway t^t accommodates an upstream subwatershed of approximately 75 acres. The City currently has no easements over this drainageway. 8. A small pond exists at the southeast comer of the property. This is not a designated wetland. 9. It would be in the City’s best interest to require a 15’ wide drainage easement the entire length of the tUe and the open channel, and a widened drainage easement over the wetland, as part of any subdivision. 10. Such drainage easement cannot be used for dry buildable credit under the concept plans presented, leaving only 3.81 acres of dry buildable land. One of the two lots would be short of the required 2 acres. 11. One way to potential way to solve this problem is to set the proposed dividing line at the center of the channel, resulting in most of the channel lying within the standard 5’ drainage and utility easements along the property boundaries. The problem is that following the existing channel may not yield two lots each exceeding 2.0 acres. The channel could feasibly be routed to a center liiK yielding two conforming lots. This would require some detailed hydraulic engineering. 12. A second way to solve the problem is to grant a lot area variance, which would be precedent-setting and is not in the City’s best interest. Items of Concern/Items for Discussion • The City Engineer indicates it is probably technically feasible to relocate the tile and channel to follow a suitable lot division line, leaving at least 2.0 acres of dry buildable land in each lot. The standard easement the City has required for such drainageways is 15’, and the standard perimeter drainage and utility easement is 5’ for each lot (for a total of only 10’ combined). Should dry buildable credit be given for the entire 7.5’ easement needed in each lot? Zoning File #2(M3 August 14. 1995 Pace 3 What are the hydraulics of the down stream ailvert? What is the 100 year flood elevation? Does it match the 940’ contour? Applicant ’s engineer should provide an analysis of whether the culvert, tile line and existing drainageway are adequate. The City probably did itself a disserv ice by not requiring the developer of White Oak Circle to locate the underground tile within that division in the late 1970s. Where are the feasible septic sites? Are they subject to possible flooding? How close are they to the channel or to the tile? Does the existing system need to be replaced (City has not done a conformity inspection on the existing drainfield, which appears to be about 20 ’ from the creek . . .)? Where is the anticipated building site? Where exactly will the driveway access be located? Note that the City cc^e does not strictly require that access for a new lot be from Fox Run, but the Comprehensive Plan suggests that most new lots should be served by driveways accessing to private roads, rather than directly onto the public road system. What is the future use of Fox Street? If it is upgraded to handle more traffic in the future, would it be better to require this lot to access to Fox Run? If a diagonal split similar to Exhibit G can be accomplished, will the resulting lots meet all zoning standards (area, width at setback line, existing buildings meeting setback minimums, etc.)? If access to Fox Run is desirable, will the City require this private road to be upgraded to meet a minimum traveled width or surfacing requirement, or require that the cul-de-sac be constructed at the north end? As proposed the subdivision with driveway access to Fox Street would not fall under the current moratorium, but it would if the driveway for the new lot accesses to Fox Run and no upgrade to private road standards is proposed. Applicant has suggested that since the pond at the southeast comer is man-made, he is prepared to fill it back in to gain dry buildable acreage if necessary. The pond is not mapped on the National Wetlands Inventory, but if delineated would very likely be defined as a wetland . . . Staff Recommendation Provide applicant with as much direction as possible regarding the above noted issues, and define those items for which applicant needs to provide additional information if he wishes to pursue division of this property Zoning File #2043 August 14, 1995 Paee 4 Although the City Engineer confirms that the tile and open channel can likely be rerouted without causing hydraulic problems, there still may be a question of wither the City wishes to see this area channelized, which would likely require the granting of a conditional use per^t, and may involve approval of the Watershed District and other agencies, and might result in a less "natural" looking drainageway. < i. CITY OF ORONO -SUED rVTS IO/SpLJC ’ATION*' .s-n I'' a”-\%N •i .« tr.. •-••C-A..... . w •* ' w •••• ;>.o- •w • vvw V « >« . •' A ‘kK . .w • PROPERTY LOCATION S.'.s 2ddress Q.CQ. 0_ * A - ern'rc ^TACeX Prooerr,’ Idenuficaticn Number (PID) 4. • ^Please check one - Procerx>' absacci or Ancch legal description to application. torrens? applic .ant Name r^neoo^ go</^f>g- OL2o foy^Address ^----------------------------- Cic>' \MAy7/9 ‘r/9 f f^\f^f*eSo7± Phonethome) ^0S-/C /3 Zip ££22/Phone (work) 3 7V - 7 J92. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ________________ Address Cicv Zip Phone (home) Phone (work) (attach list if mere than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Develocment Size tLA Present use (.check) Acres Dry Land Acres We: Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ / Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Division for Ta.x Purposes . —----------- Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildlmg sites) 7 Subdivision for Ne%y Building Sites >jiimher of~Building Sites __ I------^ E.xisting Units I New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per Q. Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)__________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE «lELl>nNARY APPUCATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to •application fees* listed beiow. 2. Completed application form. 1: obtam tb:. list from Homtopin County Dopsrtntottt of Finsnc. 5. Js^' p,«„ ^b a sopsnm ust of my omo, pors^you -isb .onflotl of this application. Zoning Official*! Signarurc ----------------------—-—" I ^^NIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL ■. aooicable). 1. Payment of tees (rerer to Preliminary Subdivision .\pprovai rcso ut- 2. Si^ed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal piat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official’s Signature -----—■ I. APPLICATIO.N FEES (Zoning Administrator to cbedc [XI those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: Sketch Plan Review (Class I. II & IIH S-00.00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement S300.00 Subdivision Application (Cla^ I & (Class III & aU non-residential)Preliminary Subdivision Application S325.00 + S25.00/lot (C.ass « au Final Plat Application (Class III) S175.1X) Legal Review and Filing: Subdivision only $75.00 ^ Subdivision w/easements and covenants mm. 520U.W Totals Park Fees (to be detemuned per Section 11.62) -------- Rckw!11 of Final Claas III Subdivision Application SIOO.OO (No change from original applicanon) “• S600.00 . S.50ri^eri fr.:------i^- f- s .50- S------- -------- Proposed Public Roads S900.00 + S.50/lineal ft.; lin- ft- * -0 - S---------Proposcu rUDUt xvuouo ---------------- ronn r7\ Proposed Watennain Extension S250.00 + S25/smb ■ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) S200.0(} . r-____ citm Cx/^liitarinn Review TaDDlicablC tO ruraloX'SysTe” srEvri^ion Revi.» (applicable tn rural subdivision applicaUons) S50.00/ncw lot proposed for on-site x-------- new lots mm ^C. F!e.\ible Application Fees/Misc. Fees Variance 5200.00 _ -------Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision S75.00 ”””” PRD Application with Subdivision S30.(X)/Dwelling Unit established by ordinance. Applicant’s Signature------a----------— Owner’s Signature _ ^—- — g rir:. ssr.=s.'rr:=s‘""" Date njii h£- agent (r WATER SOFTENERS 2620 Fox Street Wayzata. MN 55391 (612) 475-1613 e? oikJ^ v; •I * •ijixh (JvOT. A ,>tA jujA j(JL jIas ^ ^^ ^Uuy.-^ jvre>^ rrC PJ/Uju. /uy<-^ y4-£/w<^.yKtrr^ 0x-J^ \ i ( r & i ! f'-- • \ f ■''• v' \ sr^ ‘••‘I i=te 0 5 * V>o» CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GORDON BUHRER IN TRACT D. RLS1249 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 32iOS jfAF7 ^ir 0#J ^/r »4J ShtJ \ CM€ I . O (*f4) 0 O Bora S 'O fO o: !a ... *.* . 2./ Me. z 2,0 t^f. o • •• V: H 56 “ w J2/. 12 4tJ 3?^ 6S me*!. «•FOX .STREET PlA(\J #■ / V -i -u.«s © & f X VI : O ft CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GORDON BUHRER IN TRACT D. RLS1249 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 38106 A«.,. 17^.97 mtr I i o#j * <tp*) r4J Shed •• • 90S h V o4i V %ft N « • 0 E/i» finj Bof^n s[2F N 'dm o: 2./ ^/(C 2 /.O ^/<f. 0-^5* <h> O • * ••• k 9)// 69*56 “ V 32f. if 01S <9 FOX . STREET rcwJceSV f'M'O iJrZ- -Wf J CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GORDON BUHRER . IN TRACT D. RLS1249 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA i , FOX /fT ^!0 * ______________ STREET - ‘fjso'-iZ C fO nl /t a ir /» * V»Ol/ik * ffo J ......... _ lipj 2H i.—-* ! • 4 i! ! ^ * :. V5f• % I* •li' ;ir •»* i'* ••• yf 14 U\ I **.* lii: t '.I I • i J.'* ‘ ^ *.'•1 •< f* i *• t »• ; •• » ‘•‘I II » ••!*i : ,)< % ,1^lym REClSrERSD un> SURVEI NO. HOINSPIN COtMTT, MIMMESarA J0/,S"O m*vj. J79.SpM A/S9*SSWrdx^'W4F7r >0 /i.or // 'Scvfk hne of of Socfon 4, r//7/y,4£JtV Morfh /th^ of Jf of S^cfion 4, T//7y, 47JW I herabj certify tbat in eeconUnce with the proTiciooe of Clieptor Mimooota Statutoe of 19i9 eo aMndod, 1 haro aurvayad the folloifii^{- daaeribod tract of land in the Oountj of HMHia|dB and State of MUmeaota, to vits Lot 15^ iuditor*a Sabdiriaion Niaiber 229i HNinepin Oountyi HUmeaota, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the HUgiater of I^eda in and for Hninepin Coiaityi and that the aureay ahown hereon ia a oorreet daXineal aaid aunrey. Gordon R. Coffin ' Rag, land Siireayor and KLanner Long lake, Mnneaota Thia regiatered land aunrey vaa approved and accepted by the ViUage CouncI aota, thia A.D. 1967. y ^ l^tF ORWO; X ill o^Ckono, lOnne- VILUGE COWCIi NOWEsarA cleric Seales 1 inch - 130 feet Date t April 12, 1967 o t iTKKk nonunent oJlil t Judicial landnark Baaringa ahown are aaauned 'A* CITY OF ORONOADDRESS CODE __Sl PTiC SYSTEM INVENTORY CARD DateConnected to Municipal Semar Address fox’ ^r~. System type ^Standard trench □ Mound □ Other ____ Property I.D. ^V-//7*g-S V2- 00/0 Legal Description Permit No. ^Date of permit *C^tl^>^(^-^2^^COn$taller No. Bedrooms Building type /CffS/Pg7^Cf5 or GPD 3 Laundry ^ Dishwasher Garbage Disposal SEPTIC TANKS: Material 0 PtZ^CAIT- X^<fp/J<r . Bt. Carwcltv 1) /OOO t 21 # ± T Proper outlet and inlet _____Baffles __________________Liquid depth to RO level Height of tank bottom above water table OiC Distance to nearest building yo' ^ DRAINFIELD: Total length of llnei Number of lines ^ _ Trench wwldth ? ~ Total treatment area ($q. ft.) — Height of drainfield above water table Type of filter material **- »- OC Soil typa __ _ , f jj t! Distance from nearest bldg. _2_0__i_Tile sire w r L COA..^ . Perc rate ___________min/in .under titaDepth of fill over drainfield /2 V Depth of rock over tile ______________ 0<l\C . p/eT-r^ /V>!c'/‘:t<T<-»-f t/pp ^ i/OO t WELL DATA S 2 a c s T) Eo ? ^ I am GC o 0 Vi I > s 3 CO a-* C ‘Co s £u as Eo efl E o 8 C ¥* \ I> 8 M a E 3 CL M 1 .§ U StI f'• •. ♦ •INSPECTION RECORD PUMPOUT RECORD LOCATIONSKETCH DATE COMPLIANCE DATE GALLONS fO'-Z2'fiO CePLAC<= ocn R loc A c ^ i^y/OCO f>rC(unlf /0-f^ Jo-zLr fe>I ± VQd . 5unf^nciwtv ^m€d X CLcnersai^p^ t mped IHQ^ii II li* /M.'5^ <2 3M’Z *» C - CONFORMING S - SUBSTANDARD N - NONCONFORMING /2 At>c»iTfoN /r^<rPCAccf^trr^'T' F tv^a^k. Include: 1) Well location 2©'^ 2) Distance (fom house td^*^ septic tanks, diit. box, ^ and drainfield 3) North arrow and rood t>\TC4l • • % .et • • , TO: n DATE CouncilJoanne A. Mibuoth. Zoning Adnlnlitrator July 5, 1979 SUBJECT: Rofund of Sketch Plan Application « R«Mfnirlon CoiB»*ny, has withdrawn barCarol Lapuoy. agent for the ^tu^ wop^ .totdi run nrrllctton A proll«tnnry>aunrey revealoda|lo«^«^,S2^^ ..k^i dry boildable land. The i • • • • V • *> •• > i < aT ‘v r V V.- ->■' *' V . . . Jr ^ I > V ^ • j .. • .» c5V,: nf « * * ■• V *s - e VS - I V‘' •Jfc. ^^p£^$50; • •• *sTMv ^ ........... j>rj ..V ♦- *.v; •• ■ 'k *P • ^«. .. • ♦ •0- TO; FROM: Chair Peterson and Planning Comiiiission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning Sc Zoning Administrator DATE:September 15, 1995 St'RJECT; #2070 I_oren Bmeggeman Development/Dean Maeser. 372 Westlake Street Sketch Plan Review Zoning District: LR-IA. Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acre. Application: Sketch plan review of a proposed lot line rearrangement/replat to result in two building sites from this 1.99 acre group of 3 tax parcels. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Survey C - Letter to Property Owners 6/5/95 D - Staff Memo 3/8/95 E - City Council Minutes 3/13/95 F - Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subd. 6 G- " “ //,30 Pertinent Facts - Existing Lots of Record - Sack L c>ts 1. The Dean Maeser property at 372 Westlake Street consists of three tax parcels as follows: Lot 10 = 50’x544 ’ = 27,200 s.f. = 0.62 acre Lot 11 = 71.16’x519’ = 36,900 s.f. = 0.85 acre Lot 12 = 49 ’x462 ’ = 22,653 s.f. = QJ2 acre 1.99 acre 2. Lot 10 contains the majority of the driveway and 2/3 of the existing residence structure. 3. 4. 5. Lot 11 contains 1/3 of the existing principal residence strucmre; a second "house" used only for storage; and small comers of two rental cabins. Lot 12 contains the two rental cabins. The three properties have been commonly owned for more than twenty years, a^ have been used as single homestead with two rental cabins for many years. Earlier this year, the City Council reviewed this property in regards to overdue sewer connection. Council concluded that: Zoning File #2070 September 15, 1995 Page 2 • The existing principal residence, which is provided with and has been assessed for one sewer unit, must be connected to sewer immediately (it has not been). • The two rental cabins are non-conforming structures due to their location and are a non-conforming use due to the rental stams, have not been assessed for sewer, and must be eliminated by the end of 19%. • The three tax parcels must be legally combined within ninety days (deadline has passed with no combination). • All of the above to be formalized in an agreement with the property owner (agreement drafted to City satisfaction but not signed by owner). The basis for this action was the need to make a decision about the rental cabins sewer connection. Applicant either had to spend nearly $14,000 each to connect the cabins to sewer, or discontinue them. Council agreed with staff that providing sewer to these non- conforming structures with non-conforming uses would not be appropriate for this property. 6. Property owner has asked whether there are ways to "reorganize" this property from three tax parcels into two useful building sites. Property owner notes that the apparent market value of the property as a single building site is less than the amount he paid for the property. Sketch Plan Proposal Loren E. Brueegeman Development has submitted a sketch plan for a lot line rearrangement to result in two useable building sites. His proposal is that all existing buildings on the property would be removed. The resulting configuration would be 0.93 acre Parcel A abutting Westlake Street, and a 1.06 acre Parcel B to the east of it. Parcel B would take on the configuration of a "back lot". Please note the following lot standards data: Zoning File fflOlO September 15. 1995 Page 3 Parcel A Proposed Required Parcel B Proposed Required Standard Lot area: Lot width: - at street setback - at shoreline - at 75’ setback 0.93 ac.2.0 ac. N/A N/A 297’ 200 ’ 1.06 ac. 190’±* 310’ 235’ 3.0 ac (back lot) 200’ 200’ 200’- at /D bcioacR 262 ’ 200 ’ •Note- As a newly created "back lot”. Parcel B’s access corridor would have to be a 30’ oullot, and it’s defined street lot line is the NW-SE line separating Parcels A & B. Setbacks: - North - South - East - West 30’ 75’ 50’ 50’ 30’ 75’ 30’ 50’ 30’ 75’ 75’ 30’ 30’ 75’ 75’ 50’* * These two setbacks can easily be met. Hardcover allowance: - 0-75’ 0. s.f. - 75-250’ 4,800 s.f. ± -r- i •Excludes area of 12 ’x222 ’ driveway corridor, which could reduce this allowance sigmficantly if corridor is part of Parcel B instead of a separate outlot 0 s.f. 4,750 s.f.±* • • • - Note that in both cases this exceeds allowed hardcover. Additionally, any structure placed on Parcel B wiU need an average lakeshore setback variance. Municipal Sewer As pan of the Stubbs Bay project, this group of three propeities was assessed only one sewer imifi to serve the existing house. The City Council nad earlier concluded that it '*’2S not appropriate to provide sewer to the existing non-confonr.ing cabins. If the proposed lot line rearrangement/ replat was approved, a sewer connection charge of $13,097.00 (1995 fee schedule) would have to be collected for the second umt. Zoning File #2070 September 15. 1995 Page 4 Lot Area Variance/Existing Lots of Record Please carefully review the June 5, 1995 letter to Mr. Maeser. Clearly, the City has viewed this property to-date as a single entity for zoning and sewer assessment purposes. Even though the propertv' exists as three separate tax parcels, the use of those parcels has overlapped from both a physical and practical standpoint. Structures exist over lot lines, and the propeny has been owned in common as a single entity for many years. Specifically review scenarios 2 and 3 on pages 2 and 3 of the June 5th memo. It is staffs opinion that because none of the three parcels individually meets the standard of Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subd. 6 (A-2) regarding buildability of lots of record, the City is not forced to grant buildability. This concept is addressed more fully in «.w* June 5th letter. Issues for Consideration 1.As proposed, is the subdivision configured as a lot line rearrangement, or is it essentially a replat? 2.If there any justification to allow the access corridor to Parcel B to be part of Parcel B? Should it, as required in the back lot ordinance, be a separate outlet? Should it meet the 30’ minimum width required for such access outlets? 3.Is there any Justification to allow two individual building sites on 2 acres of land in the 2 acre zoning district? Should the City considei rezoning this property to 1 acre standards? A lot area variance would still be required. The parcel does not abut another 1 acnj zone, hence it would certainly be looked at as spot zoning . . . 5. 6. Can suitable residences be built on the two parcels within the hardcover allowances? If subdivision of this 1.99 acre parcel is deemed not reasonably, can Planning Commission offer the applicant or property owner any other relief? For instance, could a portion of the property be sold to an adjacent prop-*rty owner and still leave a reasonable building site? Staff Recommendation Please review the various attachments which detail tlie issues with this proposal. Mr. Brueggeman will be prepared at the meeting to show h<^w two house: might be placed on the two parcels, meeting the setback and hardcover requirements. Because this is a sketch pl^, the applicant is requestmg direction from tlie Planning Commission as to whether this subdivision is feasible, and if so, under what conditions. I V'*'' ;#2^ . CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIMSION APPLICATION ^ -■ j Vi *;)x (.P"-' l-CC A PROPERTY LOCATION Site address 3>*7 Z_ C-V ChECX i.-v» vv 8*. C;" Z"T ~ ^ * ’v’ V "V/ i / > -. C U 4.8 ; TM • vv.* Propeny Ideatiiication Number (PED) ooi^ Please check one - Propern’____abstract or K torrens? ^ Oro ^o AA'^ )3/E‘P. Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name A- ^ Cxi’^p*,n'^ Address ^,2,s~u :>. /^~y Phone(home) Citv /AJ //.^-1.Z\x)SS'33? Phone (work) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name X^<i-u- (2.. Address Citv 33 2^ v-Qg<t- t^Vc<,Phone (home) <i V Zip Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development SL"' 2. -L^ Present use (check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify) hnrriy wa V i ‘-ff'j. JL i-'te'VJ:-* f Uk t ^ Uf !UUf \ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) /___Units per / Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land K Residential ________Other (specify)__________ i MINIUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PREU>nNARY APPLICATION 1. ^^ymcnt of fees (refer to -application fees' listed below. Completed application form. ^Preliminary plat information on Certificate ^ ^ list from Hennepin County Department of Finance 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within C A-603 Go>i. Center 348-3271). persons you wish notified of this application. 5. As an addendum to this applicauon. please attach a sep _______ Zoning Official's Signature -------------------------------------------------------- 2. Signed Cemficate of Sur\ey or mylar copies ot rormal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreemenc and Letter of Credit. _____________________________ Zoning Official's Signature________________ _________________ I APPLICATION FEES (Zoning .Administrator to check PQ those which apply) ’ * =“w ,o.sn ^ nn s:o_o,oo Subdivision of a Lot Lme Rearrangement _____ Subdivision Application f ‘ j-’S 00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) Preliminary Subdivision ^ ^ Fmal Plat Application (Class III) S175.00 ” Legal Review and Filing: Subdivision only S75.00 _ ^ --------Subdivision w/easements and covenants mm. 5200.w ^ Totals SUDdlVISlon W/ca5cmcui3 au« Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) S .ppUc.oa> “• S600.C*) . -------- Proposed Public Roads S900.00 -H $.50/lineal ft.; ^ A__—Cwiertncr PnvafC Road lin. ft. X .50 =» S. Proposed Public Roa<U 5WAW - Im- Roios. (or Ciry .0 Aooep. Bm.mg Proposed Sanioty Sewer Main Ealenaion SmM + S25/snib ^'”“d L“rS1?^.rs«em S200.00 OoS^Tsysrem. Sire Evaluation Review (applicable to 1^ subdivision apphoations) S50.00/new lot proposed for on-site x --------new lots , Cauie/yiicr. FeesC. Fle.xible Application Fees/Misc. Fees -------- E^ment vSL^n Associated with Subdivision S75.(» I -------- PRD Application with Subdivision S30.00/DweUing Umt I cant hereby agttee-to-pfQvide all information required or requested by the SdwS tablished by ordii^ce.'ij^^ ^ _____________ Date ^ pplicant's SignaturV- -------------- *nefs ........... ^ ---------------- SSS 31“ o«=r o?ri;r;r.'o rs: Date //f f o o \ '■A CITYof ORONO \ 4>*b^hotP Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Partway Orono. MN 55356 MeiUnf Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 June 5, 1995 Dean Maeser 372 Westlake Street Long Lake, MN 55356 RE: Follow-up on our discussion regarding your property Dear Mr. Maeser: Rezone from LR-IA - 2 Acre, to LR-IB - 1 Acre, then teplat into 1 + acre lots. Replat three lots into two, requiring a lot area variance. 3. Lot line rearrangement between existing lots, existing mam house either remaining or removed. 1. changed a few years ago. Orono tax records only date back to 1974. Enclosed is a copy of th tax and valuation data we have available, and I would offer the following comments. 1974-76 - Greatest value consistently placed on middle lot. 1977-82 - Steady large increases in land value, main building value stil on middle lot. 1983-present - Main building value placed on the northerly lot. 1986 - Apparent reapportionment of homestead/HACA between north an mi e 1988-89 - North lot apparently got no homestead/HAC A, and taxes extremely high (+40-50%) for these two years. 1990 - Taxes on north lot back to 1987 level - apparently received credi«_ 1991 - Further major credit on middle lot, but disappears again m 1992-95. 1992-95 - Taxes and valuation fairly stable. Tdepbouc (612) 47^•7^57 • FAX 473-0510 Dean Maeser June 5, 1995 Page 2 If you have further questions regarding the above infomtation or tax data, please address them to Rolf Erickson, the City Assessor at 473-1844. Regarding each of the scenarios noted above: 1. Rezoning. Your property first came under zoning regulations in 1950, when the Township Board created a number of private residential districts. Your propetty was m *e "Stubbs Bay District" requiring a one acre minimum lot size. In 196 , northwest portion of the City was rezoned as "R-IC, One Family Residential , sull requiring a one acre minimum lot size. In 1975, unsewered areas around the lakeshore were rezoned as "LR-IA. One Family Lakeshore Residential D^stnet . requiring a two acre minimum lot size. Each of your toe lots individually is less than one acre, and therefore each has been non-confonmng m lot size smee 1950. Sewered properties directly south of "HUlside Park" remain^ at the one acre zoning st^dard in 1975. One of the main reasons the City chose to place a two acre minimum standard on unsewered properties was that one acre lots were too small to support septic systems on a long-term basis^owever, sii^ce 1975 the City has brought sewer to a number of two acre zoned areas, chosen to not reduce the minimum lot size requirement to one acre in those areas. The rezoning of individual parcels in Orono is a rare occurrence, amounting to perhaps ten cases since 1975. Each of those cases was umque, ^d thore properties were uniquely situated. The majority involved commercially zo^ property. By comparison, your property is zoned residential, and is one of ma y dozens of other similar sewered properties in the two acre zone. although you are located very near the one acre zone, your Property does not abut that zone but is separated from it by right-of-way. the lake, ^d other lots. I c^ only envision the Planning Commission and CouncU considermg a ° your property to one acre, in the context of rezoning your entire I expect the City would be reluctant to do so, especially if a rezomng would allow more houses to be developed in Orono’s low density rural zone. 2. Replat with lot area variances. In Ibis scenario, you would propose lo repUt your Ihree lots into request lot area variances. The assumpUon is that your existing residence wouM remain, all other buddings would be removed, and a new house ^ouW ^ constructed on a lot to the west of your house. However, there are a numbe Dean Maeser June 5, 1995 Page 3 3. s«^o°^anrwto“uLtly rouTd «r??aceVS'to“ e to request. They include: Tbc need to create a 'front lot" and 'back lot' in relation to the road^ The back lot (with your existing house) would have to meet 150,« of the to area and width sLdards of the zoning district under codes adopted by the City about two years ago. In a new subdivision, the City is unlikely to grant lot area variances, Lving done so for a standard residential plat on only two occasions since 1975, both of which were very unique circumstances. If lot area variances were granted, and assuming a 20’ access corridor was platted to the back lot, your westerly lot would likely be aonroximately 4,000 - 5,000 s.f. of hardcover mcludmg its sh^ of a shLd access^driveway. This might be a limiting factor for development of a new residence on that lot, and is unlikely to be ^ted a ^anajice for more hardcover, especially for new construcuon. Hardcover might dso be an issue if you were to remove your existing house ^d construct a mw one in its place. After excluding the first 75’ back from the 1 e, easterly lot would be allowed a relatively small square foougc of hardcover. Lot line reanangement (with or without existing house remaining). The purpose of to would be to simply move a lot line to place house a single tax parcel, leaving the parcel for construction of a residence. Your basts for to request ^ die fact that the three parcels have remained separate yet commonly owned.^ togta atX lime be so'<> individually to 3 separate buyers. You could also argue that the property has sewer available in the street. The Citv ’s argument against such a proposal would include the fact ^ sewer unit was assessed; that the house and its appurtenant septic syst^ made use of all three parcels as one; that Zoning Code Section SuMw^^^ 6 (A) (2) regarding lots of record, allows use of your second ^ sinele famil y dwelling purposes only if they are one acre m size average wid^ of 100’, standards which your properties and therefore even if sold separately would not be granted buildmg permits. Dean Maeser June 5, 1995 Page 4 In doing a lot line rearrangement, you would be asking the City to treat each of your lots separately as individual parcels. If the City was convinced that you could construct a residence on each parcel as it exists today, while meeting all standards except for lot area and width, then the City might have a basis to consider rearranging the lot lines to create more useful lots. However, because the zoning district standards require 30 side setbacks, no house could be constructed on Lot 10, which is only 50’ wide. Likewise, a house only 11.6’ wide could be constructed while meeting the side setbacks on Lot 11; and no house could be constructed on Lot 12 because that entire lot is less than 75’ from the lake. Therefore, given that none of the three lots is individually buildable under the zoning code requirements even when lot area and lot width standards are ignored, the City would be unlikely to recognize your rights to more than a single building site. In fact, by definition a lot line rearrangement is only allowed when the resulting lots meet all zoning standards, which is impossible in your case. It is my opinion that none of the scenarios described above are likely to result in the relief you desire. With that in mind. I would not encourage you to make an application for any of mese scenarios. However, if you feel compelled to formally pursue one of these routes, then I believe your initial step should be a "sketch plan review" at which you present a proposal to the Planning Commission. You would be best served in that case by hiring a professional site planner who might show how the property could be developed while meetmg hardcover and setback standards. Even if you do this, there is no guarantee that the Plamung Commission or Council will be persuaded to ignore the lot area issues. In addition to a site planner, you might want to procure the services of an attorney who specializes in land use to help you understand the intricacies of land use laws and ordinances. I hope this information is of help to you, and I apologize for it taking nearly seven weeks instead of the two to three weeks promised. Please feel free to contact me at 473-7357 if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Pla nning & Zoning Administrator MPG/lsv Enc. Tax Information 1974-1995 V?-? =•.• liii HiL IPUnn /).?»- m/j- m. -. nil-. hii-mn-.\ /m /fic. :_|;;V<?,ooo /?>'7 1 ‘/r,fw firin ii *.11^017 M.IOO — — ;', i ‘too C> fj^oO O 5;eoo . 22,wo ' ooo W&,ooo , HO^ooo nr.x |32.^d»lo _ ^0lO 5-2,fc9o — 33,C>os(llii ^,wco ss;o3o(/ojt^ ^,qOO . x«yw d>o{^(£> — G?(5 ----- (m3-»-) M3I I c? liiCjft")) 28^0. 3«,3oo(t«^ .... 0 31,000.. 51.ioo{j}o^ O.^C'rrO ^7DO^^,loO(^ ^ni]) /?®a mi mom> hn im nW •/TjOoo Hipoo ^^fOCO ^mm » ” *1 ^ I ' » « • ^ - r ^ m 5SJo<JO M2,cco . \,ccoC^\^ 5T,oo(i rl2,t)»o . ),©oo()d;) STjOCO C 2,’"'7sD I */2,CoO l oco (34^ S5;ooO VPjCxJO /,0od (tj*//^ CS}ou:> 6s^B.J»^H2,«9 c>o |,c>t»o 6*1^ rb'ooo 6101^t ,OX^ I ,£>» r*7,?oo 4r,70O / coo (iCit) •••• t: ^,ioo Wilis') S‘7,700 ^,u>o Cnoi) 57,700 ^1^00 (lioi'^ ^,noo Si,Uoo 60,600 ‘>"2,?po (205-1) t4,COO 5^7,rw> ^2 ihO .rpjOOO rjg.frx> ^9 poo SBooo Ie0\oo 1.0^0 (^/4x; |,e»eo Owi) /,oco 6V‘ii) (pO^lOO l,o0O6lUJ^ //Mou^c> flicA CM ^0/s 1^2. •• >;t> ^Jor /AifmLf ;//<rA Cois /0,7OO lj<>00^5iO If,100 1,400(5*'^! jH,tOO J,<|Oo('|l^>J n,IOO. 3^40oOfB^) >s,«wo 3,000(271) 30pcO v'ooo/'i'/s) <^000 (lOTl) 5.000 6ii) Jd^ooo 300CO y>poo 'Vi,coo ^Spoo S,coc>Ot\^ 5,000 Olts) 5T,ccO (l24*i): 59,(00 S'^l»oo S,‘|oo()Vi^ ‘/r,coO r,4co(jsu\) Ir^oot C,'/ooClLl^ Hr.oco *; v/00 Orii) ' • / 1,000 (jSW() Vt,Coo S/VOO (’/r/'i) Cftoo 5,400 ; * • I I • .1 • V.Vi-- •'>*•,• rr^W.^- !»?.»• •.« M . * » t< ,• • ■ i *. ► % .> V# i •, ».. * , •” .* p‘\^r\*t • '• ."•at-v-* * I. r i** « • «» ■ •«» «i • ■• '»*. •, . • . T^.* • -rorr^^ Bit u ^ S 7>X 1 7/i.,280______ ._ 50; ^40 .....J^<hl ...... /5'6p............. |^0^> 24.WCO /esc Z7./0Q _______H^,7joo ._.... y«ts:........ 5r,5DO..____ V0,2-C)P . ... 70)700 ^2; too 1^7,/t)0 .6»2,2oO //2,60p 61, Ooo 1 112,600...y\, ooo |I2,000 t|,ooo |I2,000 GlfOoO 3100 ...._. |22,0OO .01,000 .> 43.1 n 112,000 hi,000 |J2,B0O lfi\'ioO / 59,000 hip 00 V73d, - . /UopoO 63;00O |fc0,70O 49,OoO €))! )Uo,~7oO 5%9>oO IC>1,IOO iripoo rn\ \13>,UOO (,^,900 5^37 xVl 3^ - - •%tr - * R/6>H „.. \/ • • •«» # I •!• • • • '• « •: ►• V.? - •• I* I*.. V • i • •I, •<*,*.. * / • *. - .•"; . . «:*y A %!••'• REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: March 8. 1995 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Sewer Connection - Dean Maeser, 372 Westlake Street Summary The lakeshore property at 372 Westlake Street contains a principal residence, plus two small rental cabins located about 30’ from the lake. In an early 1992 work session, upon staff recommendation Council chose to provide one sewer smb and assess one sewer unit to the property. It was noted that the cabins are nonconforming, and providing/assessing additional units would potentially create a strong argument for prolonging the nonconforming use or for a subdivision with lot size variance request. The property owner has not met the 16 month deadline for connection of the principal residence, and staff has provided a number of options for resolving this situation as indicated in Exhibit B. The septic system serving the residence and cabins is nonconforming in setback from the lake and height above water table. The property owner requests that the Council approve Option 4, connection of the two rental units to municipal sewer with no connection charge (SAC charge would be required) for a period of five years staning now, at the end of which the cabins would be removed. Staff would recommend a shoner time period given the nonconformity of the rental use, and the fact the owner has been aware of this issue for approximately three years. List of Exhibits A - Letter from Michael Perlman 2/10/95 B - Lener to Propertv’ Owner 2/1/95 C - Survey D - Ordinance ^105, 2nd Series E - Letter to Property Owner 8/8/94 F - Letter to Property Owner 3/24/93 G - 8/21/92 Staff Meeting Notes H - 3/17/92 Lener to Property Owner I - Staff Memo 2/24/92 (Excerpts and Plat Map) J - 7/28/80 Lener to Previous Property Owne# K - Nonconforming Use Code Sections L - Code Section Requiring Separate Sewer Services Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 3 March 8, 1995 Sewer Connection - Maeser Additional Information • Exhibit B defines the Citv ’s stated position on this matter based on code requirements, past City actions, and past actions by the cutient and previous propert)’ owners. • Three of the four options proposed by statf for resolving the issue require City Council approval. . Additional exhibits have been provided as further background on this issue. • While the cabins are not falling down, staff has been called on by tenants in the past to deal with substandard electrical wiring in the cabins, which was repaired. • Staff has concluded that the nonconforming use sections of the code technically could apply to these cabins, and that their nonconforming use for rental purposes could have been required to cease as early as 1978. • The current owner purchased this property in 1985. Staff Recommendation Given that this 2-acre property in a 2-acre zone is too small to subdivide, and given the property owner’s undersundable r^uctance to spend nearly $28,000 to connect the cabins to ^ would recommend that Option 4 of Exhibit B be conceptually approved vu exe^non rf an aareement to be drafted by the applicant’s anomey and approved by the City Attorney, containing as a minimum, the following conditions: 1. 3. The principal residence shall be connected to municipal sewer within 90 days. The two cabins shall be connected to the municipal sewer within 90 days. Such connection shall be a separate connection from the principal residence connection. Connection of the cabins to municipal sewer is considered temporary, and such connection is allowed for a period of___years. At the end of-------years, the property owner shall remove said connection, remove plumbmg from the cabins, and discontinue rental use of the cabins. The cabins then shall either be reinoved from the property or moved to a location on the property that conforms with all provisions of the Orono Zoning Code governing the location and use of accessory storage structures. Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 March 8, 1995 Sewer Connection - Maeser Prior to connection of the residence and cabins to municipal sewer, the property owner shall pay the appropriate Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) and obtain the appropriate connection permits. The property owner shall n^ be required to pay the connection charge of $13,097 per cabin since the connection is temporary in nature per the terms ot this agreement. Bv allowing temporary connection of the cabins to municipal sewer, the City is in no way granting any specific rights to future reconstruction or replacement of the cabins. Further, connection of the cabins shall not be used as jusnfication lor any request by the property' owner for future variances, subdivision of the property, etc. 7.There shall be no refund of any SAC or permit fees when the cabins are disconnected. 8. All three tax parcels shall immediately be legally combined into one tax parcel. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Give staff and the property owner direction regarding whether the proposed option is conceptually acceptable. If so, take the following action: 1 Determine how many years the temporary connection will be allowed. 2. Advise applicant’s attorney to work with the City Attorney in drafting a mutually acceptable agreement for Council approval. (#12) SEWXR CONNECTION, 372 WESTLAKE STREET Applica^s. Mr. ^ Mrs. Maese: were present, along wHth the. attorney, Mr. Perlman. c at in 19^2 resardine sewer connection. GaSron repcned that this ?rcpert>- rental cabins located dose There are three tax parcei.* cabins are non-contbrrmng as to the lake, and one stracntre use - of cabins in a single lamily they are too close to the snoreiine. Irocenv was assessed one sewer unit as part residential zone is also nonconiomung. - P .jic'cabins would have potentially created . ,o«.. .o p... area is a two acre zone. Garfron reponed the need to residence is conneaed to setver. <^io„ charges would be S13.097 per unit would require separate co^ectio ^ cabins The house and cabins are not yet unit or S26,000 plus S850 SAC to connec^^ ^ The loclt:^^^^^^ r - less than 3* above the water table. Staff has given several The cabins w'ould option #4. This conneas sewer p ^tv and must be removed after a definedsssrs ;;s:s.». ~ ~ “ «w°r. but not have to pay the S:6,000 conneaton charge. CaUahan asked if this request w« a not'to e.sceed Gaf&on acknowiedged this. Gaf5on f" options given were 1) discontinue r^c years for 2) , rental use ot ^“:^j,.s,cm'for the two cabins, which requires intenstve and construaion oi a bolding ,^_k sy ne conneaed to municipal sewer on a expensive maintenance, an j) n-vment of the connection charae. Option ^?3 would relatively permanent basts, nropertv could not be subdivided in the &ture. require a condition stipu atmg P P would require immediate before removal. r»r< hv ritienen. this propertv is in the Stubbs Bay sewer^ relaying Ksmty ^ requested by Go^ m , SSw^relaft to be resolved at a later date. .\ letter was sent m August regarding the need to connea to sewer. ■\ MINUTES OF THE 13^95^^^^meeting held on march 13, Dfyo (j;12 - Sewer Connection - Continued) see that codes are met. p=*^ .wn„». i.,„ .,,1, o»».r..!» »“““ =•'j;“ •"».". a» Tne letter from GafS-cn sent lasi .ixntn was .n according to PerLman. PerLman said that the owners are wiUing to It is cost cabins is their main concern as house to sewer. Perlman said prohibitive tor the owners to ^onn ^ resolved to remove the cabins, but wish to the owners are as<ing tor option .-t ...^rred The owners are wiiling to pay the allow for a longer penoa or rime oeiore this ^ ^ costs involved to connea the house to sewer, pay the SAC tees, and permit Kdlev inquired cf.he curre. sepdc M,d does present problems with the comem code. It s nen^mj y at this time, but would need upgraomg at e questioned whether the cabins allowed .<-or upgrade of nonccmomung f ,o the lake, I,... W, ■“-•"“J ,2f».1. «= ■ wS".T,2?r r srK w,-, was conforming. The appUcams said IfeyTadnf checked, but had though, so. since they were being rented a. the ume. ?e d^ed bv the owners' artomey in conjimaion with the a«°™^ “ ? *e o^vners wiU abide bv these conditions. Barren noted that d^the .epttc fails prior to the date allowed, the use of the septic system would have to be abandoned and the time period ended. Ayes D, Nays 0. r V § 10.03 I. Alterations nay be made to a building containing i. ^ when thev will imorove the number of dwelling units or bui.!< of the building. Source; Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 j A dd Iv to ■•uses" Only. The non-conforming use otovisions of the Chapter apply “«he«land and buildinps are put, and do not apply .o sl uations wnere location or height of structures ^ °^,*;Vforran=rwr^ h:°V “"u^ir^™%nt%^ o ttl lo'nrn^^^hlpfer" ^ a«=“=?he situ'atld existed legally under the ?V'^^^?^inUance and' wil! 10.08. _ ------- Subd 6. Lot of Record. A lot of record is ajiy^o^ which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded^in office of the Register of Deeds ig^L^and after Hennepin County, Minnesota, pcior cO January 1, 19 approval by the Council if required. Source; Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 A. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon in-Tc ‘i-i ai-i **p"^** nistric*“ which do6S not iti60t tho a?lect public he'aiih or safety and the following requirements are met: Source; City Code Effective Date: 4-1-34 1 In "R" Districts of One Acre or Less and With public sanitary Sewer. '' the ORONO 253 (4-1-84) combined with one or more abutting lots or to create a lot meeting the requirements of chis .oning un p Source! Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 2 rn -R" Districts of Greater Than One Acre and served by Pvblic'Sa'nitary Sewer. A cL District in the City in excess or one i^th only, may re^rtilTze^/ for Yi^^"^'"Li^^^d^Vac^ed dwalling po^ -e -r^^i^f Of t-hi -i,-=at\e^ oj" e.^^ .. » l^^^rved by oublic sanitary sewer; (c) It this Chapter or other applicable City Code ^ , Ta "R" Districts Not Served by Public sanitary Sewer. A lot of ",^eet't.he'«'ea"and%idt'h not served by public sanitary sewer ” ® „ot be utilised-for ^S^irL^m^^^ttl•rhed"dwe"?li?/Wposes without Council approval. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-34 3. combination of Separated Parcels iL\t°/d ^rVa?L°^oa^-^as?mift. ^^hfcV^^A^stl c^ldft"ed “or transferred between such -/iluatJ^ ronlolL°’'tl Tn-co\:ecTionith conLruction of imorovements thereon. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 C The seoaration by the transfer or sale of non conforming, undeveloped /°bs "°t servea by PUbHc -nitary^ sewer, nnnnre%radnrnraren°^mertTn under^^^ not permitted without Council pp^^ results in individual riinrnVs'itefnar Satisfy the area and^ width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 ORONO CC 254 (4-1-84) r Oi^If>30 Subdivision 5. Double frcnagc lots, access to lots, and front/back lot divisions. .A.. Double frontage lots. Double frontage and reversed fronmge lots shaU be avoided e,xcept where necessary to provide separation of residential devciccment from trarric anehais or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. B. .Acces from any artenai roadway. Lots shall not. in general, cerive access e.xciusiveiy nom an artenai roadway, ^tere driveway access iTom any arterial roadway may be necessary for several adjoining lots, die Council may require that such lots be served by a combined access drive in order to limit possible traffic hazard on such roadway. Where possible, driveways shall be designed and arranged so as to avoid requiring vehiCies to bacic into traffic on any arterial roadway. C. Front/back lot subdivisions. "Flag lots' and 'easement back lots ^ defined in this Chanter (see definition of 'Lot-Back") shall not be created. Front/back lot divisions shaU be aUowed only in conjunction with the Creadon of an outlot to provide access from the back lot to the public or private road. Such outlot shall not be allowed as creditable lot area or either the back or &ooc lots. Front/back lot subdivisions snail adhere to the following standards: 1. Applicability. a. b. Front/back lot divisions may be used when existing oroperty dimensions arc narrow and deep, such that lot ^dth dees not allow for a side-by-side lot split, but acreage is adequate to provide a "front lot" and a back lot without reouiring an area variance when the area of the outlot access corridor is excluded. Froct/back lot divisions may be used for individual "lot solics", but may not be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is merely a convenience to the developer rather than supported by unique site factors. .A fronc/back lot division shall not be allowed when any e.xisting residence on a neighboring property abutting the proposed access outlot is located nearer its affected side lot line fHan a distance equivalent to the zoning district required front yard depth. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: c. a.Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement. b.Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot line at the street yard setba^ line of a lakeshore back lot, or at J. the rear of the frcDt yard setbaclc line of a nonl^eshore back lot, shall meet the zoning district -*idth requirement. The street yard or front >'ard for any back lot will be a yard starting wcem the narrow access outlot corridor ends and the lot begins. Lakeshore back lots shall meet the lot ’Width standard at ±e shoreline, at the lakeshore setback line and at the street yard setback line. c. The depth of the retmired street yard or front yard shall be 150% of the zoning district riont yard requirement. d. The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shall be 150% of the zoning district yard requirements. The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shall meet the inning disnict lakeshore yard requirements. Dimensional standards for front Iocs. A front lot created as part of a fronnhack lot division shall meet all zoning district area, •width and setback standards, except that die required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlot shall be equivalent to the side street yard recuirement for that zoning disnict. c Access reouiremencs: a. b. c. d. .Access oudots shall be 50' minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. In approving fronc/back lot divisions, the City may require that both front lot and back lot share a drivc’way access within che access outlot if Council determines that creating an additional access to the e.xisting street will be a potential safety hazard. Driveways within a back lot snail be located at least 10' from ±s side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot. No access outlot may be platted abutting an adjacent oudot except when the intent is to cemfaine the two access oudots for creauon of a public or private road meeting City standards. Screening requirements and accessory struemre standards. Front/back lot subdivisions shall be designed in a manner such that the screening requirements and accessory struemre standards of Secaon 10.03, Subdivision 27 can be met. The requirements and standards of this secdon shall apply only to those tont/back lot divisions which receive preliminary plat approval after January 1, 1994. e. C C ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 21,1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date wth the following members present; Chair Stephen Peterson, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, and Elizabeth Hawn. Candace Rowlette was absent The following represented the City Stafl'; Building and Zoning .Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaftron, and Recorder Sherr>’ Frost Mayor Callahan and Council Members Goetten and Kelley were present Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7 00 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARLNGS/PUBLIC LNFORMATION MEETING (#1)#205I MICHAEL HILBELINK, 2760 W ATERTOWN ROAD PRELIMINARY PLAT-7:01-7:13 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Hilbelink was present. Mabusth explained that the application is for a 4-lot residential plat of the former Rosch homestead at the northeast quadrant of Watertown Road and Old Crystal Bay Road. The property contains a type I wetland. All lots meet the 2-acre dry contiguous and width requirements. The on-site septic has been found to be conforming. All are proposed as mound systems located on slopes less than 6% The Planning Commission conceptually approved access for three lots Irom a private road with a cul-de-sac. Lot 4 s access will be from an existing curb cut off Watertown Road. A road could be platted along the east lot line with each of the 4 lots meeting area and width standards. The access plan was chosen in order to save trees, reduce the grading impact on elevations, and minimize impact on existing development to east. If a road was constructed at east lot line with four lots in the Peterman addition and three in current development would be through lots. Conditional use permits would be required for aU accessory structures. The development must provide retention areas before runoff can enter the type I wetland. A retention pond is w ithin lots 3 and 4 and drainage flows between the shared line of lots 2 and 3. Mabusth included the draft of the Park Commission minutes regarding the Hilbelink property for a decision on park dedication fee or land for park use. The Park Commission recommended to the Council to ask for cash in lieu of land. They asked that the land in the 8' trail be excluded from the and the fee adjusted. The trail along Old Crystal Bay Road on the west side is being installed by the City. There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (/?! - ff2Q5l Michael Kilbchnk - Coathrucd) It was noted that additional drainage easements will be taken along the shared lot lines. No drainage easement will be taken over type 1 wetland. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2051 with the conditions as stated under the Staff recommendations. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#2) #2052 DOUG SAMS, 1185 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT/AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 7:55-8:14 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mabusth reported that the property is on Loma Linda Avenue. A survey of 10/93 was approved with the building permit. Mabusth said the property receives drainage fi^om the north and west, and eventu^y drains through a ditch under Loma Linda, and continues to the lake. Mabusth said she has fielded a call from a neighbor and distributed a letter from Mrs. Moe, who is concerned with the filling on the Sams property and the impact fiom that filling on drainage It is Moe's concern that the fill will have a negative impact on her property. Mabusth relayed the history of the drainage for the property. In the early 1980's, the Moe's were inundated with water and asked to funnel the water with tile and install rip rap. A 27" culvert was approved. A tile on the Uddl's property conveys the drainage fi’om Sams and one other property to the tile on the Moe property and then on to the lake. The Engineer was asked for his recommendation, which was faxed to Staff, and Peterson read into the minutes Engineer Gustafson did not recall the exact concerns of the Moe's, but said it was his opinion that the fill should not have any negative impact on the Moe's. The existing channel and culvert should be adequate and little retention would be needed. If a problem exists on drainage downstream, Gustafson said a restrictor could be installed on the Sams culvert. It was suggested to ask Sams to mitigate any fill placed below the 958* elevation. Applicant Sams asked for approval to relocate the drainage easement and would r^edicate a public easement. It was Sams' goal to create a level yard with the 600-700 cubic yards of fill. Sams said the road elevation is higher and did not feel the fill affected the drainage. Mabusth said the Engineer asked for grading of a 3:1 slope, vacation of the original easement, and dedication of a new easement. Gustafson asked for retention or restriction before the drainase goes to the culvert. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 199f> (it2 - #2052 Doug Sams - Continued) Peterson and Lindquist questioned what would happen if a drainage problem did occur from the fill Peterson also asked how the fill was done without a permit. Sams said when he moved in I-1/2 years ago, he put his name on a list for clean fill. He followed instructions of his comraaor and landscaped and sodded in August of 1994. He was notified this spring of the availability of the fill, and as a new homeowner, did not realize he was violating a rule. He was informed of the violation after the fill was delivered. Sams said he thought this was a continuation of the original construction. He added he was aware of the culvert. Smith asked what the lot looked like prior to the fill being added. Sams said he bought the 3>acre lot in 1991. The last owner had cut alot of the dirt out and brought to another lot. Sams had been informed that the lot was partially excavated. Schroeder asked why the applicant, after being advised to stop with the fill, added mere fill on top of the original load. Sams said the fiU was available, and he added it knowing he was in violation. A letter received from Lyle Oman to the applicant informing him of the original violation was iK>ted. Peterson said the Planning Commission would have to rely on the City Engineer to resolve the drainage issue. Schroeder said if the fill presented a drainage problem for the Moe's, the fill would have to be removed. Sams said be would be prepared to take the fill out if it was found to present a drainage problem for the Moe's. MrdHisth said Gustafson advised that he did not bdieve filling on the Sams' property would have created retention or flooding problems on the Moe property. There were no tniblic comments. Smith asked that Gustafson discuss the drainage problems with the Moe's. Peterson emphasized to Sams that no more fill could be added. Schroeder said a penalty should be assessed to the applicant. Sams said the amount of fill on his property now is all that he requires. He said he would mitigate the flow through the culvert and assist the Moe's, if necessary. Schroeder said if a problem is found to exist, it was created by the applicant. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNEMG COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#2 - #2052 Doug Sams - Continued) Lindquist said the applicant should submit an amended grading plan. The Plannii^ Commission should also receive feedback from the Engineer on the grading and the situation with the ndghbors. Mabusth said another neighbor has called about drainage problems too. It was decided that too much information was missing at this time. It was noted that erosion control efforts have been made with silt fencing. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2052 to allow the ^pUcant to hire a consultant for a detailed grading plan and for meeting with the Engineer on the drainage stuation. Ayes 6. Nays 0. ACTION ITEMS (#3) #2036 ROBERT J. GOUNTANIS, 109S LOMA LINDA AVENUE - VARIANCES - REFERRED BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION - 7:13-7:55 P.M. Mr. Gountanis was presem and had aske. he application be referred back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. There was a question regarding the ori^nal plan and it's approval regarding a second story elevation above the garage, which was not seen or discussed. The applicam provided the floor plan, which includes two bedrooms with closets and two bathrooms with a hallway and door into a large room planned to be used as a game room. This second story will be accessed from a stairway. Peterson remarked that the approval was for the residence to be within the same footprint with no further expansion. TTie lot is very small, which would create problems with any expansion. Lindquist and Smith agreed that a second story to the garage would be too massive for the property. Gountanis responded that approval had been recommended for case #3 involving new construction instead of repair within the same footprint and a maximum lot coverage of 1500 s.f The house structure is 2-stoiy, and the 22'x22' garage is an addition. Gountanis said the setback was defined by the horizontal and not by height. He had thought a 2- story gar^e was approved and noted no condition made on the height of the structure. The statistics of the lot and variances were restated, and the three case options were reviewed for clarification and refreshment. It was noted that the elevations did show a 2- story garage but approval did not include the same. The lack of detail in the floor plans was also thought to the attention of the applicant. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#3 - #2036 Robert Gountanis - Continued) Mabusth reported that it had been stated at the prior Planning Commission meeting that the Commission was an advisory body only and made recommendations to the Council, who is the determining body for ail applications. The applicant was warned of this, and applicant advised he would go forward with the purchase based on the Planning Commission recommendation. The Planning Commission did not allow excess of structural coverage and said they were dealing with intensification of the structure on a sub-standard lot. The applicant referred to the Planning Commission action notice, which rela)red an attached 22x22' garage was recommended with a minimum setback of 3' and adjacent to the right side. It also noted the 1500 s.f lot coverage maximum. Gountanis said it did not mention not allowing a 2-story garage. Lindquist said the ^proval was for a 2-story house but the Planning Commission was unaware of a 2-story garage. Smith said the location of the door was determined due to the need for minimal impact on the public right of way Gountanis said the devation plan was presented showing the 2-stoiy garage, which was verified by Mabusth. Peterson, who was not in attendance at that particular meeting, noted that the minutes of the July 17 meeting made no reference to a second story for the garage nor were any detailed floor plans presemed. The applicant responded that he could not provide detailed floor plans without knowing what the rules were. The plans call for the same foot print, which is 980 s.f for the residence plus the garage area, for a total of 1492 s.f The structural coverage amount deals only with the foot print itself, not the square footage of the interior. It would not include the second story of the house or of a garage. The ordinance relating to a no massing effect was mentioned. It was also noted that the survey was current. Hawn said she was not present at the meeting when the recommendation was made. However from the discussion tonight, if a second story to the garage was discussed, it would be denied. Hawn said the Planning Commission's duty is to provide the best recommendation to the Council along with the best advice. At this time, a 2-story garage on that lot has been determined to be too much. The best recommendation and advice gained from this meeting then would be to deny the second story to the garage. There were no public commerns. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#3 - #2036 Robert Gountanis - Continued) Lindquist said he would not approve the 2-story garage. Peterson said the garage was only shown as a 2-story on the elevation drawing. Schroeder said con»derable progress has been planned for the property with the house being moved back out of the 0-75' setback area and believed this was enough to warrant approval for the 2-story gan^e. Gountanis said the reason case #3 was chosen was to improve all the setbacks. He said he felt he had made concessions. It was key to Gountanis to maintain the basic shape and gain as much house on the foot print as posable. Gountanis empha^ed that he tried to accomodate the recommendations of the Planning Commission and stay within the guidelines. Peterson said he agreed with that summation. He noted that alternatives wtfe limited, and the issue of the 2-story garage was a misuiKlerstaiiding and an oversight. Peterson said he would be inclined to vote for approval. Mabusth said the oversight was the reason the application was brought back before the CommissiotL The oversight was also on the applicant's part for not bringing to the attention of the Commission the desire for the garage to be two stories. Gountanis said he did not know it would be a concern. It was further noted that cases 1 and 2 did not present the garage as two stories, only one. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to deny the plan for a 2-stoiy garage. Ayes 4, Hawn, Smith, Berg, Lindquist, Nays, 2, Schroeder, Petersoa Motion for denial approved. The applicant asked what was the definition of a one-story garage. Mabusth said there was not one but it must be within the setbacks. Gountanis asked if he could follow the roof line of the house. Berg suggested following the same pitdi, but lowering it one story, and demonstrated what she mearn on the overhead. Mabusth said the design plan should be reviewed. Ann Stevens voiced her fiustration to the Planning Commission regarding the oversight, the lost month of construction time, the costs involved in redesigning by the architect; adding, she wanted the Council to review the plan. She also said she was confused that it was noted the floor plans were not detailed, when she feh Mabusth had said the plans were the best. Mabusth clarified that she had said the plans were adequate for the review and addressed all pertinent issues. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21,1995 (#4) #2039 WALLY AND SHARON CARSON, 3010 SOMERSET LANE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:07-9:17 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and AfiRdavit of Publication were noted. Mr & Mrs Carson were present, along with their contractor, Mark Gronberg. The application is for a decorative pond within a type 1 wetland It is presently under review with the Corp of Engineers, wdio is reviewing the project with other agencies and checking for effect on the wetlands. The property is a 3-acre parcel with 1 acre of type 1 wetlands. The residents within the subdivision are asking for assurance that the pond would not affect their properties. Gronberg said the 1650+ cubic yards of fill will be used for back filUng. The Watershed District was said to believe there would be no negative impact from the pond construction. Peterson asked for the reason for building a pond. Gronberg said there was a two-fold purpose. One reason is for beautification of the site to create a higher type 3 wetland, and the other is to use the fill for the house pad. Peterson said the question is always what is a pond. The Planning Commission does not want a round bowl with gravel and mowed grass up to its edges. The Commission would like to sec more type 3 wetland ponds, which would include no mowing within 1 O’ of the pond to encourage native growth. Mabusth said this was noted in the Engineer s recommendation. Gronberg said this was shown in the configuration for the pond. Mabusth asked the applicant what the maximum depth would be of the pond. It would be 6-8' deep. Smith asked Staff to ensure the standards are consistent with the pond developmem plans made for another project on Orono Orchard Road. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for a 6' deep pond with the moving of 1650 cubic yards of fill to create a type 3 wetland with the standards developed with the pond on the Spencer property on Orono Orchards. No mowing would be allowed within 10’ of the pond. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#5) #2042 THOMAS FRANK, 1233 BRIAR STREET - VARIANCES - PUBUC HEARING - 8:14-8:23 P..M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. & Mrs. Frank were present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21. 1995 (#5 - #2042 Thomas Frank - Con:’nued) Mabusth reported that the property is a lakeshore lot on a natural environment OHW, French Creek Lake. There are no improvements wthin the 75' setback. A structural on a OHW requires a 150’ setback. There are some hardcover improvements at 75’. The proposal requires an average lakeshore setback variance The house is within the 50’ street setback. The proposed deck requires a setback variance. The deck exists at 13T and is proposed at 131' The proposal requires a 3 ’ average lakeshore setback variance. Peterson read into the minutes a letter from the DNR, which recommends the proposal, with two conditions. They ask for screening and relocation of the deck to another area of the home. Peterson did not see where the deck could be repositioned. Mabusth said the setting is very natural and no visual screening is needed. It was determined that the DNR had not been on site in reviewing the proposal. Schroeder asked if the deck could be smaller. Mrs. Frank said, although it could be a little smaller, the steps for the deck allow access to the driveway, and the deck only extends 6' from the house. Mr. Frank said the hardcover is within the 25% allowable at 19.14% and ask for approval as proposed. Mabusth asked the Commissioners if they would gwe approval for structure within the street setback. Lindquist and Peterson saw no problem. Mabusth will contaa M.r Richter of the DNR. There were no public comments Schroeder moved. Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2042 to extend the deck based on the lack of another area in which to relocate the deck and the proposal having no impact on its surroundings. Ayes 6. Nays 0. (#6) #2044 GEORGE OLSON, 2775 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARUNCES - PUBUC HEARING The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Peterson moved. Smith seconded, to table the application until the September 18 meeting at the request of the applicant. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#7) #2045 JOHN STEINMETZ, 1155 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:23-8:40 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Steinmetz was present. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#7 - #2045 John Steinmetz - Continued) Mabusth reported that this property is located at the intersection of Brown Road South and Willow Drive with the house on higher elevations from adjacent roadways. The original driveway has been relocated to Willow Drive along with a new detached garage. New landscaping has also been done. The proposal requires structural coverage and street setback variances for a covered deck to be installed around the entire residence along with a single story addition at the NE comer of existing residence. Dave Zetterstrom of the Hennepin DOT said there was no minimum setback requirement from a county road. The deck is proposed at 8' width with a 2' overhang extending over the deck and would be located approximately 44' from Willow Drive and O' from Brown Road South. The structural coverage variance is magnified by the new addition. It exists at 9.3% and is proposed at 16.3% for 260 s f or 1.3% excess. No hardcover problems exist. Commissioners discussed ways to eliminate the structural coverage problem. The code allows 15% of area for properties under 2 acres. Peterson suggested the deck and overhang be used on three sides of the home. Hawn suggested eliminating the deck from the Brown Road side of the residence. The applicant emphasized a four-sided deck and oveifrang for consistency and for an aesthetically pleasing look. It was suggested to recalculate the deck at 6' in order to maintain the consistency in look, to move back away from the county road, and stay within the structural coverage guidelines. Schroeder noted the considerable hardships. The higher elevation at the road side was noted. Lindquist said downsizing 1-1/2' all around would meet Uk requiremoits. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2045 with the condition the structure is within the maximum of 15% lot coverage to allow the applicant flexibility, and to be at least 2' off the setback line to the county road and the Brown Road right of way. Mabusth asked the applicant to have the surveyor locate the ditch area and traveled road within the right of way. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) #2046 LAKEVTEW GOLF, 4'.5 NORTH ARM DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - PUBUC HEARING - 8:40-8:52 P.M, The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted The applicant and the builder were present. MINUFES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#8 • #2046 Lakeview Golf - Continued) Gafi&on reported that tl» application was to construct a storage building and to rebuild the 15th and 16th fairways on the SE comer of the golf course It was noted that the 1974 survey did not include an existing storage building or appUcant's house, which is a separ^e homestead property. It also docs not show the RLS correctly. Gaffron asked for an updated survey to be completed as part of the approval. The storage building is proposed at 45x100' in size to be located in the northwest quadrant, 640* from North Ann Road, and visible from both North Ann Drive West and CoRd 19. The building would exceed the 3,000 s.f of building limit at 4,500 s.f The code allows for an accessory structure on a 9 acre parcel of 3000 s.f with 6000 s.f maximum for total of all accessory structure footprint areas Gaffron noted that an amendment has been drafted to allow 200 s.f. of accessory structure for each additional acre. 17 acres would be required to support the accessory structure under that anKndment. A concern with the proposal is the open view of the accessory structure. It is anticipated that none of the existing mature trees would be removed to accomodate this budding. The building will be an average of 16.5* in height of a pole bam type. Screening is recommended along with color of materials to be chosen to blend into the scenery. The relocation of fiurways #15 and #16 will require movement of 1800 cubic yards of fill within the site. As part of a sketch plan, a 2 acre lot subdivision is also proposed. The applicant said the proposal would require carving out of a hill in order to create a view of the green on the second dx>t. Gaffron said the City Engineer had no fM’oblem with the grading. If it is approved. Staff asks that the applicant adher to Best Management Practices in regards to erosion and runoff control. Revegeution would occur as soon as possible in order to play the holes the next year. Peterson asked what color was proposed for the storage building. The applicant said a green or earth tone would be attractice. Smith asked why such a large structure was required. The applicant said the amount of equipment, such as mowers, back hoe, loaders, mulchers, has increased over the years and need to be stored. The majority of the equipment is now outside. It was noted there would be no access to this structure. Smith asked if the smaller storage building could be removed. She was informed that the other building houses the golf carts. Smith also inquired about screening, which is also proposed. Peterson said a CUP to move the fill around should not create any problems as it is not on the roadway and also saw no problem with the size of the structure. Peterson suggested the applicam work with Staff on screening. I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#8 - #2046 Lakevicw Golf - Continued) Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval for a 4500 s.f storage building, work with Staff on a screening plan, to relocate the 15tb and 16th fairways with the movement of fill on the property, and to update the survey at the end of the building process Tom Major asked how the site was selected. The applicant said the site was in the middle of 3 holes, and the only good spot where there are lots of trees to block it out. Ayes 6 Navs 0. (#9) #204S JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARUNCE - PUBUC HEARING - 8:52-9:07 P.M. The Certificate of Mailii^ and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Scott Crawford of Kraus Anderson Construction represented the applicant Mabusth noted that approval has been granted for a green house, a guest house, and a 2- level caretaker residence within this property. The current application is for the conditional use permit for a studio apartment within the upper level of the oversized accessory structure and will aa as an independent structure with its own kitchen and entry. If sewer comes to the property, all accessory structures will be considered. The sewer is likely to occur and hopefully scheduled for 1996 awaiting completion of comprehensive plan amendment and Met Council approval. The property's scheduled date of 1995 to update the septic will be to be refigured if sewering is not done. Crawford said the construction company would like to be oft-site and completed before 1996. Peterson said he saw no problem with the studio apartment and saw the issue needing resolve as sewer. Peterson is concerned with the lapse of time and the need for protection, questioning whether the septic is able to handle all of the current usage. Schroeder asked how many people live on the premises. Mabusth said there would be a total of six bedrooms within structures Although components of the kitchen, etc., were in place according to Crawford, Mabusth said the studio apartment is a separate residential unit. Mabusth further added that no floor plans were ever provided to Orono Staff of this building. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 2!, 1995 (#9 - #2048 James & Joann Jundt - Continued) Mabusth said the septic is non-conforming, and it is being questioned what affect the apartment would ha\ e on the septic. Mabusth said it is a good idea to ask for septic inspections Peterson agreed that the goal is not to allow the septic to fail. Crawford noted that this property was considered a hot spot for sewering at one time, and the applicant has been dealing with this issue throughout all the applications Schroeder added that the City cannot allow more people to reside on the property than the septic can handle. He is in favor of inspections; and if the system fails. Schroder said that would affect the conditional use permit. The property has two separate septic units, one for the main residence artd one for the accessory structures. The septic units do not meet the separation requirements. Peterson commented that normal inspections occur every two years. This property, according to Peterson, should be inspected more often. Schroder moved, Lindquist seconded, for approval of a studio within the oversized accessory structure, subject to conditions of the CUP with inspections of existing relevant system every two momhs to show its capability in handling the increased usage. A charge will be incurred by the applicant for extra inspection time. Gafiron remarked that the earliest date for sewering of the property would be the end of 1996. It is Staffs sense that the septic is not running out onto the ground, but noted the 3' separation is not met. It is possible that the system may not be able to handle the usable wastes during this period of time. If this is found to be true, the septic would need to be pumped out on a regular basis. There were no public comments Ayes 6, Nays 0. Mabusth commented on an issue with tree removal in the 0-75' zone for waterproofing of a tunnel that was not approved by Staff. All of the earth around the tunnel was moved during the waterproofing process. Staff will ask for replanting of these trees Crawford commented that the elms were deteriorated, and tree roots were extending into the tunnel. Part of the tunnel encroaches the 0-75' setback. An amended application will be coming before the Planning Commission on this issue and is not part of this application. (#10) #2049 FRED GUTTORMSON AND CHIC DWIGHT, 1220 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBUC HEARING - 9:25-9:48 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMVflSSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21. 19^ 5 (#10 - #2049 Fred Guttonmon & Chic Dwight - Continued) The applicants were present. Gaflron reported the application was to replace an existing deck, along with the construction of a screened porch under the deck. A walkout area would also be excavated from what is now a split entry area. The existing deck is in poor condition Replacement would be done of the total foundation as footings have been found to depths less than the frost lirje. This would all occur within the 0-75' setback area and require hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances. The resideiKC is 42* from the lake, and the 8x24' deck would be located 34' from the lake. Drairiage on the property comes from the mature trees toward the proposed screen porch area. It is questioned whether this could be flattened out, retaining walls about 1' in height be constructed, or ground cover established to aid the drainage. A letter from the DNR was read into the minutes recommending denial of the application based on the existing house being within 75' of the lake and proposed porch and deck increasing the nonconlbnnity of the house. The porch and deck would also be within the 37.5' shore impaa zone. Gaffron noted that the hardcover would be at 8 48r«, resulting in a minimum increase in the hardcover from existing. It would, however, lend more p^manency. Two buildings have been removed as well as an 8* gravel driveway located in the 0-75' zone, which has not been revegetated. New gravel has been placed for the loop driveway. The applicant said the property was overgrown and buildings were found to be deteriorated. There is a tank on the property but the reason for it is unknown. During clean up, the driveway to the lake was discovered. Two 20-yard dumpsters were used to remove debris from the yard and house. An outhouse sized building still exists by the lakeside. Peterson said the application has several issues. He felt the filling on the top dressing down to the lake should meet approval. The accessory structure to the south should be removed. It was felt the retaining walls would create problems and not solve any. The applicant said she has seeded three times and erosion has washed it out. It is so shaded that sod will not grow and thought a wall would help. It is the applicant's desire to keep the property natural. Peterson felt the sliding doors would meet his approval but found the deck and screened porch were issues needing discussion. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#10 - #2049 Fred Guttormson & Chic D>v'ight - Continued) Lindquist asked why the deck and porch would be bey ond the house. The applicant said there was surface hardcover there already Lindquist said the desire of the Planning Commission b to remove as much hardcover in tiie 0-75' zone as possible. It was noted that thae is a 1x6' patio exteniion leading from the patio doors. Lindquist said the deck could be replaced but the extension removed. The deck should not extend beyond the house. Gaffron asked the Commission if approval were ^ven for the walkout, w ould this be setting a precedent by allowing a change to the grade. The applicant said her purpose was to gain light into the lower level of the home and modernize it. The applicant said it appears the grade was put in when the home was built and not originally there. Peterson said he saw a problem with the bench by the dock and asked applicant if they would be willing to eliminate the accessory structure to gam the deck. The applicant said about 1000 s f. of hardcover has been removed and felt they tverc being sensitive to that issue Tlie applicant said the property was purchased in part because of the deck structure by the lake. Peterson said it would not be allowed today. The applicant said she would be willing to remove the shed by the lake. Lindquist asked if the deck could be 8* instead of S'b". Schroeder said the structural coverage should not exceed the amount on the property as it exists now. He suggested the driveway extension and outhouse-size shed be removed as mediation for the deck. Any additional hardcover in the loop driveway that is unnecessary was also asked to be removed. The applicant said this was required to turnaround noting the inability to park on Tonkawa. Berg said she used the loop area in which to turn around. Peterson said the applicant should be concerned with the problems being created by beavers gnawing on the trees. Major erosion problems could occur in the future due to the loss of these trees. Peterson asked if the issue is altering the lakeshore if the grading is changed. Gaffron said it would be a conditional use but Staff saw no need for this to be done and would not recommend approval for this or boulder walls. Smith asked what could be done to maintain the shoreline. Gaffron said the boulder wall would help erosion from coming to the house and rip-rap could be done to prevent shore erosion. A Watershed District permit could be obtained to rip rap. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#10 - #2049 Fred Guttormson &. Chic I>^ight - Continued) There were no public comments Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve replacement ot the deck and screened porch in the existing footprint, not to exceed the footprint. Approval was recommended for the grade cut to allow a window or walkout door as proposed on the southeast side. No boulder walls would be allowed Removal ot the concrete slab on the east side, removal of the existing accessory structure to the south, removal of the old access boat ramp and resodding of same, and removal of the dock at the shoreline to include the bench-deck area were recommended. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) #2050 WILLIAM TOLLS, 3165 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:4*-10:12 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and ,\ffidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was present. Gafiron reported the application is for hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances to construct a pool on the lake side of the property, which was purchased by the applicant in July of 1995. The pool would create a 15' average lakeshore encroachment but would have no visual impact. A net decrease in the hardcover would result in the 75-250' zone from 33 1% to 32.6%. Gafffon compared the application to a 1988 variance approval, the hardcover square footage of which was allowed at that time, today, is now exceeded. There continues to be no hardcover in the 0-75' zone. The 75-250' zone was approved in 1988 for 29.5%, but exists at 33 1%, and is proposed at 32.6%. The 250-500' zone was approved in 1988 for 24 1%, exists in 1995 at 20.4% and proposes no change. The two surveys from 1988 and 1995 each use a slightly different base lot area for each zone. What Gaffiron thinks happened is the driveway portion was eliminated but rock beds that are in place were not looked at and the overhangs were listed separately. The 1988 circular driveway has been changed with not as much loop and the garage addition built. The applicant will take out the rock and plastic to be replaced with hard surface. The 1390 s f of land in base area calculation change and 400 s.f of concrete patio would be in exchange for the pool. When the pool is built, there would be no hardcover within 115' of the lake. In looking at the hardcover as a percentage of the entire lot, there was 21.7% before, and as approved, in 1988, now existing at 22.1%, and proposed at 21.8%. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#11 - #2050 William Toles - Continued) The applicant said the property has huge spaces of green and assumed there was enough space to warrant a pool He is willing to make any changes necessary without destroying the house to accomplish the pool The applicant said the deck is not matching and is in stages of deterioration He would like to make the deck congruent with the pool. It is within his plan to adjust the decking amount. The deck is needed to gain access to the house which is elevated but not necessaiy to sit on. Peterson said while the average lakeshore setback is generally a most sensitive issue, it is not an issue here. Because the pool is below grade, there is no visual impact. The hardcov er itself is the issue of concern Again, trading plastic for a swimming pool, is an issue Mark Gronberg said the shape of the lot was unique The property is large but a big portion is taken out o*' the 75-250’ zone. He rcitereated that all hardcover is back from the lake beyond 115' creating a good buffer. Schroeder asked the applicant what removals he had in mind for the deck. Toles said he would like to shorten the deck where the massive deck areas are located. He was told he would not need approval to do this. A question not dealt with was whether the 4* overhang with an area below it was considered hardcover. Although there is a net decrease in the hardcover, it is trading structure for non-structure. Peterson noted there are no accessory structures but the garage. There were no public comments. Smith asked for the Commission to see the decks plans to accomodate trading hardcover for hardcover. The applicant said he would be shrinking the size of the decking with or without approval for the pool Peterson said with removal of plastic and some deck, it would not be a large isue. He also noted with all of the green space, there was good drainage on the property. Smith said she felt there was a problem with trading the pool for plastic under an overhang and questioned whether the plastic would be back in place within five years. The applicant said the house does not have a basement and the deck does help keep the rain away and would like to keep the deck by the house. The odd-shaped lot was again noted by Schroeder, who reiterated no structure or hardcover was located in the 0-75' zone. Peterson said he would recommend approval with the applicant working with Staff to reduce hardcover bevond the 400 s.f reduction planned in the deck/patio area. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21. 1995 (#11- #2050 William Tolcs - Continued) Lindquist moved, Schroedcr seconded, to approve the request for hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances to construct a swimming pool on the lake side of the existing residence with maximum hardcover allowance of 32.6% with more reduction if possible. Aves 6, Navs 0 (#12) #2054 TONY EIDEN COMPANY* 2700 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE WEST - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 10:12-10:17 P.M. The Cenificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication w ere noted. Mark Gronberg represented the applicant Mabusih reported the application is for a conditional use permit required for filling of approximately 500 cubic yards of fill for an undeveloped property within the Old Crystal Bay Road Addition. The fill would be an improvement on the drainage creating a gentler slope to the type 1 wetlands to the northwest. The drainage flows under Countryside but would have no impact on the approved drainage plan within the subdivision The Engineer asked that erosion control be placed along the wetland prior to construction and a swale be constructed on the southeast side of the driveway to prevent drainage into the septic site areas. Gronberg said the grading was necessary for creating a nice drive to the house as it could not be raised any further. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, for approval per the Staff recommendations. Ayes 6, Nays 0. Mabusth said Eiden would bring the application before the next Council meeting. (#13) #2055 TONY EIDEN COMPANY, 2800 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE WEST/2425 THOROUGHBRED LANE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:17-10:28 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant's representative, Mr. Dillerud, was not present Peterson suggested tabling the application, but those present in the audience asked to give their input at this time on the application. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#13 - #2055 Tony Eiden Company - Continued) Mabusth reviewed the application. The applicant is seeking to construct a monument at the subdivision entrance at Thoroughbred Lane and Willow and Old Crystal Bay Road and Countr>’side Drive West 30* in diameter with 50 linear feet of retaining wall at height of 3- 3-1/2V The monument would be of a horse drinking water from a fountain A setback variance would be required because ot the size of the monument. Peterson said there was an existing ordinance in effect dealing with entrance monuments, and it should not be changed The applicant, however, does have a right to come before the Commission for a variance. A letter from Bruce Kokal asking for rejection of the proposal was read into the minutes. Mabusth asked that all members of the audience present in relation to this application sign in on the attendance sheet for the record. There were 10 people present who were in opposition to the application Mabusth said she would notify the applicant of their displeasure with the proposal Anne Bowman, 10 So. Willow Drive, said she was not notified of the application. George Stickney said he lives at the end of the development. It was his opinion that the monumemt would create a huge maintenance and vandalism problem. Stickney said the monument would be an issue tor the homeowmers association. Stickney said he was on the architectural review commission for the homes being built in the subdivision. Mayor Callahan was asked if it was required to table the application without the presence of the applicant. Callahan said there was no requirement to do so, but it was what was generally done. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2055. Callahan asked Staff to convey to the applicant the feeling ot the audience and the Planning Commission. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#14) #2056 MICHAEL AND BARBARA WIGLEY, 1035 TONKAWA ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 10:28-10:58 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mrs. Wigley, and landscape architect. Matt Laue, were present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COJ^flSSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#14 - #2056 Michael & Barbara Wigley - Continued) Gaffi-nn reported that the application is for land alteration conditional use permit and variance to excavate in the 0-75' zone and to install boulder retaining walls. Code sections prohibit grading within 75 ’ of the lake, as well as any hardcover in that area, and requires a CUP for lakeshore alteration. The application proposes two tiers of boulder walls; one at the top of a 2.1 slope, »he other at the base of that slope in the flood plain next to the lake The walls would taper to a 3; 1 slope. A retaining wail at the top of the slope would be extended to make the lawn level. A MCWD permit is required to build within that flood plain. A previous contractor had been turned down by MCVVD when he applied for their permit. Gaffron said he had spoken with the MCWD. who saw no need for the walls Gaflron said he concurs with the finding that the walls would provide no significant stabilization Showing an elevation sketch, Gafifron said the wall would be exposed 5-1/2 of the 17' height at the lake, it would be difficult to screen all of this wall Gaflfron said Staff sees little justification for the walls unless there was imminent failure of the slopes. Walls are not normally approved by the City for aesthetic reasons or for surface soil erosion. The erosion occurring by the house is in the shaded area. Fill would make this area to the north and south more level and could possible be screenable with vegetation. Staff currently views the site has having a natural state of shoreline, and changing it as proposed will yield a layered look of ornamental vegetation The Engineer has found no problem with the proposal from an engineering standpoint, but notes there is no evidence that the slope is about to fail. Gaffron said the hardcover had not been measured. There is mulch with fabric within the 0-75’, some of which Gaffron said should stay and some should be removed. There is likely a need to stabilize the ground where no grass is growing to control the erosion. The drainage around the house drains towards the neighbor and fans out. Peterson asked the applicant why she felt the walls were needed. Mrs. Wigley said it was her feeling that erosion was occurring on both sides of the house as well as being the issue on the hill. Her main concern is for safety of her family noting the vegetation on the hill is full of poison ivy and poison oak. Wigley did not wish to remove the natural look of the hill with grass. She said she is a maintenance-type person, who likes to take care of the problem before the hill falls down and would like to remove the poisong ivy and oak. Schroeder said the applicant could replace the poison ivy and oak with other vegetation without requiring boulder walls. Gaffron said the City feels there is no need to grade the hillside to get rid of the poison ivy and oak, and there is no slope problem requiring the wall. Gaffron did agree that leveling of the top area would be helpful. Schroeder said he agreed that erosion was occurring on the sides of the house, and maybe at the top of the slope, but did not see any erosion at the bottom. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21. 1995 (#14 - #2056 Michael & Barbara Wigle>’ - Continued) Peterson told the applicant that the Planning Commission does not want residents to wait until a hill is eroding, but he also did not see any problem except by the house. The weeds and the structure on the hill should hold back the hill while revegetating according to Peterson it was also noted that the stairway was in good solid condition. Gaffron inquired about a drainage pipe found on the property. The applicant said she had no idea what was the reajK, for the pipe. The contractor said he would check on the pipe. Laue said defoliating would be difficult and would kill the undergrowth. Hawn asked what would be used to kill the poison ivy and oak voicing her concern with chemicals washing into the lake Laue said a spray would be allowed to dry resulting in no run off. Laue said the top wall would hold back erosion from the house area. It is his plan create a swale with the boulder wall being located higher and the soil lower to catch the drainage and allow it time to percolate thru the soil. Lane said an original permit was denied by the MCWD, not because of the plan, but because the neighbor's contrartor was under investigation. The neighbor was asking for a similar boulder wall. Schroeder said it would be hard to believe that the permit was denied for any other reason than merit. Schroeder said the City's Comprehensive Plan sets guidelines for lakeshore. The Plan requires that natural vegetation be preserved as much as is practical. If erosion is present, rip rap can be used. The City recommends a natural look. The applicant asked what was the definition of erosion It was nof-xl that no erosion was noted by either the Engineer, Staff, or the Planning Commissioners Schroeder said the vvily erosion noted was near the home, which can be assisted with walls at that location. ^Vigley said she was looking at taking the grass out and putting in vegetation. Lane said the mulch will also be removed. Gaffron asked if the walls were to be approved, what construction process would be used for this project. Laue said two options were available. If permission were received from the neighbor, he would come across their property, drop the materials over the hill to be placed by a machine at the bottom. The other alternative would be to bring in the wall material over the lake during the winter and install it in the spring. Gaffron read into the minutes a letter received from the DNR noting their concern with retaining walls removing the natural vegetation, with screening, erosion control of the steep slopes, and concern over water level and ensuing construction. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995(#14 - #2056 Michael & Barbara Wigley - Continued) Hawn said if the boulder walls were wanted to hold soil before revegetation, a landscaper should be able to provide plants that germinate quickly. Silt fencing was noted to be an option to prevent erosion into the lake while vegetation was germinating. Peterson moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2056 for redesigning and gaining of a MCWD permit. Ayes 6. Nays 0. Lindquist said the walls would more than likely be denied by the lake and is not in favor of going ahead with this proposal. Schroeder said if erosion was clearly shown, then he would be willing to look at the proposal. Smith said she did not sec the project to include boulder walls. The applicant responded that her major concern for the project was the safety of her children. (#15) #2057 JAMES NYSTROM, 1745 CONCORDIA STREET - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:58-11:22 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Nystrom and his architect, Greg Frazee, were present. Gaffiron reported that the application has been amended and is now proposed as a residential tear down and replacement. The principal structure is presently located within the 0-75' zone and is proposed at the 75' line with a 10' wide deck encroaching the 0-75' zone. The detached garage will also be taken down and reconstructed to meet the setback requirements. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone would be significantly reduced with increases shown in the 75-250' and significantly so in the 250-500' zone. The side setback is proposed at 9.5' where 10' is required. The average lakeshore setback is also an issue to the house on the north. Lindquist asked if the deck and house could be moved back 10', resulting in no hardcover in the 0-75' zone. Frazee said this could be done but preferred the proposed scenario. The house to the south e.Ktends into the 75' setback with a porch touching the side lot line. With the proposed house located at the 75' line, it allows the applicant to maintain the same view as the neighbor and the ability to look beyond the house. If the house is moved back 10', the view of the lake would be limited. Lindquist said he had a problem with any structure in the 0-75'. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#15 - #2057 James Nystrom - Continued) Peterson said if a new house was built to the north, it also would be at the 75* line. Schrocder appreciated the tremendous improvements made in the proposal and saw no problem with the deck as there were hardships with the house. Hawn asked why the 10' side setbacks could not be met. Frazee said he worked with the floor plan trying to minimize room sizes to meet the requirement. He found it would be necessary' to move rooms upstairs, and it was the intent of the applicant to maintain an understated and lower profile Peterson read into the minutes a letter received from the DNR recommending denial of the application due to structure within the 0-75' zone The DNR determined a reasonable alternative would be to move the structure back 10’ Peterson informed the applicant that this is the only opportunity the City has to make properties meet current codes Schroeder noted lakeshore properties are a "Catch 22" proposition Owners want to be on the lake, yet it is bad for the lake. Gaffron noted that the average setback, lot area, and lot width problems are inherent to the property. The pertinent facts relating to the existing and proposed houses were reviewed. A major improvement with setbacks was proposed for the garage. Schroeder moved to approve Application #2057 as proposed due to the obvious hardships of the property, the substandard lot, the considerable effort to meet regulations, in particular the 0-75' zone, to warrant the proposed exceptions. There was no second to the motion Peterson said the property had the amount of space needed to move the house back and set the standards where they would meet City requiiements. The applicant said there was a privacy issue involved. The neighbor ’s screen porch beir® on the property line looks directly into the home. Lindquist said, although the reasons were valid, many other applications also have valid jeasons He noted it was becoming more difficult to allow any encroachment into the 75' lakeshore area Schroeder agreed. Gaffion said the City cannot predict what wiU happen with other homes in the area. Decisions cannot be made based on possible predictions The applicant said the home to the south was in good condition. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#15 - #2057 James Nystrom - Continued) Lindquist said there were three choices, to table the application, deny the proposal, or approve the proposal with an amendment moving all structure out of the 75 area. The applicant suggested amending the application to move the structure and deck back 10. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2057 with the stipulation that all structure be moved back out of the 0-75' setback zone. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#16) #205S RON RANTZ/AUTOGRAFS INC, 2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD - COMMERCIAL SITE PL/\N7VAR1ANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 11:22-11:55 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted The applicant and contractors, Keith Waters and Blake Bichanich, were present. Mabusth reported that the proposal is for a commercial office building just south of the intersections of CoRds 15 and 19 The property is made up of 3 vacant lots, two of which front CoRd 19 with a 250' frontage and zoned B-4 commeicial. The other lot to the rear is zoned residential and would support a duplex. The lots would be combined, and a single office building would be ereaed to house a national office center for Autografs, Inc. The applicant proposes to reduce the amount of parking available to what actual usage is predicted and provide space for future expansion if needed. The goal is to maintain open space with plantings. It is the applicant's desire to protect the wooded, treed area. There is a provision for ffiture parking with the current plans. The business is a prototype, and the applicant would like to know if there is an ability to expand the building and parking into the residential zoned area in the future if ne^ed. Retaining ponds would be located on the property with drainage for the initial building and expansion proposed to drain into the pond. It would be connected with a 12 culvert. All drainage will be directed away fi-om Kelley Avenue and to the east under County Road 19. Ron Rantz relayed the background on the use. The building would be a corporate office and graphic design center using 3M technology. The company is creating a marketplace for the technology. The computer work and production would be performed on the premises to include a printing area that would create the graphics thru computers that would go out to kiosks within car dealerships nationwide. The location was chosen due to nearness to 3M and Rantz'home The number of employees would be limited. The technology requires a controlled environment of temperature and humidity for the printing process. Rantz reported that there would be no chemical concerns as there is nothing toxic within the toners used. The product is the same as that used in lazer toners. The process electrostatically feeds off of the humidity and air. People are able to remain in the room throughout the process with no personal harm. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#16 - #2058 Ron Rantz/Autograls - Continued) Smith asked if there would be any materials needing discarding on the premises. The applicant said he would need to look into that matter with 3M. If a disposal area was needed, Berg asked where this would occur. Mr. Waters said it would be contained within the building The lower level plan for the property is designed as a loading and receiving area, which would be covered and heated Deliveries by UPS-sized trucks would be made about weekly with pick ups daily The film has to be stored in a controlled environment and then acclimated to the room. The loading area would be part of the building itself Rantz said this loading area as well as the shipping areas were excluded from the net floor area calculations Mabusth said the loading berth would not need to be included in the calculations but the shipping area should be. Mabusth said in determining parking spaces, if shipping area is included in net floor area, 67 parking stalls would be required. It is presently shown as 64, with 3 more needed. There would be no problem writh locating those stalls on site. Schroeder asked how many employees would work in the building. The 25-30 employees would be involved in administration and production with 10-15 graphic designers, who would be on a part-time basis. Rantz said 10-15 employees would be on the premises ^ one time. Rantz said the building is large for the proposed business to be conducted, but large tables are needed, 20-25' long to lay out the graphics The shipping area will require the space for vehicles to pull in for instaUation of graphics being provided for public reviewal. These vehicles would be used as models. Schroeder asked if there would be a car wash on the premises. Rantz said the cars would be sent out to be washed, even in the winter. Only slight clean up will be conducted in the building Rantz said the cars used as models would not be done on a daily basis. They are for experimental use only to see if the graphic will work on a vehicle. Testing the graphics on cars is needed to determine the perimeters. Berg asked if the process was odorless and requires any ventilation. The applicant said the process is completely self-contained in a sealed controlled humidity. The air is recirculated within the building. 3M is said to have an environmental room similar to the one proposed. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission if this use was an appropriate use. No variances would be required, and the lots would be legally combined. 24 \UNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#16 - #2058 Ron Rantz/Autografs - Continued) Berg was informed, when asked, that no drainage would flow from this property to Kelly Avenue. Schroeder noted that the proposed building was very large for new technology Waters said the technology has existed and proven to work. Schroeder also reiterated the relayed information given by the applicant of an air infiltration system, similar to a big computer room, with no hazardous materials used. Smith asked if the product would be taken to the public or to businesses She was informed that the product would be taken to the general public this fall as well as to a production center located in California. The application ot the decals is performed, however, at the car dealerships. The appropriateness of the use w'as discussed within the B4 zoning district. Mabusth said the Planning Commission needed to determine if the business meets the intent of the B-4 zoning code. Schroeder said the use as an office is met but other areas may be more problematic. As a building for creative use, Peterson said it falls under items 11 and 18. The intent of the B4 is its relationship to residential area as an administrative office building with limited public access and no exterior sales. Peterson said he saw the proposal as an appropriate use. Hawn questioned the expansion and using residential property for the purpose of expansion. The applicant said it was unknown if expansion would be needed Mabusth said the residential lot could not be used for any expansion without rezoning. Lindquist and Berg informed the applicant that they would probably not agree to allow any expansion within the residential area. The applicant asked why he should have to pay taxes on a piece of property if he is unable to expand onto it and has no use for it. Mabusth said a 24* road would have been required and the 35’ setback to rear lot line. The applicant was shown to benefit with owning this lot as he would be able, with having the residential lot as part of the combined lots, to construct the structure at the lot line without encroachment into the residential area. Otherwise, there would be a 35' rear yard setback required The combination of the three lots allows the applicant some flexibility. The applicant asked if he would be able to propose rezoning of the lot in the future. He was informed that this would be possible, but was also informed that the Planning Commission was unable to make such commitments to applicant. This was an issue to be best addressed by the City Council. Peterson moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2058. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COXLMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#16- #2058 Ron Rantz/Autografs - Continued) Rantz asked if it could be proven that the parking was adequate for expansion, would the City allow 44 stalls Rantz was intbrmcd that this would be satisfactory but no recommendation could be made for expansion into the residential zone. SKETCH PLAN REVIEWS (#17) #2043 GORDON JAY BUHRER. 2620 FOX STREET - SKETCH PLAN AND PROPOSED 2-LOT SCBDIVISION The applicant was not present. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2043 Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#18) #2047 LAKEVIEW GOLF, 405 NORTH ARM DRIVE - SKETCH PLAN OP SINGLE LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION Mr. Wenkstem was present. Galfron said the sketch plan is for a 2-acre lot to be subdi'ided from the 130 acre golf course for a single family residence. The land is unused and considered surplus The zoning is RRIB rural residental requiring 2 acres with 200' frontage on the road. It is located outside the MUSA requiring septic and well There is sewer in the street but it is not accessible To change MUSA boundaries is problematic Connection would require Met Council approval Staff recommends septic and well. The mound-type septic sites in the sketch plan may work but there might be a need to expand the boundaries due to the steep slopes. A southern driveway was determined to be the likely approach according to the Engineer. Lindquist asked if the applicant proposes any other parcels to be divided from the golf course. The applicant said he was looking to build on the property for himself Wenkstem said he preferred the driveway to the north side to be further from any balls being hit. Gaffron said the slope created problems with sight distance. The applicant asked if there was a setback for a driveway entrance Gaffron said Staff looks for 5' but there is no setback for driveways. There would have to be a separation as no grading is allowed within 5' of the lot line, and the intent is to provide a place for snow storage on the lot next to the driveway It was noted that septic testing would need to be completed. The applicant was informed that 80% of new systems are mound-type due to the soil conditions within Hennepin County. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#18 - #2047 Lakeview Golf - Continued) Peterson commented that the Park Commission reviewed the sketch plan and did not propose a trail on the property but would ask for normal park dedication fees. The applicant was informed that this amount would be 8® o of the lot area or cash in the equivalence of 8% of the fair market value before development. (#19) #2053 DENNIS PLATTETER, 809 NORTH BROWN ROAD - SKETCH PLAN OF A 3-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION Mr Platterer was present. Mabusth reported that the plan is for a division of a 6 37 acre homestead, located to the north side of Sugar Woods deN ’elopment, into three lots All structures would be removed. The property is accessed via a platted road The property is on a natural environment lake to the nonhwest, the OHW is at 985 5 elevation. .4 of the total property is a type 3 wetland adjacent to the normal high water level. Each lot is shown meeting the two acres of dry buildable It was noted that if the road were moved to the west, the lots would not have the 2 acres of dry buildable required. Lot 2 requires a lot width variance in its present configuration. Mabusth reported that the septic would be mound-type systems, and 3 were tested at an 8®^o slope. The septic code specifically states that mound systems must be placed on a slope no greater than 6%. Staff could not recommend approval of 3 lot plat based on septic limitations The property is not located within MUSA. Mabusth asked the Commission if they would recommend approval of current layout? A lot width variance would be required for lot 2 that gains access via a long platted corridor. The lakeshore lot meets 200' at the lake and the 150' setback. Platterer said he has owned the property for 20 years. The MUSA line is adjacent to the property to the south. The property contains alot of sandy area. The applicant selected the building sites based on the views, maintenance of trees and slopes, and then constructed the lot lines to meet the codes. The applicant was informed that with a 150-200' long road, his likely choices would be for 3 executive lots or 2 hobby farms, with contemplation for larger cul-de-sacs required by the fire department. Peterson said it was his opinion that the property consisted of two lots, not three, as there would be too much crowding in order to gain the proper septic. Berg agreed with thb conclusion. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#19 - #2053 Dennis Platteter - Continued) Lindquist said he would not agree to an area variance but would probably approve a width variance. MahiKth said the applicant does not have the acreage to allow lot 2 to be realigned and the road outlet extended to the west. The applicant inquired about a lot next to his property consisting of only one acre. He was told it could only be rebuilt in the original footprint but septic approval would determine whether it was buUdable or not. Platterer v^s informed that the Park Commission recommended asking for park dedication fee. PLANNING COIVIMISSION COMMENTS (#20) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 14,1995 (DALE LINDQUIST) No report was given. (#21) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 7,1995 (CANDACE ROWLETTE) Candace Rowlette was absent but the Commissioners received copies of the draft from the Park Commission pertaining to upcoming subdivisions. (#22) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION No additional issues were discussed ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#23) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 1995 MEETING Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve the Minutes of the July 17, 1995 MccUng of the Planning Commission. Ayes 6, Nays 0. 1 i ^ • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#24) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE SEPTEMBER IL 1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL No representative was selected. ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 12:25 a.m. Ayes 6, Nays 0. Stephen Peterson, Chair Person -p V, ^ ^ /f' dy ^^<!7d #2'')*70 ■ 1 r Survey for LE.B. DEVELOPMENT at Stubbs Bay. Orono, Mwiesofr JitJU. Dt!>C“IPfK:N iot« tu. It. „.yj 1/. Mac* t. reiisw PARp'. occortfAg to ino pkcw M (Ml >»w.o»o C«w>^. IProoMto toraUon ot »lt J<r *u»vn ontf proporod b, of 9M 40 contour m dono by RotKOr «nd i let fin. IMS I btftbf eaitify (hot this drn^ ods pttpan4 by mo or untfor my d^ocl twporvWi umt that I am e duly Rogittervd lond Surveyor Oolod this ;jth doy of August. 19 htHCCR A ASSOCtAftS, OK. AK:n H. fie*><jer. lur»d SurtOyor U.nf\«fula H«g-srraf<wi Uo <J29S Rehder and Associates, Inc. i.--v^i. f.C'NfC-tS A*.D lA'rO