The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-16-1994 Planning PacketPLANMNC, COMMISSION MKKTINC; MONDAY, MAY 16, 1994, 7:00 P.M. 27S0 KKLLEY PARKWAY - COl NCIC CHAMBERS COINCII. REPRESENTATIVE - Mayor Edward Callahan. Jr. ATrENDANCE Applicants presenting prop«.sals before the Commission are asked to move to the Dodium at the front of the Chambers when their application is announeed h> thepodium Chairman. SCHEDI I.EI) PUUTC HE.ARINGS 1 7:00 n.m. nm:- Tandem Owpenies. ;&45/JO:3 Waicnown Road - Prclimnrarv’ Subdivision - l*ublic hearing to be rescheduled betore the Planning Commission meetine of June 20. IW4 at applicant s request ACT ION ITEMS ■ Review of ihcse items will eommenee prior to or between scheduled public hearings. 2 ^1895 Pat Wolfe. 2871 Casco Point Road - After-»he-Fact Variances - Public Hearing - Application withdrawn by City 4. 7. 8. 9. #1904 Eric and Shelly l.iljequist. 3490 Birch lane - Conditional Use Pcmiii/Variance - Public Hearing #1911 Ernest Ummerman. 4530 Tonkaview Une ■ Variances - Continuation of Public Hearinc 5. #1912 Tim Ilillnian. 400 Leaf Street ■ Varianees ■ Referred back to Planning Commission for additional review 6. #1915 George .Applebaum, 4109 Highwood Road. - Variances - Continuation of Public I learinc #1918 James K. and Julie Ann Lynch-Danicls. 1225 Orono Oaks Drive - Renewal Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing #1919 Ty Bucey. 2677 Casco Point Road - Variances - Second Public Hearing - Renotification #1925 Peter Bovee. 840 Old Long Lake Road. Variances - Public Hearing 10. #1927 Mary K. McCarty. 245 Tonka Avenue - Variance - Public Hearing PLANNING COMMISSION MKKTING - MONDAY, MAY 16 1994, 7:00 P..M. 11. #1928 Suzanne K. Wacker, 1115 Brown Road South - Renewal Variance - Public I rearing 12. #1929 Alonzo B. Seran, III, 4099 Highwixxl Road - Variances - Public Hearing 13. #1930 Margaret B. Cost, 255 Brown Road South - Variances - I^iblic Hearing 14. #1931 Megan Tullv and James McManus, 1910 Shadvwood Road - Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Public Hearing 15. #1932 Orono School District #278. 685 Old Cr>stal Bay Road - Condititmal l^sc Pennit/Variance - Public Hearing 16. #1934 RRH and Company, 710 Gander P.oad Variances - Public Hearing Sketch Plan Reviews 17. #1885 Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc., 2675 Si.xth Avenue North - Review of Amended Sketch Plan Planning Commission Comments 18. Set date and time for public hearing on B-2 zoning amendment. 19. Report by Planning Commission Representative to Council Meeting of May 9, 1994. 20. Other issues for discussion. Additional Items 21. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the April 18, 1994 meeting. 22. Planning Commission to select a representative to attend the June 13. 1994 meeting of the Council. Adjournment a Ui S3 r = W f si y sU uT — U irt . , — « P.^g Ci < < > >• o ^ -J “ *J S J. 0 1 I i I do 6ou »» %lx: x: Hi- S' *3M ^ n t - si '■ 5P II 1 =^1 35 ll c ” = cu II I" ^III a. X £•r S.'^ a IM p y . ?. d po s: c UJ H d••• m 2 « S s;i 'i".-. IH ^fle*-!; 3 ^ c »-.11 •• '.^i '.' C - S'iji y I * I ! ‘4I I P } 5 ; : j; i •:: •;• H 5: UJ ? Hi 31 g •:3 P 6 •f' h5 Vn SI II I;-' cry a: nj « ~ y 2- •■^ ‘iM I I I > I I 5 £ "I .il ^ u £ £ c Jn *4 »■ I w u T. 'i! 5 £ V1 :♦ ,';i «- i Esa I J i ? i X ■•*» I i f ri &. ra ftt s iI I I II li or. I 3 rl U A- V s «■? I I k I s I ffl 5 I i I •* = t; I I i r i i r-u: ii cn 1 H a *■ i; 1 •ii.:-. •'\' i tw- 1 in c •^1 e ji a I -V* X •■'■r r .V c .! V f. ¥.V 1 t ’i t MB n 1 V »•«•••*•£: cws s n. •-«* »r».•**#• VI r s:,r» :r i i I !l 5 1 2 H ? !’ !? 3: I J 5 ij ^ MA- S n V.? THE PETER hndre « cos 6 1 2 9 ? O 3 1 4 P . O 1 TANDEM ii ^ ’iines L. Owrnwa Richard A. Puttan PROPERTIES BROKERS • BLAfiSERS • OEVELOFER5 May 6, 1994 i i Ms. Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Cnstal Bav, MN 55323 ¥ • Re: 2645/3025 Waiertown Road 2nd Addition Plat Approval Dear Ms. Mabusnh: ■n,. imem of this letter is to request that the pUt approval for the 2nd Additron on above referenced project be rescheduled to yout June 20.1994, -U1 provide us with necessary time'to complete the study of septic tank locations. If you should have any questions or need additional informaaon, please contact me. Sincerely. Richard A. Putnam 2765 Casco Point Road • Wavzata. Minnesota • Offirc * F?jc C614.1 a71^573 r To: From: Date: Subject: Orono Planning Commission Memherv Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmcmbers Ron Moorse. City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator May 9. 1994 #1904 trie and Shelly Liljequist. 3490 Birch Lane - Conditional Use Permit Variance - Ihiblic Hearing Current application has been considered as an addendum to original application filed January 28. 1994 Pertinent Ordinances 1 Section 10.03. Subdivision 19 * Conditional use permit is required for any land alteration that would alter the grade or shore of lakeshorc property. 2.Section 10.55. Subdivision 8 - Permanem structures are not allowed within the Hood plain of Lake Minnetonka. List of Exhibits A B C D E I G II Application Property Owners Li.si Plat Map Planning Commission Minutes of February 22, 1994 Topographic Map Profile of Flood Plain Areas to he Filled with Installation of New Foundation Applicants Proposed Grading Plan Shawn Gustafson Ix'tter of May 5. 1994 Description of Request Durinc the preparation for tne building permit for the new construction, staff soon realized that with limited topographic infonnation on hand that at least portions of the structure would appear to be kxaied within the flood plain of Lake Minnetonka. Staff advised the applicants to obtain additional topographic information for the entire footprint of the residence. Applicants submitted spot elevations for the new construction confirming that the entire structure was located within the Hood plain. Applicant was advised to commence the permitting process with the Watershed District and file the necessary permits with the City. In early discussions with the Watershed District, the ap 'licant was advised that the appro.ximate 625 cubic feet of fill in the flood plain could be mitigated on site rather than requiring pilings as in two earlier reviews for con.'^truction on Big Island. Members may remember that the earlier reviews involved a seasonal cabin and small storage shed. Ellen Sones of liie Watershed District has advised the applicant that they would allow mitigation on site if n Jse an ion Zoning File IIW4 Mav 9, 1994 Page 2 of 3 ■ i. u « rtf thf C\tv of Orono Planning Commission members should be C^o. 0.., . e„.orc a,, reac., plain resulatinns TTk Watershed Distnet also reviews and issues permits tor anv aetivits involves the alteration of the flossi plain of Uke Minnetonka. The Citv has reviewed the applieants' plan of mitigation proposing the eveavation of sme hi) cub c “ei to the south or street side of the propeny. The proposal involves the some 6 0 eubic fe vh'v 3S'area. To qualifv for n.xd plain storage, the excavation ot y * » " Mow ,he 9M v elevation and above the 9:9.4' OHWL o “uke MinMonka.''Is Gustafson s comments note (Exhibii II). the toul e.xcavatmn would 1 -1 iU*nth as credit would onlv bccin once you rc3ch the 931.5result in a retention pond at a 2 dtpin as creaii wuuiu um. _ j elevation Gustafson recommends a shallow trench or swale be excavated out to the lake along the side prlferablv the west side of the propeny as ihe east side contains more mature plamtng_ He notes that, based on the review of mpographic intormation. excavations within this the oropertv would be located within the flotxl plain and qualify. 1 he drainage swa c wou a so nmLe^ositive drainage from the residence. In fact during the Planning Commission s review of this application (review F.xhibit D), applicants advised that it was their plan to c.eate swales to carrv runoff to the lake. In funher discussions with Gustatson. appheants should provide addit.onal grading and drainage plans with the ^ ^ Sinr^miit confinning the location and width of the swale noting that swale need not go any funher“sLth from the lake than to the low retention area adjacent to residence and that spot elevations be shown within swale confirming positive drainage to »ake. Once again, miiiga lo credit can only be gained by excavations between the 929.4’ and 931.5 elevations. The MCWD has also asked that the regulatory ntx>d protection elevation ^ set at 9_3T5* rather than 932.5’ as required per Orono Municipal Ordinance Section 10^55. Subdivision / (B). The Watershed District requires 2’ above the flood plain elevation at 93 . Staff Recommendation To approve the conditional use permit and variance tor Eric and Shelly would allow the filling and compensatory mitigation of 625 cubic feet within the P Lake Minnetonka, based on the following findings: 1. Proposed improvements will not increase the runoff on the property. 2. The required swale will provide positi\e drainage on the property. 3. A permanent residence has existed on the propeny for over 50 years. Zoning File #19(U May 9. 1994 Pace 3 of 3 4. The ftx)tprint of the new residence w ill not exceed that of the former residence. 5. Hardcover within the 75-250* setback area is prop^jsed at 21.9T as a result of these improvements. This approval is subject to tte following conditions: 1. Applicants’ residence shall he designed so that the first habitable floor of residence is installed at the 933 5 ’ MSL. 2. Applicants shall provide a grading and drainage plan that will include the following: a. Location of swale. b. Width of swale. c. Spot elevations conTimiing position drainage to the lake noting that credited mitigation area must be above the 929.4 ’ and below the 931.5’ elevation 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new construction, the City inu.st be in receipt of a copy of a permit from the MCWD approving the flood plain mitigation plan. Isv f h i -.A CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAM) USE APPUCATION PROPERTY' LOCATION Site Address _______J f ?0 T>pe of Application to be Filed d tLd f //i ^j« ft D ^ Propert)' Identification Number (P.I.D.) - //>^£3 Vp 1^*2^ APPLICANT Name H/ AddreiTTVfO tA-* Cirv’ Phone (hOTne) __ Phone (work) 5?2-^rtX:J iluts___________Zip OWTsTR (if different than applicant) Name Address Phone (home) Phone (work) Cit\’_ Zip Dare Property Acquired_______2 —' I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land^ FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMHS - ^ S 50.00 For each variance request with CLT application ______$125.00 Residential Accessory Use ...____$200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _______ $175.00 Guest House/Guest .Apartments _____$150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _______ $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$200.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more _____ Grading, seawall, retaining w'alls within 75 ’ of lakeshore _____PRD.TID - see Fee Schedule _____$100.00 Renew’al Fee (no change from original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (rnonth/year) F.vr^ oiCTrz\jt t act- j -i. Vk-i.I Ai./WVikW'V^WV ___ 01 i*£v 50. OC CHtCK TL 50.00oc/TT.oT,.ru.Y^/v vnn iMmUimXi # < c'W .y WT/ t,tt OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$2(X).00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$250.(X) Vacation ______$175.00 Easement Vacation _____5 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$300.00 Compreheasive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals _____Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property ^ ^^^Resjdem^ ^ Other (specify) )C nOnkhl•I T nCCTrC U VI I X L*c Tki 7i. C*r- fV V\/ m W C'/7 n/\ W 9 vvru^Aik' vmiitiniti\ I vv ni ufii TiOi VI IWA I XiL • nA /r>ivnf i^x/ 6. 7- ^ 8. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1- ^ Completed Application Form. 2- ____ Describe request in detail. ------- Certified Propern-Owners List of owners witlun 350 ’ Cvou can obtain this list from , ____ of Fin^e. A-603, Government Center, 34W2T ------- SomalL”^ “ "“'f™' fof Attach legal description to application if not included on required sur%ev Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alteratio'ns involve changes m elevation (grades). m\oive ------List of the ^gal names' (mclude marital satus) of all persons with an interest in the propem This would include nametsi of applicant(s) if not current owner(s) -------Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements! ------- 10 this application, please attaci, a .separate list of anv other persons vou wish notified of this application. * ^ “““'"'"‘S. plans, etc. to be The Applicant and Propem- Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Sf'aenc^afstff-^ APPLICANT S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or reouested bv the Zoninn additional fees (staff time not covered bv original fee pavment) Lpphedrtrae'aSr' t ‘V‘''7 ^PP'i^^tion. and certihes that the information supplied IS true and c^ect to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE T^e owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable meXTfofpulS- n-P-be" -TS,“ncUmembers for purposes of mvestigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signature ______ A1 V CoL^io”'MceTmg^'ie^™id^^^ P'^nning Commission Meeting. Planning review mectmes of the Plannmt r ‘ must be present at all scheduled please make arranEements to hatp Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, of this change pnL to tLe m^tbg ' ^ 0^“ ♦ RUM DATE 04/1A/9S* ^BATCH 001PROP ADOR OILIER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODRPROP ADOR d^t^R HAm TAXPAYER NAHE/AOORPROP ADOR OI#IER MAKE TAXPAYER HAHE/AODR PROP ADOR OKNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR • h . * % PROP ADOR 0I#IER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR .k Sa 08-117-25 95 0001 05970 BIRCH LA REX EUGENE 80Ulfr,ER JR REX EUGENE BOUIIIGCR JR 5970 BIRCH LA NAYZATA MN 5559158 08-117-25 95 0009 01999 8ALDUR PARK RO VIOLET 0ERO3IA VIOLET DEROSIA 1999 BALOUR PARK RO NAYZATA rt4 5559158 08-117-25 95 000805510 NORTH SHORE DR D I J SIKKA OALJIT A JA5WIHDER “TvrA 5510 NORTH SMRL >0 NAYZATA MU 55591 58 08-117-25 95 0015 05980 NORTH SHORE Dl BRUCE A NUSBAUH BRUCE A NUSBAUH 5980 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA HN 55591 58 08-117-25 95 0025 05950 BIRCH LA E R EN6LER A D EMGLER EOHARD R A BCRtUE ENGLER 5950 BIRCH LA NAYZATA W 55591 58 08-117-25 95 0027 05990 BIRCH LA R NILLIAM TOHARD ETAL R NILLIAH TOHARO 5960 BIRCH LA .NAYZATA m 55591 HCrUEPIN C0L9TTY PROPERTY l»ir0PMAT10fl SYSTEM PROPCRTV OtRlCRS LIST58 09-117-25 95 000205990 BIRCH LA E LILJEQUIST A S LILJEQUIST ERIC J A SHELLY R LILJEQUIST 3990 BIRCH LA NAYZATA Tt4 5559158 Oa-117-25 95 0005 01990 BALOUR PARK RO R E CNGEBRETSON ET AL RICHARD E CNGEBRETSON A JEAN CNGEBRETSON 1990 BALOUR PARK RO NAYZATA HN 5559138 08-117-23 95 000905520 NORTH SHORE OR DAVIO A SiriGER DAVID A SINGER 3520 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA HN 55391 58 08-117-25 95 0019 05990 NORTH SHORE OR KENTON H CARLSOtT ETAL KETNON H CARLSON 5998 T40RTH SHORE DRIVE NAYZATA MN 55591 58 00-117-25 95 0025 05958 TTORTH SHORE OR P E BOIRUN 6 B D OLADER PAUL B0NMAN/6AR8APA 0 BLADER 5958 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA ftT 55591 TOTAL BATCH 001 00016 REPORT NO. PAGE P19S5901 < 1SB C0-117-2S 0001.BALOUR PARK RO CORAL H ISAmVKZ CORAL H LAHRCNCE 5120 lorn AVC SO MPLS MT4 5541758 06-117-21 41 0004D1414 BALOUR PARK RO HAP N€LSON NALIACC E NELSON 4221 NASMBURN AVE 5 MPLS MN 5542110 CB-117-21 41 001205470 NORTH SHORE DR HAROLD J BROUELLETTE HAROLD J BROUELLETTE 5470 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA MN 55591 50 00-117-23 45 0015 01490 NORTH SHORE DR KAO CARLSON KEN1UN H CARLSON 5490 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55191 50 00-117-25 45 0024 05440 NORTH SHORE DR JOHN G NELSON ETAL JOHN NELSON 5440 NO SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55591 •a-t.*• r-• \ \*>v>. , * t •‘S v-**.*'..-Vx* -.''J-I *4;WIII V* . \ ^ iV-. ; • '.N •< \^ rf - • ’•!« 1 •' •' • ;.. r • • . 1* f * •* • I* 6. P •* • 1 ^ 9 > B •I t • • I r * s t vv ‘ ‘ . “ -t s ‘ :'•?•■■: I/.\^-';q •:•;• .'.vv .•v.v-A>'Ki 1* 1*1 » >*., ,. • '•■• ■ i'.S (3) ■\:- 1.2) MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETLNG HELD ONFEBRUARY 22, 1994 (#6) #1904 ERIC AND SHELLY LILJEQLTST 3490 BIRCH LANE VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Mabusth reviewed the staff report and noted that any condition of approval must include recognition of the proposed hardcover at 2,194 square feet and that applicants are allowed 300 square feet of additional improvements for steps, deck, or sidewalk. Eric Liljequist review’ed the revised footprint for the new house and inquired whv he was required to obtain the 'ot area variance. Chairman Schroeder responded that the area variance requirement was the means by which the City' could regulate proposals w hich could prove to be objectionable for some reason. Smith noted that this was the process by which the ordinance requirements were reviewed to ensure they had been met. In this instance, the applicant has already met those requirements and done the revisions on his own. Nolan inquired if there would be any grading done on the lot and Mr. Liljequist responded affirmatively, noting that there would be drainage swales running down the side lot lines. Nolan moved, Berg seconded, to approve #1904 Variances for Eric and Shelly Liljequist at 3490 Birch Lane subject to submission of a grading plan and noting that the applicants are allowed 300 square feet of additional hardcover. 6 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Liljequist requested that this application be forwarded to the City Council meeting scheduled for February 28, 1994. (#2) #1905 JOHN POWERS/KEN HOPKINS 75/85 FERNDALE GREEN SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARR,\NGEMENT Mabusth reviewed the staff report. Mr. Larry Berg, attorney for the applicant, noted that the owners of Lots 5 and 6 have been contacted regarding their option to purchase the parcels abutting their lots, and they have been considering this action. If they decide against this then the applicant intends to approach the Country Club to inquire if they would be interested iu obtaining Parcels A and B. This could be accomplished through outright sale or possibly deeding these rw'o parcels to the Country Club, Mr. Powers is proposing this action because he wishes to have legal jurisdiction over this area which he has always considered to be his back yard, and he wouid like to have the legal right to maintain it as such. If Parcels A, B and C are combined with the adjacent residential lots it will increase the area of these lots bringing them closer to legal size. He stated that the Country Club was presently maintaining the parcels and were willing to continue doing this. He requested the Planning Commission to approve their request. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FORERIC LILJEQUISTOF LOT 2. BLOCK 1. BALDUR PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA MI j) 4‘'“V" ■tU U legal description of PREHISIS SURVEYED! Lot 2. Block I, BALOUR PARK denotes Iron marker datum"®* *^®^" This survey intends to show the boundaries «t»5ve described property, and tSe location of an existing house and oaraoe and « proposed house.thereon. It docs not pSJpoft^ to S1.CW ou.r lnpr,„n,„t, o? "ccfJIZIni,. COfflN & C ronberc . Int . 1 ' ll I >' -I { ,' 1 I.. . . I . f. I 1 -M.f, * 1 I t Hwl • I,.., I .1, \|\ ,.t|, 11 * I Ml M Minntsolo license Number 12/55 74 -SK i»Aih 3-25*94 SCAU l"»20* iosNo. 94*55 \PUX. 10 f SO - ^H * \is»5.f )f • ■>tSb•:J^S (0Z5 O^-'^ emmttsr i>s' .9 = ^ s f 3 I O <3 <^* y f 'AV ■f r I t .,*i> f-fdvst f > fe?CERTIFICATe OF SURVEY FORERIC LILJEQUISTOF LOT 2. BLOCK 1. BA1T>«JR PARvr '?£r4NErMf4 COUNTY, MINNE SOlA. - 'iAT'f • • • • « ^ITf > % tjtotvmi/rj Y o" V v> LC3AL Dnf>:.f :_.0h r« »>tH(SIS SURVETED: lot I, IIOCK 1, SAiaUa PARK o; 4enot»s iron m(ric«r (Vii.»;: dcpotfs exlstiny spot #|rvatlon, nesn s«i Iftvel datum Seirjriys Shown §p« based upor» an asiumad datum. This survey Intends tc show the boundiriei of the above described property, and the locetlon of an existing house and gdrgge. and I proposed house-thereon, It does not purport to show any other Improvements op erccroachmenis. COEflN & GKONBEKC, Int.’. i .t>t •• * I t». • ■ I > «., I •!, '|N .1*1 lUI I hr«cNy CfMi^y iMs lurvcy pn pnrvJ by rrc i»r under n»y cflrccl 5Upt‘f- vbl'.’iL ind that ! o^n ■ Juiy uglsli'fcd CUil Engi^ccf dnd Uir»d 5ur»cycf urtd^r‘^7 -Ihe Uwi lit the Slnte rf Mlnnr^rtn UAh? J-25-94 j</»u Tf 2^* ine^ n CJ>«<TC Bonestroo Rosene Andeiiik& Associates jc^eor^ C •! Mjrv^ L •€ »«t-4KC f Q#f^ » C« »t f Srw% ^ M fhp^ C •Seno Cj^^wMTf Engineers A Architects « Zicm»n «hr<i^ f Pt *' *‘m‘ A ^ «KiC I' .J«»4 *f 4h0»>^ : «' A • Idudon ^ • *-ar^ »f WV'jei EjiuP^enn ^| *ec » *^«c <»E *hom«l t ^rx»rion 4 « Obo M C IsAMWa t ff May 5. 1594 "Nwnjif V^ Maftmer ^ ^ 9au Pi Sjr^ M • c • J •vne ^ A ^•'VV »f V -*»x* ^ ^ O Aroit« koil j »f Mar* r? 9otr\ Ma»« A ^ pf Ga»V «A Mbra«* Pf 0»n^ J fjgfmjn Pf A (hr* k*vr^ Bf P^i<J > ZdiwuM Pf Uam O WMa Pf VAirr • jpwwiw . •*sA» O-av^ *.a^ *. A e*"y»" Pf .ajre D Mtt Pf f \WW h’lor Bf t '«0) Pf DougM J 1P*«< PC 0 OuiUf^jn Pf Ceriw Orv** Pf PamG Nrufi Pf JOPm P Go«*»v Pf ChjrtP% A f'* fcjivi LPO M Pj^fwpn«v Hanar m Oion fa'vipf c fngethjifm t f Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 r' «1VED MAY 9 1994 C. r OftONO Re: Liljequist V'ariancc File No. 13s 1904 Dear Jeanne, We have inspeaed the propern- and rcsicwxd the certificate of survey submitted with the variance application for the proptiscd house on Eric & Shelly Liljcquist’s property. The inlormation shows that the proposed house will require approximately 625 cubic feet of fill to be placed within the flo<>dplain of Lake Minnetonka. The applicant has proposed to excavate approximately 6 inches over a 36 feet by 35 feet area adjacent to Birch Lane as compensatory fltxidplain storage. We do not rewmraend this location because it is has the highest elevation on the lot. To qualify for floodplain storage, the excavation must take place below the floodplain elevation of 931.5. To provide the 625 cubic yards required, the propsised kKation near Birch Lane wrould first have to be excavated dowm to the 931.5 elevation, then lowered an additional 6 inches to create floodplain storage. The total excavation in this kKation would be nearly 2 feet in depth. The side and rear yard areas presently have poor drainage. It is apparent that the low areas on the lot drain solely by seepage into the soil. Although the proposed improvements will not increase the runoff on the property, the drainage aiuld be improved by excavating a shallow ditch out to the lake. If the excavation is done cither west or north of the house, nearly all of the excavation would qualify as floodplain storage. The excavation should be graded to drain around the west side of the house and out to the lake shore. Prior to the work, silt fence should be installed near the lake for erosion control. The disturbed area should be seeded or sodded shortly after the work has been completed. We see no adverse impacts on the property from either the fill placement or excavation, if it is done in this manner. Please cont.ict me t this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONTSTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. '^yf ShawTi D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MINI 55113 • 612-636-4600 I J TO:Planning Comniission McinN^rs Ron Moorsc, City Admimstraior FROM:Jeanne A. Nfabusth. Building & Zcmng Administrator DATK: May 10. 1994 SfBJKCT: #1911 Ernest Lemmerman. 4620 Tonkaview lime - Variances Continuation ot Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances Refer to staff memo of March 16. 1994, Exhibit A. Ordinance #P6 :™l Scries. Amendniem rcdetlnine topof hluiT. The anicndmem reads " s iha, po.™ on die c.oss section of a bluff helow more th.m IS'J andabove sshich ihe aserage slope lor a disiance ol .10 or more 18 or less. List of Exhibits A - Staff Memo 3/16/94 B - Ordinance #126. 2nd Series C - Sketch of New Building Envelope. Detined by Required Setbacks from Lot Lines and Top of Blutt D - Dimensions ot Building En\elope Status of Application Ai the March 21si mceiing of the Planning Commission, the application was tabled pending resolve of the zoning amendment redefining top ot blutt. Ihe variance inclines of a comnrLnsive application involving a subdivision proposing a realigntitenf ot arniicanfs homestead parcel and Ihe contiguous undeveloped lot also owned by appitc.tm. apStalion for subdtviLn was conceptually reviewed by .he Council and r«c.ved unanimous supptirt. The issue of the bluff impact and required setbacks from bluff were not addressed during ^ mKl vAfoii review In facl the bluff ordinance was not enforced or uiiplenienied until February ihU vear The code section has had a major impact on many ol the lakeshore applicatio^ ^omrilmd h, ih': ct rdet-inition for die top of bluff has been amended in an attempi to make it less restrictive. Members are asked to review ll,vbibits C and D We had would allow for a simple visual imeirrciahoh ‘“P “ ^l die 1010 rairrrpet^intm rr-rif* " 'rn ‘Ldmg eieva.lo„ opet. up 1 Zoning File #1911 May 10. 1994 Page 2 as we nn>vc westward towards the street wturre the top of bluff is Uvated funhcr so ith. The building envelope is 100' 4- in width aiul 22* in depth for the majority of the w idth Issues for Consideration 1. •J • WTiat comments do Planning Commission Members have, if any. concerning the legal building envelope of the property redefined by the current code amendment? Can a residerKe structure be constructed on ihJs propcny without the iK*ed far future setback variances’ 3. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. Options of Action 1. ‘j ahf • To approve an area variance as proposed and a building envelope as defintd by the required setbacks and require that the sketch of the defined building envelope bt included as pan of the resolution granting approval of the area variance in order to alen a future owner of the unique sloped building envelope; or Denial of variance application as proposed and to recommend that applicant withdraw subdivision of a lot line rearrangement as a more suitable building envelope car be found in the lower elevations of this property adjacent to the Wildhurst Trail lot line. I r p’n fr TO:Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orom'» Couneilmembcrs Ron Mcxirsc. Cit>’ Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusih. Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:March 16. 1994 Sl-BJtX-T: i»1911 Ernest Umtnemun. 4620 TonUviets Unc - Var.mces - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24. Subd. 5(B) - Lot area variance Pro^'sed = 20.900 s.f. or .47 acres (prior to lot line rearrangement 33.975 s.f. or .73 acres) Variance » 22.660 s.f. or 52 ''^^“‘’"iLMion^Bluff. Topographic feature such as a hill, cliff - following characterist.es (an area w t.h an average slope ol less than 18over a dtsiancc of 50 ’ or more shall not be considered part of the blutn. A Pan or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area. B. The sli>pe rises at least 25’ above the ordinary high water level ot the C TCgr^di' of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25’ or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30% or greater, and D. The slope must drain toward the water body. T.« of the blutf means the lower point of a 50 ’ segment with an average slope exceeding Isfo. Top of the bluff means the higher point of a 50 ’ segment with an average slope e.xceeding 18%. Definition 3 Bluff Impact Zone - A bluff of land located within 20’ from the top ol a bluff. Definition 26 Steep Slope ■ Unds having average slopes oi l8% or greater as nteasured ov-.- horizontal distances of 50 ’ ot more, that are not blulls. Section 10.56. Subd. 7. Classification of public waters - General Development Forest Uke, OHWL 929.4 Section 10.56. Subd. 16(C-2) - Setback from top of bluff. For all structures = 30 ’ rr 2^mng File #1911 March 16. 1994 Pace 2 Section 10.56. Subd. 16<C-3) - Bluff impact zone structures and accessor} facilities, e.xccpt stairways, landines and lock boxes, must not be placed within bluff impact Z(W. Section 10.56. Subd. 16(G) - Steep slopes. Any applicant requesting a permit for cotistruction 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 development of visibility from public w.iters before such permit may be issued. When determined necessary, conditions shall be attached to issue pennits to prevent erosion and preserve e.xisting vegetation screening of structures, vehicles and iMher facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer leaf on vegetation. Section 10.56. Subd. 16(1-2) - Vegetation alterations. Intensive vegetation clearing within 75’ of the shoreline and on steep slopes within the Shoreland Overlay District is prohibited, l.imited clearing of shrubs and trees less than 6" in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimminc of trees of any size is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommtxlate the placement of pennitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lock bo.xes. provided that the screening of structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water assuming summer leaf on conditi(>ns, is not substantially reduced. Section 10.56. Subd. 16(J-5g) • Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by the City Engineer for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes of 30fc or greater. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Sewer As-Built Providing Stub for Undeveloped Property E - Building Envelope Defined before Topographic Information Provided FI- Site Plan of Topography Reflecting Impact of Bluff Impact Zone on Undeveloped Lot F2- Proposed Building Envelope and Variance within Bluff Impact Zone G - Topiographic Map Designation II - Section - Profile I - .Amended Subdivision of Lot Line Rearrangement Providing Another Option of Development Eliminating Bluff Impact Zone from Potential Building Envelope Review of Application The subdivision of a lot line rearrangement was presented to the Council for conceptual direction before applicant proceeded with the filing of the variance application, the formal pkai and j ' h Zoning File #1911 March 16. 1994 Page 3 Dossible registration of lands. Council conceptually approved the proposal. The applicar* has filed L required lot area variance Review Evlubil E. pnor to staffs receipt ol the to^graphtc information, the building envelope was defined by building setbacks ol the ^-tB Zoning District The topivgraphic information has been reviewed by the suit and it has b«n lound that the proposed undeveloped lot will be severely restricted by a blulf tmpact tone. Please review the code sections listed above. Mike Gaffron has prepared various exhibits to assist Planning Commission in understating the deiemiinaiion of a bluff impact zone and the location of boih ihe ne and top ot the blutfi Review Exhibits H. G and H. first task is to define ihe toe ot the blulf and m this case is the L of the retaining wall. The lop of the bluff is determined by the last 50 segment that results in an average slope exceeding I81v (9 rise in 50 ). Staff met with Ceil Strauss of the DNR. The v ariance application with topogiaphic infomation was given to Strauss for review and comment. Staff will repon .at your meeting ol her findings and recommendation. This is Ihe second application of your March agenda involving liie impact of protected bluff areas upon proposed building siies. The current code is very restrictive. We are planning a possible code aniendmeni that would define clearer and less restrictive m he determination of a bluff, specifically where ihe lop of the blulf ends. “’’'I''^ t definition in the code defines the lop of bluff at one elevation and yet the visual perception ol the top at another. The issue is how do we meet the intent of the state regulation and impact on steeper elevation of bluff areas Ceil Strauss has advised that our City seems to have more questionTand problems with the interpretation of this specific c^e have chosen more restrictive standards It may be that other municipalities have not begun o deal with the requiremenis of implementing this section. We will continue to work closely ith the DNR whenever variances to the current code section are required. Issues for Consideration 1 Review Exhibits FI and F2, would the Planning Commission approve a variance that would allow encroachment of the bluff impact zone in order to retain a building envelope within higher elevations but more gentle sloped portion of this property? Review Exhibit I, the lower elevations of the original lot have more gentler topographies. ■■ Shoull wrrecommend lu applicam iha. lot litK rearrangeuicnt be readjusted so that a building envelope is retained in the southern more gentle sloped portions of and allow expansion of applicant s homestead lo the west instead of the north^ T would defeat the whole purpose and intent of Mr. Ummerman s comprehensive application? ORDIfJANCE NO. 126. SECOND SERIES • • • ( AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CRCNO ZONING CODE SECTION 10.56. • SUBDIVISION 3. AMENDING T^E DEFINITION OF "TOP OF BLUFF” COUNCIL HEREBYUhLyAINS; _ , SECTION 1. Orono Municipal Zoning Codo, Section 10.56, SutxJivision 3, definition 2 “Blufr' is amended as follows; H II ^ topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18% over a distance of 50' or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): A. Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; B. The slope rises at least 25‘ above the Ordinary High Water Level of the water body; .u I.P; grade of the slope from the toe of me bluff to a point 25’ or more above the Ordinary High Water Level averages 30% or . greater; and D. The slope must drain toward the water body. ThV toe of th»”. lim the lower point of .a 50‘ segment with an average slope exceeding 18%. highof point of q fip’ ovomgo olopo o woood ing 2(b). "Bluff, tnp pf . Th.nt nnint m Ihft yOSS-SgCtlQh Qf a bluff helQw whirh the «;lr)n« morn man ihh-. and tho aieraae sicpa for a dismnrp A ■18% or less. n and Publication ordinance shall bo published in onP The Laker newspapers and Scatioa"^® effective immediately upon , Adopted by the City Council of Orono Minnesota on this 25th day of April 1994 bv a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. ^ Edward J. Callahan. .Jr.. Mayor ATTEST; ' _ Dorothy M. Hallin. City Clerk ’ 'l .{Published in The Laker and Pioneer May ^ p I w y ^ ji I ^ CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crjstal Bay. MN 55323 APPI.ICATION NO. ^fl9i: NOTICK OF COL NCII. ACTION Date of Notice: Mav 10. 1994 TO: Mr. and Mrs. Tim Hillman 400 L>eat Street Lorn! Lake. MN 5535b T\?E OF iU»PLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING: Mav 9. 19^VOTE:FOR 0 AGAINST COl NCIL ACTION - MOTION: Motion was to ’able all action on the current proposal arxl dire«:t staff to present the application before the Planning Commission at their May 16. 1994 meeting. Council was prepared to deny the current profHssal but in light of the receipt of new infonnation concerning lot coverage determined that the application amid be referred back to the Planning Commission for further review, not only to consider the lot coverage issue of l.l*^ excess but to also consider reducing either the decree of setback variances or to eliminate setback variances. Please contact my office if you have any further questions concerning the CounciPs directives. Your application is scheduled before the Planning Commission at their May 16, 1994 meeting. Please note that meeting starts at 7:(X) p m. Isv \ N > V To:Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Oront> Councilmembcrs Ron MtH>rse. Citv Administrator From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Mav 10. 19d4 3Id!2 rim Hillman. 400 I.eaf Street - Variances - R-ferred itaek to Planning Commission by the Couneil tor Further Consideration Lis! ©r Exhibits A - B - C - D - Staff Memo to Council 5 4 04 Applicant's Original Statement of Hardships Floor Plans'Eievattons Proposed Sui^ey Site Plan Status off Application Since the Planning Commission review, staff received new information confirming that there exists a legal recorded easement in favor of the property to the east ov er the southern 20’ of the property . Revised lot coverage facts arc reviewed as tollows: Lot area = 36.239 s.f Adjusted lot area ^ 32.899 s.f. (reduction of 3,340 s.f. of driveway casement) Allowed = 4.934.85 s.f or 15% Existing *= 3,069.3 s.f or 9.32% Proposed = 5.29S.9 s.f or 16.1% (2,229.6 s.f of additional structure. This Includes a 26* X 6 ’ upper level deck on south side of structure.) Variance =* 364.05 s.f. or 1.1% 1 he Couneil considered the application and raised the following questions during the review: 1.If there is to be a new foundation placed under the existing residence and the entire area beneath the foundation to receive 4’ of fill, why can ’t the structure be relocated on the property to more closely conform to the setback requirements? One member questioned why the house is not redesigneii to fit within the approved building envelope. Council voiced maior concern with the fact that the applicant ’s hobby of car collection seemed to be overtaking the se\erely limited property, questioning the number ot accessory structures and now the two-level garage to be incorporated within the proposed principal structure. The application is referred back to the Planning Commission not only to consider the new information concerning a lot coverage excess but to work with applicant to aducc the need or number of setback variances required with the improvement. Zoning File *1912 May 10. 1994 Page 2 ot 2 kr*icw of Setback Variaoces Required fiilh Current Prop»>%al A.Front street setback variance Required » 50* F.xisiing - 23.3 ’ t’ri'posed = 2S* Variance * 22’ or 44% Side setb^k variance Required * 30 ’ Existing » 31.9 ’ Proposed - 25.2’ Variance = 4' 8" Of \b% l.vsucs fur Cuiisideration In revievv of the lot coverage excess, the follovsing list includes the area and percentage of striKrtural improvements: Playhi'use •= 72.3 s.f or .2^i Shed = 264 s.f. or .8% E.xisting garage * 1,032.2 s.f. or 3.1% Pole bam » 948.4 s.f. or 2.8%I As we are dealing with recon.struction of an entirely new residence, why can't redesign issues be raised in order to bring the structure into conformance with standards? 3. \\ hat are the hardships for this property ? A. Limited building envelope. B.Location of existimi structures. C. Location of mature trces/plantings. D.Historic drainaee concerns. Options of .Action 1. To deny current proposal. 2.To tabic application providing applicant additional time to consider directives of the Planning Commission. Isv REOtTIST FOR COl^CIL ACTION HATE: May 4, 1994 ITEM NO.: Departnitnt Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusih Title BuilJme Sl Zoning AdminiiUfalor Administrator Review) ed:A'^enda Section: Zoning Item Description: #1912 Tim Hillman, 4(X) l^af Street - Variances - Resolution Additional Exhibits J - Copy of Access Easement in Favor of Property at 398 Leaf Street Brief Review of Application Applicant seeks approval of street ami -^ide setback variances for a two-story addition to the existing residence, more than doubling the size of the existing 752.4 s.f. house (addition * 1,960.8 s.f.). The addition will encroach no closer to the front/.street lot line than the existing residence. The current residence meets the required 30' side setback from the south lot line. The proposed addition will require a setback variance proposed at 25.2’. The applicant has advised that the entire foundation of the e.xisting structure shall be replaced. Four feet of fill will be installed beneath the new foundation. The existing resideiKe has historically had basement fltxxling proolems. The Planning Commission was asked to consider relocating the residence in order to conform moie closely to the required setback sundards of the zoning district. In consideration of existing accessory struemres and the limited building envelope, review Exhibit H. a 73 ’ long structure could not be placed on the property meeting front and rear setbacks. There was discussion concerning the relocation of the 10 ’ x 10 ’ entry addition at the south side of the proposed expansion Applicant advised that based on the interior plans this was the only location for the enirv to the residence. The property owner to the north was concerned that drainage problems would be intensified with the new addition. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and recommended that drainage from roof be directed to the southwest comer draining eventually through the culvert adjacent to Leaf Street. It was also noted that with the additional filling around the foundation that the desired drainage could be achieved. The Planning Commission also addressed the exterior storage violations on the propeny, asking applicant why vehicles parked to the rear lot line could not be stored within the large storage structures. Applicant advised that he is a car collector and the structures already contained vehicles. The Planninu Commission advised that all exterior storage violations must r Request for CouiKiI Action continued page 2 of 3 May 4. itm 4fl912 Tim Hillman. 400 Uaf Street be removed before a building permit could be issued. Review Exhibits E and F. the conceptual elevations of the structure depicting a 2'2-story structure wtnild not appear to present a height pri>blem Applicant is adv ised that height of structure is determirerd from existing elevations and 4‘ of till may require alterations in design. Ihe applicant advised the Planning Commission that he wimld be responsible tor the building of the structure. The Planning Commission advised that all construction would be subject to Section 12.05. Subdivisions 1 and 2 of the Municipal Code dealing with time constraints on residential construction. At the time of the Planning Commission review, the applicant advised that there were Ik) formal easements granted to the property to the east. If an easement existed, the area of the access easement would have to be deducted from the total lot area Review Page 1 of the stall memo of April 14. 1994 Note lot coverage was propv^sed at 14.15J. The neighNir to the east who is in complete support of applicant's improvement project, advises that there is a 20’ casement in favor of their property (review Exhibit J). The reduction in lof area creates a lot coverage excess now proposed at 16.15J. Revised lot coverage facts are reviewed as follows: Lot area = 36.239 s.f. Adjusted lot area = 32,899 s.f. (reduction of 3.340 s.f. of driveway easement) Allowed = 4.934.85 s.f. or 15% Existing = 3.069.3 s.f. or 9.32% Proposed = 5,298.9 s.f. or 16.1% (2.229.6 s.f. of additional structure. This includes a 26* X 6’ upper level deck on south side of structure. ) I he application now would require side and street setback variances and a lot coverage variance of 1.1%. The majority of the Planning Commission approved the application for the side and street setback variances as proposed, subject to the following conditions: That applicant shall adhere to time limits for construction as ^^et forth in Municipal Code. The exterior of the garage to the immediate rear of the structure shall be repaired so as to match the exterior construction materials of new residence and that this improvement is to be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for new' residence. J Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 May 4. 1994 #1912 Tim Hillman. 400 I eat Street All exterior storage violatiom fhxll ^e removed prK.r to the issuance ot a budding permit. Applicant v^!hueTt"corI^ of propertj'. The Cny Kng.neer shall reucw these plans to assure that drainage conforms to the conditions ol variance approva addition^^mu ^S«d at"ml«iat^tMhat a s'Tde varianJe would not be reunited. COl NCIL ACTION REQtESTED: To adopt the approval resolution as proposed by the Planning Commission. OR r 1 a Front Yard Setback Varlence Our existing house, »est wall is 23.3 feet fro?T! the street, side property line (front yard setback). We would like to expand our living room, which is 29 feet fron the west property line. The only direction we can expand our living rooni is north. We would like to followjthe existing living room west wall going north for our addition . Side Yard Setback Varience Our existing entryway to our basensent on the south side yard is only 3 feetwide. To accomodate a split level entryway it will require a 10 foot area. The south side yard is the only feasible place we can have the main entrance to our house. IfiA f Su.S<lUA 4oo / r>n Lci /<<o , iriAn ■ ! rcF y IE ^ • iitriNS fA9p0IffO IL.rIIIII•I-II*ifII D€CA III•r • t IsLIV/M0 PAPCOA -I * DCN 4 -•UP »V^.# __pt^ii r A >1 y•» <» KA UPPtRGARAGE C*/i ^•« 4 - J Ift 11C M€ M 'T— I I 1^ L _ f•n* . • N f A?*% 4 A ^tA I- - J ro" fl. (iM l) Eft* S '’iNO 0AO(4N0 ifvfl f4'0 cmam ^ ^<?76.gl (nv.s ti.) MftM tn s. S4«I7S Q CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR iM HILLMAN IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 4 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA -117-23 Lcqnl Description (flom Owner) 'Ihat part oE the Southwest qiiartci of tho Northwest quarter of Section A, Township 117 North, Uanqo 23 West of tho 5th Principal Meridian, descriln'd as follow;;: llocjiniincj at the West quarter corner post of said Section A; tlence running north along the section line a distance of 2 .B feet; thence east 200.00 feet; thence soutli 217.80 feet; t icnc^' west 200 feet, containing 1.0 acre, more f>r los*;. Ff;i purposes of this survey the east and nortii lines ace assumed to he parallel with tl;e west arul south lines of said quartcM section. This survey r.hows the location of all existing builclinifs in relation to the hfundari<'s as stated above, and some [)ioposod additions I’leiecni. It do«*s not purport: to show any ot l;er impruvi'inefil;r, or encroach*' ments. (77/.fj ; Existing elevation • : Iron marker found o : Iron marker set ^ COfUN & Gronberg, 1\c I hm*by ccrtily ' inl this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super vision, and lha ’ I am a duly registered Civil ftigiiuer and Land Surveyor under the laws (t| lb State of MinneM>ta Mark S. G onberg Minnesota License NuniK r 12755 PAir 5-14-93 si Air r'=30* luHNu 93-187 i ■f To:Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembcrs Ron Mtxirse. City Administrator From;Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: May 11. 1994 ;tl914 George Applebaum. 4109 Iliehwood Road - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing Review of Pertinent Ordinances as They Relate to Revised Plan I. Section 10.03. Subdivision 14 (C) • Review of lot coverage Total lot area = 15.bo5 s.f. ,u survey information negates original area shown at 16.540 s.t.) Allowed = 2.394.75 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1.654 s.f. or 10.4% , Proposed = 2.662 s.f. or 16.6% (original 2.767 s.t. or 17.3%) Variance = 267.25 s.f. or 1.6% Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) - Setback variances for additions to principal struemre. A.Second Floor Level - Street Setback Required = 35 ’ Existing = 16’ Proposed = 16’ Variance = 19’ or 54% B.Attached Garage Addition - Street Setback Required = 35' Existing = 3.5 ’ Proposed = 9’ Variance = 26 ’ or 74% C.Attached Garage Required Existing Proposed Variance -Side Setback = 10 ’ ; 3’ = 7.5 ’ = 2.5 ’ or 25% J r Zoning Flic #1824 May 11. 19<)4 Page 2 of 5 Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover Q-75' setback area =» 7,720 s.f. Existing * 2,510 s.f. or 32*7 Proposed * 1,494 s.f. or 1951 75 250’ setback area » 8.245 s.f (area adjustments have reduced the setback area from original estimated at 9.250 s.f. having impact on hardcover facts) Allowed - 2.001 s.f. or 25^ Existing = 3.423 s.f.*’ or 41.5% Proposed = 3.648 s.f.*‘ or 44.2% (addition of 57 s.f. overhang) Increase in hardcover =» 225 s.f. or 2.7% *’ Original existing = 2.917 s.f. or 35.3% ** Original proposed = 3.804 s.f. or 46.1% 4. Secti^m 10.56. Subdivision 16 (C) (2) - Se»’ kv v .-iances from top of bluff. A.Garage addition Required = 30 ’ Existing * 35’ Proposed = 20 ’ B Overhang Existing = 15’ Proposed = 8’ C.PriiKipal structure addition at lakeside Existing = 18.8’ Proposed = 12’ Deck Existing = 16.5’ Proposed =6.5’ List of Exhibifs A - Certificate of Survey B - Tojiographic Survey C-1-2 Lot Coverage Facts Zoning File #1824 May II. Page 3 of 5 D - F G Hardcover 0-75’ 1 - Key 2 - I:\isting Inventory’ 3 - Proposed Inventory Hardcover 75-250’ 1 - Key 2 - Existing Inventory 3 - Propv’sed In\entory Staff Sketch Defining Top of Bluff Staff Sketch Denoting Structural Setbacks tor Principal Structure Status of Application Tlw Planning Commission tabled Application n\9l5 providing applicant additional time tu amend his improvement plans addressing the following issues; 1. Reduction of structural coverage proposed at 1.0%. Prov ide an updated hardcover inventory as members of the Planning Commission felt hardcover within 0-75’ setback area was not complete. 3. To also consider additional reductions of hardcover within both setback areas. Members advised that reductions in hardcover could result from removal of additional access stairs in lakeshore vard as a major accessway was provided. Since that review’. Council passed the Bluff Ordinance Amendment redefining the top of bluff. Unfortunately, the top of bluff remains as shown in original packet information. The 956’ elevation still defines the top of bluff. Review of Amended Proposal The applicant has reduced the size of the detacted garage addition from 24’ x 27’ to 24’ X 24’ and a staircase has been provided along the outside of the structure. No interior access is proposed. The second story remains as originally proposed. The lakeside ground-level addition also remains as originally proposed with the existing deck being enclosed and the 125 s.f. addition at the southeast comer of structure. The deck has been reduced to half the original area now proposed at 212 s.f. The upper level of deck w ill be approximately 5’ x 32’ but only 66 s.f. of deck will result in new hardcover. 7-oning File #1824 Mav U. 1994m Pa?e 4 of 5 As applicant ’s facts reveal, there has been a rcvhiction in lot area ^^hich has an impact on lot coverage facts and hardcover facts wtwn comparing them to the original facmal information. .An excess of stnictural coverage is still sho\sn at I 6%. The garage side setback has been improved now pn>pi>sed at 7.5', originally at 5'. By moving the garage further wc'^t. the street setback of the garage addition was proposed at 10 ’ and is ns'w shown at 9' llardct>\cr in the 75-250 setback area has been adjusted to include the overhang along the east side of the residence. Remember hardcover wmild only include P's’ of the overhang area (overhang at 3’ width). The top of the bluff is now defined at the 956’ elevation. Note even the garage addition as it is moved southward on the prr*peny falls within the required 30 ’ setback area Review the setbacks to the top of bluff as presented above in the factual rev iew information. Issues for Consideration 1. There is an excess of 1.65c strucmral coverage. The follow ing improvements add to the structural coveraee: Boathouse = 256 s.f. or 1.6% (existing) Second floor deck * 200 s.f. or 1.2% Other reduction in either garage or principal structure additions. Excesses of hardcover exist on the property (refer to Exhibits D-3. E-1 aixl E-3). Note all landscape areas underlain with plastic will be removed but applicant has not removed the additional access stairs as requested by Planning Commission. Refer to Exhibits E-1 and E-3: 75-250’ setback area: Area 6 = 35 s.f. or .4% Area 23 = 11 s.f. or .1% 0-75 ’ setback area: Area 28 = 25 s.f. or .3% Area 9 = 400 s.f. or 5.1% Area 29 = 11 s.f. or .1% (wood deck) Area 10 (wood deck) = 355 s.f. or 4.5% Area 8 (boathouse) = 256 s.f. or 3.3% Any there other improvements? r Zonine File *1824 May n. 1994 Page 5 of 5 3. the revised ^Topo^l. Sulf has received no timher inpui is ot ih.s wnnng but «c wUl be able to repon at ^.nir meeting 4.Wtai improvements sho>vn in the cunera propovol are aceeptaMc to Plann.ne Commission.’ Options of .Action % ,1 Anv rf*e.>mmendation of approval must include the condition that hardcover seheau,enTl-U“^^^^^^^ prioMo the ,tK,„np ms^tton tor ne. consrrueuon. OR Denial. OR Tabling, providing applicani additional lime to make any necessary revisions. 1 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR IMUhMtA____ I HIRTBY CEflIifY IMAT This SURVfY f’l AN OH HD'OHT HAS PREPAAntD bf Ml OR UNDt« Ut iAimi SUPfHViSlOM a :0 UiAT I AW A DU Y RlCl STEREO SUR^clOJ^’ER THE iOF .WlUfiESOTAi—luL 51>HT\0F .WlUfiES MI Mh^SOTA REiSiilJiAT I ON NO \U»V3 \\ K.URItl SURVEY I MG. INC •TOOJ JErKERSON >T N t COLUMBIA MH 55^i2l 1612) 78a 9/69 FAX (bl2) /Bd'/bO? GY'Mtrr To?0(r\Y-t^?\A^/ ijate ——— scale I • - JLQl__ O - IRON MONUMENT BEARINGS ARE OT4 AN ASSUMED DATUM O b TO H- ^>ca ,lo vm PiiiTT LOTS 87 <5. HIGHWOOD LAKE MINNETONKA, oO^ HENNEPIN COUNTY. ^,,<0 , MINNESOTA ' , IV.V* o>^'^ SHG-£-"^ '2- ‘t>\A£.tTt> » '^ r“ ^ r> r* •» vx I__ \ ov.C Si\& \ A CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY h OR 6 ltiOCUjiC I Htfitat cfHiif'i Thai This iuHvir. fiAH o« HtT'okf ^Ab PRCPAARED et U£ OR under Mt DIRECT bUPlRVlblOM ANO that i AM A Dull Rtol STCREir^viL-EtOfLMUJER iHt lAM^ CF Thf bTAl{>^»iimESQTA KUirrH SURVFYING. INC. ^OOJ JEFFERSON ST N E COLUMBIA heights UN SS-121 (612) /fia-9769 TAX (612) 7aii /602 DATE - - scale r • io:- O . IRON MONUMENT BEARINGS ARE ON AN assumed datum MINNESOTA REG ^AtlON NO \(^w'h LOTS 17 & 18 GHWOOD LAKE MINNETONKA. COMt>\TIOMt3 VA/\e-otowu^ calcou ^t\ok\^ r ( HENN D COUNTY. I NNESOTA V*v«»* !«««*» SACRIFICIAL HARDCOVER RETAINABLE HARDCOVER NOTE-. THESE AREAS ARE IN ADDITION TO STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY CkI S\AG-^cT ^ OF MbUG-GTe? k iwi.bCUVfit C/iUlJb'.IIUll hoasiiiilf-- “^HCiCET V OC uitALK zg.id: (uiiCL£ 01,£) (u^S) 2su-;oo' lijO'icoj' _ ': •_•• £,u;iwu ll..r.ucu(Crt III /'oiii'- Tf As,* V-^oo*3'3 LLfiulM 2-0. *5 Niuni "O •- X X Et>ecy<* 0»«0 J SA.<X\kl ^i>'< PsA**!'** ‘ fS»sQ •tjvAuc»*r\t<«^ - X X „ X X Q. Oth6J^ 6\ MO - X , X ^ X - X \ \ \ 5 /1 t ' Total HAnocovca i« Zone Total P^oAErtTY A rea hi Zone m L^\o ■ _-f{Tj-JITJiQ ^■;6 1^_ i ©0*>»' , . (tl) *-so%»&'i ^ • r • 1^0 s.f/<S) \0:>O s.F. Cl), i:v.s.*>»sin vsooO c p 'tS'l <Lef »nw\\<?,o ^ 2.0 5 f twoKsi ‘^o /ipN. /^vl^KO l>oaT • f- K.i'OTtfH Ku.S‘:^ro^4C S.f. vi-V K£TAm\n^V4A‘ :,f, @ " • 51 ...•■ ©I I ■ •■ -MO S.F. ■'S.F. —— • . t-zLQ__S.F. 11ZC>S.F. 100 ^ /bl*- I > l\ A B ' iis4c«-O0C.‘^ X, c — i: KUPT^: UoT D^I umg AT vED VH irvA LeKxGnTK >« VSiDTH W^Ru pLAH'KeT(*R(?0 ok' coMpoTe^.. (>Vt>D f^xocn«.fi*^A J ^ ^ > M Mc] ii.»r.uw^iTi’i Liltuuil aiU Jiwr.,\.;iiti;i " :£r>;AL?; ;c..r:; Iuhcl£ cn£) ^-7^ /!j-2bU' 2SJ-500' ‘jUO-iC'J'J £.u;ui.o i,i Imi' _. 13 _ . X.\• Z5 •J.F, LENtj i N HlUTil ... ZO_. X.\'LO S.f. .......l£>- X 1 zs S.F, •80 S.f.,r - - , - - , Z- ^ ' ^ ,__ X i):b-b - ■Q S.f. ( V J . X __\ «\ \S. r . s • 0 ^ X ■,S k 1 1 S.f. . -., - - X ,__i« • • C C ,. ........... .. . , X t ^ f■ a ^ • i • . ., .. .,, X ..m 1 i.f. 1 _____ - - X _.. 1 S.f. - X ^ .S.F. . • . . X . S.f. X .S S.f. X _ • • a SiF# _ . _ X t• • • • •a S.f. ^ _ X . • • • S • F • A I pgr>0»~l © ©> <s> Kc^->ToiH\r 'AiooP j viAvwtr® pivv>2.AT» V SwA^i, Total HAaocovca in Zone Total Phopeaty A^ea in Zone HZ' s.f. (T] ■n+1 ‘5?wnT S*r> L.bJ I Ci ■rd X 100 c i; t'i •nwn,‘. *ttuu* , /iTt^ ’i*.v ‘-l1' ‘■'■O-'C l'JUriALir; :c..£: (CIkClE U.t) ■ ^ fri c?'^ (n A Auivi C'^^n WG'MM D')t\OCy>A^'^ ^')^£CV. p.'^ lAu05>^-C^v* G^;)0TW\Cat> \Z^S A .\0>s 4A LLNuiM X HltiTll a u/A X M n//^ X MOO X m X «ai ^(p\ •# y') ^ X 0.*5 .b3 33 X 1 K* ■L-i 3V X 1 a bl 5 \ X \ '^O X \ao X \5M 1/^ X \a 3b lO X .\to Z.& X • \■ ^& 5\ i>^T rtO'»9u T j ^vT co*^<-. wuA*- yv|OiL.L. » % \ • % i pi5wOR>*‘t\WC >r^ooO Total HAnisccvcrt in Zone Total P80F£aty Area in Zone fjvoc 9lT 111.0 A _B into X IQO iq__c — i. F 0 R C-7i?C>C-{Ob APPu.'g)AUM I HiRCB» CERTify IH a T THIS s*.<R I'LAN Ofi Rt FUR I WAS RRERAAREii Bt uf OR ON[f£K MY ^ T .ORTRVIMON Af<r> Thai I AM A DULY HfOISTERCD R lti( ItiL^TAlL vr-VlHNtSOTA DATE SCALE I • - 1.0' KURIH SURVEYING. INC 400J JtPFERSOTi ST. Ti E COLUMUIA HEIOHTS MM. *i5421 tCI2) 288-9769 FAX (6i2) 788-7602 O - lR0r4 MONUf.-SNT BEARINGS ARE ON AN ASSUMED DATUM lo -4- f.NNNESOTA REOlHR^rOfl MO ^?CAcv: TK LOTS 87 & GHWOOD 'Xla KE MINNETONKA HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA PROPO-bGO CORt>\T\Of4tP ^0\L I I AU.OC oN'? c t) »I Uiv>ooX .t,6vvb/ (F'T h ^VAee" M W PUliT /uinLCuVFft C/\LCULM{tifl hC ’P^i;jih ‘£r iCiiALii zc,iz: lci)(CL£ i;N£) (/p-‘^5Uy 2SU-50Q* l^dO-iuiJJ E.U-11/4U tU(iucuki:H III /uNLtt^^- o^rtro ---------------------------------------- . t> oc=^ M *=>^vnr~r*;> AC-'a Luicni ^b.')ciAW-:C HIUTil X ^ ^‘S C^'^DZ'W&^Ay X ■D^b'^)C¥«iALK X "^DcC\^\ ft> p?)iAK0^r*P< Wc ps :> urs;.c^vA't4 Vi\TV\ X X 1^ G':)C7TMfcT.bZ- Q. (o7 X . ■■ ■ lOftO ^ -.F At-'® S.F.© b&O S.F,© S. f *© - I ((^Cl _ S.F.© i t?t>, S.F.©j 5ML S.F.6>\ \ (o*^.S.F, i3) 1 IbO ^ f \^© : li=o k ^ • • • ‘f ( ^ « r ♦ 1 S) ^iofiT ap KX- f^'f *7 OP t^T WO»v> oecvi ii& S.F. I® .f. I(ii) I Crjfb "hi k-i) h>".Z..;_. s.F. IL2^ I'O'Acc. S.F. S.F. S.F. « S.F. ‘ Total fiAnocovc/? iti 2 on£ Total pFCF£rtTv Area in Zone S.F, . S.F. [al X 100 ------------- M^tl ' \ F(dT DCTuif^iS'iA'TUt? vsi\TH UElKl^TVX x \s v QTVH yag;«2^c ?t/\iA»N\Giu:'ee^) d*a co^^PJTU^ cao'O ?Pog,<^aa-\ LLfUil H Hiuru IH 7 MX - , . ®Zl(o .... X . _...., «'vd MO .- X ___ . , _ _l<oO -.,..., X . ..._ « 1 GO\l »AA, X r-lOOp- -a^, f ^r%0 » ___ X „ _ . a N1 JfK f -. X________ _.. .,„Si/a 5 _ X OxicH M b'L X \ \ . 15 X Ox'b'b ^ S. SI . X _ - .n ... m - X _ . »< . P \7.X 0 5 ^ s.c I i ■ -iri ■ i-'-'.i;,k- if r-M ,'SlIl'S ) K* i -c: r H • ••-•"- .fill. i:|j, ivv- ^V‘. 'fl'jIp- I,' ■ • . • y ■• ii:^'■•'■•:• •. if^h / / Y-'i-' *r Xf^y\ I \\ / / ►A -r'^ r'. . (- \ • A • / ^A VlJAC'i- I ■'■' il 1 > . ‘ • Iti i‘-:; » li . * iiV \t»c>H ■\i>s ..A i^i.\^T j ’!‘“r Cel 'ih • • • ■ilir‘;?/ / -6.^- • I'U iriin / u •■. 6'1-'r/- •• *♦ M !:■ '■ I » '’; / / t'.40 \\ .C*' y ■ aM\11'/ / / / / V O ^ ■'iP: !i’ I; 1 O ‘.h’ l\ J .t \ I .'•JVj, \P ff 'UJ n‘> I&'iill / y* / /)/* / 7 ‘ jahP Si ft : „\\.«/'/w / / / _ \/f ■ / ]/, A / f ^ ■''- '■•*k,A/v/.a y'"/ t • • .^ ‘ 1 ! '^(9 / y'.AV 'f-'4 > \/ \r ;•;■ -.’•JT ■'•■i'i, A^iy .5|> ;■■ .<r\H- ^>//A - - V*.-\ M- •I?’’ ■ • ,i5 ir^ui -'I t-‘-'/ // / ).\^ ,/ / / / / \i.:i ■■!i,.' t: \ 2^!:'*.r •Vl'i^'7 (■!!' -J Sf!i ll ► A.« j rf «4 A 1 ••• I* •* * •* 1 ' • # > 0mm "■ 3 • » «•H « f...i mm «r« M 4B>«^FLOOR plan •* // rr ■ji < ■’ III y [;wr,Ti*'0 '* • ' ^ 111. 'a I rt n ♦♦ W.J in *4 fmmmt ~ V ,, V „2_ JSl__ r cm’ OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, NLN 55323 473-7357 ZONLMJ FILE NOTICE OFPI ANMMl COMMISSION action DATE OF NOTICE: 4/20 94 7 TO:James K. Daniels 533 Harrington Road Wayzata. MN 55391 COPIES TO; TYTE OF APPLICATION:Variance Conditional 1. se Permit DATE OF MEETLNG: 4/18/94 \OTE;6 FOR 0 AGAINST Plaiinina Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission tad questions regarding ihe application. No represenui.ve was in attendance to discuss the application. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is conlimied as: Planning Commission Monday. May 16. 1994; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. Please contact sMike Gaffron at 473-7357 if you have questions. You or your representative should plan to be present on May 16th. If vou desire certified copies or the official Planning Commission minutes, diey are available from the Citv Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. \ S AttA<. i-Vf L. •J # ; ; » • . • • •i. . «• 1 ir <L V * »- i'*.’ it’ ■< ; • t. . •« ^ ^ ^ N ^ A / U / u From: Chairman Schroeder and Orono Planninc Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron. Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:April 13, 1994 Subject: «fl918 James K. and Julie Ann Lynch Daniels. 1225 Orono Oaks Drive - Conditional Use Permit/Variance (Renewal) - Ihiblic Hearing Application: Renewal of conditional use pennit and variance granted in 1988 for construction of driveway Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.55. Subd. 8 - Prohibits filling within wetland or within 26 ’ of a wetland. 2. Section 10.35. Subd. 10 (B) - Requires a conditional use permit for work in a flood fringe district. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners’ List D - Survey E - Resolution No. 2413 F - Staff Memo 4-21-88 Summary The subject property is Lot 7. Block 1. Orono Oaks, one of the few vacant lots remaining in that subdivision. In 1987 a variance and conditional use permit was granted to the previous owners, Mr. and Mrs. McCaffrey, for construction of a driveway through the wetland between the cul-de-sac and the high grouud (see survey. Exhibit D). They proceeded to construct such a driveway, but thousands of yards of fill just sunk away and no driveway was ultimately deemed possible at that location. They then requested and were granted a variance and conditional use permit tor construction of a driveway on the adjacent Lot 8, which at that time was owned by the developer of the subdivision, Gerald Neslund. This driveway encroached the 26 ’ wetland setback, including fill right up to the edge of (out not into) the wetland. The driveway was only rough- graded, and never completed, nor was the required 24" culvert installed. The McCaffreys at that time ran into financial problems and eventually lost the lot. It has been purchased by the Daniels’ and they are requesting a renewal of the variance and conditional use permit for construction of the driveway through Lot 8. ion I i Zoning File #1918 April 13, 1994 Page 2 Wetland Encroachment The driveway as rough-graded brings fill to the edge of the wetland as defined by a 952.0 ’ elevation contour. The City was granted a conser\ation and fiowage easement over a smaller wetland area as pan of the 1978 subdivision, but review in 1987 indicated the wetland was sienificantlv more e.xtensive. A new fiowage and conservation ea.sement incorporating the enlarged wetland boundaries using the 952.0 ’ contour was granted in 1987. Given the driveway base work in place, staff would suggest the follow ing conditions for renewal of this application: • Prior to Council approval, applicants ’ surveyor to stake centerline of easement to confirm driveway will be within said easement. • No additional filling can be allowed at the point where driveway abuts edge of wetland (about 50-100 ’ south of road). Filling in this area would likely require MCWD. DNR and Corps of Engineers approval. • Prior to review by Council, applicant to provide certified copy of driveway easement over Lot 8. • Applicants to provide certified copy of executed fiowage and conservation easement granted in 1987. • Additional conditions of approval discussed in prior resolution: a. b. Since land alteration permit #(X)623 has expired, applicants ’ contractor shall obtain a new land alteration permit for the driveway construction. Applicants shall call for a final site inspection upon completion of the new driveway. The culvert at the drainageway crossing under the driveway shall be 24" in diameter. Applicant is advised to contact the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to confirm whether they will require any permits for the new driveway construction and whether they are satisfied with the restoration work completed in 1988 (no further restoration of the aborted driveway site will be required by the City). Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the conditions as noted above....o 03^22/-?4 ■— .Mt CITt ut- ukur^j &i2-4o “7i3('«;«i7CITY OF ORONO - GENERAl. LAND L'SE APPLICATION OaKs Dri^__________Site Adoress _______—- Type of Applicatioa to be Filed ^ Mnmhcr r’‘Tv r*c* ( W‘< C*MU<ltWC'vi‘'^k-rc rz'C'^rc I AtmfTvu VI I 1 W4» A w'WVii,W* WVV f }%r^ At“» i. W'V' • W ^ V vv Type of Appiicaaon w -;- , ^, q.o ^ 4 _ Property Idoilificetio*’ Nun^r (P.I.D.) ^ (vV t W'V 0012 ••••■,*< ■;■•«< T<-A« • > V ▲ I V' • ,\7y^^ vJ/ *.V ' applicant Julie ?^nn Lynch-Daniels Name James K. Daniels,,—— ^AAr0^* 5 33 Harrington __ OWNER (if dUfcrcDi tlian applicant) Name_ Pho« fhome) 449-4544 - Hione (work) 5 4 4 - 3 a i _ iritv Wavzata______Zip 55lJ2-L Phone (horae\ Phone (work). Address Zip, FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS • aoDlication $ 50.00 For each variance request with C PP * $125.00 Residential Accessory Use^^ ^ "" $200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $175.00 Guest Housc/Gucst Apartments ^ $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg " S250.CX) Commercial/Industrial Use --------$200.00 ^ designated weUand or floodplam ------- Gradine and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more “ Grading, seawall, rcuining walls within 75’ of lakeshore _(month/yeaf) PRD/PID - sec Fee Schedule . ■--------$100.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) -------- Aficr-the-Pacl Fee • Double Current Application Fee OTHER ^200^^onuuciciai Site Plan Review (+ consultant fee.s) $250.00 Vacation “ $175.00 Easement Vacation --------$ 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $300.(X) Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) - $300.(X) Comprehcxisive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals ~ ’ Other - see Fee Schedule present USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District ...... Present Use of Property Residential X Other (specify). nc nrjnAHiCW C'MUitUy>rr rrrrrr(TCU C'f t lUi.nnrciJei.it TL fA/"i A/) 1ee#vv f riTf pf}Ji vV vrrfiTP^ritit I i.*e rViAf vAf TfA*ifvi I IV" .iT/T.i:. v»e/ *:.e/ rear) 03^22^5-s 17:26 Th € CIT t of u R u NO t?l2~473*"?35’fREQUIRED SUBMITTALS / /1 . >7 Completed Application Form. . ;■.r A J(T» y Describe request in detail. ^ Certified Properly Owners List of owners wiihia 350* (you can obtain this list from ~7^ M#hnn^«fn r*rninfv n^nartm^nf of Finance. A*603. Govcmmcnt Center. 348-3271VHennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). 4. Plat Map. 5. Ccmficatc of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. 6. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. 7. Topographic survey (existing »nd proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 8. List of the legal names (include mariul saius) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) oi applicant(s) if not current owncr(s). 9. Construction plan, if applicable (see suff for requirements). 10. ____As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons y^vu 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 SUBMITTEO. (SiatT will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Propcity owner must sign tliis application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has net been included. Certification by Clerical Depanmeni that Laud 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 signature *7^ ^ ^Date OWNER’S SIGN^Ct URE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, couunission members, and Council members for purposes of investigaiiou and verification of this request. Owner’s signan»w^ Applicant mu« hlve^aHrabminaJs into the City offlcei 25 days before the Plaitning Coounissioo Meeting. Planning Commission are held oo the third Monday of each month. AppUcanu must be present at aJI scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applica:it is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make atrangemeots to have an authorized agent atiead in your place and advise the Building St Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ^ #!iS ^ r< i»«in :0«4 t" * r‘»*4 ►v«k-a<iof»5‘^ V9&6 a •« A 4 ^l s r (^ i 3 CITYOFORONOD Citv of OROrVOresolution of the city council NO. 2413A RESOLDTION REVISING the conditions of approval OF RESOLUTION 12305 file #1211 THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MKReftiMED uowopkc rhevenne Land Company is the owner of the property ’ ^ ???^^o^rono Oaks Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter locateo described as Lot 8, Block 1, Orono Oaks, Hennepin ?l!lrtm7n"he'c!trof”oro^no\\|iri; ascribed as Lot 7. Bloc. X. Orono oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota? and WHEREAS, fe a conditional use tiovembe/ 2 to allow fill and #2 'f the City ^^ area where such construction is to construct a private residential driveway; and grading permit and commenced construction or rne through the wetland; and WHEREAS, due to soil conditions ^^y°the^contractor driveway, determined that successful ?l.%t?on%7\haVdriveway would not be teohnioally or econoTically feasible; and WHEREAS, on April 8, 1988 the veway ^in^ ^|5is%^d l^U?on"^r"egu\°rfnVrn e^^^m^/through Lot 8, Block 1, Orono oaks (1335 Orono Oaks Drive); and WHEREAS, the Council finds that ^^®^^2°tity of th^e p^ driveway will be located 26' ®Ihich is less except for a portion of approximately 100 .^u.;n\he wetland. The than 26' from the edge of the wetland but no . a v#ill cross a Council further finds that crossed in conjunction designated drainageway which ^ • i i^i«u It in no impediment towith the use of a 24" culvert, which will result in no imp cirrent or expected flows through that drainageway; and WHEREAS, the Council finds ^Jf^^^®^p°tential ^future easement through Lot 8 will have no effect on poten drainfield sites within Lot 8; and Page 1 of 5 i 3 m BEEN111 property einafter Hennepin :er "the ono Oaks ilock 1, ranted a granted a solution fill and action is identia1 rova1 of accessary driveway 1 approved rontractor accessful nomically i a formal Bway in a c Ir Orono B proposed ots 7 & 8» :h is less land. The , cross a njunction ‘diment to driveway al future CITY1 OFI ORON<^City of OROINORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL2413NO. WHEREAS, 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; granting a variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; 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 ap-licant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a driveway less than 26' from the edge of the designated wetland will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values; and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby approves the applicants current request to revise the original driveway location to a more suitable location within 26' of the designated wetland and requiring an easement across the neighboring property. The conditions of approval of the variance and conditional use peormit granted in Resolution #2305 are hereby revised to read as follows: 1. Land Alteration Permit #00623 issed to the applicants contractor. Mason Homes, shall remain in effect for the restoration work required herein and for the proposed new driveway construction. Applicants shall call for a final site inspection upon completion of site restoration for the previously approved driveway, and upon completion of the revised driveway. 2. The contractor shall to the greatest extent possible remove the fill material that was placed in the wetland and shall remove any remaining fill placed near the cul-de-sac area. Restoration shall be completed and appioved by City staff no later than October 1, 1988. 3. The wetland areas disturbed by the unsuccessful driveway construction attempt shall be allowed to return to their natural state. No further attempt to construct or reconstruct a driveway in that location is allowed witl.out City approval. Page 2 of 5 Cltv of ORONORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 24134. Prior to commencement of construction of a driveway in the revised location^ the applicants shal1 provide the City with a ^Qpy a private driveway easement over Lot 8 in favor of Lot 7. 5. The culvert the drainageway crossing under the driveway shall be 24" in dA^meter. 6. The applicant is advised to contact the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to obtain any permits they may require for this work. 7. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only. Restoration work shall be completed by July 1, 1988. Driveway construction must be commenced within one year of the date of Council approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (April 25, 1989). 8. 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. 9. 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. Jamete R. Grabek, Mayor t’ropeirty'^WTier Prop^ty Owner (87 ^ For Cheyenne Land Co. (Let 8) Page 3 of 5 / A 1 CITY City of OROINO resolution of the city council 2413 OF ORONO NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this - -PMhViT wA:^hin and for said county, personallybefore ne _a Notary public wrtbrn a be appeared in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he- (they) executed the same as (their) free act and deed. day of Ta/u 198S S?- KATHLEEN S. SOROKA I fMUC - H£NN!P!N county My coTvtmmio^ l2-i6-l! ^ * notary public MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) _ e,av of _____» before me f Notiry public withTn and for said 're*“he oerson(s) described in and who execut'ed the foregoinginstriment S“d acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as hx. (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES -nr.r^.-*-—g »a r—»i-P»- r t • A i CITY OF ORONO City of OROiNO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2413 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of _ _ _ _ __ _ _ > 198 before me a Notary Pub^^p within and for -'said county, personally appeared _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be the persdn(s )-^des(^ibed in and who executed the foregoing instrument» and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. JANE ANN KLANQ WTABT PUBUC MJ^.N£S0TA HENNEPIN COUNTY My ConuniMJon £<9 7 t;33 mTARY PUBLIC ^ ^ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this /4^day of 198^ before me a Notary Public within and for saiu County, persona Fly appeared ^____________ known to me to be the pe«on(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument# and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. f;>5^»«.<on£,o^2y ‘Mv MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 5 of 5 r TtH And City Council Membort Dotet Cicy -------- r. caffron. A..i.«nt t««U9 M-lnUtr.tor April 21. 1988 Id N«I»nd/J.».. HcC.ffr.y, ja« Orono O.A. Orl*. - ''“■*^'c.V..^vVr\anV/- «or P.vi.ed Loc.tlonC.u.p./Variance - -- drive-ay f or^vious approval, to alio- development of drlve-ay Ry^rjest: wetland. t.^ru adjacent lot a. 3 List of Kahibits: A . P. C. 0. n. r4 • G • H. Plan Pubnsitted of ftr.nl icants Letter of Bequest ?odi%r^To^ iLorsSwiviaion 6 (B) ..................................... Additional Pactslonal ract» k««■ a 1 1 oaQ ^Ince that state na. n.oso roviev tho rout<.. ' Son. addition.! t.et. have w.ikod th. pfop"’*-^"^^''Ano«rbe^n verified by staff, as follows.verified by stall, as f Tot 8 and one of the developers of Orono 1 Gerald Neslund, owner of Lot 8 and one ^ ^ grant them an in^xally in selling Lot 7 to ^i'ce the McCaffrey's °-;:::;.;"‘oi:r l. »for *of. driv.«y. - .r.nt ,ucn .. ......nt. noL” 7 2 Tt wns apparently tJp house^on *0**^8 -as constructed via ea«;efnent thru Lot ^J „.^,av now proposed was completed, iiT^^^;urv^r\-ria-^^^/os^^^h^^ - the northwest corner of Lot 7. ... ..i.i.no driveway P.s. “-^„r.7p7.V’'ir %oa’.;: «".p/Tor’': .do. of tho w.tUnd a* ‘/ly ICO- south of Orono Oaks dr.vo^ oort.on of that """°VtTon and Flowaqe Eas.oent on Wt » in TrprolT^^Ty ?o' aw".": fron th. proposed driveway at th.s po.nt. )XiruT.^iy ------- - rr on 4. The prorosod driveway .as.ovnt location “■^‘1/*^''' rtr°iyew!y can ■r“i„%^;ui?:-rt’o^ .%‘:rJy°nvo;d Vn?tict W.^ proposed rr.P.ry »"•> altern.ate dramfield sites. / Toninq Film tl211 .* * ifcpriJ 21, HB8 - . Paq# 2 5. Approximately l.S acres of dry bulldable area will reMln vithln Che portion of Lot 8 arest of the proposed driveway eaaeMnt* Planaiaq CoBiailssion reviewed Municipal Code Section 10.03 Subdivision f (1)# and felt that this being a driveway eatenent only, and not a road easement, would not be interpreted as leaving Lot • with aubatandard area. It is a fact, however, that regardless of tha driveway ''aseinent, if we were to redefine the wetlands in Lot 8, there is a possibility that Lot 8 would contain less than 2 acres of dry bui Id.able land. Since that house is already constructed this would rot appear to significantly affect development of Lot 8. St.aff Recomwendation c^iven ♦•h" circumstance that development of a driveway thru the middle of th*" wetland appears unfeasible, staff feels it is appropriate to allow and ‘‘rcouraao construction of a driveway over the proposed easement on Lot findino that a driveway base already exists, and for all but a short seoront is 26* or .more f ron the wetland, subject to the following cord 111ons : a. The 3 s»»oments of culvert in poor condition at the drainageway crossino near the boundary between Lot 7 and Lot 8, shall be removed and replacovl with a single 24 inch culvert. b. To the greatest degree possible, the sand fill shall be removed from the area of the unsuccessful driveway construction, and the wetland allowed to return to its previous natural state. c. The driveway to be developed within Lot 7 shall be constructed to avoid conflict with the approved primary and alternate drainfield sites. The existing grading and filling permit obtained by applicants contractor shall remain in effect for the removal of fill and construction of the newly proposed driveway. Applicants contractor shall call for a final site inspection of both driveway sites once the sand fill IS removed and the new culvert is placed. Staff recomm#»nds approval per the attached resolution. TO;Planning Commission Members Ron Mo»’Tse. City Administrator FROM; Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admimsiraior DATE:Mav 13. 1994 SUBJECT: #1919 ly Bucey. 2677 Casco Point Road - Variances - ^^lblic Hearing List of Exhibits A - Revised Building Plans B - Revised Site Plan Q - Revised Grading/Drainage Plan D - Bluff Impact Review .. F - Revised Hardcover Calculations F ■ CuV Engineer Grading Comments W«-receiveU as of 5/13/94) G - I.etter from Shutts (2665 Casco Point Rd.) U . Letter from Buller (2660 Casco Point Rd.) 1 - Correspondence; 1. 4/26 Bucey to Smerling 2. 4/27 Mitchell to Cradit 3. 4/29 Bucey to Smerling 4. 5/2 Mitchell to Cradit 5. 5/4 Bucey to Smerling 6. 5/4 Mitchell to Gaffron 7. 5/6 Bucey to Gaffron 8. 5/12 Mitchell Draft - Proposed Agreement J - Notice of Planning Commission Action 4/22/94 K - Memo and Exhibits of 4/14/94 Synopsis Proposed hardco reviewed bv the Citv Engineer who has recommended minor Sges ofiginal proposal and staff m'emo are 'included in this packet for comparison. Lot Area Pre-Existing 12.894 s.f. First iPr»''fsvsaI 12.894 s.f. Current Revised Plan_ 12,894 s.f. Allowed or Required 21,780 s.f. Variance 8.886 s.f.(40%) Lot Width 60’60’60’100 ’40’ (40%) Hardcover 0-75 •1.9%7.9%7.9%0%(No Change) 75-250 ’•Xl.b%43.1%41.4%25%16.4% Lot Cover-18.4%22.6%21.0%15%6.0% age Garage Set-(No Change) back Side:1.95’1.95'1.95’10 ’8.05’ (80%) Street:21.8’21.8’21.8’30*OO0-75' Grad---None 6’ Encr.None 6’ ing [40%) ?e) 1) Zoning #1919 May 13, 1994 F*age 3 With the new definition of "top of blufT adopted and in effect, I-xhibu D indicates the Muff and blutl impact zone. Comparing this to the grading plan, only a minor encroachment to the bluft impact zone is necessary . Grade reductions in the blutT imp.ict zones arc not strictly prohibited (although tilling is) but are subject to strict erosion control measures. Grading Plan The new grading plan was submitted Monday, May 9th. The City Engineer reviewed this at the site on May 11th and suggested that drainage from the south half of the property be directed westward towards the lake rather than around to the north. This can be accomplished by grading a swale in the south side yard, to drain toward the lake. This coiKept was approved w ith the Holtzer application for this prope**” in 1979. and included 0-75' grading in order to make sure no drainage will flowr’ towards the Smerling property. The volume from this half of the property is not anticipated to pose problems for lakeshore bank stability. The north half of the lot has the option of draining straight west towards the lake (to accomplish this would require e.xtensive filEregrading in the 0-75’ zone) oi allow to drain across Shutts property as it does now. • Redirecting drainage to (low west toward the lake is. in the opinion of the City Engineer, more likely to cause bank instability around Bucey’s lake stairway anil the Shutts and Bucev boat houses, than if runoff is allowed to continue draining across Shutts’ yard with its more gradual slope. • Slight channeling on the Bucey propeny likely will reduce drainage towards Shutts’ house, directing it past the house. The above factors hold true whether or not the grade is lowered the full 3’ necessary to accommodate a lakeside walkout door. The grading plan proposed will leave the view from the lake nearly unchanged due to "side discharge" of drainage towards Shutts’ yard. The amount of e.xcavation in the 0-75’ zone is minimal. This is not the classic case of "excavating the iakeshore bank to create a walkout" that the City has regularly denied. The grade is not proposed to be drastically altered to expose the face of a basement wall. The walkout could be accomplished without any 0-75’ grading by establishing a retaining wall "crib" at the walkout door (creating a "walkup" with potential sump needed), but some 0-75’ grading will likely be needed regardless, in order to accomplish swaling needed to protect the neighboring properties and lakeshore banks. Zoninii #1919 May f3. 1994 Pace 4 As of .h.s writing, staff has not received the written comments of the City Enmneer. Those comments should be available tor cMonday night s nwtting. ,t IS staffs understanding that applicant ha^met ^ drainage and this proposal is agreeable to the Shuns. Staff svould request of this. Staff Recommendation punnin! CommP.Um slMild i1k^p.Ju.I “""P« “ t.r—K,-..—«. - " justifications. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval. 2. Recommend approval with conditions (specify). 3. Table (request additional information). 4 Recommend denial (state reasons). 5. Other. rccommendaiion for approval is forrheominp. this iicm win be placed on .he CounciEs May 23rd agenda. I I V 5 •> r-^\Y v_ 5 '* Xo.'' ft ■nj. i 5 £ IL. 0 U^ 9 l£i tn < a 0 1 i I :r I t ^3 ia o lU 3 !E p <1:> ij ‘X o I' \4 i-w ^ 9-2> ; \ i o-<0^ 0 I \ \ X \ \ ^ * 0 ** \ X \ X \ \/ / ^ ^X X X X X X/ / / / /X X X X X X * ^ f * * % % > \ \ ^^ ^% \ % % % % / ✓ / ^ / %%%%%% / / / / / - S “ ‘\ % % s % \/ ^ ^ ^% \ \ % % %✓ / ✓ ^ /\ \ \ % \ \^ ^ ^ ^ ^\ \ \ \ \ \^ ^ # ^ \ \ N \ % \ \ % % 0 0 0 0 0\ \ \ \ % % 0 0 0 0 0 \ \ \ \ \ ‘ 0 0 0 0k \ \ \/ / / /\ ^ X x'xVx'x x^^^^^ / / / / /X X X X X X / / / / /X X X X X X / ^ ^ % % \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 0 0 \ \ \ s \ \ 0 0 0 0 0 \ \ \ \* \ X ^ ^ /x'x^x^x^x^x e f * * *.../-X X X X X X * f * * *X X X X X / / ^ / / XX X X X X X X X X X X X f t f f t _k X X X X X * f f * f X X X X X X^ / ^ / /k X X X X X « X X X X X 1*** / A*«» is w\ u 73uCO 8;I Ca gl tc •= It Q] a> ✓ / ✓k \ \✓ ^ Xk \ \✓ ✓ y>1 fc. 0 1 I I § « 1?cc CL 4Jc8^ q: *=CJ V)c CJIf MOQ a' il EYSCANDSURV. ?TOER LAWS 0 le North cmeapolis, Minr mrgorfi * Ne . rs> c • ^ ^ ' I #/ -'L.rnATICN W0R;<S:"r‘^^hAr.t;c-*i.-v --------- ^-------^ ^ ......, -..;r. «.-.e)Qiy 7*'-'’'5cT5'*'-*^ c<lsTino Habocoves e-l I ( i ' hAHEwVy :'-C-JLAT!C;!--••r- ('-. U'_£ Q'/^ V^' Existing Hahdcoves in Zone f^- r-^ A. House 3. C'Af^AGc c. D riveway D. Sidewalk p«(LT<««^ •pOo*#f WfS _ CrHMu ^i04 <r(3*ip _ E. Patio / D eck 't. • ..j F.Landscape ^ areas ,|.L^ ^------- V . , M/zykti JM 0. Other ?>o . - X ll.<«7 X — X * - X g X _ _ X uo• 144^ W12 TH m 80 . 10.^ a I2Cf a 'lo-i a ^ 0.Id m 44<I. 4d m \lo 9 8 .m-- 4-I 3 ,\\S * . ns nh 114- - 1 / ^ • « S.r S.r. S.r S.F. Cp S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.E. S.F S.F Total ‘arocover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone S.F. S.F : 2^ ■=■ ITLlliii >< I'^o ^1. ^t. % tINr 4»u«Ai«-A 4^ Bonestroo Rosene AnderllkA AssociatesEng<r»#«f* A Architects May 12. 1994 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Orono. MN 55323 Attn; Mike Gaffron Re: I39-I919 TY Bucey 2677 Casco Point Rd. Dear Mike: •ccr* A *C a •!« V ' , X» < *1I 1. -r •• f N«cvn • !W*' v» faer r» C • A•ie-so'V - A ^;rcr -ef 0f• c-etr AU «aia«tA *1 ^DMrr C A A-#-> A iBwW*V*Hi A •#f*8C'* ^V t^iiP * ®k>d « " rfl •!e A**e>TB<- a a 3eA«(tc •€ A $y*W *f i—ee* V-ATt '-f* f I A l#b. Af « •> t -S •* iMe*-## c VT'C- *t• %^ST3 *^12 AfHBT 4 A^ ft •!• AAf^-»a^ ef V‘4 t • KO^ »t Vit » A|Cir> Af ^0Cf^ Af ••y. a Ca'-’W* a a . §<Sgt^,9''* A f.ft *1 Ai M«ai 2) Pf M;« • P% I • 20 />•'• luj- N« • . M t fAf Itv^i •!^ ’be# «o»:r »f«»T^ • *AC«L Af Cdw^i. ii»'x>-s "rj OyKA^ nC V#- tsa »*tv.»r Af .'-A-i • v"e*et A h»«r«A M 0«y^ e<4- f have reviewed the site drainage on the Bucey property. The proposed grading plan would direct drainage from the entire site nonh then we« to the lake across the neighbor’s (Shim’s) property. We recommend that the existing drainage patterns be followed after construction of the tww home. The drainage should be split w ith the south half of the property being directed to the west. The nonh half of the property can continue to drain onto the Shuns’ prt^reny as it has in the past, provided there is no objection by tlw Shutts. The Buceys would have the ofnion of directing the drainage from the north half we« on their property. This would require additional excavation in the 0-75* area and may cause more problems with erosion of the lakeshore bank on their property. We do not feel directing the roof leaden to the street would improve the area drainage. The street drainage is a problem at this time, and addition water would make the situation worse. The erosion potential from storm water runoff in this area is very sensitive. Wc would recommend minimizing the changes that alter the direction of runoff from the property. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK, & ASSOCIATES. INC. MJL^ yZU Glenn R. Cook GRC:smI l3<»-CE,N'e-COR 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MIM 55113 • 612-636^600 SO‘d •3S39 -3 OCdiSSNOe Iiz; 9£9 8T9 ST:£: t?66I-£X-S0 % > % ^ '' ^ /^ \ \ ^ ' / ✓ y /% V > % ^^ 0 0 s 4^ % ' / / / /% % % % '^0000 r ¥ • ':k APR 1 3 1994 City of Orono P 6. Box 66 CrNstal Bay 55323 TO Orono Planning Commission CC: MikeGaflron CC; Charles Schroeder Date 04 11/94 Dear Chairman and other members of the Planning Commission. This letter is to verify my observation ot existing hardcover relating to the Bucev residence located at '2677 Casco Point Road The hardcover was approximately five feet in tfont of the Bucey residence and from the edge of the house to the retaining w all of my property extending to the lakeside end ot the house I am the owner of the property located next to the Bucey residence and plan to attend the meeting on 4/18/94 in support of the proposed plan. Gi/a. H City of Ormio P.O. Box 66 Cr\\tal Hav 55323 'APR 1 8 199« f ’ . V > » A- To: ( )rono Plantutt}; ('ommissum 7»’u / \th‘ 4 !5 94 . ^JSB *m3S .mJt ^ Deiir ( hivirman nth! members of ihc Plartfuiift Commission. Ihi-S letter t.s to venB,' my ohservatKni (tf the huiUiii}; sire atkl cure fill review of the hmUm^ application aiiJpro(>oseJplans dale J April 14. 1994 for the Bttcey residence. Ihis application was completed hy Michael P. (hiffron, assistani Planning d: Zonitip Adminisiraior. My profx ’rty is foeaied directly across the *reetfrom the Hucey re.sideiKe .see exhibit = 1919 lot number • / 30. .-I.v iy>« cwt see ^ern directly faces the front of the Hucey residence. I will mn be able to attend the meeting! scheduled for April ISth hut by writing this letter 1 wi.sh to express my support for the proposed plans. . Sincerely, ^ - Vernon J. Buller 2660 Casco Point Road iVayzaia. Minnesota 55391 r BcNerly ^ I.ou Smcriing 2552 West Lake of Isles Parkvsay Minneapolis 55405 APR 2 9 1994 Dale: 4/:6<94 cc Jim Cradil cc Citv of Orono i Dear Beverly and Lou, This letter is in reaard to us workina toaether to develop a building plan for our house that would be acceptable to you, the neighborhood and my tamily Upon my returning home last evening my wife intormeJ me that vou had called and unfortunately I vvas not at home I did return your call the same evening and untortunately you were too busv to discuss our plans During our phone discussion you said that you would call the next evening to discuss the house. I waited the next evening for your call and untortunately you didn't call. I want us to work together and make this work for the whole neighborhood 1 look forward to working with you to revise the current plans addressing the issues that were brought up at the last meeting and plan on calling you when the revised plans are ready for review Sincerely. LINDQUIST &. VENNUM 4:^ §c Mwwg—rx^ ZT9i f2 S’* S?^* tk u*«vp*f’ v«w%i i Cf»r\*imm 5J0 SiJ^ Z\2% Dc^« C0i»«a9 tom Ml »>fr>4K» rf At lA* BOil«T C. MITCMELU J« 612-371-3262 April 27. iMr- James Cradii Cradit and Associates Inc. 67 Eighth Avenue N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55413 Re: 2677 C.iscn Poinic Rnad, Wayzatc, Minnesota Our File No. 445482.0001 Dear Jim: You and I talked on April 27, 1991 about the above job and your client Ty Duccy. 1 represent Louis and Beverly Sme.rlinc and their concerns about the Buccys' proposal. I have a copy of Mike Gaffron’s report to the Oroiio Planning Commission dated April 14, 1994. Subsequent to the April, 1994 Orono Planning Commissicn Meeting. I understand that you and the Buccys are proposing to make changes in the plans which you hope will, among other things, allay the concerns of the Smcilines. Given time constraints and travel plans, it wuuld be efficient if you could send copic.s of the plans to the following peisons as soon as po.ssiblc. Mr. and Mrs. Loui.s Smcrling 2552 West Lake of the Isles Parkway Minncaoolis. MN 55405 Mr. Bruce Schmidt - Architect 320 Manitoba Avenue South Wavzata. .MN 55391 And a copy to me at the above address. We will resicw the plans as quickly as possible and get back to you. i LINDQUIST VENNUM « i Mr. J«mcs Gidit Cradit and Associaics, Inc April 27, 1994 Page 2 , ,dl m. cha. 'Sr'w May 1994. f «,;ht q.es..cns, pica. caU, Than. you. You TcII Planning Commission 1 look lOPfc-ard to working w.th you. 11 you have Sincerely yours. Robert G. Mitchell. Jr. RGMtijm cc: Mr. Bruce Schmidt Mr. and Mrs. Louis Smerling Ty Buccy i -T’ r Btf\er!y & Lou Smerling 2552 West Lake oflsles Parkway Minneapolis 55405 Date 4/29/94 cc; Jim Cradil cc. City ofOrom? [>ear Beserlv and Lou May ^ ^994 % This letter is in regards to our phone discussion about our house plans held this morning April 29th 1994 ' I am glad wu chose to call Mila personally at work this morning It is much better when we work together personally As you know your lauser called Mila sesterday while she was vNorking and preceded to tell her that we owned a most difficult lot and we were askim* for far too mans variances He also inforineJ Mila that he knew this lot verv well W'‘ from past experiences Me also called Jim Cradit and forcefully asked for the plans before the May 9th time frame the city has requested He also told Jim he had plenty of time to put these plans together and expected to receive them soon 1 don’t know what instructions you have given vour lawyer but both Mila and Jim Cradit reported that he was quite intimidating thus my request is to w ork personally together. If you do w ant your lawy cr to contact someone please have him contact me During our discussion this morning you asked for us to stop our plans immediately with our architect Jim Cradit and meet with your lawyer Mr Mitchell and architect to help design the house to your satisfaction You said this would save us money since your plans would not need to be changed prior to the meeting being held on Mav 16th. Thank you for the offer of architectural assistance, while we would like to sav e the money, getting my family settled into our home is my first priority. Adding another architect will only slow down the process. You mentioned your displeasure with the height of the house I w ant you to know we are working hard to address the issue of the height which will be acceptable to you . the neighborhood and my family Ou‘ lew plans will conform to the City’s requirements, thus a height vanance will not be needed You expressed your concern about the drainage of the house. Based on your concerns and our neighbors to the north, the Shutts family I have hired a specialist in the field of landscaping and drainage to address these issues and will forward to you the plans when they are ready for review r I appreciate vour overall concern about ihe development of our house and the co^ ot the numerous plans we have alreadv developed 1 hope ycxi can see we are working diligently on all of the issues brought up at the last meeting by both vou . our neighbors and the City Planning Commission I will be forwarding to you the plans when they arc ready on or before Mav ‘hh as promised As vou know, the tire occurred on l)ecember ISth, 1093 That was a traumatic ^ experience for our family Our family of four, with two small children ages 8 and j have now moved twice and are abv>ut to move again These are also traumatic times especially for the children 1 hope that our meeting on May 16lh with the Planning Commission will yield the approvals we seek So that the next move for our family will be to our home Sincerelv. J r LINDQUIST & N-ENNUM <?nn cs ID SOL^ irnmmm0>cMA rnmmrnac^M SSiOS £SB '^acwMi ti2-37i>srM ^4JI In UNOOkaT^ yfPmHft 0[f? 1 Sji^ Df«M0l CuiGMlOO iQ^ S<CI' T«i>»«Mf J0S.S7>sm A ttouncvs A t umv ROBERT G. MTrCHEU, JR. 612-371-32B3 Mav 2, 1994 Mr. James Cradit Cradit and ,*\ssociates Inc. 67 Eighth Avenue N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55413 Re; 2677 Casco Pointe Road, Wayzata, Minnesota Our File No. 445482.0001 Dear Jim: I telephoned vou on April 25, 1994, and followed that phone call up with a letter inviting you and the Buceys to get together with Mrs. Smerling, Bruce Schmidt, her architect, and possiblv myself as soon as possible to discuss the proposed house tor the Buceys’ lot on Casco Pointe Road. You told me that you and the Buceys were in the process of drawing plans, that you thought it would be more beneficial to meet with us gftjf VOU had drawn vour new plans, and that you would meet with us as soon as your new plans were ready. Apparently, you have a time deadline with Orono of May 9. 1994, for the May 16, 1994, Orono Planning Commission meeting. In vaew of your deadline, we are hopeful vou can either meet with us promptly this week, with your plans complete, or better yet, meet with us before vou spend any time and money on new plans so that we can talk to each other about ameliorating the conditions originally proposed. Obviously, we have "a chicken and the egg" problem here. In general, you understand that with the variances you request, the building previously propsed for the Bucey lot is burdensome in the extreme to the Smcrlings and their adjacent property. Therefore, in general, the amelioration of the situation is to make the Bucey building smaller and lower so as to reduce its negative impact on its adjacent neighbor. It is difficult for Mrs. Smerling to specify in what fashion you could precisely ameliorate your structure without having some understanding of what changes to your original plan you now propose. LINDQUIST .N \XNNUM Mr. James Cadit Cradit and .Associates. Inc. May 1904 Page 2 .Mrs. Smeling now understands from the Buce\-s’ letter that they do not wnsh to meet with her until after you have completed your second set of plans. When to meet is vour choice to make, but be aware that vou mav then have trouble with vour deadline should it become beneficial to you to revise your plans for Orono. If the Buceys wish to change their mind and meet sooner, please let me know. Sincerely vours. Robert G. .Mitchell. Jr. RG.Mdjm cc: .Mr. and Mrs.Louis Smerling Mr. Bruce Schmidt Mr. and Mrs. Tv Bucey Beverly & Lou Smerlinu 2552 West Lake of Isles Parkway Minneapolis 55405 Date 5/04/‘94 cc Jim Cradit cc Citv of Orono Dear Beverlv and Lou, may 6 1994 i . / TTiis is in reply to vour law vers request for us to meet with him and vour architect on or before \fay Oth, 19d4. to review the plans to be presented at the May 16th. 1994, Orono Planning Commission meeting 1 am enclosing a copy ot his letter which 1 received today May 4th, 1994 I w ant to assure vou of our desire to have the plans ready for your review as early as May 6th and no later than May 9th as promised in my letter dated April 29th, 1994 Again, I appreciate your overall concern about our home and the time and money already spent on numerous plans. As you know, based on our telephone conversation May 2. 1994, we are w orking hard on all the issues brought up at the last meeting by you. our neighbors and the City Planning Commission It is our lull intention to hopefially resolve the height of the house, the height of the garage and drainage issues w hich were your main concerns voiced at the last Planning Commission meeting. These changes we feel will have a positive impact on your property and the property of Dr. Carl Shutts the adjacent neighbor to the north As you know, the fire occurred on December 18th, 1993 That was a traumatic C-xperience for our family Our family of four, with two small children ages 8 and 3 have now moved twice and are moving again this weekend. These are also traumatic times especially for our children Natalie and Stephanie. I'm sorry your lawyer feels we may have trouble with our deadlines since you know it is the last thing in the world our family needs 1 hope that our meeting on .May 16th with the Planning Commission will yield the approvals we seek, since our primary family need at this point is to have our home back. Sincerely, Ty Bucevj;^ UNDQUIST & VENNUM iO fcoKni* Sn«fTyittOT4 MWljOS Ta«Mo»ft «i2-37i^i F4* rr^i*»T NimxMMSf. Vhmum i ra 17^ sw«T. Sun 212S OOMV^ CCUMOO W9Q2-S401 tunq « aaM73.»oD A ttoppcys A t Umt ROBERT G. MITCHELL, JR (612) 371-3262 Mav 4, 1V94 « ^ « 4 ** 44W WW WST JFWr Michnd Gaffron —^ ................ . ■..> City of Orono j 2750 Kelley Parkway ^ I.ong Like, MN 55356 Rc: Mr. <Sc Mrs. Ty Bucey Dear Mike: Enclosed are some notes I made concerning the Buceys’ variance application after I visited the site on April 27. 19d4. From my previous correspondence you may be able to discern that I immediately called James Cradit. the Buceys' architect, and suggested that we meet on April 28 or 29. 1994 to discuss how this building project might be compromised to the satisfaction of all. Mr. Cradit took the view that it would be better to wait until he had finalized plans for the Buceys after the input the Buceys got at the April 1994 planning commission meeting. Consequently we have had no meeting yet with either Mr. Cradits or the Buce>-s to discuss the Smerlings ’ concerns. Mrs. Smerling is out of town on May 4 and 5. 1994 but is available to meet on May 6. 19<J4 and thereafter. As you can see from my prior correspondence she has retained Bruce Schmidt, an architect in Wayzata. to advise her hoping to come to an agieeable compromise. Mrs. Smerling wants to receive appropriate architectural-type advice, rather than legal advice, about the Buceys’ new proposal. The concerns I have identified on the attached sheet may or may not be Mrs. Smerling ’s concerns or Elruce Schmidt’s concerns. But do to the shortage of time 1 thought it best to get my laundry list of observations on the table at an early time. As vc)u can see mv concerns relate to matters bevond construction of the new house on the ^ « if Bucey lot itself. 1 believe some of these matters are understood by you. I further understand that the Buceys having been advised of some of these problems and are developing a grading and drainage plan to address the grading and draining issues. The tree which was cut down is simply a fact. The matter of not dumping leaves over the cliff is a maintenance issue. NaEMI01 May 4. 1994 Page 2 Would wu please send me the proposed new Orono ordinance concerning decks as referenced in your staff reptut to the planning commission. Without the proposed new ordinance I do not understand the situation concerning the proposed deck. Thank you for your help. Sincerely vours. Robert G. Mitchell, Jr. RGM/ccb Enclosure cc: Mr. «Sc Mrs Io3uis Smerling Mr. James Cradit Mr. Bruce Schmidt .Mr. & Mrs. Tv Bucev r BUCEY VARIANCE APPLICATION 1. 2. 3 . « 5. 6. 7. Holzer's concrete block retaininq vails are leanjn<j toward the neighbors' properties. Also the way Holzer filled and graded his lot, water comes over the top of the walls and around the ends of the walls onto the neighbors' properties. There should be drainage swales on the Buceys' side of the property lines to carry the water streetward and lakeward without it coning onto the neighbors' properties. The Buceys should not cut down trees on the cliff do*wn to the lake on the Snerlings' side of the property line. The Bu;eys should not dump leaves over onto the steep cliff as that kills the ground level vegetation and will set the stage for iriud slides in the future (as along Co. Rd. 15 in Minnetonka Beach). Such slides can cause erosion slides on the Snerling side of the property line as well as on the Buceys' own land. In general, the proposed ir.p-"'venents are too tall, too massive and too close to the S.'.erling property for a lot the size of the Bucey lot. The Smerlings' light, air and privacy are compromised by tne improvements. The zoning '^’'dinance standards are "minimums," which should be adhered to, especially on small lots with small minimum standards. Each neighbor is entitled to the benefit of the legal minimums especially where no or few variances are needed if the improvements are merely made slightly smaller. The proposed new deck will be in the Sm.erlings* west and northwest views, and at a higher elevation due to the filling Holzer did. L Michael Gatl'ron City of Ororvo 2750 Kelley Parkway Lone Lake. NLN 55356 Date 5 cc Mr & Mrs Lewis Smerling Mr Roben G Mitchell, Jr. ' w Re Mr Mitcheirs letter dated Mav 4th. I9<J4 Dear Mike. 1 his letter is in reply to Mr MitchelTs letter to you dated 5'04/04 He is appearing to fabricate the facts reuardina the tree which was cut down about three vears ago First, we W>>- • Wpr feel he is misinformed about which tree on the hill was cut down and in fact the tree that was cut do vn was on my property Second^he tieej^as dead' This is fact. These facts can be corroborated b> three families, two of whom where direct adjacent neighbors to the Itucev family aiid the Srnerlings and one fam.iy the Stinson’s .who live six homes to the north of the Bucey property . About three years ago. the prior neighbor to the north Mr Chuck Downe>' informed me that the tree on my property was dead and had Ducth Elm disease Since we were not aware of this disease .we were frightened to hear it could spread to the beautiful trees we have on our lot and throughout the neighborhood Since the small tree (the size of an adults hand) was dead it was decided to cut it down. But before taking this action we sought the opinions of tw o other families about th*s dead tree Before the small tree was cut down 1 asked for the three families to comi . look at this tree They all commented it was dead and needed to be cut down. The three families who were eyewitnesses to the dead tree were as follows Mr Bill Miller (residence adjacent to the Srnerlings on the south side of her property) 2691 Casco Point Road Wa\-zata. MN 55391 Mr. Chuck Downey (now the Shutts residence) 2675 Shadywood Rd Orono. .MN 55391 r Mr Jim siin^^in (located o homei. to the north im, Cai».o Point Road! 2623 Casco Point Road Wavzata, MN 55391 , „ me assure >rm. one of the reasons vs e spent "d „nlv because it was on the laU but because it wasj ich mor.e%’could not buy It e have clearlv done nothing to accommodate better e maumficen, bushes which monev could no. buy If one stands on mv lot and looks west a. the Ukejtx. our'homc from ihe water craft As you can t, the pnvacv A. >hade tha. tnc tree ___ ___ Therefor there isenioy trje w ...hout cuttinit down any Use trees Therefor there see we base plen . , f k,n<) ,cuttine dosvn Use trees) and L'n^'r^mlTh^: r ^ouirinns'this up one week before our Planning Commtssion Meetini! :iirofr“s"a:L^c:N^Vht:Mrhrb“^^ necessary to for\^ard our comments regarding this issue , vson'r esen uo into the matmenanee issue since all ihe neighbors p'ropertv regardmg its appearance and impact on the netghborhood means from his statement in his letter dated May 2nd that pride in our I tfuesi this is what Mr. Mite* .• \\e mav have trouble —■ J LINDQUIST & VENNUM 4201) IDS Center MirncjpoUi, MN 55"*02 Tcicfhonc: (612) 371-.J2U FAX: (612) 371-3207 facsimile CQ>lfc;iLL£Q£B DATE:May 12, W4 0^ i IME:11:45 NOON PLEASE DELIVEK THE FOLLOV^TNG PAGES lO: SAME:Mike Gaffron FIRM/COMHANY:City of Orono CITY;Orono FAX NUMBER:473-0510 FROM Robert G. Mitchell, Jr. We are transmitting pages, including this cover letter. If transmission is incomplete for any reason, please call. NOTES: Mike, I would like you to please give me a call at 371*3262 to discuss before I give the attached to the Buceye. Thanks. ROM Mr. and Mrs, Ty Buccy 2677 Casco Foint Road Wavzata, Minnesota 55391 ♦ Mav 12, VrU M*. and Mis. Louis Smerling 2522 W. Lake ot the hies PkN%7. .Minneapolis, MN 55405 Rc: Proposed New House Dear .Mr. and .Mrs. Smerling: We gave you the new plans for our proposed new house on \!ay 9, 1994. We will be presenting the new plans to the Orono Planning Cemnussum on May 16, 1994. tor approval of needed variances. Those plans consist the following. Page 1 • Page 2 - Poge 3 * Page 4 Page 5 • Page 6 Page 7 - Page 8 - Page 9 - - Survey (Rev. 5-6-94) • Site Plan - East Elevation - West Elevation South Elev-ation - North Elcvauon - Lower Level Blueprint - First Floor Blueprint - Second Floor Blueprint You have now had a chance to have Bruce Schmidt, your architect, look at these new plans and you have communicated to us your comments concerning our entire project. In order to amicably, in a neighborly way resolve any dittcrcnces we may have with regard to our project, we hereby make the tollowing agreements with you; 1.Wc will build the project according to the above-referenced nine pages of plans, if approved by the City ol Orono. 2.Understanding that the mass of our new house is greater than our old house, we have done the best wc can to lessen the negative impact of that mass or. your property. You understand that we need a number of variances to be able to build this new house. Wc revised the house design so that me lower level is, in fact, a basement level which does not count as a story. Thus, our new house i.v only two stories tall according to the building code. We have also broken up the root and r ■> * — —» *w « . A - Ml. and Mrs. Louis Smcrling May 12, 1^** Page 2 wan nn« .. .he ««o.. <0 ,owa,n your property anU to tse J. -he .uuth wall cf aur house. The south *..11 ts lart.hcr break up ..he r... . ■ .,—n. j.,.j -i he new deck on ihe west tide jocareJ U fee, noMU o, our p|_;„ ,,, ^ Orono-s :s^\';:ee laTeshor ’etrck reMurrenenl as ..vdl as beu.j far enough back front the biulf under the proposed new blutf ordinary. ajou ) tf *^^**- 3. ___- /OQ«»j r»w> we agree to prepare and “wtU ,;ward ^><c M-rtneronka whhdut havrrtg rirro"'s.^or the understand that we wul have to gaadc Sw...w -rai.. u retaining walls ir order to control that runo::. ®“1eTu»-'fo"v:na1cef.auV^^^ U eorle" "^a^ “ indtcate by stgn.ng and re.urn.ng the cnefosed copy of this letter. Thank you. Sincerely vours. Ty Bucev Mila Bucey Understood and agreed this day of May, 1994, Louis Smcrling Bevcrlv Smcrling J CITY OI ORONO P.O. Box 66 Cnstal Bay. MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Ty Bucey 2677 Casco Point Road Wav/ata. MN 55391 TYTE OF APPLICATION: ZOMNC. FII F tlQig NOTICE OF PLANNINC; COMMISSION AC I ION DATE OF NOTICE: 4 22.94 COPIES TO:James Cradit 67 Eighth .Avenue NE Mpis.. MN 55413 RSI ResioraiionServices. Inc 15S00 32nd ,\ve. N Plymouth. .MN 55447 .ATTN; Don Becker V'ariances DATE OF MEETING: 4 18 94 VOTE:6 FOR 0 ACIAINST Planning Commission recommends the follow ing: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled due to: 1. Bluff variance issue. 2. Requirement for comprehensive legal notification. Planning Cottimission reviewed the various aspects of the proposal and gave general comments. It should be noted that: • Some commissioners strongly urged no increase in "lot coverage by structures" above e.xisting 18.45^. • Applicant was encouraged to work out issues with neighbors, especially in lowering the structure. • Planning Commission did not close the door on possible grading/cutting in the 0- 75’ zone . . . In order to cover all anticipated variances, publication of public hearing notice tor the May 16th Planning Commission meetmg will include: Lot area variauce Lot width variance Hardcover variance Lot coverage variance Side and street setback variances Bluff setback variance CUP/Variance for grading within 0-75 ’ zone and w ithin bluff impact zone Building height variance. L r I*C Action NotKC - #1919 April 22. 1994 Paec 2 Applicant’s next scheduled mcetirra is confirmed as: Planning Commission Monday Mav 16, 1994; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. Please submit any new information or revised proposals no later than May 9. 19*)4. If you desire cenified copies of the official Planning Commissum minutes, they are available from the Citv Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. TO: FROM: D\TE: / Planning Commission Members Ron Miiorse. City Administrator Michael P. Gatfron. Assi. Planning A: Zoning Admini>traior April 14, 1994 St'BJFXT: 41919 Ty Bucey. 2677 Casco Poini Road - VariaiKes - Public Hearing Application: Request for a number of variances to construct a new reskiciKe to replace one that burned just before Christmas. Note: You may have to walk on the properrv’ to the south to access thi.s site - the neighbor has no problem if you do. Zoning District - LR-IC V'ariancn Required/Pertinent C«ide Sections 1. Lot Area: Required - 21.780 s.f. or 0.50 ac. Existing - 12,894 s.f. or 0.30 ac. Variance - 8,886 s.f. or 0.20 ac. (40fS) Ordinance Section 10.25. Subd. 6(B) 2. 3. 4. Lot Width: Required - 100 ’ Existing - 60’w Variance - 40’ or 40% Ordinance Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B) lA)t Coverage by Structures:Proposed Prior Proposed House:1,646 s.f. /(•‘ft*1.599 s.f. Proposed Deck:496 s.f. 7A0 0 s.f. Existing Garage:615 s.f. fe,|5 615 s.f. Existing Boathouse:160 s.f. 1 yo 160 s.f. Proposed (2.917 -r 12.894): Allowed: 22.6% 15.0% 2.917 s.f.2.374 s.f. 1.0 'Z*Previously Existing:18.4%no Tii^W = 21 Ordinance Section 10.04. Subd. 14(C) Hardcover: Pre-Existin g 7.9% Proposed .Allowed 7.9"0-75’ 75-250* 47.6% Ordinance Sections 10.22. Subd. 2; 10.55. Subd. S; 10.56, Subd. 16(L) C 43.1% 0% %25 " V’ariancc (No cliange) >018.1" r Zoning File #1919 April 14. 1994 Page 2 Principal Structure Side and Street Setbacks (Since the exi-^ting detached garage is proposed to now be attacted and roof raised 4’-5’. variances are required for its existing substandard location.) Required Existing Variance Garage Side Setback: 10 1.95 8.05 (SO'T) Garage Street Setback: 30’ 218 ’ 8 2 ’ (27rc) Ordinance Section 10.25, Subd. 6<B) 6.Bluff Setback (Under current technical definition, top of bluff based on a mid-lot cross-section is 2* lakeward from proposed decks) Required Setback from Top of Blulf: 30' Propiosed: Variance -8’ • NOTE: Under the pu'ptised zoning •mcndrricr.t. no variance would be required in this case . . Ordinance Sectit'n 10.56. Subd. 3.2; Subd. 16(C) List of Exhibits A - Application B - Letter of Request 4(14/94 C - Plat Map D - Property Owners List E - Proposed Site Plan F - Pre-existing Site Plan G - Hardcover Calculations H - Building Plans 1 - Bluff Cross Section by Staff J - Photos Submitted by Applicant K - Documentation from Prevuius Grading Approval - Resolution #1079 Discus.sion The Buccy residence was destroyed in a fire on December 18. 1993. On December 30th the City received an application for a building pennit for "fire repair". That application was subsequently withdrawn when the owners concluded that while the house was salvageable, the cost i)f repairs would approach the cost of a new house. An application for constaiction of a new residence on the site was submitted on Februar>' 15. 1994. A denmlition pennit w.is is.sued on Fcbruar> 25th. In the easuing weeks the building inspector called out a number of problems with the proposal related to building height and grading plans. It was the initial intent of the property owners to i J r Zoning I lie #1919 April l*i. 1994 Page 3 create a walkoul situation on this relatively Hat lot that has a steep bluff in the 0-,5 rone. At least three plan revisions were ntaJe in an attempt to meet all code requirements Hovve^ier. as some issues were resolved, others were encountered. Once it was discovered that the submitted hardcover calculations were calculated incortectly. applicants were notified that a variance would be required. A vamnee applicatitm was submitted, and during review of the application staff has concluded that there are sis specific variances that must be addressed, although the public hearing was published merelv for the hardcover varr - e That in itself raises .ome question as to the validitv of this hearinc. although the immediate neighbors have been notit.ed ol the variance application and abutting neighbors have sc*en the proposed plans. Stall anticipates that a number of the adjacent neighbors will be in attendance at the Planning Cimimi.ssion meeting. Variance Reviev» Lot area'lot width The lot area and lot width variance is inherent in any substandard lot simation where an existing house is removed and new one is proposed to be constructed. At 60’ wide and approximately 1/3 acre, this lot is practicallv the smallest building site in the immediate neighborhofxl (sec plat map). However, a house has existed on the property for many decades, and improvements have K*en made through the years. This was obviously the Buceys’ homestead pro^rty and denial of lot area and width variances (hence denial of buildability of the lot), would certainly be a hardship for the property owners. ITnlortunately, the small lot si7e magnifies the degree of variances required in order to rebuild. Lot coverage by structures The 1990 "accessory structures" ordinance amendment included limiting lot coverage by structures to of total lot area for lots less than 2 acres in area. The pre-existing lot coverage by structures was 18.4% including house, garage, and bfuthouse.^ The new proposal increases lot coverage to 22.6%, due to the addition of decks and a connecting link between the garage and house. Are there sufficient hardships demonstrated to justify this inagnirude of lot coverage by structures? Hardcover Pre-existing hardco.cr in the 0-75’ zone is 7.9%. and no changes are proposed That hardcover includes a btiathouse as well as stairways and walkways. 1 Zoning File #1919 April 14, 1994 Page 4 In the 75-250’ zone, hardcover is proposed to decrease from 47.6% to 43.1% where only 25% is allowed. I*re-existing hardcover proposed to be removed includes small ponion of driveway, a slab behind the garage, and other miscellaneou., rearrangements of wall.-ways. Is there adequate hardship shown to justify the proposed hardcover variance.’ Are the proposed reductions in hardcover adequate under the unique circumstances of this lot? Street and side setbacks It is worth noting that the existing garage was reconstructed under variance approval in September 1978. A garage has existed at this location as close as 2’ from the side lot line and approximately 20’ from the street lot line since 1975 or earlier. The variance is necessary because the roof envelope is expanding upw ard in a substandard street and side yard setback, and the fact that the garage a ' house will now be attached suggest that we are now being asked to grant setbacks for a principal structure rather than accessorv’ structure. The neighbor to the south. Mrs. Smerling. has expressed to staff her opposition of allowing the garage roof to be raised, noting that it will block her morning sunlight to an even greater extent than it is now blocked. Is there sufficient hardship to grant a variance allowing the existing garage to be 4’ higher as close as 2’ to the side lot line? Blutf setback Staff initially reviewed the bluff stans of this site approximately two months ago and initially concluded tliat the top of the bluff was at approximately the 955 ’ contour and that the proposed construction met a 30’ setback. In the weeks that followed, intensive bluff interpretation discussions with the DNR ensued and consequently statf concluded that the current code is neither practicable nor defensible. That is why tonight’s agenda includes a proposed "top of bluff" definition amendment. Under the current definition, "top of the bluff" for this property is 2’ lakeward of the proposed decks, and virtually all of the decks and a significant portion ot the house w'ould be encroaching the required 30’ lop of bluff setback. However, under the proposed ordinance amendment, top of bluff would be approximately 47’ inland from the shoreline, and the 30’ setback from top of bluff w ould not be encroached upon by either decks or house. r Zonitw File #1919 April 14, 1994 Paiie 5 Planning Commission should be aware that while ihc Vergeylc bluff variance application was approved, since then other applications have been held up until the code amendment is completed. Planning Commission may wisa to consider whether the hardships in this case justify granting of this vaiiancc »ithout delay. Grading Plan Discussion The previous owner of this propertv'. Mr. Holzer, commenced grading on the property including work within 75’ of the shoreline, in 1979. After e.xtensive review by the Planning Commission and Council, a conditional use permit and variance was granted to allow grading to continue subject to specific conditions. Please review Exhibit K. Resolution #1079 and E.xhibits, which define that approval. As a result of the grading work, existing grade today appears tc be perched 2’-4’ higher than the properties on either side, held in by retaining walls. It was cleaily Mr. Ilolzer’s intent to have a flat yard rather than a yard that gently slopes away from the house towards the neighbors as the submitted photos (Exhibit J) suggest. The City apparently found some merit in the proposal in the potential to direct drainage away from the neighboring properties and towards the lake. Building Height Question The applicant ’s architect, Mr. Cradit, has worked exte,tsively with the building inspector to design a house that meets the 30’ maximum height limitation. In doing so. he has in effect created a three-story structure based on the definitions in the Uniform Building Code. Briefly, that definition states that if a floor is more than 6’ above grade on all sides, the space below is considered as a story. Therefore this is a three storv' building, while the zoning code height limitation in Section 10.25, SubU. 6(A) reads as follows; "A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2V6 stories or 30’ in height e.xcept as provided in Section 10.75”. (Section 10.75 discusses unique features such as antennas, flag poles, chimneys, etc. which are allowed greater height but are not pertinent to this discussion). The building staff has rarely used the 2'/i story limitation because it is difficult to interpret. There is no definition of what constitutes a "half-story”. As Planning Commission is aware, it is not unusual to have a lakeshore walkout residence with three levels of living area visible from the lake side plus a steeply pitched roof. Such structures technically meet the 30’ height limitation but in fact may be as much as 45’ in total height from the walkout grade to the peak. Although it is essentially an aesthetic issue, the neighbor to the south has suggested that this house will tower above the neighboring houses and may not be visually compatible with the r Zoning File #1919 April *14. 1994 Page 6 neighht)rhood. Planning Commission may wish to discuss whether the magnitude of variances requested impact the visual aesthetics of the neighborhood. On purely the heishi issue, the Citv has not to stall s knowledge denied variances specifically based on visual incompatibility with the neighborhood. Of course, visual compatibility is in the eye of the beholder. In viewing the site on April 13th I reviewed the plans lor this property w ith the neighbor. Mrs. Smerling who would like to see the house reduced in height to become more compatible with the neighborhood. Putting the hou.se deeper into the ground would lower it. but a walkout from the lowest level would have to become a "walkup" or alternatively, a variance to allow excavation lor a walkout in the 0-75 ’ zone would be necessary . Planning Commission may wish to consider whether, in the scheme of things, such a proposal should be pursued by the applicant. It would be inconsistent, however, for the City to allow 0-75 ’ excavation to create a walkout when the City has denied that in a number ot other lakeshore applications. Request for Speedy Referral to Council Please rev iew applicants ’ letter of request dated April 14th. Due to the various delays to-date, applicants wish to commence construction as soon as possible. Options for Planning Commission Action Planning Commission has a number of options, including: 1. Approval all variances as presented. 2. Approve some variances but not others. 3. Denial of variances. 4. Table for further information. 5.Other. Any recommendation for approval should clearly specify the hardsliips supporting such approval. A denial recommendation should be similarly justified. If the request is tabled, give applicants very specific direction as to how to proceed. Note: Prior to the meeting staff w dl confer with the City Attorney regarding whether published notice was adequate for the total application. ch i !>V •NV^T » CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ^ JT - -1 as * W!*’ WMW'Ml.' Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S 100.00 (no change from original application) VariaiKe for non-conforming smictures S200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) l' ' trC r rz PROPERTY LNFORMATION . _ . Site Address ^ i Vvvvv rn rrv V' A ruLVi I75.CC 175. CO YOU '"A,M r.-Ai TJf* OIlW ----------T5.S-----------------------------------------------------— ProDcrtv Identification Number ^ ^ ^—--»■<.) ITOPeiTV lucuiuiwauvii V--------'■ --------------;-------------:—- — Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv-ey. Date Property Acquired_____^------------—^ ^ -------------------------- noH (month'year) Present use of property; X residential Zoning District:__________ other (specify). APPLICANT Name Address: ^4^-7^ ..rfo -^MipISR (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home)_^j2ll=_5^2!^ Phone ( work) 1 ^ T Citv;Zip: 60"^ / gT'S™'.,.*... i,....,M>£“:3353S^ Address: c .3-J^vd__y C-d Zip:_£n_!i:il J A4**oTdH AJ^iO if4»^--------- “ ~ (attach additional sheets if necessary) A'» VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage K. Setback:Front K, Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HAKDSHn>/DESCR11^.0N OF preventing Describe undue hardship or ri/t;<-7a<’ar,a^d3 Ai/ . (attach additional sheets if necessary) r REQUIRED SUB.MITTALS All of the folloHing information must be submitted bv the application deadline date fti order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2 3. 4. D. 6. 7. 8. 9. __Completed Application Form I_Certified Properu Ow ners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Depanment of Finance. .A-603. Govt Center. 348-3271). »_Plat Map (obtained with propeny owners list). t Certificate of Sur\ey (signed by a licensed sur\'eyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/:" x ll" for reproduction. __Topographic surv ey (e.xisting and proposed elevations) if any changes in e.xisting grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 81^" x 11" for reproduction. r_Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8V2" x 11"). / List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). V As ag addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. _Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the int'ormation supplied is true and correct to the beet of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature . | Date <7 OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further autborkes 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 fi Date 3'^^ 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 anend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise me Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. r Total Fee: $ ^j<PY OP ORCNO “ BDILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Cate Received: Date Approved: Entered 3y:Pemit s'! ^ «»T.. gy.-.’S’-S’K.'TK.ar " """ the APPLICANT IS: (circle one) CTWEH or JOB SITE annwBfiSi tWiTAT AD------------------- (wcrk)'ilii7<£TS PHONE: (heme) ^ mm ZIP:_ _ _ _ _ _ NAME OP OWHER: ^ mailing ..n.,..- 7.,in ^T. to- -CITY=_ee^ . . . . . .-in — mailing nr— ^ city= ziP=_i- - - STATE LICEUSE: architect/engineer : ^t*nrt phone : mailing .nn.P«,Ul jWx tOlfe----------cm._AAfiL5------------ IIP=_5S4i2L ...... ____________ REGIsraATIOH I tH-tB------------------- TYPE OF WORK: Hew ^ Addition Demo_ _ _ Remodel/Alteration_ Accessory Structure___ Move. Renovate Land Alteration^ PROPOSED WORK (describe in detail) OAAAA ^feO STORIES SQ. FEET OF EACH FLOOR:J^ NO. OF BEDROOMS: ^ GARAGE STALLS; ATT. estimated CONSTRUCTION VALUATION (excluding land); $ 16<0, ^ I hereby apply for a P®^3^\he^wJrk^v!Yl°r i^ conforman^ce with the frSLVnle?7nV^c"oi:s rf^^h^e .cW f °t"r^it-^and ?SfrthV”wU"iiA%"e\n Sc%^o\d\n%"e\T/h\ira^^^ plan. DATB:___ZJj^JSMl Ty & Mila Bucey 2677 Casco Point Road Orono, MN April 14. 1994 Orono Planning Commission Charles Schroeder, Chairman Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Chairman and other planning members: I am writing this letter to give you information for our variance hearing scheduled for April 18th. 1994. On December 18th. 1993 my family experienced a fire in our home that made it necessary to tear down our house at 2677 Casco Point Road. We were moved to the Lafayette club for temporary housing and started planning to rebuild. Due to the extremely cold winter weather we were delayed and a further delay occurred when it was determined we needed a variance for the hardcover in the 75’ - 250’ lot area, even though we will have less coverage than before. On February 1st, 1994 our family was moved to moved to temporary housing near our burned home. The temporary house was on the market for sale, but we felt we could build before we would have to move. On April 1st. 1994 we were given notice of a sale and will have to move by May 31st, 1994. Therefore, we are requesting that our hardcover variance request be considered at the hearing on April 18th, 1994 and forwarded to council chambers for their next meeting on April 25th, 1994 for final approval. You may contact us at 471-9335 as to your decision on our request. Thank you for your time and consideration. Ty and Mila Bucey HUN Om 05/25/^iATCM 009 H€^#ICPIN COUNTY POOPEOTY INFOimArXQN SYSTCW PMPERTY OMNERS LIST^ MOP 9001 fOt€l M9MIr /TAWAYEl NANE/AOM SO 20-117-ES Zl 0001 OEMS CASCO POINT 10 OCVEILY SHERIING KVflLY SNEltINC 255E N LAIC OP ISLES PKHY HPLS 191 S5A05. ^ 0 V: OMC* mm „.TA>»AYft ^ IMIC/AOOR M Z0-117-XS zy 00X0 0X477 CASCO POINT NO TYMNi A OUCCY A HILA OUCCY TYHQNi A I HILA OUCCY X477 CASCO PT NO MAYZATA m 5SS91 * /' PNOP AOON ' QM€A NAHI^ * taxpayer NANC/AOOR -• SO X0-117-XS X4 0001 0X484 CASCO POINT NO D L NUNKLC ILF NUMaC OAVIO L NUMCLE X404 CASCO POINT NO HAYZATA HN 55S9I >• \ (r:. PlOP AOOl < OMNEl HAHi TAXPAYIl >./iv hamc/aom so E0-117-ES 20 0029 02M9 CASCO POINT 10 J A J SCNCIVEN JON SCHClVCN 2M9 CASCO POINT 10 ION 120 NAYZATA MN 55391 /-H P > / s 4i • V • * ' \ * 1P. - *••..4 • •r A y$T*V'? ••w I .• , i T •>; ' ‘ »* 'fr,sn ''i •• REPORT NO. PI^354Q1 PAGE 1330 20-117-2S 23 0002029^1 CASCO POINT RO NlllIAH P MILLER NILLIAM P HILLER 2991 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA m S5391 30 20-117-23 23 00030249S CASCO POINT RO JOHN T REDMOND JOHN T REDMOND 2695 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA MN 5S39I30 20-117-23 23 002102665 CASCO POINT RO C 1 SMUTTS AMO SMUTTS CARL R i MARILYN 0 SHtTYS 2665 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 SO 20-117-23 23 0022 02659 CASCO POINT RO S S STANOA A I S STANOA S S STANOA A I S STANOA 2659 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55391 K\ J;' myj so 20-117-23 20 OOOZ 02660 CASCO POINT RO V A G HILLER VERNON J DULLER 2660 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA HN 55391 SO 20-117-23 20 0003 02600 CASCO POINT RO D L RUNKLE ALP RUNRLE DAVID L RU4KLE 2600 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55391 30 20-117-23 20 0039 02600 CASCO POINT RO J H A 0 J ESSEN JEPPREY A BARBARA ESSEN 2600 CASCO PT RO HAYZATA HN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 005 00011 •• «* I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF HY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF., / 5‘ - m* DATE * ^ ’ • % * 'i\ I .«■ . » * » •• •■ r ■ ’ ■■ \1* ^!. 4 • ■ • y ■ 0 • ■ F " ^ • r ^ ^ ^ J ^ i Oigz!2 zoc Hoz -5$ uj ^ Laiuj° 0.^1 >ai<Q 2 uu tj . 4. jrr • • "T 5 ' V C? (3 ' - ^^00 5«- Pt P^iSTtoC^ hardcover CALCULATIOHJ iORKSHF.-T PT - . *7 CT75-'^50* 25n-SG0* SOO-IGOO SETBACK zone ; (circle o:<e)CP~(’J ” Total Property A rsa in Zone S.F.B •%. X 100 -__------------ ‘ ^ f^O fY^oeoic^ X • St S.F. «• A. House A ■.. length Y WIDTH m •S.F. — mmrn X * __S.F. •X Si S.F. V S.F. UtMSC X 10 ca \icO S.F. 1 • y tj S.F.1c. D riveway ._ Y ei S.F. • _ A ^ X _a’\$o S.F. i Y 1 S.F. f •• f ^ MM X «S.F. 1 t E. Patio / D eck Y a .S.F. 1 1 . 1I j m X ‘S.F. 1 1 F,Landscape . areas UNDERLAIN X S.F. • BY plastic iHEETING X • *S.F. t •_ ^ _ X • m •S.F. • 5, Other _ V i*) X. • .1€ C2'}_ * • jm %f K •S.F.• S.F.A 1 : 1 Total H ardcover I^40Ne 1 „T'SHrii^HARDCOVER “LCUUTIQN , SETBACK zqme: (CIRCLE one) 0 n (----^ - _) ■ •________t >■ 7r»MF 140 y (iO V - 4^00 13c. to.IK .s •500-innn' A. H ouse a I Garage ?A Oic^A«.oC ..JS- length X , y 41 St • lSf7_-_ S.F. . S.F. width 8 • iM X 8 ^ S • F • X 8 ^_ S.F. __ X 8 ------------S.F. ^0 ■_ X U<s a 6./^. S.F. y « X «-6 8 yg?. iT _ S.F. • 10 X Si ^o<J. 0 S.F. 0,. Sidewalk _ 4b On*'^ 1 41^ 5 S.F. (loMoFic-r ^ < Ua<J*>^,__________ 1 - X — X — X ^ X — IS 0. o 20. 0 16. r Ml: S.F. S.F. S.F. F,U..NDSCAPE-------- areas UNDERLMN I j( fIV plastic sheeting 73 73 IN ___S.F. Ifi _ S.F. X _ X uodiu ii^OP ----------r' Q, Other ---------------- ^00. _ X Total H ardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone TlJlkk —- S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. g>3 7?4*S.F. ^ '9/if] X100 “ _fli^— ^ i HARDCOVER CALCULAIICN KORKSHRE^ SfiTBACX rcME: (circle one) 0-75'(75-250' Existing Harocoves in Zone 250-500' sco-iono' A.House Bt Garage c. Driveway <? «** o 0, Sidewalk 6T«pt, E.Deck it vjr F. Landscape .V>R£AS v\^ UNOBAkMN BY Ne snesniYG Tfe^r»td ■3c.X 4o . lyvo S.F.^ LENGTH 4-X WIDTH « • ?«:> X . Il(j ,J © •X S.F. X S • F • io X 3o.^. s.r. -^© ai.C.7 X 2o. 5 S.F. y H 3 X X _ S.F. 40 \V J-% __X___^ X ra. 4* ________ ____X 1 •• >c QrJ .v^“' < \ > — X X - X __ X S.F S.E.y S.F. Total H ardcjver in Zone Total Property Area in Zone X 100 __ S.F, S.F.B [ /; I 3 Cgi^.S_.-f J 4U__;% ^/««>PoS^ 1 .! ? oC f=FArte t75’'2-SO i4e.e»•ww?<vy$//»-,iAc bKlSCMooiC-^ ^inw 0 / / / / / 0 / / / ^0 / / y s . .# / / / // ^ / m 'A / / y ✓O I^LJPP^I.FLR,rj 3?® 6|P ew AU1 • • ;iAu>\^ vvall > J cu:') ) 54.9 peTAlrilM6 /O —-x^-- w/all -A •------ ■ ^' •« M EKtiTJVlA AApA^«^. E-tti Pi. -' 30 ■^6.0 b>m ^e*vA/ 1.^ f pt^\/e^ FfcMcve BxisT. ppiwwAV-^. ^ApA<>e- •• *v-*\irtJ HUiaw I r>*u»» A«a i»rr •* ax?f>'»}a^a j« jo#, w l^u Ht 'WNCi V m iM» AK» 0*'» 4»u tifi v«3 If *vo inu j*€3 f.n Mil afbdi**' I % »*rv (•» *m»m3 m.»■ (xuJ fctu *>«)ro *tf»r ti fruwii UDi) rNaiiiVN vuarti #3 MJuif'.u it»ii ■tTf.r, (\ • 1M03 nrrSIWV 1T» HtM mic STwMU»n C« Wfii" ■ ’ ■• , • . fHf'fr'ni* •j3?a *TO^»oi*» *w*ni3nni« »o«( i%rsu i>*u »/» w'*>-\ii;i Ol2>«i**W 0»* fe&»3 ».t5u» l*U Ml irvKL«i] T»*«,jr»3t T> lal>r Tf>« (t *t*«33 w »>N M JirjtrorfKt ic/o.f *.•/» t>4»j iiu f*0 01 lirj^ • rr««e O*^ >lf»w NUU3rD;t>fO Ctit.rj Orn Im^tiU i.wrin^H 'TfC hilM’.l •jn >o»o*<,ln *T»h'u3.-util m» i^t303 w»\j t't riOJO $»U Oi T^f ar» iMt Iw Mi« ’**»<% M if I* i«3U3-'WlWr «3 iv«lt Itftnn t>«34fl‘OJ CV3f Uali tf«r. ( I / I’D 10 V6 war ♦TJ< -Cfi.»4 o^Tf^-r; :«J ‘f ' " *^r4' / r^r^av Ti-*"i'.'i i.-.i ^:j AC^iv^ <3, r<'-'fe **r at-W VILU "«?duj 9A9 Dui 'ea)B:Doee9 pue i.ipBJo 1 1i !» 2_ .*.•• \>; • 4 • ' 1 • 3 1 •<-t •3 ’i C r j •a • :>5 #« ^■ *•• ?<■j.1 • a I VI }*• ,i tj* tC'£ ..•• ••, LiJ u A- -i h- IDz. CD u3 ic u3 =c €J> Ina. cr. s 1 •‘I <NI «• li O- 2 a:a:L-KT •• «A Q ^ a ^vM:.i - r f “ f s r ^ S--- F"**• a tf i« i I r: a t ‘. rt C U « ^ LJ W L ^ *1 i. “ ‘ o ‘ i;s i:rh.i 5 “2 *A ll U O 5 . ^ >■ ►• ». C I’ » ^ 5 2 t W ? 5.3 i ft w *■ ■'-•i'I 4 I Cr* r # 'if•• ? ^ ct I.Liln - :•'.. 5t tf\‘ ir'ifr2^yg- "•?y 5 • V A \ u I a -■• ■ • 1 ‘f:5i:>rr.'-'‘i;^ • J 'lI l: _1 i1 ■■•.■.* !.-y.;;.;^* ■• % iTvi- •’ ■ ..V'^ V \N '• ; V .T7. •• . ti . * \^ V.* • • S- . >■ .’ •*• > i 'r- V !.»r 'J.-rr- » c:cvw\ r=s;. v.iVwCl.^ V-ri* •^k>^-;%r* ^ •:. C «■ *1 •*; -V 't;'’v. •••' * •*. , rl: v.*..\•/tils *>•••.! •. - ;* •*•' * •. •» -;V^-:::<vX:;:i •V n v • • ^<v;jyv:v' •V '-:. ••••:'.> :■ ' •'rtr.i-'V.-'- "-•P'-'-Cs ••■ J iiJ!. f *. •,• 'W.'B * t<,' ***i'. ■ x>:;'&.-^ is .T‘ ■• :vt»o t»vvrji • ' • •* * ♦ • • ■ • ,v;:r;‘>':/. ^ ^ ■■■ ■■ ^. » I S 5• • I o ^ X ^ ; V-9-*'^ 3};«______ ’;«,zi-TJ1 ^ 'i: 3 “ is iLTi '-J 4; :i^.i oinr.1 aZ\—i ■ I — Kiv- . , z • ;' '■ .-..vV '■■f/'y^^ IS •• : ‘ ■ U** is • ' ^» - ; lijt S3 II . ■ / ■ ^ »** .-. V ■>/ « 0 V* ‘ * 3 / • V» 4 - -> •wa n/.-i J • ?! “ ^ v.. 43-^PI - ?»• ','•* • ' .‘v ,44 •—fe - ■■•■ -I' '-. .?/»;-5i:-.iW-\.,^^u - P ■ ,. l!^/j|e S/-.o/tzi • u-i .■?i ■ ■ . ..' . ■; ■ ■■-■.. X ■( ■ 2§3 \ ■ ' • *"^‘—^—^ ■ ^V; 4i^:: V 2-> al I ' .4* I- /*•’ *•' •■'/.’■>;.• Vi U if- .. “ g ■' 'ji^ “ ue:t -4 . I r-i_____jj^Z22iT2k3l \ ■_ J ..r s*.-: •viiA:r '-•'•■Vi'.-i :'K =) l. .tJ: (f^ Ctijl »: f!: 7 i 7’ . *-rpoac •• «’B§8•% ;<n u. .'S:. V o i ^ C J rti • ,,v5 i I ■ '^ ■ I >/> ”t/ o ' '• ■ TTT i..-r/.‘i B gg aHOMfli S 0 -rA. s*. i - i' 3P • ■ pi '•I* .3’ “■ A’ • ‘ ' I / \- ■-K- 0*1) I 11 4 ill in HI •i. it M •‘x.- yitir/- . 5 ’. . • . V ‘ r i>-r vt'-i S^5|^ O-^'i ■ J-... ' ^ V l^Vs :V.V’\V - . :'*V,-' »;. .•;. *p '* /- I •>-*' . .; 'v’ V' :•-. V ^I'v*-" *:Vr V•; V*> ,’t.. - •* ' -*,■ -t' •»• • ^ • -s • --r*—rr ■?!1'' " t.. 41; ■-: ^<0-2 ; .. • >*.«!- T*^ t ’W •'7\. i '.'r. ; . •. . • ’\r,<\ -. . j. -.•■..I'.-.5 ,'■. ..•'•I - . •*:**'.i’*J-^.Vv f*S jr J* * * • '* ■' ‘i— liilte ‘Is. V .r ■ '«i5«4 litr , ^ .... i. _i'• SSSt . -A - '1**. *iK .;l •;• y: P>P • * ^ •. V,:VI'd 9\an I J IpISyB? y./: r^.; 'r; >. * ” y ’M;iv;--;’ ;-| •r '.- \ .V» M i' ' 02 .j •• -i 21 ^ •» ^«1] '^ii; ?,'ivcv_^5^ j • —dewd au-.jvZi-& . •wa ‘Tn-n.-V-Jl ''' ’. ,pm iP.' *.*:' •/•’ *> ’ r‘:\ rpr..-. KiP'm ______________________________________________•/ ’••••■ •■■-____________ - (Msni4 7 fji >a\fx\. ■ > < \ U *.’ T '• .••• '7 >• crQW^ ' '*“' ’•.,*' * «,• i- ^,.' ■ •'. >■ Q «: i *f* ‘ 'i . 11s 5 ty *r?> A ;S : -i >. :rV ^4-. 1*3 ? :. • • r ;O' i '• I • • * ,'• • ' . ?: IT. ■ ‘ •• * r : >; ’ ■ . A ,<5r II wlciK. Jvi'*...':' : ., • I'r .i . t —r^r-- %- •i 'YK if •• •,* <•.- •i? ’’^mmmi Z\ Stfi1-^1r^!..'tiiipr^BKpj~ 4*. Vjb - ^. r UAC Vn.^g ^ ■ S'^ 3 %' ^^ (■ (V ,• -J i .^'l /-' nr *- ^>v-r •< C^lj *1- M «a|.m ,■ 1 :v'Vb , ., ;• f^ftTn'i.jKT^^^vzyTru 13 ‘ I, ‘Z >0-^ I;--: ,• 1; *. r‘t t: V 5£ > ^'•f; //r M m 3? /'y P y' r. w 7 V • ;* Resolution No. Page 2 1079 6. Some work is required to be accomplished as soon as possible to restore vegetation to the land, correct improper portions of the work already accomplished, and prevent undue erosion ov'er the winter. "7, Special conditions applying to the land in question are peculiar to this property and immediately surrounding proDerty and do not apply generally to other j.and or structures in the district in which said land is located. 8. The granting of portions of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjo\Tnent of a substantial property right of the applicant. 9. The granting of permits including a variance to allow acertain extent of the work to be completed will not in anv wav impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or^general welfare, nor the value or security of adjoining properties. 10. The grantino of the permits for some of the work will not be contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan or the Zoning Code. 11. The granting of the necessary variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrated hardships or difficulties to allow correction of the existing problems and to secure the interests of abutting property f>wners in maintaining the value and security of their property. FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the foregoing findings the City Council hereby affirms the conceptual approval for such work as granted at the September 25, 1979 Council meeting according to the following conditions: 1. Work shall be done essentially as proposed on the drawing made by Gordon Coffin Company, dated September 18, 1979, as clarified by the letter of Robert Mitchell, dated September 25, 1979, except that the top of the buried portion of the wall across the front of the property shall be at elevation 958.33 ft. 2. Final grading shall be reviewed and approved by the City staff. 3. Drainage patterns shall be essentially as shown, with no piped drainage to Lake Minnetonka. 4. All exposed earth shall be satisfactorily sodded or seeded to control and prevent erosion, with steeper portions of the embankment to receive additional vegetation having deep root systems. i. -•.•• -'U • - ifit- V^'1^-yv TO • r m&!3r.‘ A*'>- i^v.' . V ^ ■. ij V ; . gSiVw tV* Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:Mav 10. 1994 SUBJECT: #1925 P -er Bovee. 840 Old Long Lake Road - Variance - Public Hearing Application: Request for front and side setback variances to raise the pitch of the c.xistmg roof. Pertinent Code Sections - 1. 10.23. Subd. 6 (B): In the LR-IA District, required front yard is 50*. required side yard is 30*. 10.03. Subd. 4: "Prohibitions. It is unlawful to convert, enlarge, reconstruct or alter any strucniic or use any struemre or land for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the Zoning Chapter. Pertinent Facts: Existing side setback: 15.6’. Existinc front setback: 34.0’. • No changes are proposed to the footprmt of the structure. • Proposal is to replace the existing 3.5/12 pitch roof with an 8/12 pitch roof. This increase in the building envelope within the substandard front and side setbacks technically requires setback variances. • No other variances are required. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Elevation Views ^ * i F - Letters of Request Re: Variance/Re: Placement on 5/23/94 Council Agenda Discussion Applicant is proposing to update the roof system of this house by changing from a relatively low pitch to a 8/12 pitch typical of today’s construction. A re-siding permit has been issued and that work is nearing completion. r. •d Zoning File #1925 May fo, 1994 Paee 2 This is an older residence that was added onio in 1976 (variance file #155) and remodeled in 1983. The house sits on a 9 acre lot surrounded on three sides by the highly wooded Dayton prorK-ny. mre are n^arbv residences which would suffer a iKcaiive visual unpac. by this r«,l line revision. The nearest adjaceni residence is across Old Lone Uke Road. Applicant’s obvious hardship is that the house exists nearer the side and front lines than the required setbacks. Applicant has requested that this application be forwarded directly to the Council ’s May 2.-lrd meeting. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested, based on the findings that: 1. No change in existing footprint is proposed. 2. Visual impact is minimal due to distance to neighboring residences as well as existing vegetation screening. Options for Action 1.Approval as proposed 2. Conditional approval (state conditions) 3. Denial (state reasons). 4. Table (request additional information). Other. crrv OF OROXO - variance t^vucwx^f. Initial Application Fee $200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) ReiKwal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming struemres 5200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ftooenv Mefflincaiion Number (P.l.D.)^ U Ctfe/-------------- Atu^h legal descr.pcion lo application if not included on required sun ). f own the adjacent parcels oTland i' V residential other! i~TTV AvAa'AillT Ut W»\WMtW rfcrrrc i}502v0000 01 L'tit dL'OtCy^ CHECK Ti dOO, vv HiiCIFT-TH^K tQU sCOlCCO CCOl ^01 t A tea A Present use of property; _^^residential Zoning District: other (specify) applic .ant Name Phorwliome). Phone (work)_ Phone (home) i*7J' ^ Phone (work)___ Zip: jyjy/. OVVT^ER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Zip: description of request Describe request in detail: -----, -------------------(attach additional sheets if necessaiy7 ion Cost $ / J v .ajuances required Lot aArea ___Width Setback:Front VI Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) compliance with Zoning Code requirements. - - - ” ' (attach additional sheets if necessary) ’-jiT*}ntlluitu -iCCTrc Jt I IVi- 200.00_ \»nn iU4.VV'« vv Hi’ vnn nt% f U'U Ti7* fU'A .)A REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted hv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. __Completed Application Form 2. ___Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County' Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). 3. __Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. __Cenificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/^" .x 11" for reproduction. 5. __Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/^" x 11" for reproduction. 6. __Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/5:" x 11"). 7. __List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). S. __As an addendum to this application, please anach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 9. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide ail information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Sienature Date f-t / -7^ 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 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 all , iUN OATC OAi^Oa/M.* f •• . , ■ ■ •,• MTCN 00*■ -v-*-AOMOMCII NAHi _,VT*>»AYtA '^JNArK/AOOII'.’I !■3S Sf-118-{5 14 0001 00400 010 L0N6 LARf ROOmiCC 0 QAVTON OKAKNA COHPANV S140 NOWiST CENTER HOLS HN 55402 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OM«RS LISTSO SS-110-23 41 0001 00040 OLD LONG LAKE RO PETER R BOVEE PETER ROGER BOVEE 840 OLD LONG LAKE RO NAYZATA HN 55341 .• J Report no. PAGE3B 55-110-25 41 0005 00425 OLD LONG LAKE RO OARBELL E ANDERSON A NIFE OARRELL E AFK)ERSON 420 H HAYZATA BLVO NAYZATA Ft4 55341 PI43540114 ■ WlOP AOM ; • ONNEII NAHC :i\rfi)9knn > HAHi/AOM. *K I ■ ^ rl . * . r M S5*110-2S 41 0015 Q0S25 010 LONB LAKE RO •RUCE • DAYTON ORABENA COHPANY 5140 NORNEST CENTER MPLS HN 55402 SB S5-11B-2S 41 0014 OOBOS OLD LONG LAKE RO BRUCE B DAYTON OKABENA COMPANY 5140 NOIBCST CENTER HPLS W4 55402 SB 55-118-23 41 0017 00B4S OLD LOC LAKE RO JOAN f SHEETSER JOAN F SWETSER B45 OLD LONG LAKE RO HAYZATA HN 55541 ) •4 i«' 1 *. > MM ADOA CM€R NAHE .TAXPAYEA >2 mame/aooa •lit/ ■•-I'’ V- ■ 'PROP AOOR •..:0»tCR NAME TAXPAYER - NAME/ADOR SB S5-11B-2S 41 OOIB OOOSB ADDRESS PENDING BRUCE B DAYTON BRUCE B DAYTON 400 OLD LONG LAKE RO ORONO HN 55341 TOTAL BATCH i .' ' » . *i p * C V ' • \T.-t- '■i ^ Af f ^ ‘ ' • i-. .*•o «^5- .-V' >.<: .V; • A •4 , J- V . 'V* •**f ■ ■ •-•‘Tj 'lJ; i • '! ■ . v‘- . ► IJ " ,-'r - . 004 00004 SB 34-118-23 25 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIOftO BRUCE B DAYTON OKABENA COMPANY 5140 NORNEST CENTER HPLS m 55402 SB 54-118-23 32 0005 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED BRUCE B DAYTON OKABENA COHPANY 5140 NORNEST CENTER HPLS HN 55402 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AM) TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEM4EPIN COLNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF MY KNONLEDGE ANO BELIEF DATE 'mM« Mm. * -v ,5 J’^ *\ i; ; » <» . # E4S540I 16 • *. ‘ I ,1* r ji t I' r. ■■ •. .< n.'I-'i" ^ ^. :. ■^’!l-Wl?'-;• it . ? • * ■< * • • ' i ' '*i • . ■ ■ •'I * * .: Aitr* r * I i /i - 'r ViV r r- I .} ‘ 0g H . , • -‘t4, ^ * t ; • •'I*; ■• jik :•■ *1*^:4'•f'; X . t AflTH & ASSOCIATES CMI L. CliristimiM. SS99I ni- 473 •fast Certificate of Soreey for: ----------------- iRj fry j;., ■si?f* //e. //ne of Sc t t A #1.5 ./J7S /f n'l .y 1&,' J.'.4 w .ll \f^ "I V \ .V <r,Clf^ -, \ V U i;^I vfi \ «p / sj-. T 1-^,n»o ^ AC . rrc"* \ The Vest 277.1a feet of the East li61i.9 feet of the Southeast Coarter of Section 35, Township 118, Range 23 Hennepin Count2JZ222?§-~5orth of County Road 27- Contajid;Si^0.9$ acres. \ OhO I^ssf SL tKl. O o'eoofifs /ron /??0/7iy/77<£V7/‘t/i-b i)JJ. fj /ii- - I l«or«»f tmfttfy ,% m frwo ««4 t«rvocf • I • »«*ver »ooo^or»o% •! iKo •^«o #o»<»i^o^ «nO ot 1^0 l•«•f••o •< oil iMorooft, •m4 •!! • Of r ooc tf mfff from «r «m »»*4 l«#*4 A« *o»eor#4 bf rw« 4uf m9 4.P. |4 AKLEIGH C. SMITH B ASSOCIATES —^ > .R L S MIhb. Ref. Na 93 1 * ' ■* * m 1 1 ^ -4'. y^<2 i ^'#'» t' 4-r ”7^ xj (f ^ •> r~'-r-. to From: Date: Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Nfoorse. City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator May 13. 1994 Subject: j*1927 Mary McCarty, 245 Tonka Avenue - Variance - Public Hearing IPertinent Ordinances Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B). A. Lot area. Required = 87.120 s.f. or 2 acres Proposed = 25,050 s.f. or .57 acres (Resolution No. 3310 approved area variance 12.500 s.f. or .28 acres. July 1993) Variance = 62,070 s.f. or 1\.2% B. Lot width. Required = 200* • j u t i Proposed = 200* (Resolution No. 3310 approved 100 lot width, July 1993) Lot width variance no longer required. C. Rear setback. Required = 50 ’ Proposed = 30’ Variance = 20 ’ or 40% >• List of Exhibits A - Application B-1-2 Applicant ’s Addendum C - Property Owner ’s List D - Plat Map E - Site Plan F - Detail Plan G - Elevation H - Original Survey I - Council Minutes 7/26/93 J - Resolution No. 3310 K - Existine/Proposed Development of Neighborhood f ! I i Zoning File #1927 May B. 1994 Page 2 l>escription of Request In July of 1993 applicant received approval of an area variance for Lots 5 and 6. During the review, applicant advised that she was attempting to acquire the soon-to-bc tax-forteitcd lots to the immediate nonh. Lots 3 and 4. Ms. McCarty was successful in obtaining the two parcels and now includes them within the building site. The lot width variance is no longer required and the area has been increased to 25.050 s.f. Due to cenain physical site constraints, she has placed the house more to the north and to the west. Drainage and a low retention area to the .south within Lot 6 creates the need to move nonhward. The desire to preserve trees along the west and mid-point of Lots 5 and Lot 4 places house within jO ol the west rear lot line. Review Exhibit K, specifically Illustration A. that rellects e.xisting lot lines and development within the immediate neighborhood. Applicant notes no impact upon existing residences as Parcels 2 and 3 have homes well to the south. Illustration B refiects lot lines that were proposed in a subdivision that was never completed involving Parcels 1 and 2. It is staffs understanding that the current owner of Lot 1 objects to substandard setback to the west lot line placing the rear of a house within 30’ rather than the required 50'. The proposed 40’ length residence could never meet the required Iront and rear setback ot a lot at 125 + depth. Refer to Exhibit H. The depth of the building envelope is defined at 25.5'. It was noted during th^ first review the possible need for rear or front setback variance. Hardship Statement Refer to Exhibits B-I and B-2. Applicant notes the following: 1. The southern portion of property is wet. 2. The location of trees located within the central portions of the property. 3. Applicant notes stand of trees in higher elevations along west lot line minimizes impact of single story residence. 4. Applicant claims the design of home is to fit the existing neighborhood of cottage like structures. If structure was to be realigned more north and south, this would no longer be possible. Issues for Consideration i T| I.Applicant has provided photos of the area depicting density and type ot vegetation. It may help if Planning Commission members are able to once again visit this site. Are the hardships alid? Zoning File #1927 May 13. 1994 Paee 3 3. As applicant seeks early direction from the City to assist in tinalizalion ol her building plans, should wc define acceptable setbacks? A 40' length home requires a 15’ setback variance from either the north or south. What is a reasonable setback and would it be consistent with the development along Tonka Avenue? Should 40’ length house be reduced? What will be reasonable for a lot at a depth of 125’ and also allow applicant to build the cottage-like structure? Review Exhibit K. existing lot lines. Mow valid is a concern of property owner whose lot lines as of this date do not abut the rear of this property? If the proposed lot line rearrangement is completed, the future owner always has the opportunity to adjust the placement of his home in relation to existing development. Options of Action Approval. Any condition of approval must include the follow ing conditions: .A. The legal combination of the four parcels prior to the issuance of a building permit. B. Upon application for a building permit, applicant shall provide updated survey locating residence structure on property with additional grading and drainage information to ensure that drainage from new construction does not impact neighboring property to south. Any other conditions set forth within Resolution No. 3310 that are appropriate for the current review. JS OR Table. OR Deny application as proposed. Planning Commission members should then refer to Section 10.08, Section 3 (A). ■U I '' CITY OF ORONO - V.UUAXCE AM^ICAJION Initial Application Fee $200.00 J§ ^ 0.^v* ($50.00 per each additional vanafice) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-ihe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 7'^". i . f,Ct — ■ •• V [,>^1 * - 1 Si ;,-rrv -T '■*'*■(* 4 < f w t u L f V' r ^ w» W'» * AC4. ? ' r.V'r tf r‘’ w ly V Jk vv* Lt>LLi* »»• w-v«w •.urrTDT_TL;^i y^n Mv.i.k.41 » rf P*t»«V f ww 0^.'ft- • V -TTv rr rc'kjrj A w'^/vw'v'y w'V. .*Vi ‘-■‘'A Site Address i . y,——--------------------------j-----------—, -1 .. • Propem- Identifioiion Number (P.I.D.) ~ -iV, , '. _-i 1___o«r,ii/'otinn if nnf included on reouircd survey. L<r> '- f -«'■/ e. --------------------- - - !■. ----------------------’ ------------------------------: - 1--------------J Attach legal description to ^plication if not included on required survey. Date Propertv- Acquired Ul^l^ ------------—(month/'year) § J aT I ^ £ X V-/4 W ▼ 4 ^ y / I ^ — --------------------------- I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels ot land. ^ Present use of properiv': ___residential ___other (specify)—OC'^. rCl_ Zonins District: ^____________________—-------------------—- .APPLICANT'PLILANI . , A , Name Mdr^ .Address: *i‘^C 1 /l Phone (home) ^77-553-'?-^ ^ Phone(work) ^ /cl _ Cirv:Zip: OW'NER (if different than applicant) Name _______________ Phone(home) Phone (work)_ Address;Lity;Zip: >V rf*tirvT7/iQ (1 I i.-v-—^v— V (attai^ additional sheets if necessary) ';c f S' - S J^u ' f/c ^ fr.^ e, / ^- VARIANCES REQUIRED t nr ToveraseLot Area Lot Width ___Hardcover -----Lot Coverage --------- ) ;r SideSetback; _ Other (specify) Front X Rear Average Lakeshore phO^Mir/T H. As l./l/ros, (VngCT Ttvt-. ufM,wv-r -yy;;..; 7^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) <-'Pn^ n ■ (\^s>ump'ru < is'ffuii i^Jna/vc ^ e‘{^ct 0\ O'^^eib “r*I “i M u I '!-* *u* _* r r W’t I ^ L. i» r,-» .%} W‘ t' • VV C" I > / ii‘*^ w'V^» VV /i;K'* vmH rfii\ t \J\J Cf"»? V*P-Mi-'A .^VWVid*- y-r’/w'-vy- u'l*" r 0 I "* iT, f < ’it-bvvv ! «- ; ) I ij » . . A w'.\: •^^/►.' 9lHt ri>tt\ f u*t-‘ f ' ♦ fI REQUIRED SU3MITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. Completed Application Form 2. Cenified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin Count>’ Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). 3. Plat Map (obtained with propeny owners list). 4. Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V':’’ x 11" for reproduction. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/V:" x 11" for reproduction. 6. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/:" x 11"). 7. List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(S) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 8. __As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 9. .Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Propeny Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLIC.ANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and cenities that the information supplied is tnje and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature ^Date c/L OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry' onto the property by City stall, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signamre 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 nionth. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to anend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office ot this change prior to the meeting. PROM THE DESK cF .. Mary McCarty r . ^ ^ "fz- y\ji^‘'^'t4^. * i • %yvL - -^ -' ,^^t/iV£UZ ^ CMddii>-^o ^ (\jlcyrnjji CL. LonuJ- ^ \i/ X //^ %,yl M-'•^ /^.yn^/"74 ■ci4v; n€4i:td7^ '! [M^nro-r^ od / ✓ex 6250 HIGHWAY 12 WEST - MAPLE PLAIN. MN 55359 — 479-4343 -4*V McCarty Water&Waste " •cc, jL IX U^ ' /. 1^;. ..f Jh.iT^CO ^_ (}--H'£i iCizX- X ^ . J.j, ^ Vn. /, ' ' .-, ■ ■ ,v • X'-At ^-"'' ■ifT'ill /M'.f^'- ' , ,rJ ^ ' ! -p A I',^ : ao X ^ 'm ^ / // i y?\^ ,1 W / -;1 /lit cajn-^ Af^WXtf.V^ic /ifvr~c 6/ - ^ /- ..-:"i . ' APRae’-^s-' '/ ^I^i.Ha^ iryOt.-i //'/Cn^S^^rf/Pi-iy . . /“ // / ./ ^ . rf* ^ # y"/.-. > / .. • / ./^%U / i/ • -^ •/ . / V* w - ( / / y • . ^ * f • • t ^ ,/ / ■ / // * ^ ■• ‘ . f' '• J 'r- ^ T •' !//-'-> / / ct /.' / C' A'f •.C' • <^- ' * '^7^ • I • • • ' '/ - "’/ c Lr/'-' (■f ;■• '.-.^-'t!-'^ > Jr,7 r/ ^/ j '^<U, /> ^, 7 ,1 ^/llr n --t-t ' J;f ^ Jr^ ^.- , .. . C * j (/ '/'» ^^rSu^Jztcu V“ Cjsl Jx jS l ^/■/■■:^j-rxr g!f^ / / A ^ ^ U^TyL t' r. y!r<^.c^o^xdJ, -J./U7 Sexton Printing, Inc. 250 E. Lothenbach Avenue St, Paul. .M.N 55118 457-9255 I / 1 J HUM UAii 0S/2S/tS coUMrt PHO^ftn XNioimiTiui. ^r:»iu« OIH€HS LISTilTCM 001AOOfI TAWOm NAME/AIM moo AOM IMCA NANI TA>COAYCII NAMI/AOOII MOO ADM CMIEM NAME TAXOAYEft NAME/ADM OHOO ADDA Olt€R NAME TAXOAYEA NAME/AOOA OHOO ADDA OHNEA NAME TAXOAYEA NAME/ADDA J J , SO 0S-117-ES n 0012 0S4E0 OAYSIOC »A A M ANDiKSON tOUAT r A NENDY S ANDEt»N SATO AAYSIAI W LONC UM lOi SSSSA SO M-117-TS IS 0014 OOOSO ADOAESS UNASSX6NAII STATf lAND OEAT STATE LAND OEAT AOJ OMEAS SALE AENDINB CITY AES ND Sni SO 05-117-13 15 0017 00145 TOMA AVE ESTHEA M AOOISON ESTHEA M AOOISON SSOl OATSIOE AO LONG LAKE m SS354 SO 05-117-15 14 OOIA OOlOO TONKA AVE A A K SKOOC AHILIA A i KAAEN S SKQQG 200 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE m 55554 SO 05-117-15 14 0014 OOlSO TONKA AVE JANES K rULKEASON A NIFE JANES K FULKERSON 150 TOMA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55554 ALKMEI r«.SO 05-117-lS IS 0015 05440 OAYSXOi M T M llESMEA • M T HESMA TOOO M i HAAXI T ZIESHEA 5440 OAYsiPc m LONG LAKE Ml 55554 SO 05-117-lS IS 0015 OOOSO AOOAESS ItiASSIGNEO STATf LAND DfAT STATE LAND OEAT AOJ OMCAS SALE AENOXNG CITY t£S NO SlSl SO 05-117-15 13 0010 00145 TOMA AVE MAR SCNHITZ MENRV t ROSIE SCHMITZ 145 TOMA AVE LONG LAKE NN 55554 SO 05-117-15 14 0017 00100 rOMCA AVE AIK SKOOG AMILIA A t KAREN S SnOOC 100 TOMA AVE LONG LAKE Ml 55554 56 05-117-15 14 0041 00500 TOMA AVE JANES L AATRXN JANES L AATRIN 75 N GEORGE ST PAUL NN 55107 5A 05-117-15 15 OOlS OOm TOMA AVI CAAOCE J MALSM CAMLf J MALSN 115 TOMU AVE LONG iOAI Mi SSS54 SO 05-117-ZS IS 0014 OOMS TOMCA 0¥E EST1CA 41 JMZSON ESTHEA m AMtSON 5501 OAYSIDi AO LONG LAU Mi 5S554 SO 05-117-lS IS OOlf OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ESTHEA M AOOISON ESTHEA H ADDISON 5501 OAYSIDE AO LONG LAKE Mi 55554 >y SO 05-117-15 14 0010 OOlSO TOMA AVI GERALD L ORIOGS GERALD L ORIGGS 150 TOMA AV LONG LAKE Mi S55S4 r. TOTAL BATCH 001 00014 t? !2 1 : i6' /! - V /i ^ 1 / t • • f'y^ :yN ' i K ^ \ y% »>3B i Q P iO i ■'?)''• ‘VStf :o) -' ^ i3 ’ N .AsJtfit ^ *iai ft ■ 1;^^ '?3) ? Ji ' q ? ® s (17) 1’0)^ J> ' ^1 \ v>* -v>^ fCQ—-«{>------g4.::5:3 4 •: f - e 4'; %j *c 5' + :n’i.s* e\l 46) lilL ’10 _ :! : 50 : 5C S) » : so^jl ’ '?€-| t» $ •' I ,3 j* V IS ' O IS S' ' 4kl 30)' ^^ •’ S-' ,^, ?IM 3 V? A UJ >'' I 56! -' ^ *c' ^ c« . >n ^ h— LT) UJ 4 - ? ,=‘ 5=2 5 F cco ? 8 5 ■? = 3 .= • S S -* t , ■" ;5:! •'■ S. ■'« '* ■ ^^ T"? ' F •■ i'< :;.’? sc 40 ? ' ^ 7! :3 ' 1? H 4 4 ■» ? ^jLvrTftc . nr\ \ iTvSSDE \ C30 . ) m ( ^ •» l • > ?;3) 3«: »>• ^ *'f# -*'T J'J *TV _______«(*«’ [zf J^n inn • 4... Mn nM\ *r!:? - ♦ i r i • 3»0 ' K m ?’C 77 ..j; 1 -ro ' 1 </6i 1 " /-:i/- / i4 i ___ K* I * 1•’•*,i\?♦• •^ i 1a'\/>S. j0/; -f-\^ 7 /I - * i ^-^i-il-LV -■-i-Tj^ Certificate of Survey for Mary McCarty of Lots 5 and 6, Block 3, "Bays i do Addition to Lake Minnetonka'* llenno(’in County, Minnesota I I 5. Legal Description Lots 5 and 6, Block 3, "Dayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka” This survey shows the location of the boundaries of the above described property. It dees not purport to show any improvements or encroachments. o; Iron marker Bearings shown are based on an as5>uinr'd datum. ComN & Gronberg, Inc. n. I I, w» ' • '.t, ri.iMT.M 4'.' ! (iiLii.hl \m niH * \1\ 'UV* ft: 41 • I hereby certify thiit this srrvcy was prepared by me nr under my direct super vision, and that I am a duly regi^^tered Civil Engineer and Land Survrvor under the lavv' of the State of MiimesiM.i Mark S Cronber;: Minnesota License Number 12733 DAIK 5CAI E / j^O ' JOB NO 93‘230 -L____ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING minutes Of A' V MTCARTY# 245 TONKA AVENUE — Mary McCarty was present. i_ -»^r^ 1 T f"rse®<5 a lot area and lo_ width Mabusth explained the o't a new residence on a vacant variance to aiiow t-*e ttuSt. --ovided a sewer stub.lot in the Stthha Bay area unic^n h^s She noted Lots and 4 to i owner to the north or applicant hopes j^^icated he is not interested in the ;^Soert/,°-d^^^-V a-Ct%e%^?:i%. of the intent of the owner to » •* the west. t • A -jhur haoce'^s if the apolicant does not acquireMayor Callahan as;<ed what happe..s the additional property.......-«?;.“%> x‘rh;st,r."::« setback variances. _ suooo-t the current variancethe sewer stub connection be maae cO support request. ^a?ra^a;r^lof ^wfdtl^la^rfaLes - ^00^^"Xr^ 8^7 , ^2^ residence on a property that consiscs of l^,-uu s.f. IS required. Ayes 5, nays 0. ,.,8) OFDINANCE AHENDHBNT - SECTION 12 30 - NON-CONFORMING SYSTEMS ^PLACEMENT - ORDINANCE #118, ..ECOND SERIES It was moved by Jabbour, ‘c^^°\on^l2 3o'by revising ordinance #118, Second Series, of non-conformingthe required timeframe for repair or replace.ment or septic systems. Ayes 4, nays 0. (*#9) MET COUNCIL - SW AREA MUSA TOUR It was moved by Jabbour, ssdonded by^Nayor Callahan^ information presented regarding the i.et. P MUSA tour. Ayes 4, nays 0. (»10) NORTH SHORE DRIVE MARINA - conditions of the Gaffron explained the marina has m-t a ^ however license, but has failed to submit of 20 allowed boats. Overpay according to staff s additional late fee Therefore staff recommends the marina pay the adaitio of 346.00. o o\ f A ■ fiSHO’^ 'll CITY of ORONO RESOLITION OF THE CITi’ COUNCIL NO.33 ' ! A RESOLUTION GR-\NTL\G A VARLANCE TO mu ^icip.al zoning code SECTION 10.23, SLUDIMSION 6 (B) FTI.E #1834 dcscribsd as follows. Lots 5 2nd 6. Block 3. 'Baysidc Addition to Ukc Minnetonka-, Hennepin County, Minnssou (hereinafter "the properrv' ); and 1 , K.SC n-nii-d to the Citv for variances to Municipal «c» ri’o'l'^dS^tanTnc^as lor'is lOO’ at the' rear of the 30’ street setback where a 200’ wtdth ts required. Minnesota; NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City CouncU of Orono, fundings This application was reviewed as Zoning File #18^4. .4 •„ T R 1A Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. The property is located in the LR-IA, LaK^-snui TT.0 Orono Planning Cotnmissioo ‘u”on “e recommended unanimous approval of the propos-u an following findings and hardships: rrv u n ^00 s f in area and is subject to 2-acre zoning A. The property is l-,oUU s.i. standards. Page 1 of 5 iv«)ixa o. o V CITY of ORONO RE^OLLTION OF TllF CITY' COinS’CIL A NO.8 3 E. F. .4 The lot was planed prior to present zoning standards. As a condition of the sale of the property, applicant has had to premamrely apply for variances prior to the resolve of the ownership of die soon to be tax forfeit properties to the immedute norJi. Applicant is unable to fmalize comprehensive development plan for property and is fully aware that based on the limitations of lot depth that she will need to file a rear/front setback variance application prior to ccnsmuction. Development of the lot would be consistent with the panem of development within the immediate Bayside Addition to Lake Muinetonka Plat. The City readopts the fmdings set forth in Orono Resolution ^3167 approving sanitaiy sewer serv'ice to the property. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other propcrt>’ in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or o±er danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficultv'; is necessary to preserve a substantial property nght of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spir.t and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council ha«; considered this application inCiUding (he 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, safet>- and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDIT IONS Based upon one or more of the above fmdings, the Oreno City Council hereby grants a variance to .Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.23, Suboivision 6 (B) to permit Page 2 of 5 5. CITY of 0R0i\0 RESOLLTIO.N OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. s SlO- construction of a new residence at the propeny located at 245 Tonka Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. 3. 5. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, .applicant shall have applied ^or the lecal combination ot the lots that will make up tdie tlnal building site. Applicant shall apply for an access permit from the Public Works Department prior to installing an access at Tonka Avenue. Tire property is located within 500-LOCO' ot Lake Minnetonka and shall be allowed of h..rdco\er impro ements at the time of development. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but arc 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 (July 26. 1994). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically tenninate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 MU !>«• 1 J r I CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF TUE CITi' COUNCIL no.J32_:JL Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of July, 1993. ATI |ST: A ./Ja. 'bordihy M.fH^in, City Clerk Prop-'' < '^wnt.^(s) Etl\vard J. Callahan'T tx\ Mavor / n STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) .ss. 'f lic foregoing instrument wa^ acknowledged before me on this 26th day of July, 1993. by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said inst.njment was e.xecutcd on behalf of the City. JAMIE L BOSMA notary PCSUC-V.:.*..‘<£S0TA hENNtria CC-JNIY My Comm. Exci'cs 12-19-97 I'f'rrr Page 4 of 5 • 1 \ rnMU r * T CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE Cm’ COL^VCIL NO. ■:5 oO o Vy STATE OF .MLNTNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTi' OF HENNEPIN ) Oo this - / til ^ l; ■dav of . 199 J? before me a Notary* Public within and for said count)’, personally appeared r',':r-j yc/t Z' uj >/r'/’'________________ known to me to be the persdn(s) described in and w^ho exerited the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. IISDA S. VEE ^CTAnY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNFf' My commission «xotrM d-i2-9i NOTARY PL^UC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPLN ) On this dav of , 199 before me a .Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared _________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing insmimert, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 5 of 5 / LI. r)Cf tfi (jf Be,' c^O(-n ;//. B I pf I t N C v' a» > J* '*b ’ A ^1 ^ fj u'^ i-Cvy . I t/ I.. 7^- f _t. -r ^ 11 To;Orono iManninc Commission Members Mayor Callahim and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorsc. City Administrator Fromr Jeanne A. Mabusih. Building & Zoning Administrator Date:Mav 10. 1994 Subject:#1928 Suzanne Wacker. 1115 Brown Road South - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-lB, Rural Residential. 2 acre minimum Pertinent Ordinances c t inm Subdivision 9 (D) - Variance required for placement ot accessors ’ onirL of Acce»or> s.n.cmre ,o be loca.cU 20' in front of principal structure. Section 10.28 Subdivision 5 (B) - Front street setback. Required = 50 ’ . . , ^ Prop<'>sed = 23.1' (to edge of 33 ’ right-of-way) (43 ’ from traveled road) Variance = 27.9’ or 55.8% 3. Section 10.03. Subdivision 14 (C) - Lot coverage review’. Total lot area = 14.824.25 s.f. Allowed = 2.223.6 s.f. or 15% Proposed = 1.882.4 s.f. or 12.6% No variance required. Hardcover review not required as property is not Irarated within 1.000' of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka or French Lake. List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F • Application Property Owners List Plat Map Original Development Plan Resolution No. 3372 Granting Approval of Renewal Variance in December, 1993 Description of Request application seeking approval of a 24 x -0Applicant has filed an amended variance application seexing appruvai u. a -r ^rarher than the 22’ x 20' approved by the City ,n Decentber of 1993. Thedetached garage rather 1 Zoning File #1928 May 10. 1994 Page 2 of 2 detached eaiage will meet the required lO’ side setback and will not extend any closer to the front street line than the oricinal proposal. The garage will extend closer to residence but meet a 20- separation setback <10’ required). An amended variance application was required as entire Structure is kKuted within subsuindard 50 street setback. Note with the eunent proposal the detached shed in rear yard will be removed. Additional storage area will be provided in the proposed garage structure. Applicant s lot covera"e is at 12 6%. Struciural coverage is not an issue but applicant has decided to remove shed in''the rear yard. In the original reviews, the applicant had agreed to relocate shed to meet conlorming side yard setback. The original Itndings and hardships set forth in the enclosed resolution remain relevant for the current application. -if CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION /; N Initial Application Fee $200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S- After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) f ’ St TV nr *vn4;»“»ill T L*i c' •. * ■' A*r c nrjr J ■ ^ PROPERTk' EST0R.MAT10N Site Aadrt.,ssH/< ^ . ------——^ Property Idem.ncanon J' „LXJ^ .0 appucador. Date Property Acqurred f; t ;» ^ ^ I TSVl v.IO'>r'‘/Jik-»rvi.u'vvvv iil Qt:^innA V'V'# VV r.m n.f n »T i\n A W • VV RtiilPT-rHAKK :QU V ^ V V. V V A * .A ^ tw •Tv A ivw* (monih/year) Present use of propert\: Zoning Distnet: applicant Name ^ UjA/.;0L — Address: fii f n ^ -------- PhorK(home) -----— Phone (work) - HJ2 1 * 6 ^ 7 ritv7^-V.v/> a :v ______Zip:£_si2g2L- 0^^'NER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phonc(home) Phone (work)_ Zip: description of REQUKT Describe request indetail; Xi, f.uw ■g <'ff adSoiral she^^f necessaD) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot .Area _ )C Setback: ___Lot Width {, Front /_Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) compliance with Zomng Code requirements------------------ —complrance w.U. ^onrng t.uue 'rr:r:X7X^7^-^^' A REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the followin£ information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ^Completed Application Form _ Certified Property Owners List of ow ners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603. Govt Center, 348-3271). ^ Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Cenificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/2 ” x 11" for reproduction. Top<igraphic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8’/^" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor *S: elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8Vi" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would iiKlude 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 Cit>' staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information h a.s not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature /Ir.Date f OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry' onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. DateOwner’s Signature ______________ ________________ 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 make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building Sc. Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 -jri 11 .n 1 l.\n M = -1 1 lOL . * m 1 1 : • ‘ Iff 1* • ITI * H4 f li i?t JTf •41178 Certificatc of Survey for Rodneys Shannon Batzlaff in Gov’t Lot 6. Section 10-tl7-23 Hennepin County, Minnesota Un& fiam/li/] anddisfonf zi(,.h9ff mmcertf-ct^hnc no^ Dk LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: All that part of Government Lot 6. Section 10. Township 117, Range 23. de- scrlbed as follows: Deglnnlng at a point on the East line of said Lot 6 distant 725.02 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof; thence West at right angles to said East line, a distance of 250.72 feet, more or less, to an intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 216.69 feet Northeasterly from the center line of County Road No. 07; thence Southeast erly along said parallel line a distance of 47.95 feet; thence deflecting left an angle of 39 degrees and 45 minutes a distance of 234.2 feet, more or less, to the center line jf County Road No. 146; thence Northerly along last said center line to the point of beginning. Note; Because of the various ways this section has been subdivided over the years, it may be necessary to judicially establish the boundaries to be certain of their location. • * iron marker found 0 ; Iron marker set Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. S CoFUN & Grqnberg, Inc. . .'i Iillitiv' fv Li’ S:fi 1*'? An urn* ■ M\ SSIVi 1 hereby certify Ih.il ihis survey w.is prep.m-i! by me or uiuler my direct super vision, and that 1 am a duty re^istercLl Civil Fnpjneer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the Stale of Minnesota —______________________________ Mark S. (iiiuil»er}; Minne.sota License Number 127!i5 !.T 18-92. 1 " foil NO 92-206 c//<3/7 AJ *“h'ne, of Loti-, '■*■ >o-ina. lOO ), de- -ot 6 ;t at .'SS . ) feet :heast :ting more a 1 ong /er j to iipor- iiulcr __ail ?: / 2 \ /V6^'•U] i^'TS Wt [^aiii OP rk ' L^J * 2o ' fjecp ■“ fipyjNCj 1^1, ^ ' oj,II do piocapcifj l^i^O ih iUt M-fn.2ert2^ “ pit SP^i u 4T U v / /a / 7f/t (^/;Crilt 'flit SuPPcG ^itf) lAj ^PcLy/UC'J ujji 6C PCAoJcV tpofj -pe 6/kA(,€ l)^€ ^h3»0£7 A*.i} Clsr^tuT 7k CfKrpZL,^ ^ Co. IjOF Co. ii^'Uc it.’ CiC/k£7^^ % .5* § >>i W.7 ^ovse'X2X- 3c(\jf>rhn0 4i4^cr Cfr / a^AS€ S' ,f j«rf, i . f ‘ h I [ -/xi .3f /^rokC'C Cpo^'" Coi^.ffiiT7~7o*^' OF Jbot^Afir AK p ( . '*• •/ ’ f/fjr U^T ^ ^ci/ r scciQin-x^ \fX^.OU Kj.c. CeaNPt.or So^r •^1 it 94jr/) upaK! JIM AT <3T<Ytvx »T sttnoU in- 29 9&00 ■'CP /V^. Aif€7V ^-'Ssr- CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE Cm' COL t NCIL NO. 83 7 o A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO .MU’MCIP.AL ZO.NTNG CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDmSION 9 (D) AND SECTION 10.28, SUBDFVTSION 5 (B) FILE NO. 1889 WHEREAS, Rodney J. Batzlaff (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1115 Brown Road south within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Refer to Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) to allow a detached garage to be constructed 42’ in front of the front line of the principal structure, and a variance to Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) that would allow the structure to be placed 23.1’ from front street lot line instead of the required 50’. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL\ED by the City Council of Orono. upan Ji/M snnot/ FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File "1889. The propert}' is located in the RR-IB Rural Residential Single Family Zoning District requiring two acres in area. The property consists of appro.ximateIy 14,824.25 s.f. or .34 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 15, 1993 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following hardships and unique findings: A. The unique shape of the lot prevents structure from being placed adjacent to principal struemre. B. Insufficient width to allow an access drive to rear of property without requiring the removal of the only mature trees on property. Page 1 of 5 r CITY of ORONO r£Solltion of the cm’ col^cil NO. AAin____ c The proposed location of the garage in the street yard is wi^ the panem of development for accessory structures \uthm thi^ neighborhood. D. The .34 acre parcel is required to be developed under fAo acre zomng standards. The Citv Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are m !t and S n« applv generally to other property m this zoning d:s-nct; to Iranting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions light air n« ^se a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely ^^e a aToiweLce to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substotial right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan ot the City. 5.The Citv CouncU has considered this application including the fmdings and recommendations of the Plannmg Commission, reports by Cj^ smtf. co^enu by the applicant and the effect of the proposed vanance on the health, safety ana welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER .AND CONDITIONS 10.28. Subdivision 5 (B). subject to the following conditions. 1.Prior to the footing inspection for the proposed detached garage in appUcLit Shall retoate accessory shed in rear yard to meet requued 10 side setback. • Prooosed aeuched garage shall meet the required lO' side yard «tock ^d applicant shall provide namral plantings along south side of struciure lo impact upon residence to south. Paee 2 of 5 'b; o>'CITY of ORONO P RESOLITION OF THE CITT' COUNCIL NO. S 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 (December 13. 1994). Violation of or non-compliance with any or the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authonty granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicant has read, understands 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 City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of December. 1993. A ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) u ^ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this lath clay or December. 1993 by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and .said instrument was execute on behalf of the City. NOTAHY^p1?b UC *- M^NESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My comrr.ission CKptrM Notary Public Page 3 of 5 ivdiii2fc CITY of ORONO RESOLITTON OF Tin- CITY COOCIL xn 83 7^ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of jfa nui^‘______, 199/ before me a Notar>' Public within and for said county, personally appealed Kciio^'^ jf, , r>^Arr> __________ 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. 5-ared V L!SD.\ S. » EH. r.o’f’APY PUBL.c - Minnesota HENNEPIN COUNr^' My COMfr.ts^ion CXpirM 6-12-96 NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of C^/hru i . 199_^^ before me a Notar>’ Public wi^ and for said county, personally^^ppear^ ^ h( ________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed foregoing instrument.and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. nowh Su^mS^ota hennbwcoukty iy>y Comm. Eigw 12-1H7 NOTARY PUBUC Page 4 of 5 fnMiMi r CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF TliE Cm* COLTSCIL NO. EXHIBIT A 10 on Township 117, Range 23. cle- the East line of said Lot 6 corner thereof; ti"'’ce West at Ml that part of Governnent Lot 6. Section scribed qs foliovrsi Oeginning ot q point (ii<;tant 725 02 f«et Soutli of the Northeastr nh? inoles to 'lid East line, a distance of 250.72 feet, more or less, to an lnt''rs'’'"*‘ion with a line drawn parallel with and distant 216.3 9 rest HnrthelstSHTfron the cantor line of County SoecI No. 07: thence Southeast- e°M a?oJ sJld p^rSnellue a oi stance of 47,95 feet: thence do acting loft nn -mnlo of 39 deqrees and 45 minutes a disuance of ^j4.2 fe^t, more ir^less to threenter line of County Road No. 146; thence Northerly along last said'center line to the point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Pace 5 of 5 TO:Planning Commission Members Ron Mewrse. Cit\ Administrator FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Mav 13, 1994 SLlBJECT: «1929 A1 Scran. 4099 Highwood Road - Variances - Public Hearing Application: Request for lot area/lot width, hardco\er. lot coverage, and side setback variances to allow replacement of existing residence structure. Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.24. Subd. 5(B): Required lot area in LR-IB zone is 43.560 s.f., required lot width is 140’. 3. 4. Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Required side setback is 10’. Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot coverage limited to 15% of lot area. Section 10.22, Subd. 2/10.56. Subd. IbtL): Limit of 25% hardcover in 75-250 ’ zone. Pertinent Facts Applicant proposes to remove the existing house and deck, and construct a slightly smaller footprint house and deck in the same location. The following variances are required: Allowed or Existinc Required Proposed Variance Area 10,250 s.f. ±43.560 s.f.10,250 s.f.33.310(76%) Width 50 ’140’50 ’90’ (64%) Lot Coverage 19.3%15%18.4%3.4% E. Side Setback 5.4’10’5.8 ’4.2 (Fireplace) Hardcover: 3.8’±8.5 ’4.7’±3.8’ 0-75 ’1.2%0%1.2%(No Change) 75-250 ’51.0%25%49.3%24.3% I ^ r Zoning File #1929 May 13, 1994 Pane 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Hardship Statement C - Photos D - Plat Map E - Property Owners List F - Neighbor Acknowledgments G - Sur\ey (Existing) H - Survey (Proposed Site Plan) I - Hardcover Calculations and Map J - Proposed Building Plans K - Proposed Building Elevation L - Building Height Review M - Lot Coverage Review N - Site Cross Section by Applicant Additional Information • The propt>sed construction meets the average setback based on the location of the two adjacent residences. No 0-75’ grading is necessar}’ to accommodate this walkout if the building as designed is set at an elevation of approximately 943.0 (to be confirmed). No building height variance is necessary if the building as designed has basement floor set at 943.0 (see Exhibit L). The cross sectional grading plans indicate this will be considered as a two story structure meeting the 30’ height limitation as measured from pre-existing grades. Applicant has been advised to provide detailed retaining wall, drainage and grading plans to confirm there will be no impact on neighboring properties. Discus.sion This 50’, 1/4 acre lot is typical of the Highwood neighborhood, although obviously quite substandard for the LR-IB 1 acre zoning district. No vacant adjacent property is available to make the lot larger. A residence has existed on the property for many decades. • Side Setback Variance Applicant intends to remove the existing two story frame house and replace it with a new residence of two full stories plus a lower level walkout. His intent is to place the house in ( 7-oning File #1929 May 13, 1994 Page 3 . ,rt*r the lake and averacing about 6* from the east side lot virtually the same location, no ne. r ^ ecnerallv require that m • Lot Coverage/Hardco\er Variances lo tn where 15 is norni^^ny 1.01 coverage is proposed to reduce |n the 75-250' zone hardcover allowed. There is only a , ,„„pk,e retaining wall plan for the new tfe'dt:^: ap^ar"t‘^'obvlus'excess hardcover which could be removed. 1 ottunately. the 0-75' zone has almost no existing hardcover. • Average Setback is Conforming , rh^ existing deck extends further lakeward than the neighboring required. . Building Height Will Conform staff has review ed the building height in relation to tdinance and finds that the proposed s.meture J" ' avoid 0-75' ceilings to avoid a height variance. . Grading and Drainage ^ topographic grading and As of this writing, applicant has been asUd to p necessary drainage plan showing the Iwation and natu . ^ somewhat higher than appheant to accommodate the house. The ^ J . ,„e grading and drainage plan had initially intended tn order Pe eliminated is necessary belore a that shows how impacts on j ,air|y contidcni that grading and drainage “ ^cr^::"a'ras drnrgrw-n have to cLtnue essentially in the amounts and directions it currently flows. r Zoning File #1929 May 13. 1994 Page 4 Applicant has been advised that he should be prepared to justify his reasons for the side setback variance request. Stair Recommendation There is little that can be done regarding lot area and width variances. Lot coverage and hardcover can be decreased only by removing existing necessary driveway and parking areas or making the proposed deck and house fcHvtprint much smaller than the existing structures. Planning Commission must determine whether sufficient hardship and justification exists tor the side setback variance. Any recommendation for approval should state the hardships, and should be conditioned on applicant providing suitable retaining wall/grading/drainage plan for staff review and approval (could be required for review and approval by staff prior to Council review of the application). Options for Actions 1. Approval with conditions noted above Partial approval. 3. Tabling for more information. 4. Denial (state reasons). 5.Other. 1 CITY OF ORONO - VARL\NCE APPLICATION fiifl S - Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional vari Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) rrrv -r .• I t WMWttU* W * *'Vw w I V.** » AW 4. JL f ‘r "»r* .'ifT A w'w Vfe V V W'V Wwv: • V y * • I » » s > Variance for non-coniormiiig structures S200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) . w'A wai.if I Wki r fi .. w VI* vv .. W • W TW'T* # H v,*ff . .l\«nWWAi L. _ » • f^V\ . ' kfcV . • ^*'1 il’fl f fj ? •• I f I f i W' • 1 V'*TV' WWA fiVA .»Wd.»W V ^ 7 PROPERTY LNFORMATION Site Address W/z-v S' PropeiT)' Identification Number (P.I.D.) C~7^u~?^2-'^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required sur\ey. o.a/ Date Propert>' Acquired____/*> ~L-__________________________________(month, year) I (do) (jW'n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present mem property: ji. residential ___other (specify) Zoning District:____________________________________ APPLICANT - ^ Name rTLey^it: Phone (home) ^'72- -1-/ 7 e> Address: City: Phone(work) ■g'S'7>*yZSb ______ /J Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phonahome) Phone (work) Citv:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQLTST Estimated Construction Cost S _______ Describe request in detail: fA/^/) 2-f^^f^/tcS -^jn ^ '^TT/Z^'C ^ aA Tt ^ 0^C<Z^ ^ ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) ' VARIANCES REQLTRED ^ Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover ___Lot Coverage X Setback:Front ^Sidc e>*sr- Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNXSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ATTA-i-it-^^ j________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the followin2 information must be submitted hv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considerfd complete; Completed Application Fonn Certified Propert>' Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin Count}' Department of Finance, A-603. Govt Center. 348-3271). ji^Plat Map (obtained with propert}' owners list). 4 6 7 ~iP Cenificate of Survey (signed by a licensed sur\'eyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'A" .x 11" for reproduction. V Topographic sur\ ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproduction. ^Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 814" x 11"). 8 9 j^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). y As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons ,you wish notified of this application.yuu «1311 UV./HWWU v/i LXU., --------- ^.Additional items as may be requested by Cit>' staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant ’s Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of i^estigatio^and^>erificausDj3f this request. Owner’s Signatur Date i/ ft/ /^</ 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 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. 1 r HwtJF TC? Uo<-^TC «»«; I TC?X 2fr-'' X it,!,l^r'^ i^UTH ^ Zi^ ■lizr .^c/»tf'tSe^^ "TO €/!<<fi ZT^'^^r >/ ^//# 77ig-« /ve<^ ra^r>A/^-S ^ £)£,-5/»/VevS> p, * A^O Ata^^a Pi^s^AW^ ^r?t€. / ^ ^ An -s-cr:J jT "At/S Uc^ry/i 4£- 3 cfj AJj>M.ni 5/^e <!»'^ <®-*^ /tZPTT 40 •o •'ll "" o>~=\sc* —1 # I ”J ”21 20 IQ 1 r A19110)(64) JiL /• ?- • * ‘ 50 ^ ^ K ^ ^ «4"» «#l f<L ^ J5I located Adjacent Propert}' Owners’ Acknowledgement Form I (we)[print nameis)} [prmc audtcis have reviewed die plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the prcpem' also referred to as Land I se Application No. ^ O /■• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the propenv- or use hut merely to coniirm tor Co^il thL I (we) am .are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. ^ -,j?/ - 9^ Date Zi. 94 Date ‘M f •< 'i A V If 0 A pilim name(s)] of ^0! 'print ^dress] I / f' I f • " have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement 6r proposed use of the prvjperty located rl ^ also referred to as Land Use Application No. ./ V —• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the propeny or use but merely to confirm for die City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date *4(41 20 * ^ 1 .». / 7X3^5#F Pk k s>i 0^t »e _ ♦—I. H»»'^ V V.. > m . ^ ^fntA — /•* Ai r^^c f^7J¥ \ V D£';t?/l 7 f •■ Lr^^fe • Z(Xf- ■r^ •* ?/ '/ W^ • I C‘ 4»li/ vx ^ 2\s '' /.' Di cM M * trm^ V ?! -VcA' '“Q V9.? /-r A.Shereby C€f-f//^ 7^/i^f yii, t^ue Qr%y Cerrte/ rc^resc*%ij//^ a/^ 0 S¥^*^fy 1^ ^Ctt/fiJctry 0^ l^/ce ^mnefo^em,a^:J He /(^C«//>*f #/* da//</'hys , p'^fff>^re€/ 6f me f¥n/ o diL iS*- <> 1. • peA%fe% fii4^ /r#if ^ Dgn0/e% se^ P4^. ri0i/ or- fieSm0‘ a^J Ffuf - ^45 Ai#. f^Oir% tirke /%eetr la^r there Scjx.iyy 3>o't mmim'ip &j^/ hJ/)re/fS 83 Qumi/ Sf. /y?dh ^me€/$\ ^/a/ 5y//sr P4.(i^i)yZ40‘3Slf Smyey ^y, Ht^/idjeoc/ 4s/V» m,nn* ^ c,. Al/nnrs0 S^^fbrt Cr. ^ftr^f%^ Mikiaj. fty. r\/»./9t^2. •/ /^, A /iVIZO Serar\ “^099 //yP,>JooJ Rd Mau/tdf '/>7Kf SSi^i ^hereby y/ta/ //fix fruc Ond CorrC<d rc^rete^'fix//in\ /dtf^uj^d l^Me /oe^Z/ffn c/ /)a//c/'fiys , mt J^dfH o oiilj Ndct Saf^. retain fane I a/'erA ore S^isk- i r^^zo' pre^red 6^ mt (^nd thif dx/t o d,\/j ^Cj^s/eree ^Ctn^eyar "Me ^Uf c/ Mf s/^/^ o/CEfiTfr/cftre OF suxo/ey f^au^x eO ’/Ul^ 3or/on Cf. MtfJM. No. f^KxZ, __________ffpF// /L /99 V Bar A ^f)rcn^ 83 (p(40// S/» /t^ah ^Fnedt\ pM ss^//sr Of^ loA /y^ diji]ioood AxAke Plinr^€ ^ /denntfi/n Co. MrmnesoTo^ /}/artzo Seran y^9? //^/fyjood Mou^d^ SS3(oi SAxoA/cf/ CN SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* HARDCOAT R C A LC t L ATION WO R KS11K E1' C^5-:50* 25-500* . 1-1 5AO-1»M)0* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House PIP Lratih \ X X 7^ 5 xzc^.^ Widsh •Z"__ B. Garage^p ZZ.'IZ^ C. Driveways »H£0 /M.S> 5 D. Sidewalk -Lfe. K. \ (ff « ^ ^ ? g. ?ix 2 ^ E. PauQ/Peckd^ ^ \ n.C to F. Landscape Underlain Zo By Plastic G. 0±er X X X aJZJl ^6.*i TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 33-7 B fa X 100 PROPOSED A. House OVER ns* ZONE JLJL±Six 24 Lenfth A X X X Width 1.5 B.Garage X C.Drivcway(^_Aff X _ H X _ jI^aJ X _^.s _ D.Sidewalk /4r X _ IIS' E.Paiio/Deci^X _ ih.<"X _'A F.Landscap^^//X _ Underlauy^■2-d)X _. *73 — By Plastic X _ G. # MM Other CI^X _. TOTAL H.ARDCOVER IN ZONE DNE , - B X 100 TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ; u. c S F SB /7 S F. S.F. S F. wav S.F. S S.F. n*f S.F. ?z.sr =S.F. ss /3*'.5-S.F. 3B 29r S F ss 37.^S.F. a -7C».^S.F. SB W. e»S.F. SB S.F. S.F. 33 S.F. S.F. m €/% S.F. 9 S.F. SB S.F. =S.F. SS S.F. ss 9 2-1.9 S.F. Si //9 S.F. as S.F. as /ox, /S.F. Z9<?S.F. as S.F. -7.J S.F. < V/^S.F. S.F. ^ jy _S.F. S.F. S.F. *V^,3 ' _% A B A B r 2/Z-75 - r*3 /27. / ttfr »»,»5 ///^ >. _______ ^^ /I?. I 4^5 *.<1 Pr- /5cr; © Cv; c;..>u /2.7, /f^r /(0*^K ^ j 1 - o '-■5 -R 4' ifirw 1 '1 -1 ------------ 11 ^ I a fi C)tL- i-3, ,r----- - ,_J i J------ - j.'t ■H ■'y \ \l| L. J i- 1 \ V [ A *t “ --------^ ^ ^ ';» Vi *• *.. < * \.J ^u. 0V W/ MA>C- -^PAciKi^r “ RA\l^s1g*. / jT // 4 V AsfcS^----T------------------------------- .)i I 4. T-r s I p't4 ' 4-I" I - ,^=:=- \ - ““l-J-----i •ij T i vnr ------------: ? ►_— \ \\ '! r— is Li V. - "t:---------------- 11'Tr*,-j; _______1 1 ----------—.' «1— ' ____ir ““j:.j- V i—..^: I1^....1 •■ 1 t »•"H"-Hi:“ r j i. ™ * I—I '1 T T T !i — tsz— TTn (i .0 i.i •Wbk'r V'- (fiz. 1 n~.....*1------------------ 11 >11 1 1 i 1 »1 ____ LAKESIDE ELEVAT'OKi JE.W =1-0 / '—. 5 x/y; S3 __________/2-; fr .......... n '7^.5'x /o «!T 3 8 1.2^y 7^2^....VSV ]l-H ‘>'3-^........... /c?r To: From: Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Ct^uncilmembers Ron McKUse. City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusih. Building & Zoning Administrator Date: May 11, 1994 e^l950 Margaret Cost. 255 Brown R*>ad South - Variances - Public Hearing - Stnicmral setback variance from protected Subject: Peitinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (1) tributary. A. Residence Required = 100’ Proposed = 75’ Variance = 25’ or 25% B. Applicant no longer requests a setback variance for fencing within protected setback area. 2. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (3) - Proposed drive encroaches 20’ bluff impact zone. Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L) (1 & 2) 0-75’ setback area No hardcover proposed. 75-250’ setback area = 52,150 s.f. Allowed = 18.037.5 s.f. or 25% Proposed = 10, 600 s.f. or 20.33% No variance required. List of E.xhibits Application Hardship Statement Addendum to Application - Engler Letter 4/18/94 Plat Map Property Owners’ List Neighbor ’s Acknowledgement Form Kearney Unter 5/5/94 Hardcover Fact Sheet Boundary' Survey Byfield Plat Photos of Proposed Residence Staff Sketch Zoning File ^1930 May n. 1994 Paee 2 of 3w Description of Request Applicant proposes construction of a new residence on Lot 1 of the Byfield plat. Tlie footprint of the residence is shown at 1900 s.f. with an attached two-stall garage at 575 s.f. Applicant’s architect, Clark Engler, has advised that the actual residence to be constructed will be smaller than the 1900 s.f. footprint as the footprint shown on the site plan and survey is the approximate footprint of Mrs. Cost's existing residence in Plymouth. Mr. Engler was the architect w ho designed the original home and will design the new residence for Mrs. Cost. No elevations or floor plans are proposed but photos of her existing residence have been provided. Namral materials and colors that blend in witli the environment are planned similar to the earihtone colors used in the contemporarv ’ design of the existing residence (Exhibit K. color photos, will be viewed at meeting). The nonh side of the house facing the Luce Line will be one story, long and low' to ground. The lower level will have a walkout to the south. Although the property consists of 5 acres. 3 acres are wet and the remaining 2 acres are limited by bluff and steep slopes and a protected tributary that requires more restrictive setback standards than were in effect in 1980. When the Byfteld plat was approved, the setback for structures was only 26’. Note non-structural hardcover can be located within the 75-100’ setback area from the tributary. The applicant met with the Orono and DNR staffs at the site to discuss possible need for fencing to eliminate trespassing on property at the nonhem boundaries adjacent to the tributary and Luce Line. Staff discouraged applicant from installing a fence as fencing soon becomes an attractive nuisance. The applicant was encouraged to contact police when the trespassing became objectionable. She was advised to put up no trespassing signage advising people of private propeny and the DNR would put up their standard signage advising of the limits of the trail. Staff has discussed the encroachment of the driveway within the bluff impact zone noting that there is adequate area to meet a 5' setback from the side south lot line and meet the 20' setback from the defined top of the bluff. When the Byfield plat was approved by the City, a shared access was encouraged by both the County and the City. Upon the sale of the property to the current owner, the original developer asked the City and the County to allow a separate access for Lot 1 to allow Lot 2 to retain the existing access. This request was approved by both the County and the City. It is the applicant’s desire to also maintain her own drive because of the potential of liability when dealing with a shared drive. Tlie applicant is meeting with a representative of Hennepin County DOT on Wednesday, May 11. to review the realigned curb cut. Hardship Statement Review Exhibits B and C Zoning File ^^*1930 May n. 1994 Page 3 of 3 Issues for Consideration 1.The site plan has been submiiied to Ceil Strauss at the DNR for any comments she may have cotKeming the substandard setback from the protected tributaiy. What is the position of the Planning Commission? Are the hardships valid? Options of Action Approval. Any condition of approval must include the following conditions: Upon application for a building pennit. applicant shall provide a survey locating the proposed structure and other improvements. Survey infonnaiion is to include the topographic information. The permit application must also include detailed grading and drainage plans as.suring that the bluff impact zone is not encroached by the new construction. Grading plans are to include detail on interceptor to the north side of proposed drainfield area. Note majority of drainage from driveway will be directed to the southwest of residence. Interceptor is needed to direct drainage awav from drainfield site.w ^ OR Denial. If application is to be denied as proposed, members should refer to Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A). Isv I CITY OF ORONO - VARLVNCE APPLICATION may the tion Initial Application Fee S200.tX) j J (S50.00 per each additional varianc Renewal Variance Fee S 100.00 (no change from original applicaiio Variance for non-conformin-! f,tnictures $200.(X) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application tee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 255 Brown Road South , Omnn Proper^' Identification Number (P.I.D.) 0311723240008 ,-TTV *C :,T ir 4 I f %,'f i.*f « U** w f ^ ^: f w ' w i. T r ^ I W‘» * 1 rr' Acquired September. 1990______________________ I (do) ^0 no^also own die adjacent parcels of land. Present u5P(Ji Dropertv’: ___residential ___other (specify) Vacant land Zoning District: Resiripnrial________________________ (month/year) APPLICANT Name M^^rcjjiaret' P. f*nat~ Address: 1R7S Trrsy T M OWNER (if different than applicant) Name John M. Morri «^nn Cirv: Phone (home) 473-5957 Phone (work)___________ PI ymoiit-h Zip: S5447. Phone(home) Address: 27 Casa M^r T.n ____ Phone (work) ______ City:N;iploQ Zip:3394Q DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 325,000 Describe request indetail: c;f>p. AM-Ar-hmg^nt-_______________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width X Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Other (specify) Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIFI ION OF UNX^SUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:^______________________________________ See Attachment ______ _______ (attach additional sheets if necessary) RrQnRED SLUMITTALS ^ ■ ___Completed Application Form "■ ----Cemned Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from icnnepui County Department of Finance. A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271) -__Plat Map (obtained with property' owners list). L ----Cenincate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as requ.red. In addition, provide one (1) copv 8'/^’’ x 11" for reproduction. >. — Topographic -un ey (existing and proposed eievations) if anv changes i.a existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'.^- x fr for reproduction. [' ----Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (’) copy S'/>" x H") . ----List of the iegal names (include marital status) of all persons with' an interest in the property'. This would include name(s) of applicants) if not current owner(s). ----As an addendum to tlus application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. __Additional items as may be requested by Cit>- staff. The .Applicant and Properry Owner must sign d.is application. Please remember that vour van.ance appIj^tionjs not complete if the above information hns not been mrlnHpH APPLICANT’S SIGXATLTIE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all informatiun required or requested bv the Zoning mmistrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee pavment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and“cenifies that the information supplied is true and correct to fhe best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date__4- OWTVER’S SIGN ATTIRE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and fimher authorizes reasonable entry onto e property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for puqjoses of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signamre Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission i eeting. .inning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. cants must be pr^ent at all scheduled . :\iew meetings of the Planning Commission an ounc . If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangemenf*; to have an authorizLd agent attend in your place and to advise the Budding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. rder rom ade ATTACHMENT TO VARIANCE APPLICATION Submitted by Marga’ • t P. Cost The prc^rty has area of slightly less than five acres. Long Lake Creek runs along the north property line to approximately the middle of the property and then turns south splitting the site into roughly mo halves. Much of the land area is wetland. After all setback regulations have been taken into account, it has been found that only a very small portion of the site is buildable and that minor variances to two setback regulations would allow the site to be used in the most advantageous way. This application is submitted to request variances to setback regulations affecting the location of a house on the property and const ruction of forice along il.a Northern border of the property to designate private property. Requested Variance No. 1 We request that permission be granted to reduce the setback of the structure from Long Lake Creek to 75 feet as illustrated on the attached site plan drawing. Compliance with the 100 foot setback regulation would require that the house be moved west and south of the location shown which would significantly increase the length of the driveway. The relocation would lower the floor elevation of the structure to a level that would reduce long views of the wetland area to the west, would increase tl»e slope of the driveway and would result in greater disturbance to the natural terrain and vegetation on the property. Also, although soil borings have not been obtained as >et, it is possible that soils with lower bearing capacities will be found as the structure is located closer to the wetland areas which will increase the construction cost of the project. A 75 foot setback for the structure will place it no closer to the creek than other hardcover areas developed on the site. Care will be taken in the development of me project to divert all surface water run-off away from the slope leading to the creek north of the house and driveway. • ^ Requested Variance No. 2 We jrequest permissici. bo granted to construct a fence along thqNorthern border of the property to designate the boundary between public and private property. We have seen young people congregated at the culvert at the Northeast corner of the property playing and throwing objects in the water. We feel this a liability issue if the property is not fenced. We are discussing this issue with the DNR. fii 4§,mtS0i^ I Mmvl • ■ %-. , » ‘ ^ - y V -.H ■.. i-'., >r *■ ^ d-* % Wn ^ -- .^ |Bf'' *■■■•■-f;=.v'« St-.: ■li i4'-;-':f>. wcguif* engi*r architects 423 south main stree? Stillwater mn <• 5 5 0 8 3 April 18. 1994 /O Ms. Jeanne Mabusih Bjilding and Zoning Administrator City or Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: VARIANCE APPLICATION OF MARGARET P. COST FOR 255 SOLTII BROMTS’ ROAD Dear Ms. Mabusth: The variance application prepared by Ms. Cost lacks specific information about the house that she will build if variances are granted. She does not wish to devote the time or m.' ^y necessary to plan the house until she knows the result of her application. We know that the house will be a tuo story structure built on the south facing slope in approximately the location shown on our site plan drawing. The floor area will oe no larger than 1,900 stjuare feet on each ot the two levels and there will be a two car garage with an area of approximately 575 square feet on the upper level. The lower level will be a "walk out" to the south. From the north side the house will appear to be a one story structure, long and low to the ground. Natural materials and colors that blend with the site will be used. Our goal will be to design a house that minimizes the visual and pnysical impact on the site. A fairly thorough study has been made of the regulations that must be followed in siting and designing a house ^or this property. Other than the two variances requested in the accompanying application, we believe that the design will be well within the requirements of the codes and ordinances in effect in your city. k There will be changes to the configuration of the footprint and orientation of the structure as the design is developed and there will be minor reconfigurations of the driveway and parking areas. Our site plan drawing is intended to be an illustration of location and general size of major elements on the site and should not be interpreted as an illustration of a design for the house or the drivew ay and parking area. 6I2-439J7)0 fax 6I2430-372I S!I it J The hardcover calculations are generous. We expect the fmal total percentage of hardcover to be less than shown in the application. We wish to thank you and your staff for the cooperation and assistance given to us in the investigation of the site and in preparing the variance application. Sincerely, P.A. Clark W. Engler j CWE.-dlb ( I mm OATf j .MTCN •« taut QWCR NMC TAWAYEKmm/um M 0S-117>2S 12 0002 00050 AOOKCSS UNASSICNED CU61U HOC MILLAN JO ETAL LONCOIOGC A^OCIATES 0 0 OOK 0500 OEOT 28 HOLS m . 55400 me»«i*in cojnty oooOEorv imtoohation SYSTtn OOOOEOTY COMERS LIST 58 05-117-25 12 0005 00058 AOORESS UNASSKMEO STATE or Mir« STATE or mNN (QNRi I LUCE LINE TRAIL) REPORT HO. RI455401 RACf 49 SO 05-117-25 12 0011 00140 »R(»M RD S OIL COLEMAN JR OOUSLAS R COLEHAN JRl 140 8RCM4 RO S LONG LAKE MN 55554 0 • . RROR AOM OMNiR NAHE ..TAXPAYER ' NAME/AOOR S# 05-117-25 15 0005 Oim FOX RIOGE RO R A • RACK RAYMOND H HACK im FOM RIDGE RO LONS LAKE HN 55554 58 05-117-25 15 0011 OlHO FOX RIOGE RO LUCIA T MORISGN LUCIA T MORTSON 1940 FOX AxDGE RO LONG LAKE MN 55554 58 05-117-25 21 0021 00185 8R0HN RO S C A J KROGNESS CHARLES A JEAN KROGNESS 185 8R0HN RD S LONG LAKE MN 55554 PROP AOOR OttCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO 05-117-25 21 0022 OOIM OROAM RD S (.MACS JOHNSON (.MACS JOHNSON IPS 8R0NN RO S LONG LAKE NN 55554 58 05-117-25 24 0005 00525 8R0IM RO S MICHAEL T GUSTAFSON ET AL CECIL N DELL 525 SOUTH BRONN RO LONG LAKE EM 55554 58 05-117-25 24 0004 02150 A8INGD0N NAY MICHAEL T GUSTAFSON ET AL PERRV8ELL INVCSTI«NTS INC 401 LAKESHORE PKHV 8550 MlNNETOrOA MN 55305 PROP AOOR OWKR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR i ,• I ' 4 » 58 05-117-25 24 0008 00255 BROAM RO S JOHN H HORRXSON JOHN H NORRISON 27 CASA AtAR U NAPLES FL 55940 t ' 58 05-117-25 24 0009 00245 BRONN RO S A A P KEARNEY III ET AL ADRIAN A A PAHELA H KEARE^Y 245 BRt»M RO S LONG LAKE HN 55354 TOTAL B«TCH 015 OOOll 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND Tww OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF ^ DATE PARTWNT OF PROPEBjT^TAXATlON, TM HE BEST I cz I 4 i . • t • .9 . >1$ •k 4 4S5401 49 *' f i i Tt [i • ^ * s' -1] ,./ o ) u h! Adjacent IYoprtt}'tI>w’neii5'^AckndTvlcdseiW*i*l^ Form 1 (we) kAjM ^ ^ Aklr<jL:i^^ ^ fprinl name(s)] '[prim address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the propertv- located 2>;*7 ^ also referred to as l^nd Use Application No. I (we) understand that in o.xecuting this adcnowiedgemcnt, I (wc) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am ^are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires,-Council approval. V Property Owner * 'Vi j ! "L ( /^ V" Date - i ^ Property Owner 0 i/y<hi Date lit 4r 4i A nr«lie 41* 41 4M$i 4i * >tc 4c « IK 4i 41« i<K 4MH # « « « 4i « « 41« « « « 41 4i 4i * 41 41 4M» « « « « 4l 4t «ilMli« # 41 4M|c m « m 4i « ^ « I. . t. : I (we) [print narae(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at____________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. : r Property Owner Date ■ ■ ■ ys/,- J Property Owner Date If vou have anv information that rnav assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days pnor to the scheduled meeting date. / :ated AORIAM A. KEARNEY HI 26S South Brown Roadi Long Likt. MN 5S3SS (612) 473-4112 TO: Mr. Charles Schroeder Chairman: Orono Planning Commission FROM: Adrian and Pam Kearney Residents of 265 S. Brown Road RE: Application »*1930 for variances to 255 S.Brown Road May 5, 199A ated •or s Dear Planning Commission, We have lived in this house for ten months. Before we wrote our purchase agreement, we did our homework on the lot for sale ne.\t door. We accepted the fact that somebody would be interested in buying the lot. We found that the specific limitations placed upon this lot would insure that the new owner would have to construct a small enough house to comply with the guidelines set forth by the DNR and the City of Orono. To us, this meant the least amount of intrusion upon our property and privacy. We feel that abiding by these specifications is impe ra t i v'e to the preservation of the protected tributary to Lake Minnetonka, and the nature of the property itself. Therefore in reviewing the proposed plans of Mrs. Cost, we have concerns regarding the following: 1. 100' setback from the As all rivers do, this one mec. . changing from season to season building constiucted within the to the integrity of the creek, fit into the space without the is a five acre lot, a majority show a disproportionately large site. Long Lake Creek. ders and curls. With water levels and year to year, we fear that a 100 foot setback will be damagi.ng A more reasonably sized house would need for a variance. Although this of it is wetlands, and these plans house for the limited building Zjt-L^J?—of_trees due to the septic svstem installation. It is in both our best interest to preserve as many trees as possible to provide a visual barrier in between the two houses. Specifically, is one large, mature maple tree that would be destroyed in the proposed septic site. Again, a smaller house would require a smaller septic site, therefore fewer trees would bo lost. With everything scaled down in size, the least amount of impact would occur, both to the property and to the neighbors. mihon' o h-Zr ry r- '' V ^ V* . *1^* s \A,.. ■ 4l p.r pr • 4 j >.:'"f i • vf^M..IlikW;: I ; )k ■! ■:S?f7 / ai*-.4 V B'ss =i? j;w-^ '"m S;5£3^a> : * mf fi •J; i .«:es:v •r‘-* ■ V. MA. r-ifc^; 4 ‘ i /; 1/ ^ S |V.|SK/U«‘ rWRV • ’ *^ ^ » ' ‘ >. •> ■/• > 1 W • •'' V SM&i^ >r : ^1: V-. r 'Tv:.'!! Ki' i; } «■ I ' :»V. ir i.>7’ mi'' ■"• -fc vm'i m |^i?iil is ■«<w.'a>i?!P^!i. ;... ■^- • 7^., 'y^^'i./..:1s- ^ Vt • r To: From: / Chaimian Schrocder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron. Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: May 10, 1994 #1931 Megan Tully/James McManus, 1910 Shadywood Rt>ad - Variance/ Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing .Application: Request for land alteratioa conditional use permit and hardcover/structure variances for replacement of deteriorating retaining walls and stairway in 0-75’ zone. List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - 1* - 1' - G - II - I - Application Plat Map Property Owners ’ List Hardship Statement Neighbor Acknowledgements Letter from City Engineer Sur\ev Construction Plans Hardcover Worksheet Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.03, Subd. 19 - Conditional use permit required for lakeshore alterations. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2/Section 10.55, Subd. 8/Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L) - Hardcover limitations in 0-75' zone. 3. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C) (5) - Retaining walls prohibited in shore setback zone. 4. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (F) - Standards for lakeshore stairways. 5. Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (J) - Standards for topographic alteration/grading/filling. Di.scussion Applicant proposes to replace an existing deteriorating retaining wall structure with a similar but slightlv smaller retaining wall system. The existing retaining walls and stairway are located within 25’ of the shoreline, and provide stability to an unvegetated portion of the approximately 10’ high lakeshore bank. cL f Zoning File #1931 May To. 1994 Page 2 of 2 The new retaining walls will be similar in function and visual impact to the existing walls. The flat planter areas which currently exist will be similarly maintained as non hardcover. The stair system meets the 4’ maximum width reouirement tor lakeshore stairways. The existin'’ retainins wall svstem stairway hardcover is approximately 1.8 r. The proposed wall/stainvay system will be l.T'F, according to staff calculations, or a slight decrease in 0-75' hardcover. No grading work or walls are proposed on the nonh side ot the stainvay. This area has significant vegetarion in place and any disniption of ihai vegetaiion could negatively impact the stability of that slope. The City Ensineer has reviewed the proposed plans and tinds them acceptable Irom an engineering standpoint. He cautions that proper erosion control procedures must be maintained and the dismrbed areas be restored with groundcover as soon as possible. The inspection statt will monitor this activity and require measures in accord with MPCA’s "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas", and in accord with the provisions ot Shoreland Regulations. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J). Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit and variances to allow replacement of a deteriorating retaining wall/stairway system with new walls and stairways in the same location with a slight decrease in hardcover, and subject to the use of proper erosion control procedures. Options for Action 1. Approval with conditions as noted above. 2. Denial (state reasons). 3. Table (request additional information). 4. Other. v-i ^ *• g IS le d ff It w in m CITY OF OKONO - V'ARIANCE APPLICATlON| j Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming strucmres $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LNFORMATION cc^ Site .-\ddress 1^10 Shaplywooci ^0^----bpA . Propert)’ Identification Number (P.I.D.) __17 - 11 Ir-Al—OQ^.9. rTTV w a f I c«If U‘' VI ncCTrc I a W4.L f I aitffifwv i T*^;T *V>f’»iVTA a wv'wv'vvw .'if rr^' “""VAV a w*VIf w* V' • w*V U-# Ik. vA f k • V*V w i**rT c*T— Tv'• • ft y I IVI/ wv' a I w a hTCperi)' lucniuii-auuii va —r * ------ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date PropeiTv .\cquired ^lyaic —---------------------------------r^.._--------------------------------------- I (do) ((Ho noT^also own the adjacent parcels ot land. Present use of property: >/ residential ___other (specify) Zomng District:___L i ---------------------------------- (month year) APPLICANT Name Toll| * Txrnts Phone (home) Phone(worlc) (»12« 3H2(Utiaiy ) ___ * 7in- cc a<3/ tT.Vn ' ...0. ---------Zip:^ 0^^’NER (if different than applicant) Name ______________ Phoncthome) Phone (work)_ Address:Citv:Zip: description of reqlxst 4^ . •Describe request in detail: //)//■>// sfrvchl Estimated Construction Cost $ I 70 0 I ( rf- rin ------- J (attach additional sheets if necessary') VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage X Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship /description of L2VUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS or practical difficulty or^unusual property conduions preventmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements:--------a I IriOlfn -------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) i*r noniui arc nccrrc nUim %JI i 1 t/A- •|A /V rC'Ai ^>nn M Ui.lt i.UV'«VV T? r*AA M I U r^Tu^kik' vnn• 11 min$\ t Lfu Cnni Oni Tf 7; LVV'A MU A I A U*« •““/ V-T' ♦ lion) l»lZ'*^4l*Z (. XiV iting REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to he considered complete: 1.Completed Application Form 2. V Certified Propert>' Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, .'\-b03. Got Center. 348-3271). 3. ^ Plat Map (obtained with properu' owners list). 4. \/ Certificate of Surv ’ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/^" x 11" for reproduction. 5. Ay/V- Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/:" x 11" for reproduction. 6. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'2" x 11"). 7. List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). S. rijfr As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 9. Additional items as may be requested by Cit\' staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application i.s not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATLTIE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infonnation required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature A Date OWNER’S SIGNATUi The owner hereby acknow^ledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signamre sjLJhL'V—Date ^/Z Z/9v Applicant must have all^bmittals 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 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 v>'? ■»^4 ; 1 ^51 ^ ♦ -%•* w#- rsi V I r' -D r> r\j ^ P rsi <0 (F^ 1C 0 ^ ft -t ri 51^^7^ • I *■ < a' Hardship PI<»5540I 15 Our hardship, in requesting this variance, is that we will experience significant soil erosion along our shoreline if we are unable to replace an existing retaining wall structure which is on a steep slope leading down to the lakeshore. The existing wall has substantially decayed and is crumbling away. In addition, the wall materials are old railroad ties which contain creosote, which we feel could harm the lake. In order to pre\ent further soil erosion, this retaining wall S- structure needs to be replaced. As part of the repair, we propose to eliminate the top tier of the existing three-tier retaining wall structure since a two-tier structure would be sufficient to satisfy our objective of preventing soil erosion. The elimination of this tier will reduce hardcover in the setback zone. • ■ . . ff ■. "i p ( A , V. ii': %'W ‘ ! • « •. . - SliiWgiW r%mo] •IMtltJ mi 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Andcrlik & Associates Engineers & Architects May 4. 1994 C-.:' C* A »^5 * .cseon C ®E V^rvf' L Sorv^J ’-o-'as S ^5 «coe^ G St^'unc^. PE SuV»n M EOenin C PA •>n<x Cor iutanf A Gonjor. »€ 9 »5 •€ Gav-j 0 PE eocir*T C Pusse* a a A BoutOon PE vi^'t A Hjnscws PE Vhc*“ja PE ><3 A ‘•ieKl ®£ Thom^i * Anoenon ^ i a Ooo^ C 9o»gj«dl PE '•vy^as t Af-sjuv PE vr^ PE vic*%ae P fiju Pi *gr>es M P ''g A c P j p\f>e PE ’’vy»»#s vA Aere-son p£ Mc'^je* C Lv^h PE ,^r*^S P MjhjrHj PE 0 PE Scoci J A'^ane* PE Agnoggs p Anoenon PE V!;»tA P «o#v PE A Seii. PE sj^ry A' Mongo PE J^fvg* J Ejgerton PE A Pick ScfwnAJt PE P^«*« J CjS'vgk PE Mprt D Aamv PE AAgs 9 ,g»>sgo «»? ^ r*' •:‘C Pf c A P£ Gpry O AffStOhtr PE p 'odC PE AMO ff raoo PE J BgncK PE SMwvo C GuSlJPion PE CfC«Ao Ovie» PE Paul G Hgugf PE Jorsn P Go<W' PE Cha'^Pi A C'cusor leo M Pax^uv Njnan M O»on ja»^ E Eryf&hjtnjt Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning and Zoning Administrator Citv of Orono Post Office Box 66 Cr/stal Bav, Minnesota 55323 Re: Tuller Residence File No. 139-1931 WAY 6 1994 ! I Dear Mike, We have inspected the property and reviewed the survey and construction plan for the proposed retaining wall at 1910 Shadywood Road. Tire retaining wall as proposed will be constructed from treated cedar timbers in two tiers, located in the same area as the e.xisting wall made from railroad ties. The proposed wall as shown is acceptable in regards to engineering matters. Prior to starting the work, proper erosion control procedures must be in place, such silt fence. Shortly after the work is completed, the disturbed areas should be seeded or seeded with a suitable ground cover. If the slope directly north of the stairway is disturbed, an erosion control mat should be used to control erosion until the groun cover reestablished. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. )^4Urr1 'X>. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 .r-. ^ Kijrch 21, i094 Al^o OmNARy <//(.// n'Ar£-:K*AtA‘y'\\ 920 4 CO n TOUA^ IIAKIM'OVI l< CAl.t UIATlOM;: lluiiaa liar, ac|. <i‘» ! ««)'> 6*iJ Sl|. Driveway boo «i|. Sidewalk ibi s<| ratlo/dcv.k 119 an. Mrul3capln<| J/S »i| Relainiixi wal Is 114 sq. Total llatdcu'/er in rune Total Propuity area in /4>n«> Total hardcover •M.ni |7M|7r:i \UM\mis mM IINGINIZERING CO. .................. ...............rW(M.•)47«^*^ r..,MlM)4a.V.7 ^ MMI JIM i\U MANUS IV i*»’n M.kI, *N |.J.|| Ml:Vlt>E;(2 Apr,I 5, 1034. ! I'lAMU scHini“N ,i .......... ty. County. IlklllMHjtJS ---------------------------------------—............ -------------------*—......a..,,,., ■“'“•■••‘-‘•••.T--*«.«...« •.,w..-«.,a.,aiN ------------------••----r.M—...--------------------------------------------------- b! \bU>AU.l>SVMll( )l.SX ( nyyi Nl jijNS :?.urr.iT..!,'L::”M ...... -• “ ••'•«•• •■>• < IBIJIJt AlJOfi, I rwnh .‘.'iK <1.^1 .M. »« tr> ^ .«hI that I a., a .. i^^uw, •.fih.ti jml 4 Syot,.., «.,K, tk. I *m,4 lk». SlOc ,d M.BiUMrta ( i.U___It I i 1*411,1 Ph Jl fs N„ v ’l\ “ ONI: INdl H>ll\IS :i» M l I ;; ././ -^1 " "If r.: 'f t . 11. ft. n. •■■. iL ). loa »>| ft 16. M> ' b,|. ft 2\\ I4 the tully residence 1910 SHADYWOOD ROAD ORONO. MINNESOTA '55391 . I ■.* ' .• I . *v* > 9 •a «. *T • V > • t# A . '.-^l «« . • ► ^ *i* ♦ ,•.. / ...*v * ^ ^ ’• • ♦. ‘ - _ •. I •• «* ^ I • NOTES & SPECIFICATIONS ' • • TIMBERS ARE TO BE FASTED WITH TYPICAL POLE BARN NAILS. ,••• THEN SECURED WITH 12" SPIKES. • • ALL TIMBERS ARE TO BE 5" x 6“ CEDAR TONE PRESSURE TREATED QUALITY. ALL SOIL AROUND STRUCTURE IS TO BE COMPACTED TO 95% TIMBERS ARE TO BE OF HIGH QUALITY. NO SPLITTING. WARPING. OR CURVATURE OF ANY DEGREE. SOIL !N AND AROUND EACH STEP TO BE AT 95% COMPACTION EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO BE REMOVED BY CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROPER AND LEGAL DISPOSAL OF EXISTING RETAINING WALL MATERIALS. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS. FOR TIMBER WALL LOCATION SEE LOT SURVEY PLAN. 4 4-0- j 4 jM Tl • 1o1 .__r 1 1•• r*r 1 1r # 0^ 4-0* ^-------------—------------^ 4-0 ’ to TYPICAL STEP DETAIL SCALE: 1/4-. V O" STAIRCASE 4 OC INING WALL t «> o CO 40C 40C 40C 4 O C L *0 0 ■> I !I I I I r-|- 1 1- I I n I 11 11 It n 11 ‘ I 11 1 I I I I I .1 I I I I I I-1 11 11 I I • i! h i 11 11 I I 11 1|I I I I l.l', .-C = +3S =? • :* Lf SHOREL deaoman 17-7- ^T-\ 4--0'VAN' RETAINING WALL TIMBER WALL PLAN VIEW SCALE; 1/4" - 1'-0* t f Tf .-1 i.! ) 1 _a_ PLANTER RETAINING WAIL PLANTER RETAINING WALL SHORELINE 4-0’ —n l '/// staircase STAIRCASE DETAIL EXISTING SOIL SCALE; 1/4*. V O' QP> ).-T, .•( ■ ^'3.? s? . q -<l§s r A2- - ^efs r o,-) ^" • SHORELINE 4- DEADMAN EXISTING SOIL 8' DEADMAN TIMBER WALL DETAIL SCAtE; IM'- r-0" r-0" TIMBER WALL ELEVATION SCALE: 1M“> V*0‘ r HARDCO^TR CALCULATION WORKSHKET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) VO-75’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House \ X X B. Garage C. Driveway X D. Sidewalk X X E. Palio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other Wtxn -y TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B PROPOSED HARDCOV ER IN ZONE A. House Length X X X B. Garage C. Dn%eway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic X X X G. Other 1,1 j \ Hull ^ / TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOT^ PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^ B . 75-250'25-500’500-1000' Widih X 100 Widih X 100 lut SLJmI / O JiCA^ k± (A >o./^.3 S.F. S.F. i.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. *T.>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. % ^ \ i i • » » I ] A B A B j r TO: DATE: Planninn Conimission Mcinhcrs Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusih, Building & Zoning Administrator May 9. 1994 StiBJECT: #1932 Orono School District No. 278. 795 Old Crvstal Bay Road ■ Conditional Use Permit/Variance Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.28, Subd. 3 - Conditional use petrnit required for relocation and reconstruction of baseball storage/concessioti stand. Required setback. Required = 50’ Existing = 30' Proposed =41’ Variance = 9' or 18%. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicant ’s Addendum - Hardship Statements C • Property Owners List D - Plat Map ^ ^ , E - Request to be Scheduled at Council 5/23^94 Meeting F - Survey G - Floor Plan II - Elevations Description of Request A» rh. of Council’s review of the recent conditional use permit for two accessory notice be published advising of a setback variance. Review Uxhibiis B & F, the school proposes the removal p v4*would te L stand beneath an overhang above the concession stand, reter to Exhibits G . PP Zoning File #1932 May 9, 1994 Page 2w goes on to note that because of the location of a fence adjacent to a ball field it is impossible to move structure further east. If structure was to be ItKaied on the slab and meet the required 50' setback, the structure would be 7’ in width and useless. Review E.xhibiis G and H. the structure will be a single story and the exterior appears to be of wooden siding? Applicant should clarify. We have no information as to the level of use and impact of the bleacher on adjacent residence but in comparing the uses, there would cenainly be no more noise impact from the proposed use. Statement of Hardships Please review Exhibit B. Issues for Consideration 1. Applicant should be asked if structure can be rekKated on property meeting required setback and yet be functional along west side of lot line adjacent to bail field. It is impossible for staff to detennine as we do not have a complete site plan locating all existing improvements on property. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE t!. • - ^ PROPERTY' LOCATION Site Address-----------—^ Type of Application to be Fued mm 795 ni^ Crystal Bav Road Nottb— r applicant Phooe (home) PI 612, A49-8300J070 niOuC ^ Name __^rono_S^iool_D^ t ,v ^ Zip ssisf. . ., .71 2qc ntA TrvctAl Bav Rd N-----^‘0^ -liOTlg LaKe--------------^V^H^^cc f>8S Old OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _______________—---- Pbooe (home) Phooe (work) Address City _Zip. °@'(d^iwO a?so own the adjacent parcels of land. t-EES ,pp,i,3,i„„ $125.00 Residential Accessory Use ----!! $200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $175.(X3 Guest House/Guest Apartments --------$150.00 Duplex Credit7Bldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use - filling - designated wetland or floodplam ------- nradinc and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ------- Grading, seawall, reuining walls within 75’ of lakcshore prd /PID - see Fee Schedule v $100 00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) ^ ^ r\^,.KU rSirrpnf AnollCatlOQ FCC--------Afrcr.*e Cu™nt Applicat»n Fee other Si„ P^„ Review (+ ctntaulun. fees) $250.00 Vacation * ^ $175.00 Easement Vacation --------S 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision “ $300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ■ 5300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - sec Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District---- Present Use of Property Other (specify). _(month/year) rrrv "r .*-in\r.n Lit* W*l U‘?VL.'IVU* ctkiAinirc ni L jrc i T-'A 'ViiViA/)Aw*fc/V'A.VVWV 0l uill • VV /*.; :rri‘ TiLhtLS J>z ....... v'-ir iw-vvei nvi iAwi»v r*).i / * •*?/'*v-r.' i.<-/ .-.-A_______ r required submittals I Completed Application Form 2. 3. 4. 5. Describe request in^^ta^ ^ ^ ^ from Cemfied Property Owners ^ Government Center. 348-3271). Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-oua. 6. 7. - anine'e of survey (signal by . licensed surveyor) - refer .o handout for survey information. ,nnlicaticn if not included on required survey. Attach legal descnpt.on >f_ i 8. 9. 10. - proposed contours) tf land alterations involve ■ changes in elevation persons with an interest in the - Cd Se name(s) of applicant(s) if notcurKn. owner(s). ^o^tS^tion pian. appi^^f ‘- M ao"-o toTpp “ca.,on. please anach a separate list of any oOte, persons vou wish notified of this application. 0 VUU -------- ^ YOU ARE REQURED y° S*.TPEY » poR^ALL^^ sSbN iS” (S™>> '» -ic drawings of all d^unteots. plans, etc to be submitted.) rx_ Dvaner must sicD this application. Please remember that your I^;,ic^alirnofcompWe"f the above info^atton has no. been included. Cenification by Clerical Depamnen. dta. l^td Use Apptotio n is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:------------------------------- - AI ’PLICANT’S signature infonnation required or requested by the Zoning The applicant hereby agrees ^ ^ ^ not covered by original fee payment) Applicant’s signature Date Date uwnci i J CoLussion Meetings aie hdd on the applicant is unable to attaid a scheduled me^g. Tr utcud luyTyUce utd ^vhetbe Wdi« AZceiagOffic. of this change prior to the neeting. J r Description of Request; Our request is to completely remove an existing baseball storage/concession building (8' X 12**) currently located approximately 30 feet from the western property line and 240 feet from the northern property line near our high school baseball field. The place vacated by this building would then be a grassy area. We would then construct a new (12* X 24') storage/concession building on an existing concrete slab (16' X 44') that is currently used for bleachers and is 41 feet from the western property line. The location for the new building would be centered on the existing concrete slab, north and south, and on the western side of concrete slab. This proposed location of the building would provide serving and standing room along the first base line, eastern side, for the viewing of the baseball games. The building would be 41 feet from the western property line and 221 feet from the northern property line. The building would be constructed of wood stud walls, asphalt roof, and steel siding. Two alternatives were loo)ced at to comply with the 50 foot set back. One was to add additional concrete to the eastern side of existing concrete and place the building on the eastern edge of the new concrete. The existing eastern edge of the concrete slab is four feet from an existing fence along the first base line. Even with the new concrete added, the building would still be within the 50 foot set back. This alternative was rejected as it would not allow any spectator viewing from that area along the first base line as the building would be up against the fence and still require a variance. The second alternative was to construct a narrower building. This would allow only a seven foot wide building even with the building placed on the existing eastern edge of the concrete. This alternative was rejected because the building would be non functional for the purpose intended. Unfortunately, it is not practical to provide the 50 foot set back for this new building, and still keep it functional, therefore we are asking for a variance to a 41 foot set back. r- liUN DAH 04/21/H ftATCH 010 McrtiEPiN cour^rv property information system PTOPERTY OHr€RS LIST REPORT NO. PI^SSAOl RAGE EO PROP ADOR O^tlER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR Sa 26-118-25 51 0002 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIC^OED SCHOOL OlSr NO 278 SCHOOL OIST NO 278 A85 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO M LONG LAKE MN 5S5S4 58 28-118-25 51 0004 02445 JAHESTOW RO J I K SHAr4SOT4 JAmS T SFiAfiSON 24^5 JAMES T0Hr4 RO LONG LAKE MN 55554 58 28-118-25 51 0005 02445 JAMESTOm RO M A J MAHLI6 MICHAEL J A JO ELLEN HAHLI6 JAMEST0At4 ROAD S LONG LAKE MN 55554 PROP ADDR OMNER NAME TA)0»AYER NAME/AODR PROP ADOR OmER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR CRtCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADOR OltlER NAME TAXPAYtR NAHE/AOOR PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ DOR 18 28-118-25 51 0004 02405 SIXTH AVE N R A K ZEES ROGER M ZEES 2405 4TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55554 58 28-118-25 52 0004 05025 SIXTH AVE N JEFFREY S ECCLES JEFFREY S ECCLES 3025 4TH AVE N LONG LAKE m 55554 58 28-118-25 55 0008 05045 JAMESTOHN RO J P A S K KOOB JOHN P A SUSANNE K KOOB 5045 JAMESTOHN RO LONG LAKE MN 55554 58 28-118-25 54 0001 00745 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N SCHOOL DIST NO 278 ORONO SCH DIST W 278 485 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N LONG LAKE HN 55554 58 28-118-25 45 0005 00770 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N INO SCHOOL DIST 8278 (ORONOI ATTN SUPERINTENDENT INO SCHOOL DIST 8278 (ORONOI 465 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N LONG LAKE MN 55554 58 28-118-25 51 0007 02685 SIXTH AVE N H ROBERT GIAVAS JR H ROBERT GLAVAS JR 2B85 CO RO 4 LONG LAKE m 55554 5B 28-118-25 55 0001 0005B ADDRESS UNASSIQNED ORONO INO SCHOOL DIST NO 27S ORONO INO SCHOOL OIST NO 278 465 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N LONG LAKE MN 5SS54 58 28-118-25 55 0010 05085 JAMEST0lt4 RD GAB LARSON GARY A LARSON 5065 JAMESTOHN RO LONG LAKE MN 55554 58 28-118-25 54 0002 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIC^O JAMES R GRABEK ET AL JAMES R GRABEK 3050 JAMESTOHN RO LONG LAKE MN 55554 58 28-118-25 45 0004 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ALBIN F THIES ET AL OROrX) INDEPENOT SCH OIST 270 485 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N LOrJG LAKE W 55354 58 28-118-25 52 0008 05045 SIXTH AVE N JAB RYDER JOm 0 A BARBARA Y RYDER 5045 4TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55554 58 28-118-25 55 0005 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO INOEP SCH OIST 8278 ORONO INOEP SCH DIST 8278 485 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N LONG LAKE MN 55554 56 28-118-25 55 0015 05050 JAMESTOHN RO J R GRABEK A P J GRABEK JAMES R A PENELOPE J GRABEK 5050 JAMESTOHN RO LONG LAKE MN 55554 56 28-118-25 42 0005 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIi^D INDEPENDENT SCNL DIST 8276 ATTN SUPERINTENDENT INDEPENDENT SCHL OIST 8278 485 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE MN 55554 58 28-118-25 45 0006 ^ 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED INO SCHOOL OIST NO 278 INO SCHOOL DIST NO 278 AOMIN OFFICE- SUPERINTENDENT 485 OLD CAPITAL BAY RO N LOTiG LAKE MN 55554 -T RUN OATI OA/21/^ 0ATCR 010 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR M 33-lia*ES 12 0007 02700 RELIEY PKWY H iR A CITY OF ORONO N R A CITY or ORONO 1335 BROItl RO S HAYZATA m 5S3T1 HENNEPIN COUNTY PRt»>ERTy INTORrUTION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS UST REPtmT NO. PIAS5A01 PAGE 2^ 38 S3-118-23 21 0001 0076S OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N SCWOL OIST NO 11 ORONO SCHOOL DIST 0278 60S OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N LOT4G LAKE MN 551S4 TOTAL BATCH 010 00020 i *V ^r\ M»» »• P f% - ..k:y ■ 0 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 KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. "CO DAT t ■ 4 ; t » *' X ■ ' mssrn8 ?h m Neal J. Lawson r") ^ *' .. . •* ’. April 25, 1994 Jeanne, Enclosed is the Baseball Concession stand construction drawing and elevations. Also I would like to request that the variance be considered at the Orono City Council nee ting of May 23, 1994. I understand that this may be possible. Thank you for all your help. tv Q Orono School Ostrtct Administration Otftco 685 Old Crystal Bay Rd. Long Lok©. MN 55356 (612) 449-8306 r^is *»>-.ts uT> /^> \ • ! » ' » e^TiD k .'I ' ^ • fme S£ Si^)K ' Jiorfh hnt ^ / 5€c- Bf-/;8-n Henn A? A/ 'SI /z*r .*»< *•</' M 0 I 4 0Im I 0 I 9 t* / ■>44 • o •i 1 W t1!o‘.o “zV c »o'*o«------------------------------i I4-0 j lo'-o1I r ^-a WINDOWS CONCESSION ratvf S TORAGE '^LOCATED ON EXISTING 16 X 44 CONCRETE SLAB 90mmm • ^MlMi HUBfeLiMN *feD»M4 pElkuW lAkL I’u ' P"'47<M05 ‘^ CONCESSION STAND SCALE ^^RGOF OVERHANG DASHED 8 baseball concession 5^Atf »/4**s|‘ o OKfl:.* 4 21 <H ORONO H. S. PLAN VIEW ZmZ 0 a i t 80 «i4i I I A IU' TO; FROM: DATE: SIRIECT; Planning Commission Members Ri>n M^x)rse. Cii> Administrator Michael F Gatfron. A'^st. Planning & Zoning Adm. Mjyy. 1994 #1934 RRH and Company. 710 Gander Road - Variance - Ihiblic Hearing Application: Request for undetined variance to 150' septic and structure setbacks from OIIW.xss? r.—ts «= r.i'sr"" City may proceed with revision of Section 10.56. Subd. 7 lAI to revert the North Basui and Sewage Ugoon to wetland status. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Utter of Request C - Plat Map D - Property Owners List E - Coffin and Gronberg Survey I/IO 94 ................... F - Original Survey with 1978 Topography from Earlier Subdivision G - 1994 City Topography with Staff Notes H - DNR Letter Dated 5/6 94 I - Documentation from 1986 Septic System Review' Summary The applicant is Richard R. Hanson of RRH and Company, represented by Attorney l.arry Urg. Applicant is owner of Lot 2, Block 1. Foxwood 2nd Addition a vacant lot <^reated by a subdivision which received final City approval m 1989. The new Shoreland Regulations a p in February 1992 added French Lake North Basin to the list of Natural ' which were henceforth protected by 150' structure and septic system setbacks trom the OHWL. The new setback requirement left this vacant lot in a precarious position in ‘ since both previously tested (1986) septic sites were less than 150 trom the 9a0.5 OHWL. Planning Commission may be aware that the City has formally requested DNR approval to remove French Lake Nonh Basin and the Sewage Ugoon from Natural Environment Uke status, and allow these basins to reven to wetlands with the standard wetland protections o - setback for structures and 75’ for septic systems. The DNR has very recently (May ) indicated their approval of the City’s proposal. Therefore the City’ may proceed with a code revision as it sees tit. Zoning File #1934 May 9, 1994 Pace 2 Applicant correctly notes that his two options for resolving the dilemma were to wait until the City revises its ctxle or to priKeed with a variance application. He has chosen the latter pr(x:edure. Site Buildahility Issues Staft is in full support of the City proceeding to make the propi>sed code changes. However, this variance application prompted staff to review' the buildahility of this lot. including: • Viability of .septic sites tested in 1986. • Definition of wetland boundary'. • Access and building envelope* Staff has concluded that even if the 26’ structure'75’ septic setbacks are approved, this site has not been proven to be buildable under current codes. I would make the following comments: I Wetland boundarv'. • The City ’s 1975 wetland maps showed approximately 0.1 acre of wetland on this lot. • The plat was approved in 1989 with a Conservation & Flowage Easement over a wetland approximately 0.42 acres in area. The easement btiundarv' does not match the 931.5’ contour which staff had advised the surveyor to use as the wetland boundary in the 1986 .staff memo. There is no documentation why the easement did not end up follov^ .og the 931.5’ contour. • The 1994 Gronberg survey shows "edge of marsh" at an elevation 930.9’. This elevation contour closely coincides with the new City topography map of this area in defining a distinct wetland boundary based on current conditions, vegetation types and topography (no soil borings have been performed nor has a formal delineation been attempted of this wetland).930.9^ Ac,. • It is interesting to note that the current and apparent long term wetland elevation is above the 930.5 ’ OHWL defined by the DNR in 1991. • Staff currently believes the most accurate wetland boundary is somewhere between 930.9 ’ and 931.5’. ■ ■ ■ ■» "^rv • ca »r* Zoning File #1934 May 9. 1994 Paee 3 II. Septic Systems. The mound drainfield sites identified by Gronberg in 1986 are almost entirely less than the required 15' from the 930.9 wetland boundary. Further, these two sues are at an elevation such that the toe of each mound is only 2'-3' above what is probably a persistent near-surtace water table fluctuating with the wetland water level. This yields potentially inadequate sewage treatment due to the possibility of ground water mounding under the drainfield due to inadequate separation. Funher. the two sites have slopes from 8-10% (north site) and 7-10% (south site), in excess of the 6% maximum slope allowed for mound systems per Orono Septic Code Section 12.30, Subd. 5 iB)(4b), which was adopted in February 1992. The slopes were calculated based on Gronberg’s submitted survey dated lGO/94. AJore Be" »»» Tlie fact that these sites were tested before the cexle chant .d does not give them any grandfather rights, since the systems were never built. All of the above factors lead staff to be disinclined to grant the sloi^ and wetland setback variances needed in order that these sites be used. It is staffs conclusioi that the use of these sites is not advisable, and that other better sites will have to be found before the City will issue building pennits. The new City topographic map suggests that there is significantly more elevated ground on the south half of the propeny than previous survey work has shown. In fact, there may be viable septic sites at the south end of the property. • Staff would be inclined to grant a wetland setback variance for septic systems that are on relatively high ground (10’ + above the wetland) and on conforming slopes of 6% or less. General Site Buildability. • Access to the property currently is via a 50’ corridor from the Gander Road cul- de-sac (undeveloped). . This corridor contains a dry’ excavated duck pond which the previous owner had constructed. r Zoning File #19?4 May 9. 19^)4 Page 4 . A draimgcway flow, nonhcastcrly ihrouah the propcny to the wetland, b.sect.ng the property. * LX"'re ITt^lel^' top of the hill. r. ..t .-.-inf'iin ■siiitahle slopes for mound draintielUs. • 'hJh ;:[m onhe hn,app"x,™ate,y :0- higher than the .e.latai and wouid Ilso f« Tattraetive building site if not contliettng w,th sept.e sttes. conclusions be made as to buildability. Merits of the Variance Application even the City's tntent to redefi«: approved for use. Grant,ng of the requested setbaeh vanances ‘he mere grant.ng of sa.d vartanees ,s not a declaration that this lot is br.ildable. staff vtould further note that there may be a good argument for defining the southwest and north lo, lines as side lot lines, with a 30' setbaek for structures. Staff Recommendation Based on the unique e.reumstances of this site .he minimun, standards to i:,'determine whether recommending conceptual appro a . i , inticimted code (change which would the u.iique circumstances (being caught in t e ™ ^ ^ ^ variance without a spe^^ific site plan el,mi,.ate the need tor a ,ueh^ JSLTe Sh;:ul7brrehted to 'other aspects of the plan" and that no other vananee request he Zoning File #1934 May 9’ 1994 Pace 5 forthcoming for the property. The City has historically required site plans for variance applications although mere conceptual plans or designations of a building envelope have been accepted in certain lot area/width variance requests for vacant lots. Based on the above. Planning Commission may wish to consider one of the following options: 1. Approval as propi>sed. Table pending submittal of a site plan showing viable septic sites and at least a conceptual building and driveway proposal. 3.Denial. 4.Ollier. or I m »CITY OF ORONO - VARF^VE Vl*Wi4CATION Initial Application Fee S200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI00.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conformmg structures $200.00 Afier-ihe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LNFORMATIO.N Site Address 710 Gander Road. Orono. Minnesota -Try T --"vT W A I I W I t witu *1' V * * i'f*r r cr * I W? ? ' * ^ ? .'r V )' A W'V W f» i VA V/h.l«W' V' ■ WV - .V 4» W' V • W t‘ Ti l» I rc WrA I W I-w 'XTOT» 7 L-'*»%» /1 .rrjtfA I ww 7: ’’ ’ '•* •*» ? » ^ C<“ ^ ^nwVa^^^V VVVA l\VA t ** Properu Identification Number (P.l.D.)-----?"* ^^ Attach Icca descnption to application it not included on required sur\ey./Miacii icca > October. imonth'vear)Date Prepem- .Acquired <-ccoper, i. - I (do) rOc^-noD-also own the adjacent parcels of land, S^?-ond^ ’ Present use of propern- x residential ___other opecin)-------------------------------_A*»dition Zoninu District: rr -18 applicant Name ^ Phone (home) _ PhorE(work) J4/-/u(g Address; c/o Fredrikson & Byron. P.A. Cit\’: Minneapolis “■'^00'Second Avenue south OW-NFR (if i;tTer.nMhrn^wlic^ Phonahome)------------- v,„:e RRH 4 Co. (worK) j6U) 3R7-70Qfl _Zip: 35*402 N/A ______ Address: c/o Fredrikson & Bvron. P.A. City: Minneapolis. rc900 Second Avenue Sauth description Of"r EQL^^^ ' ^ Estimated Construction Cost $. Describe request in detail: Please see attached Addend^-------- Zip: 55402 N/A (attach additionai sheets if necessaiy) v ariances required Lot Area _Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore ^ Other /specify)Wetland Setback H vrdship /descrifiton of l'nx 'sual property conditions Doscr.be undue hardship or pracucal diffeulty or unusual proper^ compliance with Zoning C.)de requirements;__Please see ^---------------------. (attach additional sheets if necessary) required si bmittals All nf fht> follouingin formation must he^uhnrined_hvUieapRljcatjon dcpdlinedatt> hyordcr fnr votir applicatiop to h«r considered complete: 1. 4. Completed Application Form ----Cemficd Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list trom Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-b03. Govt Center, 348-3271). Plat Map (Obtained with property owners list). ----Certificate of Sur>-ev ^signed by a licensed sur\eyor) and mclude hardcover ----calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8Vi" x IT tor reproduction. . . , Topographic survev le.xistinc and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing graue are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'.r x IT for reproduction Sketches or plans of floor elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8‘/: .x 11 )- ----List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the propcm 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 vou wish notified ot this application. __Additional items as may be requested by City statf. TTie Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yonr V..riunre uni.liculinn is no t enmnlele if the above information hjis npl been .iulullo.1. The' applicant hereb^'^atrets'^m provide all information required or requested by the Zoning IdmimLator. agrees ti pay add.ttonal fees tstaff time not covered ong^l « and/or consultant expenses incurred in review ot this application and certilies that infonnation supplied is title and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Date 3.5 m / ^ n o r* • Applicant's Signature ---------------------- Richard R. Hansen, i^eneral partner , jlRH St Co., a Minnesota partnership me wL^her'e'bv ^knowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes «“ona^ enirv onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Date Owner S Signature Hansen, general par THZr . Applicant must have Sfl safttai? lnto"the ‘&^tySftWs\^iaars')»ore the Planning Commission M«tmr pTam^g Commission Meetings are held on the durd Monday ot mo^ Applicants must b ‘e present at aU scheduled review meetings of the and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make im g to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zonmg Office this change prior to the meeting. r » 4 •f •A ri ADDENDUM m VARIANCE Am.lC VnON Lot 2, Block 1, Foxwood Second Addition, is ^ legally plaited lot that has not yet been improved by the construction of a home or associated improvements. A reclassification by the Depanment of Natural Resources of the adjacent wetland to the east as being a part of the bed of French Lake has affected the setbacks applicable to the subject properly. The change in setbacks makes it impossible to construct a home ot any kind upon the property. The City of Orono has discussed this reclassification with the Department ot Natural Resources. The City’s staff has advised the owner of the subject property that the City is seeking to have the adjoining property restored to its pric>r classiticalion as a wetland so that the former setback requirements would once again apply. The City has also advised the owner of the subject properly that an alternative method for accomplishing this would be to obtain from the City a variance from the setback requirements applicable to properties that adjoin the beds of lakes. In light of the fact that the subject property can not presently be used for any economically viable purpose without a change in classification by the Department of Natural Resources or the grant of a variance from the City of Orono. it is the request of the ow ner ot the subject property that the City grant the owner ot Lot 2, BkKk 1, Foxwood Second Addition, a variance from the setback requirements now applicable to this property, and substitute instead the setback requirements previously applicable to this land. The owner of the subject property seeks this variance in order to demonstrate to a future, prospective purchaser of the subject property that a home could be built upon this property. It is the request of the owner of the subject property that this variance be granted even though there is not presently a specific project being considered for the subject properly. The ow'ner of the subject property would agree to a condition that required that the variance not be effective until a site plan should be approved by the City’s stall, and would further agree that in the event there should be a disagreement between the City’s stall and the persons submitting such a site plan, the variance in question would not become etlective unless the site plan should receive council approval. 2»2nn ♦ 1*» .O'* •oII \fi» st ; ic.' no •e •_________________________________! (I) ^E5 IM« DAH OA/tt/W MTCN 091 MCh»€PIN COUNTY PKJPCOTY INrOBHATION SVSTtH OROPIRTY OIRCRS LIST REPORT NO. 01*55401 PAGE XPROP M»R OMER NANI TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR I ■ ■ PROP AOOR CMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR v: ' t PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR •• • • ’• PROP AOOR OMCR NAME . TAXPAYER .fNAHE/AOOR ' \* ' ■m - ■ - A % , . ‘ ‘' • . f i - 'I; " . .Ml • • * • 'rf ’> > ’ ,i :-i ‘ ■ ■ .■ -.'i ‘ *» J ■ 'a ' ■■ ■.'■•'ft- •• V: 50 0«>117-E3 41 0005 0247S FOX ST P J SLOCUM ACE 6ULICAN PETER SLOCUM A ERIN 61LLI6AN EATS FOX ST HAVZATA F04 55591 50 04-117>25 45 OOIA 02490 RAINEY RO H H SMITH A C 0 SMITH H M SMITH A C 0 SMITH 2490 RAINEY RO NAYZATA HN 55591 50 04-117-25 45 0021 00750 GANDER RO JOHN RHCTTS JOHN RHETTS 2445 FOX ST NAYZATA 55591 50 04-117-25 44 0004 02401 RAINEY RO RAINEY HATMAH ANDERSON RAINEY HANNAH ANDERSON 150 6R0VCLAND TER HPLS m 55405 50 04-117-25 45 0009 02425 FOX ST DIE PETERSON OAVIO E PETERSON 2425 FtK STREET NAYZATA MN 55591 50 04-117-25 45 0019 00050 ADDRESS UNASS19C0 RAINEY HAFtUH ANDERSON RAINEY MAMUH ANDERSON 150 GROVELAND TER MPLS MN SS405 50 04-117-25 45 0022 00050 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED DENNIS F KUMLIN OEKMIS F KUMLIN PO BOX 055 NAYZATA M4 55591 50 04-117-25 44 0005 00710 GANDER RO R R H A CO C/0 RICHARD R HANSEN R R H A CO 900 2ND AVE S tllOO MPLS W 55402 50 04-117-25 45 001502405 RAlrJEY RO R S A S S VICKEIDUN R SCOTT VICKERMAN SUSAN S VICKERMAN 2405 RAINEY RO NAYZATA MN 55591 58 04-117-25 45 0020 00450 GAI40ER RO R R H A CO C/0 RICHARD R HANSEN R R H A CO 900 2ND AVE S SHOO MPLS MN 55402 50 04-117-25 44 0002 00050 ADIRESS UNASSIG»«0 P E ECKERLINE/M A ECKERLINE PETER E ECKERLINE 2555 FOX ST ORONO Ml 55591 TOTAL BATCH QQl 00011 Sr W kISTlIoJe TAXATION. TO THE BEST ..rronla^'i, 'Wi Ui'-r. _ nr% C/ A* :ui 'OnCME^JT ■« ba€ed ufion cc Ot'io'^ic/ ^ ^ fOoLfa ..................................... I ^ ,mm n ti" 1 ■ifai' »■ i !0M 4ts»^ f'^es’* ■ 7Aj’/'c»,'isj*'om He fter. f N n; V Nf ^ % • » # • c: /' ,v>, ' ■'-■ .'cV;o O 2 »* r» »••• m . 4 M-»f If |»t A » « ».r» •• S i i • 1 d 0 , '» »<CIM *• 'O I * *M» A* '• » ' l« MfKNMMN vHHJNrY, MJ?^NK^«JTA /V 9% •mm fm tf\ /A m ^'Q s?-a-3 f-cr- — ' ^ ~ir—^r% 2 ^ tT N / /'^Jf / / /- ///y>' 7^../ , 7 7'/ / / ////'■ 7*^../ . • /III / l/^''"/. / / '«• / ‘ / / " rp* I U' •' / I I,' V' /i.irri‘,L \ / ;/ .' I Lij I ' <. V \ V / / • -' \ l\t-i '--;'N\r-.I 4 immfm « y 1 *1 r II . 1 . \ : .t • • 4 0 t' 1 lii'k 1 , ^9% - - :r^lAt 1nq V r.x 1 A t inq • • viP* :S^'.i / I .1 ‘Vf' I “T. ^ ■- 1 .i? j - CotUN iv (.KnyHim, l\(I hi*r**h\ ioriif\ that thi^ »urvc> prepaivd b\ mr or undi-r mv direct ^up^*r vtsum. and that I am a dulv registered Civil tngin<*er and l-and Survevor under the 1.0% s .i| the Stal%* ii| Minnrs4>i.i i>^Sw ^ M. \i I / \t.Mk h i.it;iiiH'rk; *»1inrH*s*»i.i Li%(iim' \iifntv*f 12^^M »H s* • ♦v - ,5 J V. Proposed Subdivision for Dennis F. and liaibara (i. Kuinlin of Lot 2. Block K FOXUOOD Hennepin County, Minnesota >T 'f Existing Legal Description: Lot 2. Block 1, I oxvioni) Total area: 7A9t acres Scale: 1 inch = 100 feet Date : Aunust 22. 1084 . CUM-1 hi GROMBfBG. IhC. Lfujineers and land Surveyors Lung lake, Minnesota TcfVij loken ficin survey do^ed 5*l2*/0 1 -n I aA-^A-2. r • • • rt — ■i-' \ .r:: \ '\* • '7‘^m m CotAeA^\lt:>f^ *n> '^^rA >T39-|8'l^;Wx xV/A/'^ 2%.zr. ^iX . p- 7^*7^ §I /f/ / /f^ /< /^ /r ’/*f / / /-^f" //■7 ^ >' / ‘tl /''/ !' Ill 1^1/: /' A i<A' .V./' ;' / I / ' / / / 2 X. .'AC. .rcrli':. ^ 2. 2 ^'i ^c. p\y X- X* / / /* c 2^3D,S // f rl A^ A / ./ / // /7^7)!7 / ^ f • ^ Ai B9*'l3''/5"\ r t'e^ AjtJV' c tr^T T*^0 C \ry - r ffe///. -- CITY of ORONO Municipal Onice:i Street Wdrest 2750 Keller Parkway Orono. V*N 55356 Ma 'int Adilress: P.O. Box 65 Crystal Bay, m $5322 0Q65 March 23, 1994 Ceil Strauss Minnesota Departmem of Natural Resources Metro Waters 1200 W'amcr Road St. Paul, MN 55106 R£; French Lake North Basin Dear Ms. Strauss: The DNR currently .maps French Lake Marsh (27-140P.) as tliree distinct basins, with three different OHWs; North Basin South Basin Former Sewage Lagoon 930.5’ 930.0’ 934.3’ As vou know, prior to the City’s shoreland ordinance review, the OHW for a number of lakes in Orono including French Lake, had not been determined. In order to define a contour ime tor measuring setbacks, the City used a portion of its shoreland grant monies to provide survey work so the DNR could determme OHWs for these lakes. Although the City did not and does not contest the OHW elevation results, we do feel that the devatiJn differences of the three French Lake basins, as well as their physical characteristics, suggest that perhaps only the South Basin should be considered as a separate and distinct lake foi-'shoreland regulation purposes, and that the North Basin and Sewage Lagoon should be considered as wetland b^ins. This distinction is significant in its impact on properties surrounding the North Basin and Lagoon. Previously, these properties were only subject to wetland preservation and setbac requirements. Those requirements included: • 26’ buffer outside perimeter of weUand, within which no filling, grading, construction, etc. is allowable. • 75’ setback from perimeter of wetland to septic system. Telephone (612) 473-7357 * FAX 473-0510 Ceil Strauss March 23, 1994 Page 2 Following is a paragraph characterbing each of the three French Lake basins: Se’Aage Lagoon: MVl classification: PUBKGx .Area: 16 acres approximately Description: Rectangular basin 700 ’ x 1000 ’, depth below outfall approximately 3-4 ’ but watershed may be too small to sustain significant open water depth; has never been dredged to remove sewage sediments; was constructed ca. 1962, ceased operation ca. 1982; cuirently contains sienificant emergent wetland vegetation; is intended to be preserved by Cin* as a nature/wildlife area with perimeter hiKing trail. North Basin: #HWl Classification: PSSl/EMC, PE.MC Area: 82 acres approximately Description; No open water except in remnants of ditch system (pre- 19503); wetland types include Type 3 (east, southeast quadrants) Cattail Marsh, and Type 6 Shrub Swamp (west halO containing many dead 6" - 10" mature trees which likely were affected by construction of sewage lagoon ca: 1962 (which may l*ave somewhat raised the water table). Compare the 1955 and 1989 air photos enclosed. South (Main) Basin: I NWI Classification: UUBH; PE.MlFd Area: 100 acres approximately (of which approximately 23 acres is open water) Description; Open water basin, depth unknown, surrounded by cattail marsh (T>'pcs 3-5); floating bogs common; distinct natural channel cutletting to Crystal Bay, Laxe Minnetonka. r Ceil Strauss March 23. 1994 Page 3 ^ ^ f*-—-d a "lake* The North Basin, on the other han^’. has netas the South Basin, can be temca a lanc . **•'' . ,r*c- j mon u, . Kicfnrv IS can be attested bv the 195'' and 19S9 air photos as weT:^IheTacLd^pl^ maps from 1850-1 SCO. 1879 and 1892 0^ is^nterestm to note that Dickeys Lake, just west cf Long Lake, at lea.M shows up on the 18/9 map.) rh»* Verb Basm and Sewace Lasoon redesignated as Please consider our request to have me iMura. Daiu. a*.u .j.. , _ •.. .. , wetlands rather than as part of tb.e French Lake basin. sVith v^ur jproval we will add this to the list of Shoreland Ordinance revisions I anticipate will be adopted later tins >ear. P*ease call me at 473-7357 if you have any questions. Assistant Planning «Sc Zoning Administrator MPG/lsv End. • cc: • r = 200 ’ Air Photos 1955, 1989 . City Maps 1850-60. 1879, 1892 • Kvh Map : --AC Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Admirastrator Ron Moorse, City Administrator r . - -r v^ ,jv ♦>••; a* ' !-2iT,S‘'?...%-.4-. t ••• . M • • *'" *} .,♦ ^ li% ’ » ^ r- *- —. y * ^ * «- »• M:i -'^'TC ; jkTuKMUAJ ** *' * . • A « ^ v^-r f”u^s0‘nrrr^ uj*r*4 /m ff3^~ 77-^^ r/r»*i >•«#• jyTtz. ^AOf'osc^ ^T" 3 - eiifirf/^c* - t-"tc sr /<>j« rr^-"^’^ *7"*^^ t*je^r^ Z/rv U j« TTP^rsTb //vi /?7B cx/jrr^Cm - /^7~. TT JC***(^ pc^>^ ®X« Tt» ^ ViTTT.^ .^o-r?/ :sfr^T iJwT- /vcrrtr T^^UJr- SCo^Z, •-V > ^- . i c*<^ >4toio^ /=?>d_ <!-ora< c/rtss 2. /T» fiuiL^^/^C, ttrfl 4o/t4_ p>^(/t»wA-r <So ^ /^ ^y/cCif*^^ Trr^ /5 A><?« "TO :jo<-^-7-h ^ i>r >t/«nvj^y ^»=- A;^Z^*^T /6ri^l:>lT70AjAx^ /AJP^f ^ Ujoot t-^ ii/Gf-^vr ti^ft* u-'Tscr i,tf^r cr Lot- 2. /vLov/yCi t^eTjr ^^£?U7" /O^ (2>e «v^r7U /i«vo<e^ I>c 7’^aj ^//vj C=. toAA’xzf' f('/ic>roj«pt5k s/rgr /^ TO 6^. ^ ^ d!3?5C4t! jCti)/ffiy>^ *fHW fV^lActJS^ .rr o<P" «4C»> AV roCi /^.c^yAj^ i:?4^/«,/ju: 4jt- "^i-A^ Vc t»/^</AVT7-»-i_ 4."*'C_ cTA/ rfrtr iV^SF . NOTAt^ €AZY Of^e^, * '»W*' ‘fc-. v\ Hk |sfe; rs-,.V«'-!ir>' rt ^7»* r ; i « f !TOt riCRt MTIt SUBJx Hark lamhardaon, City AdJalnlitrator Orono Council HaHbora rianning CoMilt*!©" Haubara Jaanna A. Habuath, toning Adsilnlitrator July 16» 19i* „0«T wnnl. Ku.lln. 2«65 roK Str«t - S.bdlTl.ion 7pl?cVt7o:' ,%i M im exhibit H)« Sonlng Dlatrlct - RH-IB Current Application a) S’lbdivision - Plat - 3 Lots Area: Total - 7.49 acres wet - .21 acres p, ..ri.r.V\o -Idth .ion, pubue r«d by prop«ln, u« of a private road to serve all thfe lots. X.lat of Bidiibita - A - Application B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map D - Staff sketch £ _ Watershed Drainage Patterns f - Wetlands mapping (elevatiens) G - Watershed Designations H - Section 11.33 Subd. 4 I - Porwer Plat j - Current Preliminary Plan district. The existing structures on lot 3 satisfy aii requirements. The access location for the nov private road satisfies •t.ndard.. In con.ld.r.tlon of th- '•y*"//to (exhibits E,P * G) the City see* no need ?i ii Qubd 4south or west. Applicant -no-id be advised that per Section 11.33 SuM. 4 ?«r.?Jlbit k), . pr<-.te ro.d ou.t b. in.t.ll.d PV “*VVh. tL.i loj irLbdlvi.ion co->. St.ff -ill that In light *j'/” ‘j* d.nalty and the .Ualted aren to bo eerved that the .ollowln, standard. applied: 2C' 3 *inch bitumincus covering (bituminous curbs - 20* finished width between curbs) 40* finished cul-de-sac Culvert sire at Fox Street to be revi-'wed by City Engineer r ■ ■• m m “Quin^ File #1047 July 16. I*i6 Pag« 2 of 2 S#ptic testing confins* each lot aatisfiei the septic standards. Staff is 901^ concerned with the configuration of lot 2 In regard to the proposed location of all Iwproeeiaentt and the obelous location of the drleeway to ••he hoee site to the higher elevation to the south. Staff has asked that ♦Ihe shared lot line be realigned to provide adequate area for the future drive (see exhibit 0). Staff has also Inspected the designated wetlands area within lot 2 and has dP.t^rwined after further consultation with the surveyor's field crew that w#*tland must be expanded along the western edge approxieately 50* to 75*. Gronberg has confirmed that this would Increase the wetlands area to .•»poroximfltely .45 to .5 acres within lot 2. Lot 2 would still aaintain the required 2 acres of dry contiguous land. Staff has advised that the wetlands should be designated at the 931.5 elevation. Gronberg has stated that the revised plans may be ready for our ncetlng but at a nlninun he has Assufcd me that the wetlands area would be confirmed for our review. Staff RecoBMendation - To approve the 3 lot subdivision and -/ariance application of Dennis Xusilin finding all lot standards of the RR-lB district and standards of existing code have been satisfied. Approval is subject to the following conditions} 1. Provide revised p*’eliminary plai providing additional area to west of septic test sites on lot 2 for fiture driveway. 7 Designate wetlands in lot 2 at 931.5 elevations and confim total wet area within lot 2. 3. Payment of Park fee at S40L.00 ($200.00 for each newly created lot). 4. Wetland to be designated as drainage ensenenta on the plat with angles 4 bearings - City to request a conservation and flowaga easement over wetlands. 5. City to ask for granting of road and utility easement over private road outlet. 6. Applicant to execute Maintenance agreement for future upkeep of private road. 7. All access must be from private road outlet. No direct access onto Fox jtreet allowed. 6. Applicant must submit road name choices for new private road. 9. Private road to be constructed per following standards: 24* base 20* paved surface - curb required (20* finished width between curbs) 40* paved cul-de-sac i r - V ....>f^4t ■■•■• ■■ % t •#> t! c'rmk iv J^Am/ui T '/H«**"DV ru SrSTDI OESI@f FOR DENNIS KIM.IN OF PROPOSED LOT 2 I 1. Percolation Rat», Typt of Systga. 7.2 alnutes per Inch on the primary site. PrtJSUfe Mound Systes. 2. Proposed Flow Rate. 3 bedroOBS • 550 6.P.O. ■ 450 G.P.O. 3. Mourj RocJc Bed Area Needed. 0.83 factcr(uslng 12" of clean sand imder the rock) % 450 6.P.D. »*375 Sq. Ft. « 10 feet wide by 37.5 feet long. 4. Dtice Width Requirements. 1.52 basal width factor x 10'wide rock bed « 15.2 feet minus the 10 foot brt ^ 5.2 feet on the downslope side. However, for a 3:1 slope minimua needed for a 3 foot high mound on an approximate 81 sldeslope on the downstream side, 12 feet is needed so the 3:1 requirement controls. 5. Septic Tanks. Two septic tanks, the first of at least 1000 gallons and the second of at least 750 gallons are needed. In addition, a third punplng tank is needed to house the pump needed for pressure distribution. An akn device is*^lso needed to warn of pump failure. 6. Distribution. Distribution is to be by pressure through 3 perforated laterals spaced 40 Inches apart in the rock bed. 7. Additional Information. All construction and materials should adhere to the provisions of the City of Orono. The alternate area must remain undisturbed should It ever be needed for use. The proposed driveway should be kept to the west as far as possible and runoff should be diverted from the drainfleld area. If any other information Is needed, please contact me. Sincerely. PERCOR, INC. Mark S. Gronberg ^ PCA certified r • - »•* « fti >v' .j' l/- ■>V»:i. A-r i*** ' t ' «* ,vt ^SSS^:^7j^ ;* I « I k • 5 % 5 ws ' I » • 4* ♦ • ' > * ' ‘V 1 • • ,.„V,v ’•• . V ■ • . .^/ ' SITEPUH ‘ rwoEiwrs wfciii dfcr: ^ > .V ^ - OF PROPOSED LOT 2 f >ik. ; / • ^•< 4v/ • ;. • ' • *^r • , : • ’ rfczf Date : 8-0-86 Scale; 1" « 50' / L' / / \ '■ ' ;\' / ■ .'S* ✓ /■ i-^ 'f \ « \ -• 3 L %■ % *- ». • A > X •V- • %L * * '*} V • » %••!. %• ••• tf f'i if \\ « 4 r ^ i'1 To: From: D.ite: Subject: Orono F'lanning Commissjon Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Couneilmembcrs Ron NUnirse. City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth. Puilding & Zoning Administrator May 12. 1994 »1SS5 Lundgren Brothers. 2675 Sixth Avenue Nonh Sketch Plan of a Rezoning of a Planned Residential Development Involving One Acre and Two Acre I nit Densitv Kxisting Zoning District: RR-IB Proposed Zoning District: PUD Zoning (with underlying RR IB and R lA) Review of Area: Gross = 61.3 acres Net = 58.6 acres (e.xcludinc 2.7 acres of dedicated rights-of-way of adjacent public road) Revised plan proposes 44 single family lots. The average lot size equals 1.33 acres per unit. E.xcluding road and open space outlots = Average .85 acres PUD Ziming: Southern 30 acres at 1 unit pe*" acre = 30 Northern 28.6 acres at 2 units per acre = 14 Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.52 - Special requirements for rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor Study area. 4. Section 10.53 - Planned Unit Development Section 10.55. Subd. 8 - For all latiJ alterati«ms within 26’ of a designated wetland vaitance approval is required for any proposed alteration of a wetland. Sectio:i 10.55. Subd. 15 (A) (2) - Prepenies located within MUSA and will be sened w ith sewer may apply for wetland credit up to the ut.o'J'U of existing dry buildable area. List of Exhibits A - Application A-1 - Staff Memo 11/12/93 B - Addendum to Application Zoning File #1885 May T3, IW Pane 2 of 6 C - Gustafson Letter of 11/5/93 D - Mood Plain Map E - Watershed Drainage F - Recommended Alternative for Development Per Comprehensivt Plan Amendment No. 2 G - Minutes of Sketch Plan Review at Planning Commission 11.'15 93 H - E.xisting Land I’se I - E.xisting Zoning J - Prop/tsed l.and Use K - Wetland Designation Information L - Wetland Mapping M - Highway 12 Corridor Alternatives N - Ixnter to Cook O - Sketch Plan PUD Status of Application The sketch plan application was presented to the Council at their April lllh meeting. Applicant's revised plan raised several new issues The Council telt that further review and consideration was neccssarN' hv the Planning Commission before they could provide any direction to applicant and were directed to present the revi.sed plan for consideration by the Planning Commission at their May meeting. At the November 15. 1993 meeting. Planning Commission advised that the 58 unit density was not acceptable but would consider a plan for reduced density. You concu.xed that a 19 unit PUD (1 unit per 2 acres) served by sewer and water would not be realistic, but would be willinc to consider increases over the RR-IB densities. One clear directive of Comprehensive Plan No. 2 required existing rural residential zoned areas to the nonh and east of this property be buffered froni the more intense developments to the south and so it was agreed that 2 acre density was to remain at the northern half of the property. Under the current 44 unit PUD plan, the applicant contends that the required buffering would be met. The reduced density and clustering of building sites allows i-r open space areas. Tlie Planning Ctimmission also concurred that because of the unique physical character of this property that it best be developed as a PUD. The Planning Commission cited the high water table and the large number and random location of wetlands. The original application sought the rezoning of the entire property from 2 units to 1 unit per acre. The applicant now' proposes the rezoning of the southern 30 acres of the property to 1 acre or R-IA (an approved zoning district per Section 10.52) and the north 28 acres to remain as 2 acre. A major open space c»utlot has been provided along the north averaging a 400 depth alone County Road 6. The area will serve to provide for wetland mitigation, open space buffer and potential trail (pedestrian and bike) locations. Zoning File ^1885 May 13. 1994 Page 3 of 6 Please review Exhibit B. applicant ’s addendum information. The 44 unit layout minimizes the impact upon the properties to the north and the school propeny to the west. Applicant had originally proposed special setbacks for the lots adjacent to the east along Willow- Drive. Is a more restrictive setback adequate or should a landscape open space outlot be provided along the east boundary ? It appears landscaping may be proposed within the residential lots. Applicant has not provided special setback information nor have house IiKatiims been noted. A loop road is no longer shown linking propeny to Sixth Avenue Nonh. The new curb cut at the nonheast comer of propeny would appear to meef the sighting distance from the intersection at County Road 6. The location of the access dri\e to the Shadowood plat is not shown and would have an impact on the final location of new curb cut. All lots achieve access from the plat road and not from a shared driveway as originally shown with the 58 unit PUD. Applicant ’s addendum information did not propose special building setbacks .so we must assume that the ori-ri' .1 setbacks proposed with the 58 unit PUD still holds true for the cunent and would be as follows; 30’ front yard setback typical. 30’ side along Willow- Drive. 10’ side yard typical. 26 ’ to wetlands. Staff would recommend a 50’ side/street setback along Willow to be consistent with RR- IB setbacks. If RR-IB setback standards are to be maintained for the lots adjacent to Willow, the average lot width of 150’ would have to be expanded to create a feasible building envelope. Any tilling ot wetlands will be mitigated within the open space outlot along the north. As tor grading and drainage concerns, the current plan does not provide the detail of the original so it is ditficult to determine what impact any tlliing may have in the creation of building pads. Once again, the City will not allow a natural wetlands such as Basin 6 or 7 to be tilled. This would eliminate Lot 5 as Basin 7 extends northward. Although not in the same configuration as the City ’s designated wetland maps, a closer examination has confirmed that the wetland e.xtends northward and will be considered an Orono protected wetland. Review- Exhibit L. designated wetlands shown w-ithin the interior of the loop will be filled. As already noted in the earlier staff memo of November 12. all wetlands not included within the conservation maps ot the City will have to go through the required review of other agencies it there is to be a tilling and mitigation of these w-etlands. Tlie Citv’s conservation maps include Basin 6, 7, 8. 9, 12. 12A and 13. If a City’s designated wetland is to be filled, it would be considered a variance and applicant would have to provide hardships. Zonini! File #1885 May f3. 1904 Page 4 of 6 As in ihe earlier review, the City will be interested in seeing bike paths and other walking trails connecting to the school property to the west. General Review ComnK*nts on the Layout of the 44 I’nit Proposal The City will not allow the filling of natural wetlands, obvious lot line changes have to be made. If designated wetlands are not to be filled, this will have a major impact on the current proposal. If we are to achieve similar setbacks as required in the RR-IB zoning adjacent to the property on the east side. Lots 1. 27. 28 and 44 w ill have to be widened in their w idth in order tv^ satisfy the 50’ setback from the side street lot line. Staff has enclosed the original staff memo for your review w hich outlines many of the issues that still hold true for the current 44 unit PUD. such as the paragraphs on Grading. Drainage. Wetland Areas and Fkxxl Plain. Sewer and Water, and Access/StreeUTrails. Review Exhibit B. Mr. Uban has listed for you the many reasons as to why he believes the City of Orono’s Comprehensive Plan should be amended for this unique property and w'hy a more creative approach is needed for development of the property. Staff is not going to repeat but asks you to review these 19 findings. These .same findings also provide the basis needed for development under the PUD format. It is the issue of a rezoning to 1 acre and the higher densities than originally approved in Comp Plan Amendment No. 2 that is the single most concern of this application. Staff has been asked to consider the uniqueness of this property as to why a request for higher density rezoning would not open a floodgate of similar requests. Staff will list some of the findings that make this propeny unique: 1. J. 4. During the planning process of Comp Plan Amendment No. 2, this portion of the property was included within the MUSA that would allow the extension of sewer to the rural zoned propeny. Sewer was extended to this propeny because of the high water table and poor soils. No form of development could be achieved with septic no matter what densities were proposed. The propeny is surrounded by major trafficked roads - Highway 12 to the south. Sixth Avenue Nonh and Willow to the east. All roads are proposed for more intense use. Willow is a potential future County road. Pan of the current planning for Highway 12 calls for a heavier use of County Road 6. It currently receives more traffic as Highway 12 becomes more congested. No other area of the City has been subjected to such a special planning process as the area defined within the Highway 12 Study Area. No other area has a special section in the Comp Plan that establishes special development standards and zoning. The plan encourages innovative approaches to development because of its special location and physical character. Zoning File #1885 May 13. 1994 Paee 5 of 6 3.This property is located close to a commcrcial/industrial road. The unique, flat elevations from Highway 12 to County Road 6 provide little relief from the noises and exlors from heavy trafficked area. This proDcrty is located within a sewer and w ater district of the City and reflected planning for more intense uses in the Highway 1_ Study Area. Nlunicipal water sy stems and sewer systems were developed. The developer of Tandem Propenies could have asked for sewer as sewer is immediately located to the northeast of the property. This would not have been allowed because the area was never designated for special consideration in the City’s Comprehensive Plan nor is the propertv k>cated within a sewer or water district. The property is not located within a shoreland area where higher densities would have been denied. 8.The Highway 12 Corridor Study Area was designed to allow for PUD use recognizing the special needs of the area and the need to provide innovative choices and standards in the development of the areas. The PUD zoning is not offered in other areas of the City, only the Highway 12 area This w'as a deliberate move on the part of the City to limit its use. The flat elevations, the high water table and the random and numerous wetlands throughout this property w suggest the need for clustering. 9.In the original plaiuiing of this specific study area located between Willow Drive and Old Cry stal Bay Road, there was a definite plan to provide transitional zoning from the more intense uses at the south to a less intense use to the north. The goal is to provide a buffer to the e.xisting rural residential development to the east and north. A PUD format at mixlerately higher densities could provide the necessary buffer, similar to a 2 acre plat. Issues for Consideration Has there been an adequate reduction in density? Should there be additional reductions? How do you feel about the rezoning of the southern 30 acres to I acre to achieve a 44 unit densitv? Again, this has been offered as the means of addressing the need to provide transitional zones from intense commercial to 1 unit per 2 acre densities. Will you allow designated wetlands to be altered as they will encroach obvious building envelopes of Lots 28. 29. 32. 34 and 35? ^ - - Zoning File y»1885 May 13. 1994 Page 6 of 6 4. Do you agree that the natural wetlands Basins 6 and 7 should be protected and not allowed to be altered? 5. How shall the need to provide open space buffers along the east side of Willow be achieved? Thrtiugh more restrictive setbacks as noted above by staff? Through open space landscape buffer? Or b»)th? 6. \\Tiat is your opinion of the basic layout or configuration of lotsApplicant should make it clear as to what setbacks they are seeking. Define a typical building envelope. Planning Commission Action To provide applicant with clear directives concerning the current proposal addressing the followinc issues; I ■y Use of rezoning to 1 acre to achieve density credit. What of the 44 unit density? Should it be reduced? 3. Your position on the filling of natural wetlands and designated wetlands 4. Bike/jjedestrian trails. Need to connect to school property. 5. 6. 7. Other uses for open space area. Landscaping, buffering within open space areas. Resolve of the smaller density lots adjacent to Willow. How to provide buffer.... setbacks, open space landscape outlot or both. CITY OP ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address i* A SAj!5 ^ 5 .. 4- rrrv rc rzr\iuW 4 I I ^ c »Tw* >t::5 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) _ _ _ Please check one - Property ^ abstract or Attach legal description to application. torrens? diV4 o>VV«VV . 71 200,00 ‘itCtlPT-ThAh’K rOif S0S6990 COOl ROi Tl-i:2 i W'/ A w/ ' APPLICANT Ncune Phene (heme)_______________ Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. Phone (work) 473-1231 Address: 935 East Wayzota Boulevard City; NavT-.-ifi 2ip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Orono Center Properties Phone (hone) c/o Reiersgord Law Firm Address: 4'45 Halifax Avenue (attach list if more than one) ______ Phone (work) 922-7114 City: Minneacolis_____Sip; 55424 EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size One UnknoviTi Unknown 58.6 Present Use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units __ Other (specify) Agricultural Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites; Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per 58.6 Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)______ MINIMDM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Conoleted Application Form 2. Preliminary Plat information or Certificate of Survey. 3. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 4. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature^_______________________________Date 1. d, • Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). Signed Certificate of Sur-zey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zonino Official's Signature_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FEES ;< ;< City Council Review of Sketch Plan Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II S III) $100.00 $200.00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement 300.00 Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision)300.00 Preliminary Review (Class III & all non-residential) 325.00 + 25.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) ♦(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 175.00 Renewal of Preliminary Subdivision Application Renewal of Final Subdivision Application 150.00 100.00 The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Date tO' 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 make arrangements to have an authorised agent attend in your place and to advise the Building S Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorsc. City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator November 12, 1993 #1885 Lundaren Brothers. 2675 Sixth Avenue North - Sketch Plan of Planned Umt Development and Rezoning of Property Located w ithin Highway 12 Comdor Study Area Existing Zoning District: RR-IB Proposed: PUD Zoning (with underlymg RR-IB) Review of Area: Gross =61.3 acres Area of Dedicated Right-of-Ways = 2.7 acres Net Area = 58.56 acres Designated wetland areas have been approximated at 10 acres. Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.52 • Special requirements for rezoning in the Highway 12 corridor study area, Section 10.53 - Planned Unit Development. 3.Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - No land alterations within 26’ of a wetland. Variance approval is required for any proposed alteration ot a wetland. 4.Section 10.55. Subdivision 15 (A-2) - The property is located within MUSA and will ^ served with sewer and may apply for wetlands credit up to the amount of existing ry baildabk^land^^ dry buildable for 58 units at 1 acre per unit density = 29 acres dry List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - Application Addendum to Application Engineer’s Report Flood Plain Map Al!n"entoieni No. 2 - Page 48, Recommended Alienutivc for Fmi^nn"’'™ Svobodia & Associates (Peninent Sections from Wetland Classification. Etc. Report) Zoning File ^1885 November 12. 1993 Page 2 of 6 Map of Existing Land Use Map of Existing Zoning Map of Proposed Land Use Plan for Phased Development Plan Locating Curb Cuts of Private Roads along Willow Drive City’s Wetland Map Highway 12 Corridor Alternative Development Plans Involving County Road 6 Sketch Plan Brief Review of Application The applicant seeks to rezone propertv’ to a Planned Unit Development with underlying RR-IB zoning. Applicant seeks approval of one acre density. The property consists of 58.6 acres after the exclusion of the dedicated road right-of-ways for Willow and County Road 6. The code will allow credit for the wetland areas as property will be sewered. The PUD format of development allows for an area credit of the access roads and open space areas along with the area of the residential lots. Based on the 58 lots, the City must be assured that there is a minimum of 29 acres of dry buildable area for development excluding all designated or protected wetlands, retention ponds and drainageways. Review E.xhibit F. the recommended alternative for development of this area was for two acre single family residential development to be served with municipal sewer and water. Municipal services are located on the north side of Highway 12 at the Willow Drive intersection. The developer would be responsible for extending municipal services north to the subdivision. The developer claims it is not economically feasible to provide municipal services to two acre lot development. The rezoning from two acre to one acre is a major issue for the City as the area was to serve as a buffer to the surrounding rural residential neighborhoods to the east and north from the more intensely developed properties to the south. The applicant has provided a strong argument in support of the rezoning. Lundgren Brothers has asked for the sketch plan and rezoning to be scheduled before the Council before formal plans are filed by applicant. Staff will review the rezoning issue first. If members object to rezoning and recommend denial, they need not proceed any further with the remainder of memo which will deal with the issues of the development plan. Rezoning The applicant has applied for a PUD rezoning at a one unit per acre density. The subdivision is planned in f” o phases; the first or southern half to be developed in 1994 and the second phase to be develCj. ^ in 1995-96. Section 10.53, Subdivision 5 (D), the PUD code, provides additional protection the City if development has not been realized. Zoning may revert back to the original zoning district. Zoning File #1885 November 12, 1993 Page 3 of 6 Please review Exhibit B, applicant’s addendum provides supportive fmdings for rezoning as follows: 1. There is adequate sewer capacity for 58 units as overall sewer needs for the area were projected at 300-450. The recommended alternative plan showed the 120 acre area at a maximum development density of two acres with a potential 60 units. Half of the 120 acres is being developed into ballfields and an elementary school. The proposed 58 units could easily be accommodated. 2. The PUD has been designed to minimize impact on adjacent rural properties to east and nordi by providing larger, deeper lots with more restrictive setbacks on the north side and a natural buffer of existing wetlands and open space along the east side. Applicant also notes that the existing wetlands along the south iide will provide a buffer from the multiple residential units planned for property' to south. 3. The PUD was specifically created for the Highway 12 corridor to encourage the best development by allowing clustering and designation ot open space areas to butter and protect sensitive areas. 4. The PUD provides efficiency as far as consolidating lots along the interior road system and minimizing earthwork needed for correcting high water table problems. 5. The high water table and random location of wetlands require flexibility in design and lot layout. 6. The application as proposed would satisfy the special requirements for rezoning in the Highway 12 corridor smdy area as set forth in Section 10.52 and addressed on Pages Vl2 of applicant’s addendum. Review Exhibit O. Applicant’s addendum has noted that a major retention pond at approximately 6-7 acres will be installed as a result of the Highway 12 safety improvements scheduled in (he next few years. The City Engineer advises that the satety pto have been amended and the retention pond area has been reduced to 4 acres. The pond has been designi to treat only the runoff from Highway 12 and not the developed land areas to north. Issues for Consideration 1 Will the PUD as proposed be compatible with adjacent existing and proposed future uses of surrounding properties .... will it meet the intent ot Comp Plan Amendment No. w.. 2. Will the special design features of the PUD layout assure future compatibility? :s Zomn? Pile #1885 November 12. 1993 Paee 4 of 6 ctr/^tn":L:v decision? units Dc>es this influence your decision? Planntng Commission members should be prepared to maice a recommendatton to the Council with the necessaiy supportive findings. Review of PUD Development Plan Proposes a't lot size — 44.010 s.f. Exclusive of road and open space outlot Smallest lot size is 17,200 s.f. Largest lot size is 88.970 s.f. W' Proposed building setbacks ^5o' .00- along Coun^ Road 6 a„d Willow Drive 10' side yard setback, 30’ adjacent to Willow Dnve 26’ to wetland Lot Configuration Issues I i ri» ts’ cfreet 30’ rear and 10* side setbacks. The Tbc R-l.A or one f ™ ““*2 TheraPP^ar to function for this lot layout. Staff sees proposed setbacks work tor this ^ zoning district was called out for the 1^ L problem. Note the 30’side .cc^back^ bounty Road 6 have 100 ’ alone Willow, Lots 1 and 8. A. 'i^ern residential lots but also to the busy county setbacks providing not only a butfer to required 26’ setback from the adjacent road. Some of the residential umts do not staff recommends wetland. Filling for the ^V alterations and structural setbacks, that the 26’ setback be maintamed for all .ana = 28.539 s.f. Grading, Drainage. Wetland Areas and Flood Plainig, Drainage, vveuoiiu Note all building pads are lined al«"8 ^ J™** "j*,3 ‘!irsl'’propose a° walkout design as ,0 allow for walkouts to rear. Lots 10 1. dangerously close to the wetland area, informatton shows budding pads rat^dS^^tobnn,^ It is doubtful whether tour lots can I Zoning File #1885 November 12, 1993 Page 5 of 6 Review Exhibit G, wetlands defmed as Number 6 and 7 are natural. Staff recommends that there be no alterations within the namral wetland areas. Lots 5 and 6 would have to be relocated and the road may have to be realigned. Seven of the potential wetland areas were deemed to not meet the wetland criteria and have not been shown as a protected area, the remainin*^ wetlands are classified as agnculmral - urban wetlands that have been altered - the land has been farmed for years. Some of the Ag/urb wetlands will be filled in and mitigated at a 2:1 ratio shown to the east side of the subdivision. It will be necessary for applicants to receive approval from the appropriate agencies for the filling and mitigation ot wetland areas. The Citv’s code defines wetlands 6. 7. 8, 9. 12, 12A and 13 in their inventorv'. Variance to Section 10 55 Subdivision 8 is required as our code does not allow' the tilling ot protected wetlands Once again, these are not natural wetlands but wetlands that have been altered throughout the vear‘ It is not clear how much area within these defined protected areas is being altered. After January 1 of next year, the replacement of any filled wetlands will be required at a 2;1 ratio and that replacement be of the same or better type wetland. What kind of setbacks will we require from the retention ponds? Will we require the same 26’ setback that we require for the wetland areas? Review Exhibit D, the property is not located in the flood plain. Sewer and Water As alreadv noied, sewer and water will be extended from the exUting municipal lines to the north side of Hiehwav 12 at the Willow intersection. Applicant wtll be responstble for extending sewer to the pro'petty. The City Engineer has asked that the water ma.n be extended 'o 'he ^rthwest comer of Ste site for a future connection to the City of Med.na's water pstem^ The water main should also be extended to the west property Itne at the most westerly cul-de-sac for a hjture loop to the water main on Old Crystal Bay Road. Access/Street/T rails The Citv will ask for a bike trail easement along the nonh side adjacent to County Road 6 The Engineer recommends that a walking trail be provided between Lots 14 and 15 connecting property with school. It may be better to locate the walking easement through Lot 17 and 18. The Engineer recommends that a connection be made to a platted “^ ***^^^ school nrooertv to the west Based on former agreements with the school, the City has agre m vacan madway upon the school ’s complete acquisition of the four parcels *at m^e ^ te ^Mivision. It has always been the intention of the school to never have a connectmg road from Willow Drive throuith to Old Crystal Bay Road because of the proposed uses ot ^ ^rground/ballfteld area's. It is staffs understanding tc acquire additional area by the curb cut access road at the north (County Road 6). Zoning File #1885 November 12, 1993 Page 6 of 6 Lois 10. 11, 12 and 13 are served by a single driveway. The Cit\-’s code requires a piivate road at this level of service. It Ls doubtful whether the four lots will be realized in this area based on the location of the natural wetlands and tl.e need to fill for roads and tour building pads. The City will also require the platting of drainage and utility easements along the perimeters of each of the residential lots. Summary Comments The location of the wetlar,^is throughout the property w ill result in the loss ot units. Staff cannot recommend the filling of a natural wetland nor should we allow variances to the 26 setback The real issue for the City will be if it allows the tilling ot protected wetlands and the mitiszation of these wetlands. The random location of these wetlands creates a major hardship for this applicant. If replacement resulted in an upgraded improved wetland over one that to been altered over the years, this may be beneficial for the City and something to consider. The City caniiuL allow four units to be ser\ed by a private drive. Applicant will have to amend road layout. If applicant files a formal plan, the City will expect to see a landscape plan providing for landscape buffering within the open space outlets at the nonh and along the east. The City is already in receipt of a sample of the covenants used in a former Lundgren project and will be available at vour meeting for review. It is staffs understanding that members will be contacted this weekend to determine if members wish assistance or guidance with the site inspection of the property. tDAffijCREN- fSHARDlDV^ :a ND • UBAN i April 25, 1994 '«• f N ! W ! Nl I I : i • M*. •I M * • if Orono Planning Commission City of Orono 2750 Kcllcy Parkway Long Lake, MN S5356 RE: Lundgren Willow Drive Property Dear Planning Commissioners: We met with the City Council on April 11 and were directed to review our revised plan with the Planning Commission for your recommendation. This property is in a transitional part of Orono and needs careilil consideration to develop the best plan for the City of Orono. The following is a summary of the reasons why we believe the City of Orono Comprehensive Plan should be amended for this property, and t^y a creative approach to this property is in the long term best interests of the City. The property is within the MUSA approved by the City of Orono and the Metropolitan Council, costly infrastructure has already been buUt to accommodate this site being sewered. 2. 3. The high water table makes on site sewer unfeasible. The required long extension of utilities is very expensive and costs must be spread over a reasonable number of developed lots so th^ lot cost can compete within the marketplace. Extensive grading must take place to raise streets, utilities and building pads above the water table at a substantial cost. 5. Highway 12, with existing and proposed commercial uses, and the institutional uses to the west impacts the desirability of this site. Therefore a very expensive home on a 2 acre lot would not effectively compete in the maricet place. The extensive wetland complex makes normal development patterns inefficient and costly. 1 Orono Planning Commission April 2b, 1*^94 Page 2 8 9. 12. U^g sound and normally accepted planning principles, a well conceived and ord^y land use should form a trans onal pattern noith from Highway 12. The transition would be from Commercial, to Multifamily, then to Single Family one acre sewered. then Rural two acre unscwered Land Use transition is needed also west to east. From Institutional, then to Single Family one acre sewered, to Rural two acre unsewered. Since the City of Orono's Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the School District purchased the 60 acres to the West for future school exp^on. This change in proposed land use is much more intense than the existing guiding of two acre lots. The City of Orono ’s Comprehensive Plan designates 120 acre for 60 home Mtes for this area. Sixty acres purchased by the school district arc proposed to be converted to Institutional use leaving the subject property alone to accommodate the 60 units. County Highway 6 is projected to carry 12,000 vehicle trip per days in the future. Depending on the final Highway 12 upgrade solution, additional traffic may be directed to the county roads The subject property is directly impacted on the north with traffic noise and possible ROW enlargement Development should be clustered to the southern portion of the site (as proposed by Lundgren Bros.). The property is surrounded on three sides with dissimilar uses. County Highway 6 on the north, Oiono School district expansion to the west, and proposed muhifainily and commercial to the soi;th. This property should be a transitional land use to the unsewered Rural area to the east and north. Since the City of Orono adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 1987, the Sute Wetland R^^lations have dtanged substantially, restricting normal devdopment patterns that were contemplated at the time the comprehensive plan was adopted. The City of Orono in Comprehensive Plan of 1987 did not know if the area would develop with on-ate sewer or public sewer. It is now evident that sewer must be extended all the way from Highway 12 to the site in order for development to take place. The City of Orono's Comprehensive Plan identified 116 sewer units available tor development. Seven years later there are still 58 units going unused, more than enough sewer capacity for the 44 homes proposed by Lundgren Brothers. r Orono Planninc Commission April 26, 1994^ Pace 3 19. The City of Orono Comprehensive Plan states as a metro benefit of the Orono Plan that housing be placed in close proximity to services to reduce transportation demand. This parcel of land can support more homes than presently guided and would strengthen the locational criteria set forth in the conclusion of the City of Orono 1987 Comprehensive Plan ITie plan also encourages utilization of existing capacities due to the investment of tax dollars to provide the existing infrastructure. The City of Orono's Development Plan used to determine the adopted guiding in the co mprdtensive plan on the subject property, contemplated a road connection through the school property to the west allowing the interior areas to develop. The school is now requesting the vacation of that ROW removing access to the West portion of the Lundgren parcel. The proposed re>guiding of the parcel would only affect the southern 30 acres. This area is directly adjacent to the multi-family guided land and with a Single Family one acre designation would form a transition to the Northern portion which would remain two acre rural residential This double buffering will be a benefit to the adjacent properties and supportive of the City's tax base. Proposed Density Southern 30 acres 1 unit/acre Northern 28 6 acres 2 units/acre 30 14 58.6 acres 44 units This site is relatively featurdess, void of the natural amenities that would allow for very expensive hemesites. The extraordinary devdopment costs attributable to this property ( poor soils, wetlands, hi^ water table, low density, significant grading, and long distance for utilities) make development impossible without at least 44 home sites to absorb the extremely high development cost. Sincerely, DAHLGREN, SKARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC C. John Ubm Principle KG/ss -rVr ^ I Min - \--------------------- 1 1753 ■2 flllii I i 'T * / ^ \,4- . 1A» /air < T-* I 4,| 9AIJQ.■CH^ MOIIIAA M9}- fi :.t tt fit ,*« ll,CM g»8 w“ nr? z <3^ .f« !i1l iW;-fTl nrnK£^ *37* f :^p . IMtti J?3U>f*X> tozos 0b». oof_ l>£ _ ,*•{»» <K :i>tr f«;.M fi •# lC‘9h r> H' A A * C *- f C:w« n ^ S:%^ **f «nt-e-! 3 i \^ysr M C ®* •'tr^><fi Ciy^MjM^rn - A-t2 • %#ntp-tf *t t •£ • yk ‘OltP' r .*> c r - y\^^.A •£ s^w-* C • • • iou-cc'' \il«rfe 4 ‘•jn%or •? *-*i •, nor^fl C 9k,^T)<»Or ®§ ••• f Ar>;uV ^1 V *i -vi ^ ' ^•c > *'t A Ap*e^'>r ^ n <r*v 0 *^-**^" X r •€ ^ 9 •'v^p'Wr »f \*#f% i V(#r% A iT'*J Gjtv a V8cr^ •f > fjgr^ . C<5v»(r- •! V*r% D A#*n y^^ g .#^ve» . A ®£ « 'oV 8 ♦,«c •£ P^'*< *■£ SrjM4^ C GwtfJ^vr* •f C«:«© O'^^' H ®9w- G 8f jC^ 8 Go*"^ ^ fc •ctvfX' LfC M •-» M 0%D^ c J c-t Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects November 5, 1993 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Adniini‘^trator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crvstal Bav, Minnesota 55323 Re: Lundgren Bros. File No. 139-GEN Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the preliminary’ sketch plan prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc. for Lundgren Bros. Construction. Tlic property is located west ot Willow Drive and sou of eSAH No. 6 in the southwest quarter of Section 28. There are several issues that need to be addressed relative to engineering matters. Tlu- street .iliititment is .ncceptable and appears to be in conformance with City Cc^es It should be discussed whether the streets will be public or private. \Ve recommend that the risht-of-way for a future through street be platted to the west at the most '‘“•“'y cul-de-sac This right-of-wav can easUv be aligned with the existing platted ngh -of-wa> on the -Hool property . If development plans are prepared for the school that do not include this connection, the right-of-way could be vacated. A trail outlet should be platted along the south side of CSAH No- 6. Also, pedestrian access to the school property should be provided by means of a trad beween lots 14 and 15. or at the end of the most weslcily cul-dc-s.ac. \.e recomnicnd tha* she tr«..b be constructed as par. of the site improvements. noth sanitarv sewer and water main will need to be extended north front Trunk Highway P along Wiilow Drne. Tlie water main should be extended to the northwest corner the site for a future connection to the City of Medina s water system^ Water mam should be extended to the west property line at the most westerly cul-de-sac for a fu ure loop to the water main on Old Crystal Bay Road. The four lots at the southwest corner of the property (Lots 10. 11, 12, and 13) are proposed to be served with a single driveway. The City Code allows only two lots to be L!^ed on a single driveway. Three or more lots will require a street be constructed for proper access. These four lots have proposed house pad elevations 8 feel higher than L existing ground and proposed driveway elevations. No grading contours are shown for thTfill pLeme.it th."t wfll be needed to develop these lots. Fill in this area will likelv affect the wetlands in that vicinity. m 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636 4600 Ms. Jeanne A. Mahu.sth November 5. 1993 Page -2- The City Code requires a 26 foot setback from wetlands that are identified in the City’s wetland inventory map These wetland areas are identified on ihe sketch plan as numbers 6, 8, 9. 12. 12A. 13 and part of 7. All other wetlands that have been delineated arc regulated at the State level by the Wetland Conservation Act. At the present time interim guidelines for the Act are in force. Beginning on January 1. 1994, the permanent rules will be in effect. These rules will require the replacement of any filled wetlands at a 2:1 ratio based on area. This ratio applies for replacement with the same type of wetland that was lost. .At the Federal level the wetlands are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The plan shows some of the wetland areas that will be filled as part of the site grading, as well as the wetland replacement mitigation area. However, due generally to the random location of wetlands, it appears that the proposed density of 58 lots may be more than the property can accommodate. Drainage and utility easements will be required 5 feet wide along all lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of-ways. Drainage easements should be provided over the ponding, wetland and mitigation areas. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. D r-.i -i ; ■r.' i C ORPORAT E LIMITS AV€NUE no«tn <TH. LIMIT OF STUDY ZONE C • Iii © Oi <1 O. ct i ^OAO I! >« <\a) l.mit of detailed STUDY *1 !iM 1 1 !!\i» 1 !i i!i ii ii City 0 Long La AREA NOT INCL h CITY r A- i! I: *.4! Recommended Alternative - The wetlands and natural vegetation in the area provide an excellent transition between the more intense use planned for the south and single family 2-acre to the north. Utilizing this as a break, the area to the north will remain at the 2-acre rural residential standard. For the area south of the wetlands, the planning consultant has offered four development schemes. providing multi-family units (either town house or apartments) to the immediate south of the wetlands with alternatives for varied commercial uses abutting Highway 12. The four alternatives of development are considered at an acceptable level for projected sewer needs ranging from 300 to 4 50 sewer units.The configuration of the frontage road would be dependent on the type of development undertaken but would provide for access points at Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow Drive, approximately 300' back from their intersections with Highway 12. INo.* 6 --- *• •*•*•*•*• •• ••••««•*• • • • •••.».« «••••• >••• •y.-y.-’.-yy ••••*••••• •• ••••«•• * • • • • • . .• •>••••• •• • • - • . • • • » 4 • I I I MEDINA MOftNiNGSJb6^;M^ IICEPTOR Single Family 2ac. S ■ y /y’v { Multl-ramily Residential . . j ....... ^ Cy:V V Commercial \ •'•cfeseoo .*•' •NCCRSeDoc I • • -.-rTT ■yy-yyy^-I ' y. ■^>y, • • • • • •• • •• • •• • •• • •• • •• • •• • • ■ ■■ Primary Frontage Road • ••• Alternate Frontage Road Proposed Alternative Area 3 Fig. 29 12. planning commission minutes CITY OF ORONO NOVEWBER 15, 1993 (S'- r:;; rrrr the lot limits the area available for the bui t 9- . K Of the house in relation to the shape of the lot and Discussion ensued regarding the d 9 Peterson commented that this was a unique the surrounding neighborhood, comm ss.on Pe^ Chairman Schroeder situation and he liked the ° ‘^..jigtentWith the neighborhood, and Mr. Kehnng commented he felt the design '"‘^-J'^rthe lot. responded that it was dictated by the s P H^ri fnr iiiiiirnvnl of Variance for Undquist voted -aye-. Motion ganiasi- ^’fo'sSoodR-;"variance - Public Hearing (Rescheduled to January, 199^) ^^rBtow^RoaTrouth . variance - Request to modify approved Development Plan Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth^^^^^^^ the ^^^nres! a:dSTb ‘usm7e"t;rn'd^"^^ ^-wne noted that the changes came UP after Council had approved the original plans. __tO the SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 13.^;ifs""n!:rrt'h "sreXpian Reviev, fo. proposed subdivision commissioner Peterson .eft the table for the following discussion. an^m^^uTed^no amforbvIbTpT^^^^^^^^^ most important issue, and reviewed the staff report. r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15, 1993 Chairman Schroeder inquired if the proposal had been reviewed before the Council and Ms^ Mabusth responded that the Council had informally considered whether the City would consider the rezonmg. Mayor Ed Callahan stated that the Council was not in favor of the r6zoning, and that was tha axtant of tha discussion. Mr. Terry Forbord. Lundgren Brothers, stated they were cognizant of the ° and were aware of the issues. He stated they believe there are reasons "''V 'he rezoning proposal should be considered and presented their development team to address those concerns He introduced Mr. John Uban of Oahlgren, Shardlow 8. Uban, Brian 0 son Director of Land Development for Lundgren Brothers, Frank Svoboda. a Certified Wetland Biologist to discuss the wetland mitigation issues, and Ken Adolph a Schoell and Madson in Minnetonka. Mr. Forbord stated that they have distinctive features in their developments which set them apart from ^ developers in the metropolitan area. He noted that as the supply of available land diminishes, they have had to take on projects that were more difficult to develop. John Uban showed exhibits that were included in the packet and reviewed why they felt it was important to the City of Orono to have this type of development. He discussed the proposed zoning density and noted that while it is not what was envisioned in the City s Comprehensive Plan, there are reasons why it should be considered. fact that the school is expanding and the church property has been sold and been constructed on property adjacent to the proposed site. He stated they ® project would balance the residential and commercial areas. He reviewed the PUD zomng designation and discussed the reasons why they believe that a munjcipa 5®*®'7®'®™ needed for development of the property. He reviewed the cluster '^®®®'°P®"®" stated they believe it to be both necessary and feasible. He discussed the u 9 project, and the ordinance criteria. He cited the busy roadways surrounding the site and the adjacent land uses as being compatible with the proposed zoning. Frank Svoboda discussed the wetland mitigation and enhancement involved with <>’6 P'®i®®'; He discussed the compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland '®®®®® ® they will create new wetlands at a ratio of 2 to 1, which would mean that two acre® o' wetland will be created for every one acre of wetland lost. He illustrated where the wet a ds are located on the site and described the various types of trees and vegetation within those wetland areas. He stated that most of the wetlands have been subiect to ®9"cc«cra b age in the past, depending on the amount of rainfall, and are not considered to be pristine wetlands. He asked the Planning Commission to consider a variance to allow the wetlands to be modified. Ken Adolph, Schoell and Madson, discussed the high water table septic systems. He stated that sanitary sewer would be extended into the area, and noted that it was reasonable to cluster the development into a pattern which could economically be served by extending utilities into the area. He discussed the storm water management I (Pind Ms. would r of the 1 Orono Bzoning s those Olson, /Vetland 2er with provide if other inishes. f felt it ed the City's is the s have ✓e this zoning Item is ea and for the md the ! project, jted that acres of wetlands lin those •al tillage pristine ” /vetlands d on-site nd noted lomically lagement I planning commission minutesCITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15. 1993 plan and the site grading and drainage plans. He showed graphics illostrating the wetland mitigation proposals. ,ohn Uhan reviewed the zoning issues and <tensitv th V o^^^rgn'^oVt'hT^rotred acre. He discussed the s.te constramts and and retained in one large development. He explained hovv the runo discussed tree preservation plans wetland area by using the natural .eaiures beneficial to put the open space around and the roadway plan. He stated they ‘’f Portion of the site, the perimeter of the site and cluster the woods. He noted "»r VS” —..»..«. development. Chairman Schroeder discussed the one lo^inTrLs^e ^h^lot size to standard. He inquired if it would be possible Brothers had a meet the one unit per two acre ^ ^ ^ggjgped this development, and projects were specific type of customer in mind whe nrofiles Thei»- customer profile is designed based on demographics and corPr^on^ P'°' 3L they had worked with City significantly different than that of their compe 1 _ customers and in this case staff staff to design a proiect that would best suit f ^"^mt per acre density suDDorted a PUD format for development. He notea inai excLded the normal density throughout the metropolitan are . Chairman Schroeder commented that the Discussion ensued which exceeds the standards of other commu utilities to the property and the issue regarding the costs involved with extending mu p proposed of how those costs would be passed seotic systems would not be feasible on development. Commissioner Nolan mquued w y P this site, and Ms. “abusth responded that a ,,,3 p,„perty. |hfn^erhe^“e;"Crras the proper zoning designation for this property. The costs involved with extending Cipr '^gncumtng^th^^^^ one unit per two acre the density was discussed, with g„^g density proposed by the applicant. Mr. density was preferable to the ^ nroceed with the project if that was going to be Forbord stated that it was not feasib e P costs per lot are always higher than the requirement of tha City. Ha explaine mmmented he felt there were benefits to those of other developers. Commissioner o concerned about the density and clustering the houses within the . nroiecl still be viable. Mr. ^orbord '-^de'd Z and he did nor believe rhe PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15. 1993 project would be viable if they were required to construct it with a one unit per two acre density. Chairman Schroeder stated he supported the one unit per two acre density and he would like to see the project developed with that density. Commissioner Lindquist stated he concurred with Chairman Schroeder and he would have difficulty supporting the project as proposed. Commissioner Nolan stated he thought the plan showed sensitivity to the area but the density issue was something he had to agree with his fellow commissioners on. The overall density of the project was discussed. Mr. Forbord commenteo that if the City was going to require a density of two acres per unit this property vAOuld not be developed by Lundgren Brothers and would probably not be developed at ail given the expense of providing municipal utilities. He asked if the City was saying that they did not want this property to develop at all. Chairman Schroeder responded that they wanted to see the land developed with fewer lots, but it was not accurate to say that the City did not want the land to be developed at all. John Uban asked if the Planning Commission would support a plan with multiple access from County Road 6, and all the Commissioners responded negatively. Mr. Forbord stated that it was not the price of the land which made it so expensive to develop the project, but the costs involved with the grading costs, which were three times the usual given the poor soils and t.ie high water table. He stated they believe the site is ideal for a PUD zoning designation. Chairman Schroeder stated that they would consider the plan with a reduced density. Commissioner Peterson returned to the table. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 14. Report by Planning Commission Representative to Council Meeting of November 8, 1993. Chairman Schroeder reviewed the actions taken by the Council which included acceptance of the Planning Commission recommendation regarding flag lots and staff had been directed to draft an ordinance. He stated that the McKinney duplex was approved, although the City Attorney had informed them that they could not legally require owner occupancy. 15. Other issues for discussion. There were none. 11 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15, 1993 additional rreivis 16. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the October 18, 1993 meeti g. Lindquist voted "aye . Motion carnet- 17. Planning Commission approval of minutes o. the October 21. 1993 special meeting. Chairman Schroeder moved, PcterjQn seCOncjej, Co^mi'iion'rn 18. Planning Commission to select a representative to attend the December 13. 1993 meeting of the Council. Chairman Schroeder volunteered to attend the December 13, 1993 City Councl meeting. adjournment carried. The meeting was adjourned. Charles Schroeder, Cha/ i 1 ik_l_ K)2 0N au TABLE M THE ORONO SITE WETLAND DESCRIPTION INFORMATION Area No. ' Welland Type On NWl Map fi'/N) Quality Class' Dominant Vegetation Soils’ Present Hydric Soil* (Y.'N) Wetland Conditions MetCirc 39 Co'Aardin 1 1.2 PEM1A Y Ag/Uib Reed Canary Grass Hamel Y Y 2 2.3 PEMIC N Ag/Urb Spikerush. Cattail Hamel Y Y 3 N Giant Rag’Aced. Sman^eed Glencoe Y N 4 N Barnyard Grass. Smanweed [ jt Sueur N N 5 2.3 PEM 1C N Ag/Utb Spikerush. Cattail Glencoe Y \ 6 2.3.6.7 PEMl/SSl/FOlD/C Y Nat -Reed Canary Grass, Catuil, Elm. Dogwood. Sedge G>ncoe Y Y 6A 6 PSSIB Y Ag/lJrb Willow, Hummock Sedge Glencoe Y Y 7 2.3.7 PEMi/roin/c Y Nat Reed Canary Grass. Green Ash. Elm Glencoe Y Y 8 2.3.4 PEMIC/F Y Ag/Ufb Reed Canary Grass, Caiuil Glencoe Y Y 9 1.2.3 PEM 1 A/C Y Ag/Urb Reed Canary Grass Glencoe Y V 10 N Rag weed. Clover. Barnyard Grass Glencoe Y N II N Barnyard Grass. W'hiie Clover. Common Ragweed Le Sueur N N ' • Appendix E ' ■ From Soil Survey of Hennepin County ’ • From Hydric Soils manual V TABLE 1-2 THE ORONO SITE WETLAND DESCRIPTION INFORMATION * • Appendix E * . From Soil Survey of Hennepin County ^ • From Hydric Soils rnifuial *. Wetland Delineated in field is larger dun w.iai is sho^»n on NWl map * *r , » -*»■ •* ' * <r* ■ •< ...V- wmm il|6'Wl ■’\ .*’ ?• . •.. •,. •-* ' m ' A^\Vf\o rA5/(.>;' * ;.i « . * -\: . 1 ^ k\ > i I • r%* ’‘? ^ ’ L’^ * » r V *±' 'U^‘‘V ■••*•• V ^-II ‘j•^’ J!i.-'j; >4.•■ .!-• te■ 'iflM’' r-* ’ V- TT'— -i • mSsU \M^mm ■i»Sp :S 4 ^ If .• ;.r.- • , _ ;^?.*i: .- * « - ',. \ r.r-'r-' ■ ' ' ’ Ip^l^''I teil ^9wI.' *< tep %wm mwm liii iiMi, ig®mm >1 . I- ■.' Pim •JslllV 7- «1 wm “T! 3 (/I d ?P 2: t/>R C IT-* ir *T1 W'c nz y on Elo Q. <c»-»» 3 CL 09 Pir.5* Ui n* 3a. gI So 5 Snu o' 3 U 3 Cl. cQ_ 3r. ? 3 Im o?oozo cn r W Vi ' r • I S'• “ • ^ • 1 * V . .' •V > »• , V I 4 *§'ii?Xi-' Psvi -at ■ -•■» r-< • • -V ' X-,. lilp:W^ V t # . ’*• ' f SIXTH AVE N .'■t — > yfe 1 • ;.;P' ■ :'•■ . SAMPLE FONTS 18 X X cv. . .. 1: Tv ?;vr^ifc. - ^ I'#'#;- ^ M * If* .V •>. m 1 ws^ :-Vti!.II/\j^ If- S.. .,^i:":?iy‘ mm I,-1» '■• W.' 'v’-'V.siWVi* irfv’* -r*'hr^ • s«V *» .*.• I . •■54' ■p& I? ■ . LiLl;.'''• x^5fj(.;, ,y: 'i'ii'- ' %,. <>•/• ' - ill 'i -.i- -' ■"' «f‘m , . V-— .Hfll^r -tc, , > I :J,','.'.' iAf'M » /• ::M\ IP4W^m 'V‘,1 .<■. i ‘\ ; mm ' I ;* •• •' •V'l-*-^ ■>•LI T ^ '■;■• - <1 S'vjpy .A>V> -:v.. ' .. .v4k®'^S>»- ,l|;ilr|ifMfep' ..PIl?Ti¥3Sr ‘ • t^'-i* '> v-j'-'i^? 4 wI'M v‘V •4y I'ua*' ' ':5j. tvm W->ii ■ •'■' * -iwi? . Vi, V \ V k r ✓ • », i ' t'» * *^ • Ti ■ M •'V \r • - ‘Jk wfe &ifcy \- % X • • • '>♦^V f -.p -.^ jr~ ^■M. -•% 'vfibrX •, i^4 ■vv;^i *ir**v/v *• » i -'y* h • m>-W' >•■ str^<'i>!^ <• •■ • -*. V*^ -m -^11 ^ :'f '"*\ • i P-- >-• ■ , V. ••' ' ^v' K. ??iMi s-sfjife: <s*; ' ^ W i' 3' ■■'%', n5^-- ! aW .. -^.v- fv' SP*Ft^ . 4?cT «V r- -w. ;■•• Is^i '■ . •<?> ./• ^ ,i., - .vl: ■ .1: \ '^ikii*'' .-ksisak-. Vi If- ,-* ■'■•(i-j :.-;5>-:. r; ft -.•' ‘/.'■,‘;v- ’• " 'i'‘;\ V“- i^ij^ " ft' ‘i-^ - Iv- -' ■•'•. •»■•if .... “>v ' |r?- l' - f-ST , .- .' i'SJMk i:.>l k y/?4 s» 11^1mm if■■ I;.- ' , !•(•■., •-.',i^-.i'2^ S4-,•.•.>„'• ;■>?! -.j^-: .‘•v.ftvpl.< ,T^ 'i -V' .', > • ' ^ ‘-rs ^. ■■ - ." \.15>. . \ % o 4^ fO o >v -#•■ \CITY of ORONO t'l April 26. 1994 Municipal nffices Street Address: 2750 "eltev Part>«iay Oono. MS 55355 MaiUnf Address: P 0 Bo» 65 Crystal 6av. 55323 0066 Mr. Glenn Cook 2335 Highway 36 St. Paul. Minnesota 55113 Dear Glenn; r;rrri;:rs«.... .i. - Willow Drive His quest.on speancally of course, would existing sewer main at Willow and I... Lundc^n Brorhers plan to bring in an amended their May 16th meeting calhng jj^ve a copv of the amended proposal. :;l\d^"oCubanV --i ^ban arid have him d.rectly submit a copy for both yours and Shawn s review. fn-c if voii have anv questions pertaining to staffs understanding of - >■■ ”■ •—“ your review. Sincerely, Jeanne M Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/ch Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 J ^/7 Weii of th« 5ih Pnncip«l Meridisi lyicf Soutbetiy of the centerline of County Road No 6 i recorded tn Rook 70 pi|e 3M4IS2 in the ofRce of the Rcttder of Deeds. Reel Estate Division. Heonepu County. Miimesou GESFRAI. NOTES. I. e • Denotes iron tnonumenl set 2 Reatings shown ate based on the east line of the Southcau Quarter »r ScctwMi :t, Township Ml North. Ran«e 23 West having an assumed beannt of SOfTK 3, Pntpertv area Gross • 2.670.143 square feet or 61 2b|| acres Road « II9NI sauarefeetor 2 7331 acres Net - 2.JSI.002 square feet m 51 S630 acres 4 Wetlands delineated bs Franklin 7 Svotwda & Assoc 5- The degenpOon used on th'S MsvTy w«i provitkd by client and we have not done a title search or used a liilc report in the preparation of this sunty development summary total ac. r.o.w. outlot/open space net acres total lots avg. lot size 58.6 ac. 4.4 ac. 17 ac. 37.2 ac. 44 1.33 ac. 3 dec. 93 ^ REVISIONS ^ /■ CERTIFICATION........ £iSSS;-“'“ SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ENGINEERS » SURVEYORS •PLANNERS SOIL TESTING - ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 10980 WAY2ATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 1 MINNETONKA. MINNESOTA 95305 10121 940-7601 FAX: 940-9069 Jk OWNER / DEVELOPER LUNDGREN BROS. PROJECT NAME ! SHEET TITLE ORONO, MN. S.M.I. PROJECT NO.SHEET OF SHEETS