Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-18-1993 Planning PacketC
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLiUNNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on ilie atnne date with the following members present: Chair Charles SclmK*der. Charles Nolan Jr.. Sandra Smith, Stephen Peterson. Janiee Berg, and Dale Lindquist. The following represented the City staff: Assistant Building & Zoning Administrator Vliehael Gaffron and Recorder Lin Vee. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p. .i. (#1) #1875 FREDERICK AND DAVID WHITE 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (RENEWAL) - PUBLIC HEARING 7:03 P.M. - 7:17 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Ccnificate of Mailing were noted. I'rederick and David White were present. Gaffron explained that this was a request for a on; lot subtlivision. A parcel is proposed to be split 'Tf from the lot with an existing house which wouhl be 2+ acres leaving a 17 acre parcel for luiure development. This application was before tiK City Council about four years ago and received preliminary approval. That approval required that an additional 17' of right-of-way be granted for a total of 50’ from the centerline of County Road 19. Establishing an outlot eliminates the present concerns for adding roads and park fees. It disallows the use of the remaining parcel as a building site until it is further subdivided. This application is for a renewal of the same conditions. David White noted that the wetland does not show up on DNR maps. 1 here is a drainage ditch put in by the County which drains the surrounding properties. Frederick White stated that the approved conditions are not what they asked for but what the City forced on them. They were to Council three limes and they feel that it would cost more do what the City asks than the land is worth. Scim>edei stated ilia what the Planning Commission is being asked to do is review a renewal of the same application. He though the applicants may not be interested in renewing it on the same basis. White explained th:,- «'figina!ly they proposed three lots but the City would not approve that unless interior roau*- v.> re installed. When a building permit for the existing house was taken out. three lots were esiablished in the area and now- they can't even get one lot from that same area. Gaffron explained that if the applicants wish to make any changes from the original approval resolution, a different application with a different fee structure wnuld have to be filed. That application would include park fees and interior roads. White stated the County would approve three accesses for three lots from the County road but the City denied that request. I MLMITES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#1) #1875 FREDERICK AND DAVID WHITE - CO>JT. SchriHider reiterated that the Planning Commission \sas prepared to act only on the renewal application as previously approved in September of 1989 and if there were any changes, the application would have to be refiled. Frederick White stated they do not accept the changes the City has required from their original proposal and that the Court could decide in February. Gaffron explained that a court case is pending because a purchase agreemeiit in 1984 required that a portion of the 17 acres be sold off. In order to do that, the subdivision priKc.vs must be followed with City. The City required certain conditions other than what the White's had hoped for. making it difficult to sell. Schroeder stated the Planning Commission has three options: 1. Approve as originally approved. 2. Deny the application. 3. Table the application. Approved or denied, the application will prr)ceed to Council in the current form. If this form is not agreeable. SchriK*der suggested the application be tabled so the Whites could work further with the Zoning stafi. Nolan clarified that the outlot could be further subdivided at a later date. A separate application would be required to do this at a later date. White stated the City was requiring that all possible lots be established at the time of .subdivision. Gaffron explained that the Planning Commission and Council’s intent in allow ing the outlot was to avoid the requirement for interior roads. The City did not want to add more driveways to a busy road even though the County might allow- it. Schroeder stated the Planning Commission was not prepared to redesign the subdivision. White noted that 30-40 plans had already been discussed w ith the City and this was the only one they would approve. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson, to table Application #1875 for Frederick and David White for renewal of preliminary plat approval granted via Resolution No. 2508 on September 18, 1988. Ayes 6. nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORoNO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#2) JAMES W. OGLAND/DONALD J. STOYKE 3345/3339 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VACATION OF ROAD - PUBLIC HEARLNG - 7; 19 P.M. - 7:50 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were m'tcd. James Ogland ar>d Donald Stoyke were present. Gatfron referred to a letter received from the DNR today that was handed out to Plai ning Commission members as additional information to the packet. He explained that this appiicadon is a request to vacate a pi>rtion of Hillside Place, a 25* wide dedicated right-of-way which probably goes back 75-100 years. This extends from Dakota Raii ii> the shore of Crystal Bay. Within that strip is a paved, travelled right-of-way called Crystal Bay Road that dvK'sn't show on the maps. The City has maintained that road for many years and it is the sole access for many houses in the area. No portion of that right-of-way is dedicated to the City. Gaffron suggested the portion used for Crystal Bay Road not be vacated. A City sewer main comes from Hillside Place to the south located roughly in the center of the property. The Stoyke house would gain a better setback because of vacation since he would gain half of the property. Topographic change is quite dramatic in this area. The issi .* with the DNR letter is that by State statute, the City is required to notify the DNR of any vacation of a public right-of-way on lakeshore property. Schroedcr read the letter addressed to Mike Gaffron irom Manila Reger of the DNR which w as received by fax on October 18, 1993. Jim Ogland, 33-!i5 Crystal Bay Road, stated that he and Don Stoyke. 3339 Crystal Bay Road, were requesting vacatitin of this fire lane, in which case the land would revert to the adjacent pioperty owners. He noted that the fire lanes were originally platted to provide access to the lake for water in case of fire at the cottages. At one time, there were three such fire lanes but two others have already been vacated. Ogland stated that he and his parents liave lived at this address for 50 years and have maintained this fire lane as part of their yard. By vacating this fire lane, it would allow the lots to be more conforming and allow a clearer title for the adjacent property owners. He added that the land is quite steep w ith several large trees with limited and obsolete use. He has also talked with John Gerhardson. l^iblic Works Director, v ho had no objections »o die vacation as long as a sewer easement was granted. Ogland stated that although the DNR ha ‘ the right to be notified, the City has the authority to make a final decision. He felt that because of the terrain and closeness of the properties, it would be impractical to use as a public access. The Stoyke home is 9" from the line of this property. Ogland feit the DNR would always take the position to keep land for public use. MIMTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD (KTOBER 18. 1993 (#2) JAMES \V. OGLAND/DONALD J. STOYKE - CONT. Smith asked if there were other access points in the v icinity. Oeland responded there was an access 600* to the west and in Spring Park. Smith asked about other properties that had been vacated in thi.s area. Gaffron explained that there was a 1969 vacation of a neighboring property hut there was veiy little information in City files regarding the process. Warren Paschke. 3349 Crvstal Bay Road, stated th;;t he ow ned his property since 1938 and has never seen anyone attempt to use the 25* strip for lake access. If the DNR were to try to use this, it would cause a serious hardship fer reside,Us on that road because of the width of the road. There are fire hydrants available for fire fighting and he did not feel fire fighting equipment could a*ach the lake. Paschke noted '.hat he supported the vacation request. Gaffron stated that it was the City Attorney's opinion that the City should not vacate that portion used as a travelled right-of-way and 10 ’ either side of it and that each property owner should additionally grant an easement to the City for the right-of-way of Crystal Bay Road in their properties. Ogland stated they were trying to simplify ow'nership of the property. A vacation with granting of easements would be simpler than the City maintaining ow nership of an island that was 38’ X 25’. Smith asked if there were any intentions to ilcvelop the property. Ogland confirmed there were not. Lindquist noted that no sewer casement curently exists but typically a 10 ’ easement on each side of the sewer pipe is granted. Lorraine Paschke, 3349 Crystal Bay Road, commented that when you drive down Crystal Bay Road, there is a sign that says "No Public Parking". No one has ever known that there is any public property on this road. Many residents on this road .have requested no parking signs. She disagreed with the DNR when they say that property is available for public use. Schroeder agreed with I’aschke as a practical matter but legally it may be different. Schroeder noted tliat if vacating were approved, the Planning Coimnission wouUl have to find that it was in the public interest to do so. The letter from the DNR must be considered. He felt if the DNR had a chance to look at th's property, they may take a different view. 1 . I « "Till. t MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINi; HELD OCTOBER 18. IW3 m) JAMES W. OGLAND;DONALD J. STOYKE - CONT. Ogland Slated that vacation would put the pn>pcrty back the tax roles which wviuld be best for the public interest He does not like ihe ciKumbrances tin the projiert) because they don t know if tbev should maintain it or not. Smith asked about similar vacations on two neighboring properties. Gaffron explained that one goes back to 196d and the other before that. These two accesses were similar and in the past it was found acceptable to grant a vacation. Peterson stated he felt compelled by the DNR to avoid the vacation since there is a Minnesota statute that gives clear guidelines. Smith asked if the application were tabled, would conversation with the DNR be helpful. Gaffron though it might. He also stated he had discussed with Reger the possibility of vacating everything except the portion between the lake and the landward side of the road. He questioned if any problems would be solved by vacating everything back from 10' oil the road. This would remove the issue of public access. Lindquist stated he would like to see the property owners have this property but feels the need to stay w ithin the legalities of the system. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Nolan, to table Application #1876 to allow the applicants. City and the DNR lime to discuss the DNR concerns. Ayes 6, nays 0. (#3) #1874 GARY DESANTIS/SAILORS WORLD 1955 SHORELINE DRIVE, VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:.'2 P.M. - 8:28 P.M, The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Gary DeSantis of Sailors World was present. Gaffron explained this request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances to place two storage structures of 8* x 8’ x 20' on the property. He asked if Plaiming Commission were interested in allow ing more hardcover or the existing hardcover to be changed from grade-level to a larger structure. Ihe character of these structures should be considered vs. existing buildincs. DeSantis explained the recent history of the property. Ownership of the property was gained 1 r MINIITES OF 1 HE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18. 1993 (#3) #1874 GARY DESANTIS SAILORS WORLD - CONT. hardcover mning that some off-site parking had been secured at the Minnct»>nk.i Art Center. He felt that it may be better to take a ct>uplc parking spaces fi>r placement of the sorage structure than to attempt to phue them on a grassed area. Peterson asked if the applicant was aware of DNR c( mnicnts on this applicaticn. DeSantis was rot but they were included as part of the original packet. Nolan asked what the intended schedule of c.>mp’eiion of improvements wa; fv>r the property. DeSantis iespt>nded that they had three years to a inplete the commercial site plan and that lime has not expired. 1 he rainy season this summer has caused problems compLning the parking lot and landscaping. DeSantis explained that the structures are moveable witli no foundations and could be considered temporary or permanent. Nolan observed piles of lumber, a tracto “, rotting timbers and a dumpster on the property and questioned the standard practice of open-tion regarding u.se of these landscape areas. The City has designated certain areas yet Nolan noted most of these areas had some t>pc of coverage on them, i.e. boa'., construction materials, etc. DeSantis responded that the marina is in a winter storage mixle and nas the ability to use the property for winter storage. Landscape timbers will be removed when the landscape contractor has nme to complete his work. Smith asked if some of the items could be moved to clean up the property. DeSantis asked where they should be moved to. No.an added that was the point he was trying to make. Even if the landscaping were complete, would there still be materials left m landscaped areas? Is this the standard of operation the Planning Commission could expect to see in the future? DeSantis did not feel he should be criticized foi not completing the imp-ovements. Part of the landscaping price was removal of the old timbers and the contnetor has not completed that portion. Schroedcr noted there were worthwhile improvements. The B 2 zone has been an issue for consideration by the City for some time. He has concern over addirg more hardcover in the form of storage. He did not see renting .storage space as part of the overall plan. He suggested storage could iKcur across the street or on some other part of the property f urther from the lake. He afso e.xpressed concern that aesthetically the storage buildinjs would not be consistent with the existing buildings. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANMNT. COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, IW (#3) #1874 GARY DESANTIS SAILORS M ORLD - CONT. Lindquist asked to have the 75* setback area defined and noted his objection hardcover in the 0-75* setback area. Peterson also expressed concern over adding more structure to this already developed property. He suggested liH)king at parking spaces 35. 36. 37 and 38 it the structures were to be placed on the property. He felt the DNR was implying that the strticturc may be acceptable if placed over existing hardcover. Nolan stated that these structures tend to ’’l(H>k bad" after a period of time even though they are galvanized. He asked if DeSantis would consider any other type of .structure. DeSantis said they would but explained that one of the strong points of these structures was the longevity of weathering. He felt that maintaining the building would not be a problem since it would be similar to some boat maintenance. Berg asked if the struemres would be leased. DeSantis confirmed that they could be with an option to buy. He stated dock K)xes do not provide sufficient varlume for storage. Schanrder stated he would be inclined to find some type of storage for the personal lawn mower, etc. close to the existing building. He would be opposed to any type of "mini-storage" as there are off-site options for this. Smith suggested DeSantis consider enlarging the existing outside shed (which has the same outside siding) and using some inside cabinetry for life preservers, etc. Although this may not be ideal to the applicant, it may be a workable compromise. DeSantis stated it would depend on what could be attached. There is a need to store pumps. Currently the shed houses on'y electrical equipment. He questioned if he would gain cnougi. storage by enlarging the shed but thought it would worth a try. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Lindquist, to deny Application #1874 for the requested hardcover and lakeshore setback variances for two storage structures, 'fhe propo.sed location is unacceptable and there d.ies iu)t .seem to be enough ot a hardship. DeSantis asked if the structures were moved to the parking spaces out of the 0-75’ setback area and only one structure used, would the objection be removed. Schroeder noted the 0-75’ setback issued would be addressed but the nature ot the building and hardcover are still issue^. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#3) #1874 GARY DESANTIS/SAILORS WORLD - CONT. Nolan felt that if something long and narrow could be done along the building it would solve the issue of aesthetics, no structural hardcover would be added to Uie site and it would pan ide some storage, probably not all. but would be an improvement. Gaffron stated that if the application were denied and sent to Council. Council could send it back to Planning Commission for further consideration. Fabling the application would bring it back to Planning Commission without any Council input. DeSantis would prefer to have the application tabled. Schroeder noted the feeling of the Planning Commission was to have a limited structure that w as compatible with the existing building, used principally for personal use and not rented out. Lindquist added that further seasonal storage needs should be considered for off-site kKations. Peterson and Lindquist withdrew their motion. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson, to table Application #1874 for a request for hardcover and lakeslu)ie .setback variances to place two 8’ x 8* x 20’ storage modules on marina property. Ayes 6. nays 0. (#4) #1878 CHARLES AND SHIRLEY PYLE 3548 IVY PLACE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 P.M. - 8:40 P.M. Tlie Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Charles Pyle was present. Gaffron reviewed the request explaining the current request is slightly different than that approved in 1992. The previous application included an addition to the side of the house, a covered entry way and replacement of detached garage. There were some hardcover trade-offs in the 0-75’ and 250-500’ setback areas. In the new application, no changes are proposed to the driveway or garage. The addition to the house is still propt)sed w ith some hardcover removals. Pyle explained that the initial bid was much higher than the final bid so they had to look at some other alternatives. Schroeder asked if there were any way to reduce the driveway Nolan asked if there were a way to reduce the bieezeway. 8 r" MEVLTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18. 1993 (#4) #1878 aiARLES AND SHIRLEY PYLE Pyle explained that the architect redesigned this with the architecture of the riH>f. «Ie thought some reduction would be pt>ssihle. The garage could ni>t be moved right ik le ht'use because there are bedonun windows on that side of the house. He contlrmed that the exterior of the garage wimld be redone at the time of the rcmixJehng project. Gaffron noted the breczeway could be shortened up with less sidewalk and more green space to help reduce hardcover. Pyle stated he would be agreeable tt> some reduction in the brec/eway as well as some asphalt ir the driveway . It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Berg, to approve Application #1878 subject to reductions of approximately 10” of driveway parking apron and a portion of llie breczeway for a total hardcover reduction of approximately 250 s.f. The new des:gn will be brought to Council. Other conditions recommended by staff are still appropriate other dian the change in percentage. Ayes 6, nays 0. (#5) ALLEN AND KATHLEEN BAKKE 1127 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:42 P.M. - 9:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Allen and Kathleen Bakke were present. Gaffron explained that this applicaliiin is a result of the neighbor getting a survey’ and finding the Bakke ’s fence to be over the lot line and the deck too close to the lot line. Upon investigation, it was found the decks were done in 1985 without a building permit. Bakke confirmed that the existing deck was refurbished in 1985 with an additional deck to the front. He stated he had conversation with Tom Jacobs, the Building Olticial at that time, who told him no pennit was necessary to refurbish the deck. He feels there were inaccurate surveys which is why the fence was not w ithin the Bakke lot line. The east side fence has been moved within the Bakke property line. Gaffron addressed the issue of the shed. Bakke confirmed that the shed wt>uld be moved when they left the property. There was discussion about the accuracy of the survey submitted w ith the application. It was determined that the survey submitted, dated October 6. 1993. is accurate. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANMNi; COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18. 1993 (#5) ALLEN AND KATHLEEN BAKKE - CONT. Nolan asked ahiui the intricate pipe structure on the roof. Bakke explained it uas for solar heating of the fKxd. Peterson asked about the fence to the back of the property shown on the survey that indicates it is 2* over the lot line. Bakke stated he would move it within his line although the neighbor said there was no problem to leave it where it was. l^Merson thought the deck should be approved since it was done so long ago but the fence should be moved to comply with the lot line. The other fence had already been removed. Schroeder asked if there were any other removals possible since there is still an excess of hardcover. Gattron explained that in the 250-500' zere from the lake, only 30% of the property is allowed to be in hard surface which includes Juveways, sidewalks, retaining w'alls, landscaped areas underlain with plastic or fabric, etc. He did not think there was any way to reduce hardcover other than removing some of the driveway or the existing decks. 32% hardcover probably existed prior to the deck addition, now 35% exists. Bakke stated the turnaround w.ts not necessary as they were able to back out. I'he shed currently occupies that space but w ill be moved so this portion of paved area could be removed. Smith asked about any precedents being set regarding after-the-fact variances for decks. Peteison felt that, in this case, the deck construction is so old it is difficult to deal with but otherwise these after-the-fact variances should be dealt with very carefully. Smith did not want it to appear that as a violation becomes older, it may be overlooked. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Berg, to approve Application /i'lSTQ subject to the removal of the shed, removal of the backup apron in the driveway as drawn and moving the fence so it no longer encroaches the neighboring property. Ayes 5, nays 1. Planning Commission members agreed there should be an after-the-fact variance application fee paid and after-the-fact building permit fee. Smith referred to an earner application (Sieffs) which was tabled because the Commission did not feel they could appt-ove extensive decking. Although the Bakke decking is older, she did not feel that time should make a difference in the approach to the application. Nolan felt there were differences with the Sieff application such as; 1 . fhe Sitjff s had very intense hardcover/decking - probably twice tliat as Bakke ’s. 1 k MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18. 19Q3 im ALLEN AND KATHLEEN BAKKE - CONT. 2.By taking the removals proposed at Bakke's. they come very close to conformance of the hardcv)ver requirements. 3. Fewer concessit>ns were cranted by the Sieff's. Smith wanted to be sure that Planning Commission was not sending messages to residents that you can "go do what you want to do and hope you don't get caught; and the longer you go without getting caught, the more likelv it is that you can continue to have what it is that you wanted in the first place". Schroeder noted that the applicant apparently had conversation with the Building Official at the time the construction was done. iff6) /j'lSSO THOMAS AND JANE REGNIER 1205 ELMWOOD AVENUE - VARIANCE (RENEWAL) - PUBLIC HEARING 9:07 - 9:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Thomas Regnier was present. Gaffron explained this was a renewal application with no changes from the original application approved in 1990. The proposal requests a side street setback variance for construction ot an addition. Schroeder asked about removing the fence. Regnier confirmed that the fenced area would be removed with the landscaping improvements. Smith asked if the graveled area was actively used for parking noting there was a car and two boats at this site. Regnier explained the boat is waning for some repairs and the yellow car will be removed from the site. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Smith, to approve Application #1880 for Tliomas Regnier, 1205 Elmwood Avenue, for the renewal variance of a side street setback variance for construction of additions to the existing residence. Ayes 6, nays 0. (#7) #1882 JOHN M. O’SULLIVAN/O’SULLIVAN’S 2420 SHADYWOOD ROAD - CO.MMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING John O'Sullivan requested to be moved to the end of the Agenda MIMTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18. 1993 (#8) #1883 STEVEN M. ENGLUND 3855 CHERRY AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:13 P.M. - 9:35 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailimj were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Steve linglund were present. Gaffron explained this was a lot area variance for deteu’vning the buildability of a lot that is 0.37 acre. The Zoning Code requires .5 acre. Alth(v/,n several relatives own neighboring parcels, no additional land is available. The lot is 100 ’ wide and meets that standard. Some drainage improvements have been made. A drainage culvert was installed in ci^nsuliation with the Public Works IX'partment on the neighboring Anderson property. There are mature trees on the pri>perty and it is not a designated wetland according to the maps. The property is in the 250-500 ’ hardcover zone where 30% hardcover is allowed. The conceptual proposal would not be a problem on this lot. No other variances .vould be proposed. The property has been assessed for sewer and a well w'ould be required. A 14 ’ alley to the rear would not be necessary to vacate. 15% lot coverage is allowed. Lot sizes vary in the neighborhood and this lot is not inconsistent with the area. Lindquist asked why Englund had no proposed house plan. Englund resptmded that he wanted to be sure the lot was buildable before incurring the expense of designing a home. Smith asked how much fill would be required because of the steep bank from the street to the proposed home site. Englund stated he hoped to move as few trees as possible. He would fill only what is necessary from the road to the hi>usc and the driveway would be level with the road. Some berming may be necessary. Englund noted that fill required would be approximately 5-6 ’ in height. A neighbor questioned what was being proposed and expressed concern over previous wartr problems in this area. Englund confirmed there would be no grading on the back of Ute lot. He noted an excessive amount of water in the spring that had drained as a result of the culvert installation. Gaffron explained there would be a significant amount of fil. for the driveway and yard berming but likely none under the house. If fill comes in piecemeal before the building permit is issued, a conditional use permit would be required. If all fill is brought in at the time of house consliuction, it can be brought in as part of the building permit. Smith asked if how the fill was brought in tu>uld af fect the drainage. Gaffron responded that a grading plan would be required before any fill was btought onto the property. 12 ^TJiTr I I ."I*-rx ' MIMTKS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#8) /J'1883 STEVEN M. ENGLITVD - CONT. Lindquist expressed his coneern over the drainage issue and cautioned the applicant as he prcKeeds with development of the pri'perty. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, to approve Application #1883 for Steven Lnglund. 3855 Cherry Avenue, for a lot area variance for construction of a single family residence on a 0.37 acre parcel subject to conditions 1-5 as listed in the staff memo dated October 5. 1993. Ayes 6. nays 0. (#9) #1884 ORV ILLE FISHER 475 OXFORD ROAD, AI-TER-THE-FACT VARIANCE - PI BLIC HEARINX; 9:45 P.M - 10:12 P..M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Orville Fisher was present. Gaffron explained that a ctimplaint had been received from a resident that there had been .some tree cutting in the 0-75’ zone. Upon investigation, a Stop Work Order was is.sued as there had been a number of trees, 6 ' in diameter or greater, removed in the 0-75’ zone as well as intensive vegetation clearing. Tree cutting in the 0-75’ setback area is not allowed by City Code. In addition, Shoreland Regulations that were adopted about one year ago prohibit intensive vegetation cutting and clearing in the 0-7.'*’ zone. Violati(>n tags have been issued and are pending in the courts. The applicant has had previous grading violations in the 0-75’ setback area on previous property. Staff would recommend denial of the after-the-fact variance and kx)k at the proposed restoration plan to consider if it meets standards the City should require. Gaffron noted other activity on the property as there is a sewer connection and remodeling occurring which is separate from the tree cutting issue. Fisher apologized to the public. Planning Commission and staff regarding the tree cutting and stated it was not done intentionally. He explained that a college .student had done the work while the Fishers were out of town and was given instructions not to cut within the 0-75’ zone. Both the college student and Fisher incorrectly measured from the shoreline. Fisher noted he contacted a surveyor to verify the 75’ .setback line so they could determine the extent of the damage, and he also contacted Jeanne Mabusth to begin steps for restoration and corrections. He is not asking for approval of an after-the-fact variance but determine what will be necessary to correct the problem. A landscaper has been hired to develop a plan for restoration of what had existed. Boxelder trees were removed but they would be replaced with trees (as large as possible) that could survive m a low level, high water table area. A bo.xelder is considered a weed tree that can ’t be purchased commercially so more expensive trees will be replaced. 13 .MINT TES OF THE ORONO PEANMNO COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 W »j'I884 ORVILLE FISHER - CONT. Melvin J. Peterson, who tonnerly lived on the pn>perty and is technically the current owner as the closing has not yet taken place, expressed his concern over w hat impact the current prohlems could have on the Novemher closinc. He did not know about anv of the activitv in the vard or W » m ^ tree cutting. I'isher noted the title is a transfer for a Contract for Deed. Schriveder noted that typically the Planning Commission deals with the owner of the pniperiy. not a future owner. Since the issue is with the applicant, it will be assumed he is the owner. Schroeder asked why Fisher wanted to cut the trees since he was fully aware of the City's position of activity in the 0-75' setback area because of previous problems. Fisher explained they did not want to cut as many as were cut but wanted to gain additional views. Schri>eder asked how he would gain views by cutting only trees from 75' back since there would still be trees in the 0-75' area. lusher responded that most of the larger trees were 60' and back and thought that was beyond the 75' setback. He had assumed the water was at a high water mark this year although he did not have a survey. lie measured from the waterline with a tape measure. Gaffron explained this would not work because the water is actually lower than normal at a 929 elevation. SclmH.*der pointed I'ut that had Fisher cut t^nly from the 75' line back, it would not have helped his views. Fisher did not want the area clear cut because there is a neighboring tennis court that he wanted to be left screened. Lindquist asked how large the trees being proposed for replacement would be. Fisher responded thev would be Ash and Linden trees as tall as tln)se taken out and 4-5" in diameter. .Schrtteder asked if al! trees taken out would be replaced, even those out of the 75' zone. Fisher confirmed not all of them would be replaced. Lindquist asked if the proposed screen on the south side would be done at the same time as the rest of the replacement. Fisher responded that currently only 12-13 tree." were scheduled to be replaced in the 0-75' zone. Schroeder asked if the City could do anything about requiring tree replacement outside of the 0-75’ /one given the nature of this particular issue. Gaffron felt it could be lied to mitigation of the area I’eterson asked how staff fell about the planting proposal. Gaffron responded that there had existed understory and screening, and that the replantings proposed might have a different character which might bt! considered gtnKl or bad. If the root sy stem is still in place, some of the understory may grow back which would be belter than if it were all grubbed out. Nolan noted the 4-5" trees to be replaced would require large equipment to do the work. He felt understory would be desirable and asked about the discussion of gray-twig dogwood. MINI TES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#9) /('I884 ORVILLE FISHER - CONT. Gaft'ron explaimnJ that the latvJscapcr had suggested gray-twig dogwixxl as a species tliai would thrive in this type of environment. Nolan questioned the number of trees being replaced, noting there were many more trees cut when the smaller trees and understory are considered. He felt the applicant may be getting just what he warted by clear cutting the area and then only replacing a few trees. I his is similar to the prevH us discussion aK>ut after-the-fact variances. The City would not want to set an example that it is ok to do as you want and you have a problem only if you get caught. Tliis problen- is really t)nly paying a little extra money tt> get what you wanted in the first place. I'i.sher stated this was not his intent. He had a .surveyor identify each tree and its location so the replacement would be in the same location. The new trees will actually provide more screening than the lower bo.xclder trees that were previously there. From the house, the Fishers actually looked over the btuelder trees while the new trees will be much taller and larger. They will he placed in the exact location of the previous trees. Schroeder thought it would be a long time before the trees would be large enough to impact the views. Lindquist a.skeJ what could be done other than replant the larger trees and add some underslory. S.^’roeder thought that since this is a chance to make improvements, everything should be done to make improvements. Lindquist stated that if the situation was to improve, more trees would be required. Fisher staled the project ctiuld become quite costly. Schnvder responded that, "With all due respect, cost was not a relevant consideration since the situation was avoidable. The goal now is to do the right thing for the City and protect the lake." Lindquist asked what would be a reasonable amount ol plantings to replace what was destroyed. Gaffion suggested the landscaper. Dale Gustafson, would be able to help resolve that issue. Peterson staled that the IManning Commissii'ii was being asked to consider the after-the-fact variance, not plar for the restoration. Schroeder indicated a restoration plan was included so may need consideration. Nolan did not want to accept the plan as submitted. Smith added she would like to see a combination of larger trees and undersiory to tome close to restoring the area as it was. It was moved by Schrivder. sectinded by Nolan, to deny Applicatii>n 4^1884 for Orville Fisher. 475 Oxford Road, for an after-the-fact variance related to clear cutting in the rc.stricted 0-75 ’ zone. Staff is directed to work w ith the Fisher ’s landscape engineer to develop a plan that would 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#9) #1884 ORVILLE FISHER - CONT. compensate for the large trees taken out and to plant understt>r> so as to duplicate i>r im|)rove what existed prior to the clear cutting. This plan should be complete prior to the next C»uincil meeting so the plantings can be done as swn as possible this fall. Ayes 6. nays 0. Hurr commented that the Hennepin Soils office has criteria that has been established on a buffer strip that may be helpful. y I:, (#7) #1882 JOHN M. O’SLULIVAN/O’SULLIVAN’S 2420 SHADYWOOD ROAD - COMMERCIAL SIT’ HEARING 10:15 P.M. - 10:55 P.M. vN REVIEW - PUBLIC The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. John O’Sullivan was present. Gaffron explained that in 1987 the City did a commercial site plan review for this property. One of the City's requirements was that a fire lane be established. It was brought to the attention of the building inspector by the Orono police that the fire lane is not accomplishing what it was intended to do. The building inspector has required that the property owner stripe and mark the fire lane. The property owner feels he should not be required to do so. Tliis application is essentially a request for an amendment tc the conunercial site plan approved previously. Schroeder asked why this application was before the Planning Commission. Gaffron explained that it is part of the appeal prcKcss stated in the Code when the applicant does not want to comply with City requirements. Because Mound is a coutract city, the appeal process is to the City Council, not to the State hire Marshal. O'Sullivan gave a summary of his position on how this situation came about. He noted in Februaiy of 1988 he was given a permit that stated he ct)mplied with all conditions. He indicated there never has been any siripittg or signage indicating a fire lane and he has operated 5 1/2 vears without these. O’Sullivan continued that on July 15. 1993 an Orono police officer tagged one of O'Sullivan's employees for parking, a motorcycle in the storefront, and that the employee told the officer that other officers have stopped at the station and said they wDuld not tag anyone lor parking there •nd it wasn't a legal fire lane. O'Sullivan noted that the citation ended up being revoked but It became an issue with the Chief, and this resulted in a letter from Stephen Sullivan. Chief of Police, lo O'Sullivan, dated July 28. 1993. (O Sullivan gave copies of this letter to Planning Commission members.) MIMTES OF THE ORONO PEANMNT. COMMISSION MEETINO HEIDfKTOBER 18, 1993 (#7) #1882 JOHN M. O'SULLIVAN/O'SULUVAVS - CONT. O'Sullivan ’s response, in a letter dated August 10. 1993 t»> Steve Sullivan, included the statement "I am not aware t)f any officers parking in t>ur fire laiK' and my night managers have also confirmed this. We do not have a leeal fire lane and i>nlv consider the area direetiv in front of our entranee^exit dmirs a No Parking area.” O'Sullivan indicated he sent the letter to the Chief because they sit on the board together on a monthly basis, and he assumc*d that the letter he sent wtnild not be shared with the officers, lie Slated he felt the officers were getting some "unfair heat", lie in'ted that he also ct'pied the letter to the Orono Pt>lice Officers Onion representative so they would km>w O'Sullivan's feelings on the matter. O'Sullivan continued that this lead to an interoffice memo dated August 9 Ifom Officer Larry Toincheck to Chief Sullivan regarding the research he did as to whether O’Sullivan's had a fire lane. Apparently Tomcheck concluded that iliere is no code for it or no need for a fire lane. O'Sullivan staled the iK*xt event was a meeting in late August on O'Sullivan's property with Fire Marshal Jerry Babb. Officer Tomcheck and O'Sullivan. He noted that Babb staled there was no ctKie mandating a fire lane and it was ludicrous to impose it on O'Sullivan as other stations did not have file lanes, and Babb told O'Sullivan it w'ould only be enforced if he wanted to have a fire lane. Babb concluded by saying that if the City required O’Sullivan to put up a fire lane, it would have to be enforced with every other business in Orono. O'Sullivan indicated that at that point, he did not think there was any further issue. O'Sullivan continued that later Lyle Oman. Orono Building Official, met with him with the original site plan stating that the fire lane was part of the original resolution and must be enforced. O'Sullivan felt that his customers who had been parking in this area lor the past 5 1/2 vears would be upset when they were cited for parking in that area. O'Sullivan indicated that oti approximately September 25, he had a phone conversation with Jerry Babb regarding the past issues and asked Babb for a written letter confirming the fact that no fire lane was necessary. On October 5. O'Sullivan received a letter troiii the Mound Fire Chief regarding the designation ot a fire lane. There was nothing in the letter that said anything abviut a City or State code that wimld reijuire the fire lane. The letter was signed by the Fire Chi«*f and two Fire Marshals, one of them being Jerry Babb, lie questiivned who had caused these people to change their minds bet did not call either one of them. O'Sullivan noted he then talked with some members of the Orono Council as he expected further problems over this issue. On September 24 he I tied this application w iili the City since he didn't know' how else to priveed. MINirrES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18. 1993 (#7) #1882 JOILN M. O Sl LLIVAN 0'S11.LI\ AN S - CONT. O'Sullivan then distributed to the Planning Commission a let'cr. dated October 18. 1993, to John O'Sullivan fnmi Officer Tomcheck who could not be at the Planning Commission meeting. O'Sullivan quoted from Officer Tomcheck's letter: "Mr. Oman said that there could be something in the building plans, but said to me that Tom Jacobs, the former building inspector, may have placed a fire lane on tlie building plan, but he is unauthorized to do so." O'Sullivan noted he confirmed that with Don Brv’ce. Mound Fire Chief. He also wanted Bryce to explain why he needed a fire lane for "life safety" because he felt thev had a very safe facility. O'Sullivan stated that on October 18 he talked with the State Fire Marshal's Office who stated that if he were 150' off of the road, a designated fire lane would be required. He has three access points and is less than 150' off the road so there is no issue with that. Peterson noted that the 1987 building permit application and variance did require a fire lane. O’Sullivan stated that the axle the Chief quotes indicates that the fire lane can only be designated by the Fire Chief, not a Building Inspector. Therefore, O’Sullivan would argue that he never had a legal fire lane since it was improperly imposed by Tom Jacobs. O'Sullivan closed with the following points: 1. They have gone over 5 years witliout a fire lane. 2. He contends they never had a fire lane because Tom Jacobs did not have the authority to impose one on the site plan 3. The plan was not approved by the Mound Fire Department. 4. Immediate competitors do not have fire lanes. 5. He feels he is being discriminated against w ith a required fire lane since other businesses do not have this requirement. 6. Surrounding communities do not require fire lanes, including Way/ata, Plymouth, Shorewood, Tonka Bay, and Excelsior. 7. Pictures were passed around of neighboring businesses that do not have designated fire lanes. O'Sullivan noted that he had called Don Bryce and asked why he changed his stance on the fire lane issue, and Bryce had agreed there is no code and stated he did it to appease the t>olicc department. O'Sullivan also indicated he found out that ti e letter had not been written by Bryce but by Mike Palm, one of ihe Fire Marshals. MLNLTES OF THE ORONO PLANMNC COMMISSION MEETLNG HELD OC'TOBER 18, 1993 (#7) #1882 JOHN M. O'SULLIVAN/O'SlLLn AN’S - CONT. O’Sullivan went on to say that Brvce '•topped at O Sullivan s at 5:?0 p m. ttxlay and asked if he v^ould agree with striping a small area in front of the wmd'ms. He did ni't agree because of the principle of the issue when no i>ne else is asked to do the same thing. He noted that Bryce agreed there was no site obstruction because the cash register is on a platform and overKH)ks the gas pumps. Peterson asked if O’Sullivan had ever received a registered Witer from the Chief of Police of Orono Slating that a fire lane was required on the property. O’Sullivan responded that he had not. Petersi>n then asked Gaffron to Kx)k at Orono Code Section *^.34. Section 7 (C) where there is discussion about the Fire Marshal and the Mound Fire Chief. Peterson quoted. " Ihe Chief of Police is hereby empowered lo order the establishment, designation and tnaintenance of fire lanes cn public or private property wherever and to whatever extent as he may determiw is reasonably necessary to ensure open and unobstructed emergency access In this determinatit)n. the Police Chief (not the Fire ChieO may cotifer with and accept the recommctidations of the Building Official or the Fire Chief of the applicable Fire Service District. The Fire Lane Order shall be in writing and shall be served in person or by registered letter upon the property o”'ner of record. ' Peterson suggested that this stales it is not the Fire Chief but the Police Chief that has the right to designate the fire lane, and asked why the Chief of Police had not written such a letter. O’Sullivan noted M:al Chief Sullivan had not taken the issue up w ith him but had let others deal witli the problem. Schnvder thought the requiretnenl for fire lanes would have to be consistent and should not be applied incH)nsistently to the detriment of the business owner. Schroeder asked if a 16 ’ section of w hite striping would solve this inaltcr. O’Sullivan responded that it would for ilie Fire Chief. Schn>eder stat.-d this appears to be :m issue that the Fire Chief and Police Chief must sort out and resolve. It w'as moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, to refer the issue of fire lanes to Council ;md the Chief of Police for his opinion regarding Section 9.34 of Section 7 (C) and determination it. in fact, there is a need for a fire lane or m>t. Schroeder added that all other similar situations should also be reviewed. Ayes 6. nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#7) #1882 JOHN M. O’SULLIVAN O'SILLIVAN'S - CONT O’Sullivan asked if the municipality had the right to supersede Minnesota Fire Codes. Schroedcr stated that would require the City Attorney ’s opinion. (#10) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES/PETER ANDREA COMPANY 302^ WATERTOWN ROAD AND 2645 WATERTOWN ROAD - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR PROPOSED SUBDIAISION - NO ACTION REQUIRED Dick Ihitnam (Tandem Properties). Jim Deanovic (Peter Andrea Company). Mark Gronberg (propeny owner) and Robert Hare (broker from Burnett Realty) were present. Gaffron explained this was a sketch plan review for development of 130 acres tl Old Crvstal Bay Road and Watertown Road. Some concerns to be considered are access issues, wetlands, trails and the historic significance of the property. Putnam explained that on the west side ot Old Crv'stal Bay Road is the Coffin property consisting of approximately 62 acres. The Dickey property, on the south side of Watertown Road, is about 68 acres and contains a large arena and the site of the "Ancient Ones". The Dickey property is basically farm land with the exception ot the old homestead where there are trees and the arena. The Coffin property has a number ot tields with some torests and a number of wetland areas. When the propeny was bought, the City did not show any wetlands on the map. Other agencies define these wetland areas ditferentiy Putnam stated the plan connects the two propenies by continuing the existing public road from Old Crx stal Ba/ Road to Willow Drive. The developers have talked to the Orono Park Commission. There are two plans included in the Planning Commission packet, one designed before the Park Commission meeting and one after their on-site visit and comments. Approximately 3 1/2 acres have been identified as part of the historic site including the bam. farm site and burial area. A public trail connecting the historic site to the DNR woods has been illustrated which is adjacent to the Luce l.ine. That property has been donated by the Dickey s. A trail would also be considered along Old Crystal Bay in an easement over the right-ot-way. On the Coffin property, two cul-de-sac roads are being considered because the wetlands and woods make it difficult to design a looped road. Two acre lots are bemg considered for both sites which is the zoning requirement. 24 lots could be developed on the Coffin property and 26 lots on the Dickey property. 20 MLNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING; COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#10) #1877 T.ANDEM PROPERTIES PETER ANDREA COMPANY - CONT. The Park Commission felt it would make more sense to restore the existing home rather than the bam to use for an interpretive center because it would be less expensive. Gaffron commented on the public vs. private road access issues. I^itnam expressed his surprise when thev met on site and Gaffron indicated that just because the road was platted at a 60’ right- of-way it would not be considered a public road. Putnam asked why Casco Point Road, '^here he lives, was plowed by the City- which was a cul-de-sac and the Citv' wouldn't imintam this tvoe of road Ilie developers would propose that the streets be public and publicly maintained although they have been told that is not the case. The roads would be constmeted to public standards but maintained as private. Topography, existing homes and proposed lots will determine w'here the roads w’ill be constructed. Smith asked if there had been discussions with the Native American community regarding sacred grounds She wants to be assured that nothing will be dismrbed that is considered sacred and there will be i.o repercussions in 50 years. She volunteered to be involved with any discussions Deanovic explained that a medicine man must come to the site to determine where sacr^ grounds exist. Two medicine men, one from Montana and the other from Canada, have already been to the site and detemi.ned the same area as sacred ground. Smith asked if members ot the local Native American community had been involved. Deanovic thought Pat Dickey would be able to confirm that this is the sacred ground as she has worked extensively with the Na ive Americans. Smith also wants confirmation directly from the Native American community that no lands will be disturbed that are considered sacred. Putnam suggested a group, be formed who 'las an interest in this issue to work on the details This group could include Smith, and representatives from the Council and Park Commission. State archaeologists have already been involved and confirmed the hillside as sacred. It is no longer legal to dig to detennme the status of sacred ground. The Native Americans object to digging but walking on it is acceptable. Smith asked about the possible consideration to maintain the horse bam as a stable and riding arena for the development. Putnam explained that has been dropped trom the plan fc. two reasons: 1) Thev were unsure if the soils were u.seable in the pasture area. 2) Ihey did not have enough information when they first considered it. Feedback about having a riding arena at this location was not p'^sitive. Smith asked what the plans were for screening the lots that abut the Luce Lme on the Coffin property. Putnam explained that the existing tree lines would not be disturbed and there may be possible enhancements of the wetland area. Smith questioned the concept of an interpretive center and asked who would niainuiin it financially. The Park Commission has indicated there is not money available for mamtuia cc. 21 MINtTKS OF THE ORONO PI.ANMNG CO.NLMISSION MEETING IIKLD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#10) #1877 T.ANDEiM PROPERTIES/PETER ANDREA COMPANT - CONT. Deanovic thouehl that ii could be maintained privately after talking with Pat Dickey. Although the bam would be desirable to use, it would be more expensive. Smith would like to the see the bam kept at least in its present condition. some use of the bam. for the municipality it would make a lot of sense. Cmiih asked if the desisnated trails were on outlets so they could be converted to roads il ttal was ever desired. Putnam responded that discussions had taken place with acenctes such k he Fish and Wildlife Department and Corps of Engtneers to create a dratnage system ot ^nds that do not currently exist. The trail would be :5-30' wide and publicly dedicated but not a road. Smith asked if the location where the sweat lodges are could be protected. Putnam responded to there is no significance to where they are placed, that was just the most convement location. Putnam stated that as developers thev would like to try to create a path so that everyone benel|« Ttte Sv sav“ that path has to be subtracted from the 2-acre lot area, n may^not worthwhile For the person owning a lot and selling, it may be better not to have the trad. However, for the benefit of the whole area, a trail makes a lot of sense. Schroeder asked the status of the trail along Old Crystal Pay Road. Gaffron ^ h'';; come to a hah and did not know how the agreements with the property owners along the had turned out. Money continues to be a problem. Peterson asked what the feelings were about the possible choice of a southern comdor for Highway 12 as it would greatly impact their property. Putnam felt there was some ns .'Tfkted that develonment could discourage this route as the final choice. Peterson stated that the proposal looks good but has a conce ‘ ^ ^ will it be handled if there is no septic site available on some of the lots , designed since there are wetlands scattered throughout the property. MESTJTES OF THE ORONO PI.ANMNG COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18. 1993 (#10) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTBES/PETER ANDREA COMPANY - CONT Deanovic responded that a large group had visited the site including representatives of the Watershed District. City staff. .Army Corps of Engineers. BWSR and Steve Schirmers for septic sites. In the end. City ordinances will be a determining factor. Deanovic thought 1; 1 mitigation may be possible. The Watershed representative felt this was an opportunity for improvements. One of the main issues is that what was classified as wetlands in the past differs from current definitions. Most of the wetlands were classified as Type 1. Gaffron confirmed that under MPCA standards there are cenain types of wetlands that meet the criteria for septic installation. Putnam felt their biggest problem will be dealing with the Orono ordinances relative to the setbacks for septic systems and the dry buildable land. Putnam gave e.xamples of how the wetland maps differ. According to the City map. there was 2.66 acres of wetlands on the Coffin property but 12.15 acres have been identified by their consultant using current methods. Deanovic explained that City maps were done in 1974 and wetlands were identified under different standards on a black and white aerial photo. Although the Dickey property showed no wetlands on City maps, surveyors designated approximately 4 acres. Putnam explained that on the Coffin property of 62 acres, if the City maps were used lot sizes would be 2.47 acres. If the wetlands were subtracted, lot sizes would be reduced to 2.08 acres. The City will have to decide how to deal with the wetland designations. Deanovic commented that they had discussed with other agencies how they felt about changing some of the wetlands. They were agreeable since better wetlands would be built rather than a "rut in a field". Putnam stated that according to Orono's code, it they created a NURP pond or wetland, that would have to be subtracted off of the tw'o acres. At this time it is a 1:1 replacement but after January' 1 it will be 2:1. The way it stands now. if four acres of wetland were altered at this site, four acres of wetland would have to be replaced somewhere else. This could be done on site, within the Watershed District or within the County. If. for example, a wetland were replaced in Medina, what benefit does that have for Orono even though it meets the State requirements? Ihitnain noted that staff had suggested to Putnam he not look at planned development since this property is not in a sewered area. Meeting a 2-acre requirement may create a problem on some of the lots with the wetlands considered and meeting the 75 setback from the wetlands for septic systems. 23 MINXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#10) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES/PETER /VNDREA COMPANY - CONT Deanovic pointed out that no matter how the lot sizes are calculated, they are over 2 acres. Problems in the French Creek development may have been caused by not having full di' closurc. Gaffron explained there were designated septic sites in that planned development ot l-i.25 acre sites. However, when the sites were developed, there were different views of \\ here the house should be placed, etc. so it was ditticult to protect the septic sites. Peterson opined that it may be the best alternative to replace wetlands in Medina if the ultimate goal is to protect wetlands even though it would be a loss to Orono. Schroeder felt the wetlands should be saved in Orono. Two people from BWSR. the governmental agency that enforces the technical wetland policies, did not favor mitigation m another arer Putnam stated at this time the ordinances don't mesh between the State and municipalities, which causes many problems. Schroeder asked how’ important it was that the lots be two acres, lie thought some ttve acre lots rnicht solve some of the problems. Putnam thought it may be more difficult on the Dickey property because there is already a pattern established. Wetlands, ponds and trees actually increase the value of the property. Their view is that the Coffin property is more valuable and the homes will be higher priced. Not all people want to have large lots they have to mow. Hare commented that economics are involved but also aesthetics, fhe developer is proposing development that may be better for the City. High ground makes a parcel more valuable. A five acre site with only one acre of dry buildable may not be any more valuable than a two acre lot that is all dry buildable. People who are looking for lots in die Orono area are looking for space between their neighbors yet want to be part ot a community. Schroeder asked w hat the expectations are of the price of the lots and homes. Deanovic thought the Dickey property would be $80,000 - $110,000 per lot and the Coffin p.operiy would be higher, more comparable to Tuckborough in Medina. Hare thought that enhancinu the wetlands may make the propeny more valuable. Putnam stated they would probably relocate some of them. This is an opportunity to alter Type 1 wetlands bnt YOU wouldn’t want to alter Type 3 wetlands, nor would that be allowed. IT Nolan asked what other developments the developers have done. Some of the projects th^ did were Copperfield in Mendota Heights, several projects in Eden Prairie including Summer Oaks, and many sites for Centex Homes in Eden Prairie. Plymouth, and Mendota Heights. They have not done any projects with septic systems. 24 MIM'TKS OF THK ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MKKTING IIKLD (K'TOBKR IH, 993 (#10) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES/PETER ANDRE A COMPANY - CONT. Nolan i'elt it desirable to take some of the Type 1 wetlands and integrate them through the neighborhiHKl with a gixxl plan. Some areas could be developed into more pnxluetive wetlands Mitigation on the site is preferable to kx>king in other areas. A meeting with the developer and Planning Commission members was scheduled for 900 a m, Saturday, October 23. The sketch plan will also be presented to Council at the CXiober 25 meeting. (#11) FLA(; LOTS - FINALIZE RECOMMENDATION TO COINCIL A motion was made by Schroeder. seconded by Berg, to table discussion of this item until Thursday morning at the special Planning Commission mc*eting. Ayes 6, nays 0. (#12) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE Lindquist and Petcrsim reported that in the Jundt application problem the Council did not approve a deck at the bottom of the stairway for storage in the 0-75* setback zone. Council requested that adequate hardships be stated on the applications. Surveys need to be accurate. Council denied the Spinner application as the Planning Commission had recommended. Nolan commented that the Spinner survey was inaccurate and had K*en pointed out. (#13) OTHER ISSl iES Smith mentU'ned the meeting with Umg Lake and Orono with a mediator over the Highway 12 issue. This was the second meeting and Smith is attending them. A MnDOT representative is available as a technical advisor. Orono is represented by the entire Council. These meetings run parallel to the Policy Committee meetings which are MnDOT meetings. Two meeting dates are set in November and again in January. The meetings are open to the publi,' and held at the Orono Council Chambers. Smith commented that MnDOT stated the rea.son they are Kx)king at Highway 12 upgrades is because the pc\>ple from Wilmar want to get into the Cuies. Schr(x.*dcr reminded members further discussion needs to take place before me end of November regarding the B-2 zone and encouraged members to visit all of the marinas. Schroeder stated Mabusth had checked into insurance for Planning Commission members His question was vvhether they are insured if they injure a dog, etc., not if one of the members is injured on an inspection. Gaffron will research further. 25 1 minutes of the ORONO FLANNING COMAti.^SlON IVfFETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (114) APTROVAI. OF MlNimtS ft WM moved by Pwenon. Mconded by Liiuiquist, to approve O'c minutes of the Sepicuiber 20, 19S13 Ptanning Commiiiion mBcting. Ayes 6, nays 0. 01S) IBPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNCa MEETING B«ff vehiittBeml to atiead the Novvmbor 8. 1993 Council meeting. (#14) PLANNING O A,M« 10 1 k'S'l [ON - PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 21, 1993 AT 8:80 Schroeder reminded wembers of the Thutsday m»xilng rcgardlag the G^nprelwmivc Plan Amendment. adjournment li WM moved by Peterson, seconded by Lindquist, to adjourn the regular Plaoiung Cummimon meeting at 12:38 p.m. A. Charlc.^ Chair Person. V %-V- . .. ffAjnui PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1993, 7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COl^CIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIYT: - Charles Kelley ATTENDANCE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARLNG\PUBLIC ESTORMATION MEETING 1, 7:00 p.m.#1875 Frederick and David White, ISO North Shore Drive West preliminar)' subdivision (Renewal) • pubac hearing. 2. 7:15 p.m.#1876 James W Ogland/Donald .1. Stoyke, 3345/3339 Cry stal Bay Road vacation of road - public hearing. ACTION ITEMS - Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. Applicants presenting variance requests before the Commission arc asked to move to the podium at the front of the Chambers when their application is announced by the Chairman. 3. 4. #1874 Gary DeSantis/Sailors World, 1955 Shoreline Drive - varia.ices - public hearing. #1878 Charles and Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place - variaitces - publi; hearing. 5. 6. #1879 Allen and Kathleen Bakke, 1127 Loma Linda Avenue - variance - public hearing. 7. #1880 Thomas and Jane Regnier, 1205 Elmwood Avenue - variance (renewal) - public hearing. #1882 John M. O’SuHivan/O’Sullivan’s. 2420 Shadywood Road - commeicial site plan review - public hearing. 8. #1883 Sicvcn M. Englund. 3855 Cherry Avenue - variance - public hearing. 9. #1884 Orville Fisher, 475 Oxford Road - varia'ice - public hearing. Sketch Plan Review 10. #1877 Tandem Properties/Peter Andrea Company - 3025 Watertown Road and ,i645 Watertown Road - sketch plan review for proposed subdivision - no action required. i i p PL.\NNESG CO^DIISSION MEETING - MONDAY OCTOBER 18, 1993, 7:00 P.M. Planning Issues 11. Flag lots - finalize recommendation to Council Plannliig rommissioii Comments 12. Report by Planning Commission Representative to Council Meeting of October 11, 1993 13. Other issues for discussion. Additional Items 14. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the September 20, 1993 meeting. 15. Planning Commission to select a representative to attend tl.e November 8, 1993 meeting of the Council. 16. Planning Commission - public hearing October 21, 1993 at 8:00 a.m. - Comprehensive Plan Amendment. ADJOURNMENT Si itllMlI Ml % w*. • Plar.r.ir.q C::133-C MEETING DATE 'P^/F MCITY OF ORONO PLEASE FILL OUT THE ILFCEMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOL OUR CITY RECORDS. ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) 1 V ^ y iC A A. t1 • Vj / AA ^ j\yy 1 i-------------------------- —■»■ <, ' A c b . _ -------------—---------------- •«» Q Q 1 n 1 t1 • —---------- — 1 ^i Z m ------------------------------ ----- 1 *1 1 i J . ------------------- 1 A14. .. ID. _______________—------------------------ 1 clb. ------------------ 1 *71 / . ---------------------------- 1 Q 1 Q 20 . n ?? rf. a ? I o’ S i?!l a ‘ 18 I? si wo o. £ Uk t/)?rr» S- i I i t|l il I oa » ®I °1 B^ O •oe2 R s Ui 1/3 «• 3 21 2 f W tr I ^ > I -J 5 »• s (? 00 • S’ ■g s |2 ISci *= = S IyT tJ § in ? 25 ^•« _ I w os. I o •o § Is '^51o 3fct »-. S w *2 »j 0 m 3 *;1 > rt g 3. 3u? Ei.w* I •Scr I rt:tu tt) & n -1 >< B i K to to -I * t4.3 I. S' g ■9 •?r fi s'/« I ? ii 1 K I I nils 9 i- m3 H - S d I Tl1 u 2II f". 2 i 3- ** 31 I u '^1 •a S •a 3. II § 1; C* H-I - •o - 3.5 13 05 4 I I I 5 I a 1 ?v Ot ■o 3 I ^ • otj 'W c E7 IB. S’ ir. »r •1 t XJ* Ci U> U< 'O n•3 £ '< 8 ri *v5 Ik d Si § .si ■i|a 3 2& 1 -5 a - on i§. • 3 •3 * 2 ^ n- -3 t/l S' an. r» S3s io Pe sr 0? Qa n 3o 5s: do >»a 5? no5 P S *T3 >I i d ^ »*3 i°S5 Q ?g§ njsg r- 9 P-5^ V o ms fc'f' To:Chairman Schroeder arxl Orono Planning Commission Meml'«re Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Assisunt Planning & Zoning Administrator October 14, 1993 #1875 Frederick aiKi David \^Tiite, 180 North Shore Drive West - Preliminary Subdivision (Renewal) - Public Hearing Zoning District: Application: RR-IB, two acre Request for renewal of preliminary plat approval granted via Resolution No. 2508 on September 28, 1988 (preliminary approval expired September 1989). That aoproval was to split off a 3.5 acre parcel containing the existing house from Lie total 17.2 acre parcel, leaving remaining 13.7 acres as an outlet for future development. List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J K L Application Plat Map Property Owners List Preliminary Plat Drawing Dtd 9/10/88 Resolution No. 2508 Letter to Don Kempf 3/18/93 Letter to David White 4/19/91 Notice of Council Action 9/29/88 Council Minutes 9/28/88 Staff Memo 9/22/88 Planning Commission Mmutes 9/19/88 Memo 9/15/88 w ith E.xhibits Pertinent Facts 1. Proposed Area of Outlot. A Proposed Area of l ot 1 Total Are.i Existing Wet Dry Total l.I ac 12.6 13.7 1.5 2 0 3,5 2.6 14.6 17.2 ac 2.17’ Additional Dedication for R.O.W. of County Rd. 19;Approximately 0.21 ac (dry) (North line of proposed Lot 1 must move northward slightly to keep 2.0 dry acres after R.O.W. dedication) I m%jv LJ Zoning File #1875 October 14, 1993 Page 2 3. 4. 5. This subdivision results from a 19S4 purchase agreement between the Whites and Don Kempf for sale of the existing house with a two-acre parcel of land. The application originally came to the City in 1988 proposing a three-acre lot w ith the house, a four- acre lot to the north and east, and the remaining nine acres as an outlot. One can trace the discussions that Planning Commission had in 1988 through the attached memos and minutes. Briefly. City requirements for an internal road system, defining septic sites, etc. convinced the applicant to revise the request to merely splitting off a lot for the house, leaving the remaining property as an outlot for future development. The Planning Commission and Council both agreed to this proposal since the wetland at the south end of the property makes it unlikely that the house would ever be served by an interior road. Therefore, it seemed reasonable to allow it to be split off w ith enough acreage to meet City requirements and include an alternate drainfield site. The original preliminar>' plat approval in 1988 (see Resolution No. 2508) included the following unique conditions; d.17’ of right-of-way for County Road 19 to be dedicated on the plat. Although the applicant feels this is not a reasonable dedication, the City has deemed County Road 19 and its "ring-route" connection to Highway 12 as a major traffic corridor, and 100 ’ right-of-way is consistent with the McCulley Road right-of- way. Further, Hennepin County DOT has requested the additional 17’. b.All future development in Outlot A must be served by interior roads, but the existing house may continue to access onto County Ro^ 19. c.A conservation and flowage casement shall be granted over the wetland located in Lot 1 and Outlot A. d. No building pennils will be issued for Outlot A until it is further subdivided and served by an interior road. Additionally, note that this outlet status results in no park land dedication or fee being required until the future subdivision of Outlot A. Staff Recommendation This application is submitted as a simple renewal of the approval granted in 1988, with no changes. Planning Commission has the option to address any or all of the development issues noted in the previous application documents if you so desire. Any recommendation for approval should include the findings, conditions and requirements as outlined in Resolution No. 2508, subject to the update fees, etc. noted in the March 18, 1993 letter to Don Kempf. CITY OP ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Mnrfh nr. w_ _ _ _ _ #-IS- 7 5 Property Identification Nur.ber (P.I.D.) ->? nnni---- 1 Please check cne - Property _ _ _ abstract or x torrens? Attach legal description to application. f'/t-Q ^ j^PLICANT Phone (hoine Phone (work) ffii ?U7S-fi7?7______Nauiie Frederick C. Whitef^ David L. Khite^ (address below) Address; 14195 Paul's Dr. City; Rogers_________ Zip: 55J71 OflNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name David L. White(5i Frederick C. White) Iaddress above) Address: 1189 Eckert Ave. SE_____ City; Buffalo (attach list if more than one) Phone (work) Zip: 55313 EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size 12. 3.9 16 + Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check)Residential; no. of units Other (specify)___________ “f Present Zoning District hr-IB . V ' •* ; • •• PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) . - v‘ ✓ X Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites; 1_ _ _ 1 Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density; Minimum Lot Size; Proposed Use: (check) Units per Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) MlVimm MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY A^iUcATION 1. 2. 3. I Completed Application Form in Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey, Certified Property Ovmers 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 any other persons you wish notified of this appli Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is ccsnplete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Payment of fees (par)c fees., filing fee, sewer and water assessments). Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. Title opinion. Easements, Covenants, etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FEES S)cetch Plan Review (Class I, II S III) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $200.00 300.00 Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision)300.00 Preliminary Review (class III & all non-residential) 325.00 + 25.00/Lot Pinal Plat Review (Class III) •(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 175.00 ^ Renewal of Preliminary Subdivision Application Renewal of Final Subdivision Application 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 V. «Date 9/Z-6/9 S / Ovmer' s Signature C 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 ma)ce arrangements to have en authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. r j "I Q JL O Legal description: North 580 feet of West S of Northwest k of For clarification: Applicants: Frederick C. White 14195 Pml's Dr. Rogers, MN 55374 Phone: (612)428-4236 David I. White (no Phone) 1189 Eckert Ave. SE Buffalo, MN 55313 Owners: Same iS above L -r mi L„ 1 •’*■UN DATI M/S2/M HEUMEPXM COUNTY P(»OPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM•ATCN §02 i. t i j ‘, OMtf R HAHI .-‘•.TAXPAYHI NAHE/AOOR •V /PROPAODII ..OW4CR NAIIf taxpayer I }>< NAIC/AOOR I PROP AOOR '; OHNER NAME '•i • TAXPAYER HAItE/ADOR V. ». . PROP AOOR ^ OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR « . ••i i. • A PROP AOOR I OWNER NAME (3 TAXPAYER ■t NANE/AOOR' * • m I» (i li.r ^ . f f t • " 3 ♦ A**'/' ,-i* • f 36 01-117-26 11 OOOS GARY 0 0 mOESA A REIERSEN GARY 0 0 THERESA A REIERSILH I3320 NORTHRIOGE RO HTKA HN 55363 30 00-117-23 22 0003 00100 NORTH SHORE OR U DAVID L WHITE ET AL DAVID WHITE RT 3 BOX 016 iUfFAlO HN 55313 30 06-117-23 22 0000 06665 OAYSIDE RO R S A H H OLSON ROBERT S OLSON 5010 HILLSBORO AVE N HPLS HN 55620 30 31-110-23 33 0006 ^ 06720 BAYSIDE RO B PETER ACNEY ETAL HR B PETER ACHEY ROUTE 2 BOX OOB HAPLE PUIN HN 55359 f 30 31-110-23 33 0011 PAINTERS CREEK DEVEL BRUCE R LANGE SUITE 1662 53 H JACKSON BLVD CHICAGO IL 60606 PROPERTY CM^RS LIST REPORT NO. PI635601PAGE 6 36 01-117-26 11 0006 GARY 0 A THERESA A REIERSEN GARY 0 A THERESA A REIERSEN 13320 NORTHRIOGE RO HTXA HN 55363 36 01-117-26 16 0001 00205 CO RD NO 19 CHESTER H NORHAN I WIFE CHESTER H NORHAN 205 COUNTY RO 019 HOUIE) HN 55366 3S 06-117-23 22 0006 00100 NORTH SHORE DR U 3d 06-117-23 22 0007 06665 BAYSIDE RD GEFFREDOWALO P LANGERT ETAt ^ .1 T A H L GEFF ■ DONALD P lANOCRT ipviN T GEFFRE 100 NORTH SHORE DR HAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 6665 BAYSIDE RO HAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 3B 06-117-23 23 0001 JEANNE T ARHSTROHG JEAN T ARHSTRONG 235 NORTH ARH LANE HOUND HN 55366 36 31-116-23 33 0005 06660 BAYSIDE RO ^ DAN CUFF BOBBIE A NEVA CUFF 6660 BAYSIDE RO HAPLE PUIH HN 55359 36 3M16-23 33 0007 ^ 06760 BAYSIDE RD L YOGERST A 0 DUfIN D DUNN A L YOGERST 6760 BAYSIDE RD HAPLE PUIN HI4 55359 36 31-116-23 33 0010 PAINTERS CREEK TWEL BRUCE R LAr«GE SUITE 1662 53 U JACKSON BIVD CHICAGO IL 606Q6 * « > 70 36-116-26 66 0009 00067 rr^CULLY RD URRY A SUSAN VENSEL LARRY A SUSAN VENSEL 87 HCCULLEY RD HAPLF PLAIN HN 55359 TOTAL BATCH 002 00016 A f 77 o 'n t-io a * . * »• ♦ »’ • . P « I f • 1 0 ! ' j e • t oJL Northwest Corner of 'Northwest Quarter of Sec. 6, Twp. 117, Rge. 23 Hennepin County Cost Iron o. ounn Monument ! BRUCE R. LANGE N.89°3522 E BAYSIOli' ------655.08 -----7 North line of Northwest Quorter of Sec. 6, Twp. 117, Rge. 23 ' bruce r. lance I j ^ I99I.98N I B. PETER ACHET I / \ ■_____________________________ \ / \ ROAD ;-33.00 COUNTY ROAD NO.33.00-': W 8 25.00 N00®39'50"W "^30.00 N00"39'50"W 605.14 OUTLOT A 0-6 33 S South tine of Norih 500.00 feet N09^35*22"E 241.77 East line of West 274.77 of West Holf of Northwest Quarter of Sec. 6, Twp. 117, Rge. 23 Hennepin County C Northeast Corner c of Section 6, Tov Range 23 West DRAIN SHOW! BEING LOT LI 10.00 OF ^North line of South 545.34 feet N89®27*I9-E545.34 feet LOT N09®27 ’I9”E 390.00 :: \ —Q1 • . I59;34~ Z' /N89“27 ‘19"E k: w L LOT SEPTIC TANKS \ ^ \ • 1/2 STORY WOOD \ V lOOlOO------- — 100.00 - 4ioo ..1 80.96 \ \ N D oc>j ~ O O 4»Vizzv) «i ui o o o QC 3^0.00 / >1329.37 624.47 N89«27'I9"E JEAN T. ARMSTRONG / / 234.47 \oulh line of West Half of Northwest Quorter of Northwest Quarter of Sec. 6, Twp. 117, Rge. 23 \ /■ ^ \ City of OROiNO CITY ■ OF I ORONO1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2508_________ A RESOUinOII GRAHTING PKELUmiARY APPROVAL for a plat at 180 SORTH SHORB DRIVE NEST APPLICATION #1301 WHEREAS. Fredrick C. White and David L. White on June 20. 1988, filed a £o”™“ubdl”sion apFllcatlon of a .!-lot residential plat of property legally described as follows: Exhibit "A" attached (hereinafter ’the property"): and Minnesota”s^^.s‘^^^^??^^«.^‘s';t Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public 18, 1988, and September 19, 1988, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on September 19, 1988, the ^ ^ the applicants from 2 building lots, plus split of the existing residence from the remainder of the leaving tL remainino large parcel as an outlet for future development, and L. White and Fredrick C. White, noting the following findings of fact. 1. The property is located within the RR-IB, residential zoning district requiring a minimum of 2 acres contiguous dry buildable land wxthin each newly created lot. 2. The property contains a total cf,®FProxi»"ately 17.2 acres, of which approximately 14.5 acres is considered dry buildable land. 3. The proposed plat contains 1 building lot to be known ^ containing Ihe existing residence structure, such lot exceeding the 2.0 acre minimum dry buildable lot area ^"^fres in outlot to be known as Outlot A, which is approximately 13.7 acres in total area for future development. 4, Lot 1 is proposed to continue use of the existing Y . . serving the existing residence structure. Access n,»nnecin County development of Outlot A shall be subject to City and p requireinents at the tine Outlot A is developed. Page 1 of 3 I ^1#^ kmil t .&.M W.,," f ^II k.i m«iii 'r"df i vft rt.^ if !■ it w i ■ ii' -■rWnr'R- b tmm .i r « r ' r* : s: CITY j OF OHONO^1 CITY City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2503_______ 5 The designated wetland area within Lot 1 and Outlet A shall be »4bj«t w a Conaervation and riowage Ease-ent. 6 NO additional right-of-way will be dedicated for County Road 84. - ^o%°t"hJard 'tr^ma'in Lot 1 after the dedication of right of way. the preliminary plat ror Fredrick , he’-eto as Exhibit "B" by Marvin 8?tVd l”; lT8efre*v“ed September 10. 1988, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat <^”«i"Voathea^t cornerextending eastward from the southeast 19 shall be An additional 17 of on ^Exhibit "B" attached. The north dedicated on the as ° w^ard as necessary to maintain 2.0 designated as "Outlot A . 2. Lot 1 shall continue to use Ynt^Vfthi^^^ciunty Foad 19. All future development within uuuxo served by interior roads. 3. Standard drainage and “tility ®^*isr'’lorilner^^along all lot lines, including along the perimeter lou 4. A conservation ®sha^ be Ihora ®on th^platwetland located in Lot 1 and Outlot A, and snaii o as a drainage easement. 5. No building permits will be issued^ for^Outlot A^until further subdivided and served J existing roads, subject to tr^iguir%°m1nt^-orthrc\Voror\=^^^^ Page 2 of 3 L 4 \ I City of OROINO CiTV OF ORONO ( RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2508________ “.“S" ■"<' >•«•« “"““i- °< “• V V- ■■' I L. 1 Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (i) copr«du«a to 1-200-. Drawings to include: Hn. flatted ter preliminary survey by Marvin G. «d revisaa « and per Exhibit "B" attached. property lines. c. Designation and dedication of the wetlands as drainage ease- ments on the plat. 2. Legal documents required: > Title Otinion addressed to the City of Orono. All tL«"in"\ha“n Vign°the°%” a’'nd""al!"°clhe%‘''doc"u^lnts a/fected by such interest b. The applicant -ust provide copies of all r. orded easements currently affectu ^ the property. c. Signed and executed Flowage ®/o\Tow^®'’ “overarea requiring descriptions^may be_ f^Ued __out ^as^follo«. the drainage easements as shown on the p —^—— 3. Fees to be paid. Total due: $150.00. a. Legal review and filing fees of $150.00. Adopted by t.he City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regujlar meeting held September 28» 1988. ATTi:A A -bthy Me^^llin, City Clerk ^ m n f i V v ^ James R. Grabekr Mayor Page 3 of 3 . k. j - r.'• . k ft r M r« a.i ft (AAMti VftUnafl^ j . dkl ft ftt ft <4^ 3*^ ^8 *•«».. • » • •■k' »- »• • • ' .•...• *• LAND DESCRIPTION The West Half of the Northwest Quarter of the tJorthuasl Quarter except that part of the West Z74.77 feet which lies south of the North 5B0.00 feet and north of the South 5*5.34 fe-t and except the East 17.00 feel of the West 50.00 feet of the South 470.00 feet of the North 503.00 f-»et thereo*" and except the East 15.00 feet of the West 65.00 feet of the South 30.00 feet of the North 88.00 feet thereof, Section 6, Township 117, Range 23 according to the Governnent Survey thereof. ,/-••••» •• •• • 3» ^ • • a'^• »*rr * 'i* icv* » ■ •• V- ; ..i vv. ' ’. *v*. - . r-* .• . f f*e n • '•T“ **• # •* 4 ^ •. ♦ • • • antiaii.M* - a/mx <>•« AMkakw .1 -. .. ' IH aiM^ wT . ^ I < I -k't ■«/ 'XI.A/.V>. Aa 'k*«T .itinvaa*lk«.r* .. ^ i*t *in r - r- ffM'.dfY/ » >■ r «•-.. .^..br^Ea^rvnm: 1 / [Jei'nepln County CqsI Iron o ouim' Monument ! ' iinucE£ uvNGE _ N'89 “35'22"E DAYiiiDli --------np---------------- !» PETER ACMEY V N00®39’50'*W ^30.00 NOO*39 ’5 0"W OUTLOT A •: CC Soulh line of North 580.00 feel Eos! line of WesI 2M.77 ofWfisI Holf of fforlhwcst Quoiler of Sec. 6, Twp. !|7, Rgt.23 ot»; rj Norih line of So»ilh 5^5.34 feel LOT N09»27'I9"E N09"27'I9"E t(l' 390.66zzz::_ i r I 159;ST IN09"27'I9”E .. I / w E T L LOT \I SEPTIC TANKS 'p \ I i/eSTonr vrtx)o\'. %, <5''. \ ? i j 11 's-r \ 10000 o:c3' lOO.OO - - 4^00 riELO -------------1 303,50 ____80.96 \ \ N D \ /A^<^ 390.00 y/. tiP// m ^---------235,95 ____j 5:.'o . f I”:UJO o V 1329.37 , 624.47 N8^27'|9"E JEAN T. ARMSTnONQ \ 234.47 / 'Soulh line of Wes! Half of Northwest Quarter of Northwest Ouorfer of Sec. 6, Twp. 117, Rge. 23 Hennepin County Cost Iron Monument Southwest Corner of Northwest Qunrter of Section 6, Township 117 North Range 23 West rf^ :^SDPy /b'^o4K\o\ “•*. > *_ \\< V>'u>^ ^// CITYof ORONO \\«v ^'Vesiiotfy Municipal Oflkai PtilOf!k»iofti6 Cmliri iiiv MinnsM March 18. 1993 Don Kempf P.O. Box 56 Navarre, MN 55392 RE: Subdivision at 180 North Shore Drive West (File #130U Dear Mr, Kempf: In regard to your questions regarding subdivision of the propeny at 180 North Shore Drive West, I would submit the following: 1.The Whites have never paid the "legal review and filing fee" of $150,00 (Item #3 on Page 3 of Resolution No. 2508), However, since the preliminary’ plat approval granted in that resolution e.xpired on September 28, 1989, the Whites would have to submit a formal "renewal of preliminary subdivision" application, the current fee for which is $150.00. Also note that the legal review and filing fee" has since increased to $200.00. No park dedication fee is required under the current proposal as approved in Resolution No. 2508. Also be advised that if you were to take over the plat and become the developer, you would have to file a complete new preliminary subdivision application ($300.(X) fee) and submit new documents and plat draw ings naming you as developer. You would then also be responsible for the $200.00 legal review and filing" fees. The City will not charge you the $59.00 per lot septic site evaluation report review' fee, since that review has been completed for the existing house. Regardless whether it is you or the Whites who proceed with the existing application, the entire review process will have to be recommenced. *^6 next deadline date for applications is March 26 at Noon. If an application was received by that date, it would be placed on the Planning Commission agenda or April 19. with preliminary Council approval on May 10 and the earliest feasible final plat approval on May 24. This schedule would, of course, rely on having all documentation into us by TtLtFllONE-473-7357 • R\X-473-0510 . . . -»k 1 ft ft. • . Don Kempf March 18. 1993 Page 2 3. 4. 5. March 26, and the ability of the sur\eyor to complete his final plat procedures with the County Surveyor’s Office between the Nlay 10 and May 24 Council meetings. Perhaps a more realistic scenario would be an application made by the April 23 deadline with Plannin g Commission action on May 17, Council preliminary approval on June 14 and fmal Council approval by mid-July. The Whites have never submitted the necessary survey and mylar work for final plat approval. Their surveyor would have to provide this in order for them to complete the process. If you take over as developer, you would likewise have to provide the final plat drawings and mylars, presumably done by the same surveyor the Whites used. !t is likely that if you have to use a different surveyor, your costs will be much higher, since the Whites’ surveyor has all of this on file. The six-lot subdivision you have sketched out would not be approved by the City because it does not provide_access to all lots via an interior road system which you would have to develop^ to respond to your specific question, this would substantially complicate the subdivision, probably adding a minimal amount of time but a great amount of expense to your costs, i.e.: Private road review/inspection fee OR $600.00 + $.50/lineal foot Public road review & inspection fee On-site system site evaluation review fees Preliminary subdivision review fee (Class III) Final plat review fee (Class III) Final "legal review and filing" fee Park dedication fee (see attached Code Section 11.62) $900.00 -1- $.50/ lineal foot $ 50.00/new lot $325.00 + $25.00/'ot $175.00 + any special legal/ engineering charges $200.00 8% of Fair Market Value of Land Resolution No. 2508 states that the outlot cannot be built on until it is further subdivided. Therefore, in order to construct a residence on the outlot would require a revision to the previous preliminary plat approval. The reason for that clause was that the one-lot subdivision to split property off from die existing house was considered as a precursor to development of the remaining land, and the existing house, driveway and wetland are situated such that it is unlikely that house w'ould be served by an interior road system. It was the clear intent of the Planning Commission and consistent with City policy that all future development be served by an interior road system. Therefore, me Don Kempf March 18. 1993 Page 3 only scenario in which you might be allowed to construct a residence on the outlet" parcel is to plat it as a separate lot, and incorporate a road outlet into the current plat, with the capability of serving any future subdivision that might occur. To reiterate, it is the City ’s clear intent that no future lots within the total White property will be allowed to have individual driveways onto cither County Road 84 or Count)’ Road 19, since we expect that the level of traffic on both roads will increase substantially as the area further develops. I hope this adequately answers your questions. If you need additional information, please feel free to contact me at 473-7357. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Enclosures: Resolution No. 2508 Subdivision Application Form MPG/lsv III! ■ i IT - r iiiMiT la fi ^ IViTn T% - T vi~i • *l-ifV rVL.~2k ‘ Concerning resolution 2508, Preliminary approval for Plat at 180 North Shore Drive West. Application 1301. Have the Whites paid their costs due the City of Orono and what other co^ts would you estimate would be due, only to the City, to complete and file the plat. How much t^ ie would normally be involved in getting final approval. Would you expect the necessity for any new or additional surveys considering the time lapse in asking for final approval. If I were to furnish a survey and ^sk that the outlot be divided approx as shown, and make it part of this subdivision, how would this possibly complicate this subdivision as fai as the city is concerned and as far as the time involved for approval and approx what additional cost would I be obligated to the city. If 1 waited for the proposed subdivision for the outlot^ Would it be possible for me to obtain a permit to build one home on the outlot. based on my proposed subdivision. Don Kempf, Box 56, Navarre, Mn 55392 Phone 471 0056 _ __ _ _ _ _k.W-1. >. . I I CITY I^OFtONO f’ost OfTiw D - V ^^ Aot On the Sorth Shorr of AS Of April 19, 1991 "7-5'?/ David White Route 3, Box 614 Buffalo, M!3 55313 RE: Renewal of Subdivision Application Dear Mr. White: I have reviewed the City subdivision code requirements with Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, and she confirms that because the request for renewal of preliminary plat approval is occurring after the expiration date (September 28, 1989), a formal renewal application would have to be submitted. Thr« renewal application will involve a public hearing before the Planning Commission, and then preliminary subdivision review by the City Council. Once the Council grants preliminary approval, you will have one year from that date to submit the documents required for final plat approval. I am enclosing a copy of the original subdivision application you filed, and a new application for you to fill out. My guess is that most of the information will be the same, except that, as I understand it, you will be applying for merely a split of the large parcel to place the house on a separate lot, exactly as previously approved. The renewal application fee is $125.00, half the base application of $250.00. If you return the completed and signed application with the $125.00 fee by noon on Friday, April 26th, your application will be scheduled for the May 20th Planning Commission meeting, with review by the Council on June 10th. Please contact me at 473-7357 if ycu have any questions. Sincer»Ay, Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Enclosures MPG/lsv Bl II DING & ZONING - 47>735^ .ASSESSING administration a fi.v ^ncf - FAV-47X)510 Pl'BUCWORKS - 47T 7359 MIHOTBS op regular OROHO council MEETIHG SBPTSfBER 28,1988 #1303 REZABEK CONTINl passed. I|>l #1311 JOHN PURDY _ _ 1975 FAGBRNBSS POINT ROAD VARIARCB*It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to refer the revised proposal of John fc Susan Purdy for additions at 1975 -Pagerness Point Road, to the Planning Commission for further recommendation. Motion, Ayes-J, Nays^O, Motion passed. 1312 WILLIAM LAUER 3165 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #2504 The applicant was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the applicant zone is 29.2% where 25% is allowed. Applicant increase that by .3% in that zone and will compensate that by reducing hardcover in the 250-500' zone. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Lauer if he had any questions or concerns pertaining to this matter. Mr. Lauer stated that he would follow through as the City had advised him to do. It was moved by Councilmember ^allahan, Mayor GrabeJCr-to approve #1312, as set iorth in Resolution #2504. Motion," Ayes-3, NaVs»0, Motion passed. \#1301 FREDERICK WHITE \ 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL RESOLUTION #2508 ^ The applicant was not present for this matter. parcel shall be designated as Outlet A. Ayes-3, Nays=0, Motion passed. t05 Mayor Grabek and Council City Administrator Bernhardson PROMs DATS: SOBJ: Michael Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator September 22, 1988 #1301 Fredrick C. white, 180 North Shore Drive West Preliminary Plat Approval - Resolution Application - During the course of review, this application has been revised, and now is simply a subdivision to split off 2 dry buildable acres and some wetland with the existing residence structure, leaving the remaining 14 acres as an outlet for future development. Zoning District - RR-IB, single family, rural residential, unsewered, 2 acre minimum lot size. List of Exhibits - A - Memo and Exhibits of 9/15/88 B - Proposed Resolution for Preliminary Plat Approval Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of September 15, 1988. Originally, the applicant wished to create a new building site in addition to splitting off the existing residence. However, after the Planning Commission review, at which it was indicated to applicant that anything more than a simple split to put the existing house on a separate lot would require dedication of interior roadways and a topographical survey, applicant reduced the scope of the proposal. The Planning Commission reviewed the revised proposal and voted 5-0 to recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Based on the limited scope of the revised proposal, and based upon Hennepin County's review of the accepnable access sites, the Planning Commission finds there is no need for dedication of interior private roads or border private roads at this time. 2. The Planning Commission dedication of an additional 17' Road 19 to bring its width up property line width, consistent Road which extends to the north, and 6. recommended approval of of right-of-way for County to the 50' center 1ine-to- witn the width of McCulley connecting County Roads 19 1 -I—• Zoning Pile #1301 September 22, 1988 Page 2 of 2 3. The Planning Commission recommended denial of Hennepin County's request for an additional 7' of right-of-way along County Road 84/Bayside Road, finding that the relatively low amount of traffic on County Road 84 would not support the need for additional right-of-way. 4, Applicant shall grant a conservation and flowage easement over the wetland in Lot 1 and in the outlot parcel. 5. Appropriate drainage and utility easements along all property lines shall be granted on the plat drawings. 6. The parcel with the existing residence shall be known as "Lot 1". The remaining parcel shall be designated as "Outlot A", with the stipulation that no residential construction may occur on Outlot A until Outlot A is developed. This stipulation is recommended in order that a comprehensive development of Outlot A and the neighboring properties can be effectuated at the appropriate development stages, thus avoiding a piecemeal, one-lot-at-a-time type development. A further stipulaton for Outlot A should be that all future development in Outlot A must be served by interior roadways. 7. The Planning Commission acknowledges that the north line of proposed Lot 1 will have to be moved an additional distance northward to maintain the 2 dry buildable acres required for Lot 1, as a result of dedication of additional right-of-way for County Road 19. The Planning Commission recommends approval of such a revision "sight unseen," and notes that the front setback for the existing house will then become 83', meeting the minimum 50' setback requirement of the RR-IB zoning district. Staff Rec(>ndation - Staff recommends approval per the above conditions. A resolution for preliminary plat approval is attached for Council review. 'CD ft t' .'2 H <vO 0<'f^ " I »t ^-------------- f I I ^€V//leS> fMN» X •■ ■«! f% ^ * •1 I f -tnae nr lit iftt Mtt«r. or m rLMoim iS2sSjS.R5l^s ««»«cvfnmamcm or muc * Th« •ppllcant »•■ pr«*«iit for thlo g -sssSilSfigs gt=”s:-ssiiis^s?7^^X*biutr..*ilth orl,ln.U, It «. .»r-i.jd 'l”Jtlon ’.ould £: oft of Bo,.ld. *=.d ot th. northooot corn.r of th® proporty. Th® Plonnina Co»mi**lon alio had roqu®at®d p%”o7:"i »! - WuVi* 5«%™Vn*oJl'»nt*iI “.«h tl«o th.t ‘•'•,5"f««r«t:”ot‘aubdlvld®d and th® City r®qulr®d a dedicated interior ro on# of tho concorn. of thli Mttor it ohothor tho .l«ry tecoiMO IUMV%^o^"dl•.llo» oiiy Lot 2, proaumably dev®lopm®nt could occur In any location that lot. Ch.lrBon K.lley Inquired es to ho» ““f •“*'th.'’t"*lit**'’»« ^Ic«rof*dVInd*Up«»l«««’lV *•’ rlMniy>-~°--'"* sstro't^n-h. “cV/;-ou’i*d “?jq«:t iti pu^po^i wa. for accoSpllahlng th® .®ll hla Caffron owplained that the A Clty'a atandardahoua® with a parcel of property that meeta the City a atanaara. for a 2 acre lot. Kelley stated that he would bo In favor of this propoaal If *® . • tl V '*W. t . . • ♦ - » *«. " •• ■ - ■ irr - ♦* 7;;* '■% Rmmi or td njuanw cqmumiob 19« 19M FILBD* 91301**OTim COHTXWnD the city eottld r«9ul«t« dcvvlepMiit of tho outlet. PynnlM CoMltoion oMbor Cohon •xproiiod hli profomM of otoff** roeoiMiondotloni •• oppeuod to "Option B . KnllJJ nnkod Mr. Mbit# ohnt bln proforonen would bo. Mr. Mblto Indleatod tbnt bo bod no objoctlon to tho torao oot forth in "Option A", Boklnf tbo lorfo let on outlet. Xt woo oovod by Plonnlno CoMloolen o«obor Cohon* to f0COBs#nd •pprovftl of ^tils opp 1 Icot^lofi# por rocomnendotlono ond condltlono of approval which Includod the terso of "Option A" rather than "Option B". Upon further review of ataff'a reconwendatlona and condltlono* Cohen queotloned caraoraph 2 concernlno a 1^* right“of"way ter County Road If. Cohen withdrew hla notion until thla wao explained thla would allow a conalatency with the Clty’o 100 rloht-of-way corridor for the McCully Road connection between County Roada 19 and 6. Bel Iowa aaked how the right-of-way would affect the applicant's dry buildaole* Caffron atatad that It night have an effect. Kelley asked about setbacks tanka. Caffron stated that the 17' right-of-way would still ^2.low for the required 50* setback for the exletlnc house. There should be no Interference with the septic tanks locatsd on the property. Kelley asked if the northerly lot line could be mved enough to offset the 17' right-of-way should It create a deficit in the required dry bulldable? Caffron answered affirmatively. Caffron clarified for Mr. white what the City would ne^ to do In light of the 17' right-of-way. Applicant questioned how that would affect the 150' corridor and the possibility of turning that Into a lot In the future. It was his undsrstsndlng that 150' was the maximum. Caffron replied that there was actually a 200' standard for the District, and noted that the width of that corridor necessarily decreases as the 2 Acre requirements for Lot 1 is satisfied. There would be no other alternatives If applicant wished to obtain the 2-acre dry bulldable requirement where the house Is now located. Bellows added that the wetland does not extend to the property line so there would be no way to make it contiguous going the other way. Cohen aaked why the City was considering the County's re<; the 17'. Caffron stated that normally tho City denies any Klght- of"»vay roQuoats for County roada that ara not haavlly travollade Due to the fact that the City has a 100' corridor to the north, and because the road Is a major connecting point for Highway 12 and Mound, the City Staff felt It would be appropriate to grant tho right-of-way. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Bellows, to recommend approval of application #1301# par ataff racoiwnandatlona condltlona. The Planning Commlaalon racomnandad Option A becauaa it would be a planning mode alnce future davc.^opmant in that area haa not yet been determined. Paragraph 6 would be omltued entirely at thla time. Thla approval would alao ba baaed f w^ • !#• ^ f I I t • t ^ • !•« '-AfM .-<*4*‘f ■ IVf If,/ ISST"t*!:*»*^^ *JlL?J£l«J*.!!SrM tS!^BMttcry to Mot tho 2-aero dry bulldablo roqulrofcoat dhwXd tlio 17* rlfht-of-oay croato a daflclt. Metien* Ayaa»5» Raya 0# *V • C\‘‘ ■otioa yaaaod.I l •md 9249 r. Rttxven V . ;■ ♦•* - nmoo. eORDITTORAL PDLMIT • i V- * • a' ' Chalraan Kallay atatod that tha applicant ra^attad tabli|^ thia aattar bacauia pertonnal froo Park Construction wara unabla to^attand. toning Adminlttrator Mabuath conflnaad that and addad that all concarnad parties would attand tha Octobai 3# 19M Planning Commission Haating. •1311 80AO B. ASABAJRI 1745 POZ SntBRT VJUUAIICBS OOHTIHOATIOR OP POBLIC HRAIllRQ Applicant waa pratent for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabuath explained that this oattar involved a height variance for a Y^f of tha wall Is 8-1/2 fast where 3-1/2 feat Is allowad. Tha wall creates no sight distance problems. Chairman liIJiJ jacta*d ^haVlt^'IaV for \he purpose of applicant stated that a 3-1/2’ fence would not work as wall, and tha fence was already nearly completed. nothing to curtail traffic. A 8-1/2* fence seamed more Intimidating. It was moved by Planning Commission member Hanson, seconded by Planning Commission member Bellows, to recommend approval of 11318. Motion, Ayes-5, Nayc-0, Motion passed. #1319 KAREH PULLBR 4055 BLM 8TRSBT RBMBWAL VARIANCB CORTIHOATIOR OP POBLIC BBARINGTha applicant waa not present for this matter. It waa moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning .1 - "T: ‘ -.a To:Planning Commissicn Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proa: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning ( Zoning Administrator Date September 15, 1988 Subject #1301 Fredrick White, 180 North Shore Drive West - Preliminary Subdivision - Second Review - Continuation of Public Hearing Application - The applicant has revised his request to exclude the second building lot from consideration at this time, and has revised the lot lines for the parcel to contain the existing houie. Zoning District ~ RR-IB List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Notice of Plannir.g Commission Action 7/21/88 Glenn Cook's Letter of 7/15/88 Hennepin County Department of Transportation’s Letter 7/27/88 Staff's Sketch of Potential Access Locations Conceptual Area Development Plan Based on Feasible Access Locations Memo i Exhibits 7/14/88 Revised Preliminary Plat Drawing Planning Commission Minutes of 7/18/88 Discussion - The applicant has revised his proposal, as noted above, to include creation of just a separate 2+ acre lot to contain the existing house. The remaining parcel could then be designated as either a second lot or as an outlot. Note that designation as an outlot would be appropriate if the City's intent is to not allow a separate house to be constructed on the large parcel without further subdivision. The reverse option, to make the large parcel Lot 2, would allow a single residence to be built without an additional subdivision, and would have potential significant effect on how a future subdivision might occur. The applicant states that his intent is to complete this initial one- lot subdivision now, then perhaps come back later with a proposal to divide off a second lot. Applicant notes that he has interested parties looking at the large parcel for possible development. • t laiiiit imiti’TTT'— nii-rir ■■ rAr—« Zoning File #1301 September 15, 1988 Page 2 of 4 Note also that per Planning Commission's apparent attitude at the July meeting, that a single division just to split off the house would be received in a more positive light than if additional lots are considered at this time. A topographic map has not been provided. Access Sites and Area Developmentr The applicant and a potential developer of the property have discussed the potential development of this property with officials from Hennepin County regarding feasible road access sites. Note that per Exhibit E, there is only one good access site for this property, and that is off Bayside Road at the northeast corner of the property. There are two other access locations that strictly speaking would meet the sight distance reguirements, due to hills and valleys in the road. The most southerly of those two points would encroach into the two acres of dry buildable as necessary for the proposed lot around the existing house. The most northerly of the two access points is much closer to the County Road 19/County Road 84 intersection than the County would like to see, plus it would involve a major revision of the right turn lane on County Road 19. Those are the only sites feasible for this property. There were two other access sites for a potential road that were looked at regarding the development of the area. The first is about 700* east along Bayside Road and the other would be approximately 280' south of the existing driveway for the White house. The access point south of and adjacent to the existing driveway was determined to be a very unsafe access point, hence would not be a reasonable location to consider for placement of a future road. Given the above information, staff has put together another Area Development Diagram that hopefully gives a conceptual idea as to how the neighboring properties might develop. It appears that no dedication for private roadway would be necessary in the area of the existing house. It would then seem appropriate to require future roadway dedication only upon an application for subdivision of the parcel remaining after the house is divided off. ra . Zoning Pile #1301 September 15, 1988 Page 3 of 4 I would also note for the record that the applicant has discussed with the Armstrongs, who own the property to the south, their plans for development ot the property. Given the location of the wetland on the Armstrong property south of White's house, most likely development would be on the easterly 2/3 of the Armstrong property with potential to be served by a cul-de-sac extending from North Arm Lane. This would seem to be an extremely long cul-de-sac proposition, that would provide for a logical extension up to Bayside Road as the area develops. City's Read Development Policy; At this time, the City has no defined need to create a north/south road from North Arm Drive West to Bayside Road, nor to connect to the west to County Road 19. Therefore, any development in this area would normally be with private roads constructed by private developers to the City's private road standard. The developer would be responsible for all costs of road construction, and would presumably reflect those costs in the price of the lots when they are sold. It is likely that as the properties individually are subdivided, the City would require dedication of private outlot extensions so that a future through road would be feasible. As is current practice and policy, as evidenced by the connecting outlets on a similar type of subdivision area, namely Woodhaven/Golden View Drive/Silvir Meadow Drive, the City certainly would be well served by providing tne possibility for future road linkages to occur. Staff Reconaendation - Considering the information presented above, and considering that the subdivision application has been revised to include only creation of a lot line to divide off the existing house from the remainder of the property, and given that adequate drainfield sites have been found for the existing house, staff would recommend approval of this subdivision. Although the applicant has expressed concern that the remaining width south of the "exception" parcel is only 150', not meeting the 200' standard, it appears unfeasible to have two dry buildable acres with th^* house and still maintain a 200' width south of the exception lot, unless an unreasonable gerrymandering of the dividing line occurs. J Zoning File #1301 September 15r 1988 Page 4 of 4 Staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. At this time there is no need for dedication of a private road outlot along the south end of the property. 2. Planning Commission should consider granting the Hennepin County request for an additional 17* of right-of-way for County Road 19, considering that this would be consistent with the City's 100* right- of-way corridor for the McCully Road connection between County Roads 19 ar^ 6. 3. Option A - Designate the large remaining parcel as Outlot A, stipulatiojis.--tnat no residential construction on that property can bceur'"untilthe entire property is developed; OR Option B - Designate the large parcel as Lot 2, which would allow construction of at least one residence on the large parcel, with a statement in the plat approval resolution warning the property owner of Lot 2 that any residential construction on Lot 2 would be subject to access restrictions by Hennepin County DOT, and would utimately have to be served by an interior access roadway when such is constructed. Furthermore, no future subdivision would be approved unless interior private roads are provided. 4. Granting of a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetland in Lot 1 and in the remaining lotr-OF- outlot. 5. Granting of the appropriate Drainage and Utility Easements along the property lines. e'Ns^D^^fij.al of additional right-of-way for County Road 84, per current Cipy>^icy and practice, T& -7^^- BMl. A -IS-BS ZONIHG PILE NO.1301 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 55323 473-735?Date of Notice: 7/21/88 TO:David s Fredrick White 14195 Pauls Drive Rogers, MN 55374 COPIES TO:Marvin G. Lovlein 6025 Abbott Ave N Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OP MEETING: 7/18/88 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning CcMimission rero—nnds the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Planning Conunission requested that the applicant work with neighboring property owners to consider a logical, comprehensive development plan for the area, in order that future road needs can be addressed. 2. Planning Commission felt that a topographical map of the entire property is necessary in order to determine future development potential given this division of one parcel into three parcels. 3. Planning Commission requested that staff investigate the City's policy regarding development of the anticipated road connection between North Arm Lane and County Road 19; i.e. Would it be public or private if it was a through road? Who would build it? Who would pay the costs? Planning Commission was unable to take formal action on your request to reconsider division of just the house and three acres from the larger parcel, because the application had been tabled until August 15th and the interested members of the public had left. However, Planning Commission did suggest that a topographical map would likely not be required for a division to split off just the house, but that they would likely condition approval upon dedication of a portion of future roadway at the southeast quadrant of the property, and require that any future division of the remaining large parcel be required to access from internally provided roadways, not directly to County Road 19. It would appear feasible to have an interior road serving the entire northerly remaining parcel, so that at most only 1 new access point is created on County Roads 84 and 19, Staff would support approval of the one lot division without a topographical survey based on the conditions noted above. Staff would suggest a reconfiguration of the north boundary line as shown on the attached conceptual map. Zoning File #1301 Notice of Planning Commission Action July 21, 1988 Page 2 of 2 In order to proceed with this application, you must advise staff as soon as possible of your intent. If you wish to continue the proposed three lot plat (two buildable lots and an outlot), you ma«t provide a topographic survey of the entire property. If you wish to merely split off three acres with the existing house, you should arrange co meet with staff to discuss the necessary roadway dedication and lot line reconfiv*uration. It would be appropriate and helpful to have your surveyor involved in this meeting. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for August 15th, 1988. In order to continue discussion of your application, you should contact staff no later than August 5th, 1988 to discuss how you wish to proceed. Staff will investigate the City's road policy for this area and will be prepared to address that at the August 15th meeting. Regarding the Planning Commission's direction that you work with the neighboring property owners to develop a comprehensive development plan for the area, it is staff's opinion that the City is responsible for this type of coordinated planning, hence staff will pursue discussions with neighboring property owners to verify their future intentions. If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please contact the Zoning Department (473-7357). If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. •■•'•1 ’ ,nr I MCdi ef wi Northwtst Q«^Tter of ; SfC 6, ^wp 17, Rg«. 23 , ^ Kvmtpm Cour»"y Cost Iron ^ ........................655 08 - - - ui f:-33 00 COUNTY RCAD North line of Northwtst Ouorttr Of Stc 6, T«p II §l*UCt » LANCI 199193 N Henn^pi Natheo of Sec* Range i’U-96 Souf^ line ot Wilt Half of Novtrvwttt Oi0M«r of Nofthwtti Oioriev of Sne 6, T«p iir, Rgt 23 ^ „ , Det/cATF^ F»/e•Herneptn Jcunly Cost Iron Monumeni Southwest Corner of Northwest (^iorter ^ -<f ^ Townshio II HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 V^ashington Av. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 935-3381 July 27. 1908 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth: RE:Proposed Plat - White Ponds Estates CSAH 19/04, Southeast quadrant Section 6, Township 117. Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 1657 Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: For future Improvements to this segment of CSAH 19 the developer should dedicate an additional 17 feet of right of way where necessary along CSAH 19 to make the right of way a minimum of 50 feet from the center of CSAH 19. For future Improvements to CSAH 84 the developer should dedicate an additional 7 feet of right of way making the right of way 40 feet from the center of CSAH 84. Any new access to a county road or revision to an existing access requires an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning any construction. Contact our Maintenance Division for entrance permit forms. All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This Includes, but Is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact our Maintenance Division for utility permit forms. The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt. Sincerely, ^ /7 David W. Schmidt, P.E. Transportation Planning DWS/LDW:lw HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunltv* employer Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & Associates O ro G Bonestroa PE ItobtR W ffosene. PE. Joseph C Anoertik. PE BrstSfora A L^mpe^g. PE tjchjrd E Turnef, PE James C Olson. PE Gienn ff Cook. PE Thomas E Noyes. PE Boben G khuncm. P£ Marvm L Sorwata. P£ iceith A GohJon. P£ Richard W Foster. PE Oonaid C Burgardt. PE Jerry ^ Sourdo/s. P£ Mark A Narsion. PE Ted K F*e«d. PE Michaet T Raurmar'n. PE Robert R PfeRertf. PE Oavtd O loskcta. PE Thomas W Person. PE MKhael C Lynch. PE James R Maiand. PE kenrjeih P krHjersot, PE Keith A Bachmann. P£ Mark t Rolfs. PE Roben C Rkisset A f A Thomas E AoguL PE Ho^ifd SarfOrd. PE Charles A Erickson Leo M Pawelsky Hjftjn M CMson Susan M Eberiin Mark A Serp Engineers ft Architects July 15, 1988 r r^- r 1 ‘ S JUI_ I P ic-0 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bav, HN 55323 Attn: Mike Gaffcon Re: 139-1301 White Pond r^.ates Dear Mike: Ve have reviewed the preliminary plat on '/hlte Pond Estates. The proposed development is shown with all property access onto County Road 19. We would recommend that an internal read system be developed to provide property access. The land developer should work with the city in preparing a more desirable access plan for the site. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Gle.nn R. Cook GRC;ci 233S West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. Soi.th Hopkins. Minnesota 55343-8468 935-3381 III n July 27, 1988 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms, Mabusth: RE: Proposed Plat - White Ponds Estates CSAH 19/84, Southeast quadrint Section 6, Township 117, Rcnge 23 Hennepin County Plat No 1557 Review and Recommendation. Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and, 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: - For future Improvements to this segment of CSAH 19 the developer should dedicate an additional 17 feet of right of way where necessary along CSAH 19 to make the right of way a minimum cf 50 feet from the center of CSAH 19. - For future Improvement-, to CSAH 84 the developer should dedicate an additional 7 feet of right of way nraking the right of way 40 feet from the center of CSAH 84. - Any new access to a county road or revision to an existing access requires an approved Hennepin Cojnty entrance permit before beginning any construction. Contact our Mainten.-nce Division for entrance permit forms. - A’l proposed const uction within County right of way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact our Maintenance Division for utility permit forms. - The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. ^ Please direct ary response or questions to Les Weigelt. ISincerely, / / David W. Schmidt, P.E. Transportation Planning DWS/LDW:Iw ,1, ^ HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer /sj. T hOUEPTf^US. O^UV 1^ ^ OTVtrc. cH^tce% iMOT AVA^i--^fi.t;^ /••^HOO ± i.^ftwterV)trA» fLoA^r P •1 II1 0m i t TJT^Ttv-^ ^rt. / V ^ ^4“ AccePTf^L^ orouV ir ClTt^ve. CHOICE [^-€^ A4br AVA/J-Afi.i^ /jAwievitrvJ MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 18, 1988 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. ^ • The Orono Planning Commission met cn the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley, Johnson, Moos, Cohen, and Hanson. Brown arrived at 7:25 p.m. The following represented the City staff: Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning % Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Scheffler. CounciImeraber Peterson was also present. #1301 DAVID L. WHITE & FREDRICK C. WHITE 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST CLASS 3 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Mr. Fredrick White was present for this matter. Gaffron explained the proposed subdivision, noting the location of the existing house and garage. The Applicants propose to leave ^ 2+ acre parcel with the existing house and also create a second buildable ipt. Their site evaluator found an alternate site for the existing house its proposed 3-acre parro,! hut testing resulted in a recommendation by the site evaluator to add auout 1.3 acres to Lot 2 to accomodate drainfield sites, leaving Lot 2 with about 4.8 acres total. Applicant has agreed to this revision. They intend to ler.ve Outlot A for future development. This would result in a subdivision of three lots that would access from County Road 84. The City Engineer, Glen cook, recommends that interior access be developed for this property. Staff put together a diagram showing anticipated development in the area. Mr. Armstrong, property owner to the east, expressed concern about access. The Armstrong property could easily be served by a road along it north boundary. The Olson property directly North of Armstrongs could be served by a cul de sac. Applicant stated that he doubted the ability to put a sewer system on north part of the outlot due to topography, and was not sure whether there would be enough land to put in a cul de sac and still have 2 acre lots in Outlot A. Hanson suggested an alternate cul de sac location to avoid access directly onto County Road 19. Gaffron suggested that a stipulation of subdivision approval be that once an interior access road is developed, all lots would have to access from it. Hanson noted that a topographic map had not been submitted and Cohen agreed that since the Outlot area is of concern as it relates comprehensive development plan for the area, that topography would be necessary. Hanson commented that, more than any parcel he ha r^c V seen, he feels that the total acreage here and development possibilities adjacent really do require a more comprehensive approach ^o the de^lopment. Mrs. Armstrong,, who is the owner of property to the east and south of Applicants stated that she is interested in the ability o 9 in with a road from 19 since they may wish to sell that property. She questioned whether plans to do so would need to be written into the present proposal. Mr. Kelley informed her that the dedication of 20 f®et ^ future roadway would probably be one of the conditions of tho subdivision on this property. Gaffron inquired whether road construction costs would be shared given that 2 of Applicant’s lots may ultimately require usage of that road? Kelley commented affirmatively and went on to say that ne r*rcT#i •Ittlu IM ■ ■ •10 [•1«]M r«W:T*lii L* •! •! •I«lcf cX* I • J «•! •r^MzX* l^30^W0l • I0f^«l •l*XcK» I w To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson FroB: Date: Sub j: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator July 14, 1988 #1301 David and Frederick White, 180 North Shore Drive West - Preliminary Subdivision- Public Hearing Application - Request for Subdivisio;. of 18 acre parcel into two 2 acre buildable lots and an outlot of approximately 10 acres. Zoning District - RR-lB Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre unsewered. List of Exhibits - A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owner’s List - Letter from Neighbor Across Co. Rd. D - Proposed Plat E - Copy of uses Topographic Map F “ Copy of Preliminary Plat with Staff Notations G - Staff Conceptual Sketches ending Pertinent Facts 1. Lot 1 Lot 2 Out Lot A Total Parcel Excluding Roads DRY BUILDABLE WETLAND TOTAL 2.006 AC 3.087 9.402 0.998 AC 1.721 3.004 AC 4.808 9.402 14.495 2.719 17.214 2. Lot 1 contains an existing house with existing trench type drainfield. An alternate site has been tested to the North of the existing hous6 &nd is suitabl© for a mound system. The existing trench driinfield appears to be functioning adequately now during the dry weatlier; our records indicate that this system has been a problem in the past and ultimately will require replacement in staff's opinion, in the relatively near future. Proposed Lot 2, as shown on the preliminary plat, was determined by the applicant ’s site evaluator to not contain suitable sites for septic systems. The site evaluator has recommended that an additional area from proposed out lot A be incorporated into Lot 2. That proposed area cc^prises approximately 1.3 additional acres. Staff concurs with this recommendation, and notes that Lot 2, as it is V/. severely limited building envelope without this additional acreage. Appplicant has agreed to this revision. The aApplicantn have provided septic testing within the proposed Outlot A. staff would note that if applicants* intent is to build a house within the Zone File #1301 July 14, 1988 Page Two of Four large parcel, it should not be designated as an out lot but as a separate lot that is large enough to be potentially divided in the future. Conceptually, an outlet is only designated when a parcel is intended to not be used until further developed. Staff would note that all of the sites tested on the property require mound systems. This is not unusual considering the Kilkenny loam-type soil located in this area of Orono. 3. Note the "gerrymandered" configuration of proposed Lot 2. It is staff's understanding that this configuration came about because the applicants are compelled through a Court Order to sell a 2-acre parcel to Donald and Judy Kempf as a result of a Purchase Agreement entered into by Kempfs and Whites in 1984. You will note that Lot 1 just barely contains 2 acres of dry, buildable land. Staff has drawn in the building envelope for Lot 2, and suggests that while there may be a feasible house location directly south of the Langert exception, a more probable and attractive building site is east of the drainfield sites tested within the 1.3 acre recommended additional parcel. It would seem to staff that the east/west line between Lots 1 and 2 could be straightened out to provide a more useful potential secondary alternate drainfield site for Lot 1, while still leaving a plus—or—minus 150 foot wide corridor to the rear for Lot 2. 4. The applicants have r.ot provided a topographic map of the property. The topographic section of the USGS Maps is of a scale that it has little value in discussions of the development of this property. Based on the fact that the property contains a significant area of wetlands, staff feels that it is appropriate for Planning Commission to require that a topographic map of the entire property be provided. 5. In Exhibits G, 1 through 3, you are provided with a plat map sketch showing existing development in the area, showing the proposed division and the probable future request for development of Outlot A without the need for an interior road, and finally a conceptual diagram of how th#» areas to the east of County Road 19, south of Bayside Road and north of North Arm Drive West will likely develop under the 2-acre standard. Given the existing developments along North Arm Drive West, staff would see North Arm Lane extending northward and then west to County Road 19, with the outlot road being taken from properties on either side. It probably is not feasible to ask for dedication of roadway south of the existing White house, since it is only 45* north of the existing side lot line. Staff would also anticipate a northerly extension up to Bayside Road that would allow 2 acre lot development on either side of it. Looking at exhibit G-3, the question becomes, is there a need to dedicate property within the currently proposed plat for future access? SuBsaary of Issues - 1. The north lot line of proposed Lot 2 is intended by the applicant Zone File #1301 July 14r 1988 Page Three of Four to move north 150 feet» leaving about 4.5 dry# buildable acres within lot 2. Based on this configuration. Lot 2 would not be further subdividable under the two acre unsewered zoning. Planning Commission should then discuss whether a lot width variance as measured at the 50 foot setback from County Road 19 is appropriate, and should discuss whether or not the east/west line between Lots 1 and 2 should be straightened out rather than gerrymandered, as is currently proposed. 2. Is Outlot A intended for immediate development as a^ single residential lot, or is it strictly to be held for a future subdivision? If it is going to be subdivided in the future, what configuration does Planning Commission feel would be most appropriate? Given that determination, is there any need to dedicate future accesses with the current subdivision? 3. Topographic map was not provided. Is a topographic map critical to this Subdivision Application? Discussion - The tested drainfield sites and proposed building site on the property are 250 feet or more east of County Road 19. In walking to the rear of Lot 2 around the north end of the wetland, it was apparent that portions of this property have been used as a dumping ground fcr many years. Perhaps the best thing that could happen to this property would be development into 2 acre lots with subsequent individual owners cleaning up the dump sites. For the record, staff would note that most of the junk on the property will have to be hauled out and not buried on the site. Likewise, you will note the excessive amount of outside storage on the property, including vehicles and building materials. The existing house is currently rented, but upon completion of the subdivision it will be sold to a new owner, and presumably the storage will disappear. A further comment: If you plan to walk to the rear of the property to see the building site for lot 2, there is a pathway that generally follows the edge of the wetland and it was dry the day I walked it, but wear your hiking boots. Staff Recommendation - would recommend approval of this subdivision, subject to resolution ^^0 issues noted above. If Planning Commission does recommend preliminary plat approval based upon the proposed configuration or one similar to it, such a recommendation for approval should incorporate the following conditions: 1. Payment of appropriate park fee for Lot 2. 2. Place specific stipulations on Outlot A that define the reasons it is being approved as an outlot rather than as a separate Lot 3. Zoning File #1301 July 14, 1988 Page Four of Four 3. Granting of a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetland in lot 1 and 2. 4. Granting of the appropriate drainage and utility easements along all property lines. 5. Consider the probable request by Hennepin County for additional right-of-way width along County Road 19. •<: ^ ^ CITY OP ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION t V PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address/VOAT’H O/? > jO-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ~~y/7~^^3 oOCt> Please check one - Property _ _ abstract or X torrens? Attach legal description to application. •• *** •• •• •* •• *** ** APPLICANT ^ Phone (home)/V^S P/> 0,0 ^ . 4o? H/Tt: ^ Name PRHtyBR J C./it C Phone (work)^_________________» Address =PfiUCS jJ£. City; RC^Bf^S ^^Ziv. ^637 “^ ■ OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)_________________ Name_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (work)^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _^ Address: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ City:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Zip;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels _/_ _ _ _ _ [j-.v -r ri £ OFFICEDevelooment Size / 2- Acres Dry Land .s Acres Wet Land a, .m; -c- ^ Acres Total, all parcel^^y^ri^' f, r/1* vp r- i / Present Use (check) Residential; nc• of units.« - - - - - - - other (specify)_ _ _ _ _/.;Vc " - V w/ ^V.' u 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: J Existing Units / New Units 7^ Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Units per _____ Acres Minimum Lot Size: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check) __ _ _ _ _ _ Residential __ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ •”7 2. 3. MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. 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). Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this applicatxon. 4. 5. Certification by Zonir.g Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official’s Signature_ _ _ Date 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). 21 Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning De^rtment that Final Plat Applicatici is complete. / j Zoning Official's Signature\ i _ _ _ _ Date ^ FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) ^o Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) 300.00 + 20.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) •(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 150.00* 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 o/S ^ Owner's Signature O, “^^0 Date Cs ^ y S S 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. ^nalii '3. '3a|ii5iia tSXH •May 31, 1988 HOPKINS OFFICE CENTER 33 TENTH AVENUE SOUTH SECOND FLOOR HOPKINS. MN 55343 (612) 933-5151 4~ I - Frederick C. White 14195 Paul Drive Rogers, Mn. 55374 t £ •1 i Re: Donald Kempf, et al v, David L. White, et al Our File: 85-959 Dear Fred: In accordance with our conversation, I am providing you with the elements of the settlement agreement that was entered into the court record before Judge James Rogers on May 9th of 1988. The following are the terms of the agreement: 1. . The Whites would provide an approved plat of the property within six months from the date of the agreement. 2. The Whites would convey a lot on which the house was situated that contained a minimum of three acres and approved by the City. 3. The purchase price for the parcel described above would be $85,000.00. The terms would be $1,000.00 earnest money, which has been paid; $9,000.00 at closing; and a Contract for Deed bearing interest at the rate of lOX per annum, due and payable in full four years after the date of closing. Payments on the contract would be at the rate of $650.00 per month. 4. The Kempfs would pay their pro rata share of taxes on the lot transferrea to them, and the Whites would pay the differential between the homestead and non-homestead taxes. The Kempfs would apply for homestead immediately after closing. If you need further verification of this agreement, please have a representative of the City contact me. I have enclosed a statement with regard to attorney fees, as a separate attachment. This statement is in accordance with our conversation. Please-call if there is any additional question. / uly. NI / RONALD J.^^HNSON'^LAW ,OFFICES P.A. / ' V' RJJisej end. \ 0 t • \ \ SJ //r\ r r'^c >A■;-'t^ .W'' s N \ / j O c S •-(h V :-ei:V.^ V" 'O \ ■) J - N \N m • t ^ • , V \J /5; ''\ \ -w' 983 ^6 ^ i^i o .* • > sr '-Couis - \\\ 1 h \.— .tf b • ' * V z' XV 3if) - b. ——^ 0-4-- r^'M-4*r • •** 3 « ^ . V N-rv \ i' ".'! •- / =r- ■' j r ■’■ ■ '' 3Vr’ ."c7 - ■ 0 R 0 4«» A' • ',V_7yf^ V/ V * \ ^ j 3 ~97<9 Mi ' J,“ -6 _- w/’/!<-y V. •x *. -X . ^ :sc^/ ~Y"''V .J v; O' -cV"; > / /V, ! > / ‘f^'-\V ^ f v\ ' \\ >6/-^ J ^To /./ r \\ v\_J 'x sa ‘4 N\✓■ % . •'V. X:./ V \ I I t I 'Oif Vi r’J 7 I V-rf !/.• :nv /'■ N \\ .7 ■7 V s/ " *M:iw 11' /■ aCO •) \Sa 12 V k'‘w*'N V 'C>e/in-o Uoo’ i- z' V' J ^\ V.! 1 0 9 s £j i ■ ^■ / 0 ^/i«.c?v!trv^ U-P U ''f 1 —rJ! 1 t V.i • / w TO:Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City AdministratorFROM:DATE:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator October 13, 1993SUBJECT: #1876 James Ogland/Donald Stoyke, 3345/3339 Crystal Bay Road Vacation - Public Hearing % Application Request to vacate 25 ’ right-of-way of "Hillside Place" between railroad and lake List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letter of Request E - Survey F - Municipal Water As-built G - Municipal Sewer As-built H - Pertinent Code/Statute Excerpts I - Council Minutes September 8, 1969 Pertinent Facts 1. 2. 3. Hillside Place is a 25 ’ wide dedicated public right-of-way leading inland from Crystal Bay to Navarre Lane, excluding railroad right-of-way. The portion of Hillside Place proposed to be vacated is that part lying northwesterly of the Dakota Rail property and extending to the shoreline (approximately 105’ in length, just over 2,600 s.f. in area). The parcel is crossed by Ciystal Bay Road, which has an approximately 18’ paved width. Municipal sewer and water lines are contained within Crystal Bay Road. It is likely that there is a gas line in that road, although electric, phone and cable lines appear to run overhead. Further, a municipal sewer line extends souUieastward from Crystal Bay Road to Navarre Lane within the parcel proposed for vacation. This sewer line runs approximately down the center of Hillside Place. Zoning File #1876 October 13, 1993 Page 2 Issues for Discussion 1. How should Cr>'stal Bay Road right-of-way be retained? 3. Discussion Crystal Bay Road is not a platted roadway. It does not show up on the plat map. However, a roadway averaging 18’ in paved width has been maintained by the City for decades. Many properties along Old Crystal Bay Road have no other means of legal access to platted City or County roads. The question, therefore, is whether the City should vacate the portion of Hillside Place cros.sed by Old Crystal Bay Road, in exchange for a road easement. The alternative would be to merely not vacate that portion of Hillside Place being used historically for Crystal Bay Road right-of-way. The Public Works Director has recommended that an additional 10’ either side of the 18’ paved width, be retained for road purposes, a total of 38’ for right-of-way. Note that Council action on September 8, 1969 vacated a similar right-of- way approximately 400 ’ east, 'fhat action apparently intended to vacate the area between the railroad tracks and Cry stal Bay Road. The plat map shows the entire parcel as vacated (see September 8, 1969 Council minutes). Staff is unaware of any existing right-of-way dedications for Crystal Bay Road, hence whatever right-of-way width is retained in this application may set a precedent for future easement/right-of-way acquisitions for tliat road. 2. Utility easement required for sewer line. The sewer line running the length of the right-of-way proposed for vacation is approximately 15’-20’ deep at the railroad tracks. An easement 20’ in total width (10’ either side of the pipe) must be retained by the City. Mr. Ogland has a shed located partially in his Lot 9, partially on railroad property, and partially in the portion of the road to be vacated. The vacation would result in Ogland acquiring an additional 12.5’ to the side of his property, leaving the shed approximately 6’ from the property line. The shed is mobile, and could be moved at such time that the City needs to work on the sewer line or if the railroad were to request it be removed from their right-of-way. This parcel has not historically provided a useable lake access for the public. It has been maintained as yard by the adjacent property owners for many years. Zoning File /I^1876 October 13, 1993 Page 3 Vacation will add 12.5’ to each adjacent property making the Ogland shed more conforming to setback requirements, and providing Stoyke with a 13’ side setback instead the r setback that exists today. Staff has notified the DNR of this request (required by statute). As of this writing, they have not commented on the vacation request. Public Works Director John Gerhardson has no objection to vacating this portion of dedicated right-of-way subject to retaining right-of-way for Crystal Bay Road and the utilities in it, as well as an easement over the existing sewer line. Staff Recommendation Notwithstanding all the reasons that vacation of the subject parcel would benefit the adjacent property owners, a recommendation for approval must make the finding that it would be in the interest of the public to vacate the public right-of-way. It would only be in the public interest to vacate if nc existing or potential public purposes will be eliminated. Any forthcoming comments from the DNR should be taken into consideration. If Planning Commission finds that it is in the public interest to vacate this right-of-way, staff would recommend the following conditions: 1.Cit> to retain a 20 ’ utility easement centered on sewer line running the length of the property. 2.City to retain right-of-way for Crystal Bay Road 19 ’ either side of the centerline of said road. Retention of right-of-way may be by easement (granted by the two property owners) or by simply not vacating that portion, subject to City Attorney ’s recommendation. Such right-of-way will include the right of the City and the public to use and maintain the road as a public right-of-way, and for drainage and utility purposes. 3.Applicants ’ surveyor to provide legal description for sewer easement. The City Attorney to produce all necessary easement documents, such costs to be paid by the applicants. ‘ CITY CP CRCNO - GENEI ----------------J*—- PROPERTY LOCATION // J Site Address ?>2>HS ^'Zf^TA.^^ SS^I property Identification Number (P.1.0.^/I7-^ 3 »co3./ Please attach legal description to application if not included ‘ on required survey. APPLICANT Name Phone (hone) V*?/*" Phone (work) ~ Address 3^*/^ ^^ISr*4 C _ _ _ City Zip SS~^9/ (if different than applicanr.) ^ Hzssie Dgn/4-CQ Phone (home) Phone Address 333*7 /&/ City 2ip. Acquired ____(month/year) ^SS3ff/ Date Proj2ftrtiL«Acquxre<s / v 7^ / ^_________________laium-ii I (do)^tdp not^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 50.00 For each variance request with COP application $125.00 Residential accessory Use •i; $175.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.)=• .( $150.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments i ■ ■ r ■ 1 $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 ,,v..hnr. Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 of lakeshore I PRD/PID - see fee schedule i Ormm APPMCA^gBSp>Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) 5?" $250.00 Vacation ------ $175.00 Easement Vacation _ . $ 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $300.00 Rezoning (PUU sche ule) $300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule . fftanoitnbatatrN'T - iTtinutfdtftMn PRESENT DSB OR PROPERTY Present Zoning District « Present Use of Property • , ‘•X ^!^^<3entiaT!> Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in detail: 2^14-w -W w w* Uifvnon r ^^39 ^ 2! i 3. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS I. Completed Application Form. Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtai this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Governmen Center 348-3271). Plat Map. ^ 4 Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). ^5. Topographic survey (exi,sting and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 6. ^ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). • 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARB REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11* X 17* OR SMALLER) POR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT•S SIGHATUPB 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 ^ Date to -Ai>fiCtC4^T ^OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request ^ner^^^si^ature Date Applicant must have all submr^tals 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 advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ^?s a 5« « a ^ ^ni; Tuj3*1^C9 0» W8 ^ 11?-^ ^ *iv-* a u» <G «i».J s-a % ,i = I *S# !► -«,• * S-74! # o i* -•»3 Cn i (OQ> c S:v5^ - -f ^I •* Y\ a 9f •STIT utu<^ t.'VV K- \*^ 9* V ...Mfei^ 74.99 7>i M.89' ^ »V *111 wnt *' >* i*.„ v\*r «- V ' - » • V- vT"* ' • * *. • 1 *1. .* # . . . V ' : '• I '••^' •»■'■.’ • I*.‘.’ •■?' •“ • 1 *•' »• >■»' '; / I* *2 •J» • • ■• . r- . t • ’ V ' , ^ • i -• % * . • T * - * « >•'-•n. - '.V' .<'•? *rw 4 '. : ■ *4 > • ■y '■ ^ : V - t' •• ■ " •'.• ♦ *• /*' • • 'V iSf '<'i ^ - ------- tw.V' • •/> *.•. ...V,;. ' • . / /•■ ////\ \ r-( ^AC » H6 U!SC. f 5M) 3T 9 <V\ »*C i2 « e« -\ 4^. 4j. t7, 5a. 3fi. 69. ^0 A /» •AAlACt'S AU0niJl4 ^0 WIM gAC><, -f ^ Vj 1 (3) V^v: t?9) *• V •* .•V'v ‘Ci j'A(6)N fs, *»* Vsi ..............,..................... <r(2r) *- r ,V-^!V ' * t ' •• .V-i :*- s *f “ 4.. 3.^,. (44)( 104) ^ *-'y*‘ I• *Z ^ T-’• 4 •*.*• *X ,. v;>*.-.--.,-•. •. .. * , ' (£1 .'o (25)'A> / . y,T' 40 jJ/ («»2)/ f(69^ ■fc;? ■4' i/; 4}^’ 7, W 2J /7 26)/ / >7:/(41)' / //*•' A y * /I I' / .. Jp/V / •■ -J ' a 0 (93) 9 /T fiery, A / (66), //> y ^ "7 *VN /' ^^■■'" / ^J. '(311 / '(32)(33) :7,V 15 * 7Vjn)4^.6-7 L4 (74i’ir lfl4vf T '/ 7 / V-iV • j 7' > ^ .>v V /7 t . ^ -**'V-“. • •*. - '-v *n ^ 'f# 5.V;»* ^V -• i »{• -.W* (8) ...X^ i^'" *^'(77)'7^i' 7: Cutiot c (94) »'*. • •R.> »j/ 'r' I (90) ^68)1 -tVj. 2/x (91) s^ /«• RUN DATt Ol/lS/n^ SATCM OOt fiOMEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INTORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY 0»t«RS LISTcAOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 58 lT-lir-25 *1 OOIT 05528 CRYSTAL BAY RO D L MEEKS A J HOLTZ DIXIE LEE NEEKS/JlftHE HOLTZ 5528 CRYSTAL BAY RO MAYZATA W 55581 t ' fT' *.P PROR AMR OMCR NA» . TAXPAYfR NAHE/ADtm SS 17-117-25 A1 0022 055A5 CRYSTAL BAY RD JAHES N OGLAND JANES N OGLAND 55A5 CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA HN 55501 V. PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHi/AOOR IB 17-117-25 41 0025 05550 CRYSTAL BAY RO B 6 OUNP A J L SECHRIST B G OUNP i J L SECHRIST 5550 CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA HN 55501 ♦ V t ' c PROP ADOR Ik (D • ’ TAXPAYER'' 'OMNER NAME TAXPAYER i NAME/AOOR TOTAL BATCH 002 00008 A' ; ' v:-.; ■ • . . •I ‘ .» /TN- • U. . /r\ ii „t /'.‘.v’ ; ■ t ' .-- , V’■ ' -V -! ‘• 4 %• • ‘ • }<:- r * - s / • ' . ’\y‘ X'V'*. • ^ ' ' A ■ 'y ■ •*v REPORT NO. PACE PI85S80i58 17-117-25 81 002005555 CRYSTAL BAY RO A LORRAINE MOSS A LORRAINE MOSS 5555 CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA m 55581 58 17-117-25 81 002105558 CRYSTAL BAY RO PATRICK 0 O'FLANAGAN OONALO J STOYKE 5558 CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA m 55581 58 17-117-25 81 0025 05588 CRYSTAL BAY RO HARREN L PASCHKE MARREN L PASCHKE 18881 VILLAGE NOOOS DR EOEN PRAIRIE FM 55587 58 17-117-25 81 0028 05555 CRYSTAL BAY RD JOHN E KUST JOHN KUST 5555 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NAYZATA FM 55581 SB 17-117-25 88 0016 05565 CRYSTAL BAY RO J R LOFRANO ETAL J R LO FRANO 5565 CRYS^'AL BAY RO NAYZATA H)4 55581 58 17-117-25 88 0088 00058 AOORESS UNASSIGF«0 C H PALF1ER I B J PALFCR CHRIS A BARBARA PALF1ER 2710 CASCO PT RO ORONO MN 55581 38 17-117-23 44 0104 3240 NAVARRE IJL CLAIR T & LYNN D ROOD CLAIR & LYNN ROOD 2215 KENWOOD WAY WAYZATA MN 55391 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INF0RF1ATI0N AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEFt«PlM COUNTY OEPARmNT OF PROPERTY^AXATION, TO Ttk BEST OF HY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. / / ■M/m.DATI * *5 Li < • * • - i, .. V • ‘ . ( ‘‘*l‘*^* Nlf * » Al '» I- rfS .f- , L***. , • r^v . « V '. • 00 p » • 8 i’'- *• -p-.'^ ••. » t . «. i ;♦ t ' 8; - . ,V T * J - V '5i,•1 ‘“.y • • • • v‘' *• ■ ’■ '■* V ^ , • . ,..Vi .» ;i'<!.• ■ ■ % .. i. y •/ •1 . -Aa •* .^.- 8 ^ I 3 city of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 September 21, 1993 Subject: Vacate twenty five foot lane at 3345 S 3339 Crystal Bay Road To whom it may concern: We are requesting that the twenty five foot lane between 3345 and 3339 Crystal Bay Road be vacated with one half of the parcel reverting to each of the adjacent property owners. The parcel is located between lots 8 and 9 and is bordered on the north by Crystal Bay Road and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks on the south. My family has owned and lived at 3345 Crystal Bay Road for the past 47 years and during these years have used and maintained this parcel of land as if it were their own. In almost fifty years it has remained virtually untouched and unchanged. The terrain is hilly, from Crystal Bay Road it is uphill and quite steep. It is sandwiched in very closely between the existing homes, (only nine inches from the SW corner of the house at 3339) and has several large mature trees on it. Similar lanes were originally platted throughout Orono for use as fire access lanes to provide lake water in the event of a fire. With the advent of water available from strateg ically located fire hydrants they have long since become obsol ete for their intended purpose. Vacating this lane is something that probably should have been requested years ago when two others nearby on Crystal Bay Road were vacated. Because of the steep terrain and proximity to existing homes its best use is by these adjacent property owners. Vacating the lane at this time would resolve a number of things. It would allow both lots to conform more with todays zoning and land use requirements. It would relieve anxiety by both property owners as to uncertain future use. It would eliminate title concerns and problems for other owners, and importantly, it would put the property back on the tax rolls. We hope that this request will be approved. Sincerely, James W, Ogland James W. Ogland 3345 Crystal Bay Rd Wayzata, MN 55391 Donald J. Sroyke 3339 Crystal Bay Rd Wayzata, MN 55391 #187 COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. •UnviVINO. KMOMniMNO ANO lANO mjkP«NIMO 4«t A TAMAMACK AVRNUB« Lona iXict. MINN 47S.4141 9-22-93 Proposed Legal Descriptions for James Ogland •’"WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH" Hennepin County, Minnesota Parcel To Be Vacated That part of HILLSIDE PLACE as dedicated in the plat of "WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH" which lies northwest erly of the Northwesterly right-of-way line of the Dakota Rail (for merly the Great Northern Railroad) and southeasterly of Crystal Bay. Portion to be Added to the Ogland Parcel. The Southwesterly half of vacated HILLSIDE PLACE as originally dedicated in the plat of "WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH which lies northwesterly of the Dakota Rail (for merly the Great Northern Railroad) and southeasterly of Crystal Bay. Portion to be Added to the Stoyke Parcel. The Itortheasterly half of vacated HILLSIDE PLACE as originally dedicated in the plat of "h'ALLACE'S AUDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH which lies northwesterly of the DAKOTA RAIL (formerly the Great Northern Railroad) and southeasterly of Crystal Bay. V-j. Certificate of Survey . ^ ^ for James Ogland of Lot 9, WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH Hennepin County, Minnesota #1876 Lake Minoetonka Existing Legal Descripton Lot 9, WALL/VCE'C ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH. This survey shows the location of all existing buildings in relation to the boundaries of the above described property. It does not purport to show any other improvements or en croachments . •: Iron marker found o: Iron marker set C(^m\ & Gronbfrg. 1\c. I ' I ^ ■ . > ■ ' !l|t^ . . If,.. » • I . I ,1>kt \l\ r^i: r\ iti. I hereby certify that this sur\’cy was prepared by me or under my direct super vision, and that I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Mark b. Gronberg Minnesota license Number 12755 date 3-15-93 SCALE r': 20' lOFINO <^3-7S § •i ; ' ‘‘ ;K. ,• • h:. ... r ’r.*I •• I •• * .<^1 ,.v. r r.vy ‘..f.. i .t ;» ;-*:• ‘jr•• ili-J *'- • I ..... J-tm ■rf{h jV’ ‘vr ’-i, 7 .7. •' i . - *« ‘ i- ■0" '«r.ff i )♦* •' '>r f' r 1 • (T.-* * r ■ V ■ »?*’• ■ ’^V # V ii* •: »I •» • ■ M. • ’ • “ /-rt V !.*,: % !rh^ MVr .n'. ■•. J ' ‘*1 ' * K : ': ' •I6Ms “6.* !Ur# \ p "Vj ^ 1 0 * - i••••*• -* * - —rpT ............ = <"> ...-.ip ^L- ;*'.•!■• ii*J’ 1 » .. •■ f .1 . % ^ ri -!i:J • ;r.*J ^ ‘ * •i:( • 1 r i ‘ "• * t .1: 1 • f, ’: i ‘ ♦ f" I. 4-. {-N. [ ; • ♦ f *• • I ,N :i ; I \ I. > *' • < • •. * ^ ’ i. •<• • ;;•! i;..’} : f;. • • • ) f Vt:‘ dip ..n’ .4.. * '■V I :r ? :1'Im !•■ ^I,; *!>" 1;^ ■■■ ;i. J I. . •V. •■• ■»’;•■■ ii I * •} • * '* !LUliia' iit.1 * - V‘ i vnl< Ilk -it;* ^ ^ ■i ipi-fe' iP ••'f i T i\, . tHKiri'f:mtei!1 I'li l l vi I !. JilJ-ilLiJi -i •-:• .i v” M.' *} j«i ^ 1 iff ili •il ‘.‘P. ‘♦rl*' iptl T |p .: 1 i.i:t-!!fir ,Ul i Npi, Mi' Hi ’ i I I ( * o p ;?• ^\} ; —. '■ -i ••>'■- ■■ \Trj,'’.-^'‘<^. ■■’ :■■<?. H :u^ ■iii'i ! »: > M •. ■ ' Ak^O] ’pTk».'y A :■' '•: 'k k: / '■A'. !-•'•;•• 'V . , I ' V/‘ ^ ^ ,' .1,,’nv. '-V I ; V..........,^^ :V^!^ m!n i \ I I 'i 1 t, > r'p! ■ !if.j.j. r -l.|lf;i.i:.•T safrijifi ?«•!%=I I t-lvO mm'!-j'!; p! .. fi.‘N;.w'4i •!..-r:i!=:iH i W 1.[:fir I. !■'V. • 'i-' 5*3|6fzfss|f r^>- f ' ! I .'H i it • , 'H pv- :WO ii r^&y -o r’kU l.l.i * f r I; i i J •• I . ‘p* :!;i! !•• • « i :ii.i)i. ■ii'f i t l■•,l .’■ti i. HiM'-i |;.Hii-H ' ■ n : I, ;■!. ‘M ! • Ii i- .i M »M i i’jim:;ji!■immi VM\Ph. , ...,,. .V i i i •. «:'• ^ y'l ‘-'‘klk' ! r - ■ .; •• f . ■; -V. V »■ • ' ■ 1 ^ • 'i ,J • . ’ ‘ f '•.-• U'M' K - . .. ■ > :' .v'>; ■■■ Ml- T-.£■ ■■is 'i-iSt- ^>. CX'«.«. ■ \ *j A\ A: I , .. -/^v ^,y: ‘ * •-^ • -itciw, * 'Jk <• A'iH'kvi ;V?^'.pfr-SplNH «il TM.i ' kiii i'y HI' Isisj•xTM ^iil •ifr ■I. i P’se m pf teller i:^Pf pi Vf. H W Ik!!SW#*' WM H! kH-iP; I’PS >■•''’i-if r-sH[Wa J i:j^ ;i •iii-Miv^:; hi I'-;. ■mTil n : .L;j-'i^7;-I f'L ,iifP .i4!v- M i.'j£ ' iiil. ,.MiiMfU i I 71 l-':' ■^ff. '■ . ■ ' ............»K r.'-A ' • ■■* V V\! ! Vi"TTTii, |. 'M ik4iL#b| 'IV ;*‘5' •f ! j i .in.vlfj •I r i-H''PM ! A.’vt . 'if; .'H*- . ’/,,.‘• ;r kI:i vi | ! 1 " •: r! ~'A' »• < ,l iftliiSf: ii V ‘ •; kfikr I H t^< fitF'iiSSiliil- 7i ■iv'i'f »‘i I ll.lfi’iiffi iffPM i pf-P! i; :.; I iil'i" J’j '1-1- '(.V. •! \4- ..i- :iif| fli'i if-vp' •.J-rl _ H /(*. »* ' ] Vh V ^"V r- MIm' I ill! 4r:vj; w- f'rn'i'. *.' '* ' .V- ^ *• ri. "H likii .i.TTTTiTpvi' ■!'. I ' !il I •!! i i'l ^ .|:J:,!&H fld.i' i ■!:in.|♦ -i i131f! •'1! :t. X *w “« ‘tv<v‘. 'kf*! • ,. /J»V a ». ? Mfi rm ‘ . . . . : f-P .;!'ib Mmm'- ■ ife: ms0w ’^lii iiS*» 1 i ii ■• '. : /i' ■ ^ }':• K''"‘ ' . '•,fs rr-'i \1 S 10.X2 SEC 10 12 VACATION OP STREETS, ALLEYS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS. Vacation of’streets, alleys and public grounds shall follow the pr^edures set forth in this Chapter, except that such vacatio" i“^iil!;1ir8^r"T\^ To‘u^?il and strain purposes or for boulevard reserve puposes, in the same manner’as vacation proceedings are conducted for streets, alleys and other public ways. A boulevard reserve means an easement established adjacent to a dedicated street ^he .Purpose of establishing open space adjacent to the street and whicn designated on the recorded plat as boulevard reserve . Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 • • • . H- . . » *. J t • 412.851 VACATION OF STREETS. . The council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof, on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting on the street, alley, pubUc grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vawted. When there has been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four- fifths of all members of the council. No such vacation shall be made unlws it app^« in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by two weeks published and posted notice. The councU shall cause written notice of the heanng to be mailed to each property owner affected by the proposed vacation at least ten days before the hearing. The notice must contain, at minimum, a copy of the petition or proposed reso lution as well as the time, place, and date of the heari ng. In addition, if the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof terrninates at or abuts upon any public water, no vacation shall be made unless written notice of the petition or proposed reso lution is served by certified mail upon the commissioner of natural resources at least 30 days before the hearing on the matter. The notice to the commissioner of natural resources is for notification purposes only and does not create a right of intervention by the commissioner. After a resolution of vacation is adopted, the clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the proceedings which shall contain the name of the city, an identification of the vacation, a statement of the time of completion thereof and a description of the real estate and lands affected thereby. The notice shall be presented to the county auditor who shall enter the same in the transfer records and note^pon the instrument, over official signature, the words “entered in the transfer record. The notice shall then be filed with the county recorder. Any failure to file the notice shaU not invalidate any such vacation proceedings. History: 1949 c 119 s 102:1953 c 735 s 12; 1957 c 383 s 1; 1967 c 289 s 1969 c9s 85:1973 c 123 art 2 s 1 subd 2; 1973 c 494 s 11: 1976 c 1815 2:1986 c 444; 1989 c 183 s 4: 1990 c 433 s 2 , I >MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 8, 1969 Page 2 Butterfield moved, Searles «»conded, that '^'Nthe request of Roy Starke', , 3560 Sixth V'Avenue North, for a division of 4+ acres ^ off of his property, be approved. Motion, ^ Ayes (S) - Nays (0). ) y \ ) ) ) Searles moved, Franzel seconded, that the request of John Demarais, 780-790 North Arm Drive, for a variance from 140' to 100', be referred to the Planning Commission, I'fotion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Searles moved, Franzel seconded, that the request of Minnetonka Power Squadron, Big Island, for a land fill permit, be aoproved. Motion, Ayes C5) • Nays (0). Searles moved, Butterfield seconded, that the request of Thorpe Bros, for a 30* set back variance, be approved for other houses in the Webber Hills Addition; also, with no further variance fee upon written application. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0), Stubbs moved, Butterfield seconded, that -;-^we grant a vacation of the right of way between Crystal Bay Road and the railroad tracks with a utility easement to be retained and the sewer assessment be levied against the property. It is understood that the vacation is not to include any property between Lake Minne tonka and iili Crystal Bay Road. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Franzel moved, Butterfield seconded, that the request of Henry Anderson, 3350 North Shore Drive, for a marina license, be approved for 1969 and tell them we will not issue a license for 1970 unless they comply with the side setback regulations of ten feet. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Stubbs moved, Franzel seconded, that Orono pay an additional $1,250 to Long Lake on the Fire Contract for 1969--total, $3,750; and also, that we send Long Lake the full cost of the proposed 1970 Police Budget, including P.E.R.A., etc. and that we inform Ichem we feel that two times.the rate for *the sewer and water contract is adequate and this is all we will pay. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). DIVISION 3560 Sixth Avenue North VARIANCE 780-790 North Arm Drive LAND FILL PERMIT Minnetonka Power Squadron Big Island VARIANCE Webber Hills Addition STREET VACATION 3295-3309 Crystal Bay Road marina license 3350 North Shore Drive ORONO-LONG LAKE CONTRACT oridl DNP, METRO REGION 6 TEL:612-772-797 Oct IS 93 12:5S No.013 P.Ol Facsimile Transmittal Coversheet Metro Region Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St Paul. MN 55106 FAX: €12) 772-7977 PHONE; FROM: ___DsJt^ ^ DATE: PAGES: T-f 3 TO: Kt tf ^ Ofo PURI’OSE;Foryouf information As you requested As wc discussed For your approval Take appropriate action __ Review and return . .. Reply to sender __ Other (sec remarks) I W LKj *SW)/A>4>s> , i/Jl.'Wx cf .OJtllCCC^Ch ^ t^U LkKl PjU f Oir^r\oJ __Li?J^Ag A 4^4^ ( Irn^ /-^rrOb'oK. i'KC -1 r\ .Tir >0L(y I f>) i p \jJlAM • fl / vJ yj . V4ntei.--- Li r\r>€ X d O p] *iO ‘jCjdniA 1 p UcK*^t) DNR METRO REGION 6 TEL:612-?72-7977 Oct 18 93 12:59 No.013 P.02 1^ STATf Of ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONENO. St. Paul, RN 55106 FH.E NO Ml October 18, 1993 Mr. Mike Gaffron Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Dear Mr. Gaffron: Plaase be advised that the State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Trails and Waterways opposes the proposed vacation of the right-of-way described as Hillside Place located between 3345 and 3339 Crystal Day Road, as showii on the attached map. This right-of-way as dedicated, provides a means of access to Lake Minnetonka. The fact that it has never fully been developed, or used by the public does not proclude future public use. Tho^citizens of Minnesota have a right to use all of the public waters in our stfeue. Any attempt to preclude public access should be carefully considered. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources devotes considerable effort to providing citizens with froe and adequate access to our water throughout the According to the Minnesota Supreme Court, a vacation of a public street must b© in th© public Interost. Additionally^ th© public includes persons other than those in the immediate vicinity. Our goal is to protect and preserve the public 8 right tc all forms of accesses. These accesses ca ' include but are not limited to shoto fishing, canoe/cairy-in access, wintei iccess, boat access, swimming ana . 'rnic areas, and observation areas. Any access the public has, has valuu. he water is public, and any access is an access to public ppperty. public owns it now, and ahould not lose any property or opportunity. No accf^s should be simply ''given” to the adjacent neighbors. Mthough there is other public property on Lake Minnetonka, that is not the test. *he test is whether the vacatio:: of this particular right-of-way is in the best interest of the public. ^ xiSff* consider the above request for the denial of the proposed vacatich. Adaitionally I would be glad to meet with any concerned parties to discuss anv other options. ' ^ Sincerely, Martha J, Area Trails and Waterways Supervisor attachment cc:Del Barber, Regional Supervisor George Golden, Attorney General's office Kim Lockwood, Water Recreation Specialist AN equal opportunity EMPLOYER 4^# S^J T *o t I ^■H.»,.nd.»»t»^.i:!»^i:2S^ * K/lvVv_-Sli43«8^ Burlir^ton TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator October 14, 1993 SUBJECT: #1874 Gary DeSantis/Sailors World, 1955 Shoreline Drive - Variance Public Hearing Application Request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances to place two 8’x8’20’ storage modules on marina property. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Owners Acknowledgment Form E - Survey/Site Plans F - Hardcover Review G - Existing Building Layout H - Module Location Options I - Module Descriptive Literature J - Resolution #2891 K - 10/14/93 DNR Letter Zoning District - B-2 Pertinent Code Sections Section 10.41 Subdivision 10 (A) - Requires 75’ building setback from shoreline. Subdivision 10 (D) - Allows no structures or hardcover within 75’ of the shoreline. Subdivision 9 (B) - Requires maintenance of a 10’ side yard and 30’ front yard along the street. Subdivision 6- Requires that yard areas be landscaped and planted with trees and shrubs. Zoning File #1874 October 14, 1993 Page 2 Discussion This marina was subject to a commercial site plan review in 1990 which resulted in the adoption of Resolution #2891 granting a number of variances for remodeling the entire site. The approved site plan, attached as Exhibit E, provides for 42 parking spaces, a club house building, decks, walkways, and clearly defined landscape areas. Note that the current owners had sold the property on a contract in the 1980s to Gerald Toberman. Toberman went through the application process and got approval for the site remodeling, then reneged on the property. Mr. DeSantis and Sailors World got the property back and proceeded to carry out the improvements which Toberman had had approved. A significant percentage of the approved site plan has been completed, i.e. the club house has been built, many of the walkways are in place, the grassed area between the club house and the lake is in place, and the gravel base for the parking lot is ready to be paved. Four-fifths of the area of the site is within 75 ’ of the shoreline. In this 0-75 ’ zone, 63.4% hardcover was allowed, which was a reduction of 10% over the pre-existing hardcover. 75-250’ hardcover was approved at 84%. The property owners have found that the club house building does not provide adequate storage space for equipment needed to operate the marina. The applicant indicates that storage space for slip customer property is needed, as well as storage space for merchandise to be sold in the ship’s store, and the maintenance equipment for the site including winter bubbling equipment, lawn mower, etc. It can certainly be argued that storage issues should have been dealt with by applicants before they commenced the site renovation. Applicant notes that when they got the property back, they proceeded with the approved plan rather than requesting further revisions at that time, not vvishing to risk a 2-3 month delay and possible expiration of the 1990 approval. Issues for Discussion 1.Is there any reasonable way to create the needed storage space within the confines of the existing building? 2.If not, are two storage modules needed, or would just one suffice.^ Does a hardship exist to justify variances for any storage building on this site? 3.If it is reasonable to allow one or two storage modules to be placed on the site, what !ocation(s) would be most appropriate? Zoning File #1874 October 14, 1993 Page 3 4. Should storage modules be placed over landscape areas designated on the site plan, thereby reducing hardcover? Or should they be placed in designated parking spaces, thereby reducing the already limited parking (a variance has already been granted to allow 42 spaces instead of the required 48)7 5. If parking spaces are reduced, how will applicant deal with overflow parking? 6. Is the need for storage seasonal, and would it be feasible to have the storage modules removed from the site during some seasons? 7. How will the storage modules be screened from public view, i.e. from the lake and from the road? Will they be in character with the club house building? 8. In general terms, how does the Planning Commission feel about an increase of structural hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone on this limited site? 9. The DNR has been notified of this application (required by the Shoreland Regulations) and has recommended denial of any location in the 0-75 ’ zone, but would not object to them over existing hardcover in the 75-250’ zone. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission is requested to determine if a suitable hardship exists and recommend whether storage modules should be allowed to be placed on the property; if so, where should they be located; how they should be screened; if parking spaces are eliminated, how parking will be dealt with; whether hardcover tradeoffs are needed or advisable; and address other pertinent issues. ch CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non conforming use $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) A.■ i t •- PROPERTY INFORMATION / 9'53'site Address V Oa-,- Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Attach legal description to application if not included on requir^. survey. . ^ ^ Date Property Acquired \f\/l AC-CAa I N month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; /^ \ residential^ _ _other (specif y)^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Zoning District; ^ ^^ c? \ nI Dc S^i Phon^ (home) L^Co'Co Q ^v^)^,’^hcne (work) ? ( ' ) Address \_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _' City; (\ / t^^l/zip; i V / OWNER (if dif Name Address: Phone (home)m Phone (work) City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail; VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Lot Coverage Setback;Front _ _Other (specify) 1**7 Hardcover Side _ _ Rear ^ Average Lakeshore /.T hji\ \Ajrf HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions; preventing compliance with Zon^g Code r'equ^ements; c: ..A -r^d/ <1 - - (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the followxn<^ infomiation must be suhniitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered ccmplete: Completed Application Form 2. J Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain ,this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center /348-327?). 3. V/Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. y/ Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8i5"xll'' for reproduction). 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes 6 7. /in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8%"xll"). . v/s:Slcetches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8*5"xll''). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any of ar persons you wish notified of this application. 8.___^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 agfees to provide all information required or ' liti:requested by the Zoning ^^dpinistra time not covered by o incurred in review of th' supplied is true and corre Applicant's Signatur 'agrees to pay additional fees (staff yment) and/or consultant expenses arid certifies that the information eit of hirg'^er Jcnowledge. Date g-ms OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acJccwledgesV^nd agnees to this application and further authorizes reasonab agents. Commission tion and verificati Owner's Signatur to the/property by City staff, consultants, d Council mepbers for purposes of investiga- requesc. /lAL. /r WrV)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 mont^. 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 heve an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zcning Office of this change prior to the meeting. r •f \ •. . ;■' .-• .'. ’ ^ •-«• •*• V- <'r ••;•.'■• . . • ■■*•;: ■ •■•; •• - T.'-r--''' '■ II'.-•'.•';.'.*.*• *•■ •* •’/I’-JL ? •"’Y .'vl ■ A."- .' ■ V •• ■ v-^. -■■.jT-: s'* »•.•’* * ' ^ • • , • . III-.-■ _ vr - * ” ' ^ ^ .. . ^ ^ 2* ^ iV- — - V••• -■'-■■•• I-.-f.l-':----- « " I v3 *:: - ;.*• •• - V. • •.,•«. \ { 19)(4)v-f* N V R L fifO S3 (16)( 17)( 18) ‘Vv^r \X v.' ■'^'■'- ^80) -ft'/6 PAqr or lOT 5 (7) V-y \ A . -. :-v. ■t^^y'kA^y "</<. .7^ Xy%<f’4fj% /K'! ■ isiv ...■• / V V ',< f % ■ vtft* 1 V 8 .b rr .N ( 14) 05) >$so' Iv-ia ...= •/ < X V •€ C0P*€i or vACA’eo «0S*SCE«»5 .V' 1 ___''_______«•/ ViA^V ^ ^'---iiO’ .(s^' / / , ^ 5f CC^'iH ;V v<C<'(D " .........?'^^V?f.'’5AA;Oiv; '•:>i/5 tin .\(ii)/ . I V • >. «f.‘ V'^ '7 .4 iJ V -* , < • . • * * . * .•••••■• M-tn ‘ • • • - ^""»»" «*,••»• .• , ' . —» • '•••**..v« . - > *7 / ' 11 ..V V^)v* • RUN DATE 09/OVn ^ * BATCH 002 MCNMEPIN COUNTY PROPfRTY INfORMATIOr^ SYSTEM PROPERTY (»«CRS LISTIPROP ADDR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER ItttfE/ADOR 1* 38 10-117-23 A2 0005Omo SHORELINE DR R C STIERNA I P A STIERNA ROBERT C A PATRICIA STIERNA 1930 SHORELINE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 C PROP ADDR OMCR NAME TWKfin « I * NAME/AOOR 38 10-117-23 92 0019 01955 SHORELINE DR SAILORS HORLO HTKA MARINA t YACHT CLUB INC 1955 SHORELINE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 \' ' ' m ‘ pmm AOOR : OMCR NAHE .^••••^JAXPAVER NAME/ADOR .* \. - A 38 10-117-23 92 0022 01960 SHORELINE OR SMITH'S BAY MARINA INC SMITH'S BAY MARINA INC 11708 NAYZATA 8LVD MXIt€TONKA m 55393 » t A' ‘ \' *>• .» ; •• .V , ** ? y i 1V ♦ i' • I -If ‘fvl : '‘ ’.r ♦ \ ■ >1. ; I -r-A .A ^ ■ ' iV ■* »' >11 I ^ 1 9* •* ■ ?'V ' ^ t •A i *... ' • ./<•• ®-a-,'.,,.-vr-:' . •■ ■ V li-' •••■ ■ ' .. V*' * » V*' • • . . rj, 'A < ' .'Y*- ^ ^ I *. :v> f ■' V ^.. I' /ft ■i ’ - l 'i.'t' ' ^' • >y • , , •’■■ 'i . REPORT NO. PAGE PIAS5A01758 10-117-25 A2 0007019A0 SHORELINE DR A R NETTLES « A T NETTLES A .AN NETTLES A ANNE NETTLES 1^0 SHORELINE OR NAYZATA HN 555?1 58 10-117-25 42 001201P50 SHORELINE OR C A H L CASTELLON CAMILO A HARIA L CASTELLON 1950 SHORELINE OR NAYZATA N4 55591 58 10-117-25 42 0015 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNCO J V SPATES ETAL HTKA HARINA A YACHT CLIB INC 1955 SHORElItC OR NAYZATA MN 55591 58 10-117-25 42 0021 01980 SPATES AVE D CREAR A M 8 CREAR DANIEL CREAR 1980 SPATES AVE NAYZATA m 55591 TOTAL BATCH 002 00007 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACES 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 DATE 9 . 4^ f , %J 4^ •• • — 7.Vi ‘?*'• ■■ \ci - iV ;.M '■ ’ l< r.*• I*, . >/ > '• f *• ' . ‘f / . ' * vt- * ' '.‘*** , •*. ✓ •!" ^ V Xf iU •'<4 ' ; : V • : / ^ * '‘•.V ‘9* , ’ ^ V t> i(i f *- d Y ‘ L*<’ ■ *’'» 'n. - X A\ -jf‘-J.f *.» 4 . > . • n:* .*v T •* i- : : fu’ •’ ( *• Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form L. Me TUf ^ [print name(s)][print address] h.ve reviewed the plans for the proposed U^s^ property located at - - ■- Application No I (we) understand that in executing this 'or'us^ (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the___propet^ but merely to confirm the City Councrlt^ project or usebut merely to confirm for tne i-icy v,ouuv-^x , oroiect or use the improvement plans ^ that the proposed n >. boi s project requires Council approve Proper^ Property Owner I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the property located at S^tl C cyih «>W<^ Application No I (we) understand that in ^^val of tbJ property or use (are) not asked ■^P^/°'ity Council^that I (we) am (are) aware of but merely to confirm ^ I proposed neiahbor's project or use the improvement plans and that the propos requires Council approval* Date Property Owner /LA Dat Property Owner Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement For I (we) (print name(s)][print address] Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this ’ulc (are) not asl.ed to declare approval or disapproval of ^the_^proper but merely to confirm for the City Council p.j project or use the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s proje requires Coun^il^spp^^cv''’ Property Owner I (we) (print name(s)j (print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed rer^erto "as Lani U^": property located at_ ___ _ — Application No. e , . j executing this acknowledgementr I (we) ar I (we) understand that in riisaDoroval of the property or us*(are) not asked to declare-approval o but merely to “he proposed neighbor's project or us.the improvement plans and that tne prop requires Council approval. // Property Owner Date Date Property Owner Xf you have any inf°-ation^that^ma “,,rBu”rdrng° a^'^east 10 da?s prior to the scheduled meeting date. L Y , t%f„! t»t> »—I" , — #•.»« —J X » «ri«»r( t\t V4 /:.'f. 'll— «e# ktf*• L W>*r« — a \ ij *«j,. \i'Mr)= \ 4 ji #1874 I7~ R oad —No—m k.. 4«J ,■' niT / ■4=“—COUNTY ItiSS'ffisSS -ti-* «/>.» fmttkt mm ^^ ^1 _, r."K.'y; <1 ■ >>l M - 1.'X r wiT Ml <.■«* ««* Uiyitt — t Mr« ii®8pj > I t . C ca U'.' \^5s i I tv,'?;•! ;* ?. s V'^ liftiifiil •A'>* li' i-s®|S m MMM' muutm** rnttmm aM A*$kktB m» ^ 7Tt: mmm ...... 4= C ounty —f~ ■-KCiras’.R oad — i~ «<•« <•>* !♦■»<*--------- >'\m^ ■?/•/': .;o' V !^ ::25:a^5S*=a?3}^u, , ^ r.; R* LOCAeftof^ OP^TfO^^ APPUCA/^T' ^oA)S/Oe«MT^ ^88085 10/117/23 SMITH'S DAY MARINA SWB!nBPD?IIHRI!5!!iul4!RISinRlW!r^WW!BBR'*ff*^9rV!trTT*^^rffy5^BV*v I < y, j ‘ »f I • ■ 1»I f • • /4 =’(%>! feft ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. sail Cedar laVe Road Mtnnaapolnn 55^15 Ape/ftvv V-'- SURVEY rOR! • J • • w* SMITH'S BAY MARINA ONE INCH EQUALS 20 FEET $ .* ■. liHfiZ{)XEB.L October 11, 1908 November 1, 19C8. REVIsePt REViSEDj. Jnnujnj 20,19B9.OMsbjlptiok or mapi , e ;■ A«-buUt aurvoy of docks at Smith's Bay Marina, Otono, Minnesota. ■■ • •■;. EAWffiUilSj. .1 I VO ^ only Ihose oa.r.«rnt, .hlcK U. rHrnt .nrnr., „p .. Mrpo„ t. bec^ .-^rc ,f Olhar lournpa. The aurvey doaa not purport lo jho« all r.uc'smi.. pn.l i-^rovc^tnls. a . , T- • 1 i ■■■■ ' * * ^ ' i PJAMP JS H.D_8Jf.MP,qb0_Ati^D_CpNVENTION8; ■ ^ v- .rmicd... ■. ?J)flXXr.IC.MXOJiL HMiV uc I C. IttrJcOl, U.L.O. N oT 10535 acau<iiA4Mk^Aacs3&ak Jir«» C•^^cr,nip»rt\kl^,iHct.Urr,ni,rp».t..,cnt *'1)40 SF 9^IVC mi A af,#ii 5P T«TAt_i ©•If* iMi Urtdtr Touna Ito 4 />«1IA« ^4Cf f • ••, ;W00 SF T^tm."v 400 4HP i ltd Ha I Sc/yici'^ I' p4o^ iro I 'Sbointitoat jj.T7 -as«- £A^^L4^ /!) -1st' eo 'OS'-. K_ r_. ■? p H ^ s. :C. ____________________ !.>£. J=L //>«?<___^ /!/^r _ 2^ZSO S C____V.Sinr P:am. S^. - , H-/^. _ rvnr ^ks A*i— 3oro^ y4/2JkS ~ 1^,1^ ^fdc\J^^ lifei^G© \/^’'-o U i)'^ .{?!A^2jfL|/s) (:»s;iop^A.or gi,4»/4 ^ d. t.MM— -LM^ 5 Afn._0> 3^ V - X«_^ ! I ^rr^€Aj<a^. _ fttt cv^T —t-«.lMl.-r^tn--«^t.ll.iH^iaMUili HARDCOVEa CALCULATIOyjmSKEEf--------------- ----------"y —------ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE one/ 0*75'J 75*250' 250-500' 500-1CG0' Existing Hardcover in Zone^"-^ ZO X HO___= I I! 1 A. House iZOd LENGTH WIDTH S • f*« S.F. S.F. <^ A •\P<iy .|. 'pH <C1fcT«<^ I B. S.F. 6^ /^r c. D rive ’.S.F. S.F. 5^4 5 Scvjtn StH/S D. SiDE ’WALX 7/ C< ha*fU _ yo S.F. s< sc (€5 l/U*COb U'Alku/4yS ^ ^ OF S .P ^■LS Ts .f /.^ ^ f E.-^^ATIO/D eck / ? ^ X f, 30 S.F { oUC U'ooj^ X--------^-S^s.F.^^) F. Landscape___________x_____________=___^________ Cvtvfl S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN Elastic ' ' SHEETING X X S.F. S.F. X .S.F. G. Other Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone 3 siz S.F. 2^,011 S.F.B 2£2J_^B “iL^rOi ? X 100 ^ y F? .S' % s * • •* fHOFOtCO DECK I' ' OfCA 0 ^ 2v 5^5V lu (A \ F/l1 posri^ 6 FAHK1 'a 1*1 '.*■ t*----- -> i -f O c ^•»^ 1 <0^ fScSv*cri*rTi^f A4? '\PACt J m V ©,/@ .'- if./fH^iC' ^R0PP9tP WALXHiAY Q r/j<d LW 9 ) >« »v'*/r ./15« 1^ / S3cir 9 Ur'’ V" of»^* .»h Ji"* (I -a: A^r\K BA^ KIARiriA Mil r— A <■ P* \riNt\<^ f\^epo\/^ -z./^a 'PSgV/ajc :! Aiosn»e<*ce^T7>t«i<*iC*_____________0t4-Piu^____________________ .ar=2sx J2^i5o .STKcs (A:«ici\.tV£??4:/^V/4'^^ f^«^'^^<k^w*H/Me.t'^^________2■5f^ ^P*ce5. t*..^^llti. wecr_/f_v^^4Sttfl PctJ. . .. -O r f \* r ^ M I------------ I XTJftwXrTr^— / *.^‘ - - jr4* ^ a* f^rfvwp W. iwu.. Af fWf-’CTT^ »U^./ «fpt»-f* _r ' ^^Tk /1 r^kr1 \ I vi^^roM ^w>^» £i6*p.c -e^>^Y-:crC« ••••/ >%* Uxy<xts> *vf. n««4 **/a« I It* * »t • • ^• > L Jor C0 *. fc«V n'4-.o 7 6*Q>MC. %ttDf K/.«fl ^ -7%^«x. EA. n-o L y.i L»lt Cf fPe^.f ir^x RWCKI ______________________ft'-c,l» Cro^ ' i-C>^ ^ •1 ----—'•±T---------rh—1 1 1 1 -----------------I V --------------t_fii—_z. »* • • • • • 5o'-o* \ ^M-T it iPc^noM «v. __>«-vC.C1VY.) . ^• M ♦ I. ' r.» ; * «^. I " :.• •’ •. ' , * *• • ' •* -• •- .• •: I .'%-•• . ■ * *.tX O^clt ' 1 I Z<9 o ^ P 1^1 '‘"3 "? /Vi ■ ff'L'ljKi!^ 4 ? t Trachte's Micro-Storage Building The Next Generation of Storage Solutions ! r*u hit* s \1ic ro-Sl(>r,TL;t* Ruildini; is lht» pr^u tu cil scjIuticTM for r«*fciil«»rs. tJwncTs, mobile home p.irk m.in.iuers, dnd rh r<Mtion direc tors, business prof^rit‘tors dnd sell-sfor.fue cm ners. Frt»e uf> \ ,ilu- til)le floor sf)*u e l3v storing e\c ess inMMitorv, siMsondl meu hnndisc', suf>f>lies. rec rc Mfi<jn»il c ‘<fuif)menf. bic VC Ic's . . . prac tic cill\ anything. C'on\enicMil. safe* «ind c c »st-eftc»f ti\e storai;c» Tf.Khfc* s Mu fo-Slora^«* fUjildinc; is fiiovable, w hic h m.iv aIlov\ if to be* f>l.ic <*d on selbac ks. c*asc»menfs and othc*r unus(*d arc*as. Idi*,il for v.ic dnf f)fof)c*rt\ . VVhi*n vou'rc* ready to dc*\elof). rno\c* the* buildinv; awav. The* \1ic ro-Storage* Buiidinv; i*. a comf^letc* small buildmvi p^u kav?c*. Standard si^rc» is 8' \ 20'. fUjildinj4s c omc* t ornf)U*tc' witfi f).i« f if ions, floorini* .ind roihuf) doors. \)anv flcM»f f)lans arc* a\.fil.ibic» to suit \()ur nc*c*cIs. f or addition.ll inform.aion .ibout iht* nc*\t vic*nc»r.ition oi '-tor.i^c* s< )lut’« )ns, i ail (800)JaO 182 I or (808) 8J7-78 ‘M> FAX (808) 8 J7-021I IBS / Ir.u htc* building Sv*^tc*ms. Inc M 4 W 11 bum Ko.ui Sun Pr.iir u*. V\ I 5^100 . V' 0 I 17 am nifllil lir- .A ~ - .,a TRACHTE MICRO STORAGE BUILDING MODULE I MODULE I I 10 X 8 10 A 8 MODULE I I I 1 ®01 -X 10 K 8 X' Lsr J OP X »n 0 X *r» on M «n 0 K tn -tir MODULE IV rj_ _ _tr- T ' —i 0 X XI 0 X x> I 3 kA The Trachte Micro Storage Building is an 8 x 20' sii.gle slope building with the low side eave being 8'4". EACH TRACHTE BUILDING SYSTEM INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING: Design Loads: Roof live load - 30 PSF; Wind Load - 20 PSF; all interior structural steel shall consist of 16, 18, and 20 gauge zinc coated in accordance with ASTM A“525 26 gauge R-type roof panel system - 6" overhang - galvalume finish 1/4:12 pitch 26 gauge rake and eave trim, choice of seven colors 18 gauge header and jamb system for 3'8" x 7'0" and 8'8" x 7'0" clear openings. Slate Gray or Cream Beige (header and jamb material is A-525 hot-dipped galvanized steel with a baked-on siliconized polyester paint system) 28 gauge Trachte-Rib interior partition panels zinc coated in accordance with ASTM A-525 16 gauge 4" floor joists and track zinc coated in accordance with ASTM A-525 — 1/2" plywood flooring (6) leveling feet with 6" maximum adjuj;tment 18 gauge threshold at each door opening all fasteners and caulking required for the erection of the building all steel roll-up doors where required, choice of seven colors All units are shipped KD and must be assembled on site ** .i •If i * 1. . > *# I Add By Division #1 H'?"4 The TBS Create-A Spoce is a free-standing partition system for converting existing space into self-storage centers. Conversions are today's creative answer for adding new revenue and profits from under-used properties. And TBS makes it easy with the Create-A- Space Partition System. Greater Than the Sum of ^artc Ttie Create-A-Space Partition System is a complete package. It contains everything you need for a successful building conversion including doors, partitions, headers, jambs and channels. Best of all, TBS quality components assure long life and low maintenance. The Create-A-Space is a free-standing system, so installation is auick and easy. Subtract Your Problems TBS services eliminate potential conversion problems. Toassur«=» coby installntior., best use of space, proper unit mix and maximum revenue; TBS provides complete design arid layout services as part of the Create-A-Space System package. Multiply Your Profits Converting under used building space into self-storage units can multiply your profits m.any times over. Call today for more information about Create-A-Space Partition System. TK V Trachte Building Systems 800-356-5e24 (In Wl) 800-732 2288 314 Wilburn Road Sun Praine. Wl 535P0 Partition System H IHBi Complefo Product Line tof the Self-Storage irv^ustry- Slng5e/2 Story Self-Storage Buildings. Mini Modules Partitton Systems. Roll-Up Stoel Doors. Transoms. Mullions ar>d Clear Span Buildings #1 oo 74 ^J.o /• ^^ A City of OROINO CITY OF* ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2891NO. A RESOLDTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONIK SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 10 l.w , (B), (C), (D), SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 9 SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1, AND PER SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 2 APPROVES THE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN FOR SMITH' S BAY MARINA AND YACHT CLUB, INC. , FILE #1592 ........ the property located at 1955 Shoreline Drive within the Citi o. O.ono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached WHEREAS, the applicant proposes the construcuion orincioal structure and major restoration of the marina proper has applied to the City for variances to Municipl Zoning Code Section 10 22, Subdivision 1 to permit fencing 43' from the lakeshore instead i?tAe required 75'; Section 10.41, Subdivision 5 to permit parking stalls for 42 vehicles instead of the required 48 stall , Section^ 10.41, Subdivision 9 to permit parking 10* line instead of the required 30'; Section 10.41, Subdivision 1 . . permit the principal structure to be built 50 instead of the the required 75'; Section 10.41, Subdivision 1 ( permit the principal structure to be built 40' from adjacent to a residential zone instead of the required^ , 10.41, Subdivision 10 (D) to permit 15,862 square fee. or ^3.4% of hardcover (actual reduction of 10% over existing hardcover at 73.6%) within 75' of the lake where no hardcover is allowed and to hardcover to remain at 5,100. square feet or 300% over the allowed amount of hardcover at 1,275 square feet or 25%; and per Section 10.41, Subdivision 2 seeks approval of a commercial site plan tor .ne co.molete restoration of the marina property. NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: Pace 1 of 6 • ^ •• CITY OF ^RON<^ City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2891 _________ FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1592. 2. The property is located in the B-2 Lakeshore Business Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application listed above and the commercial site ,5® 1990 and restoration of the subject property on October 15, 1990 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: a) The lot is not deep or large enough to allow structures to meet required setbacks. b) The majority of the property is located within the lakeshore protected area where no hardcover or structure is allowed. c) The property has been used as a commercial marina for over 40 years and was recently rezoned to B-2 in 1975. d) The proposed improvements provide a reduction of 10% in overall hardcover in addition to improving quality of storm water run-off prior to entering the lake. e) The majority of the improvements provide for a major reduction in hardcover immediately adjacent to the shoreline . f) Access to site and parking areas have greatly been improved with the proposed single structure making for a more efficient use of the severely limited land area. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare o- th.s community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance Page 2 of 6 •/ CITY OF ORONOJ City of OROrVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2891_________ would not adversely affect traffic conditions/ light/ air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant/ but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent Oo. the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS/ ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above/ the Orono City Council hereby grants the variances as set forth above and approves the commercial site plan dated November 1/ 1988/ revised January 20/ 1989 by Advance Surveying and Engineering Company for Smith's Bay Marina and Yacht Club/ Inc./ subject to the following conditions ; 1. Owner to execute a Developer's Agreement and post a Letter of Credit with the City to ensure the following improvements are installed; A) City engineer to approve drainage/surface water treatment plan per final plans by Sathre Bergquist. B) Paving of parking area, lighting/ signage/ and installation of grassed area per plans by E.O.S. Corporation of Excelsior/ Minnesota dated January 10, 1989. 2. The executed Developer's Agreement and Letter of Credit (amount to be 150% of the cost of required improvements) must be submitted to the City prior to application for a building permit for new principal structures. The Cit> Engineer shall review total improvement costs prior to sibmittal of Letter of Credit. 3. Erosion control shall be employed at all times on the site during the time of construction of the principal structures. 4. Demolition permits are required for all buildings to be removed. Such permits must be obtained by applicant at the time a permit is issued for new construction. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued for the new structure until all buildings designated for removal have been razed. Applicant may Page 3 of 6 •. •% CITY OF ORONO City of OROISO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2891 _________ continue to use existing structure up to the time the Certificate of Occupancy is to be issued. application7lr buTia permit is^''submittertrthe the Orono staff shall evaluate the proposed improvement and uses of the property per :.vandards adopted by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commissio/. in the determination of the Service Availability Charge-.; to be collected with the issuance of a building permit for tne new construction. 6. 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 (Octooer 22, 1991). 7. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 8. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 4 of 6 • • • % City of OROINO CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2891NO. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 22nd day of Octoberr 1990. Janiefe^I^. 'Cr a STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged 22nd day of, OctobL /o^‘HL°n%«t^a"u" ”o%"p°o'rat ‘ion ^"n^d °elecu7ed 'on behalf of the City. THEB69AUJ<«®ota Notary"Public 9-Q-- 99. My Commission Expires Page 5 of 6 r • • CITY OF ORONO3 City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2891_________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of h\P'199 (9 appeared f-. 7g^ ,i . Lccutcd the foregoing the tha^ h-* (thev) executed the sarr.e asinstrument, and ac.'cnowlecgea tha^ n., / his (their) free acr and deed. NCTA'?-ii THEF^I^cVmVnne ^ta MY CO.''LMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) } SS . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) c , 199 , before mer fo7^ira^;Son. n, .ppea^a known to ine to be the (their) free act and deed. notary public MY COM-MISSION EXPIRES Pace 6 cf 6 CITY OF ORONO city of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2891_________ exhibit a Commencing at the intersection of the North line of Central Avenu« extended Easterly with Easterly right-of-way line of County Road Ho. 7 thence Northeasterly 42 degrees 15 minutes East 120*5 feet to actual point of beginning thence South 57 degrees 45 minutes East 29.04 feet thence North 37 degrees 50 minutes East 130 feet to the intersection of North line of Grand Avenue extended Easterly thence North 59 degrees 45 minutes West 18 feet thence Southwesterly 42 ^®9rees 15 minutes West 131.5 feet to beginning including accretions,, ORA PARK ON LAKE MINNETONKA", Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter the property"); and •/ ‘ / RESOLUTION #2891 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO I Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the fore^going copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on October 22 , 19 90 , and that the same is a true and c'^'-recc copy of said resolution was duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. r>HONS NO. STATI OF ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TOTRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 772-7910 FiLENO Octobar 14, 1993 Hike Gaffron City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minneaota 55323 RE: LAND USE APPLICATIONS, CITY OP ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Mr. Gaffron: I have comments on the following land use applications which are scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission on October 18, 1993. #1874. Sailers World. 1955 Shoreline Drive. The applicant requests several variances in order to place two storage \xnits on a portion of the property that is currently vegetated. DNR Metro Waters recommends that the city deny the variance requests as they are currently proposed. The site is already non-conforming and the proposed addition of storage units would exacerbate the non conformity. storage units on a portion of the property that is already hardcover and meets the lakeshore setbacks may be acceptable as an alternative, but not the current proposal. We also question whether hardship exists. _Orville Fisher. 475 Oxford Road. The applicant requests after-the-fact approval of a variance to allow intensive vegetation removal within 75 feet of Lake Minnetonka. DNR Metro Waters recommends that the city deny the after-the-fact variance request and require restoration of the site. Selective removal of vegetation in order to obtain a view of the lake from the residence would have been acceptable, but not intensive vegetation removal. The restoration/landscaping plan should include larger caliper trees to replace the larger diameter trees which were removed, and should place particular emphasis on replanting of vegetation in the area closest to the lake (i.e. the shore impact zone). Following are soma additional specific points for the city's consideration mat would apply to all the variance requests: Hardship must be demonstrated to justify approval of a variance request. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be based on the following prerequisites: A. The proposed use is reasonable. 1. AN EQUAL opportunity EMPLOYER Mike Gaffron October 14, 1993 Page 2 B It would be unreasonable to require conforaance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties nay arise due to ••functional and aesthetic concerns" and eggnomig cQfiBxderations alone do Hfij, constitute practical difficulty. C The difficulty of confortilng to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as peculiar topography. If the problem is common to a number of homes in the area, it is not considered unique, D. The problem must not be created by the landowner. E. The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. The courts have said that the applicant has a "heavy burden of proofs* to show that all the prerequisites to the granting of a variance are satisfied. This is because a variance allows property to be used in a manner forbidden by the ordinance. The Department should be advised of the action taken on the two above requests within 10 days of final action and copies of the official record should be forwarded to this office if the variance request is not denied. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these commente. sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc; Ed Pick, Shoreland Hydrologist Lake Minnetonka files 27-133, #26 and 27-133, #23 TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator October 14. 1993 SUBJECT: fflSlS Charles and Shirley Pyle. 3548 Ivy Pi.'<ce - Variances - Public Heaiing Zoning District - LR 1C Application: Requesting 75-250’ zone hardcover variance for addition to existing residence. Note: The proposed addition to the house was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council as application 11^1750. which resulted in variance approval resolution /<3183 in September 1992. The property owners subsequently determined that they would not proceed with the detached garage portion of that application, and just do the residence addition. The current application therefore does not reflect all of the hardcover additions and subtractions proposed in the previous application. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Site Plan with Proposed Addition and Hardcover Removals F - Resolution ^3183 G - Existing Hardcovei Calculations ^ EXISTING APPROVED VIA RESO #3183 PROPOSED IN CURRENT APPUCATION 0-75’23.3% (948 s.f.) 19.7% (805.5 s.f.) 19.7% (805.5 s.f.) 75-250’12% (5.870 s.f.) 50.9% (4,154.5 s.f.) 61.1% (4.978 s.f.) Lot Coverage by Strucmres 14.8% (1,810 s.f.) 20.6% (2,523 s.f.) 20.4% (2,496 s.f.) Zoning File #1878 October 14, 1993 Page 2 Discussion Please review Resolution #3183 and the site plan approved with that resolution. In comparing the current proposal to that approved in September 1992 the following changes are noted: 1. 0 The e.xisting detached garage will remain, and no new garage is proposed. Driveway revisions with the current proposal are minimal. 3.While the 0-75 ’ hardcover reductions approved previously are proposed to be carried out, hardcover reductions associated with the garage project in tht 75-250 ’ zone are not proposed. This results in merely an 11 % 75-250 ’ reducti'm rather than the 21% reduction under the old plan. Lot coverage by structures under the current plan will increase from 14.8% :o 20.4% where 15% is the standard allowance. The previous approval was for 20.6%, the difference being in the size of the existing and previously proposed garage. The Planning Commission is asked to recommend whether the current p oposal is acceptable. Please review the findings and conditions in Resolution #3183. The removal of trees is no longer an issue. The extent of site regrading will be relatively minimal with this proposal. Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission finds that the findings of hardship and unusual property conditions as stated by the applicant in the current application and in Resolution #3183 are adequate to justify granting of the proposed hardcover variances, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate, conditioned on: 1. Limit structural improvements to 20.4% lot coverage on the property. Upon application for building permit provide: a suix'ey locating all existing and proposed improvements detailed grading and drainage plans all hardcover scheduled for removal be removed prior to footing inspection for the new construction. I CITY OF ORCNO “ VARIANCE APPLICATION #1Initial Appiicaticn Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original applicatrcn Variance for ncn ccnforr.ing use $200.00 After-the-?act Fees (Double application fee) - property information Site Address^^l&JV;iL_2il^ /icP'-opertv Identif. Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application ir net • 'Vb • <:7<rn nenrh/'yearincluded on required ,survey, ace Prooerty Accuired ^ , I (doxgo^^ aiSO cwn oche-( soe-^ "v)Present use of property: reside.>t.a.. - - • ~ . Zoninc District: _ _ _ _Vlr _ _ applicant Phene (heme)^ . /,^51 , frg^.rtlTg^7' ?hone (wo r:o - - ___:ip:JAkLS5l/c>P\.<C. City: OWNER (if different than applicant) N.n.e ^L.g Address: <^4-g> City: description of reqoest Phone (home ) 1 ~ _ Phone (worh)_f^^ifll_T\1i Estimated Construction Cost ^.>a ■ Describe recuest in detail: 4t^ - —• ' VARIANCES required _ _ Lot Area Setback: Lot Width _Y Hardcover MM I * ~ Front _ Side __ Rear _ Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship/description op UNnSDAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing ccr.pliance with Zoning ,,o e^^,c:icr ,r. i^aoP n-f ^ p- -. y.f.^ pnA r. ct<vs^rw (a^wach additional sheets if necessary) REQDIKZD SrBMITTALSAll Of t-he follcwipq information must be submitted by the, applacatxon deadline date order for yoin* application to be considered completer / 1. Completed Application roiTn 2. ^ Certified Prooerty Cv^ners List of owners within 150' (you musu obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. ^ Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8><"xll" for reproduction). 5. ToDocraohic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8*«"xll'). 6. Sketches or p’lans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8Ji’’xll"). 7. As an addendum to this applicationM please attach a separai-e lis^ Oj. any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. _Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Apolicant and Property Owner mi^st sign this application. Please temember that your variatnee application is not complete if_the— j•n-Formation has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The aoplicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requesVed by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered bv' original f6e payment) and/cr cons'— .,an_ expenses ^ V. ^ -incurred in review of this application, and certities that tne iHiOrmaticn supplied is true and cortrect t6 the best of his/her kncwledge.^^^^^^^ Applicant's Signature ^- - - - - - - - -' *• - - - - - - - - j Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and fur«-he- authorises reasohcible eritry onto the property by City staff, consultants, aoents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga- «p> ^ tion and verification this request. Owner's Signature ____________________ Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month.. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Ccanmission 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 i •N A*'? *r T- »ibi'M — r n -1 1 ~ T. I <N« ••- ~ '>*-^\ ?> ’•‘T xv;« ^ ♦» ■W.A•fc _ . t m ^ A ^ ^ t> , > \ a ^ A 2:9> m N?, n' i >>\ v • • \ - '_ jjf C£^. t.jV s'Sc X “ ' \- -f’y t>-—^"•‘•'Xj; r%* _ -'-* • t^52 / s ‘Cr>:Vivt,/^^ '«'X'" 't*?* /-^x ^5T **X 'i\ “■ •*% tV. \ >\ / ‘V »x^r : ^r V!// 5 = vV ' z. ' ' i I I- /..;* •' t w •; / vV:- i: \ k.‘\ :'f=x :v\=.\^\dl^‘ v/\ \ \i=. \ \ 1; 5i..-v'5.0-^?^- I /■ 7 r 2 .N /V ■r^'z'^o2 • j- - *-*' ^ v A>^i^T U '...•'** “■ ■ •■ •• • • • ’ ‘ *■ •■ *^< v' V _______f>} ~ .-.-r-- #» r; /s •• •**‘x i'- <>>’ • n • ;'l?i'.! •••„ r.-l ' •I*- J i .^o t9-U7-« AZ •;?7W)f'Mp« ‘4pOp5« 'AOOPESSI ’ j(M4ER HATf L MPLAH IT *L 0001UNASSIGHED TRUSTEES- J (M4ER rWf • U L MfLAH IT AL TRUJ TAXPAYIII iJAHIS H tURIEflT ' ^'NAff/AODR 7100 HAYZATA RLVO ffi PROPi AOOR •;/ , OTS^O : IW PL . ■< j OIMER HA»1E I 0 H JIHETT ITAL rl TAXPAYIR i; ARTHUR H JEHETT T.‘HAjf/fODR r 554i IVY PLACE \- ?i ';*J 55591 > I* }• * * t •• • t •V -. i.: :; i | -!>‘i fti'-10 29-117-25 42 0054 PROP-^OOR ' >5545 |VY PL JIPTRIY I DEBRA DAteERRY ftjAXPAYIR .‘1 .JIFPRIY p D|B|U OAtSERRY jSrm/AOOI^ >545 IVYlpL ^t • :!• j-: ■ WY7ATA’|f^;j*55591 WR HA»lf #11 •1 . V' • I ■ 00 • ’ Sk ’/i s • . •• ^ ; \ ■. v«(• I *•» . * mi'. i . i’-' '4 ’•Sly . /{'I'* f“I','-' A»f »-T.' HEdiEPIN COLAifY PROPERTY lNF0RHA110t< SYSTEM PROPERTY OHJERS LIST30 20-117-25 42 001603550 IVY PL HM ♦ J DAMPIER ‘ HILLIAH S DAMPIER 3550 IVY PLACE HAY2ATA m 55591 58 20-117-23 <i2 0019 ' 05554 m PL FRAttC J BUYSSE FRAm J BUVSSF 3534 IVY PLACE . HAYZATA m 55591 REPORT HO. 3i<«}S401page 7.38 20-117-25 42 0017 05548 IVY PL CAS PYIE CHARLES 0 PYLE 35<«8 IVY PLACE HAYZATA tt4 55591 30 20-117-23 42 0027 03560 IVY PL JOHN H IIUtKXIR VII t HITE JOIRI H IIOUOUR VII 3560 IVY PLACE lUYZATA (84 55591 \ TOTAL PATCH .005 0U007 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS Rtl>RESE»4tED ARE AH ACCURAIE AMD TRUE REPRESEHTATIOH OF 144FORHATIOH AS IT APPEARS ,II1S DATE 044 THE RECORDS OF THE HLltlEP.'H COL84TY DEPARldCtH OF PROPERIY TAXATI044, TO,T|IE BEST OF MY F449HIEOGE A44C BELIEF 0A1 t * • :' . ! : • . • - •• } 1 I o o CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR CHARLES PYLE OF LOT 174. TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA (S> OrSC-I?MC«« py >»(»»!SCS lot TAfiOF'S SubOiwiiion 0^ Spring lots. rnn Suffer lo'.f'iflv to sr>o« mo aoun<j4Fit* of ift* «oo«* doicnbfij prop • '’tf. inj :R# loci'iion of 4« flitting novtf. g4'’4]f. «n«j *i$itlf Rfrj. CO«fr tnf'’fcn. It :oft not Purrori to tn3» cl^f'^ • •C*’c • f *f ni t or encroAC •'•f ni j , 0 Iron «A'»fr ^firings inc«n 4^4 S>4»fJ upon «n otu*fd flitu9. |>4tl I4H ComN & Gronbfrc. Int. (. •.■^n;*triy f ^ ».n7« Lmf s fj- r« i-'J i 'Muir.iik AifMut’ • l»»ng Like. \l\ M:^7>414I e^c> l"= 4o‘ ^ I ^ n»% ' « • u* p»i fuM\f ni* f •«» *)if»»I ♦ »*f«u '*>** • $ Jiih »txr»VmlLi«4 I 1 <nj * jnr%«^ u»vL' U»> •« 'O*' <4 \Ur'«r«44 _ yluyyjsL^ — - \t«ri « (.fi***^ «*44 I «t«w ir*" rr rf—- ■ • N. 44 4A1 r 'O CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3183 _ A RBSOLOTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C) AND 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE #1750 KHEREAS, Charles D. Pyle and Shirley Pyle (hereinafter ^"the applicants”) are owners of the legally described asWithin the City of Orono (hereinafter City ) ana legaxxy follows: Lot 174, Taylor's Subdivision of Spring P^rk Lots, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property ), an WRRREAS the aoplicants have applied to the ^ City variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section in to permit structural improvements and\ variance ?;^==s^lt^ion°^^0^/^ Turd?v\s"?or r^Ltfnf ap%\ 0:1^^ ^lowe"lan “d“w\«^^^lM^¥°s.^^^^^^ 5,870 s.f. or 72% exists on the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of orono, Minnesota: pihdi NGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1750. The property is located in the LR-IC, Single Family or .5 acres in area. The subject property consists of 12,225 s.f. or .28 acres. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this °5! Tulv 20 1992 and August 17, 1992, and recommended approval o? thf proposed variance application as amended based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 6 o,. o CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 3183NO. A.Comprehensive improvement of the property results in a reduction of l,6i? s.f. or 20% hardcover within the 75 250' setback area. B.Based on the existing drainage patterns of the property runoff produced from the structures placed within the 75-250' setback area will drain away from lake and into street. C.No major land alterations are proposed as a result of these structural improvements. D.New location of the garage addition will conform with the basic development pattern of the immediate neighborhood. 4.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the variances on the health, safety and welfare of Llie coinmuni+'y. CONCLDSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) and 10.22, Subdivisions 2 to permit the construction of a detached garage at 564 s.f., an addition to residence at 381 s.f. and an overhead roof structure at 305 s.f. subject to the following conditions: All structural improvements shall be limited to a total of 20.6% lot coverage on the property. Page 2 of 6 i CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3183________ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Upon application for a building permit, applicants shall complete the following: a. To provide a survey locating all existing and proposed Improvements. b. To obtain a demolition permit for removal of existing detached garage. c. To provide detailed grading and drainage plans. d.To provide a planting schedule for replacement of two mature oak trees. Applicants to provide size, type and location on survey submitted with application..po5 All hardcover scheduled for removal within the 0-75' setback area (142.5 s.f.) as shown on page 6 of this resolution shall be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. All hardcover scheduled for removal in the 75-250' setback area (1,715.5 s.f.) as shown on page 6 shall be removed prior to final inspection and occupancy of the garage. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 20, 1993). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have-read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 6 fO. o CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3183_________ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of September, 1992. UMJcjO Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor /f Property Owner (s STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of September 1992, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorot y • Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the tity. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 . 4 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3183 _ _ _ _ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN /^ti ) SB . On "th-is __tidy wi. ^ j ^ / f ^ ^ ^ > , — before me a Notary Public within and^/or appeared ( -h.'fr' UL ' :;T ^^xecuteci tHi day of .199 ^ kno^^^'-o me to U theVersonVs) descriLbed in and who executed"tHe foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. i NOTARY^wSu<f- M^NESOTA HENNEPIN COUNIY My commission •xpirst 5-12-w XA.ggrOF»MHniBCQgAr ^ / '^^'71 ^ ‘ Notary Public ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared day of 199 kno^^to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed tne foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 ? 1 -- 55SS553R.s^5SfflS3!BES5S!^ MM Uknom^jri r«L#Tt ^OM»Tr'' » ■* * - j 5 j}'° j. ^ , ■ ■^:r^ « :.'i.',:•-{• >^‘ - ^tygs ;,,j ^ litoTcCi^ir. I; 1 A^ ___ — — — —-. — T*^^— "Tr*** —r^w-V«4^^^*■ * MV^9 • fli' ‘ • I • / *V a '. ' tssssses^^" I CKC12E^(mM wnvqH) -c ‘:^fp>c¥- -‘:M- -umOW fVTw> */fbf'/WiTVfHJ W^ " \ \ ^yri \V*<^ tWuuv \ >JKvnstf MuiJ^ .■ \ r-----V *frner wvwitf>to 1 fv^. (fo^c^ KPnoyj .... *15'- - Cbure 0MIN P6v/fti *ito ;'Uli^;-^A•■ - f-u>, ................ , f, '^ . • . • —fc_- twth; cet^rwc? ~ P#vyt^ ^/f d ^<0fi^wC»A <» Hnj» 1 *1 1 11 ^ 1 li 1' \t-- — 1 ! -■ •1 “^ J ‘ fir.' . — • .. *#-'4‘i?lA-r*' 1 ^ i4^.;\\N;.‘fVj^;;:. pfc^io;T.r . J ^ j * wW^,gy/ii^y^' y.i...-. ; FtA. KViTi<9»J ' ■'; A"--*v^ ''l*’*^'t<rVV'’ v". ••./.' • .V •*.. ii: •».V- •• / .•< • 1 • . •f*" • • *• "V* •• • •1% *. ^ • lAJ n 'TtW/CC^ J01>'*^1 . . • • A V-.. .■■ A A. L-.'V .... l^.SL(T^^ ■ • •• ..** ^.*»*•-»”••• * •’ * •• *• * '; «** * L‘ ■••«.■.•»», •••,**».\t**.•,■■'*• •«*»• •• *• ••« • ‘ ‘ ^ ^ * *.. ^ ^ , r •. * • • '•;• t’*V -,.•# • • % yy-.'* J', fffiv c. N5c8tre^ ■5^1 -nwN5 wCMoe- ^^* ro;\'.tD 14. suer ‘^•z. Krx.'JI ;4 cr;>r I'ilili f. } t />yl€ hardcover calculation worksheet S1T3ACK zone : (C.ECLE ONE) 75-250' Existing Hardco ver in Zon e '/o __^------------ *250-500' 50^-1000' A. House /S s.F. length WIDTH S.F. ?/, ^7 S.F. syx CLfOfic ;s.F. tf*'ojOOD /5 .33 s.F. 2 ''cc/oa/f *S. Garage . .// X___________ s.F. • t • c. Driveway X X _ s.F. ^ S.F. (7 ''o D.. Sidewalk _s.F. CCfC>Cfi U/AuK yj5 s.F. r ,'\ ' ^E. Patio / Deck S.F. /s X /*/. g X /y i Z/O—' 2.5 = ^______37 s.F. \ -•*- F.Landscape areas />z4Sr/c •UNDERUUN BY . X _ X /77 S.F. PLASTIC------------- SHEETING S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other s.F. Total Hardcover in Zone 7yf s.F. Total Fhcperty A rea in Zone 9075_t s.F. ^ -/ 9-92 B 9Vf -r B 90 75 t X 100 y J.2€ _ % 2€6 ^SO.COU^^r^O AS ». ^ #••• *-W 1 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0“75' ^5-2503) 250-500' 500-1000 Existing Hardcover in Zone QO A. ■ House 2 9 //. €' :2^2.Y s.F. length /y.^ WIDTH X s.F. /Z?^ -/s / X 2Y.V5/^a y s.F.y ms s.F. S.F. 3. Garage 2Y. 2 • • • •< c. Driveway X _ X ■ 22.2 122 —%.f. ^7yo s.F. COxy^. • 2V. 2 X /. y rx S.F.L • D..: • % • Sidewalk ‘V.?X 5*. 7 • • 2S • S.F. 12 0 W'J. 5^70 1 V c. s X 2y /s /S.F. .. •X s S • f* •'p—1 C..^ATIO/ ^Mr/C . 7 D eck • X X f ^7. « . -/Z • S.F. • SA^PlAfTfC F.Landscape • X • •9iy . S.F. AREAS underlain BY ■ ,X • t=i • . S.F. • • PUVSTIC”......... SHEETING 4'^ • » • , 0.3^X • //V • S • F • * • •i 5 O. s o: v2 y X ■7J 7?zs 37 37 S • F • S'A''c^ox>a O. H€X / f ? G. Other 7. S X 2 =?s.F. • • • • Total Hardcover IN • Zone S2 70 S • F • Total Property Area in Zone y/Sqt s.F.B 5-y7^B S/sot X 100 -22. C2 % m • mm mm* • • .> - CITT OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 55323 APPLICATION NO. 1750 NOTICE OP COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 9/30/92 TO; Mr. 6 Mrs. Charles Pyle 3548 Ivy Place Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OP APPLICATION; Variance DATE OP MEETING: September 28, 1992 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTI0.4 - MOTION: To approve per the findings and conditions of the resolution previously mailed to you, axcrthat condition #3 shall be amended to read as follows: 3. All hardcover scheduled for removal within the 0-75' setback area (142.5 s.f.) as shown on page 6 of this resolution shall be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. All hardcover scheduled for removal in the 75-250' setback area (1,715.5 s.f.) as shown on page 6 shall be removed prior to final inspection and occupancy of the garage. Please arrange to sign the 3 original resolution copies at the City Offices (Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30). All persons with an interest in the property must sign the resolutions. You must apply for and obtain a building permit prior to commencement of construction. (The building permit application is a separate application from the zoning variance or conditional use application.) Variance Approval is limited to the extent shown on approved plan and as noted in the approval resolution. Changes in approved plans are subject to further review by the City. Variance approval expires one year after date of approval. Permit application must be submitted no later than September 28, 1993. If ycu desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. 0 * MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 PUBLIC COMMENTS - CONT. Butch Loomis. Assistant Fire Chief for Lo"9 Orono Police Ofpart.ment and the reserves for a great job a emergency prer' 'edness excercise. Chair of the Fund Raising Committee for the Fourth Grade, thanied Mayi? Peterson and Stephen Sullivan for participating ,n the fu-^d raising events at Octoberfest. (*«6) «1748 ROBERT & RITA HOVLAND, Jo^DI??oJaL^Sse°PERMIT/VARIAN - RESOLUTION #3182 It was moved by Jabbour. seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution .nifl^fo? Application *1748, Robert and Rita Hovland, 1245 North JrmOrfve for a condItlonal use permit to permit the nstallatIon o?an accessory structure on a through lot and a variance to the required setback. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#7) #1750 CHARLES & SHIRLEY PYLE, 3548 IVY PLACE - VARIANCES “ RESOLUTION #3183 Charles and Shirley Pyle and Daryl Hanson were present. saffron explained the changes the applicants have made to tne proposal since the last meeting. Goetten asked about history of the property. saffron noted that while the *’%‘‘_^re%rrnrVpecl f 1^driveway had been expanded some years ago, tjnere ^'1®^ records of the additional hardcover being added to the property. Mrs. Pyle stated that what exists on the property now was there when they purchased the property 6 years ago. Jabbour felt they are taking a bad situation and trying to get It close to good. Goetten felt they did Improve the proposal from the last meeting. Callahan stated the applicants have made a definite effort with regards to tins proposal. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 ZONING FILE 1H750 - CONT. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Butler, to adopt Resolution i»3l83 for Application #1750 for Charles and Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy puce, for variances to construct an addition to the existing residence. Mrs Pyle asked that Condition #3 be amended to allow the existing garage to remain until the new garage is built. Callahan agreed to amend his motion to amend the Resolution, Condttton #3, to allow the hardcover in the 75-250’ zone to remain unU just prior to the final inspection or the Certificate of Oc^ipancy. if appropriate for this property. Butler seconded the amendment. Vote: Ayes 5, nays 0. Motion carried (»#8) #1763 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB, 200 WOODHILL ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION #3184 It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, Road, to grant a conditional use permit for land alterations. Ayes 5, nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Jabbour suggested the City Administrator send » Little League Informing them that the School Little w I I ng to deal with them. He stated the President of ‘he Little league expressed Interest at the last Park Commission meeting of pursuing ball fields In Maple Plain. Butler suggested writing ^WCountl I'tnd ihr^hoS?came up at a joint meeting between the Cl y Board, and it seems that you are ‘h®, '°°P %or ancurrent information. Please contact the School Board Tor update." To:Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Prom: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date September 17, 1992 Subject #1750 Charles and Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place - 2nd Review Variances - Resolution Pertinent Ordinances - Review of Amended Plan - Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 0-75' setback area = 4,075 s.f. Existing hardcover = 948 s.f. or 23.26% Amended proposal = 805.5 s.f. or 19.7% 75-250’ setback area = 8,150 s.f. Allowed = 2,037.5 s.f. or 25'« Existing *= 5,870 s.f. or 72% Original Proposal »» 4,253 s.f. or 52% Amended Proposal = 4,154.5 s.f. or 50.9% Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of lot coverage Total area = 12,225 s.f. Allowed lot coverage *= 1,833.7 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1,810.2 s.f. or 14.8% Original Proposal = 2,640 s.f. or 21.5% Amended Proposal = 2,523 s.f. or 20.6% Variance = 712.8 s.f. or 5.8% Review ofStructural Areas Credited against Lot Coverage: Existing house = 1,273 s.f. or 10.4% Proposed garage = 564 s.f. (original 612 s.f.) or 4.6% Addition = 381 s.f. or 3.1% Roof structure = 305 s.f. (original 374 s.f.) or 2.5% Total coverage = 20.6% (original 21.5%) List of Exhibits A - Applicants' Addendum B - Original Proposal C - Amended Proposal Review of Amended Proposal Applicants have reduced the garage by 48 s.f. and overhead roof structure by 69 s.f. Total lot coverage reduced from 21.5% to 20.6%. Hardcover in the 0-75' setback area has been reduced from 23.26% to 19.7%. (Removal of 142.5 s.f. of landscape underlain with plastic, refer to Exhibit C.) Hardcover in the 75-250' setbac)c area has been reduced from 52% to 50.9% resulting from the reduction in garage size. Zoning File #1750 September 17, 1992 Page 2 paved area and landscape area underlain with plastic. Staff has amended the original resolution reflecting the new lot coverage and hardcover facts. Options of Action D*r>'l E- Hansen. ArchitecU 3841 Thomas Avenue South Minneapolis. Minnesota 55410 Telephone 612•920*6232 16 September 1992 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono, Municipal Offices P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth, After the 14 September City Council Meeting, the Pyles & I have re-evaluated the project and proposed the following compromise to hardcover and structural coverage at 3548 Ivy Place. - Remove 165 sq.ft, of plastic below crushed rock on 0-75' and small section 75'-250' as noted. - Remove 69 sq.ft, of proposed covered entry (structural coverage). - Remove 2 feet of length of garage or 48 sq.ft, of structural coverage (27 to 25 feet long). - Remove respectively affected driveway section or 28 sq.ft. These changes reduce structural coverage from 21.5% to 20.6% and proportionate reductions in hardcover as noted. We retained a little R/P at corner of house in 0-75' because of potential water problem to basement. We hope these final changes meet with Council approval. Please call if there are any questions. Daryl Hansen cc. Charles & Shirley Pyle C/TYO®onoNciumsso'^ SEP 1 7 1992 . 1 •' • • ♦ ^Ni v!- •\ "* V' ;• i t '.< • ■^r , »v h '••^3^ ' <1 • % 5!*V vy-^ lJ' . » » V. •- .'X <• >* V. ? ^ •j'-j- ■S‘.'yry -i-'. ■ ,-V?*' i mm i yl:*#i' riJ.O-.-r:,-' ,V\t I 2 ivv.vo i/ jiatu I Rt' ,.- 1 im if m • »M«it **(^ APPLICATION NO. 1750 CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 NOTICE OP COUNCIL ACTION 55323 Date of Notice: 9/17/92 TO: Mr. & Mrs. Charles Pyle 3548 Ivy Place Orono, MN 55391 COPIES: Daryl K. Hanson 3841 Thomas Avenue South Minnervpolis, MN 55410 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variances DATE OP MEETING: September 14, 1992 VOTE 5 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: To table application provioii.g applicant with additional time to reduce the (j0g]7ee of variances (hardcover/lot coverage) sought with original proposal. Mr. Hanson has submitted a revised plan. Staff has enclosed tho staff review memo and amended resolution for Council's action at the September 28th meeting of the Council. I will be out of town starting September 21st through October 2nd. Michael Gaffron will be presenting your application on the part of the Orono staff. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 ZONING FILE #1748 - CONT. Butler felt there were a couple of appiications before them tonight where the applicants were caught between two groups of Planning Commission members. She felt applicants that complied with the directives of the Planning Commission should be recognized for doing so. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Jabbour, to direct staff to draft a resolution approving setback variances for Application #1748 for Robert and Rita Hovland of 1245 North Arm Drive, approving a 15’ side setback from the north lot line and a 13’ setback f'*om the south lot line. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#5) #1750 CHARLES & SHIRLEY PYLE, 3548 IVY PLACE - VARIANCES Charles and Shirley Pyle and Daryl Hanson were present. Mabusth explained this application was also reviewed at both the July and August Planning Commission meetings. She noted the revised proposal includes additional removal of 75-250’ hardcover at 172 s.f., and the 663 s.f. roof structure originaI Iy proposed has been reduced to 374 s.f. She noted the real Issue for this proposal is the lot coverage. Lot coverage was originally proposed at 24.5* and has been reduced to 21.5*. The Planning Commission recommended approval based on lot coverage be held at 18*. which would mean the applicants would have to give up either the roof structure or the family room addition. Butler stated here Is another situation where the applicants were given directives from the Planning Commission and came back with a proposal and were denied. Goetten felt that does not mean that the vote should have been changed. Jabbour agreed with Butler. He expressed concern about residents exerting energy and money on revised plans and the City does not act In good faith. Goetten stated the lot is small and has excessive amounts of hardcover. She asked the applicants if there were any other areas where they could reduce hardcover. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 ZONING FILE #1750 - CONT. Hanson said from the beginning they knew they would have to make concessions, and they tried to reduce the hardcover prior to submitting the original proposal. After the first Planning Commission meeting they were asked to reduce hardcover percentages more, which they have done. Jabbour noted that at one point a project becomes over ambitious for the lot. He stated the City’s ordinances reflect their concern about water run-off Into the Lake. Mr Pyle said the first group of Planning Commission members to review the proposal did visit the site and felt the project was beneficial, but the second group did not Inspect the property. Goetten stated she appreciates the cuts the applicants have proposed, but felt the project too ambitious for the lot. She agreed with the Planning Commission’s recommendation of 18X total lot coverage. Mrs. Pyle referred to two small planting areas In the 0-75’ setback area. She stated the boxes around the plantings and plastic underneath could be removed. Mabusth stated this would reduce 0-75’ hardcover by 177 s.f. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to approve AppIIcatlon #1750 for Charles and Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place, for variances to construct an addition to the existing residence, “jsed on Condition #1 of the resolution be removed and a condition tnat the triangular planting areas and plastic underneath be removed, and limiting lot area coverage to 21.5X. Ayes 2, nays 3. Callahan, Jabbour and Goetten voted nay. Motion falled. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to table Application #1750 for Charles and Shirley Pyle for two weeks to allow the applicants time to reconsider their proposal. Ayes 3, nays . y Peterson and Butler voted nay. Motion carried. Goetten explained that If the application were appiIcants would not be allowed to return with another proposal tor six months. To; From: Date: Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator jganne A. Mabusth^ Building & Zoning Administrator September 10, 1992 Subject: #1750 Charles and Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place - Variances ~ Resolution Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 0-75' setback area ■= 4,075 s.f. Existing hardcover = 948 s.f. or 23.26% Proposed hardcover = 948 s.f. or 23.26% 75-250' setback area = 8,150 s.f. Allowed = 2,037.5 s.f. or 25% Existing = 5,870 s.f. or 72% Proposed = 4,253 s.f. or 52% Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of lot coverage Total area = 12,225 s.f. Allowed lot coverage = 1,833.7 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1,810.2 s.f. or 14.8% Proposed * 2,640 s.f. or 21.5% Variance = 806.3 s.f. or 6.5% Planning Commission recommendation to limit lot coverage to 2,200.5 s.f. or 18% Structural Areas Credited against Lot Coverage; Existing house = 1,273 s.f. or l0.4% Proposed garage " 612 s.f. or 5% Addition ** 381 s.f. or 3.1% Roof structure * 374 s.f. or 3% Total *= 21.5% List of Exhibits A - Application Al- Applicants' Addend''m B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey/Existing E - Proposed Site Plan F - 1-2 Hardcover Fact Sheets G - Planning Commission Minutes 7/20/92 H - Planning Commission Action Notice 7/23/92 I - Planting Schedule Proposed by Applicants Memos from July & August Planning Commission Meetings Zoning File #1750 September 10, 1992 Page 2 Description of Request The applicants propose the removal of the existing garage within the street yard and the installation of a new detached garage to be placed closer to residence structure. The comprehensive improvement project also includes a family room addition to the southeast side of the residence located out of the 75' setback area and behind the average lakeshore setback line. The garage structure at 612 s.f. in area meets the required 10' side setback. Applicants propose 374 s.f. of a roof structure to be placed over a walkway and patio area to connect detached garage and residence structure. The roof structure meets the required 10' setback from both side lot lines. Per the directives of the lot coverage ordinance the area of the structure has been included in the lot coverage inventory. Note the 50 s.f. of trellis area has been reduced from the total roof structure area. The improvement project will also result in the loss of two large mature oak trees in the street yard. Planning Commission members were asked to consider conditioning approval on a replanting schedule. The application was reviewed at both the July and August meeting of the Planning Commission. At the July Planning Commission meeting members noted concern at the intensification of the lot coverage from 14.8 to 23.9%. Members also questioned whether additional hardcover removals could be made to offset the increase in the structural coverage . Commission members concurred with staff that the removal of the large, mature oak trees should require a planting schedule (review Exhibits G and H). The applicants presented an amended proposal at the August meeting of the Planning Commission. The amended plan showed a reduction of 172 s.f. or 2% of hardcover resulting in a total 20% reduction in hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. Lot coverage was reduced from 23.9 to 21.5%. Review Exhibit I, applicants presented a replanting schedule as follows; 1 1/2 to 2" diameter tree. Sunburst Locust or Green/White Ash to be planted in the northwest section of the site plan and a 5-6' Black Hill or Colorado Spruce in the southwest section of the site plan. Review Exhibit E, note break in drainage. Runoff from the majority of the proposed new improvement si *11 drain to street side of property and eventually northwest to Casco Cove along Ivy Place. At the August meeting, the Planning Commission accepted the amended plan as far as it related to hardcover removals and the replanting schedule but felt that the lot coverage variance was too excessive and conditioned approval on holding lot coverage to 18%. Applicants would have to exclude either the family room addition or Zoning File #1750 September 10, 1992 Page 3 roof structure from the comprehensive improvement project. The Planning Commission recommendation did not include a request to reduce hardcover within the 0-75' setback area. This decision may have been based on the fact that the all proposed improvements were located in the 75-250' setback area and the drainage patterns on the property. Please refer to Exhibit A-1, Mr. Hanson, the Pyle's architect, has submitted a letter in response to the Planning Commission's recommendation and has asked for Council's special consideration. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission's approv”al recommendation limiting lot coverage to 18%. The subject resolution can be amended if Council proposes any changes. Mayor Barbara Peterson and City Council Members - Edward Callahan, J. Diann Goetten, Gabriel Jabbour & Mary Butler « '’C.T/? City of Orono, Municipal Offices Auo u D -w — P.O. Box 66 Cryst ’ Br’y, Minnesota 5‘'323 Re: #1/50 Charles ail Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place - Variances for Hardcover & Lot Coverage Dear Mayor Peterson and City Council Members: Continuing in the proc»»ss to receive a variance for hardcover & lot coverage on the above property, Charles & Shireley Pyle & myself attended our 2nd Planning Commission Meeting on 17 'ugust 1992. We had expected to receive unanimous approval on the request for variance, because we had fully complied with the directives of the Planning Commission Members at our first meeting, 20 July 1992. This compliance was documented by Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator, in her 11 August 1992 memo to Chairman Kelley and Planning Corunission Mcnbe’s. Our revised plan following the Planning Commission's directives included the following items: - Reducing roof structure below the directed amount. - Increasing the amount of hardcover reduction by 172 sq. ft. over the 1445 sq. ft. previously proposed. - Submitting a replanting schedule for two large oak trees to be removed. Because of our compliance with all the directives, we were completely surprised by the 17 August Planning Commission Members vote against our application as submitted. We were also surprised by the fact that only one Planning Commission Member had been at the last meeting and was the only 17 Aug.. ' ' ember to have visited the site. He was the only Member to vote for af''i'-val as submitted but was not seconded. We find the lack of continuity betw' i the two different Planning Commission groups confusing and frustrating in our attempt to proceed with an addition that we and tlie adjact:nt neighbors feel is a big improvement to the property. Both neighbors were willing to come and voice their approval, but wo told them it was not necessary. The whole point in moving a twe car gar..ge adjacent to the house, was to give a unified appearance to the house as a whole and have a covered connection from garage to house. Existing bedroom windows prevent attaching the garage to the house. r For all the reasons mentioneu, ve request that you approve our application as revised according to the iirst Planning Commission Group's directives. We feel that if the same Members were present at the second meeting, we would have received their approval. If there are any additional questions regarding our applicatic”, please notify us. We thank you for your support. Dary Hansen cc. Charles & Shirley Pyle CITY OF ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MM 473-7357 ZONING PILE #1750 55323 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: August 24, 1992 TO:Mr. & Mrs. Charles Pyle 3548 Ivy Place Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO: Daryl E. Hansen 3841 Thomas Ave. S, Mpls., MN 55410 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variances DATE OP MEETING: August 17, 1992 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommended the following Approval of the amended application subject to the conditions set forth in staff memo dated August 11, 1992. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended that structural coverage of the property be iiir.ited to 18% rather than 21.5% as proposed in amended plan. Applicants' next scheduled meeting is confirmed at the City Council September 14, 1592; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE OPONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 17, 1992 (#4) #1750 CHARLES & SHIRLEY Pi'Ll, VARIANCES^-^CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:20 - 7:36 P.M. The Affidavit of Pub Iicat ion and Certificate of Mai Iing were noted. Mr. aod Mrs. Pyie and Daryl Hanson were present for this appIication. ColuTion H cin?! Structure at the last otr c f a lot coverage variance ?rs?rM°“gu“ire°d foV the proposal . She idded 172 s.f. of existing hLdoolU alon^the northwest side of the house has been proposed f . The result is a total reduction of 20X hardcover, from ir?he 75-2lo' setback area to approximately 52*. Lot coverage is proposed at approximately 21%. t^f b?inTs -p-v:^?ji;;rx^s?t^g giragfbe allowed to remain until the new garage is built. Chair Kelley stated that is typically c..lowed. removed ®and°?ep I aced'7 bu^add^d 1fec\use*o? o t"hVr ex i Lt 1 ng "t rel°s on Jhrproperty. they may have to look at other options. Sohroeder clarified the hardcover removed hardcover. Chair Kelley stated he has a problem with the excessive coverage. Hansc. advised that the existing ^esjience is a with a two car garage, and already standards. He indicated the roof structure was the two structures. He added the roofed outside covered patio area. Chsir Ksllsy explained relatively new, but it provides tha ___ ■ tor lots in order to He added the ordinance is aimed at smai.er lots. protect the visual impact of the property. i s non-structuraI two bedroom home, the lot coverage proposed to unify wiI I serve as an ^•1«J RCTsl*] ^L*J rsTsw^ [•KI«SI r wjra mco.* ^•]«j MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 17, 1992 f#4) #1750 CHARLES & SHIRLEY PYLE, 3548 IVY PLACE - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:20 - 7:36 p.M. The Affidavit of Pub Iicat ion and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Pyle and Daryl Hanson were present for this appIication. Mabusth explained that the applicants were asked to reduce the roof structure at the last Planning Commission review. The applicants now propose a roof structure of 376 s.f. A lot coverage variance is still required for the proposal. She added 172 s.f. of existing hardcover along the northwest side of the house has been proposed for removal. The result is a total reduction of 20% hardcover, from 72X in the 75-250’ setback area to approximately 52%. Lot coverage Is proposed at approximately 2^%. Mr. Pyle felt that the garage located closer to the house would add to the aesthetic value of surrounding properties. He added the hardcover along the northwest side of the house has already been removed. He requested that if the plan is approved, the existing garage be allowed to remain until the new garage is built. Chair Kelley stated that Is typically allowed. Mr. Pyle noted there are two oaks trees that would need to be removed and replaced, but added because of other existing trees on the property, they may have to look at other options. Schroeder clarified the hardcover removed is non-structural hardcover. Chai r Kelley stated coverage. he has a problem with the excessive lot Hanson advised that the existing residence is a two bedroom home, with a two car garage, and already exceeds the lot coverage standards. He indicated the roof structure was the two structures. He added the roofed area outside covered patio area. proposed to unify will serve as an Chair Kelley explained that the lot coverage ordinance is relatively new. but it provides that lots do not get over-buiIt on. He addea the ordinance is aimed at smaller lots, ir protect the visual impact of the property. order to MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING held august 17, 1992 ZONING FILE #1750 - CONT. Bellows noted she does not favor aooMcations that take a substandard circumstance and make it worse. Mrs. Pyle felt they were improving the property. Bellows said their proposal intensifies the use of the property. Mrs. Pyle said the neighbor to the north is in favor of the request. Hanson stated he was under the Imoresslon tht"r‘’llst proposal es the Planning Commission requested at their meeting, the request would be approved. Chair Kelley asked what type of addition Is “^“oosed for the existing house. He noted allowaOle lot coverage .s I5si. ano asnec the applicants to demonstrate hardship. Hanson reiterated that the property is filled to allowable lot coverage with the existing two bedroom home. Mrs. Pyle stated the addition to the house is a family room and a foyer. It was moved by Chair Ke I ley, seconded aooroval of Application #1750 for Charles and ShirIey Py e or ao^o w^P^ace to allow a lot coverage variance for an addition to the existing residence and a detached garage, and approval ma ure trees on the property, subject identified, and lot coverage is not to exceed 18*. Ayes 4, nays u. (#5) #1757 ALBERT 0. HANSER, iS®Dn?ONArulE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:45 - 7:51 P.M. The Affidavit of Publioatioh and certificate of Mailing were noted. Albert 0. Hanser, Jack Taylor and Merrldth Howell were present for this appIication. To: Fr«n: Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: August 11, 1992 #1750 Charles & Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing Review of Amended Plan Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 75-250' setback area ■= 8,150 s.f. Allowed - 2,037.5 s.f. or 25% Existing » 5,870 s.f. or 72% Originally proposed at 4,425 s.f. or 54% Amended proposal = 4,253 s.f. or 52% (removal of 172 s.f. landscape area underlain with plastic northwest side of house) 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Review of lot coverage. Total area = 12,225 s.f. Allowed lot coverage » 1,833.7 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1,810.2 s.f. or 14.8% Originally proposed at 2,929 s.f. or 23.9% Variance * 1,095.3 s.f. or 8.9"’» Amended proposal at 2,640 s.f. or 21.5%* Variance « 806.3 s.f. or 6.5% * Originally, roof structure proposed at 663 s.f. and has been reduced to 374 s.f. (50 s.f. of trellis area has been removed from total roof structure area). Planning Commission had originally requested structure be reduced to 400 s.f. Breakdown of Structures Credited Against Lot Coverage Existing house = 1,273 s.f. or 10.4% Proposed garage «= 612 s.f. or 5% Addition * 381 s.f. or 3.1% Roof structure = 374 s.f. or 3% Total = 21.5% List of Additional Exhibits G - Planning Commission Minutes 7/20/92 H - Planning Commission Action Notice I - Daryl E. Hansen Transmittal Letter J - Revised Plan K - Applicant's Addendum/Planting Schedule (Original packet for Planning Commission Meeting 7/20/92 has also been included) Zoning File #1750 August Hr 1992 Page 2 Discvtssi''^n At the July meeting of the Planning Commission, the application was tabled providing applicant with additional time to submit a revised plan reflecting the following directives of the Planning Commission: 1. Reduce roof structure to a minimum 400 s.f. Applicant has reduced roof structure to 374 s.f. The trellis area has been excluded. 2. Remove additional hardcover used in landscaping. Applicant has reduced 172 s.f. of landscape hardcover along the northwest side of existing structure within 75-250' setback area. Refer to amended hardcover facts above. 3. Replanting schedule for two large mature oak trees to be removed as a result of the proposed improvements. Refer to Exhibit J. Applicant proposes planting in northwest landscape area 1-1/2 to 2" diameter Sunburst Locust or green/white ash tree and a 5-6' Black Hills or Colorado Spruce in the southwest landscape area. Although not specifically noted in the Planning Commission recomjnendation, it was the unanimous concurrence of the Planning Commission that a replanting schedule be considered with this variance application. Applicant has complied with this suggestion. At the meeting, applicant advised that one of the large oak trees on the property is diseased and would reguire removal in the near future. Per the x'eview memo for July 20th, the hardship statement can be found in exhibit A. A recommendation of approval should contain the following conditions; 1. Grading and drainage plans must be submitted with building permit for new improvements. 2. All hardcover scheduled for removal must be completed at the time of the footing inspection for the new garage. 3. Api licant to obtain a demolition permit for removal of detached garage. 4. Final planting schedule to be submitted with building permit. Planting to be confirmed at the time of the final inspection for new construction. Isv I 29 July. 1992 JUL 3 1Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono, Municipal Offices P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota. 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth, I am writing In response to the Orcno Planning Commission's recommendation <C). with regards to the Pyle's variance application, zoning file #1750. Replanting schedule to replace the necessary removal of two mature oak trees will be dependent on the construction schedule of proposed new garage, removal of present garage, and deletion of driveway area and designated hardcover, but prior to sodding of this area. We plan to consult with a landscape representative, from a local landscape service. In order to obtain assistance and recommendations. What species of trees will create an attractive Impression and will grow favorably under the large canopies of two other mature oak trees that exist, and will not be removed, within the setback zone of 115 - 250 feet. N.W. section of site plan. Consideration of the canopies of nine other mature oak and maple trees that exist along the S.W. property line or contiguous with the neighbor's property to the S.W.. within the same setback zone. Planning considerations: 1. 1 1/2 - 2 Inch diameter tree. Sunburst Locust or Green/Whlte Ash In the N.W. section of site plan. 2. 5 - 6 ft. Black Hill or Colorado Spruce In the S.W. section of site plan. Sincerely, Shirley Pyle cc. Daryl E. Hansen, architect -X Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono, Municipal Offices P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 JUi. 2 4 Dear Ms. Mabusth, Enclosed is a revised plan for Charle"? & Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place, showing a reduction in the amount of proposed roof structure covering the entry and patio area as part of their addition and garage relocation. The amount of covered area would be reduced to 406 sq.ft., less 50 sq.ft, trellis area, making a total area of 356 sq.ft. In addition, they are reducing the hardcover area by another 172 sq.ft, (north of existing house) making a total reduction of 1617 sq.ft, of hardcover area. I hope this will be adequate for receiving a variance to construct their new addition. I know they are excited about proceeding with this new project. If you have any questions, please call. I am assuming .a will be scheduled for the August 17th Planning Commission meeting and would appreciate being notified if for some reason we are not scheduled. Daryl £. Hansen cc. Charles & Shirley Pyle iy>' H CITY OF OROMO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 55323 ZONING PILE #1750 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: July 23, 1992 TO:Mr. & Mrs. Charles Pyle 3548 Ivy Place Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO:Daryl E. Hansen 3841 Thomas Ave. S. Mpls., MN 55410 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variances DATE OP MEETING: July 20, 1992 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against Planning Conmission recoanends the following: Planning Commission recommended tabling application to allow applicants time to amend plans to address the following issues; A. Reduction of structural coverage. Approximate 663 s.f. of roof structure over walkways and patios to be reduced to approximately 400 s.f. Please note that trellis roof area is not included as hardcover and to specify area of trellis in your new calculation. B. Reduce original hardcover within the 75-250* setback area. It was recommended that additional landscape area underlain with plastic can be removed. C. Replanting schedule in light of vhe need to remove the two mature oak trees (I thought they wei^^ uiaples). NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Please contact Jeanne Mabusth if you have any questions pertaining to the directives noted above. Applicants' next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of a revised plan. Deadline for the August 17, 1992 meeting is Wednesday, August 5th, or Wednesday, September 9th, for the September 21, 1992 meeting. tme orono planning commission meeting minutes of the O’’2e°0 JULY 20. 1092 ZONING FILE ilT*8 - CONT. Cooen .sKed what Is th. hardship-Cohen asked wha vehicles that arge or a garay^ Hovland stated they need that and storage. ■ ^and storage. recommend denial of ,t „es moved Py Johnson. ’^4*5 North Arm Drive, for a u•se^^rmlt and variance. Ayes 4. (»6) »1750 CHARLES » SHIRLEY PYLE. -SbLIO hearing T:3, - 7:35 P-H- ^ ^ I M I ^ ^ variance - PUBLIC HEAn. - noted. Affidavit Of PuOllcetlon and cert _ Tne Affidavit of PU ■ ,,chitect. Daryl Hanson, -ere rharle*^ and Shirley Py*e ^S?«en? ?or this appllcat.on-present for tnis apo. . — • relocate an Habusth explained \''®Jg^‘c®psV’r'’'trthl resi o^ence^^and Jnstal l^^a a%f ^^a far.1 ;; of roofed struc^ « he ^rrnTxc;ss'of'‘"struotura, lot coveraRe.is an excess of struc trees and the -4 Ktc concern about the loss Johnson the lot coverage.Intensification of the lox ^Intensification of ® attached the disease already.disease aireaay. * treesto replanting trees „rs. Pyle said they -ere not opp „pslder deleting the Cohen asked if the appl Icants were - I 1 log roofed area. —- - - - - - jrer^^S’^t.rHe-siierrhar trellis. a I M y — City has taken the position that a a7eT7/^norhLd=over. L. € MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 20, 1992 ZONING FILE #1750 - CONT. Hanson noted the roofed area is proposed to tie the structures together in a distinctive way. He said the area proposed to be roofed currently Is considered hardcover as there Is sidewalk there. Mabusth explained that it Is the structural impact that they are dealing with. Johnson reminded them that this type of issue came up during an application on Baldur Park Road. Hanson stated the applicants would be willing to further reduce hardcover in the 75-250' zone by removing plastic under Iandscaping. Mabusth said that may cause some drainage concerns. Mrs. Pyle said the Building Inspector has confirmed that it would rot create a problem. Rowlette indicated she would consider approval of tne application If the applicant reduced the roofed area to approximately 400 s.f. and removed additional hardcover used in landscaping. All other Members agreed. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Rowlette, to table Application «1750 for Charles and Shirley Pyle of 3548 Ivy Place, to allow applicants to redesign their proposal. Ayes 4, nays 0. (•7) #1752 GEORGE W. KALWEIT, 4265 FOREST LAKE DRIVE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:45 - 7:50 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mai IIng were noted. George Kalweit was present for this application. He referred to a letter sent to the City explaining the situation. He said they had contracted with a builder who was unfamiliar with the City’s ordinances and did not obtain a building permit. The project was stopped prior to completion, and noted his safety concerns. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of Application #1752 for George W. Kalweit, 4265 Forest Lake Drive, fora variance to allow structural repairs within the 0-75* setback area. Ayes 4, nays 0. 8 Vkj-WM- /ALAt tvbll MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CCMMISSICN MEETING HELD JULY 20, 1992 ZONING FILE «1748 - CONT. Cohen asked what is the hardship. Hovland stated they need that large of a garage for their vehicles and storage. It was moved hy Johnson, seconded by Cohen, to reccmmend denial of Application »1748 for Bob Hovland, 1245 North Arm Drive, for a conditional use permit and variance. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#6) #1750 CHARLES A SHIRLEY PYLE, 3548 IVY PLACE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:31 - 7:35 P.M. The AffIdavIt of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Charles and SMrIey Pyle and their architect, Daryl Hanson, were present for this application. Mabusth explained that the applicants propose to relocate an existing detached garage closer to the residence and install a patio area and a family room addition. All structures meet the required side setback. There is 663 s.f. of roofed structure to be placed over paved walkways and patio. There is a decrease In hardcover, but an increase of 9.1* In structural hardcover. There is an excess of structural lot cove'-age. Johnson expressed his concern about the loss of trees and the Intensification of the lot coverage. Mr. Pyle explained that they originally intended to attached the garage, but because of the layout of the nouse. It feasible. He advised that one of the trees to be removed has a disease already. Mrs. Pyle said they were not opposed to replanting trees. Cohen asked If the appiicants were wl I I Ing to consider deleting the roofed area. Hanson stited the aoDiIcants are willing to decrease the roofed area by 200 s.f. He noted that part of the area Is covered by a treI I is. Mabusth reported that tho City has taken the position that a trelI is area is not hardcover• hINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 20. 1992 ZONING FILE «1750 - CONT. Hanson noted the roofed area Is proposed to tie the structures together In a disti ctive way. He said the area proposed to be roofed currently Is considered hardcover as there Is sidewalk there. Mabusth explained that It Is the structural Impact that they are dealIng with. Johnson reminded them that this type of Issue came up during an aopllcation on Baldur Park Road. Hanson stated the applicants would be willing to further reduce hardcover in the 75-250’ zone by removing plastic under landscaping. Mabusth said that may cause some drainage concerns. Mrs. Pyle said the Building Inspector has confirmed that It would not create a problem. Rowlette Indicated she would consider approval of the application If the applicant reduced the roofed area to approximately 400 s.f. and removed additional hardcover used In landscaping. AlI other Members agreed. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Rowlette, to table Application #1750 for Charles and Shirley Pyle of 3548 Ivy Place, to allow applicants to redesign their proposal. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#7) #1752 GEORGE W. KALWEIT, 4265 FOREST LAKE DRIVE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:45 - 7:50 P.M. ^ ^ . The Affidavit of Pub I I cat I on and Certificate of Mailing were noted. George Kalweit was present for this application. He referred to a letter sent to the City explaining the situation. He said they had contracted with a builder who was unfamiliar with the City s ordinances and did not obtain a building permit. The project was stopped prior to completion, and noted his safety concerns. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of Application #1752 for George W. Kalweit, 4265 for a variance to allow structural repairs within the 0-75 setback area. Ayes 4, nays 0. 8 TOS Chairman Kelley and Planning Coirmission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Froa:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building 6 Zoning Administrator Date:July 16, 1992 Subject: #1750 Charles and Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place Variances ~ Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover A. 0-75' setback aiea * 4,075 s.f. Existing hardcover * 948 s.f. Proposed hardcover • 948 s.f. B.75-250' setback area ■ 0,150 s.f. Allowed * 2,037.5 s.f. or 25% Existing * 5,870 s.f. or 72% Proposed * 4,425 s.f. or 54% Existing variance “ 3,832.5 s.f. or 47% Proposed variance * 2,387.5 s.f. or 29.2% Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of lot coverage Total area » 12,225 s.f. Allowed lot coverage * 1,833.7 s.f. or 15% Existing - 1,810.2 s.f. or 14.8% Proposed » 2,929 s.f. or 23.9%* Variance * 1,095.3 s.f. or 8.95% ♦Adjusted amount if it is determined that roofed patio and walkway not credited against lot coverage. Adjusted amount » 2,266 s.f. or 18.5% Variance - 432.3 s.f. or 3.5% List of Exhibits - A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Proposed Site Plan - Elevations Southeast and Southwest F - 1-2 Hardcover Fact Sheets Description of Request Applicant proposes the removal of the existing garage within the street yard and the installation of a new detached garage closer to residence structure. The comprehensive improvement project also includes a family room addition to the southeast side of the residence located out of the 75' setback area and behind the average lakeshore setback line. The garage structure at 612 s.f. in area meets the required 10' side setback. Applicant proposes 663 s.f. of roof Zoning Memo #1750 July 16, 1992 Page 2 structure over a walkway and patio area to be installed between the detached garage and residence structure. The roof structure meets the required 10' setback from the side lot line. Planning Commission members are asked to consider the lot coverage ordinance specifically the section that reads as follows: "All roof structures which extend more than 6' above grade level." In reviewing the lot coverage facts for the improvement project, the 663 s.f. of roofed area was included with structural inventory. Lot coverage is shown at 23.9% where 15% is allowed. The improvement does result in a reduction in overall hardcover of approximately 18%. Structural coverage increases from 14.8% to 23.9%. Review Exhibit E. Note break in drainage. Runoff from the majority of the proposed new improvements shall drain to street and eventually northwest to Casco Cove along Ivy Place. Hardship States»nt Please review Exhibit A. Issues for Consideration 1.The improvement shows a 9.1% increase in structural hardcover on the property. Can non-essential structural improvements be reduced in area? How essential is 663 s.i. of roof structure? Review Exhibit E, the southeast elevation depicts impact of proposed structure. 2.Hardcover has been reduced almost 18% and is now proposed at 54%. Are there other non-essential areas of hardcover that can be removed? The majority of landscape areas underlain with plastic are to be removed with the proposed improvement. What of proposed improvements? Can paved or walkway areas be reduced? 3.Imprcvement project will result in the loss of two mature maple trees. Is"it appropriate to ask for replantings with variance approval? Any condition of approval should contain the following conditions; 1.Grading and drainage plan must be submitted with building permit for new improvements? 2.All hardcover scheduled for removal must be completed at the time of the footing inspection for the new garage. A Zoning Memo #1750 July 16, 1992 Page 3 3.Applicant to obtain a demolition permit for removal of detached garage. 4.Planting schedule to be submitted with building permit as a result of the loss of two mature maple trees within street yard? IflM •‘Ufarv&fTirr.Tn* vf«' r. —r CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non conforming use $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) • f T V • ‘i C " Cw a t I w *%v♦* *r*c*^*jr • V.» > PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address . * ' A ^ VVV V : * ’ ’’va ■-i^T-v T. gfevJQ.fAKl < -r a / w* • V i 75. li - rvi/; .til'!*! f * ; Vwvva j^a •f V” !. ff w f » a •• V W ' *. Property Identif. Number fP.I.D.) 'UP * IH * 'TJ^ • ^1*1 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired _ _ _(month/year) I (do)CSon^ also own the^ adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential Zoning District; her(specify) APPLICANT Name Phone (home) '' Address C^Vl/ Phone (work) - - TVk7W\(^ City; N\PUt>._ _ _ Zip; ^\0. S/Qi OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^ fVcg. Address: 'C'J^ CChC^ city; ---------zip; 55^»H Phone (home) ^*1 \ _ Phone (work) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost ^ Describe request in detail; VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ Lot Area Setback; Lot width Front V Hardcover Side Rear _ Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property «• • • (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS of the following information must be subnitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered caaplete; 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. ^Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8H"xll" for reproduction). 5. _ _Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8H"xll"). 6. Slcetches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8*j"xll"). 7. _As an addendum to this application,* please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. _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 cosg>lete if the above infomatlon has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby aarees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonin. nistrator, 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 corytect t^' the best of his/her Jcnowledge. Applicant's Signature Date / OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ac)vowledges and agrees to this application and further aiithori&es reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this reauest. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all stfbmirttals 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 ma)ce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. .irtkiT.n • (?•) mj J-S5) I (41) (4«) ■<i; •. Ur *-N - vt tA • 'tJ ^ *' ‘v> 'A;iy ~t-i'\-L'V &•?'//} '‘^ 7< 75,^'.^" .rr /CW (»;) /•\ (»S) f * [9 ( H) »r 5 / V (17) ( »0) « I I tu yjc^ mrvt ---- «»« \-> « V / V''' vr o ^ «»• ' pr* V ’• r ■ • »< WN MTE m/a/niATCN MS HDfCPIH COUNTY PPWfRTY INTWHATIOH SYSTtH PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. Pl^SSMl PAGE 7 , • ;% o Kj pmp ADM ONNii NAHi TAXPAYER NAME/AOM PROP ADOR OmER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOM PROP ADM Olt€R HAHE . TAXPAYER \jf NAME/AOM Vw . V r. . % > fc-f St ‘f > 'p J :> V •*. • '1 > i. ■u sa tO-U7-2S 42 0001 OMSS ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO S L RAPLAN ET AL TRUSTEES JAMES N lUPlENT 71M MAYZATA SLVD MPLS MN SS424 sa 20-117-25 42 0010 0S544 IVY PL A N JCMETT ETAL ARTHUR N JEWETT S544 IVY PLACE NAY2J^TA HN 55ST1 SO 20-117-2S 42 0054 05545 IVY PL JEFEREY A DEBRA DAIBERRY JEFfREY i DEBRA DANBERRY S545 IVY PL NAY2ATI MN 55591 o 44 J .‘v- I ' f. *• I N' .=tfc 50 20-117-25 42 0014 05550 IVY PL NN A J DAHPIER MILLIAH S DAHPIER 5550 IVY PLACE KAY2ATA m 55591 50 20-117-25 42 0019 05554 IVY PL FRASiC J BUYSSE FRANK J BUYSSE 5554 IVY PLACE NAYZATA MN 55591 TOTAL BATCH 005 00007 50 20-117-25 42 001705540 IVY PL CAS PYLE CHARLES 0 PYLE 5540 IVY PLACE HAYZATA MN 55591 50 20-117-25 42 0027 05540 IVY PL JOHN H HONOUR VII A HIFE JOHN H HONOUR VII 5560 IVY PLACE HAYZATA rt4 55591 </• • I CEUnrV THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESCNTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEt»«PlN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY-TAXATION, TO^THE BEST OF MY RNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF I , • ♦ ! $ V. •' € € .r ; '-Hv f * • y -• * ,f. e t f Y. ■■ “■ f 'A * - »* • r - iI . V ■■( CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR CHARLES PYLE OF IDT 174. TAYLOR’S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LDT3 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA LOl T«|r:ar‘% SutOiviVtOR of Spnr.q P«rt L3ts. Tnu ml^Rdi to TRO« tR# COundJPltl 0* P»’Or • r’tf. jnj iD'Otio** a* S'" ptittinf «Ri3 n4ra« CO»»r Il Jo^i "01 la in^m 4*’* »*tr L Or • nc rc%. 0 Iron n«rfefr Otirinqi sho«n «rf 04tfj upon in iitjpfd j4luR OHMUVfCVV it IS* IK 1 >«T1 J «>4 ■ '**fc «k UiUWNt* COmN & GRQNBERGjN l / '^vJfrnT^ Ltrkf >ur n/i > ^ Avinur • l**ng !.•»» m: 4rv4ui I Ifc'nis „ rw» f*v«l tHh «wr>o »U' prtr’"vIK mr >f unjrf tnMKfi «nj rhui I «i«t j iuK L i*4 I <rvl I > *4'^r\t\>t umA» thi U«« >4 iRt mjN* <4 Xltrnr^Hj __________ ^.1 i-A.» h • M •A «A1 TTrrTnrrr i' V « K *?• niip®' S'* J i «- 'S§B^ « • • •# V'?|;•vV V v7 • . ^ ’ . « ♦ / »<■> ■■ m ■■■>-■- Vi 00 tr \v iL ;?Yi 25^ Ov\ 1 r % iS^ 9 J i■5 itr- ,1 % 5 t 1 'Tv, EJ >V -- T! i 6 ^ I j r* '\ I'., r s IT"''■■■■'■ • t .'. • . .,' J '1 jr l^w * Sl fl.'i VO • Y > ; i'T- N ' - ' '' % iV I. ■ f ‘ ^ T *« <»\ I* I4 V \ \ * '--V,. v> '^e ^'Mi V HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETEACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75*250' Existing Hardcover in Zone 250-500' 500-1000* A. House X 2 4 Z /S S.F. length width ‘ X __________S.F. <r 9/_ X . ^7 C/S.F. syt*'cu06a 77 ./<?S.F, *7**/5 .S3 S.F. 2 £1^00 - 7 s ic »t 7 3. Garage ____________x_________S.F. c. Driveway D.. Sidewalk * S.F. S.F, S.F. *735 S.F. as E. Patio/ Deck S.F. /S X /y. 6 X /*/ Z. ZfO-^2 ^ .77^ 2.5 - 37 5.F. F.Landscape areas ^i4tnc ■UNDERLAIN BY , _ _ _ _ _ PLASTIC- - - - SHEETING 777 S.F. - X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other S.F Total Hardcover in Zone 7*7 S.F. Total Property A rea in Zone y<p75 t S.F. <T -/ ? -9z Lczs^ 01 O B 9yy ~rr| t X 100 - 2 7. 2CC t fa.f‘^7'. 77^'^C^ufA) r • w i t. f • * • t » « % • ^ri€ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE cne) 0-75' (?S-250^ 250-500' ExisTiric Hardcover in Zone 500-1000' A. H ouse 2^-9 //. € LENGTH /y.^ WIDTH X y- ^ 9^./ X y54yg B. Garage 2V. 2 Z2. 2 • » • • r* c. D riveway X _ CS^4yC.2 V. 2 X /. £ D.. Sidewalk l ^ X 5^.7 •2.0 ^ 3. S «r. J X 2v E. Patio / /vr/^ D eck 7 X r A i F.LANDSCAPE _ AREAS •UNDERLAIN BY ■ , ___ PLASTIC" ■■ • SHEETING _____ C ^ S"* 6*4 ___ 5 % “^OyO** X X X y — X X iL o. s O ,t2. ■73 7? o. fS C. Othpr A/rfAC 7.S x f? 3 Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone ■ 2y2.V s.P. €S. y S.F. /2F<f “/r UjJ ^2 73 S.F. ________S.F. ^yyp S.F. «• yy S.F. 2S S.F. 70 fS 7 S.F. S.F./z S.F. 92X. 37 7 9 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. 9Hf 70 S.F. S’/.SO t S.F. S?70 >B 2/So t X 100 - 72» 02 _ yo . • •• ••• •m»»» HARDCOVER CALCUIATIOM WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE CNS) 75-E50* ExI ST IMG Hardcover in Zone 250-500' 5QQ-1Q0Q' A. House /o LENGTH <r 9/ 79 /S 2* Cuocf^ - 3. Garage _________ I • *r* c. D riveway D.. Sidewalk • E. Patio / 3eck plastic----- sheeting G. Other 3 T 2. width , C7 C/ : .33 Jr y # / 7 X_________ & - X V35 /S X /y. X f.Landscare X areas ^14 me •UNDERLAIN BY , _______________ X 8B Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. S.F. S.F. /y s z/o—/9g* 2,5 » .______77 S.F. 777 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 9vr S.F. Vc?7S t S.F. yyy 4. §1 75 t x 100 - . ^ 7. 2 €-n-9Z 17^ % 2€C C^ll/A^reo AS «>« •••• w H I CJl J **• f V . { • • • • > r iS - • • HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' (^5-250^ 250-500 E xisting Hardcover in Zcne 500-1000' A.House 2^-9 X //. €%m 2y2.y S.F.) LEjIGTH width %1{ • • • k /r-< X y.s m (Ti*, 7 S.F. > •• 2y. ¥5 S.F. 1 / ^2 72 ■• ••_____^ •• X a S.F. • • X • B . .. . s.F. B. • Garage ...29.2 X 22.2 5 S.F. C. • t Driveway • »r* X • • 27 yo S.F. 2V.2 X /. ^yy • S.F. • D..: • \ • Sidewalk ;V.? X 5'.7 *« •2S • s.F. •2.0 ^1. 5 7o ^.3 X 2y wv<?r .iS /S.F. 0 t X _ • • S.F. • E.^ATlo/ p^r/a . . , j XDeck X r 2 ' ** '2 • S.F.• F.Landscape • • _ X . • •a S.F.' ♦ AREAS UNDERLAIN BY ,_ X . •*• S.F. RUSTIC"...... SHEETING </** • • • • X , • //V • S.F. < S ^ U^^44>O. S X o: v2 X VJ 7?a 27 27 S.F. 0. wc >f?7 • c. Other ' 7.5 ■ X 3 =7 S.F.• Total Hardcover in Zone Total Propepty Arsa in Zone s.F. ^ s.F,B E t X 100 72.02 % , \• M . . •• •• •••• • • * L - Vi-I 1 ■if y H To: From: Date: Subject: Chaimian Schroeder and Orono Planning Commisflon Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator October 15. 1993 #1879 Allen and Kathleen Bakke. 1127 Loma Linda Avenue • Aftcr-tte-Fact Variance - Public Hearii^ Zoning IKstrict: LR-IB Application: After-the-fact side setback and hardcover variance for deck constructed/refurbished in 1985. Pertinent Code Sections 1. 3. Section 10.22. Subd. 2 - "Within 250’ to 500 ’ of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover". (Existing hardcover is 35%). Section 10.24. Subd. 5 (B) - "Side yard adjacent to another lot - 10’ setback required". Section 10.03. Subd 15 (Non-encroachment.s) - "Terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures, which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than 2’ from any lot line" arc non-encroachments. (The deck in question has railings which extend above the main floor of the residence and therefore is required to meet a 10’ setback). Ost of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - 1990 Letter Regarding Storage Shed F - July 14. 1993 Letter RE: Fence Encroachment. Shed and Deck Addition G - July 21, 1993 Letter from Property Owner Brief Summary Tliis property is for sale. The owner has been required to make an atter-the-fact application for decks which were constructed (panially reconst.meted?) in 1985 without a permit. [i Zoning File #1879 October 15. 1993 Paee 2 Apparently, applicant hiKl had some discussion with Building Inspector Tom Jacobs at that time, ••Iihough no record of such discussion or subsequent permit exists. The deck as constructed today is 2’ from the side lot line where such a deck would normally require a 10 ’ side setback. This issue came to light when a neighbor ’s survey indierted applicant’s fence was over the property line on the east side (since moved back onto property). A pi'rt.’on of applicant’s maintained yard area is actually on tte neighboring property. Staff cannot confum what specific hardcover was at the site cf the deck prior to 1985. Inspection today by Lyle Oman indicated that the rear deck and a portion of the side deck arc over what appears to be a concrete slab. This leaves approximately 350-400 s.f. of deck in the side and front yard over bare ground, constiniting approximately 2.7-3.1'J hardcover that potentially did not previously exist. The entire property is in the 250*500 ’ zone, and total hi.rdcover today is 35.0% according to the surveyor’s calculations. Discussion The deck system as it exists complements the house and seems to be an integral amenity that has now existed for eight years. The neighbor to the northeast who was concerned about the fence has not commented regarding this application, although he has been notified. Also notable is that the chain link fence at the rear of the property extends 2.16’ over the line. Without question, this house sits tightly into the rear of a relatively narrow 70 ’ wide lot. Absent confirmation of what previously existed, staff questions whether action should be taken to grant after-the-fact approval for the deck. Note that the railing surrounds it for safety purposes, yet the railing is what makes it an encroachment. The non-encroachment code section would allow a "ground fioor level" deck within 2’ of the lot line. Should we require that the railing be removed to make the deck setback legal, ignoring the safety issue? Aside from the setback issue, the deck appears to constitute a hardcover increase from 32.5% to 35%. in a zone that allows only 30% hardcover. Should the deck or portions of it be removed because it constitutes excess hardcover that was never approved? Or should an equivalent 350-400 s.f. of hardcover be removed elsewhere on the property? Where might that removal occur? It may be of some benefit to have the homeowner describe to Planning Commission in detail exactly what work was done in 1985 and what e.xact changes were made. That seems to be the missing piece of information in order to come to a fair lecommendation. Zoning File #1879 October 15, 1993 Page 3 The Building Inspector notes tint based on the condition of the deck system, it is likely that all portions of the deck, ii^luding from, side and rear, were constructed or reconstructed at the same time. Also note that in 1990 Building Impeclor Lyle Oman requested that the storage shed in the front yard be brought into compliance. Thai has not yet happened, although applicant has verbally stated he intends to remove the shed rather than request variances to setback and accessory structure requirements Staff Recommendation Staff would recommend the following: 1.Ask that applicant confirm exactly what work was done in 1985 and what structure or hardcover existed prior to the current deck. Based on that information, determine whether the existing 2’ setback should be allowed to remain as is or whether changes to the deck should be made. Determine whether it is appropriate and whether hardships e.xist to grant a hardcover variance, and whether concurrent hardcover removals should be required. Request that applicant declare in writing a time certain when the non-conforming shed in the front yard will be removed. Recommend whether applicant should pay an after-the-fact investigation fee which was not included with this application. Your options regarding the information on the deck construction would be to accept applicant ’s verbal description at the meeting or table the request pending receipt of a sketch and additional information in writing. ii 'h 5- ti -j r CITY OF ORCNO - VARIAKC3K UPFLICATICH Initial Application Fe« $175*00 ($50*00 per each additional variance Renewal Variance Fee $100*00 (no change from original application) Variance for non conforming use $200*00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) #1879 c:.:xo :TV W *v ■ W FKOPKRTY IMFORMATIOM ; 'c: Site Address //c. ( H. Property Identif* Number (P*I*D.)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Attach legal description to application if not Included cn required survey* * Date Property Acquired t ? (month/year) I (do)(4o nqtJ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property1 V residential _ _ _other(specify) Zoning Districts_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Phone (home) 1'^- 2 ^ /I _ _ _ _ Phene (work) Address;//^7 City; S)_____ 2iP» ^ APPLICAIIT Name filUtu' i /<!aTUI r f OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (wor)c) Address r City; DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: VARIANCES REQUIRED Dot Area Setback: Lot Width Front _ _ Hardcover _ _Lot Coverage Side _ _ Rear _ _ Average Lakeshore _Other (specify) BAROSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance yrith Zoning Code requirements:________ p0l7io Q/dk: /JuUr /4Cc\^^ Sex^TH Ztrr 4l ^ f I /C j / e 7 \ g (< ■ c H LL'a VL_L ^ Cu Tv(.>, OoOr ffcHcM K PC-^ M ■ C r ^ ^ Ch J ^ I n ^ f r'r ^ n < f ol; ^ s If (t * % f( <*/tau /fdrr ^--------------------------------------------------------------■—*..***„■ 11 .—■■ -... ^---------------------------------------- 77 JMcofj:* (t u,j <gi4 z dJLL '-■'<1 <kA. ^ iiutiK -T^IL 1*“’ \t 'p''. V' v*V 1; #*r .V- A • *■• • - >/ Vi -u-' ■5i M i-v t'V 'ij f Iv^’k ; I'V; -:o r V rrrU;: rv;; ;• bM'j f§:i« (attach additional sheets if necessary) RWim infopB^tiop"must be submitted by the appli^tlon deadline date in order vour application to_.^__cpnside^^_conplete; 1. 2. Completed Application Form “certified Property Owners List of owners within 150* (you must obtain "this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4-certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include *--------hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy Sh”xll” for S. TopoqTaphic'^lurveY (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8h"xll-). 6. S)cetches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8»i"xll"). 7] p,s an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as nay be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete —if—tbe—above 4ti^oTTiM>»-trin has not been included. APPLICANT'S SICNATDRE 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 corr^t to the best of his/her )cnowledge. J^plicant's Signature rate OMHERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application an . authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consu ' agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of inves ig tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature f()O0 PMc^_ _ _ _ _ __ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 Pleuuiing Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings "...e epxeuuiing COnuniS»a»xwii x----------------------------- - «,-heduled third Monday of each month. Applicants must be f^ xeview meetings of the Planning Ccnnaission and Council. If an pp unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements o _ aucnorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building Office of this change prior to the meeting.• • . V •. .. iY^^'in;^S^YA^kiL*^to .£1■•'V?¥]•mm ■mmn: •“ '^*I . ^ .V.’tv'Vf» . f«.m• m >im 1| V ' ^^i^** }1V‘ v ’Tvcr' m (1) (?0 I; 75 •••••,:•, (25) lOIS smcT) 9 LCMA LINO A A^ 4 (5) ^90 ij /" lA 'l /' l»- % 30uv \ L ». 3l . ?9 it ✓... «r» 26*"»v. So to N* (22T 20 26^ r>| 19)4 (35) ?1 I 23*"24 “25 “ ’ri <Ni *M»• (20 ^o‘s i ^30 40 LCm LINDA (12}' 5^i (6) ?I0 a \ S(6 (7) ?i5 a »*•::«* 7 (8) 2»3 a a e (9) 2C3 a _____i a 0 (10) 170 5 7 / •'D \ ife' I •■ «r» <2) i ( 13) 03) 309.36 f«d9*04'l^*f im : <«•« ^^Uiy ^^ (68)n ^ S59*04Mri fo? 9? .'93 • ♦. I.**•• I ;, •* •* I ' • *• • -FUtO I0-I5-7Icoc NO »i2oe; (2) \: A . ::> A ■ A' , .’ •'•: 1.- ■;■ ■< ' • I »• C7) . '*• UN BATI,09/27/93 ; . >O-\^^0*TC0 00lV.V>? - -■■................■ ■.' ■■07-117-2X !♦ 000« LQHA LINO* AVC W r^OMCO NA»C-^ 0 * R KNOX !:»■. TMRRVIR R*LRM 0 KNOX ' ' j,;. N*»C/AIKN|../l029 LOHA LIND* *VE HOUNB m 55S** i -L ^ •. » • .* • i' X * ‘ ♦ •{. . » .’*•, V ' » * v;‘MOP.*oo«'j>!'oiisoOe-117>2S Zi 0012 LON* LINO* *VE .'MONNiR N*NC!-;%N H tOCRMAtM ET *L M/L 1ST TAXPAYER * i.j:;<NILLIAN * BOCKMANN 1b';^. NANi/*OOR .^USO LON* LINO* *V V unt» ^ S55** ^ V.- X V ytw**' ■■?5S M-117-21 2S 0019 MOP AOM p . 01135 LOMA LINDA AVC ■‘' -^OMCR NAIC ». JEFFREY L MARTINEAU V Vp .TAXPAYER EDNIN J CI8BS NAHE/Anm ^'1135 lcha lino * ave •' t'L'i'i.',HOUNO. Ml • 555A* c V ••?ji •* - f * KlftiEPIN COUNTt PROPLATY INTORrUTlQN SYSTEH PROPERTY OH^RS LIST33’ 07-117-aS lA 0012 01145 LOHA LINDA AVE JEFFERY D JCRRCON ETAL JEFF 0 JUNNSON 1145 LOHA LINDA AV HOUNO HN 55344 33 03-117-23 23 0013 01140 LOHA LINDA AVE STANLEY M GOLDBERG ETAL STANLEY GOLDBERG H 0 7019 TUP# DRIVE HPLS HN 55435 33 03-117-23 23 0020 01127 LOHA LINDA AVE GENEVA 6 NEBSTER GENEVA G NEBSTER 341 DEXTER DR LONG LAKE m 55354 33 03-117-23 23 0022 ADOR ,;01045 LOHA LINDA AVE V.7fOMiR NAHiVlT 3 OSTERBERG/K J OSTERBERQ ^<*V‘>^TA><PAYER’^ GyURISTI J O^TEKBERG NAHE/AD03 1045 LOHA LINDA AVE 55344 33 : 03-117-23 23 0025 01040 * LOHA LINDA AVE ,,, ypnoB aoor ‘V VJI.^I^^ OMER NAHE iVC D NOLCOHBE A H J HOLCOWE • ;‘;!iVTAXPAYER }^,C DOUGLAS HOLCaSE %'S- /HAHE/AODR ‘. 1040 LOHA LINDA AVE iy "Ni. • • i-'" mound m 55344 • Aai** J * Jf »*.4. .' J' . * 33 03-117-23 23 0023 01035 LOHA llHOIk AVE R C BRONN AHA BRCAtl ROSS C A HELI^A A BRONN 1035 LOHA Limk AVE HOUNO m 55344 33 03-117-23 23 0024 01122 LOHA LINDA AVE ROGER L NILI.IAMS ROGER L HILLIAHS 815 SN 14TN ST NILLHAR m 54201 \ REPORT HO. PI43540133 07-117-23 14 0055 01054 LOHA LINDA AVf RAJ REGG ROGER A HEG6 1034 LOHA LINDA AVE HOUND m 55344 3B OB-117-23 23 0016 00038 ADDRESS UNASSK^O STATE LAND DEPT CITY OF ORONO STREET 4/19/70 ST DEED 134653 \i m/m • » i ’ ; A*»: *' '“^r.v V.' • ■ : '■■,;• !U !■•••: •' ■■ ■ ■r.'V.'i'.t: ,;.t J I'lvr:': 10 00-117-25 25 0024 01038 LOHA LINDA AVE R H SANDLER ETAL R H SANDLER 1038 LOHA LINDA Um HOUND MN 55344 TOTAL BATCH 003 J V •#...*• . M* A.' • . *V i!* *.• • ^ • * /V ‘ir .' • • .• •* • . ’ i ^ • /■ *V * 'll ' • t/ •• t ' f . BXfi. b C. E. COILTER ASSOCIATES. INC. ms coaTEJt Fmssos PR0FESSI0N.\L REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED IS kL\S., fISC. k UH UCESSFD IS CITY OF MiySFAPOUS P.O. BOX 8900 M NNE a POUS, MISSESCTA 55iC>8-C900 FHC-NE (612) 824-0370 FAX (612) 953-3074 ________ NORTH ------50-..- • DENOTES PR'^f’ERTY CORNER. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE ASSUMED. CIRCLED NUMBERS DENOTE HARD COVER AREAS. legal DESCRIPTION; LOMA NDA AVE. All of Lot Twt.ity Two (22) and that po^t of Lot Twenty Nine (29) l/’ng South of the North One Hundred (100) feet thereof os measured along the East and West lines of said Lot Twenty Nine (29), and the East Two Fifths (2/5) of Lot Twenty One (21) as measured olong the North and South lines t! C'^eof, and the East Two Fifths (2/5) as measured along the North and South lines thereof of that r,ar ‘ of that port of Lot Thirty (30) lying South of the North One Hundred (100) feet thereof as measured along the East and West lines of said Lot Thirty (30), "Loma Linda", Hennepin County. Minnesota. NOTE; THIS SURVEY CERTIFICATE IS NOT VALID WITHOUT AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE I BERE3Y CERTIFY THaT THIS SURVEY. PUN OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER/MTKDIRECT SUPERVISION AND TBAT I Ail A DULY REGISTERED .Sl'RVEYOR UNDER TBE UWSBE UWS OF THE STATRM. MINNESOTA. REV. 10/6/93 REG. NO. 13792 CUEST: E\KKE JOB NO. 11,392 BK/PG. 913/140 SCALE: r = 40' SHEET I OF I L r / f i • • .—V O O) ^b'l I , FENCE 0N< U 4^UNE HERET, O^rHV uo vt'H c.Aossv*^^ A/^a. f^ A S* Co^>c#«v<^ rLAfi. (o vtC^ 1/ Aj c,feT<e- 'TO Be EARBCOVa CALOIWTIO!) h'ORXSKESr ■ C> s£T3Acx z::ie: (circle crie) 0-73' 75-230' (j5C-3QQp 5C0-IG20' Existing Hasdccvp .^ in Zcne - A. House ■ X 3. Ga RAG c C. Oriveway 0|w D. SlDr/^ALK ^ I Off vJ04,K E. -6*W/ Deck y'lnft.s.p. CP length ■7.8 WIDTH -7.(0 .F.© S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ©S.F. © __53___sip. © ^ S.F.© X S.F. S.F.<5^ S.F. »«L:.'% •!.> «.*J't. 4 ,V^ V glOo^i^*' V j>T* » L I CITYof ORONO crTY OF ORONO- Post Offit* Bo* 66»CryiUl Bay. Minnwot* S&323* Municipal OtScs On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 2, 1990 Allen Bakke 1127 Lom Linda Avenue Mound, MN 55364 Re: Storage Shed Dear Al: T.. has c=me to the attentior. of this department that you have recently constructed a storage building on your proper . . This letter is to notify you that „%^“^S^|^roofstorage buildings with J^O sguare^teet^o.^projecte^^ area and that even if a permit ^ (-'"itv Hall and applv for a p«m\t”%Vfo\V^C^9.Jiio ’%hlnk pou for your cooperation. Sincerely, Lyle Oman, Senior Building Inspector cc; Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & ^oning^AdministratorLO/tln H!cCael''p.”Srff^o;/A^srriaining-*'2oning Administrator Bruce Vang, Building Inspector BUiLDiNC a ZONLNC - 473-7?57 t^cFcmsr. AD.MLMSTRAT10.N A n.NA.>CE - 47>7358 FAX-4^4510 PUBLIC WORKS - 41^7359 CITY of ORONO Municipal OfTices Street AddresJ: 2750 K«!!e? Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Matlinf Address: P 0 Boi 65 Crystat Bay. V7» 55323 CC65 July 14, 1993 Mr. Allen Bakkc 1127 Lxima Linda Mound. Minnesota 55364 Re; Fence Encroachment. Shed and Deck Addition Dear Al: As we have discussed, veur neiehbor had a survey done of their property and discovered your fence was placed on their side of the line. We also discussed a storage shed that was placed on your property and a deck that was added onto, both ot which are in violation of seiback ordinances. This letter is to require you to remove the fence before July 27 1993 “"-I “ application to keep the deck addition and shed or remove them by August 5, 1993. If these declines ate not met, the City may initiate legal action. If you have a problem meetmg these deadlines, feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official LO/ch cc:Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building &. Zoning Adm Bruce L. Vang. Field Inspector Mr. & Mrs. Tim Osterberg 1045 Loma Linda, Mound, MN 55364 Telephone (6L2) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 CITY WIDE A/C, HEATING & REFRIG., INC. ______ ___________ n*iH kAiKjPurCATA I^MOQ2529Vi 7TH AVENUE NGHTM ST PAUE. MINNESOTA 55109 (612) 770-0862 r ■■1-at- ‘5^^ /I * ^ JUU ?. 6 iw'oO r 4^, <T-(^wt o&-toy flv l^k-. .<-1 “"f ^ qH ^ 'Tin.uvi. -ft-1 (^A ^Ojl cihituujD^ ^ 'W/jL9 auyc^-6.. 4 -lyctaj^cvK . (r^ 111 /> .,. ‘7%'^ rf /A. ■^‘--^ 6 , ^c"o p '?!'> J] Cu^.u.'d.. nyiy^.c^ kZu^CL-i^- (kP- L 1127 LOMA LINDA AVE PERMIT RECORD Permit No.Date Type of Permit ^^•709 3 io ^/r»7B UJ!iAjbi^K. 9^/t6 ,6i___ f u TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. GafTron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator October 7, 1993 SUBJECT: #1880 Thomas and Jane Regnier, 1205 Elmwood Avenue Variance Renewal - Public Hearing Application Requesting renewal of side street setback, variance for construction of additions to existing reskfeiKTc. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Proposed Site Plan F - House Plans G - Hardcover Calculations H - Resolution #2852 I - Suff Memos and Minutes from Application #1566 Pertinent Code Section Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) requires a side street setback of 35’ in the F.R-IB zone. Jpiertinent Facts 1, Proposal is to construct a second story addition plus a room addition which will continue the existing 6.5 ’ side street setback of the existing house. 2.The proix)sal was approved in 1990, subject to removal of an existing fence, limiting hardcover in the 75-250’ zones to 25% (some removals required), and provision of screening between the side street and the proposed addition (please review Resolution .#2852). Discussion Please review the staff memos, e.xhibits and minutes from the 1990 Planning Commission review. That approval granted in August 1990 expired August 13, 1991. Applicants are proposing no changes from the original approval. 2U)ning File #1880 Oct(^r 7, 1993 Page 2 StafT Recommcndatioii If Planning Commission determines rhat the findings and conditions of Resolution #2852 arc still applicable, then a recommendation or approval subject to those findings and conditions would be appropriate. CITY OP ORONO - variance APPLICATION^#/ Initial Application Fee $175.00 / / ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non conforming use $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) o . % »- • V ' I PROPERTY INFORMATION fAmLOC)Dcisite Address I Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Y ^ed (month/year) I (do)(do notDalso own the ac^jacent parcels of land Present use of property: V^__residential other(specify) Zoning nistrict: fC\nr>\\<^ applicant Phone (home) 4^7^- 77 Neune "~TTv^nV?S>Phone (wor)c) >7(y. AvCcity: Qr&np---- OWNER (if different than applicant)Phene (home) Name Phone (work) Address: _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $, Describe request an detail: fC ^ " VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Front ide Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS of the following information must be submitted by the applicatilon deadline date in order for yoor 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 ^ Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8is"xll" for reproduction ). 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8Jj"xll"). 6. Sketches or plans of iloor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8%"xll"). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of 8. 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 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 th^best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature^~^^^ to th^ b VJ Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges 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 investiga tion and verification of this reouest_ Owner's Signature \ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting, Planning Commission Meetings are held on e third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an appl cant s unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building fi oning Office of this change prior to the meeting. I'lil MWmrj. '■m\ U'Zr-T *■m r**0!l IPl^fgjaMmEMMKlM^S5gS^^g2lBPWww«iiiaB>naMgiMMPWnifflBiD»aMi»■ 3^ nlm Wa r Mi »ATf 04/tl/^MTCfl Ml NfNNCPIN COUMTY MOPfllTY INfOKHATlON SYSTIH PtOPLITY Q#€tS LIST PiPOPr NO. PIPIMOl PAGi 1o, MOP AOM OMNiP NAW TAXPAYEP * NMi/AOOP e CAMEi NAMi TAXPAYIP NAME/AOm AOOP OmEP NAMI TAXPAYIP NAME/AOM PPM AOM OmiP NAME TAXPAYEP NAME/AOM %PPM AOM QMEP NAME TAXPAYEP NAME/AODR (0 (0 M P7-117-» 14 MIA •oosa ADDRESS ONASSIGNEO STATE LANO DIPT CITY OP QMNO SO 07-117-2S 14 0010 01174 ELHHOOO AVE i E 6APL0CK i P K GARLOCK SmJCE GAPLOCE 1174 EL»MXXI AVE HOLM HN S5U4 18 07-117-71 14 001101180 EIHHOGO AVE J N LAMBRECHT ET At JON N LAMBRECHT 1180 EIHNOOO AVE ^ MOUND HN 5S144 Sa 07-117-n 14 0014 OMSa AOOPESS UNASSIGNED STATE LAND DEPT CITY OP OPQNO CONVEYED t/S/SE ST DEED 141147 18 07-117-11 14 0054 01174 NMTN APM OP NAN MCKVAH NQPMAN A NANCY POCKVAH 1174 NOPTN AM MIVE lEJUND HN 55144 . ; • • * IS 07-117-a 01144 EL J A E HAPVfY J SCOT HARVEY 1144 ELltCOD HOUND HN 55144 14 0054 AVE HA Si 07-117-a 14 0040 01144 NMTH APH DP CAPY B aSATG BTAL 1odd 4 Mm MPV 8 PiMilC BilTi , A Vc 1144 N Am DP HOUND HN 551»4 18 07-r7-71 41 oo:i 01705 NOPTH Am OR PAUL P SPAGEPSEPO PAUL P SKAGERBERG 1205 NOPTH APH DP MOUND m 55144 18 07-117-a 41 0014 01245 NMTH Am OR POBERT Q NOVLANO GEORGE HOVLANO 1255 NO Am DP MOUND HN 55144 18 07-117-21 41 0015 01285 NORTH Am DR H B HENRY A L M HENRY MICHAEL B A LISA M HEMY 1285 NMTH Am DR MOUND m 55144 IS 07-117-21 41 0014 01205 ElTtiOOO AVE TAJ REGNIER THOMAS 0 A JANE REG»41EP 1205 ELHHOOO AVE HOUND m 55144 18 07-117-21 41 0017 01245 EIHNOOO AVE JOHN A PERKINS JR ETAL JOHN PERKINS 1245 ELHHOOO AV MOUND HN 55544 S8 07-117-21 41 0018 01245 ELMNOOO AVE J A DENZEL AML DENZEL JEROME A MAUPENE L DENZEL 1245 ELMNOOO AVE MOUND MN 55144 58 07-117-21 41 0088 01304 ELmOOO AVE RICHARD J JOHNSON ET AL RICHARD J JOHNSOt^ 1104 ELHHOOO HOUND MN 55344 TOTAL BATCH OQI 00Q14 a pf ’ r o I-* o -is AODlTi^Phl ^^1^ HI >8"2isiHi B «< q «« gp Ml ■■l.- ' '■'?.. *• \ asyA TL □ I .1____: u ?\ 1- , v»*k • •• ; * • j * * * • •**• . * • • <\ :; ::;| .V I O r1 1 % /it if' f -t'^> m 05 05 H.ARDCQVB CALCULATION HORKSH^ Sc:2Ac;< zcfJE: (circle cme ) O-/5' 62-250250-500' 5C0-1CCQ' Existing Karccover in Zone ' A.House ___x_______ LENGTH WIDTH Ml 7 S.F. Be ^ (c S.F. 7Q S.F. I Kt *7 ^ PocL hDu<^^ S.7~ , S’ / 3o ^ ‘ (o S.F. r-0 S.F. 'ipirP^n 1a RAG 5 /B.s:__ X w.s (pO- ?s.r. 3 30. 9 _ S.F. S.F. Cpnc. .'—StCEHA:A - ?S.F. *3>S’? ■S.F. DecL 73 ,2. ._____ e. Patio / /<-4S X ^ V 9 > f S.F. ■ ^F.Landscape ^ ^o. s /-fe S.F. AREAS Ccfi^OtZ/ZS UNDERLAIN ^ , BY , /____ X _ PLASTIC 0 . (cl 0 • W ?v SHEETING S=L2^■ X 't ILJ£ S.F. S.F. H a 0, (o7 s. . Other (jYC l l ^ /S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone xCj'ZW'X.. Total Property Area in Zone IO,C?Z(e S.F. _A B jii,{jp7,io X100 ■ ^3//9 ^ . . . .< ‘CA i tMi I H.ARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZCNE: (CIRCLE CNE) 0-75' 75*250j Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House ‘7- / x ^ 250-500' SOoilOCO LENGTH WIDTH B. Garage c. D riveway x (''^ro Lf€ I X D. Sidewalk E. Patio / Deck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN ?^AST,C' - SHEETING X X G. Other Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone l(rq ilJc <-1^^ I (pbO S.F. S.r. 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. GO tH S.F 3 B kcio X 100 723 '% , ! « • • CITY ORONO 5731002 City of OROrVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2852 A RKOLDTIOM GRANTIBG A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24 SUED. 5(B) FILE #1566 WHEREAS, Dr. and Mrs. Thomas Regnier (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1205 Elmwood Avenue within the City of Orono, (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 5, Saga Hill Revised Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24 Subd. 5(3) to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence, such additions being located 6.5 feet from the side street lot line where a side street setback of 35 feet is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as zoning file 11566. 2. The property is located in the LR“1B Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 16, 1990 and recommended approval of the proposed variance on a vote of 5 to 0, based upon the following findings: a. The additions will have no significant effect on the perception of visual density in the neighborhood. b. There is no other reasonable and feasible location for the addition meeting the code requr ieraents, the hardship being the existing house location and the lot width in relation to the required side street and side yard setbacks.f Page 1 of 5 TKANSFEft iNTERSO OEM Of PTOMRTV TM i public WCOTOS OEC 11 1900 ■n IJN TY MINN ___DEPUTY ^ • it • • Cit V of ORONO city ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2852 c. With appropriate vegetative screening and removal of an encroaching fence along the north side of the garage# the additions will have no detrimental impact on the neighborhood. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24 Subd. 5(B) to permit the construction of a second story addition and westerly extending room addition to the existing residence, such additions being 6.5 feet from the side street lot line where a 35 foot side street setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicants shall remove the existing fence area located on the north side of the garage, prior to footing inspection for the additions. Page 2 of 5 1 f • CITY ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 285 2. Applicants shall limit hardcover in the 75 - 250 foot zone to 25%. All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance application is recorded on the survey and hardcover caculation attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. The current owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall be maintained at the current levels, and any proposed improvements to this property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City and such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removal, as shown in Exhibit A must be removed prior to the footi g inspection for the new construction. 3. As part of the building permit application, applicants shall provide a vegetation/screening plan for the area north of the westerly addition, such plan to provide a sufficient number and size of plantings to yield a 70% opaqueness at full maturity to a height of at least 10 feet. These plantings shall be completed within 90 days of the date of final inspection of the additions, and failure to provide such plantings shall be considered a violation of the terms and conditions of this resolution, 4. 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 (August 13, 1991). 5. Violation of or non-C'.»mpliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 5 1 . »: 4 •* City of OROINO city OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 794^ 2852 6, The undersi9ned applicant has read» understocci and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on of himse'f, his heirs# successors and a.«?signs, h y agrees tu ;h« 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 August# 1990. attestT .•*v*aV. ■ rfuVS'*. .. .—- - - - - - - Jam^ R. Sr^elrr^layor Dofotby?>r^Jia 11 irf^ity -Clerk Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF Er”'”'riN ) SS. T^ foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on the 13th day of August, 1990# by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin# Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono# a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. HENNEPIN COUNTY My commMMon m M-92 Notary Public i My Commission Expires Page 4 of 5 t •• • • f C ity of ORONO ClT> Of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2852NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) } ss. On this B day o A , 19CL wa (.11X9 _ _' ^ — . * . €^aid countv, pcrsonal-iy before me a Notary /t\fryu2^ovn to me to be appeared <. the foregoingthe ijerson(s) described ih and wno « . _ ___^ _ ^ * - a •___________ .he person(s) describe- i * executed the same asxnstrument, and acknowledged that he (..n.y, his (their) free act and deed. NOTAKf PUBLIC COMMISSION EXPIRES ^ -g-- 9S- ■VETOES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Or. this rP,^n<d------ day of ^—DUrsonally appeared to me to be the Jo hj.r", 199^ before me .Rotary ^Fublic^ w^ithin and^ror^ be_ the \rx njL / fS—. 'ijLL pveAnted the foreaoing instrument» executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. \r j Uaa-kL notary PUBLIC 9. my COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 5 of 5 RESOLUTION <*2852 STATE OF HINSESOTA ) ) COUNTT OF HEKtiEPIN ) ) CITY OF OROKO ) I Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have coopareu the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution In >.he Minutes of the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of sa. '^Ity Council held on August 13th , 19 90 , and that . ' same la a true and correct copy of said resolution was duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 14th 'V' •* . •- I ------- >-----•,'rut-u I It af M.‘\ ‘A iWUii I rt'a'.uTa* a >a«<M>iau ------- «- • ‘' •- ■— ■ * *• - ' - •• ...'.W^r. .. J NUKOV^a GU.C1llATICn K»ON££T Struct lOMii (ciKU OMt) CtItTIM lantcortt It Zone I ^0-syj* !SOO-IOOO*WMCtWtS CStOILATIW HOtWH-r HtM% !OMt: Ccnci.t 0*«l> 0*75' lUtKOvlt in loNi /* f*,. . WtDCOVft CALCUUTIW WWSHCT ^'utuc. totiu (cittu tni) 0-75 7S-?50‘ QsO-SOg^ $00-1000* C«llTINfl H*aKOvtt IN l9h\ I ’ <■' V}r ■ »• I llttrt . . . .tlBW iC .Olt ‘ X. -'A^- V. *. H dvu -’f 1 /7. r •PF/ 7 t.r. •: .• .r.i i.». ItnciM ■ IBIN JS7.71 1 •i.f. ■•t.#.?tlf. Fi • ....... "i 2 - J 1 •i-t- ♦ •■• /5. 1 ,2 0. J Jot. <A f •.*?# f.lt#•t.f ■•. t.». /-It f.v P. O 1 r. /•VO r t.». 1. Muu _1 •t.f.# .* ■ f • ^rf. 5 ,V. 5 •i.f. c. Biivtiuv _a •i.».ffr. •/,9 a a/o. f ,J •fO . T If ■ a •i.f.* •t .•If ft. ilMMlll a •t.a. B- SlMMMA-? f 1 >m ' .J* /t f t**^ a 7- •'•I.a.jr/ • * *>• $ 0 %9 I.f. J / It.** ••-v.y t.f./V/. rt. t*TI0/ *"frr^31.2 ft 6 • 2.m If. ;•*._t.f. /V. X ,/Vf. Vr ../m I.f. t.LuMciat •t.f.,Vd j . ff s •/tf If. 1 Jill) ..•t.f.i(I-t «■# ft «*. m-O « ft t f I* tL*iric t*1 r <•?. V t.t< •MUTIM •t.f.BUBlf It l« »r. # P / V # Cll.iV.tJ t.*i ^ |je||l IIBft va 1 .2 m r. V 1 f. •t.f.<// >O.i’’i/./ If.•I.f. «• Orm Totat iMKcovca m 2m TetM. furrtrr Mi* it 2m _________f.t. //. Y— «.t. (T] t ot«. iLLl^t.p. B o> ■ Tot**. lUaocovt*N la<t “ 0 2t.V 4[T] 7//7 .IM^ _?o loraL Paoafaiv A«f» in Zo«t tZ 6 Q]_ZJ:£va-T[TJ_z£*tfj£iL ■ wo • ^ *. Mowtt 7 ! t¥C Jo.2 . /yv / t.f. IIMTH if r ^8 I. C a *a :i I. P»ne/ C t4IVt<<«t I ,<L « ». SiMMtLI ____________ I ________ > —— « —— « ■ ■ ■ - I _____ I ________I ____________ 1 *. OlHtt - « f-UnsicaM i«Ul u‘iet«c*iH I* • . *L«inc UCttlM _________t.9. ^ I.P. /(V t.t. /I r _ !■>. __________i.p. _____ S.P. _____ •.*. ■ ■ l.t. ______ t.P. _____ I.P. _________ t.P. aa Toiat, Mu 9C o«u IN Ifr-if Toim. Pwiart Mi« it iM O/'/o ?- i.t. (T| £££^t.p. (B % 6AL DCSCRIFTIOII Of >»CHISES SURtfETtO: *K I. Block 5, “Sago Hill Revised. Hennepin Co Hinn' \<t io 0 Y/V.f A0 i'cO % WO - V.J. \__I____z £fmufooa A s'enuc. 1 •' . T77*T:~TT •/?- 1 r**‘ •;. ii f-' «• •r *< < i* 'V • • I r • • SPted No cirr OF ORONO land use filing information Prepared By: Carolyn Sommers. Secretary to Nancy E. Husnik, Legal Assistant Pophain, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd. December 21, 1990 The following is a recap of the resolutions submitted to this office ihfch havrSLn filed w?th the Hennepin bounty Recorder's Office. M resolutions which have been returned to our office are Special Lot Corabination/PhiHips was tiled on December 14. 1990 and has not at yet been returned to us. RESOLUTION tfijnSIER_____ 2852 2865 2879 2883 2884 2893 2894 (end.) (end.) (end.) (end .) (enc1.) (end.) (end . ) APPLICANT’S NAME_ _ _ _ _ Regnier, Dr. and Mrs. T. Prass, David and Suzanne Minnegasco, Inc. Buranen, James S. Siford. Ruby L. Kaley, Philip F. Luke, Duane DATE DOOJNFNT muwBfif;__ 12-11-90 12-11-90 12-11-90 12-11-90 12-11-90 12-11-90 12-11-90 5731O02(A) 5731003(A) 5730994(A) 5731000(A) 5731001(A) 5730996(A) 573C995(A) 35ZNEH 'o^c s e L. - OROHO REGULAR COOWCIL REETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 ZONING FILE #1563-DENZEL CONTINUED ,10%^# Mabusth also noted that in Ueu of removing 1.49% of hardcover, the Planning ConCTission recocnended lane, which the applicants maintain and improv-d significantly with plantings, be credited in the area calculations property. Mabusth stated that this specific area of fire lane is in excess of 2,000 s.f. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten. seconded by Councilaeaiber Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2850, Sranting the side yard setback, average lakeshore setback jnd hardcover variances to construct additions to the residence at 1295 Elmwood Avenue. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1564 JOANN GRIMES 4720/4730 NORTH ARM DRIVE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT RESOLUTION #2851 Ms. Grimes was present. Bernhardson briefly explained the information pertaining to this application (see Michael Gaffron's memo dated August 3, 1990). It was moved by Council member Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2851, approving a metes and bounds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for Joann Grimes and James Hoffman at 4720 and 4730 North Arm Drive West. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1566 DR. A MRS. THOMAS REGNIER 1205 ELMWOOD AVENUE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2852 Dr. Regnier was present. Bernhardson provided a brief summary of the information contained in Michael Gafiron’s memo dated August 7, 1990. Dr. Regnier asked whether he could replace the existing section of fence by the garage once he removes that section. Gaffron replied, "You could replace what now exists with a section no more than 2h' high. There may be a sight distance problem if a fence is placed where the fencing currently exists. If you decide to put a fence in that location, staff coi Id work with you to see what can be done." It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2852, approving a side street setback variance to construct additions to existing residence at 1205 Elmwood Avenue. Motion, Ayes-4, the - 11 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 ZONING FILE #1566-REGNIER CONTINUED Nays-0. Motion passed. •1567 ROBERT • LOOANN POWELL 2916 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2853 Mr. Powell was present. City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief summary of Michael Gaffron’s August 7, 1990 memo. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to adopt Resolution #2853, approving the average setback and hardcover variances to construct a deck on the lake side of the residence at 2916 Casco Point Road. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1568 JAMES a JUDITH PIERPONT 1801 WEST FARM ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE RESOLUTION 2854 Bernhardson presented Council with a brief review of this application. He noted that staff has recently learned that Lot 14 has the principal and alternate septic sites to serve the 5tructures on Lot 15. Bernhardson stated that the Pierponts purchasing Lot 14 under a 7 year Contract for Deed, which will preclude a legal let combination from occurring at this time. He said, "This would pose a problem should the terms of the Contract for Deed be terminated." Mrs. Pierpont said, "There is no question that we intend tc combine the properties when we are able to do so. We would like to put the access driveway on Lot 14." Mabusth questioned whether the City Attorney could recommend a method to provide the City with assurance that the lots cannot be separated in the future until a legal lot combination can occur. r-arrett stated that it would be necessary to have the fee owner of Lot 14 execute whatever agreement is used. Councilmember Callahan asked how the reptic system came to be located on Lot 14 rather than the Lot v.lth the principal structure. Gaffron replied, "The subdivision involving this property was done before the Septic Code went into effect in 1978. Prior to 1978. a review of septic system locations in relation to property lines was not included in the subdivision process." - 12 - Mayor amd City Council Nil.Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning 6 Zoning Adaln. DATS August 1, 1990 SUBJECT: #1566 Dr. and Mrs. Thomas Regnier, 1205 Elmwood Avenue Variance - Resol ’*.tion Application - Request for side street setback varian'~e to construct additions to existing residence. Zoning District - LR-IB Single Family Lakesb're Residential - 1 Acre Sewered. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Resolution Notice of Planning Commission Action 7/17/90 Memo and Exhibits of 7/10/90 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of July 10th. Briefly, applicants are requesting approval to construct additions 6.5 feet from the north (side street) lot line where a 35 foot setback would normally be required. The idditions include completion of the second story over the center portion of the house, and an addition to the west. Existing 75 - 250* hardcover is 23.191. Applicants intend to maintain hardcover at or below the the 25% limit. At their July 16th meeting. Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 for approval, finding that the second story addition will have no significant impact on the perceived visual density of the neighborhood, and that the existing house location and lot width are hardships, since only a 15 foot wide building envelope paralleling the south lot line would be available under the code standards. Planning Commission conditioned their recommendation for approval on the following: 1. Hardcover in the 75 - 250 foot zone shall noc exceed 25%. 2. Applicants to remove fenced area on north side of garage, and provide additional vegetation screening along north side of new addition. Regu’^ding the Planning Commission recommendation for screening. Planning Commission gave no direction on the height, amount or opaqueness of the vegetation required. In the resolution, staff is recommending that the screening provide a minimum 70% opaqueness to minimum he.ght of 10* at maturity, along the L. File I156e August 7, 1990 Page 2 of 2 proposed addition to the west. These figures certa.nly can be revised at Council's discretion. Staff Reconendation * Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for approval is attached. I ii «1 OROHO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 1990 —Tt r • 1SSS-PICHARO ANDERSON CONTINUED T::. ^r:::nL:!':ns^Tt%T.%l Mr. And.r,on to ono, tKe d.ct into conforniance. Johnson withdrew his motion. It was moved application 11565. Motion carried. by Johnson, seconded by Kelley, to table Motion, Ayes-:, Cohen, Rowlette, Nays. #1566 DR. » MRS. THOMAS REGNIER 1225 ELMWOOD AVENUE VARIANCE ^ pflTlT TP HEARING ^j55 P.M. TO 10t02 P«M. rr. and Hr,. Ragnier an= Mr. Dale Mjlfincer, Architect, were present Caffron explained the prcccal tein? presented (see Michael Gaffron's rcmo dated July 10, l'*?0). .Mr. Mulfincer stated that the plan proposed this evcninc will rra'<e the most of the existing lavc':t of the house. Rowlette asked whether a floor plan had teen submitted with the application. Mrs. Reamer provided a cooy of tne floor plan. Kelley asked Caffron whether staff had been able to verify that the survevor had included ail existing hardcover in the calculations provided. Kelley noted that the indicates that there is no hardcover on the north side of the orooertv, Rowlette noted that there is a fenced area on the north side of the garage that does not show on the plans. Gaffron reolied that he has reviewed the surveyor's calculations but did not take the time at the site to verify each ite.m Shown. Gaffrcn stated that due to the bulk of appl ications, staff no longer can spend a jreat amount of time re-checking surveyor's hardcover calculations. Especially when those calculations use standard C.ty forms and appear complete. He said that the City is going to have to relv more on the applicants and their surveyors to provide accurate information. consider She alsoRowlette asked the applicants if they wculd renovina the fencing on the north side of the garage, noted that there is a section of fence missing. Or. and Mrs. Reamer indicated that they do not use the fenced area and would con.siier rcmv>vinu it. - H - OROHO MANNIHO «»«HISS10H MCETINC HELD JULY 1«. 1»»0 the public and the Public Healing was closed. ► K-r auaaestion to have the one portion Rcwlette o*h2r section filled In. She alto of fencing removed and ^ along the road where the suggested that plantings the visual impact. Rowlette addition will be ^T.^ation of the addition is the mostagreed that the proposed location logical. ^ w o-'iow« seconded bv Rowlette. to recommend It was moved ^et s-tback ‘variance to construct approval of the ® residence, provided that hardcover is additions to^ an fence along the north raintained at or b-lo *• rlantincs be placed to screen of the gorooe be re-oved Motion the addition rro'n -.ne carried. 11567 ROBERT i LOUANN POWELL 2916 CASCO POINT ROAD PUBLIC HEARING 10:08 P.M. TO 10:12 The applicants' contractor was present cn their behalf. The Affidavit of PubUceti,n and Certificate of Mailino were duly noted. caffron succarired the infochation Rowlette stated that the conficuration of the deck seeoed oda in relation to the existing patio an- tree. „ ""“r-r; .v-Tf-2 Si:that the proposed configuration wi.. a>a.o* .c.c g lower level of the house. There wore no public comnents pertaining to this application and the Public Hearing was closed. It was moved bv Kelley, seconded by Bellows ” that hirdcover remain ,it 41.51. Motion. Ayes-5. Nays-0. carried. It warn 7'cved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, ic^roval of the average laKeshorc sotoack variance o. .Morion. Aves-5. Nays-0. .Motion carried. - 19 - IL Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date July 10, 1990 Subject: #1566 Dr. i Mrs. Thomas Pegnier, 1205 Elmwood Avenue Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - acre, sewered LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 Application - Request for side street setback variance to construct additions to existing residence Idst of Bjihibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Proposed Site Plan Elevation Views Hardcover Calculations Pertinent Facts - 1.The existing house is on a corner lot at a jog in Elmwood Avenue. The existing house is 6.5 ' from the north lot lino, which would be considered a side street lot line in thit. case; normally requiring a 35' setback. The existing attached garage is 5.3 ' from the east lot line. 2.Applicants propose to construct an addition to the west side of the house, extending the existing north line of the house 6.5' from the lot line. Additionally, a second story addition is proposed to complete the existing partial second story, also being as near as 6.5' to the north side lot line. 3.Existing 75-250' hardcover is 23.19%. In conjuction with the additions, applicants nropose to remove enough existing retaining wall and concrete sidewalk hardcover to maintain hardcover at or below the 25% limit. 4.Existing lot coverage by structures is 12.8%. with the proposed addition, lot coverage will be 14.8%, meeting the 15% limit. Discussion This lot is by definition a corner lot, and the defined front lot line would be the east lot line, with the side street Zoning File #1566 July 10, 1990 Page 2 lot line being the north lot line. In the LR-IB zone, the required side street lot line setback is 35'. The existing house is approximately 10' from the paved driving surface of Elmwood Avenue on the north side of the house, and the addition will similarly be approximately 10 or more feet from that road. Absent the need for hardcover or lot coverage variances, this lot is still limited by the location of the existing house so near the roadway. Traffic heading southward then eastward along Elmwood might perceive this house after additions as substantially increasing in bulk near the traveled roadway, although there is some minimal existing vegetative screening in that area. Because neighboring adjacent lakeshore residences are much nearer the lake than the existing house or proposed additions, there is no average setback encroachment. Staff Recommendation Answering the following questions should help the Planning Commission in determining an appropriate recommendation for the proposed variance request: 1. Will the completion of the second story above an existing substandard street setback increase the visual density in the neighborhood? 2. Will the additional structure located 6.5' from the side street lot line, have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood? 3. Can the proposed westerly addition be constructed at a location further from the side street lot line, or is the existing house location sufficient justification for allowing that addition as proposed? Isv -C, -C-v- 2S -O 1 I Ef ■ % 11 ?' .f ,1- /f(.‘ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) (^75j Existing H ardcover in Zone 500-1000' A. H ouse LENGTH WIDTH • V V o • r • • • s.F. •m • ••y s s.F. • X • . S.F. Q fiADAr:?X -s.F. /- riof\yCUAV Y S.F. • i • X • • S.F. •• • n ^ T nPWAf VC Y •s S.F. A' /V 2 X •'S.F. X 23, y S.F. E.’at to/• • )eck X S.F. • • c 1 AMn«^i*APP Y •S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN n V Y S.F. PLASTIC.« • SHEETING X S.F. Y 8 S.F. G. Other X S S.F. Total H ardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone 1/23 22. y s.F. 3 f 2 ^ S• F» 7, 2 . y ~ B X 100 0. yo B % f /< HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSH^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE Oi.i) 0-75' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House /7i_£ _ENGTH WIDTH f, 7 S.F. • 30.2.X 2 >6 s 2S'i.7 S.F. n. 3 X n/. S'S.F. • 7T -i;«5•/5. 2 X 10.3 • S.F. /^JLL n P. o X 5"./VO.F S.F. ^ » F ^ w /?- 5 X V. 5 £o. S S.F. /) (C i. / -c'> - HA-i\7CUAyu /o. 3 X 3 ?a. ?S.F. 1 X • • S.F. • n C•4J^CUAI-V-?. <X S.F. u • . < JPP X S.F. 23.2 X 0.2 /V3- t S.F. E.’atio / D eck /9. S X /0.3 . m. y S.F. c A M n ^ r p 31 X o. s /(T S.F. AREAS CC-,, C-/' m J onderuun n V z /X 0.^S.F. PLASTIC ?. /V 0.£7 /V. / sheeting *fZ X .2 s ?.y S.F. (n > X s S.F. . nru„ ■X 22J S.F. Total Hardcover :n Zone 2y<y.3S.F. Total Property A rea in Zone 6 S.F. ? 4 B X 100 Z3-f9 % / HARDCOVER CALCULAriOM WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250 Existing Hardcover in Zone 250-500'J 5C0-10Q0' A.House ^ _x — LENGTH WIDTH 3. Garage E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape areas UNDERLAIN BY , , PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other - X X c. Driveway x D..SI DEWALK _ X X X X J 0.3 Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone B / s.F. S.F. • S.F. . S.F. S.F. /Z € •« • S.F. •S.F. S.F. S.F. • • • • =s .S.F. • 3 S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F.11 • • 1 $'11S.F. S.F. V inn » 7 < -j • • • • • • V % . ■ , L « ni>:* Jtk ^ m.. . «> - cm na>v»i -jb i ti hi i 1 .1 /^p ir _Coy. I r!r— . _€X fvn^<^ Ho „... / 7 « S X3 ft. 3» .4?^ -f-6/J-vzz^Oe S.^^ArSQ.-j ^ 2-6^ t^<f^ >f/a. 3. - / ao.^xzztS ■ _ <i . 2 ■<' 2 3-2_ /‘■/.rxr/o.3 ■■ S x/o.^ - Hf3 ' /vy /Vi. 21 /$V/..'--^______ T/^Po2,t^ : 2VX7»:T /ao foorict^ tMirfl- nt'-^9 0e^"~ n._r„^--H /0 2- t/os +- -- /I7 ...yV.sX •s^’Jv.' .—ft. V ___n n * in ■ ftfttnM*'li aa anj MIB ^ ■jr'MWWf-?Mf?^4lr>-^f'^*-i ftfv ----------------- ^ ^ .j •9 TO:Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:October 12, 1993 SUBJECT: #1882 John O’Sullivan, 2420 Shadywood Road - Commercial Site Plan Review Public Hearing Application Request to eliminate designated fire lane at front of convenience store List of Exhibits A B C Application Plat Map D - Property Owners List s - Survey (pejo,*-TO F * Resolution #2229 G - Referenced Site Plan H - Pertinent City Code Sections I - Pertinent State Fire Code Sections J - 10/5/93 Letter from Mound Fire Depaitment K - 8/31/93 Letter from Lyle Oman Pertinent Code Section Section 9.34, Subdivision 4 (D) - Authorizes the Building Official to coordinate enforcement of the Fire Code with enforcement of the State Building Code and Zoning Chapter. Section 9.34, Subdivisions 7-11 - Define fire lane requirements. Summary- This property was the subject of a commercial site plan review in 1987 which resulted in Resolution #2229, approving a conditional use permit, variances and commercial site plan approval for major remodeling on the site. A fire lane between the building and the gas pumps was required on the approved plan referenced in the resolution. That fire lane was never striped, and alter observing for a number of years that traffic and parking on the site has increased and that traffic generally has ignored the single "fire lane sign adjacent to the building, and after receiving a request from the Orono Police that this be L ________* n “ — -fn— Iitti ■■ M Zoning File #1882 October 12, 1993 Page 2 resolved, the building inspector wrote a letter to Mr. O’Sullivan regarding the requirement to stripe the fire lane. The applicant is requesting that the striping not be required and the fire lane eliminated. Authority for Fire Lane Requirement The City adopted the State Fire Code in July 1979, and adopted Ordinance #237 providing for the establishment and regulation of fire lanes, in May 1981. Those ordinances were recodified as Section 9.34 of the Municipal Code in April 1984. Section 9.34, Subdivision 1 officially adopts the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. Subdivision 4 provides that enforcement of the code is granted to and may be exercised by any or all of the following: A. Minnesota State Fire Marshal or his representative B. Chief of the Fire Department contracted to serve a given area C. Chief of the Orono Police Depanment or his officers The Orono Building Official or his representative. In their June 10, 1987 memo regarding this commercial site, Orono Building Official Thomas Jacobs and Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth indicated that fire lanes must be posted on the entire north side of the convenience center. The plan apparently was subsequently revised to show a fire lane approximately 64’ in length, 14’ deep between the convenience store and the pump island. That plan showing the fire lane was approved by the City Council. The State Fire Code indicates Uiat appeals to a fire code requirement shall be made to the local "Board of Appeals" and/or "local governing body" before they may be acted on by the State Fire Marshal. In this case, the Planning Commission is acting as Board of Appeals, and the City Council is the local governing body. City Rationale for Requiring Fire Lane 1. The Fire Code requires unobstructed view of self-service pumps to the employee work station in the building that monitors the pumps. The fire lane provides an access corridor for emergency vehicles. t I Zoning File #1882 October 12, 1993 Page 3 3. The poruble fire lane sign currently in use has failed to keep the fire lane clear, since it provides no dimension as to what area is or is not fire lane. 4. The Inspections Department has consistently required fire lanes in instances of new construction of similar uses. An example is the new Spur Station in Spring Park (for which Orono does building inspection) and which has a striped fire lane the length of the building. Furthermore, the Mound Fire Department is being consistent in requiring the striping, considering it has junsdiction over the Spring Park Spur Station as well as the SuperAmerica in Mound, which has a 5 ’ fire lane extending approximately 40 ’ along the front of the building. It should be noted that the Building Official has not required retroactive striping of fire lanes for existine similar uses, but has only required the striping when a property is doing major upgrading. However, please be aware that the fire code allows the Fire Chief to order the establishment of fire lanes for any existing building as he may deem necessary. Letter from Mound Fire Department The letter dated October 5, 1993 from the Mound Volunteer Fire Department, signed by the Fire Chief and two Fire Marshals clearly indicates that the fire lane is required. It further suggests that permanent signs should be installed in place ot the portable sign. Building Official’s Position Orono Building Official Lyle Oman has indicated that striping must extend 8’ out from the sidewalk a length of approximately 50* ^extending to either end ot the concrete apron). This leaves one parking space along the front sidewalk at either end, and appears to be a significant compromise from the fire lane shown on the approved plan yet still maintaining the intent and integrity of the fire lane. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the request to eliminate the fire lane be denied, that the 8 x50 area be required to be striped per Lyle Oman ’s letter of 8/31/93, and that the portable fire lane sign be replaced with permanent fire lane signs. Mr. O’Sullivan will likely be present at the Planning Commission meeting to slate his side of the issue. Planning Commission ’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. CITY OP ORONO - GE^IPRAL LA*ND USE APPLICA PROPERTY LOCATION #1 Site Address 3.0 S M A by u'cp r> n 1 k/ r> /I' r\jU]/\f\C:• ~ u • . .. -V VV •• Property Identification Nxinber (P.I.D.) I! J Please attach legal c5escription to application if not included on required survey. _______________________________ ““ Phone (home) *applicant Name C Hi\) Av Phone (work) Address _ _ _ _ OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ Phone Address City Zio ?^?Lf?grnLfgltrow n the adjacent parcelF^f‘TaSd;""]”’I (do) (do YEBS ~ CONDITIONAL USE PEIv^i^‘'’..A _ _ _ _ s 50.00 For each variance request with COP application $125.00 Residential accessory Use $175.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _ _ _ _ $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use . $200.00 Land Alteration = iEii/iLSi44t'ai“ing"“Ca?l"; "tMuNs- of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule Renewal Fee - $100.00 (no change After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Applxcat OTHER APPLICATIONS X ATIONS cs+*o Plan Review (+ consultant fees)$200.00 Commercial Sxte Plan Revxew v $250.00 Vacation $175.00 Easement Vacatxon$75.00 Easement vacation With Subdivrsi $300.00 Reroning (FDD - refer to fee -cneoui $300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendme $100.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule PRESENT DSE OF PROPERTY Present Zonino District r\ Present Use of Property _ _ _ Residential _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in detail: C P /fC(Kts>s 'T'hC Fh'o^)T T>4L~ {'f^rrr<vu'^'cc ^"'rr/^er____________________ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtai this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Governmen Center 348-3271). 3. Plat Map. 4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 6. Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. you ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11* X 17• OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:___________________________________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 Jcnowledge. p Date ? /z'-i (^1_ _ _Applicant's signature Oilc/C OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. A Owner's signature O Date A? Applicant must have a-li. 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 advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. V v> V'.- \k -t— r\ \ V 2d- S — . X-23' 1ii?y.f,'.r"/.lr rl ' \ \ \ \: •t:! \ \ u.Vu[^7'^ / V- \? —••V.: VT V ,(S' V I.# /^z') «N •Si r.Kr' \ \ 8 L._ / /• V /. \ \e» v'f' \ \X • ! r ^ v^ »•, 2* 6»J ») 2« ZT ; • II :v- i?: : /,o«) I ! , ‘ {-J I I I ^ ■ 7*4 l'50*g ^ ^ • r • It"' 1 :-f -: Vf’'*« •* <; / fci f* V A R R ^ W;JC--i=---T I \‘ / .- 'V. 7'rS> .’I'-v I \ . . .. . Kiri DATE G9/15/QS HttOltPItl CO'JtnT l»ROPtBTY IHrORMATXOII 5YSTIH PROPtRU OUHIR9 LISTi‘iiLii oo:BIPOMT to. PIAmBl PACE 3 IPOP lOPR i:iHC U'r/ifP 3S 17-1I7-E3 OOOS 03S40 SIIORCLinC OR ir:;iii u n/Riiii a uirc [R,.‘ni u KARTiri 2J0I lAfAVtlTt BO UAY2ATA ni 5S391 30 17-117-23 AA 0007 30 17-117-23 <iA 00^ rBCSmUTCB BIOL Rts FOUO FRCSttUMCR DIO RES flO CSOO SlUOYltOCO RO luvARRC rvi 553M-n lArAtETTE RIDGE HOtlEOMriERS LAFAVE1TE RIDGE iiOMEOtAJERS 1709 H FARM ROAD LOUG LAKE »! 5S3S6 I7PP AOOR p;s:iP IIAl*.E I^XPATER lUltC/ACnR so tO-117-23 11 0002 0:A20 smactrqoo ro COUCCUR SERVICE CIKTERS VOiAGEUR SERVICE CEIIURS CO RD IS I 1^ lUVAPRE S5392 30 20-117-23 11 OOlS 024<<S SIIAOYWOOO RD 1ST HATE OAilK OF IIAVARRE 1ST lUU DAiJK or lUVARRE CO ROAO IS A CO RCAO 19 tUVARRE htl SS392 30 20-117-23 11 0017 0:<tSS SilAOUlOQO RO JARIDO ItIC JARIDO INCORPORATED BOX 60 lUVARRE M*« 55392 rrop AOOR Os»:tR lUME 1A>TAYER i;.*.M:/;.noR 30 20-117-23 11 0010 0:<iSS SMMiYt.'OOO RU PAUL It ll.‘SLUIID ETAL CR PAUL n EKSLUIU I OX 60 lUVARRE 5TAT10USi^Yi lUTZATA lai 55391 30 20-117-23 It 002<i 03333 SIIDRILIIIE DR IIET LEASED PROPER IT lUVCSTRS SUPER VALUE S10RES IllC CORPORATE TAX DEPT P 0 rOX 990 IIPLS IttI SS'UO 30 20-117-23 II 0026 02500 SMAOYUOOO RD THE BEGEIITS 2= THE U OF H R E COORDIIUTOR/ U OF H ROOM S06 nORRILL HALL 100 CHURCH ST SE ttPLS tUI 55<.5S Kc • ^ ITOP *•% •• L:. -.!P H.VIC TiPAilP .i;*:;l.*AL-')R TOTAL BATCH 002 00009 I CCRTIFT THAT THE FACTS PEPRESEinEO ARC AH ACCURATE AHD TRUE RtPRESUHATlOH OF IHFOIMUTIOII AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE 0)1 THE RECORDS OF THE HEICilPIM COUHTT OCPARTHEHT OF PBOPtRTT TAXATIOH, TO THE BEST OF MY KHOIIUOCE AMO BELIEF. ' \ j ‘iLiOtV I i’llDATE a320DS5 iii\l©nin.'v^:Oiir I* M- S(S^ ^‘.*nF riA^ - t^oT" TZ> - , A •t •V^ 'S':'.' -*-*— : j ptfONoJ ^ ’ t- • • 4 K *. • •* N ^- * > City of OROrVO ■ ■ V RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ■ • > • • < - • I ‘i .• k ■ •■*. ■?• V » ^ ■ 4' . '• 4:. .V •. i- » .f ^ ^ V J. . r<i. - :-..•'.• ;- ■ ••■;:■- V- ■ V ~ . ** . -t • * • * , * ' . *% X. WC’- • *. * ■ > » rO ' • ■ I • # •* ’»* •r • •• * V rA RBSOLUnOII dUUITZK A CONDITIONAL USB PBMUT FBI MDNICIPAL SONIIHS COOB SBCTION 10.40, SUBOIVISZOB 4 (B), VARIANCBS TO SBCTION 10.40, SUBDIVISION 0 (B) AND A VARIANCE TO SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISION 10 AND PER SBCTION 10.40, SUBDIVISION 2 APPROVES THE COMMERCIAL SITB PLAN AND DUILOING PLAN APPLICATION PILE #958 UIII^REAS, Vouya'Tcr Sorvico Center, Inc. (hereinafter •the applicant") his an interest in the property located at 2420 Shadywood Road vithin the City cf Oreno (hereinaitcr "City") and legally described as 1ollcws: P.I.D.: 20-117-23 11 0002 Unplc.ttcd 20 1 1 7 23: Con.-roncing at a point in North line of Section 20 distance 1,761.42 feet East fror. North 1/4 corner thereof thence South at right angles to a point in Southerly line of County Road No. 15 thence East along said road lino 49.58 feet thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 641.51 feet distance 265.42 feet thence South 2 3 degrees 10 .ninutes West to center line of County Road No. 19 thence Northwesterly along said center line to North line of Government Lot 1 thence East to beginning except road Section 17 and 20; Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"): and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Oronc to permit the expansion of the existing full service station use per Section 10.40, Subdivision 4 (D), per Section 10.40, Subdivision 6 (E) to crant a right side street setback variance of 15' or 42% where 35 feet is required and a left side rtroet setback variance of 8' or 23% where once again a 35 feet setback is lequircrl, per Section 10.61, Subdivision 10 to orant an off-streot parking variance of 3 stalls or 12% where 26 stalls are r'^cviired based on the prof^osed use level of the property and per Section lO.'.vT, Subdivision 2 sc^k: approve of tnc commercial site plan and building f'lan for a mixed use facility consisting of a convenience store/full service staticn/car wash. V • nner'o *• .1 : NOW, THPRRPORR, HR IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This .ipr 1 i CT ♦ 1 on was review*'! as .’oning File #958. 2. The property i located in t)io n-l, Retail Sales Dusincss Zoning District. r.Vje 1 of 5 r •‘0 • ^City of ORQIVO A.Of ^ RONO>2 i, V . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY SOUWIt : ; NO. 2T2» 4, Th*? Orono Planning Commisaion revl«v«d this application on Jon* 15, 1987, and recommendad approval of tha propoaad conditional ooo oertnlt, variances and the coonercial site plan and building plea pat drawings by Jack Welsh and Associates. The Planning Coi«l**ion approved the variances to the required sidc/street setback of 35 raet based on the following hardships: .At a) Tho narrow shape of the let at tfe northwest corner of the property; b) The Hennepin County Departnent ol Transportation has asked for additional right-of-way along the lot lines of this severely limited corner of the property; c) The location of the existing scr^'ico station/garage on the property; And approved a parking stall variance of 3 stalls where 26 are -eqaired based on t!ie following findings: a> Ten additional parking stalls are available at gas dispensing aisles for quick sales - convenience store customers; b) Four additional stalls are available for cars served within service bay area of service garage. S. The City Council finds that the co.iditions exis g on this pro perty are peculiar to it and do not apply generally tj other property in thin zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hasara or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as e convenience to tho applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demon- rtrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in *:ecping with tne spirit and intent of the Honing Code and Comprehensive Plan or tne City. (.. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allo\/ the expansion of the full service station ®^ * detrimental to the health, safety or genornl welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor mo.se a fire hazard or o er dinger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surroun ing property values and that the proposed level of use of the will bo in keopinq v.-ith the intent and obiectivos of the ..oninq coae and CoTT-preheasiv'C Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 - - *"• jrrIrr:. * City of OROIVO * -T. • CITY OF ORONO ♦ « 4 * j y RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2229 . . V »V1 *v: .* »» % ■" w *■* concLOSicms, order ard cohdztxors • * • •» Based upon one or more o£ the above findings# the Orono City Council hereby grants setback variances per Municipal toning Code fectl^ 10.40, Subdivision 6 (E), offstreet parking variance per Section lO.el# Subdivision 10 and per Section 10.40, Subdivision 4 (B) grants a conditional use permit for the expansion of the existing fall service station use and per Section 10.61, Subdivision 10 approves the coMercial site and building plans per drawings by Jack Welsh and Associates as follows: a) b) c) Site plan, 6S-018 rovisei 6/30/87; Floor plan and building elevations, 05-010 dated 6/30/87. Canopy elevations, drawn by S.M. dated 7/16/87 and revised for the Council's review at their neeting of July 27, 1987; and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuing a building permit or general permits for the improvement of the property based on the plans noted above, the following must be submitted to the City: a) Updated survey by licensed/reqistered surveyor locating new County right-of-way and proposed improvements; b) Legal description of the right-of-way to be deeded by guit- claim deed as an easement - County may create legal description for said easement. c!• Payment for GAC charges and sewer xinit to bo determined by the City upon final review of working plans. ) Execution of a Developers Agreement to insure that landscaping is restored in all disturbed areas, repaving of all disturbed areas, installation of curbs and gutters and drainaoe structure if required by the M.C.W.D. e) Letter of Credit in an amount equal to 1501 of the required improvements sot forth in Item D above. A. werkina drawings to bo submitted with building permit application must bo sioned by an architect and an engineer licensed within the State of Minnesota. 7. The entire structure shall be serviced by a sprinkler system per Appondix n of t he State huilding Cede »and the drive on the north s .de of the building posted as a "Fire Lane". Page 3 of 5 1 til \ S>' "OF/a ■ loRwa City of ORONO I RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. —222^_ _ _ _ _ _ • «v- I'r^ »• vr F* 4;- -l^permit from the City is required for the reaoval and installation of underground gas tanks. Tho Stat* Unlfoni FlraCode standards s;;-ll apply for both the reraoval# relocation and plaewant of underground tanks. 5. The undersigned, as authorized agents of Vouyager Sarvico Center, Inc., hereby agree on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns to close off either one or both accesses closest to the intersoction of County Roads 15 and 19 upon documentation and verification by the City of Orono or the Hennepin County Department of Transportation that accidents (ocrsonal injury and/or property damage) ^ave occurred resultino from the use of the subject accesses or as a result of a potential increase in use of the proposed right turn lane to be installed by Hennepin County and tnat the undersigned further agree to close off the accesses within 10 days of verification with written notice by the City of Orono or the County of Hennepin. 6. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (July 27, 1988). 9 7. Violation of or non-comp 1 iance with any of the terms and condi tions r' this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shai 1 bo punishable as a misdemeanor. 8. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this ros'^'ution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopced by the Orono City Council on this 27th day of July,198 I « MTEST: / \ I 'V c ■ny M/r!!a J lin^City Clerk'JO James R. Grabek, Mayor \ V-( 4 « t <I % :rwin Smith John O'Sullivan Page 4 of 5 L , I - . •. - * - ' CITT or 0«0« P.o. BOX «* 473-7357 D«f of HotiCBtr Cryita. Bay#_ _ ____ _ __————-------^ * Vi.; A • TOs Brwin S»lth 507 Park Lana X,on9 Laka# MN 55356 £o»9 l-k».':'l«^5S35« 'v:* TIPS OF AFPUCkTiait W site Pl»n wri— : ■I'C .♦ • • . ', ■*. .• ■ • ■ -'i, •> '. •'V‘- . •*>•.' vot«: s ror i A,.m.t Plonnin, Co-l..lon ««—«#. the foUoeln,. XX Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTRS AHD SPECIAL CONDITIONS p.ior to the duly 13. 19S7 Council .eeting, the followin, should submitted to staff by July 2. 1987: 1. Amended site plan designating the following: a) Redefine car wash lanes; b, Define traffic flow - locate traffic signs, car wash .Isle control; c, submit redesign of building with increased parkin, stalls; d) Show newly defined right-of-way at northwest corner; s « «5ide of convenience store (confirm hligh^'^of^Vnop/-Minimum height 13‘6-): 2. Information on car wash. 3. Support material on traffic count at peak nours. 4. Hours of operation - days of operation f #-h#s official Planning Commission If you desire f^®^/7’rom® t^h" City Recorder after review andminutes, they are a'/ailable from tn. approval by the Planning Commission. r, » 4 • • V-■•Sg:r;:5'laf • ■ *.' * • ; •' .*. ». X ) ■*•.t*. • .1 •: 1 *V ’«:V ■l.!.--r^ : ; i ■».: t. I - f ,- •- ' i. *,' -r r* « // '■ !‘V'. ■•. / V/.I' .-vCP' X' ! l* '. \’‘ • • •7%’ V- *. ■ :• » • -.-Vs; . ' ' > •' •*:». .\ i' 41 i.-'-,•* s. » ^VrJ;>--t :. ; •* • ^ ., - ! r:V- T.i(Xfc 4 • ,. -■' ■>••' •“: V ’ o - **■». •*?“» • A •*.•*•. .Bi'i' V.'•>/.•;' • - • I*!’ , ' •< .vvr. ‘ X -‘ V***^ *m‘‘. ,.•' '.• Oi =0-> _ v'i 'i'’ A I V- V • . t /• \':j 1.*.., .•• yt ^Jr ^.l\\ ■ 2^ ';* v i I'S'-J % Nh'v, • rV ’* ,\ fr; • . I /"■• ;*V,y y'r ;‘:yA :i yj' • : • :/ • »t; i y-^ •/ ■ ■ V- .•’ > r • . ■ : V ^ • ..f '4i. * ••-. i*' * 7-. ■ I .•?f. >y: .v ’ i't •'i- %-Vvv;r: sy. . • !-rWf5:;:. ■■ :• - ^ y •;•' > y 3 i;’-l / A-“:7>rfe7yAy- 'I %. • k ■*’'. ^ !• •-’ > *>;• ■ * • ' * n e* •.* § 9.34 SEC. 9.34. FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION. Subd. 1. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Adopted. The Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, 1982 Edition (MUFC), is hereby adopted as though set forth verbatim herein. One copy of said Code shall be marked CITY OP ORONO - OFFICIAL COPY and kept on fil^ in the office of the City Clerk and open to inspection and use by the public. Subd. 2. Fire Code Amendments. As authorized by the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, the following amendments to the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code are hereby adopted for the City: A. Restrictions on Flammable or Combustible Liquid Storage. . , 1. Prohibited Districts Established. Pursuant to MUFC Sections 79.501 and 79.1001, the Council hereby declares all land located within the following specified zoning districts to be the districts within which the storage of flammable or combustible liquids in aboveground tanks is prohibited: R”1A, R-IB, RR-lB-1, RS, LR-IC, LR-lC-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, M-6 and PRD. 2. Aboveground Tank Locations. In those districts not included in Item 1 above, the storage of flai^able or combustible liquids in aboveground tanks is permitted provided such tanks are located in conformance with MUFC Sections 79.501 and 79.1001, and with the following: (a) No such tank shall be located in any required front yard space as defined in the Zoning Chapter. (b) No such tank shall be located within 50 feet of any side or rear property line. (c) No such tank shall be located within 75 feet of any lake, wetland, stream or drainageway unless such tank is diked in accordance with MUFC Section 79.508. The minim^ setback for a diked tank shall be 30 feet from the lake, wetland, stream or drainageway. D 3 ORONO CC 219 (4-l “84) s 9.34 3. Underground Tank Locations. The storage of flammable or combustible liquids in underground tanks shall be permitted in any district in accordance with MUFC Section 79.601 and with the following: (a) No such tank shall be located under any required front yard space as defined in the Zoning Chapter. (b) No such tank shall be located within 10 feet of any side or rear property line. (c) No such tank shall be located within 30 feet of any lake, wetland, stream or drainageway. B. Restrictions on Liquified Petroleum Gas Storage. Pursuant to MUFC Section 82.105, the Council hereby declares all land within the City, except for land zoned I-Industrial, to be the district within which no liquified petroleum gas storage installa tion shall exceed 2,000 aallon water capacity for any one property; and the Council further'declares that no liquified petroleum gas storage installation over 500 gallon water capacity shall be located in any required front, side, rear or lakeshore defined in the Zoning Chapter, but shall conform to all setbacK requirements for principal buildings. C. Restrictions on Explosive and Blasting Agent Storage. Pursuant to MUFC Section 77.106(b), the Council hereby declares all land within the City to be the district in which storage of explosives and blasting agents is prohibited. Subd. 3. Definitions. Wherever the words or terms are used in this Section, the Fire Code or the Fire Marshal Division alterations and amendments, they shall have the following meanings: A. "Building Official" means the person appointed by the Council to administer and enforce the State Building Code. B. "Chief* means the Chief of the Fire Department which has contractual jurisdiction in each respective Fire Service District, or his authorized representative. C. "Corporation Counsel" means the Attorney for the C X ty D. "Jurisdiction or Municipality" means the City as a whole, and also that part of the City corresponding to each separate Fire Service District. Subd. 4. Enforcement. Authority for enforcement is hereby granted to and may be exercised by any or all ot tne following persons: A. The Minnesota State Fire Marshal, or his authorized representative. (4-1-84)ORONO CC 220 ' 4 V>‘' • •» § 9.34 B. The Chief of each Fire Dsoartment, or his authorized representative, within the Fire Service Fire Department. The Fire Chief shall ,'Aiiq responsibility and authority for determining response to tire cans and for fire scene command. C. The Chief of the Police Department or his officers. The Police Chief shall be responsible for enforcement policy and activities between the respe Service Districts and between the Fire Chiefs and ti Official. D. The Building Official or his representative. The Building Official shall e of the coordinating enforcement of the Fire Code State Building Code and the Zoning Chapter of the C / Subd. 5. Permits and Fees. Code Section 1.05. Application fees shall be non-refundabl . permit applicat®ons^\®o®the‘^Fite°Chierof^tL \^sVe«ions' written report to the Building Official prior to permit issuance. rxfepffh^V°?rre°wo1?^s^ p«^mf?s\r Jc^^ permit would “uth^or iUd^^^Lt^fuT^; structures contrary to any Code Building Code or the Zoning Chapter of the City Co . protecting a Fire Service District of the i"„°/V££ected pe%s^n%°7n^;p^%\tu°nir-r^he\" d. n/w^ ^SSrr-atir r ^th^e =^frV o1f\«t''lf shall be listed: such pire Chief^ and dis-Police Chief, the Building Officxal and each Fire unier, tributed to all interested parties. ORONO CC 221 (4-1-84) 1 • « I S 9.34 Subd. 7. Fire Lanes Established. The Council hereby provides for the establishn^ent of Fire Lancs for purposes o_ ensuring immediate unobstructed access for emergency vehicles an equipment. A, Fire Hydrants. Whether marked or unmarked, lanes are hereby established at all public or private ire hydrants, which fire lanes shall extend ten (10) feet on ei er side of the hydrant and twenty (20) feet in front of the cu pavement edge nearest the front of the hydrant. B. Building Exits. Whether marked or unmarked, fire lanes are hereby established it <all building exits require y the Fire Code or State Building Code, which fire lanes shall ten (10) feet in all direction from said exits. lanes are required, they shall be established and marked as provided in Subparagraphs C or D of this Subdivision. C. Existing Properties. The Chief of Police is hereby empowered to order the establishment, ^^ maintenance of fire lanes on public or private proper y ® and to whatever extent as he may determine is reasons ^ ^® to ensure open and unobstructed emergency access. In tnis aecec minacion, the Police Chief may confer recommendations of the Building Official or the Pire . .. ^ . applicable Fire Service District. Fire Lane writing and shall be served in person or by registered lettY upon the property owner of record, or in the case ^ properties, may be served upon the tenant occupying the property. nated fire lanes shall be at least 20 feet in unobstructed "i^th. shall have at least 13 feet 5 inches of feet where necessary provide for a turning radxus o -,,,aKie nfand shall be constructed of all-weather surfacing capable of carrying a vehicle axle loading of 5 tons (10,000 pounds). Subd. 9. Fire Lane Signs and Harking. When a fire lane has been ordered to be established pursuant Subdivision 7^ Subparagraphs C or D, one or more permanent i£ beaming the words "NO P.-IRKING - FIRE LANE", approved by the Police Chief, shall be Pfec®'*re.itricted area. The number, size and location of tequir.d signs shall be determined by the Police Chief. A. When the fire lane is located on P'°P='^‘^ or within a public right-of-way, the iur isd ic t ionerected by the City or by the public agency having jurisdicti over the property. ORONO CC 222 (4-1-84) i S 9.34 B. When the fire lane is located on private property, the required signs shall be erected by the property owner at his own expense within thirty (30) days of the date of the order establishing the fire lane. Subd. 10. Fire Lane Maintenance. All established fire- lares shall be permanently and continuously maintained by the property owner to be free from obstructions including motor vehicles, trailers, equipment, storage, rubbish, vegetation or accumulations of dirt or snow. All required fire lane signs shal* be permanently and continuously maintained by the property be securely fastened, not visually obstructed in any way, and free from paint or vandalism. Missing or vandalized signs shall e promptly replaced. Subd. 11. Obstructing Fire Lane. Whether located on public property or on private property, it is unlawful for any person to obstruct any established fire lane at any time. Subd. 12. Required Water Supply “ New Construction. The Building Official may order the installation or relocation of fire hydrants in areas not served by the municipal water system, and for uses other than single-family residential, a self-contained on-site source of water as a condition of issuance of a building permit. Source; City Code Effective Date; 4-1-84 SBC. 9.35. REQUIREMENTS . FIRE, BURGLARY AND SAFETY ALARM REGULATIONS AND Subd. 1. Purpose and Scope. A. This Section provides for regulation in the use of fire, burglary, and safety alarms, establishes users' fees, and establishes a system of administration. B. The purpose of this Section is to protect the public safety services of the City from misuse of public safety alarms and to provide for the maximum possible service to public safety alarm users. Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated; 1. "Public Safety Personnel" - City employees or employees duly authorized to maintain and enforce public safety. 2. "Alarm User" - The person in control of any building, structure, or facility wherein an alarm system is maintained . ORONO CC 223 (4-1-04) (6-19-84) W ■(; r. .::r s^vjsmaS'jM >ry.>> i 'X(i:•r-i'/r.-' •/ * # • *. . fc’ « I t ♦•'7* ‘ t* ■* •* ■** • •i * #> ■^•. <r •- .ii%*»^ -<^^'.- A vi« ..^^^PrintJComniuiiications Divinon, •‘Tt -4 V»**vi‘ - H''1 TS'nrcratytfForaTlB ’l^^ ^ i *S f -• I'.tA •*’ ft 12:2?7t39(X);KWoJl Fr^ . .•• .- ' % J .*. I « ’ •* - * 10Jm-1fl207 UNIFOBM RRf CODEdeter or hinder the fue department from gaining immediate access to said equipciietit or hydrant. A minimum 3-fooi dear space shall be maintained aroundthe ciicumfecnceofthe fire hydrants except as otherw ise required or approved bythe chief.fb) IdottfkallQB of Hydmto or Eqaipment. All fire protection equipment or hydrants shall be clearly identif ed in a manner approved by the chief to prevent pvhinf or ocher obstnictioa. Sec. M J07. (a) GcBcral. Fire apparanis access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this section. *c ■ - (b) WiKre Rcqofred* Fife apparatus access roads shall be required for every building hereafter constructed when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story it locJ»;cd rnore than 130 feet from fire department vehicle access. EXCEPTIONS: 1. When buildtnp arc completely piMcled with an ipproved auloiBacicfiiesprinkkrsysteia«fheprovisionsof this lectiofi may be modified. 2. Wbea access roadways camwl be tnstalled due to topography, waterways. ZKxuiCgntiable grades ot ocher similar conditions, the thief may require additiona] fat proiectian as specified in SectioB 10.301 (b). 3. When there are not rooie than two Group R, Divisioa 3 or Group M Octipan* cies, the requirements of this section may be modified, provided, in the opinion of the chief, rire>fighting or rescue operaiions would not be iirptired. More than one fire apparatus road may be required when it is determined by the J chief that access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle congestion, cooditioo of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access. For high-ptled combustible storage, sec Section 81 .109. (c) Width. The unobstnictured width of a f ire apparatus access road shall be not less than 20 feet. (d) Wrticnl Cleanuice. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical dearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inche.s. EXCEPnWI: Upon approval vertical clearanre may be reduced, provided such itductiao does not impair access by fire apparanis and ap(•roved signs rre insullcd and mamiained indicating the established vertical clearance. (c) Phrmtelblc Modtflcntioiis. Vertical clearances or widths required by this sectioo shall be increased when, in the opinion of the chief, vertical clearances or ' y widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access. (f) Snrfncc. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. (g) *nimhigRndliii. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be ^ as approved by the chief. V ' (h) ThmnrouiHl*. All dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 ^ feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. { !98iEDr 1QJ{Q7-10,9Q11?:.0 • V-* tr) fi) Bridges. Wlien a bridge is recuired to be used as access under this section, it; shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable sections of the Building Cixk and using designed live Hading sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus(j) Grade. The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed the maximum approved by the chief.(k) Obstruction. The required width of any fire apparatus access rood shall not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and clearances established under this section shall be maintained at all times. (0 Signs. \Mien required, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided and maintained for f ire apparatus access roads to identify such roads and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both. rY\-Kv - PramiMt Mnnttf Icatlon Sec. 10.208. (a) General. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. (b) Street or Road Signs. When required by the chief, a street or road shall be identified with approved signs. Key Box Sec. 10.209. When access to or within a structure or an area is unduly difficult; because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life saving or fire f ighnng purposes, the chief may require a key box to be installed in an accessible location. The key box shall be a type approved by the chief and shall conuin keys to gain necessary access as required by the chief. Division III INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FIRE- PROTECTION, LIFE-SAFETY SYSTEMS AND APPLIANCES Installation See 10.301. (a)iype Required. The chief shall designate the type and number of fire appliances tu be installed and maintained in and upon all buildings and premises in the jurisdiction other than private dwellings. This shall be done according to the relative severity of probable fire, including the rapidity with which it may spread. Such appliances shall be of a type suitable for the probable class of fire assiKiaied w ilh such building or premises and shall have approval of the chief. (b) Special Hazards. In occupancies of an especially hazardous nature or where special hazards exist in addition to the normal hazard of the occupancy, or **V**“.-.• •>”. - ' '-■ ■ ».*»■»■ . •- ' - ■ -■.•*• • “ *;<■• * • •> ~■ • • ' ■~ »:r* i -• r • ^ i •*%».*. . .'^., 7510.3170 ARTICLE JO OF ONIFOBM FIRE CODE. Subpart 1. Sec. 10.207(a). Sec. 10.207 of the Uniforn ifirm rnrfp amended by adding a subsection to read "Sec. 10.207. (m) Marking Fire Lanes. The marking of fxre [ lanes on private anJ public property shall be designated and \ approved by the chief. J Subp. 2. Sec. 10.207(n). Sec. 10.207 of the Uniform Fire ^ Code is amended by adding a subsection to read: Sec. 10.207. (n) Obstruction of Fire Lanes. Parking of motor vehicles in, or otherwise obstructing, fire lanes shall be prohibited at all times. Subp. 3^ Sec. 10.301(f). Sec. 10.301(f) of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: Sec. 10.301. (f) Approval and Testing. All fire alarm systems, fire hydrant systems, fire-extinguishing systems (including automatic sprinklers), wet and dry standpipes, basement inlet pipes, and other fire-protection systems and appurtenances thereto shall meet the approval of the chief as to installation and location and shall be subject to periodic tests required by the chief. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to the chief for review and approval before Installation. Subp. 4. Sec. 10.309(b). Sec. 1C.309(b) of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: Sec. 10.309. (b) Where Required. Standpipe systems shall be provided as set forth in Table No. 10.309 and shall have a constant water supply and pressure. EXCEPTION: Dry standpipes may be installed with prior approval of the chief. Subp. 5. Table No. 10.309. Table No. 10.3C9, Item No. 2, "Occupancy" column, of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: TABLE HO. 10.309. Item No. 2, "Occupancy" column: Occupancies 3 stories or more but less than 150 feet in height# except Group R, Division 3. Class II standpipes are not required in Group E or Group R-1 Occupancies. STAT AOTH: MS S 299F.011 HIST: 14 SR 847 7510.3180 ARTICLE 11 OF ONIFORM FIRE CODE. Subpart 1. Sec. 11.117. Article 11 of tne Uniform Fire Code is amended by adding a section to read: Fires or Barbecues on Balconies or Patios Sec. 11.117. (a) Open Flame Prohibited. When required by the chief, in any structure containing three cr more dwelling units, no person shall kindle, maintain, or cause any fire or open flame on any balcony above ground level, or on any ground floor patio within 15 feet of the structure. (b) Fuel Storage Prohibited. No person shall store or use any fuel, barbecue# torch, or other similar heating or lighting chemical or device in the locations designated in subsection (a). EXCKPTIC grills t to the I that ma: sides# V installe chief. Subp. 2. Code is amenc Sec. II.2( Christmas tre Subp. 3. is amended by Christmas Sec. 11.21 of natural or Occupancies i (b) Public natural or re light decorat business and (c) Flame- of flame-reta electric ligh (d) R-1 Oc not be stored Sec. 11.203(c Subp. 4. Code ij amend Sec. 11.30 a false alarm any station o auxiliary fir defaces# or r breaks, injur or other supp part of any f guilty of a m STAT AOTH: HIST: 14 S 7510.3190 ART Subpart 1. Code is amend' Sec. 12.10 day-care home: residential Ir services refo: subdivisic t If egress rc^uir- If. Mound TJoluntee^ 2^epxnintentf 9no, 2415 VVilshire Blvd. Mound. Minnesota 553G4 October 5, 1993 * ' - • O’Sullivan/Navarre Auto Repair County Road 15 & County Road 19 P.O. Box 65 Navarre, ffi 55392 Dear Mr. John O'Sullivan There seems to be some controversy about the dedicated fire lane in the of yovir store. This problem has been brought to my attention by Jerry Babb, Lyle Oman, and the Orono Police Department. I am going to uphold the fire lane dedication area for fire safety reasons. 1. The entry way into your store cannot be obstructed in any manner. The includes vehicles. 2.The attendant on duty must see the fuel dispensing pumps at all times, vehicles in this area obstructs the view. If something goes wrong they :.aist shut down the pumps at once. The intent of the fire lane in this area is not for the purpose of parking emergency ”ehicles, but for life safety. When this building was built it was addressed to install a fire lane in the said area. MN Uniform Fire Code Article 10 Sec. 10.207(m) MARKING FIRE LANK. The marking of fire lanes on private and public property shall be designated and approved by the Fire Chief. Urc Art 10 Sec. 10.207 (n) OBSTRUCTION OF FIRE LANES. Parking of motor vehicles in or otherwise obstructing fire lanes shall be prohibited at all times. UPC Art 10 Sec. 10.207 (L) SIGNS n , When required, approved signs shall be provided and maintained at all times and prohibit the obstruction. It is my reconmendation to paint this area with yellow striping and have permanent signs installed. Tlumk You, Don Bryce Mpund FLr'e/Cilief cc: City qKOrono Mike Palm H ouik I Fire Mirskal Jerry Babb Mound Fire Mirsluil 1 CITY of ORONO Municipal OfTices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55355 Mailing Address: P.O. Bex 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 August 3I, 1993 Mr. John O’Sullivan 2420 Shadywood Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Re: Firelane Dear John: This letter is to confirm our conversation of August 30, 1993 regarding the designated firelane in front of your building at 2420 Shadywood. Due to the ongoing problem of vehicle parking in the firelane, the City must require you to provide stripping to clearly designate the area. As we discussed, the stripping would extend to the sides of the building to where the concrete meets the blacktop and must be a minimum of 8’ wide. This would provide a parking space on each end of the firelane and still allow traffic to flow through. The stripping should be yellow with the words "No Parking Fire Lane." The portable firelane sign must also remain in its present location. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Your fine facility is a great asset to the community. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official LO/ch cc:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Adm. Bruce L. Vang, Field Inspector Steve Sullivan, Chief of Police Telephone (612) 473*7357 • FAX 473-0510 10-18-93 te-. John O'Sullivan, Proprietor O'Sullivans Gas Mart 2420 Shad^n^ood Road Wayzata, MN 56391 Dear Mr. O'Sullivan: During the July 26, 1993 Orono Police Department meeting, one of the subjects discussed was the alleged fire lane in front of O'Sullivans (Texaco Station) in Navarre. It is only marked by one movable sign indicating a fire lane. The question was ”is it legal and why is it there?" I was given permission by Chief Sullivan to follow up on this matter. The following was related to Chief Sullivan via memo on August 9, 1993. I talked with Mound Fire Chief Don Bryce via phone. He thought a fire lane in front of a gas station was ridiculous. Fire Chief Bryce went on to say that if there was a fire at a gas station, that only an idiot would pull a fire rig next to the building on top of all that gas. I met with Mound Fire Marshall Jerry Babb at O'Sullivans and he too agreed with Chief Bryce. Fire Marshall Babb said there is no clear cut definition of a fire lane in state codes. He showed me the 1991 Uniform Fire Code, 79.903 paragraph J, line 5, which says "the dispensing device shall be in clear view of the attendant at all times and obstacles shall not be placed between the dispensing devices and the attendant". Fire Marshall Babb also said that with all the new safety devices that are now mandatory, that chance of any major fire at the pumps is unlikely, and that it is the owner of the property or by city ordinance that would dictate a "no parking" area. I met with Public Works Director, John Gerhardson, in person and talked with Building Inspector, Lyle Oman and neither could produce a city ordinance requiring a fire lane for O'Sullivans to me. Mr. Oman said that there could be something in the builoing plans, but said to me that Tom Jacobs, the former building inspector, may have placed a fire lane on the building plan, but he is unauthorized to do so. After researching this, I drove to several gas stations within thi: City of Orono. I dro/e by the Amoco Station, Martins 66, the Crystal Bay 76 Station, and the gas station located at the Orono Shopping Center on Highway 12, and none of these gas stations have a fire lane posted. I hope this letter will help you in your discussions tonight at the Orono Planning Commission meeting. Sincerely, . . Larry Tomcheck j I \ lA: m;., ^ \,n ; 4 ^ , • r _ 4 ,m, iHM srpvp I I 1 tirono Hofirp o.niPt orono Hntiro uppr H( » HO>* Mh i.ry5^T3i i\ay, mn - ^- \ uear srevP: Arr.or r^aning your iPrr>.r r.o mP nat.PO 7 /^M/9.^, . rnnugnr i r. wouin Op appropriatp r.o rpspiorn to you ann yoijr oTTirprs. wirnin a yaar or opaning our c^torp, m han/Mn, f a«^sPi r.-rmPO uniPT Me I Kitoo ir IT wouin op ai. righr ro orrar n i > orr^-.pr^ t raa navaraopa rL""n-crr^nmr.aTPo top or-oa-a wouin appraoTare rrL r„*« ,nyr„,n9 ^xr„pr. I am nor. ,,w.,r« or .any orrioBr.s parring in onr rire |,,na -ino mv nipnr managorr r.ava also contirmBo rni.a. wa on not r.ava a la-rai t,',b .ana ann NO ^"“a ’.Br poors a nr^ar® ? rl »r»Noing Bxr.e.ssiva rima in my store on i.nott.ca, ot,?rr'rs Stan f’aeerva t 1 on. j,i,r i ng rne Oay, oitterepr o.ricrr.S Stop m Tor a navaragp ana tp uaua i i y in ann out qincKiv. Aomet,„«,s ousr.omers w. ■■ asK tnem tpiea. inns ano o-.pas lo-a, . J | on, ann Tnere are also rimes wnen ( m sure rney rase ar. nttiria. rreai. ano sit oown ann ear, wmon some people mignr misponsrnie as iinott ir.ia i . I nave posten your lerrer ano asKeo my casniers ro corn,,, v , Tnis nas nee-i a veiy open po,,ry „r, . on nas oeen going on tor over tits'vears , was a nir snrpriseo to reap mat it, nan only re,ten-,, .some rr von, amentmn msTorrl^'"'^ ®'""' ""r" mat so,ne,-,ne mionr re o 1 v i no voi, aoisrorreo view ot wnar really nas neen taring p,a,-.e. ' - . a I appropriSm®'"’ mrtner It you tee.1 r R 1 nrere i y , loan n su I II v.^r O SuI I I vans i e' ano •"-a* Pr.iir.p orrirpr <; union r OfireepfU at i vp h p,cijukiia . f • « •. > Deiiai ’tiiiieiii' • ' '*l••|^ln•n \. 'ulli\»ii ^ liii'l *i| l*ii|i«’i* PonI Olliu' Bi>\ Kh (‘r\sl.il H.i\. \l\ 2~'0 Kollc\ I’.nku.tv ()li'nn. M\ SS5<>(< \>!nntiisi;.ilu>M \.>n J :ik ii:otu \ I I invI^lIKA rx -|() »oi(t '\x\ ‘»ll July 28, 1993 Mr. Ton O'Sullivan O'Sullivan's Texaco 2420 Snadywood Road Navarre, MN 55392 Re: Free beverages and snacks prohibited Dear Ten: Our departnent has a policy that prohibits my officers from accepting free beverages and snacks. It has recently cone to my attention that your employees have been giving free beverages to my officers who come in to take a break at your store. Further, it appears) that some of them park their squads in your fire lane and spend excessive time in your store on unofficial breaks. I appreciate the support that you have shown our department over the years. I know you mean no harm nor do you expect any favors in exchange for the free beverages-that you give ny officers. However, there is a concern with the public perception of any impropriety by my officers. It looks bad to have the officers take excessively long breaks, to park in the fire lane, and accept any free beverages or : snacks. ' Please instruct your staff not to give my officers anything for free. This is important because I don't want my officers to be tempted to violate a department policy by one of v.ur employees who is just trying to be nice. I have enclosed a copy of a memo to my officers to give you additional insight into this problem. Thank you in advance for your help. Cordially, VW.v-^ A Stephen X. Sullivan Chief of Police SXS:cjh S(?'v '“c North l ake Mir^nctonka Communities of Orono Long Lake. Minnetonka Beach and So'ing Pdh>\ ?»■TO;Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:October 5, 1993 SUBJECT: #1883 Steven Englund. 3855 Cherry Avenue - Variance - Public Hearing Application Lot area variance for construction of a single family residence on 0.37 acre parcel Pertinent Code Sections: A. B. 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) - Requires 0.5 acre lot area. 10.03, Subdivision 6 (A-1) - "Lot of record . . . may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval if area ... is within 80% of the requirement of the zoning chapter." Pertinent Facts: Lot area required = 17,424 s.f. or 0.40 acre Lot area existing = 16.251 s.f. or 0.37 acre List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owner’s List D - Survey E - Letter of Request F - Conceptual Sketch G - Conceptual Hardcover/Lot Coverage Calculations H - Neighborhood Developed Lot Size Comparison (Map) Background Various relatives of the applicant have for many years held various groupings of property in this immediate neighborhood. The subject Lots 8 and 9 are owned in common by his relative Katherine M. Nevers. Adjacent properties to the east, south, and west are owned by others. Applicant notes that the only adjacent property owned by relatives, to the west, is not for sale. No additional land is available for purchase. ’ . I 1 -fci M ■ 1 nf 1 1 TTIn------ Zoning File #1883 October 5, 1993 Page 2 The site is approximately 160 ’ deep and 100 ’ wide, which would yield a building envelope excluding setbacks of *80’ wide by 100 ’ deep, suitable for construction of a single family residence without encroachment. There are no designated wetlands on the property'. The property is in the 250-500’ hardcover zone, which would allow 30% hardcover or approximately 4,875 s.f. Applicant ’s conceptual plan estimates hardcover at 3,580 s.f. or 22%. The allowance for lot coverage by structures is 15% or 2,438 s.f. Applicant ’s concept plan slightly exceeds this amount. However, no variance is proposed nor recommended, and applicant should be limited to 15%. The 14 ’ alley to the rear is not vacated, but is not open to travel. Applicant notes that if jjji5 were vacated, lot area would increase 700 s.f. or .016 acre, but would not ejuite increase to the 80% standard. The lot line abutting the platted alley is considered as a rear lot line for zoning purposes. Lots 8 and 9 are serv'ed by one sewer smb. The property was assessed for sewer as part of the 1965-LS-l project. The only sewer connection charge remaining would be $225 unit charge and $750 SAC charge (1993 figure), due at the time a building permit is issued. The property would have to be ser\'ed by a private well. Developed lot sizes in the neighborhood range from 0.14 acre to 1.5 acres dry, averaging about 0.55 acres. Your site inspection will reveal that this property sits below the road elevation, appearing to be somewhat bowl-shaped. However, this is not 'iesignated wetland and contains trees throughout. Mr. Englund and his neighbor to the east have recently cooperated on installation of a culvert to allow the historic eastward drainage pattern to be maintained. Some filling of the property will likely be required in order to construct a residence. Applicant should be advised Lhat a grading plan will be required as part of the building permit application process. Any filling prior to the building permit will, however, require a land alteration permit (and a conditional use permit approval if in e.xcess of 100 cubic yards). Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission concludes that no additional land is available, that the best use for the parcel is as a single family dwelling site, and that construction o^" a residence on the property will not be out of character witli the neighborhood, a recommendation for approval could include the following conditions; i..■'twi'YYkrta II n rwirrrt Tti-,. i «****J; .1 “> Zoning File #1883 October 5, 1993 Page 3 1 Lots 8 and 9 must be legally combined prior to issuance of the building permit. 2. 4. 5. Payment of sewer connection charge of $225 plus current SAC charge at time of building permit issuance. 3. Standard hardcover limitation of 30%, lot coverage linitation of 15% . No further variances will be granted for development of this property, Planning Commission notes that the site plan submitted in support of this application is conceptual only, and that other than the let area variance, no other variances which might be necessary' to complete the conceptual plan are intended to be granted. / J OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION A e itial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non conforming use $200.00 After-the-Pact Fees (Double application fee) u »w . • • »- u • — • • VI •• - property inpormation site Address 3^ - 73 oov/ Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.) orv» Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired _(mcnth/year) I (do)f^o not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. . ^ . /r ^ , Present use of property: _ _residential y other (specify)—^2.—^ Zoning District: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT C.Name A/. Phone (home) ~7Z^ O/Cf _ Phone (wor)c) 2Z2.-7?-r^ Address: /^<c Citv:Zip: 52^ owner (if different than applicant) Name AC- ^ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (home) Phone (wor)c) ~ Address: 97CQ ^Z>- city; ----- Zlp:_!iyL£ DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $, Describe request in detail: ^cr— VARIANCES REQUIRED ^ Lot Area _ _ Lot Width Setbac)c: Front _ _ Lot Coverage_ _ Hardcover _ _ Si(3e Rear ___ Average Lalceshore Other (specify) HARDSHIPA>BSCRIPTI0N op UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:- - - - - A/qt <^A-> Z o7~ S' (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered c*^l^te; ^ Conpleted 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 340-327:). ■^Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). _ _Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8Jj"xll" for reproduction). 5.- -Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8»j"xll'’). _ _S)cetches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8J5"xll"). _ _addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of 8. 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 inforaation 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 )cnowledge. OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acJcowledges 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 investiga tion and verification of this request. Applicant's Signature Date Z.Z.-95 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 ma)ce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ,, yiQ iStA •. '' .... * • . A ■ • .• I ?:v r • • I .h v->v.v •-., '‘ • V--' - - rir* ii .• “ * ..V. ii tl.\'-\ .-••.■ • •' V *• • '•r. p* i <1 0C7g| -sS p ’•*^TJMV‘^**** |b>n ^ - t § ■ *^a 1 OcJV n- c?f •J« •V. • i Bldvn'' • f ... • •. . -. • ■:.• ■• • • •: •.■->•„ .-.-v •■ .’~f, V tT:!^ .•• > ^ . - ■• '■ \ •• . • •• , « ■■ -* •*’ • • •r •. •*«r * ' ■ ■rrrjw f :* ; •• •- > :r, .'v'ri'-.vJ'iT-** I • ' * . ‘ r ,S cP ^~ln~7»P Kl? 3AV aiNNjn ir ^ Al|0)|9!i 1E Hm .•;■••'•■ "i.' V* •; ew M *" •«»? n; - I RUN OATC 10/11/901,lUTCN 009 QNNEII NANE- TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOfI .1-'>.v % - •»' MOP ADOR 0I9CR NAHE . V TAWAYER M NANE/AODR y ’ .t *.;•: . ' PROP AOOR ONNER NAHE v’/ -TAXPAYER ^ NAME/AOOR • ’•t : # I , $ PROP AOOR OMCR HAtC -TAXPAYER ■ NAME/AOOR ^ •^*. **• .. . - r T . • 5..: . PROP AOOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER Vl NAME/ADDB T5 «. • NErtCPIN COUNfY PROPERTY INEORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMCRS LISTSO 06-117-ES SS OOOS OSOSO CHERRY AVE ARTHUR C BRAMOILLA TRLSTEE A C BRAWKLA SBSB CHERRY AVE MOUND Wl 5SS44 SB 0B-117-2S SS OOOB 0SB40 CHERRY AVE KATHRYN M EN6LUND ETAL R N NEVERS 9700 PORTLAND AVE S 0324 BL00MXN6T0N Ml 55420 SB 0B-117-2S SS 00S9 OSBSS CHERRY AVE STATE LAND OEPT CITY OP ORONO PARK 4/1S/70 ST DEED 1U7S3 SB 0B-117-2S SS 0042 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIGNED KATHRYN M EN6LUN0 ETAL It M MFVFR9 9700 PORTLAND AVE S il2^ BL00H1N6TCN MN 55420 50 06-117-25 35 0045 05885 CHERRY AVE PAUL E A HARY J TAYLOR PAUL TAYLOR 5885 CHERRY AVE HOUND rt4 55544 PROP ADOR ONNER NAHE . TAXPAYER ' . NAHE/AOOR 58 08-117-25 55 0050 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO D H EN6LUN0 ETAL COL A MRS D H ENGLUNO 5101 SPRING ROCK COURT FAIRFAX VA 22052 5 'i ‘ t * • • -'f.’V, .• . ^ SB OB-117-2S SS 0004 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO KATHRYN M ENGLUNO ETAL K M NEVERS 4700 PORTLAND AVE S BS24 BLOOHINBTON MN 55420 SB 0B-117-2S SS 0004 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIGNED KATWtYN M EN6LUND ETAL K M NEVERS 4700 PORTLAND AVE S 1324 BLOOMINGTON MN 55420 38 OB-117-2S 33 0040 0384S CHERRY AVE C L ANDERSON ETAL N/LIFE EST CARL L ANDERSON SB43 CHERRY AVE MOUND Ml 55344 SB 08-117-23 33 0043 0SB40 CHERRY AVE 0 M ENGLUNO ETAL COL a MRS 0 M ENGLUND 5101 SPRING ROCK CT FAIRFAX VA 22032 SB 0B-117-2S S3 0046 03848 NORTH SHORE DR ROGER GRAM«N6 A HIFE ROGER GRANNIN6 3848 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55344 38 08-117-23 33 0053 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO STATE LAND OEPT CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/1S/74 ST DEED 154754 *•4PePQflT NO. PAG€PI4554011958 08-117-25 55 000700058 AOOPCSS UNASSIGNFD KATHRYN H ENGLUND ETAL K M MFVF44 4700 PORTLAND AVE S 1324 BLOOMINGTON Ml SS420 SB OB-117-2S SS OOSB OSBSS CHERRY AVE STATE LAND DEPT CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/1S/74 ST DEED 1547SS SB 0B-117-2S SS 0041 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO KATHRYN M ENGLUND ETAL K M NEVERS 4700 PORTLAND AVE S 1324 BLOOMINGOTN MN SS420 38 08-117-2S SS 0044 000S8 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO D M ENGLUNO ETAL COL t MRS 0 M ENGLUND 5101 SPRING ROCK CT FAIRFAX VA 22032 38 08-117-23 S3 0044 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 0 M ENGLUM- ETAL COL A MR' ■ M ENGLUND 5101 SPRING ROCK CT FAIRFAX VA 22032 38 08-117-23 S3 0054 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO STATE LAND DEPT CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/74 ST OECD 154754 ■ :i. ■• • • r i ! • 4 * % I ; ‘ V • >- V . i V» ^ I t •7 . . I wyS 4 » .4 • 'J # > 1 ' . / • 4 .* %• • A *4 =1t ^ i ■ r % • n**-,' v,‘ . . ;. '• V ‘v‘-* v •• 4 • ' ' I A ^ P ' • r^. jV.-' I7 ;•*- • ‘t . * * *' *•| OD • • I* • ^ ■ • . ‘.Vv. n 9 * * * ' * X-'4 • •I • ••'r 7 *. > , ,. I . • » “ • *4* . ^ I ^ / • V' ■ -V . V ..4-»r’* fTtm*- rr^wzr:M/lM''* ~7TT,' -•■■FT sfssn CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR STEVE ENGLUND OF LOTS 8 AND 9, BLOCK 7, CRYSTAL BAY VIEW HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA (7?j 9): denotes existing spot elevation All bearings are based upon an assumed datum. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISIS SURVEYED: Lots 8. and 9. Block 7. CRYSTAL BAY VIEW This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. - 0.77 t Cnm\ & Gronbirg, Inc. M\ 1 hereby cerlify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super vision, and dial I am a duly registered Civil Engme*:' .'d Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755 DAFE 9-2h93 SCALE I*': 20' V J \ 1015 Nu 93-208 I 200 i ■ it- I*»‘" t ■' m t.) ? ' # 1 Q C5 <r^ cpn,r,arnhAr 99 1 QQ~ vw II'N* «• *» I I ^ ^ V r it\.' of r*>rooo R?: V2r!39C? A9f^llC3tlOP ^pplicsnt" St*?'/? EPQlund D<aoiioc;t - v/stni^nro for mlnirruiro lor r^oijirAoiAor Requirements for Zone LR-!C - 1/2 Acre - 21,760 sq./ft Existing lot size - 16.2E1 sq./ft, - of requireo size, with vacation of alley. - 16.051 sq./ft. - 781^ of requiredsize H2''qship “ .Not being able to build on e.xisting lots. ^’ease note tnat lots lO 11 are owned by a different member of my f^roiiy and a^e not for sale. At this time! a.m not e.xpecting tne need for any furtner variance m reoard to setbacks or hardcover Th-.;io». von Steve England ? 1 r eyn'’ F «• r< 9 »isr»omr —I I I WT«*C*S u»rw»«t tiiti »ur* tnt * -1 !•« > <Mmtnfm t« «m *1^ 3*^ I * # •» . J « va- fcV-: It i«ll X M m * • ’ ^ i_trii.rjirT iI.. iT.c£ .T:'.L.=r^m. ^ii« irtri II ■f ii ilJn I'^ii • # HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE cne) 0-75' 75-250' (^^0-500^500-1000' . O' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House LENGTH Garage ' c D riveway 2 o DiJP\ ^ D. Sidewalk E. pATIO/ D eck /2- F.Landscape __ AREAS underlain BY , ____ PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other WIDTH 3 o So Z O <3 O Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone /feoo 72o 6 oo 2 VO 2V 0 /6o L T COML S.F.I 6. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.-T ILC S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.A . S.F. 7 W 0 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. I (S*‘ S.F. S.F. 3^80 S.F. / C>. / S.F. B B X 100 22- •■% \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ l-'^\'cc^' GOVT I TO:Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:October 15, 1993 SUBJECT: #1881 Orville Fisher, 475 Oxford Road - Aftsr-the-Fact Variance Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IA Application: The property owner is required to make an after-the-fact application for variances to Sections 10.22 subdivision 3 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (I) for removing live trees greater than 6" in diameter within 75’ of the shoreline, and for unapproved "intensive vegetation clearing" within 75’ of the shoreline. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Staff Sketch F - Building Inspector ’s Violation Reporl/Tag G - Photos H - Pertinent Code Sections I - Proposed Tree Planting Diagram J - DNR Letter 10/14/93 K - Neighbor’s Acknowledgment of Application L - "Statement of Need and Reasonableness" (DNR) M - Documentation from Pric * Violation Summary Upon complaint bv a resident, staff inspected the property and found that vimially eve^ tree and significant shrub within 75’ of the shoreline of Stubbs Bay (save for three 24"-30 hardwoods) had been removed. It was determined that twelve 6" or larger live trees had been removed in the 0-75’ zone and literally dozens of other trees ranging from 1" to 6" in diameter had been removcfi in that zone. Staff determined that this activity w as not only a violation of Orono ’s long-standing tree- removal ordinance but was also clearly a violation of Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (I)(2) which prohibits intensive vegetation clearing within 75’ for the shoreline. "Intensive vegetation rrr~'k'* r’*~xr t. ^ — '’"i? t «• Zoning File mSA October 15, 1993 Page 2 clearing" is defined in Section 10.56, Subdivision 3.13 as "the complete removal of trees or « • • U # * * **shrubs in a contiguous ^ strip, row, or "'x' The property owner upon notification of the violatit)n indicated a know ledge of the code prohibitions on tree cutting. This property owner has been before the Council in the past for grading violations in the 0-75’ zone in conjunction w iih their previous residence on Maxwell Bay (see Exhibit L). The property owner w as issued a violation citation, told to do no further work to remove the stumps which remain today as evidence of the violation, and advised to make this after-the- fact application. Staffs intent for the application process in this case is not to ultimately have the after-the-fact variance approved, but to deny the variance and have Planning Commission and Council review and approve a restoration plan. This is in line with the DNR comments dated October 14, 1993 (Exhibit J). Extent of Clearing Please review Exhibit E. In the non.herly 1/3 of the 0-75’ zone, three trees 6" or greater in diameter were removed. Two 24" maples and one 30" other hardwood remain. What does not show on the sketch is that approximately two dozen 2" to 6" trees were removed, as well as two to three dozen 0 to 2" trees. The stumps of all trees are clearly evident if you visit the site. In the southern third of the 0-75’ zone, tlie surveyor has identified the location of seven stumps with diameter 6 s greater (staff noted nine such trees, see photos). Again, approximately two dozen ' ' lO 6" trees were also taken and a virtually uncountable number of 0 to 2" trees and shrubs uial w : o likely 3’ to 15’ in height. Note that no grading was done in the 0-75’ zone. Restoration Plan Please see Exhibit I. Applicant’s landscape designer proposes to replant Linden and Aih species to replace the 6’’+ diameter trees removed. He has indicated to staff that these trees would be in the 4" to 5 ’ caliper range, the largest size lie would expect to survive transplanting in this area. On the north 0-75’ area, he proposes three trees to replace the three 6" + trees that were removed. In the south 0-75’ he proposes six trees, plus three along the lot line adjacent to the neighbor ’s tennis court and just outside the 0-75’ zone. Although he has not specifically propo.sed any additional trees or shrubs to compensate for the many smaller trees that were cut, he has indicated verbally that gray twig dogwv od would be a suitable understory' planting. ( ! L Zoning File #1884 October 15, 1993 Page 3 From the stumps remaming on the site, one gets the impression that the areas cut down were fairly dense in nature, a thicket which likely provided significant screening of the neighbor’s tennis court and softened the view of applicant’s and the neighbors’ houses from the lake. In addressing the restoration requirement, applicant’s landscape designer has suggested that the intei ’s.ve vegetation clearing ordinance would not, for instance, prohibit the neighboring property owner from removrg most of the under story vegetation in the 0-75’ as long as 6" + trees were not removed. Therefore he asks, w hy should the Fishers have to replace understory? Staff notes that such activity if done in stages probably would not even be noticed. But the intensive removal of all woody vegetation clearly has a visual impact much greater than if only a portion were removed or if it was selectively removed. Additional Discussion This is the first incident of clear cutting (intensive vegetation clearing) since the new Shoreland Ordinance went into effect, although there have been other incidents of selective large tree cutting. In considering the degree and nature of restoration that should be required, it may be helpful to review the reasons why DNR required this ordinance. The "Statement of Need and Reasonableness", (Exhibit K) suggests a number of reasons to protect shoreland vegetation, including reducing the rate of runoff to minimize soil ei osion, consumption and utilization of nutrients from the runoff, root systems to assist in bank and slope retention, protection of fish and wildlife habitat values, and screening. The fact that the property owner allowed this intensive vegetation clearing to occur knowing that work in the 0-75’ zone is not allowed, does not make the results any worse, but is particularly frustrating from an enforcement standpoint. Final action on the violation tog is expected to be withheld until the Council ’s final action on this matter, but staff has recommended to the City Attorney that the applicant be fined. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the after-the-fact variance be denied and that the property owner be required to restore the site The proposed restoration plan suggests that nine 4" to 5" trees will be planted in the 0-75’ zone to replace the dozens of trees that were cut Plaiuung Commission must determine whether this planting program is adequate or whether additional plantings are needed. If revisions to the plan are required, it should be noted that time is of the essence if plantings are to be done this fall. Planning Commission may wish to give applicant a guideline for what plantings are necessar}’ and send him on to the City Council for final action, rather than tabling for a month. Note that applicant did pay an after-the-fact investigation fee with this application. \ CITY OP ORONO - VARIAKCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 #1 og4 A t w • - (no change frcn original application^ Variance for non conforming use $200.c After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) . . * . • PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address___ TION ^ r\ \ n I 4^75" KjQtd Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.) AttLh legal description to application if not included on required survey. fmonth/vear) Date Property Acquired_ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _^ ll,nd I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; ^^residential Zoning District;__________________________ other(specify) applicant Name Phone ^hcme) - - Phone (work) Address OWNER (if different than applicant) /QrO.'l(<r f Phone (home) Name Phone (wor)c) Address DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in : 2u2cI Estimated Construction Cost $—- -— in detail = - - - - - - - VAfelANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Front Side RearSetbac)c: ___ ...w..- ----------- ----- —j (specify) Average La)<eshore Other HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS r ^ uJt'VL )LAPu)t<C*0^ -- - - -- - - - - - •5 • • • >«* . - V V..Va•k. • ; f ..*1^ » . (attach additional .sheets if necessary) infonuiation Biist be submitted by the appxxc deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete; lication 1 Completed Aoplication Form 2ied Property Owners List of owners within 150‘ (you must obtain *- -list from Eennepin County Department of Finance A-60 3 Gcvt Center 348-3271). ^ 3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list).3 Plat Map ----------- ---------- 4 jSS*Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include *^^hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8*j”xll" for reproduction). ^ ^ ^ 5 NftTopograpI’.ic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8W"xll ). 6.A/A Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8h"xir’). l\ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application.any otner persun:* — —... - 6.^ 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 bhe above ixifomiation has not been includctd. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or incurred in review of tWs application, and certifies that t e supplied is true and correct tp the b^t/of his/her knowled^. 'f5Applicant's Signature Date tion and verification of this request. / J / / h ^ Owner's Signature Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices ^he Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meet scheduled third Monday of each month. Applicants must be __piicant is review meetings of the’ Planning Commission and Council. have an unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make s Zoning authorized agent attend in your place and to advise th Office of this change prior to the meeting. , • */* « . *: S'*• t , • m, ..«« «• ♦. .. % • :■ ■-' • V • •• •* *-. • V i -I • ^ MN DATI Of/M/ftIBATCH OOS * • A , WK» ADOH * (AtCR NAMi 'iT'JCRA''l'R ^NAHE/AOOR ^ . RROR AOOR OltCR KAHC •-.TAXRAVCR ^ NAME/AOOR • • ’ '* ■* SB 05-117-25 *1 0010 00A75 OKFOftO RO H J PCTCRSON A O PCTfRSON HCLVXN J A OLIVE PETERSON A75 OXFORO RO LONG LAKE HN 5555A SB 05-117-2S 41 0014 00400 OXFORD RO R L A C 0 CARTER REX L CARTER 400 OXFORD RO LONB LAKE MN 55554 HEfWEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0»tCRS LIST SB 05-117-25 A1 0011 00A»5 OXFORD RO DAM GEORGE DONALD E GEORGE 495 OXFORD RO LONG LAKE m 55554 SB 05-117-25 41 0022 00405 OXFORD RO F DEM4IS0N SHAN JR ETAL F DENNISON JR A JANET SHAH 405 OXFORD ROAD LONG LAKE m 55354 .y AOOfI ^ ONNiR HAME i) v^taxpaver ^ .V/ V*,r. TOTAL BATCH > m ■'‘i* "***•'.' . \ ■ • 4 ' ■ •• , ,1 x-r ■•■•< »> . 4,..:MV>.T»..• V.1 r.. IV O‘*r!^ ■♦'' V- • % REPorr NO. PAGE 58 05-117-25 41 0015 00500 OXFORD RO A J A S K NELSON ALBIN J A SUSAN K NELSON 500 OXFORD RO OROilO rOI 55554 58 05-117-25 41 0025 00425 OXFORD RO C 0 A S 8 KEIL CARL 0 A SALLY B KEIL 425 OXFORD RO LONG LAKE MN 55554 PI4554014 f , I’ \ I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF MY^WwJu^E AN^^ DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXAHON* TO THE BEST • . > DATlpJ^ ‘ ■ ' •'.c' .<«Vi,' .. V *./*“' V . H- 'A • . F V y4. ! I. ;ir V - ■ V • •'. - '.Vfo ^ V S\ ' . v.jVjpv . ■ • 1*^ ■)*••. yi .,4<. ,• Cyvr • • V . ’ ;*v .?‘r .. ? »« p * • , 4 . , .V'. •’ • ••A, - • ■k'- ' Certificate of Survey for Orville •Chip" Fisher of Lot 2, Block 1, STIFLOWS ADDITION Hennepin County, Hinnesota # 1 R84 Lot 2, Block 1, STIELOWS ADDITION. This survey shows the location oT an existing house and a proposed storage shed and some marked tree stumps that were were recently cut do%#n. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. o: Iron marker Bearings shown are based on an assumed datum. CO o : CdtMN & Gro\8FR(,, Inc.I herrby certify that this survey was pr jred by me or under my direct super* vHion. and that 1 am a duly re^tsterr wivil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Mmnev' . Mark S Cronberg MinnesoU license Number 12755Nurr UATl 9*\C»-9^ SCAU \* t^o lOfwo 95- \ •* . r ft V I • t' >r. . 0 ‘ T. « « »• .'I 1 M a * t £5 .TYLtrS f2V"'ioO<* II -^^ct s4v4Aip«i ^7 I I \ _ n^> 6A-S\ r-fA (jN‘ -T4- ,\ t/t .i— €1. P IH O.Q C flu cl E.a.v4LvA<H+5 H'' I A AU.^ \ l\ 1/«•%-! »6.q 1 \'ml ^.T \ ^l ‘'i.V \ • . K -/*^\ xf ^ N J/ Ih 1:. 2?/ 1 '*^?/^ '1^ —■yt^/cv- n / V> rrrrriT^ =;■.<<. 9 Ni e> • fiUiB • •r. . • 0^ o • I — -\Z*^.T ^ T ""o • ?7*‘CZ. suR_\ify ctif AntfXiti^ ^A»or T-o scArce^ i < , F VIOLATION REPORT Defendant:Orville "Chip" Fisher 475 Oxford Road Orono, MN 55356 Location of Violation: 475 Oxford Roid, Orono Violation of: Orono Municipal Code 10.22, Subdivision 3 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 I 2 Description of Viol.'ition:The defendant removed live trees greater than 6" in diameter and cleared intensive vegetation in a protected 75’ setback zone from the lake. The defendant pled guilty on September 12, 1990 to charges of excavating within a flood plain, excavating within the protected 75’ setback zone and excavating in the lake shore without City Council approval at his previous residence. Inspector: Lyle Oman, Building Official The City’s objective is to fme the defendant and bring to before the City Council and require to to conform to an approved replanting schedule. • • .* a • i 4MMMI UIMFOJUi CfTATlOM NO 93-0^9368 □;b Ihm *Mw«ng cMcm M th« niiTTrl b<<0*» uxiwivIMf Ih# olf*ns« tf#icnt)#o bi vK>e*iion o< iht mcmh n U 93-029367 ;Thm iMuang olhcm ftetM M th« p«r«N« n*m«d b«4cm cunwKmi th« ^ M vioution of Mcttoo indicaiod. VMM UCANSt NUTAACJI _________________ - 1 i 1 i 1 1 atm - LAST. PmST. MOOLlAilAOef* ____________________________ --;------- 1 5iHle r! o!nJvj!i u cie! !^- r" . . 1 « NitMiCrry yiOLATlOW IWPOPMATIQW ' 1 = ; M i>:R. 0:M O: ! 1 i . STATE 1 r.P cool /n Ai ss <ss (o rf OP form fYfS Hf»OHT WEIGHT I Sf * mOs [ OAf \ t«AP 1 1 ! ! 1 J 1 11 !i'i M QATt Of Qi^gNSt aq Iz!»1V5 XI UCtWSt I I 5TATI MCTCW XUMtf W 1 12.! o!o III! yCA^MAAf MOCCV LOCAfCN • CfTY» v« » » —I '' -------------------- H l S. C> }C 0(Z.^P‘ ,K O A IL'fyvW* /Tl on OmUMCt K)_________________________ e.loiA]lol li 'ols-’G>r\z Pi lv!f-l<.lelri.a TJL OffCWimOM ■tJlSAlr lf!A7l$ I) CT oav Iclclelftjg ACnVTTY - w" ^ ” rn Untaf* n Commofcl*! rnMtiordoui ?tSSpS^ □ *«'<>•"• PcSnSHIon. □v.nicl. UMmrt.l r MUMW om MUMfCM rfp?T]lcTifjE g] rli is'HlekI Io’rnj ixiLiLk I ! I i ! I I acopess A errr H 1 S: D>-: ■^ 0 12. 0 ie. o'(A :ci ‘» • • 1 * ' * * . * OtoND; 1 irMN. 1 i i state i 1 rw cct?e 1 SExi CATE OP EiPTX MO .‘CAP I1 1 i 1 1 EVES i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1^- VIOCATIOM INfOWMATlOW OAlT 1 ^ T ____________— t fjH to rospond to this cKtUon within 7 d»Y», Increased penalties will tetsed and a warranl may be Issued for your arrest. If a warrant la Rio 'T^^c. r\£\0\ l7!5-i' d A A'le!^ H- : (^le |5 e.T fi A c k!z!o!/o! e. 1 1 • •»«A 1 h m i •• • 1.' FI .. -1 - L-•1 q-g!i i3! II !?-!oi^ i I Vf HCU UCtWSC ^»-ATI____________ TtMf I MTT* « NUM8t« I VtAW I MA<B tMOCCL coLoa I LOCATTOW i CITY M ~7 5~ lO yiF'g><^*0 OA'ot^ oi !/^H* 5~ityi j I I STATUTt OH QWO#*AM:g r,y ____________________ ____ qI/IIqIajo I/^. z2>! ctscwtmox rvi n h ImI tIhI.^ e Cam Com \ CT OfV r—I Endingor Ufo f “| Accident LJ Or PfOpAfty *—J r-lUr»iAf« f—I CommorclAl I—J Conditlono * VaMcI# QHAUirdouo iMatarlal 8AOGC NUMttW c«i wutAdCw .ou /.// fo respond ,J fft/. c//,f/oA witbln 7 days. bo assessed and a warrant may ba Issued for you arrest. It a warrant I, ^1/-riei^ c K' z-'ol/v;!”^ f (1 _ojd^------^ / Ia,Ik:Ii-J<; !h c? <2.'c 1 . J ——J —1 *“ ’ 1 i-i. 1 1 .1 1 --#• 1 I I ._ ■ -L.,• - •t A. , 1 iHvi i III n ' I-• a'C • I B m ?-V.:-'!-,/. #^rSQHDfiwkvC ^;^'■'• '<'< ■ ■ I-jL;-. > 2?!.^^ IIRk^'>j4-vv ■- I *;:’ "■'t-v *'- v , * f1'. ^ [g'K^ >: ■;■ [’'SimimW^M: '^ »m 11 m m mm li ^1HSi 'Mm •«. lfc^-.7-cti :vfr':r‘ jfe>:^sg la?jgy .Mi«iai< n H *W|y^ ilii= TXf. “ >• mm li^HI m my^y r- i\ I. I ' / j Aip r;^...:- Wm:^'V^'», ei»myi^> .‘t'. f ira -- i tr‘" •.'/“* •.-rkcT i\ 'i {- • ••• •■»I - ^ •iV'.-'i N :r A vfj •ii« r.» r*r< '•M .V ■ '. W '^•'^.■'•1. .• ' • /' ■' A'-:*7 J -^' \ •'■ ■ V '*■ ’i i': 1 • •’^1- IX Mfr»'•'• -jt. i •/ f.i fC.' • *AjU; * »sl . ;'U ^ * 4 • \A -. rv A ^ '* ^ ^ .~^' -V,. •• 'V;- .' ' ■ . /T.7 .: '-» -^-i' - __* - — S *1*' , “ V-.^ •i»-^^f - 7 ■XVli II T:T;i^ ♦ . - ^v•^'* - y::' i-:.’ ■V r • ■v::.W; lli.-'; • V '\ Kv-- r-i :v \^' : .' w »C11 co>C s«cnoMl ?e * &M- H SSCftca 10.sc. $»C*JUASD HWI^WOBIT. tnb4. 3. D*fialtten». Onl«ts •pacifically d«fin*d below, words or phrase* ussd In tnls sactien shall b« Intsrprstsd •a deflnod slsowhsro in this chapter. All other words or phrases • hall be interpreted so as to five thesi the saoo sieaninf as they have in coswon ssaqe and so as to sire this ordinance its ooat reasonable application, for t.he purpose of this section, the words *siust* and *shall* are nandatory and not pernissive. All distances, aaless othsrwiso specifiod, shall bo aoasurod horizontally. 13. "Intensive Vegetation Clearing* - The collet# renova I of trees or shrubs in a eontipuous patch, strip, row. or block . Subd. 1C. ihoreland Overlay District Standards. The •horeland Overlay District Standards sre in addition to the requiresients set forth in Chapter 10 for the various roning districts. In case of conflict, the nost restrictive provision applies. I. Vegetation Alterations. 1. »o live tree wrthin 75 feet of the shoreline with a diameter of • inches or nors (or If inches in circumference or greater) measured 3 feet above the ground nay he removed without first obtaiaing a permit from the City staff provided that at least ths equivalent number of replacement trees of a site and naturs found acceptable tc the staff ars planted at the same setback from the shoreline as those removed. Appeals of staff determina*^ions as to type, size and quality of tha traes to be replaced will be to the Council. Removal of trees that are dead • hall not require a permit but such trees must be inspected by City staff prior to their removal. 2. Intensive vegetation clearing within 75 feet of the shoreline and on steep slopes within the Shorslr.nd Overlay District is prohibited. Limited clearing of shrubs an trees less than ( inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees of any size is sllowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling •I’-e and to accomodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic «•••' paths, beach and w» tercraft access areas, and permitted lock provided that the screening of structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. SBC. 10.11. RECOLATIOHS FOR "LR-lA", "LR-lA-1", "LR-ID", •LR-IC" AND ^ *w-l" ONE FAMILY LAKESHORB RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Within any “LR i**, “LR-lA-1", "LR-13", "LR-IC", or "LR-1C-1" One Family Lakeshore Residential District the following regulations shall apply: Subd. 3. Tree Removal Regulations. No live tree within 75 feet of the shorelins with a diameter of six (6) inches or more shall be removed without first obtaining a permit from the City. Such permits shall be issued by the City staff provided that at least a like number of replacement trees of a size and nature found acceptable to the staff sre planted, any question involving the number of trees to be replaced will require approval. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 9 uliiltoii dttigfi.tBC.Fisher Residence Sciic 1 Ml • SO fiet Jb «ffi i«M !• •MmIW^MM’' iMfMW 41t* tIAtl Of twj[i»orA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WATflU - 1190 WAiaiai MkD, IT. fhVt, m 3310* T7J-7»iO J (J * I October 14, 199J Niko Ceffron City of Orono 9.0. Box «• Cfyotal Bey, lllnnMota §9113 fill LkBO rsi ATPLICATIOirs. cm OP Of»HO. NIMKPPIII COimtY Dear Mr. Caffromt X havo cosaanta on th« rollevinf lanO uaa appUcationa «fairn are BChatfulad for public hearing before the Plarjiing CoBalaaion on Oetobar 19, 199). #UI4*Ihe applicant n^pieataaevaral varianeea in order to place two atorage unite on a portion of tha property that in currently vegatatao. Dtfll Metro Matara rtcemmBndt that tha city deny tha variance requaata aa they are currently proposed. Tha site ia already non^conforming and the propoaed addition of etoraga unite would axacarbata tha non conformity. Storage unite on a portion of tha property that it already hardcover and eeata the lakaahore eetbacka may be acceptable ae an alternative, but not the current proposal. Ha also qusstlon whether herdehip exleta. flsffiri Hoad I The applicant regusata •*cer-the-fact approval of a variance to allow intansive vegetation removal within 79 feet of Z«ake Minnetonka. DNR Retro Haters T^coammndm th^t thm city deny the •ft#r*thc«fact variance raquaat and require raatoration of tha alta. Selective ranoval of vagatation in order to obtain a view of tha lake from tha raaidanca w^ld have been acceptable, t?ut not intensive vegetation raaoval. The raatoration/landacaping plan should include larger caliper ^ *‘*P'-scs ^a larger dlasatar traaa which ware raaovad, and Should place particular esphaaia on replanting of vagatation In the area oloaest to tha lake (i.a. tha ahora impact tons). •^^Itional spaciflo points for the city's consideration that would apply to all tha varlanco requaatai Must be deaonatratad to justify approval of a *‘aqueat. The approval of a varianca dua to hardship should be baaed on the following praraquisiteai The proposed use is raasonable. 1. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Hike aaffr«i Oetoiwr 14* 1993 3 c. 0. I. It. vould be ttnreeeoMble to require conforsence vlth the ordlnen^. iPrectlcel diffieultlee My erlee due to -functionel mnA eeeUietic coaeeme* end econoala cone1doretioM alone do not coaatitute practical difficulty. The difficulty of conforaino to the ordlnafice im due to circuMtancoo unlqua to the property, aucti ee pMuliar topoqrapliy. Xf the problaa ia eoaaon to e nuohar of notiii in the area, it ia not ooneidered unique. The prohlMi ouet not he created hy the landowner. The verience, if panted, oust net alter the eeeential character of the locality* the courta have eaid that the applicant hae a "heavy burden of proof to ehov that ell the prerequiaitee to the qrantinq of a varlanea are aatiafiad. This ia hecauaa a variance allove property to he used in a Mnnar forbiddan hy the ordinance. The Depertaent ahould be advised of the action taken on the two above requeeta within 10 days of final action end copies of the offieisl record should he forwarded to this office if the vsrience request is not denied. Flesse eontset m at 772-7910 ehould you have any queatiems reqerdif^ these coMMnts. iincerely. Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist (MS Ed Pick, dhorelend Hydrologlat Lake Hinnatonke filaa 27-ni, 026 and 37-in, #23 Oire«r** (print nddr«ta) ^ 'tprlot dim UII.... ...i.-p..~“• ‘"'vr'.’.n.'.T.r'.;" .1 ptopnirty locntad nt ., . jkl^llcatloo Bo, ^ In •xacvtind thin »ckaovl«dg«n*nt , X (w«> I (».• or OlMpproo.l ot th. proporty or u.o urn) cot »*k«d ^ Council that X U«5 an (am) ««am ofXT. r4:u.r.»vVi.” “ rn<|ulraa Council approval. L^^3t____________— Cat# iM ropart Proparty Cwnar •••••••••if********* Data • iinit**********® fipi 4)(w«) (print naaa(a)|(print addraaal hava raviavad th# plana for tha proparty locatad at . i n — application^ propoaad improvement or propoaadpropo.eu -V rafarrad to at land Uaa I {«,) andot.t.nd th.l In (ara) not aakad to ***^^*^*”*^*^^'^A„ Council that I <wa) am (ara) awara of bat Boroly to eoBfira ^ \ propeood nolphbor’o projoee ot u»o the leprovooent plan* ond th*t the propc.e raquiraa Council approval. Data Data property Ownar d «. City in tha raviaw of If you h»v4 any you/conuient* to the PuilOin^ t ToTTTcuTc: a*riVa« ird."yi%*rl=r to th. ooheduled oe.tin, ^ote. Lie, &H. L • • V/ 51LNNESOTA SHOREIAXD ^LANAl* I'MEVT PRCIGRAM sTATTAfENT OF NEED AND tEASONABiENESS FOR THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO AHNNESOTA RULES PARTS 6l2iU^ 6I20J * n MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATERS (/ ytjf AL- (/' AUGUST 1988 r- p •• • • < • • - •* r c '»mm\nmm Ifci llll^^di^^^lfl I . T r. »* - '• Pnpommii TObitMNO) r«<|ulr*« th«t thm 4mck not encroach ' tammni tho ohoro into than 19 fwreent of the ostatlfif r Mtbock and- in no cacihJ^<>* result In a s«t^s«1k of loan 'than 30 foot. Thin pr^^si6n'ollX onouroj^lit the nixs and sethaeJL of the deck are UKToasonahlo pct$^rtion to tho rasistit*9 setback of tha •truoiufo^>.>'9lW 30 foot Halt olll protect docks froai potential from ico heaving and vind and vave daoago durlngHfVorwiw It will olso provide space for maintenance pf ^ixistingi a^t^hing vegetation or planting of such vegetation. Proposed aubltea f') reguiroa these decksXo be constructed! prinariln^^arf wood and prohibits their being^spofed or ecroonod'. Those provisions will ensure that thepe decks are or4not significant visual intrusions along the shord and that they function only as outdoor dacke. not dwelling additions. Subp. 4. Shorsland Altsrsticms. The csistlng language on shorsland alterationa is being deleted in the introductory peragraph because the entire subpart is being rewritten and reorganised. The first provision altar the deleted text (fill shall be stabilised.is needed to assert that vegetative alterations and excavetlons for aewege treetsent aystess and structural placesant are except frost the vegetation altarationa proviaiona and that aaparata porsits are not regulrad. It is reasonable to require that the grading and filling conditions are Mt in lieu of seperate parsits for structure end sewage system installation, sine# shorsland oanagars can add tha appropriata conditions to building permits for shorsland areas. It is also nacaaaary and ii^>ortant to requira that altarationa to vegatatlon and topography be controlled by local govemaants aince tha DlssMnagemant of soil and vsgststion can sdvsrssly impact tha natural raaourcaa of shorsland oreas. Esanplas of advsrae ispacta ars arosion and sadisientatlon to surfaca watsrs which impairs or dsstroys fish and wildlifs habitat, •oil sadimentation or ths intentional filling of arras that prsviously hsld and liltsrsd surfaca watsr runoff for a period before drainaga or dlscharga to a waterbody, or the •xcssslve clearing of shorsland vagstation that ones providad natural screening of shoreland development and maintained the scenic vistas of our many lakas and straams. It is nacaaaary to excluda public roads and parking areas from this subpart sines they area regulated by another subpart. i . .a • . f Tha definition "Intensive Vegetation Clearing" as defined in V. 6120.2500 £ubp.'7c.“ is discussed here.'sincQ it ie relevant to this section. ^ • '41 * mmwMz filt«rinq «nd soil rrot«ctli»g prop«rtl«* of vocation. Voortatlon also oct* to visually scroon shorolsnd jivolopmsnt vtiich •alntsins tho natural valuas of shoralands. Ttlia dafinition is a >s»a laaaalarl CliircuttiJgl this dafinition IB Ibaino rapaalod bacausa a nav dafinition, •Intanslvo forast rasourca sana^ars had Indlcatad a naad for ttm shoraland ragulatlons to contain a dlffarant . dafinition to dascriba and ragulata tha rasoval of »»»orala^ vaaatation, aspaclally In non-forast -anagasant arsas, sinco tha ragulatlons addrass a significant acraaga of shoraland that is not bsing usad for industrial or coKEcrclal forast sanagaaant purposas. Xtaa A Is nacassary to axcluda agricultura and forastry froo thasa provisions siiwa tha eras is sanagad In subsaquant subparts. In subltaa I, it is necessary to prohibit vagatation thasa araas. Tha anistanca of vagatation In thasa araas is Isportant to raduca tha arosiva affac^’s of falling pracipitatlon on tha soil. Vagatation can also raduca the valocitlas or disparsa tha flow of surfaca watar runoff, which is isportant since high valocity surfaca watar runoff can raadily aroda soils. mnv thasa areas will also consusa and utilisa nutriants that nay ba in runoff vatars or in the soil profila which could dagrada tha shoraland watar quality if not consuoed. Additionally, vagatation root aystaos in these ” li- aaaiat in binding the soil column to prevent or J**® ^ likelihood of bank and aiope failure, which further protec the fish and wildlife habitat valuas associated with shoraland areas. The existence of also acts to screen shoreland development activities .fi AM •aKoxSi'azcsA Hill protect ard pr«»#rr« th« natural valuaa of ahoraiand •• diractad by tha ahoraland atatuta. Ttva atatasant of naad for a -bluff iapact tona- va« introducad aarliar during tha diacuaaion of bluff aatbacka (pg. 3i). Tt*a atatamanta of naad for tha daf. ona of a -abora iapact tona-. and -ataap alopaa- ara inciuaad hara for co^latanaaa •• fpaet fobit Tbia daflnitlon la naadad to daacriba tha araa of land batwaan tha ordinary high vatar laval and tha atnictura aatback which ia propoaad for Banaging riparian fringa vagatation. aoila and to dafina tha araa appropriata for tha location of vatar oriantad accaaaory atructuraa, aa dafinad latar in thia docuaant* II shore inpact tona width aquivalant to SOI of tha ahoraland class Btructura aatback ia raaaonabla bacauaa sufficient land baaa will raaain out of tha tona and vatarvard of tha Btructura (batwaan tha Btructura and tha raar and of tha Bona ) for tha installation of on-aita Bawaga traatsent ayatoBB and tha claaring of vagatation (if nacassary or daairad) around tha principal Btructura aita. For axaapla. tha shora iapact tons width on lakaa win ranga froa 2S faat on aaverad Canaral Oavalopaant Lake lota to ff> faat on unsawarad datura! fnvironncnt Lake lota. For rivers, the rone will range froa 25 feat on severed Tributary, Urban or Agricultural aegaents to 100 feet on RoBOta rivar aagnanta. % /'0 II These widths are reasonable since they provide a buffer atrip between the waterbody and tha raspactiva Btructura setback line to accoepliah tha various Banagaaant objactlvaa for each ahoraland clasa. For axaspla. tha rona providaa a Banagaaant frasawork for; tha reduction of non-point source pollution problaaa(by aanaging vagatation and soil resources as discuased aarliar); tha regulation of tha aiza, type and placeaant of near shora atructuraa(vatar oriantad accaasory atructuraa); and, tha aaintananca and praaarvation of shoraline vagatation for tha acraaning of ahoraland area davelopsient activities. For rivar segBents, iaplaaantation of a shora inpact zona will also protact riparian soils and Btrean banks froa tha natural aaandaring charactariatica of channala, thereby reducing accalaratad erosion, sedimentation and channel shift probleBS. nX u Subo. 15b. Steep Blopesi This definition is needed to identify tha areas of land where due to a variety of site specific land and soil conditions, development or agricultural activity is either not recommended or poorly suited to the area, it is reasonable to reference county soil surveys or other technical reports since these tfocuMAtat usually sr« tft« b«st sourcus of inforMition concorning th« cspatoility of soils for agricultural or tfsvolopsont activity. Khan thcss docucents ars not svsilablo, it is fiocossary and raaaonabla to dafina staap slopas as lands that ara in axcaas of 121 slop# or aoro. sinca county soil survays and tachnical raports ganarally bagin to includa cautionary statasants about soils capability whan thasa conditions axist. Tha raquiraaant that tha slop# beritontal COTponant ba 50 fast or etora is basad on tha ralationship that slopa langth has to soil arosion potantial. Canarally. tha longar tha slopa tha graatar tha potantial for arosion. A slopa langth of 50 tmmt is nacassary to axcluda thosa araas cozzonly found in shoraland that say hava a 12% slopa or graatar but only ovar ralstivaly short araas with sinisal potantial for soil arosion. For axaapla, ica ridgas and small natural tarracas or banchas of land along laka or rivar shoralinas would not ba considarad as staap slopas unlass thay ara long anouqh to t tha abova dafinition. It is raasonabla to aP'w vagatation claaring outsida of tha praviously mantionad «raas if tha activity is consistant with accaptad format xanagaaant practicas and soil arosion control practicas sinca this is vhara davalopmant will taka placa according to tha structura satback raquiraaants for tha particular shoraland araa. It is also raasonabla to allow lioitad claaring of traas and shrubs within thasa araas as long as it is tha ainisua nacassary to saat tha spocific naads of tha landownar to placa tha facilitias or conduct tha activitias that ara allowad in thasa araas. As a condition of allowing vagatativa altarations in tha shora and bluff impact sonas and on staap slopas, it is nacassary to spacify parformanca standards and provisions to ansura that soil, vagetation, watar and aasthatic rasourcas of thasa araas will ba proparly nanaged. A notabla benafit of tha proposed rule languaga and atranga&ant is that local units of govamsent are not raquirad to issua writtan parmits for vagatativa alteration, thereby reducing costs to these units. Instead, landowners wishing to conduct vegetative alteration activities need only comply with tha listed performance criteria, which is intended to bo published in informational brochures and distributed to local units and handed out to shoraland owners. As stated in iten B it is necessary to require tha issuance of local panaita for tha grading or filling of the topography in shora and bluff impact zones and on steep slopas that involves ten or store cubic yards of material t' KFHIPIP COUITt m»iClVALC^mST<^iriO^ SUIWAPT CITT OBOW/ .101 City Ad«lni*tf«tor 0»i«* of rolic# Bryan !»• Cf»»*for _ pfoancutlno Attotnny DATE: October 2. I»fO DCJEnOAST: Orvilln E- DATE Of OrffWSE: August 14. 1*4® AFRESTIIW OrriCEB: l*yl« 0*«» COirmOL 1*0. : fiUHHART or rKOCEEDUWS: Th. fir’rinii'’" "" 12. I?f0 to •11 thr«« chai9«» fines. 44 DCT? ( 'I -10- -7' r T ^ • * m •1 •vj • * S *i i * uennm b» MTi or nowTjwi • • . • • 5V ‘ v.'t V ^:» Jto' ^*1 'A AiaVW .V.- .• V, <• » / « « j ^ • »■• m • • ^ ‘’•A. .* t sss*«!rsr®ts^?wSVjJS?ii^^ i ----------.r^t^ T.AAM^ar « .'* •.'%/ ‘.• ftiko rn»±rmr from ri«ld lm•p^9^9T ^ •••!; ;L ar *WtT M«t 4##f aH *lt.#M#« • ; |• TIM --------------- w ■r«e« TMt •*»• ^***tba TlaUtioa. iuissi. rtoutiSn of «'i?;x!;Krof iVoti.: tseavatlM •ithl* tha JifjJatUa to oltor oalotinfXO.SSr lijbilvioi«« • \ «•• oorait ioooo4iitkin ly •i •ithoot • ®^;i\Vir of ioetioo •oMtoioloo }* t"Voo tolO *y •!*>«• Ooftr^ iSiST-lttoM^coodltlOBOl OM potolt. *J; >1^% • N »• •• • • • •■ •.-%• i •* ;;.*tVo ‘.; ,; s, ' * .• • • v'. V • - fbotoh boTO booo tobooo• raviov •!•»»------ «pfca - «ho Clty ‘0 Obl#«tl*o ‘■•. ** *th^ UbSohoM y»*« •»« »<>•0.fM«Ut lO OOtklOy to tMtOtO thO B„ StVi ‘AVoVotto*. i:'*.ifi.'fVctoVi?y' «ipiot-. f ' A. .•> •*• •■' z -•• - A * >•** .«#lr^ ■ ' ... . •oicJ^'Vw '•'• vJ‘ % *• y ‘- • «* • . • ' - , •, • .■’> a ."''• ■ . • • v< ♦♦.'' •• V y t . .* ■ •> v.;^-;.-',-* . ■• •. r',. / •'■• ‘ !* '.v KF-v^flST fO* mOKT TO:Ofono foIic<* l>*p«rt*«ol mow:pryan L. Crawford ProB®c\iti»d Attorney 3300 rim* Tow«r WinnaapoH** 55402 pftjy nr aeouggf: S«pt*«b«r 20. iOfO nrrryt>AJjT : Ctvlll* E* F4i^ar» Jr« HATUpy oy OpfrPSyn*- Eiravition in Lakaihor# w/o Council rfithin 75* of LaMrshora. Eacavatlon within • Flood Plain MTmwraC! 3000467071. 3«004«70i9. 3100447047 oBDtMAJirg tSTATUTt) NUM5E313 : 10.03il4. 10.22S2, 10.S5SI AppgsTiMG omcm n/a DATE or orrgiiSgy: Auouft 14. 1940 51 DCTT kL Obvojli FiiinriL l^lfl S»a3tl nti K- September 4« 1990 OBER ei«0 tilctuiol P- Caffrolii Asslstofit X«ilnqi Ateinistrator City of Or<mo P.O. Box €€ Crystal Bay, MN 98121 I>aar Hr. Caffroni I ^ racaipt of your lattar datad AiKjuat 20, 1990 ragardino tha grading uerk dona on «y proparty at 3300 Fox Straat. This iattar is to confirm ay imdarstanding that wm hava coapliad with all seven itaas containad in your August 2B iattar, including aaating tha spacific dates that ware rafarrad to In Itaas Mo. I and 2. I undarstand that you ara out of tha office this vaak and ara unavaiULla until next Monday. If thara ara any othar i**uas or if for soaa raason tha City does not faal that wa ara in full coa^*- anca with tha itass wa dlscussad on August 15, which vara su^a- ^antly Incorporatad in your August 2t Iattar, p^issa 1st m know iaiMdiataly. In addition, I iMliava docujaants and othar filings hava filad and ara in ordar ralating to our raquast ^or a usa paralt for purposas of grading an excavation on tha sita whicn I understand will ba prasantad to tha Planning Coanission on Saptembar 17 and subsaquantly to tha orono City Council on Octo If there ara any problaas in this schedule or the inforsation as provided, please contact he. Youoa truly. Orville E. Fisher, Jr OEF/jo CITYof ORONO 11 T V I I ORONC^ JUifsat 2t« 1990 Orvill# fitlt«r 3ICO rds Btrmmz Long Liko* H3 5533^ RSt Grading %'ioia%io<i« D«ar Hr. Piahart thi 0-75* protactad Xakathora tona on your proparty at 3300 Fo* Street. Th« orading work done by lonig and Soai andar your diract^n i« a violation of tha following sections of tia Orono toning Cedai 1. section 10.03. Sobdiviaioo 15 Icoay attach«i) 2. Section 10.22, Subdiviaicn 2 (copy attachtad) 3. Section 10.55, Subdivlalon • (cop/ attached). Accoapanying thia latter is a citation isauad for violation of tha above noted Scning Code Sections. Bocauae grading work in the aatent and natora jjf rmquinB varimnc® mnd conditional umm parmlt appioval - city Council, _.nd ^.u.« '“Ch ^JpLxl«t.Xy . to » to^pro=«.,^^^v «« restoration work: than Friday, August 24, 1990. h=„su !rmoving equipment traffic, shall be completed and auboittad to tho City by August 31, 1990. pmaimc a ZONING -arvTiST ASSZSaNC AlWOrNBTIUTION a flNANCI -otaa FAX-47>afM fublk : aoKKS - ctj -tjs * ri«fe*r 31# I"**® r*g® a t A .radlfi® »l«o tot «r««t of thm proportf rololo^ ilr*ctlT U or t(» pool. •»« OrlT^.T*. to# subiiltw^d • 4. Aar qtoilo fi* W°'*o<r*'‘*o ValiaUtli rrT*e:*t.ViS - vl‘ -jsroo?-.«. 1. ceVpi.t., *» »«• AZUl appro^od bofofo ihot work wooU t« allowed. .............................. S. Tour aorvoyor to vorlfy location of tho woat lot lino* 7. the •ae.T.tlon »b*r. ‘’“at*h»*o thS aouthwoat of tho aowafa•tuopa reawvod (takan off altal and ^rada roatoroo. A. of th. d.t. of^ii i*t«r'^i.— Jf?/“j[K‘!)*ii'U'MSi35 tho otooTO itea* horo boon no» home eontlnaoo. lloaao adrlao City ataff of your ca^^^ ippllo3 work on tho property ao that inner. If yo« have «"y $r..^o.rrro».'%«ta« 3onl», *a.lnl.tr.tor Jo.hhe Mabuath at 473~'7357* Sincerely* (hiR* Michael P. Gaffron Aaaiatant Planning Zoning Adminiatratcr cc:Lyle tean* Senior Building Inspector Bruce Vang, Field Inspector niatratorJeanne Mabuath, Building « Zoning Admlniatrato Mark Barnhardaon, City Administrator m w w ^-4 • ». » -_ , . . ^ ' w mm • . • • •* •'. •• > aaMoanswwcDcraB • %• • f • •___•• •• — / M V **• V • ‘ '• • * • ‘ •' • • • • •• ' m • • • • •'■ * • , * 0^ *• • • _ “• r'TeS"'.'. ' > >■' .'■ -■ 'i * 1 ■* #» , • * I I • ■••5 V •' . . ’ • - • • n • * •**v>'^** ^* " ^ ^ '4 1 :'‘s • •• ».:V • • „•:.*» -• * ■- V, • . ,*. ' ••• *• “•' A • . A •' *• *'*•.*^4 ." • N ..V • •. • A •• • * " • ; V • I I aiiMMMlMdaiBii_ *\ > •■ *•. . ..•*••• •'■^*.-*v--* I * *v V ’ I**"5(77- •*y'*l'^'*'--''r * .'• v*?*.'**^. *4 1 ' V ^ ^ • • CaCZDEEQCSZCto »* *I * • ', /. • t -•• '• '•^;j. •.■-•"».--'A. ^ ^ <r I %> m ' •\ ciiHiaOjiEffl!Ui5S3§D®®^ ^ *'* [^i-*l—Ll--Ll.——LL J ■*'., '■*• ‘^- * .*-• ^ .7 « !*• ■• ^ • * r V . • • • • • • • 4ik • % ji* • .V v--- g|>;y?iflic!^ •f . • • ^. •% *V - • *• \»• t ■ ^ '• ‘ < >-7cJu- -Tr Irll iTil • . • ■« • « W —^ . .* . .• . .*• • > • ✓ • *••/' *^v • .• W •• •• • ;« ; 4 . s* i* •••» j* •ii4 • • • • %^ • V % 1 •V isltli nreiM • » - -1 • ^ . • • « • • ’ • . « A □SSStfJffBeBffHfjoamHsaaaEcas ?J!. ■ ,‘ * ' #4* •- '?* •* '<%•>. • • ^ _• SRs; i»<4i -' -k ■• • ' « a^5qEgp.Jf5tfe^;;=^^^g2=i @ B5Bf3SH*rtfrr^ '• *. . • •w* • " ' . % • ' ' If i-s I - ,'^;i^C.v>“#^ •v‘?*'V*i* * y- ' :* -'•‘•'J.N* —V'- • • • . I I I«>1»# -r^M- i*y{*Jt mBm’wvawvmrrannp.'srewyw.'OTigaiPBr wprpa EJffiMflininrnraiai lik-^.-^^ll»r' '' *B r: Jd • ... • * • 44.* ;1 J J«Jfiti^i!rJifi!lil2£^ J»i ‘‘^ ^ Ti^ • ** *i****i^ I^l*~?~?~r^T^~l—T'n'^'Ty^xp:-.-v.i^: ‘n i |yr.^«hi. <•£> J i^Q:J-l.i J.LIJ^T^naca .J •T«0*^'^«C/T_A?i..■^ - ■ -^ •• •f»t I t■iLl—iJI^ J.!LLX.J»1? 2 i1-,M.< \-.,rar•■ :ir - j j ■■BEBHBBBOanBBBCCSLi.EBnr.EBDCBCcEECCEnr:r[ £SiiSgiSE£iiiiiigE£^ 3 •->vl A . .1 » .r . . — ■ ►-• • • ^ , A*" ' - V• * * 1.^*- »im *sstd fwjitf^rBIC!!IM1 #•• ^ * ii* -* • r»'«. ->^ - ‘ • ' v ^ A. "»..’?•. ' • '•'' • • - • i - VH, Ant »lmUf*f i MAiAUtiitn* ; ^ i• * • ’ . ".1T* • li, i»ff •* .r ' AlttfAtlM U 3-7S* lAkstMA foMf ‘H.l <f^ia rnttiniAim- 9tm^ v*«f »•• tJ# r^9 n sisi Fn ttmt n<l •tt»n*#4 ^•Aiim occnlsf I® tlw ^ATT,*K;r.s r.j25jr.‘s:'rizJ’iiK.‘«’s .innrt M fr®«* •IfAtftentljr 1« t^% M._______uw m •Mrstsr A»i ^ ••••• a®4 ®« lMli«v«4 tA®t «f. ri®A«r •*< «r. ®rU« in* fn«rAl entrntn t.t %hm !**!?? MTA^TTit® »fi«f t® ti« •■< *w ••• i«** vUVaSTa^aMUlT■»•• »»•»•» •tiLrii** Vr*tM*MM m5! I ^SJSU^f e»li »l.»*r'i •»»‘fV*'JIV S* tk.VaSiSttA«m®rv that li® ••• ®«t ®f t®*® «®til Tfc«r®4®y. I th®« ••*• e®®t®et ®ltfc ft®®®® ■f®e® ®l» •••®r®4 ®® tfc®t ®A«A nv ®®1®® ®!®®®<i *1®®® th® i®M®f®®t®» •lt®®®®lk ^ ■'f** * m c*ctal*I/«Ml*t la ta* tal tm>. ha «taa aat hart •* **'• J"? .tth nr. flaharhlrtaa • *»f;‘“2 *« SUf fiahaV JS^rriara'i:? aV r?.* Hi »" dVaea^aa’^Ut. raateratlM aa4 hretacttaa ot tha alta. * *tiiTa*iT*«» imriT^ Hi® t® r®lie® throofti wltJi ^hm iaiiWly tii®t ®® will fc® f®ttl»f r®l® %®«if6t «ecortlaf t® tm ®^i®a A® • f®Ut ®f t®f®r®Be®» X ®®t wit A **f*I.V.**lV rn^a®S*Nr^ ih Iflf ®»4 ®a 0®c®®A®r I. Ifit •4^****Ii«t af%re®®b®r fl®A®r d®c«a®®ti®f out ®lt® lBtp®ctio« ®^®®ob®^I •til# ®ad ®®rlfri®f «l®®rly ®h®t cet^to th® far •• fr®di®« ®®rfc ®® tfc® yr®y«rty. II* ••«•'• 1 •••licBBt*® ••r®®f®r Bad to ir«c® th® eootraetor. Oboloniy# thlB l®tt®t ^Ar^I^owd^lo tSmotopottT oomoto ®ad t»® ®«ili®r. I a®t®d fortho rocor® ta «n. l*t^r ®f D®e®®®®r Tta that thor® Iinia'?»* o? j«®Ufie«ti®R for th® City to ®ppr®v® ®«y mv So ohorolia®. It oppoara that ®A*^*Jl* till ar®a^ 7®Btor®i *•1, r*«a®aahl®^.r®c^Bdatl®^^^ AVAi*nSaS aa altar-roaaoaaoi® r®e®®®®noav&«n *#t®r-_Ji®t®ly aad City ®taff will rae®a»®ad danlal ahould aa ait®r th®*faet applintio® b® forthcoolnf a * «> 1 • »> , V*® u A-V‘ ■vV •; i>$- • • % ‘ V - .# T,*' ••: <>.• M • • t’V » t r 9> mr • » * V"'** ■ ■• k » • k . » r• m S . CITYoT OR0?rO f, IW /• 1. i.'r-.*M .»rj« TS* Mll«t»» *AVifJ,^!M!Ilt f»*» »”«• ***?*!t^«ArsilSuS S'.‘Jr..Ml* 5*“>' E'.'jss’.riMBr.. inKs».-. ,. ,M. mmm W”', ■;„? *i".S.;. •“;;;:-;..SS? iliS HS^£Si3S.i “^%ras.-'jsss.^TCas^a.-'s: s!SirilT£s a«v h“^ 2. Jmiowci mmxiaa «» f%vKiwfd» optl — *« •« ■>«•* •” •* ft) TMr it dso*. „ »*nr* aftd HIV* BOV«a■} C«ll th« •truetura •»«*. c) ittbdivid* •«» «*»*j 5*s«riVt ***®'{i*h^«••paratB p«re«l enough to “L'l/iViis Vi'“.«hVoS:;«i.’nc..»».p.cr«« :?JSLrtVSlil>t M n/c....rr). il!«ajWW6«<0»tP* ••^yjMc«aiiune*i « ra<M-*«xx * fgg|.<y^it .1 . • 4*^* ^ ^4 . i . . Am' -1 ** *■. •.* >•r .. * ♦ • t pt«jcwms*«^^ l\-^ s mm f • • • » • nr*. Ott *KM. >»• ra If'- — • JLiJri^ a *r ) 2sr 1 It).•% • rnmm fclk«* €«wtrKti«ii «n iMi *•* >•••• JSS&viiKriS • «iMiti«MX «M p~*lt -wit SSuMtiMM IwTtUflr •• ^ ItPti** Witfc^ihTii?iu»r~«iSi^ «• •*.»*• tii» yw <rtrt %• ' < " H*' *• I * :V- tr . ■ ^ t) ^' .‘vvssuj rHi-iKJ'Sr f ;ir4“* «i«?^.i». 4rsiafi*lt*» tfc« •4f«t of tfco tlXo *00% SMt tfco ootM* • trm piofofty liaM.U « % 4. » (it. ia.p*etlea i.ai*.t*i'T»;» »»«F?^.5**‘R?22*k* Awmrmmm lokofhoro ootboclt roptil**®P8to» wBACn itajiBiw MMO tbot oil Bo*^ ftrocttiroB fj>^lo» t«wli ot^ ooBt bo locBtot no elofor to tbo Into thoo o i?M ooflid K tho lokBfroot oollo of nolfhborinf otjoeontij«j; .^uvuriout oil corrootly prop^ wootro^lo^P^oro R7*RaiRlTV%7ri i6«?ao«^ „,**.!,.*y*4 ^^^ieioSJS^pSi SSl ••“ MtMck 11a*. f » o • • • • «• Six? *VtV.uriMMR?Vf7b\\mR"p*r5lt ». laap *• •»! eitv roqoiMOoato oro not. ■-.a » r 5. Tbo propooot boildinf P^*I* “*1* *iVroo2 roUirsirtiioT. fOOOt ooortoont olthin tlio JiTcoodinoDol ooo porolt if thot typo or »o« coaoidorod. # ♦ ♦ r ■ /■ ' ' . *•. • - • * * . * • 1 -a - «l_4 ^ -.../'.A •*. • '• ..*•• .* *»»**-'*.*^ *• t «u<* - »■• »***’*T~^ .-'^___Af »iM •ffiMrr ••■ ** ^: - •. SftSSS? «****jrjL**iuu Tr ■•»“» •*•,'? #iJ2•icaTatm •* •'•fif’JiSlaaaJ aaa fao^t a»afa»ala JiJ»S*/5f»*iISItlaaai *a iwa.xriafcar* l»,i; ;• ./,- ! 'fatiiictiti* I •?. •aU >****“^ *f!2iit.Ti Uia toi^iaH • ^ IwK’aTSa'aSSa? *•*»•“ ^SJJaia'tV”*^*** ia4*ata»aU aaataata a^ ‘la^alia* ssriT't.*^ W-S *' ‘“‘ in 1 ' • <• I «• • ‘•.X~-«a J •\« % I ’*•' « • ..It , f .‘t' - S* 1* •'0^ *♦- r ta • •a "»o# •• JF®*****?’^ C» .AviAA »our araolBf p*»» ”•jri%v‘^’K.'S';..v..'."~..’ --’>•’ •• '•• »s.., j ^aaaioA®* y . ' ' 5 ^ • M % V’I .# » . - • I Malaiatiatar • « .: nt * ^ ♦ # • ♦ /., '. NfC/tla ' “• mc.^!m.., SJf lak. »t, v.y..t. SJJ*l If.- :«.• # ^ 4 *\ * a •«# •« 4 ; ;a*aL ■• a ' a * % a V# i . * ; 4 a a a • # • *1^ .• • *» S - •"^ - t a .V r4* , .V - I ' *; >* v UV - -j -• <r* • ^ * • .- • *.. f—f af ^ • 4 '■' fi*’ ■ *•« . . * • ^ ia- •- % a » r I tv*'. :• *V4‘* ‘ • ' v- a I a • a • a , ' * i 1* • • ♦ '** rTO/'V •/ ■ a a _ » '.• TO Mcatfn. Rpa Mnorte. Cuy nwni Michici P GftIfInM. Asst PUmaf & Zoom mcr lum-OctofeCT :5. 19^3 SLTUECT: #1177 Taiskai Pw?|)«mf»rPHtf Am^ Ccmfusjf 3023 Vixtcnm Road and ^645 Wiicrto«ti Head • 5koch Plan Review for Prcfsos^ SoKtms] rr # 1.» Liil6rE:il A • Afifij D • Loatiofi Maft C • Pbt Nfap F.. ir%l7* SkctcH» F • PRO Cadr Sretioa for Dta ngtioa G • Orono Wetlands Maf siili 4^ fimtz fliH 130 arfr prvfisiaanr ^krtcfi pbn ^optsal is perhaps ti» tarfrd (irrflopaKni prapMai la tJra» la niaiiy years, staff determiiied that the Parfc CMBninfoa aad f 'niinfR tiKfffId IKvefaic skffrfa ptan tAaff input. TiMTfore, fhK tieni is abo pbuHwd to be whetlffM cm the Ctmncirf October 25ih ag enda for rrtirw, and was rcflewcd by Park Commission on October 4lh, Tandem Properties and Peter Andrea Con^wny, repmeiued by DkA PUQiiffi. request PUimmg Coimmssioo s preliminary fhoufhts tm developiM of the Gordon Coffin property (scsitho^ quadrant of Watertown Road and Okl Crystal Bay Road) and the Dk;key property (south of Watertown Road between W'lUow and OW Cry«al Bay Ri»d) The lou) area of these two propcriies is i^^jroaanatcly 130 acres The preliminary sketch plan shows twenty-five lots on the 62 acre Coffin property and twenty-sis hxs on the 6S acre Ditkcy property. Both properties abut <3W Crystal Bay Road The Dickey property abuts the DNR woods adjacent to die Luce Line. The Coltin property abuts the Luce Line for a distance of appcoxinulcly 1,500’. The Dickey property additionally b unique in that it contains an area of great religious and cultural significance to the Native American population, a bunal site of the "Ancient Ones" whkh b used ceremonially and for various ntes. The subdividcr had suggested that the old bam on the historic site be renovated into an interpretive center however Park Commission felt that die bam may be loo far gone but the older house to the immediate west might be suitable. IL^ 7jmm File §\m Oouiicf 15. 1993 IPafc 2 In adiStioa k» iIk teiemi sir n te fear a lobedrrcfaprd ^i; CamniHiiS iitinof (sfi fen. fes 4id m ammm ir mj t^dk id fidURi <« Nlisi KMot |srfe yntls Cmi^ ds line kf«r (si! lul f) mxk c«sms»M » ds f*.i ^ «ctko2s Jn^tnated ■MhiMi* orw Satr WeilaisJ CofamaMMi ^ fwArlisri grcaih ifee wcilaad utai ifeiwn c» OroiD't 1975 maps S^mflcaM arm n4 Tyf€ I aaJ 2 wmUxsi m» ihtsmn <m Cfewm map* has heca idcflUfjed on Kuh proprrtss. aadi poiics (pmtwa cm^ be de^ sidi a» •« afwihci thc» am «in be OMMlmd hv the C«^ as <lr> NwktaMe if tfemin »idi juftelictiiMi allow diew nc s afl S»M fim staff, ds desetoper. mi reptncmivn fm ds vanous ag cBcies lowjived are ncctHif oc Monday. Ocicbcf l^ihi h» re^ww the issun StidTE *■.1- .tlLijJ^ais As a idicich ^bui fniew. cha b Hai caffy apM eo varkwa i&^ies. CoaunmiQn*i <opp«t&^'» give dir developer Stall rc OR the follo«ti« W.luSfMi:^l is dm PlMSii^ C'oadhisik« miew with the develoftr your (hnugfus 1. CoB^spl of IB iiaerjwtthe ceosn^pait m AiKical Biaial Site Coaetpt ri 'raib emderinf through the sto 3. Loi^ .ul-de iiacs versus ’ihTJugh’ roatb - provtskMB for htturo aimi»ia!eclk>fB PuMiC roads versus private roads. Access to cxistLrg mads 6. 7. Li>t width variaricn tor culde vac kxs and kHs oa sharp curves Standard plat with trail/parkyprivaic road ^Hitk)ts and fully conforming lot sizes versus PRD ciwiccj^ with tluvtering. If the delineated Type 1 and 2 wetlands ultimately esn't be credited as dry buildablc, appikant may wish to consider i PRD with some clusienng. and tnc question is raised as to whether ^ City would accept a planned <kvck>pnicm with ssmic substandard sized lots. Staff can discuss this further at the meeting. (Drainficld site preservation is staffs main concern). Please review the standards of Section 10.32 (Exhibit F) which you will see gives developers significant layout flexibility but virtually no flexibility for overall density increases. F*tfliT7 Oaefes 19. \m 9 That m m ftm urn mi ikarid it tb j CITT m - sowTvxnoa afvugatxob m awF tL.«k>»»an M wm/nm unn Bltm Address troruty Ideeilficstioo thmbmg Cf.l.O.I 91mm e»» - freyerty ___ sbstrsdt or •• f . ‘ V^ <;• ' f i l ? torf«fif7 * •* A Attach IsiTAi dsicriptloo to *99_________— * ** Pfeeiio it>«ito> i*' flf difloront appltMBt) Mas* I rPHioi F Thoco () AJdross^g#iyg h list 1£ fhooo fMarS ) Cltyi ______Ilpi.E34i (attach list it aoro thsfl ©«« BU9TXB6 LA8D OSl Kushar of Tax Parcels DairalopMoiit 81 s«Acros Dry land Acros ^t Xiafid ■wJi Prasert t7sa (ciia clil Aaaldontialt ao. of units Othor la^eify) Present Seeing Pistrict P80P08A1 Division for Ta* Purpossa Lot Line Pesrrsngeaant Cnly (bo row buildinf sites! Subdivision *or Hew iullding Sites • s m, ^Husiber of luilding Sltesi /* 1. l*2r Existing ^its ^ ________Nev Cnits J -Total Units? • • « s • Propo.^ Crc...D;n.^r^ Kiniousa Lot Sizes Feet l^ry Acres Buildsble Land Proposed Uses (checS)Residential Other (specify) IL.MBoasiaBAi ■xaum mhrwmiML ft* cowrtira AmJCMt' • 2i_____^ M_______»________ — 1. 2. 2. fl^JiJl'cation fofw ^r«liJiilMiry r 9*t-)a7ii. -■ - M ;;".^'.»i.. .c thi. pi..« “•* •* 1*7 oth«r y«« wl«is ®otlfl#4 of tM» •Pf*» CMlfle^tloo by tcstbf that rr^Ualnary H«t ApbllMtlM It tOBiii^ _____________________________:TT« 2. fl^pttod Cortiflcoto of funrof «ylor •e^loo-^ ,f<iT»«i f* J, Titlo 4»plnloci. ...... «• 9. Cwoo«i€«b oter - ^L,/, k^twmmAt mad tottof of Crodlt. « Cortlficitioo by loclit^ Oof^r Scalar Official'* tlonatoro__ t ihot riwil fl*t coaflot# ____________________________________________-■« ------------------------------------ - fliotch flaa Wmrisrs (Clan 1» 21 « 2X1 ^9200.00 fabdlvlaicari of • lio* tlao f#arran<|«»oiit; frollBibary Iloylaw (Claaa X • IX lubdlylalwil JOO.OO 300.00 5 r>.9lBl».rT (Cl.». m filial flat *#yl«i< (Claaa III I •(Plus any loo*! ao9l*^**tloo cfia^^ini 179.00 Panoaal ot fr*ll»ln/»r/ Sobdlylalon ippUcatioo faneval of final iubdlylalon Application 190.00 100.00 Tha applicant horoby city Englnoor^^^lty*^ttorn*y» r^aaatad ^ tho Ion nf ^ lnla^^^^^^9 procoaa thlt application and Vo W .11 .a<U^i««W«. ..tBbll.h.- by o.din..,c //V'^ Applicant** Signaturo Data Mn.r'a Slgn.tur. *«AV A.VinvVcoroV;^' .«••viaw «»**ting* 5>f have an i«/ B — !nxiiiin!ni!inniZi!n!'in:2iri”i!ninznii!!Ziii!'•••••• i:!nni'!iii!!ii"2!22nt2!!!!n!iinin! “ *J*o*S^ iy-r “ SiSSSCStS.*. m tISSS •.mZ “ “ “ * S - m u » mmw !!!!!!!?!I?|i!!!!i?2?!?*?!! ??!?x*?!!!i! !??!?! I????? ?!||ll?! SSSSS ZZZ S3SV5t SSiS - -y-wy- -mm O O O m ^ 0«#0 QOO»«««4 0««0Mi #«wit*w» U ^ I S8S2S^SS33 SSSS M ^ ^ SS--SjsXs 3S“ :sss5t sHsj SsssssillxllisiliiSsI s|||s|S| 5 •••••nZ2!2!:n22!lI22|2*!22:i22Z222222SniZ222I2VTrilTzri222rriiiI2IZiI2!2I!2:-: »• •« «# ^ M w A 2 M W •* A W W W «« M O * M W w ^ C9 uo»«u«^ooa»o««^ %• ? ??T W •• M ^ ^ O sac. id.32. no iiSlSSOf^XAL OKVBiflKQDnP i • ♦ 1 i t4 ti>i •jy i to tank's, tlx..*?***”*” .?Ma c<»««ttton «d*«oioioor.^^»^‘^ eofc*ti««tToflTr W«r«tt4e« oppoft«alU«t eiot* »• l»p€0«i»9 tb« ••lfar« in t«5«r«I of City ronldo^'tf. isnd «u>dl**I*to®* pUno^VoV *4*^ViVtrlc^*^U^V odliiroi^ to th. tet.l «u.b.» ol DaUdiM »«l*. •* ,V/‘JL‘,Vi?r'hU iiiot tJi• acood tho 00060C of ioch lot* or «olt» poroliOoblo o^or «no ■ iolooo lot 01*0 ro^lf***at* of t^ toiilof district or 4l*t in vfiico *octi land I* »ltasted. 1 Coancll OUcrstlon. Tb# dvollinf unit* *b« *‘*t tbo dUcrttlon of tbo Cooaell sad subject to *?;, Vorth 4 tR* cwowii. i« 4.t»eb.0. .tt.cR.0 oe proaldod for In ooeb toalod district. j2jjrss.Ksn;'!:; auirr-s:!; qy^n epecos for tholr Intsndod porposss. atth.1 a D^dicstlm of Opon Spscs. Tbs dsdlcitlon sad otfrorsblp of ‘sueb open spscss ssy ***^^'®“??* Su^^^lcti (4* Munlclpsl O^norshlpi ff «"y iuIT^i^roprlst# by ta* Council to sccoopUsh th* purposes of this plsn. Stiii^ s lit* Plsn. The proposed sit* plsn. Including .iti4 ‘ «1 M.le i..un of nepotod bolWin.., »tr..tis 11 ” in,’^."T ^t.r is. ..4t (r.b\irvr olsns Of wn space aasllsbla for part or recreational shall be suboltted for approval by th* Planning Cooslaalon and CounciI. Subd. 7. iesrln^a. The Council osy direct that a public hearing be held to raviev auch plan#. Subd. I. final Approv*.. final approval aranted until all conditlona act by tho Council ■•tV,-. lirther th* Council ahall not approvt any auch Plannad J Dovelopsent prior to the le^sUy binding space dedication, ownership and aalntenanca y provisions to be guaranteed by bonding or other seans aatlifact y to th# Councile Subd. f. Subdivision Pequlresents. All ff ■ubdivislon proetdurs established by the City 5°*^* Bodified herein above, shall govern application* under thia Source I Municipal Coda Effactlvs Date: 9-14-67 (Sections 10.33 through 10.39, Inclusive, reserved for future [ } / ' L'W^K- • ', '■ • “''vW • '-J^K'- '3- "' ’ I / x '^ • •••/ "I t• • •• •• ^ )V * * ^ ^*'‘lv ‘ V^A • AM —• (*i>//^“H U«y&. U0t. ^tp &A.Y* laAp ^ ^MAnwB-•r^^c^^ »a^t=^ f^TJ^m' 7>S)' 'A^A|tjp,T23t»V^ 4Cc»^t^ {oji^h^ 7i on / 7' fx ^ J \ \ ------- .J5 • •V ' ^ G 1 - v\ T 'i- & 1 ^ 1 X '1 J V i IV- 1 rv V X Jf f. j Ji / A/ 1 \ \ *'1 2:5JC^Craa^ -J^ ’C • » T>* ^'' \ ' ^ <t ^\l j4l )'.\ \* / 1 (1. Jlcr" f I a o 4r:-' s>utp ^tz'r^^ &^r vsa^ ^ «c>^i=^ /0//9J99' ^1 '"Tmiil V PHi — 1 ^voat ~>wa ctt:? <s»6-c> <i:.tz't%^>^^ feA.Y' ia:>«4> ^ '^A^rae-‘r^5tA^ i //. Tf>. Mm Moam. Cl moiis McfcMl f Gafftm Am Ik aiTEj Scrawrtq $l”|JrCT: Ftig • IM R( Lkt «f Elidbiis A &<ici B'Stifl At )>tMf «orl ■cMiOA iStt S*f<mhn r I4ihk ciiaddai «f firv *flag km* m diK c tikmiHit a&A iMl 'trooL'^/Bk'mi ai m accmi Fufikcf* Plimmp C fQhdhrimi. m well'm tat km acMcd bj §uA Ptacmc^ rII—illIImi ilid ODI <ixsac3 wfictker or ko« dvw dimeaMuml arntMOi ml gmml rt^|^i^rm^llm ilnUd bt k> €%mm§ ikvctefca or oale^elopcd km of reconi. F 150% of the irnml «cfl«ciis fiir ^klmom to eftnfj hofitm on t»ck km or Oag km (of vikk^noarr^prot—ith l^OatkeCa^iatiy resuk maikiitioiai vinancv an>(iciira In crnciQi cam. il cmi bo arjucil disi i tnnl<lup vdiM tsc for tko proporty o^ncf by t—ftaalvm dun air rrquirrd tito nciglibcn who> titiety pufchiiOil tbetr propoftia in full kaovledfr of iiit» ocigbbQcbcml bytoiM For file abt^vr i—om, m> rccoo—thiatwa «ko«ilil be that the dmensiocMl tunJanfa for lot arc*, ko width, and not arolv id cxi^tiae km HowTvrf. 0 may he pmdrnl for Ptemiiy Coa—sMOO lo ftmher comider vtirtber tome of (hr access, tcirenifif. ani nxcaory mvctur oaadards mighi be appropnatety applied to ciistkig kxs Draft RetramiKitdatkH] to Coondl Baaed on the Seplefidser 8ih memo and our dixussions of Septemher 14th, Ftannini Coenmisaion is asked to confinn the followup draft recoaHDendatkin to Counul regarding the nag loi issue. I. Basic rccommendaikHi The classic "Bag lot" should not be created henccft>rth. on lakedtore or non- lakcsltorc, and to do to shttuld require a variance. Hif Li* Mcho im a ■Imeik M Sn m mAat l« ociied tar D n* jcppgt «*k* a* A Wfli fisA tImMciB am ■ craaei a piMtti cnrilkt mi IM faa4i aNMUof rear yM. M i* rtsite*f iBaaM<Mr fy^al olHKi Tlfiik Dfiiwgway e ■ iarfali%« iMcfe M paMkaually «nl tfele jis) ivar yM I m fl«e sliami propcrtaca CfoiaaiMl aaiMsaal lirncauy cob vtdMi a gm* kivaiof rni#**} M ni iriMlty icrrc |irviMa*i to Di Tlw gpmmHMi nt MM or or ^ Ik VC MifMCis of NCMH A aisli B alsow can I* iMfler attmtanb lor tsiltcfTiif. tHhcr by o<rt. Rocoauneiakil Krandardt lor firoobliKL k* wKSivnuoa FrofS/bcck; k* diviMow MHy be oaed wbrnnitfiai kM dunemioiii art narTo** and dcc|>< Ml dtai k* «Hidi do» oca alkrw for a aak-by-tidc k* aptil. Ni acreage b 10 provkk a “froai k*‘ and a 'hack kM* wiihnM requiring an ttta vamnet *ticn the area of ihe outlol acoeaa conidor h ctekideU a Froni/back k* di^nwaa nay be uaed for inJivkluai 'Id splits*, but may nut be itacd «ben •ub'livtdiflg a taffc parcel mao numerous lots if cmtiofi of a 'back* lot tt nertiy a comtnience lo the developer rather than iuppt»ned by iinkpie sue factors. A (root/bocl k* division itull not be allowed when any existing reskkoce on a lietgMwnng property abutting the access outlet is kxated nearer the affeefed side lot line dun a distance e^piivalent to the zoning district required front yard depth. Dimensional aandards for back lots ihal) be as fv>IK)Wi: 1.Ia* ifea shall be 150% of the roning district requirement FUf tH hStmo K im 3 f. m iM rav al •• ymi* kmii kC • Am lot mW fe« s nt amtt pMj k» «lMr At fcxcM asdot CMTiiaf qiAiiiJ At ioiMOfetfi LtfenAorc baci Ion AiBI aea At IM ym4 fmi m Am )>m4 At! bt l)OA 4t Afirl AM Mif Tbi r»< Hot AM IM I.A frM loiciMed at foil ol a fruM/bicii kx tinnuoa iliaU am tU iraMif ;k «an>larA. t%sxpi A« At saA fud oC At jrani twiwr.nTrai lor Am nmf AiAict. AfiMl «AAtbeJO*v«IA. onJ A^ bt vide cnouiJl tD f rciaDvai and KiccMg iriAoM mciQKhiiA <m oeifiAorMf pwycf 2.la AM/badk lot liivwooi. At City miy netfiba An Axti flroai Ini aad back lot Aaft a tinvtvay acctti vidua the access otokx if CoiBKil (ksenmnrs dot creanaf m additional access lo Ac ciistinf street vnil be a fioccntal safety bazard Drivewayi and |iMlLnt tetm viAin a back kii rbali be located at lea^ 10' rrom At Mdt or reir kM linti of adjacent Iocs No more than nro roidcnces may be «rved by a Aiveway located v iihin an access osakt No accca outlol may be ptaOed abumng an adjacent access cutlot cscepC vhen the intent is to ccxnbine the two access outlets for creation of a public or private road meetup City standanls. HigLal 29.1W I <1 4k Ifeacafc* «f*i iia nrfiiM of Cii>. «til pmm » te r frafli Ipi . » «10 Of mm or ,f 4 >Of dto C«yi» «i 10 R27 coir AcoBisiy MiKtiff tfeoB H iAilniWiI AeamoFf iuikmii 10' »p»r jrani te»«T ■»»3a» ilirt m »» *«4 »ai« of i tel !■ aa te m.iw< M*f y*"l *41 lto« ha ahich itatfl Ar iseci jrifd cf a bicii lot- No K«ory mmmm iteB be Hkmed witei m asm eytV'i .*LI1 111. RimM Cooatttttioa It reiwe^tcd to cooflni ttal o**®® ctwrtctly gutltnci 3ik®*t€i»cliiiaD«fvfaii^fi^ liMimf If», i wiU be pcsc«c4 » Cuysetl « yaw