Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-15-1993 Planning PacketC
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15, 1993 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on November 15, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Charles Nolan Jr., Stephen Peterson, and Dale Lindquist. The following represented the City staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Barbara Anderson. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Schroeder announced that Agenda Item #3, #1876 for James W. Ogland/Donald J. Stoyke had been withdrawn per the applicants request and Item #11, #1893 for Christine Freeman had been rescheduled until the January Planning Commission meeting. 1.$1850 James Spinner 940 North Arm Drive - Variances • Revised Plan - Refarral from Council Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report and reviewed the amended proposal with the Planning Com. lission. Mr. Herstein, the applicant's consultant, was present and stated that his client has agreed to offer the removal of paved area between the lakeside and the proposed garage addition Chairman Schroeder inquired if the hili would have to be cut into and Mr. Herstein responded affirmatively and stated that there was a steep slope in this area. Commissioner Nolan inquired if the applicant had considered regrading the area and Mr. Herstein responded he had not. Schroeder asked if the concrete area on the north side of the house could be removed. Discussion ensued regarding the concrete pad on the north side of the residence and whether the petitioner would be willing to remove it. Commissioner Nolan moved. Schroeder seconded, to deny #1850 variance for James Spinner at 940 North Arm Drive based on the following findings : 1.The petitioner was requesting a variance for new structural hardcover within the 0-75' setback area and this is very difficult to approve. Commissioi'o ''. Schf oeder, Nolan, and Peterson voted "aye ”. Commissioner Lindouist voted "no ”. Motion t amed . Commissioner Lindquist stated he voted no because he felt that the petitioner was reducing the amount of hardcover on the property and he supported the proposal. 1 t..-JJiiiL.. 1 2.The amount of the variance requested is excessive and approval was to be based on less than adequate concessions . 2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15. 1993 #1850 Gary DeSantis/Sai!ors World 1w55 Shoreline Drive - Variances - continuation of Public Hearing Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report. Gary DeSantis, the applicant, was present and explained the lack of storage space was a hardship and he requested the Planning Commission to approve his request. He stated the DNR was concerned about locating the proposed storage module as far away ''om the water as possible. He stated he was willing to provide landscaping and screening to buffer the module from the view from the roadway. He stated that Ceil Strauss of the DNR had said she would send a letter to the Planning Commission stating that the proposed location was acceptable. Mr. DeSantis discussed the exterior appearance of the building and explained why it was not feasible to make an addition onto the existing bui'ding because of the existing window and door placement. Commissioner Nolan inquired how much the setback variance would be if the module were placed as shown on the plans and Ms. Mabusth responded that it would require a 40’ setback variance. Mr. DeSantis stated that the position of the module shown on the plans was the position selected by the DNR. He noted that it could be moved if the Planning Commission preferred a different location. Chairman Schroeder stated he was sympathetic to the applicant's situation but was not supportive of the proposed location. Commissioner Peterson inquired what made the module movable, and Mr. DeSantis responded that it could be moved from one place to another if it were placed directly on the asphalt and not on a foundation. Ms. Mabusth commented that the structure was designed to blend in with the principal structure. Mr. DeSantis reviewed the proposed landscaping to screen the storage module. Commissioner Nolan inquired about the trash enclosure and whether the area of the site occupied by a walkway was necessary, and Mr. DeSantis responded affirmatively. Discussion ensued regarding the feasibility of constructing an addition onto the existing building. Mr. DeSantis explained why liiis was not practicable because of the placement of windows and doors in the principal structure. Commissioner Lindquist moved. Peterson seconded, to approve #1874 variance for a 30’ setback to allow a storage module to be placed on Space #34 without a foundation, directly on the asphalt, subject to the followino stipulations: 1.The applicant provide a landscape plan for staff review and approval for screening of the proposed storage module. 2. The doors of the storage module face away from the street. Commissioners Schroeder, Nolan, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye". Motion carried. 3. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15. 1993 #1876 James W. Ogland/Oonald J. Stoyke 3345/3339 Crystal Bay Road - Vacation of road - Continuation of Public Hearing This item was withdrawn oy the applicants in a letter which was entered into the record #1886 Robert L. Melamed 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South - Conditional Use Permit - Land Alteration - Public Hearing Building i-nd Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report. The Public Hearing was opened. Duke Haas, 820 Old Crystal Bay Road, asked if the proposal would include removal of the old gravel road. Ms. Mabusth responded affirmatively, and stated that the City would require that the entire area be restored to natural ground cover, as it was before the road was there. The Public Hearing was closed. Robert Melamed, the applicant, stated that it was required by the City Engineer that they provide an updated grading plan, and they are in agreement with that condition. Commissioner Lindquist moved. Schroeder seconded, for approval of $1886 Conditional Use Permit for Robert L. Melamed at 1000 Old Crystal Bav Road South to permit filling of approximately 1.800 cubic yards of fill, subject to submission of revised grading plans for staff review and approval. Commissioners Schroeder, Nolan, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye". Motion carried. #1887 Robert L. Melamed 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South • Conditional Use Permit • Public Hearing Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the request to allow construction of a guest house on the property located at 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South, based on the understanding that a subdivision of the property will soon be forthcoming. Robert Melamed, the applicant, stated he was proposing to construct the guest house as a residence for his mother. He stated that they plan on submitting a request for a subdivision in January, and he did not anticipate any variances to be associated with that petition. The Pub lic Hearing was opened. No one present wished to speak. The Public Hearing was closed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15, 1993 Commissioner Peterson moved. Nolan seconded, for approval of #1887 Condition al Use Permit for Robert L. Melamed at 1000 Old Crystal Bav Road South to permit construction of a quest house on the property, subject to the following stipulation : 1. In the event that the forthcoming subdivision is not finalized, the second residential unit must not be used for rental purposes, but must remain for the exclusive use of the applicant, his fam*ly members, guests, or hired help. Commissioners Schroeder, Nolan, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye". Motion carried. #1888 Paul and VeNita Schnebele 835 Forest Arms Lane - Variance - Public Hearing Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report The Public Hearing was opened. No one present wished to speak. The Public Hearing was closed. Paul Schnebele, the applicant, stated they propose to install new landscaping and remove the remaining rock and plastic. He showed the areas that were already completed and those that will be done next spring. Chairman Schroeder inquired if there had been any comments from any of the neighbors. Mr. Schnebele stated tnat one neighbor had his garage next to the property line and the other neighbor would have a clear view of the channel. Commissioner Peterson inquired if there had been any water problems in the neighbor to the east's back yard, and Mr, Schnebele responded that he was unaware of any. Commissioner Lindquist moved, Nolan seconded, for approval of #1888 Variance for lakeshore setback variance for lakeside addition to existing residence for Paul and VeNita Schnebele at 835 Forest Arms Lane subject to the following stipulation ' 1.Applicant remove the additional rock and plastic hardsurface cover as recommended by staff. Chairman Schroeder directed staff to determine the percent of rock and plastic that will need to be removed prior to review by the City Council. Commissioners Nolan, Schroeder, Peterson, and Lindquist voted ”aye". Motion carried. i li L 7. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15. 1993 #1889 Rodney J. Batzlaff 1115 Brown Road South - Variance Renewal - Public Hearing Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff »^eport. Rodney Batzlaff, the applicant, oave a brief history of the site and the lot division Commissioner Nolan stated he was concerned about the screening from adjacent properties. The Public Hearing was opene d. No one present wished to speak. The Public Hearing was closed . Commissioner Nolin moved, Lindquist seconded, for approval of #1889 Variance Renewal for Rodney J. Batzlaff at 1115 Brown Road South, subject to the following stipulations : 1. The principal structure shall be moved 2' to the north to eliminate the side yard setback variance. 2. Screening shall be placed between the subject property and the parcel to the south. 3.The shed located in the rear yard shall be moved to conform to the side yard setback requirement. Commissioners Nolan, Schroeder, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye". Motion carried . #1890 Craig Hertzenberg 115 Smith Avenue - Variance - Pubiic Hearing Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report and stated that the applicant Is proposing to retain a new portion of the detached structure consisting of a single stall garage. The well is located in a landscaped area and there will be adequate clearance, so the well does not need to be relocated. The Public Hearing was opened . No one present wished to speak. The Public Hearing was closed . Commissioner Nolan inquired if the septic system was adequate and Ms. Mabusth responded ahirmatively, and noted there was not a problem with the amount of lot coverage. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15. 1993 Commissioner Nolan inquired how the applicant planned on doing the root, and Mr. Hertzenberg responded that it will be a new roof. Commissioner Nolan inquired if the applicant had considered excavating under the new addition to increase the amount o1 storage space available. Mr. Hertzenberg stated they had considered that, but the only area suitable for excavation was that located under the proposed family room, and there was no way to provide access to that area from the within the basement because it was separated by a crawl space. Chairman Schroeder moved. Peterson seconded, to approve #1890 Variance for Craig Hertzenberg at 11 5 Smith Avenue with the side yard setback as proposed . Commissioners Nolan, Schroeder, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye". Motion carried . 1891 Brian and Barbara Ehalt/Don and Glee James 140 Leaf Street - Variance - Public Hearing Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report, and stated that Mr, James has agreed to grant a 25' easement for future roadway expansion. She noted that a street setback and the hardcover excesses in the 75-250' setback area at approximately 6% are at issue. Commissioner Peterson inquired about the curb cut and whether it v.'ould be realigned fur^ther to the north. He also inquired about the hill and the applicant responded that he would go around it. Commissioner Lindquist asked if the applicant proposed to have a single garage door, and Mr. James responded affirmatively, and noted that it would be a 16 foot wide single door. Commissioner Nolan inquired about the concrete patio along the back portion of the house to the lakeside and whether the applicant proposed to remove it. Mr. James responded that it was an existing patio, and he proposed to retain it. Chairman Schroeder stated he was concerned about the increase in hardcover and he felt that at least a portion of the patio should be removed to lessen the amount of the hardcover variance. Commissioner Peterson commented that he saw the patio when he visited the site, although it was not indicated on the survey. Discussion ensued regarding the size of the patio and the amount of hardsurface coverage on the site. Ms. Mabusth noted that the surveyor had not indicated the patio on the plans, but it was approximately 6' x 15' in area. Staff felt that if 7.5 square feet were removed from the existing patio it would be sufficient to bring the hardcover area into compliance with ordinance requirements. Mr. James noted that closing was contingent upon approval of this variance request. Commissioner Peterson commented he did not have a problem with the applicant's proposal; however, he was concerned about the accuracy of the survey which had been submitted. Chairman Schroeder commented he did not support increasing the amount of hardsurface 10. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15, 1993 coverage on the site; Commissioner Nolan agreed, and stated he felt that steps should be taken to lessen the amount of hardsurface coverage. He supported staff's recommendation for removal of 7 square feet of patio. Commissioner Lindquist moved. Peterson seconded, for approval of #1891 Variance for Brian Ehalt/Don James at 140 Leaf Street with the understanding that there will be no increase in the 0-75* setback area of hardcover area and the aopilcant will submit a revised survey showing the hardcover within the 75-250' setback area at no more than 30%. Chairman Schroeder noted he was uncomfortable moving ahead without an accurate survev, and stated this was not something he liked to do. Commissioner Lindquist stated he felt the applicant should submit a revised survey prior to City Council review, which had the dimensions on it. Commissioners Noian, Schroeder, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye". Motion carried . #1892 Bruce Kehring 4415 Forest Lake Landing - Variance • Public Hearing Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report. She noted that Blake Bichanich, the architect for the applicant was also present. She stated that the sewer was 1 50' away and the applicant will be able to connect to it. The applicant will have to make a payment of a front footage charge as part of the sewer connection fee. Bruce Kehring, the applicant, explained that the roof of the house is proposed to be used as an exterior entertainment area to avoid the use of patios or decks. He stated the highest point of the house is 30'. Ms. Mabusth stated that a small portion of the house will be three-story and the ordinance allows for a 2.5 stories. The proposed house meets the 30' height requirement but will require a variance for three stories. The Public Hearing was opened . No one present wished to speak. The Public Hearing was closed . Ms. Mabusth explained staff's position regarding the average lakeshore setback and stated there is no problem because the lots are separated by a public roadway, and the property owner has no claim on the view. The current property owner, Roger Byboth, stated he had talked to the neighbors and they were glad to see the proposal. Ms. Mabusth discussed the hardcover variance and the hardship created by the shape of the parcel. Discussion ensued regarding the drainage on the property, and the drainage system for the house was explained. The water will drain down from the roof into four holding , i ■ ... L A..I 1 V-XJJif "i:#'.k. ^ k . i ’ - «k — tir U'Y". HiJ'i .------- .•> -.Ik- . 12. PLANNING CONIMISSION MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15, 1993 tanks, and then slowly perk into a drainfield area to the west ot the house. The shape of the lot was discussed in relation to hardship because there is adequate area, but the shape of the lot limits the area available for the building. Discussion ensued regarding the design of the house in relation to the shape of the lot and the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Peterson commented that this was a unique situation and he liked the control of the drainage from the house. Chairman Schroeder commented he felt the design was inconsistent with the neighborhood, and Mr. Kehring responded that it was dictated by the shape of the lot. Commissioner Peterson moved. Lindquist seconded, for approval of #1892 Variance for Bruce Kehring, 4415 Forest Lake Landing with the hardcover variance and a variance for a three-storv structure less than 30' in height based on the hardship of an unusual shaped lot with a 13.700 so. ft. buiidinq envelope . Commissioners Nolan, Schroeder, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye". Motion carried. #1893 Christine Freeman 2240 Shadywood Road * Variance • Public Hearing (Rescheduled to January, 1994) #1842 Tom Browne 760 Brown Road South • Variance - Request to modify approved Development Plan Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth gave the staff report. Tom Browne, the applicant, was present. Commissioner Lindquist inquired if staff had any problems with the changes, and Ms. Mabusth responded negatively. Mr. Browne noted that the changes came up after Council had approved the original plans. Commissioner Nolan moved. Peterson seconded, to approve the modifications to the approved Development Plans for Tom Browne at 760 Brown Road South as set forth in the staff report. Commissioners Nolan, Schroeder, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye". Motion carried. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 13. #1885 Lundgren Brothers Construction 2765 Sixth Avenue North • Sketch Plan Review for proposed subdivision Commissioner Peterson left the table for the following discussion. Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth stated that this was a sketch plan review and required no action by the Planning Commission. She stated that the zoning was the most important issue, and reviewed the staff report. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15, 1993 Chairman Schroeder inquired if the proposal had been reviewed before the Council, and Ms. Mabusth responded that the Council had informally considered whether the City would consider the rezoning. Mayor Ed Callahan stated that the Council was not in favor of the rezoning, and that was the extent of the discussion. Mr. Terry Forbord, Lundgren Brothers, stated they were cognizant of the ordinance in Orono and were aware of the issues. He stated they believe there are reasons why the rezoning nroposal should be considered and presented their development team to address those concerns. He introduced Mr. John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Brian Olson, Director of Land Development for Lundgren Brothe*’" Frank Svoboda, a Certified Wetland Biologist to discuss the wetland mitigation issues, l Cen Adolph, a Principal Engineer with Schoell and Madson in Minnetonka. Mr. Forboro stated that they have tried to provide distinctive features in their developments which set them apart from those of other developers in the metropolitan area. He noted that as the supply of available land diminishes, they have had to take on projects that were more difficult to develop. John Uban showed exhibits that were included in the packet and reviewed why they felt it was important to the City of Orono to have t^^'s type of development. He discussed the proposed zoning density and noted that while it is not what was envisioned in the City's Comprehensive Plan, there are reasons why it should be considered. Among these is the fact that the school is expanding and the church property has been sold and ballfields have been constructed on property adjacent to the proposed site. He stated they believe this project would balance the residential and commercial areas. He reviewed the PUD zoning designation and discussed the reasons why they believe that a municipal sewer system is needed for development of the property. He reviewed the cluster development idea and stated they believe it to be both necessary and feasible. He discussed the buffering for the project, and the ordinance criteria. He cited the busy roadways surrounding the site and the adjacent land use? as being compatible with the proposed zoning. Frank Svoboda discussed the wetland mitigation and enhancement involved with the project. He discussed the compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland losses and stated that they will create new wetlands at a ratio of 2 to 1, which would mean that two acres of wetland will be created for every one acre of wetland lost. He illustrated where the wetlands are located on the site and described the various types of trees and vegetation within those •wetland areas. He stated that most of the wetlands have been subject to agricultural tillage in the past, depending on the amount of rainfall, and are not considered to be "pristine" wetlands. He asked the Planning Commission to consider a variance to allow the wetlands to be modified. Ken Adolph, Schoell and Madson, discussed the high water table which precluded on-site septic systems. He stated that sanitary sewer wouM be extended into the area, and noted that It was reasonable to cluster the development into a pattern which could economically be served by extending utilities into the area. He discussed the storm water management PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15, 1993 plan and the site grading and drainage plans He showed graphics illustrating the wetland mitigation proposals. John Uban reviewed the zoning issues and the density they are proposing at one unit per acre. He discussed the site constraints and reviewed the design for the proposed development. He explained how the runoff can be consolidated and retained in one large wetland area by using the natural features of the site. He discussed tree preservation plans and the roadway plan. He stated they believe it is beneficial to put the open space around the perimeter o* the site and cluster the houses together on the interior portion of the site. He discussed the internal roadway systeni and their efforts to preserve the woods. He noted that the site consists of 58 6 acres, and the development occupies 38 acres, which comprises a density of ore unit per acre. In summary, he noted that the proposed development met the PUD ordinance criteria, and they would be creating a quality development. Chairman Schroeder discussed the one unit per acre density and the two acie lot minimum standard. He inquired if it would be possible for the developers to increase the lot size to meet the one unit per two acre density. Mr. Forbord stated that Lundgren Brothers had a specific type of customer in m.;i' * wi tju they designed this development, and projects were designed based on demographics and community profiles. Their customer profile Is significantly different than that of their competitors. He stated they had worked with City staff to design a project that would best suit their potential customers and in this case staff supported a PUD format for develcpment. He noted that the one unit per acre density exceeded the normal density throughout the metropolitan area. Chairman Schroeder commented that the City of Orono has 2-5 acre minimum lot sizes, which exceeds the standards of other communities in the metro area. Discussion ensued regarding the costs involved with extending municipal utilities to the property and the issue of how those costs would be passed on to the buyers of the lots within the proposed development. Commissioner Nolan inquired why septic systems would not be feasible on this site, and Ms. Mabusth responded that a study had been done in the early 1 970's for an earlier subdivision which indicated that no septic systems should be placed on this property. She noted she felt that PUD was the proper zoning designation for this property. The costs involved with extending City sewer to the property were discussed. The issue of the density was discussed, with the Commission concurring tliat the one unit per two acre density was preferable to the one unit per one acre density proposed by the applicant. Mr. Forbord stated that it was not feasible to proceed with the project if that was going to be the requirement of the City. He explained how their costs per lot are always higher than those of other developers. Commissioner Nolan commented he felt there were benefits to clustering the houses within the development, but he was concerned about the density and inquired if the density could be reduced and the project still be viable. Mr. Forbord responded that there was a diversity in what people wanted and he did not believe the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15. 1993 project would be viable it they were required to construct it with a one unit per two acre density. Chairman Schroeder stated he supported the one unit per two acre density and he would like to see the project developed with that density. Commissioner Lindquist stated he concurred with Chairman Schroeder and he would have difficulty supporting the project as proposed. Commissioner Nolan stated he thought the plan showed sensitivity to the area but the density issue was something he had to agree with his fellow commissioners on. The overall density of the project was discussed. Mr. Forbord commented that if the City was going to require a density of two acres per unit this property would not be developed by Lundgren Brothers and would probably not be developed at all given the expense of providing municipal utilities. He asked if the City was saying that they did not want this property to develop at all. Chairman Schroeder responded that they wanted to see the land developed with fewer lots, but it was not accurate to say that the City did not want the land to be developed at all. John Uban asked if the Planning Commission would support a plan with multiple access from County Road 6, and all the Commissioners responded negatively. Mr. Forbord stated that it was not the price of the land which made it so expensive to develop the project, but the costs involved with the grading costs, which were three times the usual given the poor soils and the high water table. He stated they believe the site is ideal for a PUD zoning designation. Chairman Schroeder seated that they would consider the plan with a reduced density. Commissioner Peterson returned to the table. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 14. Report by Planni.ig Commission Representative to Council Meeting of November 8, 1993. Chairman Schroeder reviewed the actions taken by the Council which included acceptance of the Planning Commission recommendation regarding flag lots and staff had been directed to draft an ordinance. He stated that the McKinney duplex was approved, although the City Attorney had informed them that they could not legally require owner occupancy. 15. Other issues for discussion. There were none. \ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15, 1993 ADDITIONAL ITEMS 16. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the October 18. 1993 meeting Commissioner Schroeder moved. Lindquist seconded, for approval of the October 18. 1993 Planning Commission minutes as submitted. Commissioners Noian, Schroeder, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye". Motion carried. 17. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the Octo!'sr 21, 1993 special meeting. Chairman Schroeder moved. Peterson seconded, for approval of the October 21, 1992 Planning Commission special meeting minutes as submitted. Commissioners Nolan, Schroeder, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye". Motion carried. 18. Planning Commission to select a representative tc attend the Decem.her 13, 1993 meeting of the Council. Chairman Schroeder volunteered to attend the December 13, 1993 City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Peterson moved. Lindouist seconded, to adfourn the Planning Commission meeting at 11:00 p.m. Commissioners Nolan, Schroeder, Peterson, and Lindquist voted "aye". Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. J/VOi. Charles Schroeder, Chair L_----------I muniiil 1 T'» MiMWn-j '<1 PIANMNG COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. NOVEMBER 15, 1993. 7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COLTSCIL CHAMBERS COl>XIL representative : - Gabriel Jabbour ATTENDANCE ACTION ITEMS 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Applicants presenting variance requests before the Commission are asked to move to the podium at the front of the Chambers when their application is announced by the Chairman. 1. *^1850 James Spinner. 940 North Arm Drive - variances - revi.sed plan - referral from Council. <?1874 Garv DeSantis/Sailors World. 1955 Shoreline Drive - variances - coniinuation of public hearing. #1876 James W. Ogland/Dom.ld T. Stoyke, 3345/3339 Cry stal Bay Road - vacation of road - continuation of public hearing. #1886 Robert L. Melamed. 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South - conditional use permit land alteraiion - public hearing. #1887 Robert L. Melamed, 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South - conditional use permit guest house • pablic hearing. #1888 Paul and VeNita Schnebele. 835 Forest Arms Lane - variance • public hearing. #1889 Ri>Jney J. Batzlaff, 1115 Brown Road South - variance renewal - public hearing #1890 Craie Hertzenberg. 115 Smith Avenue - variance - public hearing. #1891 Brian and Barbara Ehalt/Don and Glee James. 140 Leaf Street - variance - public hearing. #1892 Bruce Kehring, 4415 Forest Lake Landing - variance - public hearing. #1893 Cliristine Freeman, 2240 Shady wood Road - variance - public hearing - rescheduled to January, 1994. #1842 Tom Browne, 760 Brown Road South - variance - request to modify approved development plan. V PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MONDAY NOVEMBER 15, 1993, 7:00 P.M. Sketch Han Review 13. #1885 Lundgren Brothers Construction. 2675 Si.xth Avenue Norh - sketch plan review for propt'sed subdivisit>n. Planning Commission Comments 14. Report by Planning Commission Representative to Council Meeting of November 8, 1993. 15. Other issues for discussion Additional Items 16. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the October 18. 1993 meeting. 17. Planning Commission approval of niii;utes of the October 21. 1993 special meeting. 18. Planning Commission to select a representative to attend the December 13, 1993 meeting of the Council. ADJOURN ’MENT ■ r \ ... N r LANNING COMMISSIOH^COUNCIL MEETING DATE PUBLIC ATTENDANCE 11'■ !i > PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (£rom agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 15. 16. L )V?L H 1 'ilH \*iu ^n'<. a ... a 1 • \> r ■ . % \ 'A 1 p riy 1 \ 1 J i “1 5 ^« g y/ \¥—y nf V I ■© .H '•■’ si i \. l! 7 \ m ■'“■n 7 Q ./ - - ’■ P* •«» 4**« • / Y /?■ !*♦»• ■» / i^' fr ■ II ^ — * V I »«tHBm « ■■MV • w b >>VV l*^**T'^ My"x^ JCw • /H vX # 1k[>p 1 1 * 1 /hi- ./ ir^ ' kiSL. smaBM« y i/\ * / ri'r I— i 1%' ^mL! Jm$. *^5 dun i%i Ig^ 1^ VV 1 y i/ «2 2» g 3 0«8 >o. &x;;oa E r *xjrr «» o* «Q S' Q nO 3 3 a c; I ^ o o «» OO O a n 5*5 oo *1 ^ *8 rs.^ ^ - & ^ p s <3 W ,o ^ 1 g o 5 T3 W B 3 3 2 5 K OO oo9- S ip p s*:2i J3 to \o 3 ^ i OS 3. oo 8 OD (IQ OO 00 'O oooo 00 ■§ s S S3 T3 PIo i . c‘a 9Rn § r s § ■ s. a ® ^ ? I* •-1 C0 3s -S B n:o Ul ? iI I •< 1° I sr" n I ►4 t4 O 3 g = = >4 (41 tn *!Z• 00 i i s g H i: I > rt I I1 rI i B‘» *« I .; Ut t/> C' }<» = I I ■s^z v;K a. fT i.1-^ =«« p •— 3 OO & PO 5 o15 a r 3 IS *2 IS 5. S *». 7 ol S-o > " &1. 8 ^ u I ^1? & > «4» a i'S s § l§ o ■ga R ? i I ? j os n •3 g. s? O S n ?! I CO 8 I pt=io 3 ^ ago o s = 1 Hii il• e2 1^i ^” i oo § 1 3 52 a §: o .?& 3'" o ^s 5o C I >*< to B R-CA CA *< 2 ! v:o &•8 O •-A 8 1 K 1B I ! I Ul •tt S PI PI VO O to? 3 & > ? &8 a 3. q5 J r I o o 8 > h; oJ»t5 • O F 3 VJ f 2 3 1 I I R' *2cr «■ 8 B. C* 0 1 8ab:og. *< u13*oer. I 1.IS B O Is 3. I s '^3si"I I II 4 • r L-.*l ..r / TO:Planning Commission Members Ron Mo^rsc, Cit>- Administrator FROM: DATE: Jeanne A. Nfahusth, Building & Zoning Administrati November S. 1993 SL-BJECT: #1850 James Spinner. ■MO North Arm Drive - \ ariances - Referred Back to Planning Commission for Additional Review List of Exhibits A - Revised Site Plan B - Staff Memo C - Council Minutes 10/25/93 Brief Review of Amended Proposal At the October 25, 1993 meeting of the Council, applicant ’s representative, Mr. Herstein, presented an amended proposal that would reduce hardcover within the 0-75* setback zone with removal ot an additional 250 s f. of paved area. Hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback zone is reviewed as follows: 0-75 ’ setback area = 10.822 s.f. Existing hardcover = 2,697 s.f. or 24.92% Proposed hardcover (original application) = 1.931 s.f. or 17.8% (addition of 209 s.f. of new structural hardcover and removal of 766 s.f. of nonstructural hardcover) Proposed hardcover ^amended application) = 1,681 s.f. or 15.5% (addition of 209 s.f. of new strucniral hardcover placed over existing nonstructural hardcover ind removal of 1.016 s.f. of nonstructural hardcover) All variances noted in the staff memo of October 7ih remain the same. Issues for Consideration 1. Has the removal of 250 s.f. of nonstructural hardcover within the 0-75* area altered your original recommendation? 2. Applicant should be asked if additional removals can be made. . . maybe another attempt to see if addition could be relocated out of 0-75 ’ setback area. Options of Action Approval of an amended application; or Detiial of amended application as proposed. I liMlitt ^ vS> ^ V . o^ // TO:Mayor Callahan arsl Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorsc, Ciiv Adminisiraior FRO>I: DATE: Jeanne A. Mahusth, Building & Zoning Administrator October 7, 1993 SUBJECT: #1850 James Spinner, 940 North Arm Drive - V’ariances List of Exhibits A - Application A1 - Staff memos for August'Septemher Planning Commission Meeting B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map D - Hardcover Fact Sheets E - Original Survey F - Average Lakeshore Setback Line G - New Survxy H - Floor Plan I - Elevation The Planning Commission reviewed Mr. Spinner ’s variance application at both their August and September meetings. Applicant proposes a 12’x22 ’ garage stall addition to the existing attached garage located to the lakeside of the residence. At the August meeting, the application was tabled. Applicant was advised to obtain a new survey and hardcover inventory covering all current improvements on the property. Review Exhibit E, in the original survey, the houK was located completely out of tte 0-75’ setback area. The only variances sought were an average lakeshore setback arxl hardcover variances within the 75-250’ setback area. Review Exhibit G, the new survey shows that major portions of the existing improvements on the property arc located within the 0-75’ setback area. The proposed garage is now located almost completely within the 0-75’ setback. 'The applicant seeks the following vanances based on the amended survey/application: Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) A. Garage addition to be installed at the lakeside of the existing residence will be located in front of the average lakeshore setback line as the entire residence is located in front of the average lakeshore setback. Lakeshore setback variance Required = 75’ Existing = 57’ Proposed = 65’ Variance for new structure 10’ or 13.3% ....................................jm Zoning File #1850 October 7, 19<i3 Pace 2 Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - hardcover A. 0-75’ setback = 10.S22 s.f. E.xisting = 2,697 s.f. or 24.92% Proposed = 1,931 s.f. or 17.8% (addition of 209 s.f. of new structural hardcover arel removal of 766 s.f. of nonstructuraJ hardcover) B.75-250' setback area = 28.040 s.f. Existing = 12,089 s.f. or 43.1% Proposed = 9,122 s.f. or 32.5% (removal of 96 s.f. of concrete area/planter, 2,871 s.f. c^‘ plastic underliner) Section 10.03. Subdivision 14 (C) - lot coverage Total lot area = 42,432 s.f. Allowed = 6.364.8 s.f. or 15% Existing = 6,440 s.f. or 15.1%* Proposed = 6,704 s.f. or 15.7% Variance = 339.2 s.f. or .7% •Note that ordinance requires areas of pool basin and associated decks or patios in lot coverage consideration. Review of Planning Commission Comments (Please review Planning Commission minutes of September 20th meeting.) At the August meeting the applicant was asked to reduce hardcover as hardcover was excessive on the property. After reviewing the updated survey and the amended proposal, members felt the applicant had not tried his best to reduce hardcover. Review Exhibit E, outside of the plastic underliner beneath landscape areas, apphwant proposed the removal of some 96 s.f. of pavement and planter box. No other improvements were considered for removal. The major objection with the amended proposal was the tact that ilie entire new structural improvement was located within the 0-75’ setback area. Members asked if the garage stall addition could be installed to the west side of the garage. Applicant s contractor advised that this would have a major and negative impact on the entrance to the principal structure. Members questioned whether existing paving improvements could be removed at least to the north side of the residence. Applicant ’s contractor advised that the concrete paving along the north side of the residence was ne^ed to redirect drainage to drainage way between lot lines and also protect the foundation of house. LMi - » . i f . U. ■JLl Zoning File #1850 October 7, 1993 Page 3 Members were also j oncemed that structural hardcover was being placed closer to the lakcshore directing more and more drainage and debris direct to the lake. The Planning Commission could not approve the amended application as proposed. They made every attempt to obtain additional removals of hardcover but all attempts failed. They asked the applicant ’s representative if he wished the application to be tabled to allow applicant more time to consider additional removals but members were directed to act on the application as presented. The Planning Commission recommended unanimous denial of the application finding hardship representations unacceptable as they felt the applicant had not demonstrated good faith in his cornsideration of hardcover reduction. Options of Action To accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission andl to deny the application as proposed; or Table application asking applicant to reduce hardcover within the 0-75’ and 75-250’ setback area by removing existing improvements; or To approve application as proposed. Council Action To provide staff with conceptual direction so that an appropriate resolution can be drafted for Council ’s review and action at your October 25. 1993 meeting. _____'.iL^ibaAbiLLi: Si • * It was moved by Hurr to recommend approval of the resolution as written. No one seconded the motion. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS There was no one present from the Park Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS o (S 4 *^ ^ 4' Steve Peterson and Sandra Smith represented the Planning Commission. There was nothing to report. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#4) #1850 JAMES SPINNER. 940 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES Mr. Spinner’s contractor was present. GafTron reviewed the proposal stating that the applicant is proposed additional reduction in hardcover of 250 s.f.in the 0-75 ’ zone. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Kelley to recommend to Planning Commission to deny the application. Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mr. Spinner’s contractor reminded the Council that the applicants have agreed to remove some hardcover and stated that there is no other hardcover that could be removed. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Callahan, to reconsider that application and recommend that it be returned to the Planning Commission for review. Ayes 5, Nays 0. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten to refer the applicant back to the Planning Commission for review. Ayes 4, Nays 1. Hurr voted nay. (#5) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES/PETER ANDREA CO., 3025 WATERTOWN ROAD AND 2645 WATERTOWN ROAD - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION Mr. and Mrs. Dickey were pr^ent along with the developers, Dick Putnam and Jim Ostenson. Gaffron explained that the sketch plan review is before the Council because of the size of the properties involved. Mr. Putnam gave a brief description of the parcels and Mrs. Dickey talked about the historical si^uTicance of the site Kelley asked if the bam would come down and if not, is it structurally sound (#1) COUNTY ROAD 15 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (continued) Bob Sterna, 1930 Shoreline Drive, read a letter referencing Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8820 regarding natural preservation, slating that the area could" be considered K.>r Ve\*ww en the basis of natural preservation. ^ /■^ >>Barbara Halper, 1420 Shoreline Drive, stated that she felt Council should consider ^ // redirecting traffic onto Highway 12^394 just as it was done when the bridges were under repair. Jim Rivers stated that the County should have to operate by the same standards as the City of Orono regarding hardcover issues and adding acres of blacktop would be wrong. He commented that the real problem is not left turn lanes or shoulder, but rather the speed limit should be reduced. Se\'eral other residents commented on similar issues, saying that the proposed change would only encourage an increase in tralfic and speed, thereby making the road less safe. Other comments were that the City needs to look at other alternatives and also the long term picture of the freeway (394). Jabbour asked whether a lower speed could be posted. Polacek stated that the City would have petition the County to petition the state to do a speed study. The Commissioner of Transportation has authority for setting speed limits. He cautioned that a speed study might indicate that a higher spe^ could be set. Kelley agreed with the public and commented on the difficulty of crossing the road to use the lake and the hardcover issues, but stated that he’d like to see safety concerns reviewed Goetten commented that she agreed with Kelley and would like to see Country Road 15 remain a scenic parkway...not a scenic freeway. Hurr reminded everyone that the Resolution only asks the County to further study the situation, and that there is no commitment at this time to make the changes. Jabbour stated that he felt Hennepin County should be icld now whether to continue with more detailed plans and if the City has no intention of making the changes, the County should be informed before spending additional time on the project. Mayor Callahan stated that purpose of the Resolution would allow further study of the situation and that it would not be possible to know whether improvements should be made to County Road 15 until the studv is done. Pat Murphy stated that the proposed plan shows the minimum improvements that County would be wUling to build and that there would be nothing that the County could eliminate and still improve the safety of the road. Kelley asked what the maintenance plan would be if the Resolution is turned down. Murphy replied that the road and shoulders would be repaved and right turn lanes installed if needed. He asked that the City Council make its decision to proceed or not tonight. • ' .Jilii. r o?. TO:Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Ciiv Administrator FROM:Michael P. Galtron. /\sst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:November 9. 1993 SUBJECT: #1874 Gar>- DeSantis;Sailors World, 1955 Shoreline Drive - Variance Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits A - Applicant ’s Letter and Revised Prop osal 11/1.93 B - Applicant ’s Submittal Re: Parking at An Center C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 10/27;93 D - Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/93 E - Memo and Exhibits of 10/14/93 Planning Commission tabled this application at the October meeting, allowing applicant to return with a revi,sed proposal which might include a storage addition to the existing building rather than free standing modules. Applicant has submitted a revised proposal for a single storage unit located in the 75-250^ zone, indicating that the potential for addition to the existing building would yield only a 6’x6’ storage area (presumably this is due to existing door and window locations). Applicant has listed the items for which he requires storage area. Further, he has provided a letter of agreement with the Minnetonka Art Center, approximately 1/4 mile west of the marina. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission is requested to consider the applicant ’s revised proposal. If Planning Commission determines that a suitable hardship exists and the location of the single proposed module is appropriate, then any recommendation for approval might address screening, off site parking, and whether hardcover tradeoffs are needed ' ■ -■* •-*-■-* ■' SftlLORS UUORLD A/VAyVyVy^A. M ARINA & BOAT CLU B SttVOU^ ^otk f"^94Sf€X & S^ul NOVEME-CR 1.•^‘jL W 1 ATTEt'»TION CITt 'LAIIMING COMMI S','. I'JN ^ CONSISTANT UJIIH your REQUEST I HEREBY SUBMIT ADDITIONAL IfJFORMATION RELATED TO MY APPLISAflOM FOR A REMOVABLE storage facility on my PROPERTY. A HARDSHIP EXISTS DUE TO LACK CT EQUIPMETTT STORAGE FOR MARINA RELATED DUTIES TO EFFECTIVELY RUN OUR BUSINESS AND OUR inability to accomodate our CUSTOMERS DEMAND FOR FACILITIES TO STORE THEIR PERSONAL BOATING EQUIPMENT. SOME OF THE ITEMS WE WOULD BE STORING IN THIS FACILITY ARE AS follows: •» 0-10 DE ICING PUHfS UN f- *STEEL DOCK ADOPTERS ♦ UP TO 2 OR THREE SMALL OUTBOARD MOTORS FOR WORK BOAT L FOR CUTiTOMER USE ON RUBBER RAFTS ETC. * SPACE TO STORE MEDIUM SIZED CHAIN SAW FOR DOCK WORK CROSS BRACE TRIMMING ETC. % SPACE TO STORE 2' X 6“ X 6" WINTER STORAGE BLOCKING OVER 200 PIECES. k SPACE TO STORE LAWN MOWER, WEED WHIPS, RAKES, SHOVELS & MISC. GROUNDS KEEPING EQUIPMENT TO MAINTAIN LANSCAPED AND GREEN AREAS TO KEEP GROUNDS NEAT i PRESENTABLE TO COMMUNITY. 1£ SPACE TO STORE SMALL TABLE SAW, SKILL SAW, POWER DRILLS, HAND SAWS, SLEDGE HAMMERS ETC. FOR DOCK DECKING WORK AND REPAIRS ON ON-GOING BASIS. n GAS CAN STORAGE FOR CHAIN SAW AND OUTBOARD WORK ’OTORS. » STAND UP TOOL BOX STORAGE FOR LIGHT DUTY SERVICE OF BOATS IN MARINA INCLUDING ELECTRICAL, NUTS & BOLTS, VARIOUS MISC. HARDWARE ITEMS, LOWER UNIT LUBE. OIL, PROP REPLACEMENT PROPS, SAILBOAT BOOM OR MAST REPAIR PARTS. (INVISIUN YOUR OWN LITTLE REPAIR SHOP IN YOUR GARAGE OR WORK ROOM AT HOME AND EXPAND IT TO TAKE CARE OF LIGHT DUTY REPAIRS TO 75 - 80 BOATS, DOCK SLIPS & MARINA BUILDING). P.O. Box r76,C*yTOaBAy, MN 55J2J PIionc (612)475-7441 Fax(612) 475-5517 "Snnhs BAy, LaIge MlimEiONiu.* S^O^UJORLD AAyvAyvy^^ marina & boat club aa. 'Sttfoi^ SidT I^MWt i S<ut PAi.iL it2 « STORAGE FOR SMALL CL'ArJTITIES CF BOTTOM PAINT. ACETONE S TOUCH i.iP PAINT FOR SMALL MISC. REPAIRS. DRUM OF BOAT cleaning LIOUIl; NEEDED TO CLEAN CUSTOMER i MARINA BOATS CN A DAILY BASIS. » STORAGE OF CECK UMBRELLAS -- TABLES & CHAIRS IN OFF t EASON. P!- A. *■ STOr<AGE OF A COUPLE DOZEN OF DOCK HOSES IN OFF SEASON. * STORAGE OF SAILBOAT SAILS FOR CUSTOMERS. * STORACiE OF CUSTOMER KNEE BOARDS. UATER SKIS, LIFE JACKETS, RUBBER RAFTS, INNER TUBES ETC. TfT ADDITION THE USE OF THE PROPERTY HAS VASTLY IMPROVED AS BEFORE YOU HAD FIVE SHABBY STRUCTURES TUO OF WHICH WERE BORDERING ON THE WATER WITH A MAJOR MOTOR REPAIR SHOP AND (2) METAL SHEDS FOR GAS H, OIL CAIsl STORAGE OVER THE WATER LOCATED UN DECKING OVER THE WATER WITH 50 RENTAL BOATS. TODAY YOU HAVE NO STRUCTURES EITHER ON OR BORDERING THE WATER !! WE ARE TRYING TO BE A GOOD PROPERTY OWNER AND MAINTAIN A NEAT AND ORDERLY FACILITY. WE MUST ALSO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF OUR CUSTOMERS. WE DESPERATELY NEED STORAGE BEYOND WHAT WE HAVE AND MORE THAN A SMALL EXTENSION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING COULD PROVIDE. (AS THAT DIMENSION WOULD ONLY BE O’X 6’ ). IN A EFFORT TO SATISFY YOU AND THE DNR 1 HAVE RELOCATE- THE PROPOSED STORAGE MODULE TO A LOCATION THAT MERITS YOUR APPROVAL AND I HAVE SCALED BACK FROM 2 STORAGE MODULES TO ONLY ONE. (SEE REVISED SITE PLAN DRAWING TO SCALE). I RlSPECTFl^Y ASK YOUR APPROVAL OF THIS CONCEPT. CERELY SAIl/ORS WORLD RO. Box 176, C«y5i4 B ay, MN Pt»oi«(6l2)475-J44J FAx(6l2)475^J51i *SMti{is B ay, LaIx MiNNCioNkA* -tOUMj-V kOAD o 3>'f/fs=t O lz:7 ■•Lint 35 flti Et\t etm.i4 partlttl milS a-f^Trii.if j'pttt-v^ • 113 •jO n 4fiV3rt / — 1S2 54.-^(Ci'^c t^'cSvIt 6u*,rn#.' ^99^9^04 %^aC€^ \ \ \ VvN^*» V -C. tJL 4 7 M4> *if So*srr»*^r. pbf\ pwxafM. smucniM t pa i »nNeifycdf ^ 2 I •'^ ft? J 2 2?I • 49onscr 9 ^Affvn^ ^At ATCiTIOiM, i^a"' ( ri>+^nH«2» -(<^&ftf)\l .] Cho PlASJIC ct-f^9KSj\ MPpew ,LE C Waai K*/**^*!/ {ej @ ® 32>, 5 M® p.e^>seh fwosAc n-h^^ •fmft.' tl-^7*ifW<*11Wk^^ lO MINNETONKA CENTER FOR THE ARTS JJ40 North SKxe uV'\«* • n'.'i <■» I •'<>1 4'? ‘ j<r-/>vv({-TTry ,CCM 6 t‘4?, October 2B. 1993 ^yO ^ 'jCd Mr. Gary De Santis Sailors World P.O. Bux 176 Crystal Bay. MN. 55323 Dear Gary: This letter will confirm our understanding that Sailors World may use a portion of the Art Center's east parking lot on weekends, from May to September. As we discussed, the following arrangements would apply: 1, Your personnel will park cars, derigrrated with a Sailors World Parkin«j Pass, alortg the eastern side of our east parkkig lot, adjacent to Bnar Street. 2. Parking will be available mo^ weekends, with the exception of the weekend following Labor Day, when the paiking lot is rented to a private party. II toe Art Center is planning any additional, major events requirir>g parking on weekends, we will, of course, let you know In advance. 3. LiabiGty for any damage that occurs will remain the responsibility of Sailors World. 4. Sailors World wil give the Art Center an option to use its parking area during the arinual Holiday House furxJraiser at the Art Center, which is generally held the week before Thanksgiving. Gary, we appreciate your offer of compensation, but invite you instead to make a charitable contribution to our Annual Fund (information enclosed). Your business name would then appear in our Annual Repori and newsletter, as a supporter of the Art Center. Thanks, Gary. Sincerely, Ann Larsen Executive Director I ifrtSilii 4 I .A ,1,..-' ‘ V CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Cnstal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE ^1874 NOTICE OF PLANAESC, COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: October 27, 1993 TO:Sailors World 1955 ShordiiK Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 ATTN: Gar\' DeSantis TATE OF APPLICATION:\ariancc DATE OF MEETING:10/18/93 \OTE: 6 FOR 0 AGALNST The Plannme Commission tabled this application for reasons noted below. Motion and second for denial withdrawn, motion to table approved, giving applicant time to return with a revised proposal which might include a storage addition to the existing building rather than free standing modules. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the November 15 meeting is November 5. There is no Planning Commission meeting in December. 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 arc available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. V I I ft L MEVLTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 199J {Ml) JA,^S^W. OGLA-ND DONALD J. STOYKE - CONT. OglaiKl Slated that vacation would put the prof«rT>- back on the tax roles wbidn would be best for the public Interest. Yle^does net like the encumbrances on the property because they don’t know if thev should maintath-ii or not. Smith asked about similar vacatio^on two neighboring pro Gaffron explained that one goes back toH^9 and the^er before that. These two accesses were smiiJar and in the past it was found acceptabl^o grant a vacation. \ pgier30U slated he felt compelled by the DNR^o avoid the vacation since there is a Minnesota statute that gives clear guidelines. Smith asked if the application wem/fabled, would conv^FMtion with the DNR be helpful. Gaffron though it might. He also^ed he had discussed with^er the possibility of vacating cverythins except the portion between the lake and the landward sid^of the road. He questioned if any problems would be ^rifCed by vacating everything back from IcKoff the road. This would remove the issue of pi^lc access. yLindquist state^^would like to see the property owners have this property>411 feels the need ithjja^e legalities of the system.to stav It was/^^^’ed by Smith, seconded by Nolan, to table Application #1876 to allow the ^>p|^ants, Citw^ the DNR time to discuss the DNR concerns. Ayes 6. nays 0. ^ / (#3) #1874 GARY DESANTIS/SAILORS WORLD 1955 SHORELINE DRIVE, VARLANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:52 P..M. - 8:28 P,M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Gary DeSantis of Sailors Wo.-ld was present. Gaffron explained this request for hardcover and lakcshore setback v^ances to place two storage stnicmres of 8’ x 8’ x 20 ’ on the property. He asked if Planning Commission were interested in allowing more hardcover or the existing hardcover to be changed from grade-level to a larger structure. The character of these structures should be considered vs. existmg buildii,gs. DeSantis explained the recent history of the property. Ownership of the property was gained 1 1/2 years ago. They felt the property would be more valuable with a building on it. It w^ a long process obtaining a building permit. There is no storage in the building or on the property for storage of lawn mowers or boating accessories. He expressed his concern over \ MIM.TFS OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO.>LMIS5ION .MEETING HELD OCTOBER IS. 1993 (#3) #1874 GARY DESANTIS/SAILORS WORLD - CONT hardcover noting that some off-site parking had been secured at the Minnetonka An Center. He felt that it may be bener to take a couole parking spaces for placement of the storage structure than to attempt to place them on a grassed area. Peterson asked if the applicant was aware of DNR comments on this application. DeSantis was not but they were included as pan of the original packet. Nolan asked what the intended schedule of completion of improvements was for the property. DeSantis responded that they had three years to complete the commercial site plan and that tune has not e.xpurd. The rainy season this summer has caused problems completing the parking lot and landscapmg. DeSantis e.xplained that the structures are moveable with no foundations and could be considered temporary' or permanent. Nolan observed piles of lumber, a tractor, rotting timbers and a dumpster on the property and questioned the standard practice of operation regarding use of these landscape areas. The City has designated cenain areas yet Nolan noted most of these areas had some type of coverage on them. i.c. boat, construction materials, etc. DeSantis responded that the marina is in a winter storage mode and has the ability to use the property for winter storage. Landscape limbers will be removed when the landscape contractor has time 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. Nolan added that was the point he was trying to make. Even if the landscaping were complete, would there still be materials left in 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 for not completing the improvements. Pan of the landscaping price was removal of the old tunbers and the contractor has not completed that portion. Schroeder 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 adding more hardcover in the form of storage. He did not see renting storage space as part of the overall plan. He suggested storage could occur across the street or on some other part of the property further fforn the late. He also expressed concern that aesthetically the storage buildings would not be consistent with the existing buildings. ■ rtWnaiiaH^rt-1 I ■iltiiaiii'ia I II I nTa^Tiiiii ^**-^ *- ! . MLNXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CODHSSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#3) GARY DESANTIS/SAILORS WORLD - CONT. Lindquist asked to ha\‘C the 75* setback area defined and noted his objection to hardcover in the 0-75 ’ retback area. Peterson also expressed concern ONcr adding more structure to this already developed property. He suggested looking at parking spaces 35. 36, 37 and 38 if the struemres were to be placed on the pro^n>'. He felt the DNR was implying that the structure may be acceptable if placed over existing hardcover. Nolan suted that these structures tend to "look bad" after a period of time even though they are galvanized. He asked if DeSantis would consider any other r>pe of structure. DeSantis said they would but explained that one of the strong points of these structures was the longevity ot 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 structures would be leased. DeSantis confirmed that they could be with an option to buy. He stated dock boxes do not provide sufficient volume for storage. Schroeder stated he would be inclined to fmd some ^ -e of storage for the personal lawn mower, etc. close to the existing building. He would be opposed to any t\'pe 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 only electrical equipment. He questioned if he would gain enough 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. The proposed location is unacceptable and there does not seem to be enough of a hardship. DeSantis asked if the struemres were moved to the parking spaces out of the 0-75 setback area and only one struemre used, would the objection be removed. Schroeder noted the 0-75 ’ setback issued would be addressed but the nature of the building and . hardcover are still issues. i MLNXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO.NLMISSION MEETLNG HELD OCTOBER 18. 1993 (#3) #1874 GARY DES.ANTIS/SAILORS WORLD - CONT. Nolan fell 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 the site and it would provide some storage, probably not all, but would be an improvement. Gaffron slated that if the application were denied and sent to Council, Council could send it back to Planning Commission for further consideration. Tabling 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 struemre that was 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 locations. Peterson and Lindquist withdrew their motion. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson, to table Application #1874 for a request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances to place two S' x 8’ x 20’ storage modules on marina property. Ayes 6, nays 0. (#4) #1878 CHARLES AND SHIRLEY PYLE 3548 rVY PLACE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 P.M. - 8:40 F.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Cenificaie 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 enuyway and replacement of detached garage. There were some hardcover trade-offs in the 0-75’ and 250-500’ setbacx areas. In the new application, no changes are proposed to the driveway or garage. The addition to the house is still proposed with 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 breezeway. : t 8 » TO:rianning Commission MeniK*is Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning & Zoning Adminisiraior DATE:October 14, 1993 SUBJECT: #1874 Gar>- DeSantis/Sailors World, 1955 Shoreline Drive - \ariance Public Hearing Application Request for hardcover and lakeshorc 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 - E.xisting Building Layout II - Module Location Options 1 - Nk-dule 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 struemres or hardcover within 75 ’ of the shoreline. Subdiviiion 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. 9c /O'tS Zoning File #1874 October 14. 1993 Page 2 K Vr 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 propertv' 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 cany out the improvements which Toberman had had approved. A significant percentage of the approved si*e plan has been completed, i.e. the club house has been built, many of the walkways are in place, tiie 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 thi. 0-/5' 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 ♦hat storage space for siip 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 Nren dealt with by applicants ^efore they commenced the site renovation. Applicant notes that when they got the property '?ack, they proceeded with the approved plan rather than requesting further revisions at that time, not wishing to risk a 2-3 montli 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 location(s) would be most appropriate? Zoning File 11874 October 14. 1993 Page 3 Should storage modules be placed over landscape areas designated on the site plan, thereby reducing hardcover’ Or should thev 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 requited 48)? 5. If parking spaces are reduced, how will applicant deal with overflow parking' 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 rntnlules be screened from public vievv, i.e. from the lake and from the road? Will thes 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. Sta^ 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 arc eliminated, how parking will be dealt with; whether hardcover tradeoffs are needed or advisable; and address other pertinent issues. mit rf ^ii I iiiiim-tlMii ■Mil j 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) V’ariance for non oonforming use $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double applioaticn fee) iL \ dl.1 PROPERTY INFORMATION C /. . . / / 1 Site Address /^?53 'b//../M , Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included cn requiri Date Property cn required.survey. . ^ Acquired \f\l\ rhlC\,^ 1*^*^ (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: __________________________ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setbac)c:Front Side ___ Rear ^ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) ’C'^ J)u(^S________ HARDSHIP/DBSCRIPTION OF ONDSDAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property 1 'i condiitlonsj preventing compliance with Zon^g Code requ^ements: ^ ' A- (fU 37 5k_—____________________________ c \JS.' <'v>—, Ajiy (attach additional sheets if necessary} REQUIRED SDBMITTAI^ All of the following information must be sxibmitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete* iV Completed Application Form 2. .,/ Certified Property Owners List cf owners within 150' (you must obtain this list frcm Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center / 340-3271). 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 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") 6. v^SJcetches or plans of floor i elevation views (provide 1 copy 8%"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 cnwipiete if the «Hove information has not been included. APPLICAHT'S SIGHATURE The applicant hereby agfees to provide all informatio required or requested by the Zoning Aduinistra^r, .'agrees to pay additlora , * .ies (staff time not covered by ojfi< inal f^e p^lyment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of thWfe supplied is true and correct to i Applicant's Signatui^rf^^^^|^^]R^ application, arid certifies that the information pet t iS^/her )cnowledge. Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledgesj^nd agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable ^ntry Wfo the/property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission men(bers, Md Council mepbers for purposes of investiga tion and verificatilgjy of thip zecfuesjt, -------------- ^ ^ Date )Owner's Signature Applicant must have all submittals into the Cxty 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 meetlrgs 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 s Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ■■ ■ ■/ : \ AS:;., 18),: / •. (^) ' ’■‘t'W \A <*r ■*) „ . (.0) *. • • -•/J>./.• * • % • ^nr»* >M «» '_^ -" • /1 - •*-^*— ^--------------«__________- .^>_^4, •________________________________________________________ ______________________________'■ ' ■ __________^ ____________________' ____L- *i 1 1 I 1 1 ■1 1 RUN DATEDATCN M2 NttMipiN COUNT* r«Ki»fi>rv iNroRrarioN systtm raoRCAnr cmc» listRROR AOM (HMEN HAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 58 10-117-25 0201050 SMORELINE OR R C STIERNA A R A STIERNA ROBERT C • RATRICIA STIERNA 1050 SMORELINE OR MATZATA m S5501 MOR AOOR OMCR NAME TAXRAYER NAHE/AOOR SB 1B-117-2S 02 0010 OlOSB SMORELINE OR SAILORS NORLO HntA MARINA A YACHT CLUB INC loss SNOIELINE OR MAYZATA MN 55501 RROR AOOR 0»i«R NAME TAXRAYER NAHE/AOOR SB 10-117-25 02 0022 01000 SHORELINE OR SHITM'S BAY MARINA INC SMITH'S BAY MARINA INC 11700 MAYZATA OLVO MIMCTOMCA m 5SS4S a • ‘'U mpomr no.PAOL 7SB 10-117-25 42 0007 01440 SmRlllHA BB A 0 NITTlfS i A r NETTICS ALAN NCTTIES i AliNi NSTTUS 1440 SNOOCIINE DO HAYZATA NN S5541 58 10-117-25 42 0012014S0 SHOIICllNE 00 C i H I CASriUON CAHllO i HA8IA I CASTfllDN 14S0 SHOOflINC DO HAYZATA HN 55541 158 10-117-25 42 0015 00058 AODOfSS UNASSIGNEO J V SPATIS tlAl HTKA NA8INA A YACHT CLUB INC 1455 SN08ELINE D8 MAYZATA MN 55541 58 10-117-21 42 0021 01460 S8ATAS AVf D CfiEAA A N 8 C8CA8 DANIEL CAfA8 1480 SPATES AVI NAYZATA HM 55341 )mmk TOTAL BATCH 002 00007 A -3 X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEftCPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF NY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE I i <1 I (we) Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgeaent Forti //L. Ns Ttll^___of S '■K : (print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for property located at _ the proposed improvement or proposed use of the also referred to as Land Use Property Owner Date I (we) ____________ (print name(s)l (print address] have reviewed the plan^^r to property located at Application No. 1 (we) under.tend that in of^th^ J,ut‘L.rely to confirm '/./^ro^oLd'nei^hbo'i's^ orthe improvement plans and that tne propu»« Date Property Owner Dati If you have any information that may as.i.t the 'fiarng" lo' ’ lied mee^ 74 * ^ Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Por^ I (we) r% [print name(s)] o£ .^O \-vC [print address] A t-ho nlms for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the prop/rtyTocated a, P P referred to as Land Use Application No. T i^nderstand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) an ,are. ^:risLl%rfcLare approval ^a/uref ^rre^o*! thri:;:rve“en ‘t°pi;n" :nd that tL proposed neighbor's project or us. requires Council^pproval^—^ Property dvtner "1LML53 Date Property Owner —-- -- Date ************************************** 1 (we) [print name(s)][print address] d ^ r,i;,nc for the proposed improvement or proposed use of thehave reviewed the plans for tne p p referred to as Land Use property located at __ _ _ _ ___ ___ _ _ ___ _ Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this »=’|"°"^®;^9ement, I (we)^ar (are) not ..)«d (we)‘'an (are) .ware oi XTe rnrr-erenTpirs^”d%^%f tL'^;^ - ““ r6C]uxr€S Council approval##1874 I Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the ®iaing°i this Land use Application, please submit your ® zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. V'‘S -ih •• .,.' ; /.‘■si-v ■' ■U0^k■ ? ■ ■■•iHi'-'l • ,• %•. c ‘ ^ * . ' •!' •'I .• * ; A* f • • • ' 'h. w\VvV. t V'-V'm)\tF‘ j i f I4 I I I t ! i I I I \ < \ \* ••« • # I I' 1 j. I* \ I ! \ I ! C / dt 0 80CB5 10/117/23 SMITH'S DAY MARINA PPol * 4 IHBV !fW4 k J advance surveying & ENGINEERING CO. f:;'"-’' ^ ■; • 5611 Uke lead lMno*aoo1lj. MN Sjajj •“Ho^'r I6in S4I 0SO6 AW KVH 1 4 • • ' 'i, • ; •;.:. ^ ' fiORVEY foR! ■;Jp SMITH'S BAY MARINA . ’ t * ^ • OCRLE:ONE INCH EQUALS 20 FEET f October 11, 1988 m November 1, 1988. MViS^^O^ Jinunry n, I3M. *■ eW£RlJ?JUtfiH^_J4m AEVQMDi Jnnuary lo, 1189. :• Ao-bullt gurvoy of docks at Smith's Day Marino, orono, lllnnesota. "' I IMimaBj. or ir>r«u,ha-,. Olhtr imirnioi. TKn lyrv^y dOM nol rurporl In fhooi nil riswM*. ^i^.ovt-cnlji. : • OXAV.M RO_8XMP.O b E N1^ Q N 0_1 *. CJ3RXI.riQATXOilt ■ ::/;:T.n;;;.T;r,r.... - Ronucl c, lurkor, u .l.d . no . 10535 >(« • » A mim, ‘1 i •K !-,; t^'tv ■/'■.Y-. .t--co«rv ^ Kij { •Jv^^^ f. f f Ik /\. W IC \> 4'^,‘oV) tiiiisi i->»« *»»««»18 7 4 - ^ *n »•«— I ^ I I r'‘"S£ 1 SoV^-- \^^VK’7ij^ '*1^ M>kl. MA««r>M •m0mm a H€ 4t»»«ifA.IH r V' *ir S V* V * i*’* • ' f“* * tt r\ te'iiiilIT ^1g74 1 —gounty-R oad r« S'! •.<?;••• I |i#fc '■'1^ N fimtm AM 1(Mat ««m u% Cm a urn §) j tiri«> •«»*«, 1 /--xriVM'i No—15 ».v- I14M- ^ .TiiVjV'. L_iLl >\r "'w* «7«^«Si 4C} Stt* l»r< .r«< $#»><»• — Mr* ttM.C MAMrtn mtHrnM Mtt 4U«MC*.. mt / —gountv- p^miH . •v;;i ’ |.'t‘'< ■''i^'^H'* '! , ,'‘v<7;* *rVVV myi-sii i ’?h"-.fo'm■ Av,'fl(,w,’.m MAMmtt m»wrn Mtg stmtt mr / rvAbtiUt^ u>cAenoi<^ APPU CA/^T" f5b<€L ^AJS/Oe^MT^Ai Q-l<' - *2^^oi7 :.r. 4^ 4i/IfecoKfi^h^ ^U^l^lf^Cy I'^-OO Z-Q. “ cv: C Jif Ja ***7 -^3ro sC, = )2^'^>(2 s4. - / Pt^^ I AfpfZ/>'t’^ I riT-iT p-«-»^‘ firtr A*^ ^s-zst)'2oMr /l/^J^r^ - 6»,/<3® •^:?, y^PCCoNf*^ (iftAJ5Co\yp«-(^pa«- 4t2,a'\i^ ___fA«j<^!Aj6. . S'joo ....or'.. Sl.t»% _______ijj %a_ A^TT-^-Si */• *) .—------------------------------ --------- -------------- .. - s - 1 . -------------------------- ^------------------------------------ 1 T -,»,y--------iA*r*rAr€At>rt^ Stt>l*«rVS fiM A^tJ ._. ...........—-- • i _____» , -l^......................... 1 \ ’ '. i 2SC-5CG' 3C0-1CC0' GO ^tH €7fc ’^<^ t 3. -SiMWTTc" C. D r IVE i CdtK*^ S^viU StOS 0. Sidewalk It ALkw*yJ N***“<^ ^«I«SM»*VK lO > I A*^*lOP %/r(>- <^*70 e .-^ ’atio / Deck ( OMC U'ooJ^ U/A/f^t'4yS 6y F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN ?UST,C’ • SHEETING G, Other Total Hardcover in Zone /2^<3 6<^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F(3 (<i JO L/Uoc j) t-4i|ag S • F t S.F. S.F. S.F. ■J'f 73 S.F. ^ Total P roperty A rea in Zone j.\T\t€,^>l7 X 100 2€,on_S.F. A I ii-zk% iftTiiTiinlilfftfriiTiir (■) T < V y fj [- jr « I ' ^ n/ W •.r. -D-----— U JP4* Kfv I" ;■ 'fiT" , t :a'v V- I • '>“- T ..V . f»<»M im - T?fC • 1* ^ M>M9Nl ♦Irti / r’ / t** t* l»«« t -v*»»^fci. *«#iaa • u \ "Prr .w 1 Kuc * -^^4 • -itr- ,____ski------ L IM. MI44. WlM FsCo\j1 A*..-^ iiogi 3S’^'^ ^- /.> WVtt£ 1 , i--, - r T ____--------------------.....-Irt ___1'4- !_______i t k 1 — •u / ••» ;• •. -■ . -•.-. - vy :T^7:f^S~~IgUHE»yiCH'/ FlF6T ggf> ^A: .J ;."Tp===^ I \ PecIC 14. 2 ■■ [F6T 9 j 4 - rw>H_ AncitTV^ I 2.0 o ^ P #1874 Ii t mACUTE MICRO STORAGE BUIT.DING module I MODULE II module I 11 MODULE IV 9 . ^9 - •■'9 • i m c ■ o m n m m I- The Trachte Micro Storage Building is an 8' x 20’ single 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 adjustment 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 4 Trachle's Micn>Slora^ Buildb»__________________o The Next Generation of Storage Solutions IftK s \1l< f I » Sf< M . * Huitfil m jK.u !k .iI M^lufion rof o\An*»rs rnoixU* h. wtn* |)cifk *fs f>,irk ,in«l r*\ ffMtion tf>rs. injNif'N'ss p?i >| >ritS( »t\ ,inci st*lf M\vnr*rs ^r€H‘ uf> v.ilu- tif>k»fl<K>f ^p,Hf b\ srofl,^^ fvc f^s in\f*nfor\ stMson<il ftm m htinilist.*, suf >pj|f*> ff*t rfMrM HU)l ♦'< |Ulf bn \c U*s pf.HtK .illv *in\thinK C f ,irui >f .«V*f If.H hft* s \1k ro-Sfor.ivjf Btiilcjink’ is mo\.ibkv ^\hic h m.i\ ij fo pl,H etj on s«*fb«)< ks cMs**mtMUs ,ini< ofh#*r unuMHl ,iMMs Ibf.i; tor \,u .ml projK^rtV' VVht*fi votj'r#* rf^,ip\ to (Jf*\i*lop. movo th«* buililinv; .iw.iv. Tht? \1k ro-Sf^)rcl^t* Huikiing is ,i complete snicill fxu ka>;e Stanikmi si/t* is «• x jc)'. Buildings comt* i omt>l<‘ff vMth jMrtifions. tllK>rIn^ and roll-uf) cK lors \tinv fi(M>r pKins arr* availablt* to vijit \l)Uf fKssjs Fair adciitional intornialion aiKuit tht* no\f Kf>npration of stora>*t* solutions, ( till; (BOO) J-,6.ia24 or H l7-7m}9 FAX (MJ8) 817^)2:; I frai hto Buildln^ Systems. Inc. 314 Wilburn Ko.id Sun F’raine. WI 5 3S«fn #1874 I ' ; ' ■ —.“X- - • •t rJT* *.• *.5S Add By Division #lb74 The TBS Create-A Space is a free standing pa^’tition system for converting existing space into se'f storage centers Conversions are today's creat ve ans'^er tor adding ne^ revei'ue ana profits from under-used properties And T3Srr...kes it easy with the Create-A- Space Partition System Greater Than the Sum ot Its Parts The Create-A-Space Partition System is a complete Pdckoge It contains everything you need tor c successful building conversion including doors, partitions, headers, jambs and channels. Best ot all, TBS qualih comocnents assure long i ‘e and low maintenance The Create A Space it a free standing system so ins^aliation is quick ana easv Subtract Your Problems TBS services eliminate potential conversion problems To assure easv installation, best use ot space, proper unit mix and maximum revenue; TBS provides complete design and layout services as part ot the Create-A-Space System packaoe Multiply Your Profits Converting under used buildipq STOce into self storage units can multiply your profits many times over Cail toaay tor m.ore information about Create A-Space Partition System TBS V/ ^ N V Trachte Building Systems 6'JO 360 682J iln Wi) 300 732 22?d 314 Wtlburr Road Sun Pfame. Wl S3690 Partition System Complete Prodvxrt Line for the Sett Storog® industry Slngle/2-Story Sett Storoge Buiidir^Ji. Mini Modules. Portttion Systems. Rolf Up Steel Doors. Transoms. Muliior« ond Oeor Spon Buildings. #1874 •O /•''1A ’• vr.- a, s?— :L .• < :::^^ j 1 ^ ■« f 8 '^h9 C>4!o-H »• • is»* »r*»rri muomrn lem mif/ii tvor n/n^.$nn*tt -tMl Ofi^ mi/lOJ<*3-" WALL FRAMfWG PET4>LS TBS »r '•»;•>•• . • .•••»« )>4 >>••<• •»«>«>«• ikH> M4 «#J«I OO'K ■« •]' >»M| M City of OROINO CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO NO.2891 A RESOLDTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO mJNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.41, SOBDIVISION 10 (A), (B), (C) # SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 9 SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1, AND PER SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 2 APPROV*.S THE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN FOR SMITH'S BAY MARINA AND YACHT CLUB, INC., FILE #1592 (D) , tfte property located at 1955 Shoreline Drive within the Citi o^ Orono (hereinafter "City")and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached WHEREAS, the appl-icant proposes the construction * ptinciDal structure and major restoration of the marina 'co°de®Se«?Sn has applied to the City for variances to Municipl Zoning Code section 10.22,'^'^Subdivision 1 to permit fencing 43’ from the lakeshore of the required 75': Section 10.41, Subdivision 5 (A) to permi.- parking stalls for 42 vehicles instead of ^ ® ^ Section 10.41, Subdivision 9 to permit parting 10 from the s..reet lot line instead of the required 30’: Section oermi^ -he urincipal structure to be built 50 from the sho.eiine ?"t^id'oV the fhe^equired_75.; section 10.41, Su^ 10 .B o permit the principal structure to be built ^|ectiSnLjacent to a residential =°"e instead of the required 50 Section within_75 ’ of the ^e.'e where no^ hardcov^e^r ^l^s Smounr''of hardcover at 1,275 s^are feet or ; and pe^r^ s^ection 10.41, Subdivision 2 seeks approval of a commercial s p comelete restoration of the marina property. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Pace 1 of 6 CITY City of ORONO OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2891_________ FINDINGS m 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 Conmissicn reviewed this application listed above and the coinmercial site plan for the complete 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 xakeshore 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 "^en improved with the proposed single structure making w a more efficient use of the severely limited land area. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the fi.ndings 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- i-h.i 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 II ORONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2391 _________ 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 o^ the Zoning Cods and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLDSIONS, 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 sit^? glan dated November 1, 1988, revised January 20, 1989 by Advance Surveying and Engineering Company for Smith's Bay Marina and ifacht 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 orior to application for a building permit for new principal structures. The City Engineer shall review total improvement costs prior to submittal of Letter of Credit. 3 Ttosion control shall be employed at ail times on the site duri.nj 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 I • CITY OF ORONO City Of OROINO RESOLUTION' OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2891 _________ cortinue to use existing structur<2 up to thtime the Certificate of Occupancy is to be issued. 5. Owner/applicant is hereby advised that at the time an application for building permit is submitted to the City, the Orono staff shall evaluate the proposed improvement and uses of the property per standards adopted by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission in the determination of the Service Availability Charges to be collected with the issuance of a building permit for the new construction. 6. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only ann must be exercised by application for a building permit within cne year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 22, 1991). 7. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 8. Thf» 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 • • • • A; S:City of OROINO CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTIOF OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2891__________ Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 22nd day of October, 1990. STATE OF .MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HFNNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd dav of October, 1990 by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor "f- City Clerk of the City of Orono, a M^””®sota municipal corporation and sciid instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary'Public My Commission Expires Page 5 of 6 » • # • i i City of OROINO CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ___2891 STATS OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HEN"NSPIN ) On this dav of 199 (9 before me a ':Jotary Public within a>nd for said county, personally /w e known to me to be his (thsix ”) ftss aCw and dssw.. V NCT.^Pgii _jn«MJ}.VJScN£®oi» MY COLMISSION SXPIBES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ^N^try publiclor said County.^ persoValVippiared person(s) described in and who executed the ^" j"" ^"i^ and acknowledged that_ he (they) executed tne same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC M'' CO.Mi-IISSION EXPIRES Page 6 of 6 < A City of OROIVO CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO NO.891 EXHIBIT A Commencing at the intersection of the North line of Central Avenue extended Easterly with Easterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 7 thence Northeasterly 42 degrees 15 minutes East 120.5 feet to actual point of beginning thence South 57 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 Eadterly thence North 59 degrees 45 minutes West 18 ieet thence Southwesterly 4 2 '^^^rees 15 minutes West 131.5 feet to beginning including accretions,, ORA PARK ON LAKE MINNETONKA', Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter the property"); and K ts • ^ / / RESOLUTION #2891 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO I Dorothy H. Hallin, City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution n the Minutes of the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held Qn _ _ _ _October 22_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 19 90 , and that the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution was duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. In Wi 24th ness Whereof, I have hereunto set , day ay hand and seal this (SEAL) I i STATI or (M! 0^ [1 ^ ® PHONE NO. ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES RETPO waters - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 772-7910 ritENO Octobor 14, 1993 Miko Gaffron City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnasota 55323 RE? LAND USE APPLICATIONS, CITY OP ORONO, HENNEPIN COlTITy Dear Mr. Gaffron: I have coiaments on the following land use applications which are scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Comaission on October 18, 1993. #1874. Sailers World. 1955 Shoreline Drive. The applicant requests several variances in order to place two storage units 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. 475 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 some additional specific points for the city's consideration that would apply to all the variance requests: 1.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 AN equal opportunity EMPLOYEH Mik« Gaffron October 14, 1993 Page 2 B.It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to "functional and aesthetic concerns" and eeonomie considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty. C.The difficulty of conforming 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. E. The problem must not be created by the landowner. The variance, if granted, must not alter the esaentlal character of the locality. The courts have said that the applicant has a "heavy burden of proof" 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 ne at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc J Ed Pick, Shoreland Hydrologist Lake Minnetonka files 27-133, ,#26 and 27-133, #23 1 November 15, 1993 Mr. Mike Gaffron Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Orono, P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 SUBJECT:01876 VACATION OF HILLSIDE PLACE Dear Mr. Gaffron: Please withdraw our request for the vacation of "Hillside Place" and remove it from the planning commission agenda. Despite the state statute denying the DNR the right of intervention. . .they intervene anyway. . .with intimidation, bullying tactics and the threat of lawsuits if their viewpoint is not adhered to. I find this type of government repugnent and very disappointing. Sincerely, James W. Ogland 3345 Crystal Bay Road cc: Don Stoyke, neighbor j 3, TO:Plannine Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:November 10. 1993 SUBJECT: #1876 James Ogland/Donald Stoyke. 3345 and 3339 Crv'stal Bay Road Vacation - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits A - Letter and Narrative from Ogland 10/20/93 B - Sketch Provided to DNR 10/26/93 C - Letter from DNR 11/9/93 D - Court Cases Faxed to City by DNR 11/5/93 E - 10/18/93 Letter from DNR F - Excerpts from Original Plat of "Wallace’s Addition. . G - Orono Comp. Plan E.xcerpt H - Notice of Planning Commission Action 10/27/93 I - Memo and E.xhib?-< 1C'13/93 This item was tabled at your October 18th meeting. Planning Commission directed staff to ftirtlier discuss the matter w ith DNR officials to gain a better understanding of their position on the vacation issue. These discussions resulted in a second letter. DNR Comments Martha Reger, DNR’s Area Trails & Waterways Supervisor, indicated that she discussed this matter w'ith the Attorney General’s Office. It is their opinion that whether this roadway provides a current public benefit has little bearing on whether it should be vacated. They refer to two specific court cases (one on Lake Minnetonka) in which the Court generally upheld the principle that the public interest is best serv-ed by not vacating such rights-of-way, and that just because there is no current public use of the dedicated road it is not reasonable to assume that a) there never will be a public use in the future or b) that the rights ot the abutting property owners who stand to gain by vacation are greater than the rights ot the public to use land dedicated for public use. In response to my question "What will be DNR’s response if the City does vacate the right-of-way?", Reger indicated it was her opinion that the Attorney General’s Office would likely seek to have the City ’s vacation action ovemimed. When asked whether the fact that additional public access lanes exist nearby has a bearing, she indicated that the Attorney General’s Office said that is inconsequential. J nClIi 3ST^nmn?a ^»t}||il« Zoning File #1876 November 10. 1993 Page 3that actual public use of this right-of-way would be physically difficult for some purposes, and certainly a nuisance to the adjacent propeny owners. On the other hand, if at some fumre date the railroad becomes a public trail, which is not beyond the realm of imagination, then this public right-of-way might sei^e as an access corridor to a public fishing pier, for instance. Cenainly a stairway could be constructed and a fishing pier created that would benefit the public I am not suggesting this is a good use nor an, I predicting that it will occur. But, if the right-of-way is vacated, that potential public benefit no longer exists, and the public will be forced to purchase other land for that purpose. Doesn't it seem reasonable that the public should have the ability at that future date to either use this land for public purpose, or as an alternative, sell this public land and use the proceeds to purchase a better location elsewhere.' The City and the DNR in denying or opposing the vacation might be accused of lacking common sense, practicality, a realistic viewpoint, etc. However, the lakes of the State of Minnesota do belong to the public and the public has the right to have access to them. Access has been granted over many decades via alleyways and roadways dedicated on plats. There is no question that private lakeshore is a valuable commodity, but public lakeshore is equally valuable if not more so. The City is obligated to protect the public ’s interest. Policy Per Orono’s Comprehensive Plan Zoning File ^1^1876 November 10. 1993 Paee 4 Staff Recommendation Given the questions raised by the DNR, as well as the legal question whether the City has the right to vacate this roadway, staff cannot recommend approval of this vacation. For the application to proceed further, the City should obtain a legal opinion as to whether the plat dedication language precludes a general public interest in favor of an interest by only those property owners within the plat. Further, the City appears to risk a lawsuit by the DNR if the vacation is approved. If the applicants and Planning Commission conclude that proceeding funher is futile, staff would recommend that portions of the application fee not e.xpended for publication be refunded to the property owners. baeOBSLuAi } j October 20, 1993 Mr. Mike Gaffron Assistant Planning and Zonning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 OCT 2 1 1993 SUBJECT: #1876 VACATION HILLSIDE LANE....Response to DNR letter (Martha Reger) dated October 18, 1993 Dear Mr. Gaffron: According to the Minnesota Supreme Court, City Councils through out Minnesota have the right to vacate public streets, etc. without the right of intervention by the Department of Natural Resources, (see attatched state statute). In many instances the DNR's motives a^e laudable. In other areas, however, they could be seen as bullies with intention to intimidate. Their focus and viewpoint is often very narrow. They sometimes lack something that is called ...practicality...being realistic...etc. "common sense"• • This strip of land lies tightly sandwiched between two existing homes (nine inches from the bedroom corner of one home). It is difficult to contemplate intrusion by the DNR and the general public into this very private and ’-esidential setting. These lanes were platted long ago i.i another era. Land use was totally different. It was a much gentler time, a time when summer cottages prevailed, there were no hard cover rules, no set backs, no fire hydrants, no trash, no paved roads, no park ing problems, cottages were built close together on small lots. The DNR would like to dictate, ie.(Martha Reger) and mandate that all accesses be lumped together and treated as if they were all the same. In this already ve-y densely populated residential environment it is hard to believe that a DNR public offical could conceive using and recommending this space for something other than residential. Each potential access to the lake, such as this one, should be viewed on it*s own merits and individual unique location. Judgments as to their use should be made locally and realist ically using common sense and twentieth century logic. We ask that you look at our properties in their entirety and decide their best use. Sincerely, James W. Ogland 3345 Crystal Bay Road Don Stoyke, neighbor Members Orono Planning Commission ■ J VACATE "HILLSIDE PLACE My name is Jim Ogland and I live at 3345 Crystal Bay Road and this is Don Stoyke my neighbor who lives at 3339 Crystal Bay Road. We are here together requesting the vacation of a portion of this lane. As you know these lanes were originally platted as "fire lanes" thereby providing access to lake water in the event cf a fire. With the advent of city water mains and nearby fire hydrants their original use has long ago become obsolete. My parents and myself have owned and lived at this location for almost fifty years. During this time we have maintained and used this fire lane more or less as a part of our yard. It blends right in and is indistinguishable. The houses and lots here are quite small and very close together. By vacating this parcel it would allow both lots to core conform with todays zoning and land use requirements. It also would eliminate title concerns and other problems for present and future owners. The way it is now its use is vague and more or less an encumbrance on both of our properties. The land is uphill, quite steep and has several mature trees growing on it. The railroad track at the rear of the property is a natural divider and isolates us from other properties on the other side of the tracks. It seems appropriate that with the limited use potential that this parcel has and that we are willing to accept and maintain it, we ask that it be vacated and revert to the adjacent property owners. Orono Public Works Director John Gerhardson with whoc we have met twice on-site, has indicated that he has no objection to vacating this parcel subject to utility easements. I might add that we have spoken with all of our closest neighbors (many of whom are here tonight) and they are all in complete agreement with our request. *• •« gWf. H-2~ . * 412.851 VACATION Of STREETS. ... ; r. - The council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, pubbe grounds, public ^a>, or any part thereof, on its own motion or on petition of a majoniy of ihe ow^rs o abmtLi on^c street, alley, pubUc grounds, public way. or pan thereof to be vacated. When there has been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four- of aU members of the council. No such vacation shaU be made unless it appean in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by ^o weeks P«*5**shed and posted nouce The councU shall cause written notice of the hearing to mtSh property owner affected by the proposed vacauon at leas ten days before t^ heSng. The^tice must contain, at minimum, a copy °<^^he petition or proposed rc^ lution as wcU as the time, place, and date of the hcanng. In addition, if the Di’blic grounds, pubbe way, or any part thereof terminates at or abuts upon ^ter no vacation shall be made unless written notice of the peution or proposed r«^ lution is served by certified maU upon the commissioner of natural ^^o^^ces at Ic^ 30 Says before th^ hearing on the matter. The notice to the resounds is for notification purposes only and does not create a nght by the commissioner. After a resolution of vacauon is adopted, the derk shall P"pa a notice of completion of the proceedings which shaU cont^^c n^e identification of the vacation, a statement of the description of the real estate and lands affected thereby. The notice shall be presented lo^ie countv auditor who shall enter the same in the transfer records md^ the instrumrat, over official signature, the words -entered in ^ notice shall then be filed with the county recorder, rsny failure to file the no not invalidate any such vacation proceedings.ill ▼ 041 VIA4.^ All/ -------------. fAZri History 1949 c 119 s 102: 1953 c 735 .12:1 .7 c 3S3 1989 e 9 s 85:1973 c 123 art 2 s 1 subd 2: 1973 c 494 s 11:19:6 c 181s 2:1986 c 444. 1989 c 183 s 4; 1990 c 433 5 2# - * _ » • •• j *. • w".. • *• •* 1 j ^ ^c> % : A .'■ ■ « V 2 S5 .VtTl *5 • x'> ■ >> ^-\v Vi ftcT >• y £•« 1 1 •'^ C' -/ -• - ^ t < C ^ c ®S 5 - :n ►A ® \ 2. PiS % ^ -w -AX < f- - ii« • » ^ 0.O :::^ • Lj*^ ^ > i • NC c^ I \ > O »> * „ 1 R » X*i %/ic T' v> £ Hi i fi» -H ?; < ^ -i ^ 1^ 5B»;jr ;;iF. • 711 ■ B s4) • rw ^[■/i •y>(%—^r5-*J P4«~2^^ <»• i H ^ ^ ^ *"S55?j ? *TI C N ^ • r^iLxii —i.=— PHONi NO. fcfT’ STATE OF [1 s © J|»o9lff.?J/lENT. Of, .resources (612) 772-7935 ^ **arner Road, St. Paul, >2^ 55106 FILE NO November 9, 1993 Mr, Mike Gaffron Assistant Planning and Toning A±niniatrator P.C. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Dear Mr. Gaffton: Please be advised, that after further review of t.he nrocosed roa-' “aeafinn nf C-ys-a^^Ba?^Road r'® located between 3345 and 3339c.ys>a- Bay Roaa, the Depart.T.ent of Natural Resources still ooDcses i- a vacation ot a public street .must be in the public's best inte^efJ ar-A-J^.^ to tne Minnesota Supreme Court, in tho BaldSir, case, "Ai^d 2hl“f « is proposed to vacate a street which is located upon a la)ce shor;! t.h2 rltLr' should receive ’cur most careful consideration... the final test is whether the public interest will or will not be best served by discontinu^na thi‘wfv - The Baldwin case further goes or. to state, "...yet the state? t?cu?h r'oJ in tie proceedings, has real and substantial rights to prowect... .t IS therefore, the .'department'a position that wo are fir-^u^e «»'-a«ever present,oruse whis right-of-way tray hold. JLd“5«''” -T, r" ,'°f '>-» purpo„ nrwMdH ?i'”i C"-e?' road^hi! S!!? m it is irrelevant as to whet.her thec^a.»er4w. road has been used on a regular basis In ou potei:_ - ----------- cvj.wwi.uc .ii o-.wuu u.'-.ac in tne lutura t*ie street than now exists. .Most of the nts vicinity, and around Lake .Min.-.etonka, have been sold to privsue j...dividua.vs, and are b-ing used. Fifty years ago who would have known ^f'Vention of the snowmobile, and hew imoortant access for that is rfho knows wnat will be in placo fifty years from How. In u.iau tne city aoos not nave Durisoictlon to vacate this riaht- o.-way since it is not a City street, but instead the road was given in fee to the p^at owners in common (see enclosured). c.,03ing, a closer look at tho dedication in the Wallace's addition plat es It appear that the City does not have jurisdiction to vacate this rii AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER I '■ PAca TWO I appreciate you giving the D»p«tt.T.«nt an opportunity to conmeiit on this Sincerely, Martha J. Reger Area Trails and Waterways Supervisor Enclosures cc:Del Barber George Golden, Attomoy General's Office Kir. Lockwood f' * MA MUub . 42S, 211 X Xf, A79» «aFn. <Xa airft&gvatat of irarkiof ktm tsAblo aa oaptoji to dopart otrUtr tkts tkt N|^Ur tkittloo hour dots Bot Halt trttoi koacward bj htai aitfr toch dtpBrmro i part of tbf eapidymtfit. Flak t. Worksooa't Com> pe&Mtioa Bareaa. $S X D. ttl« 28S X. tV. SOS: HopklAt ?. SUtt XadojitrUi Act. CoouD. 160 Or. OS, 63 P. iSd) 4ST. in ■ matter of latr, lAe trip Id qoMiIoo wdb bo port of tbe cm* pteje I tmplejiBtftt. *od bis death did Dot oriat ovt of and fa the eoani of bfa empIaTmesL BcTorted. IK KE FETITIOX OF & A. XJIEB8 TO TACATE STBEET. S. A. nEB8 AXD 0TBEBB t. TOWX OF XOBTHEfiNM mm • l>M*iiib«r 4, IMi. Kou sjfeaa. L hefeiB a anon oos be toco tod fa • priooinftni; nA« St. iMi, I losae <sumd sl ii*r, | tM4>» Ihi it moBl oppoir Ibot ao pob- SL ODob O wta hi oomm w Ihi rffbto id Ai jnblii te iiOliMpIatid. DM if tho Doblk viD bi libera], ood wilt Bit be Umilod to m poTtfeilir oetiTltr for ifiD if nrae* ttidniit §t A Tbi irMcDCf fB thti eaci dooi aot noUte the Aaflof that the ftriit b qaMtfNi li oselcM for tbt parpose for vbleb H ^ hid oot. iBiperWd h • K. W, (31) M6. I Ml •t M toBillo«Ut dilUact to tBt oonb «l Pint ttmt TM tovo of Sgrlhtrn lo&e DotklOf tovard kooploif tl Ifi ivpolf. It kao Mt eat tko frovlBf ‘voeda aor rcaotod tba acea—laUd dtkiia. PfMf to 191T, ibart vu a boat Uadiog «iU dooka at tbt ikort teraaJoal of Pbvt atrott, bat tome tiDt laitr attaabaac travtl vaa dlaeoBdioed, and the atrtet bat aot beta aaad for that parpoae •iaao. Bacoad street. vhUe oot oev Ls aaa west of the booltfard. it better adapted for developoent. It Is a throafh street. The portion anal of the bewlarard Is ia tonaidtrablo BA It la aoro conrtaieat to thoao la the Ticialty who deatfO to itaeh tbo laht* The ofjp preiOBt aaa Bade of First street le b^ aeighbora edko coBo dowa occatioaaUp dariaf tbe aoBser to waal their ears. Objector, the town of Korthara, did aot aahetaatlallp diapate theoa facta. two olBccra of the town teatlfjisf >aeed their, objeettoa priJBAril; opoa the prospect of fitaro vm of the etrect hf tho pwbUc, and of iajtiv7 to property ealaci In the area If the atroet were cloeeA fhe atatate applicable here Is 3Caa. 8t IIU, | lOhld (hlaaoB 9t liST, I 8244). Thia proridet that the dlitrM eoarl aay noitf an or aay part of a plat, ntreeiB • • * coueettaf eeparsto plato or lyiad btcvoan blocks or lota, than aot he eoMied hetvfea aach lot% hlecka or plata na are act also eacated^ aahp It appeara that the afreet * * * or part thereof soBfht to ho toeetei la aeo- IM for tho parpoae fbr whlob It waa laid oat.’* the priadplet foQowod hj isdier tho etatate art weQ asi fsl^ etatid la In re Potitioa of Sdialler. 193 ICioB. 6M, 901; 8M 9, W. 12^ 6t^ 926L Theit certaia late shore areas bad beet Micated to the pobVe to be need ae H stcaaboat laadlng.* Latv stiaBboot sereice waa discoatfaacd, and the area waa aaed Ibr recreiHoatl pnrpoite Tha lower eonrt fvaated aa order ef aaeition. Ia re* veratag, this eonrt said (198 Mlaa. 814. CU K W. 9N): •The prwcal tiwad of pabUe optaioa In dliteted teward tag to the pabUe acceas to oar Inken. ear pnrka, nad onr foreste, for recreatioail nfid ether propar nsea. That ft whp Hhe Baal tart It whether the pabUe lafemtn will or will tot be beet aerred by nf MM fMrmoM or TO rACAJE fTKSf 9i7 ^ tovm . It hMM itbrIiL i€ i&ort T«l WM parpolo altrar^. .ft. Hit ‘ St Bore Sake. «ni wko dlapBte <4 thetr i ftmt «]f tke (ITmoo Tteatf «TvfeB spptan a^iSit sUtf4 ^ 5% to tkf •akoot ntlonai Ib t«> mtor» yrtMtMf ■U U9t red hj diMoatSBaiiic tkt wap.* la re Vaate of Fart of Town of HIb- bUf, m Minn. 439, 447, 2W X W. $34, 53T, 201 N. W. Ill la Bood T. Vint(e of Hibblic, 190 Mlaa. 100, 184 X. W. 043, aii cowrt hold Utt t plit nap bt tacited aalp wbea ic abaU be otadf to appear that tacb vaetdoa will prort boaafidal to tke pabUe iatanatL Xa tbt iaataat eaaa tot a difle wira««i elaitted tbat tbcrt wai aap poaaible bcscflt aecralto to tbe pobllc bf tba pro posed Tacadoii.'* ApjfijUg Of teat lo laid dowa, vi canoot leatiiB tbo prtao&t erdar. Tbot it ao tTfOtaet abowiaf tkat Ut ittatt aialfit for the parpoat for trbSqb it waa laid Mi* At b'tid ia la n FetS* ilea of BckaOer, ntpra, tba porpota tor vhleb tba atrttt wmt laid oat «B&ot bt CDBitraad at narrovlp limited to oat la coaaeetioa with Ibt boat itadiag tboH at tba tiiae tka ttrid wa dcdleatad. Xta porpote vat ratker to prooidr tkt pibUc witk aetata to tka lake akete at tkat potat for tap peti po lettrltp. Bcfoia It caa bt ▼acatad^ It Boat apprar tkat tbt atnal li otalaat for tkat porpote. Tke ffldbica tkova oalp tkat tfct atNat it tot bow itcd. Tbit it fai tke fbtai^ Tkcew ia tvidtBai tt ika tiket that Sa tit aaar llL-‘dtp kart Ian told la lidiftfatl owBcra and art ktiag «ai Tht ovioi kavt kiflt fkaecs la kaep paople froa foiof ap ltd down tka btaai. Farthep drralnpatBt of tkit aita wfU ktra la taka pitca at Ittd to ika rear ad dSa kka tkert lota. Tkit dafdapBtat viD ba affadad ma* tarliXip br tke axtaat to vkick icadp teeae to tka laka li affonied. /Moraorar, va Boat not forftt tkat tbt pablie ladadat partOBa oCkcr fkat tkaaa la tka isuaedUta tkioitpt Tka fttcral pakUe kat a tm coaeartt la tka MfiriatiBatt fiffiltlai offaied kp tke Uket wkidb aatnra kaa ao firaalp fta at la tkla itata. Xbtir ftaafont aktriaf bp an will Bake far a kealtkitr aad kappiar pfople./lk« maap aot fortaaile eBoi|b to la abla to ac^aiit the adraatafea of owaonldp of lala akora propcrtlca ikooSd aot be depriTod of tkaea beaeiltt. Tkit ve woaid do If wo peiBitted r U8 ■tmti letdlBf to tk« Uto ikon to be vaottd ta bcN ^lopooed. W« M Aiio impctwid bj tie feet titt tie towoeklp U vUel tlli pvopeitj Ii locited le ebJectlDK to tio TOtatfoa. It la tie locaQ oait of feveroBeat vllcl rtpreoeatB the pvbUe. To It (a •atraated tic apkecp and BAioteoaact of local itoetta aad high* wBTa. Xa auaj atatee tie tecttion of streett la left cotiirij to It. Xu dosim therefore tbooJd cirrj loportant valgit to deter* uI&lBg vietitr o atmt ahoald be tactted. It uif veil be to the iaUietU of penoaa aboee propert/ ad* JoUa tie atrect that it bt recited. PirtfeoUrlj tob M U girt tba SIcte, two of tit pettUoaen beralo, « lebattatfallp loogar ilore lloo tlao tlc7 low liT«. fiot tbcae are aot cooaldentieBa wild ibe autQU cooteaaplatea. Tba atraet waa dcdleitcd to tie aae of tbt pobUe. aid before It cto be recited It aatl appear tiet tlit eae da ao loagtr be aarred. * It la ao aatwcr tiat lecoad atraet la better tdeptad for dertlop* Beat or that It weald afford more eoarealeat aeetaa to tie pmeai pablie Mtiaf la fo to *le lake Tie towa board* vlkb diddea vial utxmHM alill be iaapforad* mas eot tUmk ao wlea It coaaa to aiildag tie declatea. tie gaeatSoB for foaaldenitloa lera la wbetber Ftret etmt la aaaltti* aot wietler aoat oticr atmt la auct aoefii!. for tba parpoat lor vUck It wia laid eat, Tbt bvdea Qi mallag oecb a abowlag baa act beta tact bj patitSoaera. Tie aaotko tot la iiaeadcd fladlig **tlat tie pertSoa of PM ilaect aoaglt to be ncatcd ia aot abova to bt aaekai for tbe pvpote tor wild It waa laid oct, bat It data afford a aNBaa of icctoe tor tit gtaartl poUlc to the lalt»” aad tor a eeadtaioa of law tIat tie petlHea be dealed aboald lave beta graatod. Tie order dODjiag lie tiBr aad tie fataiag jadgxaett are ravened. \ I Otber ^QftCJooi raM Nquirt CMiBcatFor tbe leotoilt «UU4, tbt ordrr 4eD^iAf ft mv trill niul W rtrcncd tad a nev trial graattd. UroK ArrucAiiojf voi BKAaaaMSMT. Oa Avgoit 29,1944, tba foBowiag opialOB ▼mi lltd t r«» CtraiAM. The ttatt’i BBOtioD for rKall of Iht rfoittitar to doaiod oa tbe aitborily Btata ?. Widden, 191 Kiaa. 479^ 254 K. W. 07. Tit pftitiOB for rohaariaf to thottoit dcaiod as aot midi bofore tbt rettittitar iraa meat dovm. TK BE APPUCATIOB OP SDWAJU) H. AKD HAZEL BALOWIX TO VACATE LA&8 6TSBST» ETC. ABKE BEBOBEB ABB ABOTflEB, A?PBLLABT6.^ B, 1941. t N«.lA7tl. •toMrt lia IImi If to ItMJdOil torpto«t to»>-Tatolfaa if ftroat lototod m liari of »«iMiro4 0 ilrtot Iftotid ipom tht iHft litHtoi Of ma tetto- otod frpp*r*r to wtottor the pvtob totomt rill lo tort Mnod oifb ^iMittoa. ItiioiK^fididal aoilrt i^iurfir oil raWk mu of tokft A lodfdil Botki ril to totoa ri ttoi etoantw of Lok» ICtoii*. >lUp«rto4 to IS M. W. (9d) ISA - •'rr ♦ Ill Moni&JOTA AirOATt tonk* u)d ti»t ixtnNrivi p«Uic «•# «mmI« H Ut Iskt lar'mrf«t>«a*l » tiM tf fUtotat 4. H)c vord in lilnn. St. )MI. | SOl.ll (JtaMn St lirr. I Itll). pemttdRf >»eatioi of a itrrct ^hia H k for U# parpoM for whkk Jt iraa laid oat,** auit k« fivta Iti fall oad in« rotMetotf tttoaiaff. t^>ocatlMi of ilrMt locaiH ao akofo af ataaftrH UkaM-aaoHalos piatMdtaf. i. tUfitol to Mt osidt a dftm vacatlat a pakUe Hpoa Ilia aWti af Laka Mlanaiaala spaa palftlaa of aarMT aal pcfMttaSj taraaS vftk Aotlea «f tba tiiadaci praandlata ktid mvnaaaa lotatad adJafadar Appeal kj Atfea aad Joala Bergton froa aa otdar of tha dlatrlct coart for Henacpia cooaty, Lori M. Hall, Jidft, dii^laf tkeir aotioa to aat aalde a decree of Mid coart Vaeatlai a carUia portioa of toko Itioat la aaid ooaatj ao aa ta penait appeUaata to appear la oppcaitloa to the appIJoatioa to racatc. Btftratd. rsooiaa follakioa, for appallasta. . 0, J. aod JoSaaop, flfoadt 4 SrunfitH, for rcapoadcata. SfaatMooTtt, JctncB. Ala la a proceedlap oadar HiaOL Bt» 3941, | 605.14 (Ifiaoa St. 1927, I 82I4)» fbr ika racatloa of a abort ttfttth of l4kt Straat (aboot 150 foot) located OB tbe Borth aboft af St Alhana Baj 9t Lake MlBBOtoaka Ib Ssccirfor tovnik^l, ‘ Houupla covat?', dc- •crlM aa ^AU that part of laka Stxaot Jtjiaf bitaeea tka aoo^* eofterlp lloe of Coaotr Boad Xo. 82 aad tka aoBtkwaatarljr Uaa of Weat ttroot arttndfd to the akork of Xakt lOiiMtoaka, Benattt^a Additloa to CoWagtoa* Tko pttftSoatr% Edvafd B. Balda-la aad Baiel Baldvlii, vko are rtopoadeato kcrc^ owb tvo lota, vlth a troBtage of 50 and 01 feet rcapocdToly, akattiBg on Lake Stmt, vkUf a third abotting kft It OVTied Ij Hkcrt Jaeebf» vho coa* tested iB arlllBf to tba partial Tacatloa af tba atmt LN*13 i»t tbt ovpen of * Solemn lot obottiH om tbo stAf otmt tad lytof fwt of tkt portloa Mafkl to be facatad. Thfj accapj Ifctlr proptrty oalj 4oriaf Oe fiuer iBoatto of opch y*w baV4aria« laeb period, Urt oetaaloa lo om tkk portioa of Uit Stmt MOfht ia U fieatod aa thiir Boot 4lmt coancotiaa with eooaty road 2fo. 83, leading to Mlaacapolla aad Kxctlaiar. Tbgy eta, bewtftr, by a mart eireaifoai ioat% ttt gtmtt, tlao rticb tb« eooaty foad, iako Stroft araa dedlctltd to pabUe aot la ISO by tbo plat of HtBaftt’a Addltloo to CoTlactOBt Slid la that year. Hovemr, thf portloa of tbo otreet her# latolTed baa amr baea gtadad or otbe^ ^ae ijBprotod by tht tovaabip* aad Ita are it a tboioafbfbta by ibe poblle geatroUy baa aot beea aartnwiTe. O b Aogoat 14, IWS, oa appUeatlea of the Baldariai, the dlrtirlct eonrt »a4t ra order flxiBf Bepltabar S ai tbe data of baarlag oa thair potitloB to vaeatr tbe portion of X«ha Strett trhicb bae batii dMcrIbed. Pataaaat to dlrectteDi roatalaed la tbe trdw for bear* ific it ’oaa duly pablWbrf tad poatod aad a oopj rarred a poo the rbidmaa of the towarbip of Exodalor. At ordBr dM art diroet vrrrica Bpea appenaata. tod they wa» aot ptrioBally eemd, aor dM they bate aetatl aotice of the procefdiagt oaHl aft« a decree el f aeotloB vaa oalered. ^ *Wk«B tho matter eai»e ea to be beard In diatriet eeart »o op* poaltioa appeared. »• tiiil court, afltr bearlag tbe prtitlonejo, made appropriate dodlo|% laelndlag oat foUotriof the leogtiifc of tho potHloB, oie..* That tht porUoB of eeld Lake ao drecribad la oatlaai for iba porpoaet for which laid afreet waa laid oat; that ell of tbe prepartjprepartj «wiair« »iniraa§ on ~ — — fttrona of haring It raeat^i aad that aaSd portion of aald atioet ia now of no au to ydar pedtlooera or to aay othar penoa for the porpoaet for wUch aald atieet wia laid oaL* A decree tacatJag the dmcribed portion of Lake Stmt waa accord- laaly entered oa Sapteiaber 14,1341. All w veil QBtil the feUevtec •prisf, vheo the Bcfcrwe seeed hick to the lake for the eeaMr* With appafeat UiaoeeBee» thej htftB veiof the veeatatf portloa of Z«akt BCreet an a vtaoa of aeciaa to their eottaft. Bet aboet » qbo 1, Arsa Berfree recehadi a telephoat eail froaa Che aCtorscj for the BaltfvlBa vanlof hia to ^lecoDtiaet the oae of the vacated atrtet ^r die he ▼otald be •abjoet to legal proceea for dolof ao/' Btrfiaa basfdlattlj’ <b* faced hie preaeat attoraef to Innetlfate ▼hat had happtaod. With proper dlUgoDOo, aoffet of a aaotios to lot aalda the IMf deeree and to peralt the Boffieaa to appear !■ ofpoeitloa to the eaoatloa of the atroet waa aorred apoA tha Baldarloa, aa ▼ell at apoo the oecapaat aod teeord owpcr of other abettlaf property* aad PpoA the ehatrata of tha tows board. A capj of BOtiei of votJoa ^a alao poattd la tbrea pohlie placM ia tha towsahlp. Oaly tha Baldwiaa appearad la fomal oppotltioB to tha aotloa tc raopea the proecedui^ They railed mainly apOA the dalma (1) thee the Bercreoa had aet beea depriecd'af aooma to their prtfaiaaa, baca&aa Weat Street vae arailablc to them; <9) that Ukt Stfoet had aot baea need aa a atraot er themaghfkrf nntll vhta the Baldviai dUed la a portioB of Lake Street adjaetBl to the cooBtj road aad oomaeaoed laprorctBaata oa their owa ptoparly; aad (S) that tha earated part of toko Sboot *Sa BaeloM to tha pobUc for the parpeaea for ▼hleh ft ▼aa laid otC» haa sercr beea need by the pobUc ar hy aaiyoBc for porpoem aa a afreet, and the pablio iBtentta are beet aamd hy not aalBf laJd plattad atroet. Sn Tltv of the locatlOB of aald atieet and tha complete acomelbUtty of the public to tha eherco of Lake hOimetoBka at the aonthcrly eod of Weet Strict* Sapportlac the BahlwiAa la their efforU to prtreAt a reopealaf of the procccdlBfa oara the three toim aoparrliort irhe hy alBdatlt eeaerted thet, opoa belof mmd aith BOtloe of the orlflBil hear* lac ia they had made a completa iBTceClcatloB tad had cob* daded that the portloB of lake Street here larolTed *^ee ao good for the parpoae for ▼kick It ▼aa laid OBt aod that theto eoald ba a hfnBMt acemiBB to tbe paUk by the propaaad Tacadoa.** The ^****** ^•*-*' IS nn AFf WCATJOIf or WAUfWir to TACA^S IUK* fTXSVt 15 MpeniBon furtbff •thit mi viefo) parpow woild bi iffTfi APJ i»ltf«t of tbt pttbUc w«ttld b« pvf«4f0«d by ofdtr Ft tbii wttrt "ttSttf ••!«« tbt dHrte.** Joit wbt« bwedt tkt pttMlf vo»*^ ^ Tucitio* pf tbf itmt Ptb«r tbai briiic ib« ttlnor ftptiMt pf BtlataialBt 15® ftft of or vl»M »pal^ dfcm dort pot «ppo«f tbfit tfldoviti «&d aoft remoia t mtiiitvs. *N«ivitb»taadl9C Ibo tl*ily notion midt by appciliatt, tbc dli. coaH. by order dated Stpltnber 25. IMS, reflaed to Ht aalde lit fornrr deeree *> aa to ptraait app^aatar to bo baord In oppoai* tioa to tbt appHcatloa to Taeatt tba atrett Tbi appeal la fton tk»t ordtr. 1, nrot>*5opt the procttdlacif below, tba abattlag owaan hata I^ipbaflted the Boottta of tbe tacated porHon of Laba fwtt aa a rtmt or tboron|bftr« tad tbe fact that apperUiata ba?a anotbar piieet •» • netoa of accett to tbair ptoptrty. AppeUtati, oa tbe eiber baod, bate itmaed tbe eJabn of dana|0 to tbair own prop* rrtt taoted by tbe taeatiOB. AppamllF loot ib tbO ebftfa wwra tbt riebta of tbe poblk In tbe lake Itaalf, for nellber pvty aeana ii« bate fitcfi macb coaalderation to tbe folia of loba Stvaat, iMtttd as it la 00 tba aborea of St Aiboao Bay, la piOfldlBf lake troatagt and abore line for tbe wee of tbt pnbUe to mtcetienel parpoMe. Like Btreet* bariof been located by tba plat of Ben- Mffa Adffitioo OB tbi abort of tba bay, its dadleatsoo to tba nae of tba pobiie irm bo preeoaiod to baft been btendai *to anabla tbe poblle to bare aeceia to tilt water for all propv pnbUe par* peeaa.* In re Fttlilon of Sebafler, IW llinB. dOI^ IBB X* Wii 929, SIO (beadooto). 1 nt copteet here la not a sere bout bctweco prirate Indltld* wltb menbtn of tba pobllc aetlof nerojy Ib tba role of iptctatortL Ibe poblle baa m real and anbatastlal later«t In tba eatcoae. “Tbi pebtie right* IB tboae Ubeo, with wbkb iWa atata abeoBdi, ate of great talne and Inportancf,* Witty t. Board of Cfli COfomn. le BJbb. 2BB, 289, TB X, TT. 112, HI, a&d tbla coBii fit IlCorCiOTA HXMltTt fctf alviya bttn leAlow i» protoetUf Omb. Lubpnj v. State. SS Ulao. in, n 19. W. ll». lSli.B.A«f7S,IIA.am.541} Mt4m T. Lenaa. 117 Mtaa. KP, 13S N. W. lOOS; State ▼. Xorrer, 1ST Mlsa. fO. 148 K. W. 817, 2088, ti. B. A. llifC, 189; XpIdvcSn t. CoQBij of S]Vlt7,148 UiBB. 37,170 H. W. 881; Xa n fltlttoa of Solalkr. tmpre; la rt Petition of Xitbt. 911 IDia. 344, 8 K. W. (Id) 808; retroWg o. ZoatalU, 217 Mlaa. B84,18 2f« W. (fd) 174. ABd whert, at btre, It It prepoood to Ttetta a ttmt vkick la loeattd opoB b lata abort, the matter ahoald meht **oor aaoet cert- fttl aoiiifldaratloa. * * * tbt Oael tett la trbctbtr tbe pttUIo la* taraita viU ct not be boat aerrad bp dlMoatlaataf tie vap.^ Pg Pftitioa of Scballar, 193 man* 814, 3S9 K« W* 884* Tba aitaation la aot oolike tbot vUcb oaiattd la KHekichta r. CooBtp of SiUej. awpro, iBTOlrlac tbt drtlaa«B of Witbiafttb la BlbliT ceoatp. Thart tbe pcUUoaait atnaaed the beaedta to thalr land vblcb mlfbl rtaalt from tbo drtiaadt of tbe like, wbtle tbe objector! In tara d««lt meialp apoa tit derntfo to tbeir ova Bart tba ceaH (149 Vlan. 41, 48,110 X. Tf. 884, 888), ff farrlB« to tba **aettlcd poUip deelf aad to ptmam lataai vetva wbleb afford rtcreatloa to tbt paUlc^** aaMi ««• « • We bare obaemd tbot la cealected dniaefa proeeedlafa tbo petJtloBaio art ebiefj taterested la tddiaf to tbata boldlafi of arable Sand, vbUa tbair oppoaeata ora eoaeoracd om pooilbta dam* ega to tbair liada oo a reealt of tbo diolaigt of tbooo of tbeir otigbbora. In the eloab o/ con/fWfop prtrota Moif of tbe pvbllo ora opt fo drop oof of alpM. 7ft I8f tMt, fboiifb adl f portp fo nor ftpr9tnU4 ta tU prveeoilnpo, kotrmlond soUl^n- ir<tl Hphu to prouet, • • • It aboald bo tbo coaein of tbe coontr board aad of tbo eooHo to gaard tba rlfbti of tbo pobllo, aod to pioaorre for tba anjojaaBt of tbla aad fotaro ceoeiatldBa all bodlm of vater which hare preoeat or potaatlil pablle rtlae.” (XtalicB ■opplled.) 8. TbU court raqalm ao proof that Leko bXtaattOBko la • prlc^ ]€sa beritaga of tba paople of Bianeeota, to be preearred ead pe^ Lt. ? IN ns APrUCATIOlf of tALOWtir to VACATB bAKS tnUST it CD to poflttritT. Jv^ieUl ooUc« vUl W t*keo of Uwi fict tkit it to mid of tito moot prtcloDi pearli Id tbo otriDf of Tit Aotuad bnkMt of trklck UlBDOMta It oo jottlx proo4* XtD aotvril bUttQr bni*t«foae tht tkcmo of both tegfio^ tAd ooif. B moom of Ito vidi expa&it OBd proUfliitj to our motropollUa trtM» it ii ateh tn- <iwniti BDd Btcd for hoatiBA, flohifig, picBlcklog, tDd blthiD^ ptrlapt Boro tbifi anp otbor likt la tho aUta. Xta abort liao of Dtarlj XOO Btiltt ia dottfd v|tb peroaatat boaea «od wmaor cot* tageoi Bot oalt at Ita vator’k cdga, bst axtaadiag f«r batk firom the abort. Bot tbo «ao of tba toko la not coaintd to dvoBori oi ita abort or &oarbp. Doriag the tuaiaer attaoB capactolllfi It la tht BKca for thosModa «po& thooaaada of orbaoitoa, oot ao foi« tnaait at to pooacn a toko homo, who—jonog and old afilo ■»oook Ita aborea asd wttcra for dirtra recroatkmal pnipoata. 10 tboto who do &ot lodaict Is actiTt rtoitatioB, it afforda the eppoitaalty At eoBBoniog vith Pitait at ita boat Wltb tbo Saeroiii la tbo ItfimaaaBt toko popaUtlomi bovtrer» tba oartaat of lake abaia arall* ablt to tba public gaaoraUp aod tht moaaa of public accom la tbo Ia Io bare dlaioiabod asd, tbonfoM^ baooiM iocrasalaglp titoabto from jrar to Toar. AH tbcaa facta art ao eommoalj kaovi that tbia court anat take them iato eosiidmtlOB is dlapoatof of tbo •ppeti * uu ipuat sot forget that tbs public iadadti peraobo other tbsn tbooo is tba iBBediatc vidnitp* Tba gtstral pablic bu a trao ooBcara iB tbt fserutloBSI fbdlltlos offend bp tba laboe vbleb satuiro baa ao Credtp gttfB Ba IB tbto atata Tbalr ftserosa obaiiag bp all trill makt for a boaltbtor aad bappxr poopto Tba atap Bot fortasata cDOsgb to be sbto to sequin tba adrutagca of otrsorablp of lake oboet propertlta abould not bo dtprind of tbooo besedta. !lliit ire maid do If m pamlttod atiuota loadtog to tbo toko ohon to be TteoCed at bon pnpoacl* Ib n FcHtlom of Krebt, 213 Miiua. 344, 347» 4 X. W. (2d) Mb, Md. 4. Koophig fB tsiad tbo ralue to the public of fret iccoia to and Die of tko ioke ibore, ve ore at a loa to know koir aop part of Ill iCJOCiiti Lakt Stmt bit becoiot vitbSii U m aMnSag •! tb«t Urm ti coiftiaoBij dtftacd. Tbe word *'aiclcM,’* whicb appoui la 31iiui. 8t IMI, I 605J4 <>la»oB 8t. 1^27, | 8244), panalttiag vaMtlOb of B Btratt vbta It la *QMlfW far tba parpaaa far irhicb it vat Itid OBI,** ahanid »ot ba glraii aoj reatrJcted mcaala^. Caarta tfiaold atcriba ta it tba vtU^iccaptad coanttaiioa: **aat Mrri»| ar aat capable af atr^laf asv Talnabk parpaaa; briag af aa aat; batlag ar balBg af so aaa; «t»en*icaablt; pradadog ao good tod; aatwir* iBf aa dcalivd parpaaa.** raok k WagMUa :Ccv SUadard Dl^ Ueaar^ri J8I2; TTabattr'a Xav JataraatlaBal DietlasAt^ (lad.) 1888L & lif loaa ta tba pablk af 15# faat af ahait ILta aat af a total af appraximaialr 100 lUlct aiap to tba Baldvlai aata iaeaBartueatial ar ttaa laOaltaalBal tad aatblaf to ba dSttarbad abaat B«t» af tbU 100 Bllta of pmJotit abarc U bB| aaly a tattU frictloa bat breo rmrred far tba pabtlc; tod if tba coorti tbaold create a precadfit bj ptraittlag a alagle laioadi bavartr tiaall, apoa iba pabllt'a tbare of Cba tbara Hat, other iaraadi iri& laarltablp follov, aatU the agfrcftta baeoBca a real throat ta tho pabUda free aceaaa to the laba* t^^aroid ifij poatlbUllr af aucb a iwalt, tbe caarta •boald vith aootl dgor rapalaa the Orati the aaeaaid, tad ev<i7 other lawalt opaa the pabUa dooMda. If eteraal rffilaact It tbe prka of pitaerviag tho fall beaeflt af lllhbatota^ labat for all meahan of the pabllc*-«a it It of Ubattjw ptblk ottcitla aatt gladlp pap that priet. Tbap aaat aat itaad hr, vbollp aaaoaaraad, Ubt Kara* vbo fiddlad vbUa Scat bamtd, aid permit pobUb acceet ta our Ubea to bt eat off or rtdoced far tclOab priTali pai pate t. Tet here lava raparriaora appaar to beta beta t&tlrtlp obUtfate ta tba fall Sapart af tba patfUao, of tba Ollag af vUcb tbep malted potfcc. Xat oalp did tbap fall ta pro> taatr bat tbir tctuallj gate old tad comfort to the padtJoatra la tbelr raid apOB tba pahlle*a eooaerratiOB cheat. ffbe abriata parpaaa af prorldlaf aatlea to tba tawa aapareJeaea of procfcdlagi to racate a atreet ar bl^wap la to pat tbeae af* ficen OB gioerd* eo that tba latereata cl tba poblic somj be amplj protected. Tba fapenitora of Sscelalor towaiUp bariag failed ia uf )tje A^PLicAiiQir or BALOirm to tacats tASz fniicr 19 tWb i^tr ^ tnpHi and baring permlntd a daianJt tn b» an* It it at kaat BBawataBdaU# why tbt petlttaa vaa •r%laall7‘ fraa^ bj tba bwcr coort Bat obta tbt eowt% dacrit raeatiag ibe ftrtat wia pmtaptlj atiackti b^ appiUiDtt apoa Ibait mtir* Sag BotSct of tbc proeafdlag» ibt trial cowt ibonltf bara baaa alart to tba pvbllc iBtfreit tad, aabtaltatlsflj, abotld bar# raopaatd It; and ibS% fiotvitbataadliif that apptUaata* motioa to raopaa vw ttotlralfd prladpaOj bp tba aatielpatad da^agt to tbalt ova property* 3tot to rtopaa tbt prpcaadlag la tbe ptblle Satartat tna A altar aboia of dlacratlon. and tbe order denpiag appallaat^ at* floai Miat be raftraad. If. is view of tbt taportasce we bart aitaebtd to tba ptaairva* tloB of ov labaa asd foU acetaa tbartto for tba ptblle asd far poatartt^i raapandasta atUl ^irt to irge that tbe portloa of lake Btraet bttweaa tbair propcrtjr and it JUbaoa Baj baa baaent <^natlaai far tba ptrpoaa for wbicb It rma told oat** tbaj wltl be Aceordad that pririlega, TTt aar sot bart all tba faeia. Bat rt> apeadania tooald ondarataad that aaj dtaret tf Tteattos ttiat ba onpperiad Igr daar proof that tba atrtat baa to fact baeeaa *Qtt> Icaa^ to tba pnbUe in tba fall tad asraatrleted aetnlaf of that taraL Bereiaad. L STATC or DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Region VI Trails and Waterways, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 PHONENO (612) 772-7935 ' FiLENO OCT 2 0 1993 October 10, 1993 Mr. Mike Gaffron Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, 55323-0066 : ♦ J,! Dear Mr. Gaffron; Please 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 Bay Road, as shown on the attached map. This right-of-way as originally 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 preclude future public use. The citizens of Minnesota have a right to use all of the public waters in our state. Any attempt to preclude public acce.'is should be carefully considered. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources devotes considerable effort to providing citizens with free and adequate access to our water throughout the state. According to the Minnesota Supreme Court, a vacation of a public street must be in the public interest. Additionally, the public includes persons other than those in the immediate vicinity. Our goal is to protect and preserve the public's right to all forms of accesses. These accesses can include but are not limited to shore fishing, canoe/carry-in access, winter access, boat access, swimming and picnic areas, and observation areas, ^y access the public has, has value. The water is public, and any access is an access to public property. The public owns it now, and should not lose any property or opportunity. No access should be simply "given" to the adjacent neighbors. Although there is other public property on Lake Minnetonka, that is not the test. The test is whether the vacation of this particular right-of-way is in the best interest of the public. Please consider the above request for the denial of the proposed vacation. Additionally I would be glad to meet with any concerned parties to discuss any other options. Sincerely, cuU'Q Martha J. Reger Area Trails and Waterw.-ys Supervisor attachm.ent cc;Del Barber, Regional Supervisor George Golden, Attorney General's Office Kim Lockwood, Water Recreation Specialist AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER • : WAWLAQI’S A6>eiT(QiN To T he Village Oif IVIUJNNITONIKA ©1A©H oFeet T o One Inch 1908 v^<vfV vjolu ' j’- i. * ‘ : -***# >. i.r *0 r ' • . ii •y • I 0 •• I -, N > ^‘ syy ____ r /.V. '•w >• • » V.' »»» » ^ ' »4. f*. £ AW*»v ^4 t. AiSN BY TYtSe f>M£S£^r~3 ^/icCt ^.' Cltt/<2«*w ^ 9ht££k£»^***”^^> y ;3l*. -fu^ftjdu^A^attd. //< di..-4 y / yY^t^Xmifi <>^ksitiML /VL*f/Us/^/^ ^ ft*. . Uk J%a x^^t£P***r* ^ l4^ ^ X/•t^/^M^ itdtjls 4^ <3#*^^ {?BBt0€Jy “/U*^^*i/*^ «3*w/ < <Sl4/i*Vw _ •.4-4XAJL // ^ L4/^m ^ itxtJLB 4m^ sB0*.i.^ c-7 f «^*WK -^7 — -- ^JsL£^ tl4rc*^*^ .'j^<tA,^ jt^ ^*rr^ H^—^^€\ju4’ //“T fl^ ^ f\^-‘ y Mtd* *•>■ cu»d yW- v<ui«f ^A4«*M y »»«* y^uM****^ i^**^ Ttt, y«'“* -* ”*^^***7'** SUi^di^t^aiWA/.i.dC£'i'//o6tTtOf/ r* rd£y7£i^c^£ Of^ /yfid/4e.rOf4K/f ^s/rcd } 1 ?, t •• *• A‘ -5^. 'i; y^«*> «"o < 1 H ■■ rr—» 'r««# ------- --------------- r A / /rt I C\.jCj((£Ul‘iLC£Sji^^ - rt^>^r::v-______'iic «• ^7 W-I • • p r-^ v: S/ki^ ^/>f/npBC retit \ M:;s *. //^5 ^Pitf^tLCi ^#4^. <Aty ^'/j /fef *!^^exc. “Mth t ^xik^dY T^cTTfli/Zu-cc ^ -mx a / u- * * £ *L . ____V Jbu4^ ‘‘ii'- 'j 4 Mi- >'* r . % r. AUJ,:^ ■ '/£Ll_ ptV 4B>1‘ , V. •: i^;v.'r;.f»: •>*;’ ^•t‘. '^V •li^" .*♦* . M* 1 l/w -‘M**.,., ^*♦4, ^B^'^UB/9BUL4y^ il*£Y^ ^Tka^ gA^k, H y x mB%’AX^4^ Mtk^ /^arH.t, ae A aLxj c/^gx^ ^ ^ -£T ^ V-^ ^*'^- • ^ 1 N^V-l *.l'\ ''• •>' wilWy MM III i' ---ij-« Tka^ %.^/m't ctd\^^**XkXA Aftary^ /H^ drmpmfSStarn^^yt^t 4 -=4'// ______ . xlr.^''* ^•'C, ^»«w *X/Z^£ti*4 X*‘ ^T^‘tyC^Bt4'/^^J^*gYK. /« z'^4 - 7 . t ^^yB. /kM-* 1'1; /kmJC Va>4(^ #A^ TKt^yJB^ ygBB ^\g. C^g^tkkeilty eldX^y*^xkXAU-. 7X^ \Xbb^ itd^^YB.44 4(ktf gi«^/a /AcLtr/kg^^^Mi \€e Me /AcLtr/kd. ■:^ Jl •v-i -. *> • \ i‘ j-.■:>3 1^ • v;' - i*“’ -.» ♦44. ^#4*^ ' v '■ :®V||;^:?;' .' - .. . - • Vi ,-r^^ > ^f/ii^ y\£, ee\deti }(y 7^<C^ ^ ^<r« :Tfu\//\xC/ \ g€xBy ^ pp€4gy '9^ /Sa^^jT ^ <yw%^» 4^' dU."—A f <>M4A^ ey nuxBy o^/y/fBt ^ yVc^M<iAC4«^^ /^-4.4» //^ py_ ^' * • • € «C « «<«<9 , ««« 4^4 t4»*4 v>4 » I ‘,'' “ orriCK OF KFci^n-k v\ i •,, . HEKKiriN roUHTY. MlJi4*4..r. ' .••>,! -.'iiv/piv ■‘‘‘■h-: :.-ri'-cf‘X'<'^__ iVm*'’ I • t « « i mm m 'r?8'* ... i* «; ■;: -V;r*-,? i'/:. ' Kvii. fM.tkrrA ' tf'. f/!r..‘ V I •• . .J • • tv.v: ‘ ■u/f. W>flL/VC£S //D6fTWA/ 7-^£y7LLj9<^ *«' «>%r ^ ■ • I**- .‘••‘I*- *• ' ♦ fr * » fi;;\ >%##«■# * 'J !:Vf^ *'► ^» .... V . . A » •» . ''.Tl.':'r--. • ! ;- > f^i 1 '^Pk jTct X (_J^J^{[ix£CiL € ►. -o.. ^ ’.J •• f ♦• A »• ^ *#•’• * m\%. C. f ^ ’ r^sVik/^ .'A# '• ;l»i: .j>> rl .«VikVy . .t %\. ^i%r 7ta££^cx. ^4^^^ TXjLm Xjit^ f^KA. f »■•■ *7>t' -. -.1i'^5i-v; •■!:%. >Va^': .vi ’^i ■. -% ••; * M - .< .• • : • # ■ ;iv 1 r-m ■:;• V •C; Sx-‘ "•itC: .• -t » ‘ V^<*, . ; ?‘*. , »*.i^ £tszi:£rf,3Klrj~ t2 { .^, /t^ y^ K /qc« CrmmtSSloft A>f^ir€t A>^// ^//J.* ------------Vw^; •■ #A, ;5tL-?CA^ ^ cit<u:^€^ ^ VJiaJrA •^iAUji ^ )4uA4^ty^ •yt A tXt^X^aZtdL^-TZZi.. • ! ^ .: f t ■i^ ■■. ■', rt y) ? ■i : (t' ■ ,»-rr:’-.?,vA<*^ r •otuiLe^TJik. ^ (S0^KAjtXit£Y ■ A>cc. •’>vo ^t^f^jtr/1%. ’ •‘• ». r- i-H 4 • . .'‘il aSe^* ^kv., ■■'■• -/sZilMiLiyz •'CWkV# ....................................... i*i!/• j y A- ■ s k ‘ t ' ■‘■^•'’ ♦'Cfr‘»W .>, ts~^ 0 •» ‘ i-* . fc. '" /a&^ lt?Si ;" • it. ti. x,<.v(<» .f 7- • • •.*« •#« *»• •■3>r! •»:vii •trV* .^^ii m:»: ■P-. -.>OT ?r* v:r < . «*V't »•, . “fi '^' A' 'JL • 1.>^T K<t ^ ^6- _4 ■r- '^ZLHit fKL.^/rcH“ Ac^ ^s./9ct.. J:5^^*'£T.• V-'t“c*V!>•>.j»*i —n ■^t-rVi tf.»;.;r r.#* #•'Iw'• «* 5 - . •./.• • \ Ii x^' i*i^ !• » • vl , t I, II ll It ;i l t i • 4 >:-.f Jj ^'v V, Ml •Blfli [•1«1SY«I CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #1876 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OK NOTICE: 10/27 93 TO:James W. Ogland 3345 Crvstaf Bay Rd. Wavzata. MN 55391 COPIES TO:Donald Stoyke 3339 Cry stal Bay Rd. Wavzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Vacation of Right-of-Way DATE OF MEETLNG: 10/18/93 VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Wanning Commission recumnunds the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled in order that City staff further discuss this ma'ter with representatives of the DNR in regards to their letter in opposition to the vacation. Note that we are in receipt of the letter from Mr. Ogland dated October 10. 1993. Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission Monday, November 15, 1993. meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Pianning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. J a TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator October 13. 1993 SUBJECT: #1876 James Ogland/Donald Stoyke. 3345/3339 Cry stal Bay Road Vacation - Public Hearinc 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 II - Peninent Code/Statute E.\cerpts I - Council Minutes September 8, 1969 Pertinent Facts 1. 2. 3. 4. 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 Crystal 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 th.at road, although electric, phone and cable lines appear to run overhead. Further, a municipal sewer line extends southeastward from Crystal Bay Road to Navarre Lane within the parcel proposed for vacation. This sewer line runs approximately down the center of Hillside Place. ’" -/ - - H'Li . - f • V Zoning File #1876 October 13, 1993 Paee 2 Issues for Discussion 1. How should Crystal Bay Road right-of-way be retained ' 3. Discussion Crystal Bay Road is not a platted roadway. It does not rhow 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 v^hether the City should vacate the portion of Hillside Place crossed by Old Crystal Bav Road, in e.xchange for a road easement. THw 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. That 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 that road. 2. Utility easement required for sewer line. The sewer line running the length of the right-of-wa> 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 tlic 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 die .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 #1876 October 13. 1993 Page 3 Vacation will add 12.5’ to each adjacent property making the Ogland shed more conforming to setbac’\ requirements, and pres iding St?y^e wi»h 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 ponion 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 Notwidistanding 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 no existing or potential public purposes will be eliminated. Any forihcommg comments from the DNR should be taken into consideration. If Planninc Commission finds that it is in the public interest to vacate this right-of-way. w»- staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. 3. City to retain a 20’ utility easement centered on sewer line running the length of the property. 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 ponion. 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. 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. Site Address 4 bhYic^t/sTitL l-r « • PR0P2RTY LOCATION _ . ^ ^ ^ . 2)3 ‘J5 i p^Qpgj;ty Identification Nuir.ber (P.I^D yi /7-m-2i~*//-ccz:^ . /7' //7- A ? - VA Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. applicant lleuae ^/g^cy Phone rhf^ne) L Phone \ Address 3'^*/6 ^ City cJfUr7M-rM _ zip ^ (if different than applicant) rk«.i.-A J. Phone (hone) Phone ______' A( r*4 Zip APjuSS^I Date Proistt*_Acquired /‘9V 7-------------------------- I (do) 4d£n^ also own the ad£acent_parceis_o£_land.______ PEES - CONDITIONAL USB PERMITS - $ 50.00 For each variance request with COP applJcation $125.00 Residential accessory Use $175.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 Guest House/Guer.t Apartnents $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Ccmmercial/Industrial Use $2C0.00 Land Alteration Gradinq and fillin, - designated wetland or floodplain G«din|/s«“u^""re*:aining“wa?f; SIthin%f of la)ceshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule Renewal Fee - SIOO.OO <"= change from original app^ After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Appxicaoi commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation ^ S175.00 Easement Vacation subdivision _ _ S 75.00 Easement Vacation Wit schedule) $300.00 Rezoning (PtT5 $300.00 Comprehensive Plan e $100.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule ■aTSTiBCJkVj AiAiiMiab Present Zoning District Present Use of Property ^esidentTaT~> Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST <3etail: 2 SL4~ lAA/^ btr'hc-^^AJ T _ _C/2e^S7^C Vo^nc,^ AA^Ac^ir~\r.' REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. V 2.Property Owners List of owners within 350’ (vou can obtai uhis list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-6'03 Governmen Center 348-3271). ^3. Plat .Map. 4 4,'^ Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). ^^5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land invo_ve 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 cf this application. YOU are required to supply 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR ____A^WORKING COPY (li* X 17■ OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED, 3-^.. Property Owner must sign this application. Please r^e.mber that yo^ application is not complete if the above information has not been included. D-partment that Land Use Apolication is ccmolete. Initials of Cleiical 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 oy original fee payment) and/or unusual e.xpenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies t.hat t.he information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.knowledge DateApplicant's signature iO ^AjJQCtC^T erntmts 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. Owwe^s^*'si^nature _ _ _ _ _ Date Applicant must have all submlirSla inLo 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 aoplicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements‘to have an agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning orrice of this change prior to the meeting. f~~ i» 's i- ^ — lii vn »', v^tSS s^(1)^\ - - 4^^ :;•*a s« « '' |T< K»"r^afTsr a ^ '' ii« —tW" ft t1 a :» » w a » • i S -75 ^ W4 »S = *Aj_ O «~»r <C109 l».J^ I ^ds 3 rj - ^ ! '^250 3 *»*N IS S I3\ II «>,5- I ? V*^i«.i5 “"TT /r H /7 {\ \ »? *» I ■>i:- % ' ■* * V ,'( lOi X^T(9) V ,aV \ ,wt> X.i'X N V>V* V\(«? .(14) \ V' /:v% .• %>’.i M5) ‘•i..i^’>. '*C li « W -V nOT£ « • «t *2. O i^i*a s *uoniwt4 10 inl ^U'* t»4|il > lwH , t;. aJ. 60. ^0 4 M ( »3) y< ' i‘ < 3 V . 'V f' - .\^ VJ ■•.<■'•<•-■«"■ V-V.». ^ V.•, '•■'•rr- .-• -. :•. ^ -\'!>(ie) ■ A, •yy I (3)\^^v: (^|)\ t} i^M4)V \ *.•. - * {,Mi 116 msc, f 35')\ ..J ■ -•-•••• \W^ \^^(^5)\|j • 4\» ^k> VY.3. • / ............. / • 4^ ^ < jV'J /(45), !« X ( 104) /■•••• J •>.* •.»# _• •• '.’*•■•. V’V ?v* .<*/.. A' /HaK.* '>V^ \4 “i » \ .-•S* \ >. 'V 55\t>' • # . . • ♦ iO -^/ .'o (25)7^'Vfi^ 4^.-x 'r(69 , ' •'•'lo ’■y^i '<■' 26)/ ^ • - ^-V v:,' y;(66y j' j* % /• ^ O ^ 4» ' 35 .Ji / V A. / ' y t* / >V \^88)1 i <■ 7^ S/((>r)/^ ^X? /(287^; .‘/ _/ •^(66)// (297.8 :r /(^6> '35 to/'_ 30)/ i j ^y 4? / vny .^(65)f ^/ /(3 1)Jb - / 3^* (90) / ,Oj / <x a (93) ' rjs '<*> ,^89) >/• • \(73) i ^V-8 * *• . • -1 » • T*.# •' r . • * r•• /.'t74i ’iX -(75)/ (64)/ 5 /(63 V y 4.' / A 37 84)/^ •/v . X ^ (33) (90 '•3 ryj ^ r:^<95) ‘ 3 i? (92)1 .3 % 'V. rT\ V (76)/^<(^- »i'*V5a.y^7) ' ^/ V /X (A <77)^ 7(7d\ MUOI c (94) /* * * % > . ^ ■ :i- »->>—*<r(>C ^/ :v;y^ ;• ••.••■ / ^ c n 'V ^ -y mm DATC 0S/15/f3 ilTCII 002 UDKPIH COUNTY PROPERTY INTORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY 0»O«RS LIST CM€R NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOm Sa 17-117-23 ^1 OOlf 0SS2R CRYSTAL RAY RO D L HEEICS A J HOLTZ DIXIE LEE MEERS/JI^t1IE HOLTZ 3329 CRYSTAL RAY RD PROP AOOR Olt€R NAHi TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR TOTAL RATCM 002 00009 r. t f r: h ' RCPORT NO. PUSViOl PACE A M 17-117-2S A1 0070 0S5SS CRYSTAL BAY RO A LORRAINE HOSS A LORRAINE MOSS SSS5 CRYSTAL BAY RO 50 17-117-25 *1 0021 05S3» CRYSTAL BAY RO PATRICK D O'FLANAGAN DONALD J SrOYKE 5559 CRYSTAL BAY RD ■ O HAYZATA IM S5541 HAYZATA HN 55391 HAYZATA 55391 o SB 17-117-25 A1 0022 3R 17-117-23 A1 0023 3R 17-117-23 A1 002^ PROP WDR 055A5 CRYSTAL BAY RO 033^9 CRYSTAL BAY RO 03355 CRYSTAL BAY RD ONNCII HAHC JAMES H OGLANO NARRLN L PASCIRCE JOHN E RUST TAXPAYER JAMES H OGLANO NARR£N L PASCfCKE JOHN RUST f N HIHC/ADDR 55AS CRYSTAL BAY RO ]<«991 VILLAGE HOODS DR 3355 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD HAYZATA m 55591 EDEN PRAIRIE t«4 55597 HAYZATA MN 55391 •5B 17-117-25 A1 0025 38 17-117-25 99 0019 0 58 17-117-Z5 99 0099PROP ADDR 05559 CRYSTAL BAY RD 05595 CRYSTAL BAY RO 0005B ADDRESS UNASSIGNEDONNER NAHC B 6 GUMP • J L SECHRIST J R LOFRANO ETAL C H PALMER I B J PALMERTAXPAYERB 6 GUMP A J L SECHRIST J R LO FRANO CHRIS I BARBARA PALMR NAHE/ADDR 5559 CRYSTAL BAY RD 5595 CRYSTAL BAY RD 2710 CASCO PT RO HAYZATA m 55591 HAYZATA MN 55591 QRQNO MN 55591 38 17-117-23 44 0104 3240 NAVARRE I.A CLAIR T 4 I.YNN D ROOD CIJVIR 4 LYNN ROOD 2215 KENWOOD WAY WAYZATA MN 55391 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPER?Y^AXATIQN, TO Wife BEST OF MY KNOHLEOCE AND BELIEF. / / DAT m//m 7 -o Jm Vt f i s 1 •X •-• City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 September 21, 1993 Subject: Vacate twenty five foot lane at 3345 4 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 roils. We hope that this request will be approved. Sincerely, James W, Ogland James W. Ogland 3345 Crystal Bay Rd Wayzata, MN 55391 Donald J. s4^byke ' 3339 Crystal Bay Rd Wayzata, MN 55391 #r& / COFFIN A GRONBERG, INC. •UnVIVIMO. CNOMnmNO *N0 LAMO rCANNIMO •••■A TAMAMACR AVINUt t0**0 L)U(|. MINN SaSM « ________rs 47S.4141 9-22-93 »f N 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- ^®tly 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 :k>rtheasterly half of vacated HILLSIDE PLACE as originally dedicated in the plat of "WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILUGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH which lies northwesterly of the DAKOTA RAIL (formerly the Great Northern Railroad) and southeasterly of Crystal Bay. ■aiTt Certificate of Survey for vlames Ogland of Lot 9, WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH Hennepin County, Minnesota #1876 Lake MitVietoTika O Existing Legal Descripton Lot 9, WALLACE'S ADDlTIOj: 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 Com.N & Cronberg, Inc. i IIM .| i, . \- * <Mu ♦ \ *'11. ; \1\ •.i: 4"* ilEl I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super vision, and that I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and I,and Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Mark Cronberg Minnesota License Numl»cr 12735 OATF 3-15-93 SCAI F r' : 20' ion NO c^3-70 :’rrrvi';i !i ti j- i •* ?•! 1 ■? ki 'I i ! ! i I ;:!’ yji'iii i • i i ; i-ij:!Tnn I i ! i ■ 5;!;j:|..i!jI •i-r.i • ii il M !ih.';i' , ik ” » / " ^<-1 '• S * * 5 ;.v. -I.*: ■ O'- • ! ! !•■!■! i |:i; '•Iv' m T. Jli. ‘i “n* > * M f‘!iii’IP :iir' i.‘* *; 1 ! 'HI' i:ii'.4 4' li rjii-ibi fev ’ i: •Mi-M . 1. V^- i Mi :1' ■'1 •■ M J i ITT ‘ i V. '• ■ t I :■ bi •" W ■'V V**' V... Mi */• s.:Vr.;i.»: -..IS > • ,**•‘‘'vtSj .l-.j-; - ■ i’..' ■ i.-. - { , ?! l-ri-l o • r ' ‘ : .',1 ^:' * i» I i'i ;-r- '•' ; -: .• / ■ -A '\<j 'J: ■iffeS'S •r I I } i! i i A .. ’ :'V *’ ■ •A* - - ' - •• »*. ; *- •-•k.j •>* ii ii'i 'ja fk: ?1 r' fl‘ ? 4 mM (f-.M ■K'N !■ i I I' I'?:i.l t'.'’'‘-SiiiSMj:':'/Wm' llii' .f'l’W. l?Flt JV ±i«.'•'■( ."i I r—' •'■•, ■ '■• !i|i;: 4iiUhn-hiTFirii.; '|‘i i' : Ki.y*^ h'^!-m ri1-‘ >tyy !.Pf 4^! IS: it: I i i ‘ *! M• If.. i “ ■ *, S • :< . . j . . - --- ;k'*. /■}' • Sc' i. »k- mmm ' •i y ■..■■» 4.’ f| . v*I % •.' 1 i * * • ‘ ' f‘ !•' ■! •.!i-i mi-u ■„; \;.; '-rs,. ; -.■ .-M-m-. .! !, !- ! ! i. i i ♦..• . 1 i,. • T. : ?'(::•':■/ ■,,-V •. ••1» 1 •1‘ !• Ii • f ITIRTTI ? . »J Ll+QO,^^.;;. ..;.;••.■ v.■S ■.,^v;■>;•»^; ,; -r»: .'.'S;. fi:' ■!■! M ii,. r.H- ' 'i * ! ‘ • I-' !! i.i V .• •--•• • .. ‘-tr •?3 •*•; ;T 4".-I 'vr»’ ('•; I ** 7 ^ « • . • • 1.% f\ • ,:•• ;v Nft-' ' »•»•• • I-.r A**‘*'■ $ ' 'I ' .•/ ■; •'•-vvliV - If r-■ J} i# •iti'h' ■■!• ! .n fi tO’.l’S'ro^r.^ ;.iv ■Sir’'S\l!l ■•? vi-ni'Sls-f TT^FllP!:li1!Tn ‘^rSM iSi|ii: '13 =ssfa ■-til y\........... •■, I •• } \ .1 V - -S‘:i Vi- J i : t‘il iH(r>U51:1^ S 1 cby? ,s ■Sri:-. i 1 11.; '*. I I'Hj!i ' i 11 I. lirnN |.;i4il.i-h1TH- miiii i-ii ■! :i h;' ;l;rr ! ! I R'• •• •/ , .' 7 J.f* j ', Mlilii iM:s;rrH ■‘■.llti:;• ’ .1 11’ lai;l-iii4T'-. [ 5. S'*■iH•jfIti' ^'v .|j;i: 1 MM' ■ ■ ...,• Kiiy \\vr <’, .. . ■: . 4? I?M.I!,;’: •♦'■'it :i = ‘ i i I'ni f! lii Id,,.; ■;.,i.J44ii ----- : 'R*S ■ ■ •’>00i i;. . ;‘^SXi ■■=;■:;•■ S':, i/ • -i-L'r ~ sat •: r»'‘---Trst*!, • ‘<.- 4 •••f I*t «, c*-I •.•V-'iil'flf'f:' ■ i .} - 'V’, •i. •r '.i.l i-'-fSiiii-■! ti! '-1; ■' ■1 ' j -. liMi: I . » » t » ii. R .! ;f. ’ ■f 'i* •■■'; f T •: I V.!' I < i. ■ -! . * • 7 ,'.. • y a f‘ * '- fv:,’> i'l •■* .i . * • ft •. '.' • •• V--''vi; ? • =• '■• I ;r » J i "i''■jillf I.. f J 7 Ml: 'I rr ri ‘H'|.|i;|:!l iiii'' i I'i *•M -i' ; .1 *» • .'*. • ».'/ '• , , .* . -•.'‘r^- .■.v.'"iiv>’- ■■ ■■• ..■•.•••■■■?.•'. (jy :‘t» -. 'mTi):- •; y.; ^ i fi ! I i’iriv 5i 1 I i ♦ ' :. « ‘. ~ i I > ’ . M ^ J^|.i:H.UJ:] MrUM-H' .;m ,.kv •1 I'i : 1 * ' ''* ' *1 I -‘■ ^'! ' >1 ;i •! s v!rm y ‘ -'i'.f 1 i tj iiP M i •»W<*'f.- y ■ \•**:atm...■i •; ■I • I i j il i |:i |>i jt J ! 1 *t! r. il l in : « f ’* « I I ♦ • i M.l I ^ !IHIU i i i -j i,^ I ri-!. ^ !"■ Li » I i in ]iV‘\H i{, ■! }*-r ! lTf;| -f i mhyhiril:];i:tH>w fi ? ‘. M ' T 4 1 . • :!’!■ if- ■ > ‘l -^ i!« ' * ! ^ itl0[i?; * ■* :} : tw r }"i f ! , j i: : i.-i;’ 1:{aI I M , ; : ii:.l1 ' lil-Mii.i.i ^'1. i .lj! ,!;.!4 l'-;f i■turr I ! I i'n j i’l .5 2:i4vf: ■A ; < i- i. '•f\ /T- ; i !'■>• i.4irj J-:I kJ • J f • M :}'M ( 1 f i *fj-itl MM !.i ■lM.!H i i > *-•1 ’]!.}rn> 1 qTf.i.V i’.i. i i ? t V ‘ 'VI =< (. s fiPi■]!•; I,-<- t:.'i" 1! '• it.11 ii Mfrj-M ! j ! ■> i i i ! n i ! ’ f' ; { ‘ i 1 • 1 M 1 j I'i .i .f ^V-: t ,« ' -«» , i • > • rX •'> t'? » t ’■ >* 1 MTM' • 1 (f- y -V- V 1 , i- f 'r-v * ,-lr- L J ■ :' * • >• ^ •• » w 4 4 * yo- 'MO ■.»■»t? •f ' /'V.f J '. ‘•«- f ‘•*\ * :■ . • - .V-'W*. Mm 1^" I ^ • • •. ',i * . V'f- f i*’* > • • .. V s . i. * : V*. ^ ^ ^ . • f 'v . I • ' ' • “ ■ ■ ■■ ^ •to' ■ ■* Vv^t' »/ p ' i' ''wrti V- 6 «r ‘/fV,«< .■ v,’i4 1 ; ■ ■•:.ii" '•• >» ;A,‘. , «i _ ,• •» ;’ . ':** *.>' *-4 '• •>• « '.>''■ ■ ■ M'. ' ,'•/-* *1 vji. Jw.,*• % \» .p *...» * • ,03 •'■''* *3'. ‘r ';• v‘H"t •■ '■ V*, ‘^73^ '’' •-...‘yv* ^■■•>'^’V-'’‘'’'' Ill I .■;Vi >’7 .,1., .’ /• ‘ iil ..''1 ‘ • r*'***'^ 1*4 ' '-S*’r'4 oi3'^ 7-Ti.<' ."Jj ‘il • K.' •»?. >■;., V ‘ - -.vlV.V-'*'.': •..- •iv '•in C” , • \ .: -;V an , ' ••• • Vf * ' . .. ‘ - I , •* « ' ♦. 4 H » r I ‘ r M-V f . 1 • V •'I Ippif 4: 'j't-i.'tfii-i (. ivi; <: 1 i•iu ^ 3 il}/ !:;''4.,lMj a>TTMTlrt I « 111; . i. ; : ! -r i i!' MiMM i ;Q!Sa;i3?l V ,*,l 1‘ ■4 11 ! ; ; i I ■ ! ‘ M l ! ’M I inn:. in Mili .1 I ^ i ! I * !41 * I iiM i. r i I I ’;*:•■ ‘S telHir .u;!4-' ' • rMiiiJS nifi- ■|M4 ’ ■••• r y frfTi /•^-.i ‘j. if‘l -i' 1 » : ; f r!> "r*J 'jv .1*1 v> , .f'4 f ^ j *. 1 ‘ i ’’f ' '“hi'JiiJl !'i <4.1 r 1' ! f 1 j V i - ‘ ‘ i f-i h'• i ‘ •=. 1 A i I ::’Trp'i t. kiiJt !■ •'hi.s •/•[/■ i''. - I i T HKi h- i'l.j'i I , I’ll'J :!' ■ -1 > f |i'<tiiBV ^1 - -Ml. i i '^^3'r ht>t,.V r.. I! liHrM f i ,n ; "t/HS i f i MMi 'i'i ‘f i i • r;>'-. i r ^ i i"'M-• *1 : I t !.= ■’ hi'• I I ! 1 i-.i Vj V]len. Wilt, '.idilllji; i-f p'4;4 I : 4 » ■V ?*■, •f. W QMij: -.“.riij ■^ r) ! I'MinTvi., ': > i 3:-!-’, ! -B'* { ■ ■' 'I ) I •i' h ■' f ■ i.-1 ’ |;,i f ' ,’r A-'i l '-^ '•■i -7 4 !:i.'I- I : • i:i!4'i 141, 'I J 5 t4!' 1^4 Li?>W‘ I • 4p^ . . ’’.‘r.'it mUvF»iV C'2 { * 'f*rl-IT' ’:■!•.?. ill.'7i.V.i 'I 'iM illi' •i ;p .-iMH 'Mi-pTi ■r •MjiTpMr* :';tl.T:;i i ! i ••i.ili 'M Hirlititi.i iia!'3|i.1 ; •I 'i M: t I- M 1^-! i H'44 ! rr iviil'' . I : J .(. r-i ' ! 'J • o «‘l • • V •* /, .. .. .1 ■ ^ , ^4 ■»' .> »V \.sr:‘ ;;i., V . IH .’ . ». 'iS,- - -' ■•■■> > Tin ** i ; • .'*;' ‘ ' •’. ••. > • •; SHf •: ‘ ’ 1 -I :'' *• •-It Bpsm' Tiv.v '^'*1'' 5k.'f' - Ll s 10.12 D?oceduter«it‘fotth in^his Chapter, except that such vacation proceaujT^es ^ by a majority of the landowners abutting and a h qpp 10 12 VACATION OF STREETS, ALLEYS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS, •ion of’streets, alleys and public grounds shall follow the ^hf a a-heartn, preceded ty t ^ ^ ^ecuir^sd by Minnpsn wo (2) weeks Minnesota Statutes, easement or boulevard reserve or any portion thereof, -vhich are not ':tnrused for sewe ? drainage, electric, telegraph, telephone gas ourposes or for boulevard reserve purposes, rn the same vacation proceedings are conducted tor streets, aj-lfysand steam purposes manner as and other public ways boulevard reserve means an easement esLblished adja'cent to a dedicated street for the purpose of lltablVshin; ooef sSLe adjacent to the street and which area :s designated L the recorded plat as -boulevard reserve”. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4**1‘"0‘5 t tJ7- 2- <C.'4-r>|T « • . . - 412.851 VACATION OF STREETS. ” . - The council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, pu» lic grounds, public way, or any part thereof, on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners ofland abutting on the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated. 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 unless it 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 hearing. In addition, if the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof terminates at or abuts up^m 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 up^on 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 shall not invalidate any such vacation proceedings. History; 1949 c 119 s 102: 1953 c 735 s 12; 1957 c 383 s 1; 1967 c289 s 15: 1969 c9s 85: 1973 c 123 art 2 s 1 subd 2; 1973 c 494 s 11: 1976 c 181 s 2: 1986 c 444, 1989 c 183 s 4; 1990 c 433 s 2 • • MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTE-fBER 3» 1969 Butterfield moved, Searles seconded, that ‘ the request of Roy Starkey, 3560 Sixth ■- Avenue North, for a division of acres off of his property, be approved. Motion, Ayes (5) * Nays (0). Searles moved, Franrel seconded, that the request of John Demarais, 7f^0-790 North Arm Drive, for a variance from 140' to 100', be referred to the Planning Commission. Motion, Ayes (S) - Nays (0). Searles moved, Franzel seconded, that the request of Minnetonka Power Squadron, Big Island, for a land fill permit, be approved. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Searles moved, Butterfield seconded, that the request of Thorpe Bros, for a 30' set back variance, be approved for other houses in tile Webber Hills Additionj 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 M Crystal Bay Road. Motion, Ayes (S) - Nays (0). Franzel moved, Butterfield seconded, that the request of Henry Anderson, 33S0 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 *'• chem 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). . r Page 2 DIVISIO.N 3560 Sixth Avenue North VARIANCE 780-790 North Arm Drive L.AVD 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 TO: FROM: DATE: Plannine Commission Membersw Ron Moorsc. City Administiator Jeanne A. Mabusih. Building & Zoning Administrator November 10. 1993 /J / ■ SUBJECT: #1886 Robert L Melamed, 1000 Old Crvstal Bay Road South - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.03. Subdivision 19 - Conditional use permit required for land alterations involving filling of appro.ximatcly 1.800 cubic yards of fill to restore and regrade elevations along the northern portions of the propeny. All cutting and filling activities will be located out of the 75’ setback of the surnmnding natural environment lakes. Section 10.56, Subdivision 7 - Classification of Public Waters Natural Environment Lake French Lake South Basin 930 Sewage Lago<m 934.3 Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) - Structural setbacks. All structures must be placed 150’ from OHW'L of natural environment lake. The property is served with sewer but this has no impact on the required setback for natural environment lakes. Section 10.22. Subdivision 2 - There will be no excavation within 75’ of the shoreline. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - Theie shall be no land alterations within 26 ’ of wetland or drainaeewav. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Small Scale Grading Plan E - Engineer s Report 10/15/93 F - Engineer's Report 11/4/93 FI- Utility Plan G - Large Scale Grading Plan/StatTs Notations Review of Application The application involves the filling of approximately 1,800 cubic yards of clean fill and the regrading of altered topographies along the north side of the residential lot. This site was Zoning File #1886 November 10. 1993 Haae 2 previously used by the Citv’ as an outdoor storage yard. The cuts made into higher elevations along the north side allowed for the hauling equipment to access Headways developed along the storage area. This type of land alteration activity could not be covered under the nonnal land alterations allowed under the authorization of a building permit. The grading plan also includes the land alterations required for the preparation of two building sites. Review E.xhibit H. all grading activities involved in the preparation of the building sites meet the required 15' setback from the OHWL of the natural environment lake. Note all land alterations are 26’ from the designated wetland shown at the 931 elevation. Tlie drainage ditch that runs from the west to the east along the nonhem pomons of the property will not be altered. The only land alteration invohing the drainageway would be the one required by the City involvinc the removal of a culvert beneath one ot the e.xisting gravel drives Applicant shall also restore area of drive to a grass law n. No other alterations are required within drainage ditch as there is adequate fall to east. The only other improvement planned by applicant would be to clean the ditch in an attempt to restore grassed areas adjacent to drainage ditch. Review Exhibits E and F. the engineer's review comments. The amended grading plan. Exhibit H. has designated the silt fence installation along the grading limits. Culverts are now shown at the driveway entrances and the swale is now shown along ti c east side ot the road outlot between the entrance drive. His report of November 4th still asks that existing sewer and two e.xisting force mains be shown on the plan as well as the proposed service locations lor the two residences. In addition, we ask that instruction 6 be added to the general site plan notes asking for the removal of the gravel drive and existing culvert at the northwest comer of the property. StafT Recommendation To approve the conditional use permit that would allow filling of approximately 1,800 cubic yards of fill as shown on the grading plans prepared by Bruce W. Schmitt dt Associates dated October 19, 1993. subject to the condition that applicant provide an updated grading plan fulfilling all of the conditions set forth by the City Engineer. Such plan to be completed prior to application being presented to the City Council for final review and action. ch CITY O? CHCNO - GE^iEHAL LAND USE __^ ^ ——' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:. 'd r / PROPERTY LOCATION 11 jL Site Address \gg^ CK i^ ^AD- - - - - o*^ ; A *.*5 A-Zi PrcFerty identification Komber (P.I.D.)Appu|g> rrr» -i: ,• c-.-v,n mimmm, WA I I V* >TfC rTrcf Anr^n.4. ut I iw-w ? Tf 'r"s\>rVV'> i. Jh/VaL WV VVr‘if rrw ^*vi\ WA iM»if •k^VeW “iTri- V .unw ‘UrilbW^A Ik 4. V V • WV :pplicetict ir «t i„clcde*fififrj^_ra^_^ »»4-W»Ww'V WW'A MVA * !\ V-^ .*• Please attach legal descripticn to a.. wvv; .-;i tif cn irscwi.r’si surv6v« ----------------------------------------- Fhcne (hcr.e) ^"]\________ APPLICANT Phene (work)413-'2.988 Address I'lll _____ ZlD se'h'^i Fhcne (hcr.e)OWNER (if different than applicant) Mer.e r.'TY <?P apr^ir. Address »♦ • —Iw — Date Preterty Acquired itftsJ r. ITT APPpg>^Al-_ ? ?do) CS0|tJ Lsc cu-rtti^adjaeSa^^ PEES - CONDITIONAL OSE PESNITS - ear) S 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application S125.0C Residential accessory Use 5175.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) 5150.00 Gues^ House/Guest Apartiinents -.X $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldc S250.00 Ccmrtercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain vsi Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. lakeshora Grading, seawall, retaining waxls within 75 ot la PRD/PID “ see fee schedule Re’^ewal Fee - $100.00 (no change from original application) ^‘t«-the-?act Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS $200.00 - - - -- $250.00 Ccnaaercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) __ _ _ _ Vacation $175.00 Easement Vacation . Easement Vacation With Subdivision Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule $ 75.00 $300.00 $300.00 PRESENT DSS OP PROPERTY . Present Soninc District sK * 1 tP Present Use of Property C\'TS Residential Other (specify}_ DESCiaPTION OF REQUEST _ ^ ^ ^ . Describe recuest in detail: *T<^ f Us To /-/.ijmoft*; PGUf^rr coi ^structioa ___fefk FXAtj. PpgpyTY-WA.S u,Y ~;u?r^gp^ rxigi ~tP ^sTt^gJE ai 4q pqzjn t r A REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Ccir.oleted Application Fom. _ . Certified Property Owners List of owners within j 50* (you can obtai this list fron Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Governmer. Center 348-3271). Plat Map. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) i^ land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requ^remenuS). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of anv other persons you wish notified of this application. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 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 net 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 t-he 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 tb 'th« best. o*^his/her know^d Date l<?/Zo/l3Applicant's signature OWNERS SIGNATURE ,r ,-u The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and furtner authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Counci 1 members for purposes or investigation and reques-^ Owner's signature ^ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held tne 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. ^ Date _____ 7-Ai-U\ 'n-\n'r^ «s • • • 1 ’ / / iT>1- 1 / ••1• .JICNAL j DISTRICT " nj ■ci.- ! / .1 *► *//!’ i ft I /r V %•» Property owners list for the 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road - Crono Sewer Plant 09-117-23 13 0006 Ellis Kendall 1020 Old Crystal Bay Road South ^ayzata, MN 55391 39-117-23 14 0001 Robert Gurmit LlOO Old Crystal Bay Road South >.0. Box 54 Crystal Bay» MN 55323 39-117-23 14 0006 rhomas & Phyllis Colwell L130 Old Crystal Bay Road South ^ay2ata, MM 55391 >9-117-23 14 0004 i. Johnston >35 Willow Drive Jayzata, MN 55391 >9-117-23 11 0004 lobert & Joan Dayton >465 French Lake Road layzata, MN 55391 >9-117-23 21 0006 lobert & Joan Dayton >465 French Lake Road 7ayzata, MN 55391 19-117-23 12 0004 letro Waste Control >50 Metro Scuare Bldg It. Paul, MN 55101 l9-117'-23 12 0003 <eonard Carpenter .5500 Wayzata Blvd Apt 1020 fayzata, M14 553S1 19-117 23 12 0002 L J ■•'.lis I4C Old Crystal Bay Road South Fayzata, MN 55391 i9il7-23 12 0001 leorge Bust 120 Old Crystal Bay Road South Fayzatii, MN 55391 4-117-23 44 0004 ,yndon Stubbs 85 Old Crystal Bay Road South ,ong Lake, MN 55356 4-117-23 13 0013 cott & Susan Vickerman 605 Rainey Road 'ayzata, MN 55391 04-117-23 43 0012 Herbert & Erika Kahler 2725 Rainey Road Wayzata, MN 55391 o a ns >• t. - 4- * i . tr' : ) Ml[ Ui // :-j ■V*'| .V^A '■ ' ' i<d:A:' ' ; ' ''*■ ' 1 1 ’, : iI I • ? :? ^ / ( 1: f WM ■//If' // '/ ‘ '' \^\>.' —:- .'■ / •• V/ /r":/'/ i • f I m<' / •' •?■"' / xl ' ' / ' ( IX, / , } \ y , > / ! \N2i'',. i ?. i f t j =te =»fe ID QO rr <lGi Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Oro G Bcn^srtM PE Rcorr w PE • Jcsrp^ C AnV^» PE MjfV’O t J PE P<nan3 E Tuf'^" **E P Cjc-^ P£ E Ncv^v PE PcCert G PE SuSJn M C P ^ •Sr<^<y Consuffani Engineers & Architects October 15. 1993 Ho^anj A SarfcKd PE Krtth ^ Goroon. P£ Pooerr P PffffMe PE W Poster PE D.»vxJ D Lcskcta PE ffoten C Pussen A i a ;effv A Bourdon P£ KUfk A Hanson PE Vcn.se* T Pautma^'n P£ V.1 A p ekJ PE Thomas P Anoervx* A I A Do'^ao C Bu'ga'^T? p E Thomas E Apijus PE Ismae* Vjrt nfi P£ \Unae! P Pau PC A^oes V P ny A < C P Phmo J Pyne PE Thomas W PWenon PE M<hae^ C Lynch PE James P Va .ino PE jr'v D reoTscn P£ Scon J Argare*i PE Kenneth P Ar\3erson PE Mark ff Poifs PE Vlj'k A Se-0 PE Gar> VV Vcnen PE Dan«e< J tdqfrton PE A P-Ck SchmK^t PE Philip J Casv^e-i PE Vau D '.Va ' s ®E V ey B .ensen PE L pn«)io Grax. PE (Caien L W emen P£ Garv D Kr\iofiO PE P Tfxxj Poster PE keth P Yjoe PE Oougtas J Bencx. p £ Shayvn D GustaTson PE Cecrto Over PE PatH G Hev;-r P£ ;Chn P GorCe* PP Chanes A Ef»ciiscn Leo M Pawesky Ma- an M C;son jamf '. P Ehi^harCT Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 OCT i e Re: Melamed Residence File No. 139-Gen Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the preliminary grading plan submitted for the Robert Melamed residences on Lots 1 and 2. City of Orono Plat. The grading is acceptable, however, we recommend the following modifications. Silt fence should be installed at the edge of the cesnstruction limits prior to the work to protect the wetlands from erosion. The existing sewer and two existing forcemains should be shown on the plan as well as the proposed services. Drainage and utility easements should be prepared and shown on the plan as per our letter dated August 17, 1993. The drainage is shown to flow over the two driveways and entrance drive. This drainage pattern is not recommended and will create problems during freezing weather. We recommend that a swale be constructed along the east side of the entrance drive with culverts under both driveways. Tlie existing culvert under the entrance drive should be replaced. An existing culvert, to the east of the culvert shown, should be removed and shown on the plan. The existing drainngeway between the small wetland and French Lake should be graded. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson. P.E 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 Bonestroo Rosene Anderitk & Associates Engineers & Architects November 4, 1993 Otto 'j 9on«fTO 9b0ert PE * Josety' C P£ V^ryir> L SorwM PS P<r»jfa E Turr<» PS G^n R CoOk PS S \cvr\ PE Poocrr G Sc^on<ht FS Sciwn M Eoef**^ CPA •Srn<y Coouittarr A janfcrd P£ PU^ A Goroon PE i«CC<rT P P£ P<harC A <^ovr PE OawO O UJs«?a P£ Roc^ C PuiiP« A ( A .e"', A BooHSon PE Vta-fc A Hjrior PS VKhaet T Rauirnarn PE Teu < F<ekJ PS Tnom3i P Ancmon A i A Ct.'^3'Ki C Bu'g^rar PS T^cr^di S Ao’^i PE vnae' Maa ne/ Pf Michael P Pau PE Agne^ M Rn - A i C P P*vjc J Pyrte PE T^\yna\ W PE V^'^ar* C PE >arrvs ft *,ta*arj P£ .fffV O PfT/Wh PE Wott J Argar^et PE • -''''ffh P Ar'cje'^on P£ \tjr| R moJy PE KUrk A Sc*a PS Gary W \V5oen P£ Can.e< j SJgenon PE A PKk Vh'^'-Clt PE '’*'.'0 J CasA-^i PE \ta»h O aau.v P£ V es 9 P£ L P^ o G'a.iH PE Aa^en PE Ga*', D stcfti P£ F ToiM !j«p^ PE Atir> R vaoo P£ Douijak J Pe'x^r PE Shawvr 0 GviUa^vyi P£ Ck o C-^ e* PS Pmj O Heucf P£ J£ywi P GorOfr PE Charles A Encuvon Lf J V PjAr‘Uy *-a''a'^ V C so*^ Ja-^es E Engrhan;: f NOV '8 '1SS3 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Melamed Residence Flic No. 139-Gen Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the revised preliminary grading plan submitted for the Robert Melamed residences on Lots 1 and 2. City of Oronn Plat. The revisions include silt fence along the grading limits, driveway culverts and a swale along the east side of the entrance drive. These revisions are acceptable. However, several items on our previous letter dated October 15, 1993 have not been addressed. These items include showing all e.xisting utilities and culverts and the proposed services and easements on the plan. We have included a copy of the existing utility plans for your reference. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson. P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 ' i • : : • I'O 925 “b6 i-i. . 1! : - i« .ill ,. i 132 17 -i-i - -- i.. i ; -^25 r.o -- sisa •t ‘•'V '■ ;<r-'.,.r V .• v,‘ ■'•,•■ V ^• * '5:-i 1 \jm.tOir X^^.v.v .V;; ! dffi5*';jSn^yi 'ipSJ 7 e llpitilMi 'is .■O. I wsKv <>'4 £ Jot; ■''Sft ii-k . j ?t^r : ‘ • •;». 7,s» fv» H |J* ‘' m .< I*'* X i*l ^ rii t» ti r*^ '-H j » -* -I fM 1 -4 3 f'1 I' O -' m ^ ^ ft < x»o ^ II m o ' o o.>•<'» m rn n -4 11 ,/> r» • > 4 Ti atm «'» • 1 • u V ^/> in 1 t. ^ : 1^ 3 l-\l 4\'5M --v^ ■7 ‘ -Aj • -■’■> %jjf. w: h‘M 'f. ? i..p* fteife M;»! I •■» r;’i ■•‘ft -p;; “ ;VJ H!i I*.v-V- Mhr- iiiwi' •B HIM®: •■• 'i: ■■■ $'-;i|ji ■■ V:: v-i(i ' V. V s^A-'lU^....... ‘ ;:/-ft. ;;V, ■ v.*v ■ Iv’;v•• •t.v •'••i- • .. r- * -1 * .<*;%• * \ y ‘.' .. •:?/ f •■• U‘i’ ?.:.r Af;'. ; ■■ V-f- • ■* yt* ■ <.'?*•'- ft*; 'r,; ::r> • ;• j 'ij:. IP:1 fi;’'- 'ft' I . • V :• • : \ f.: ■if:? -.1 ’.Si .'a): 'l' • •fvi‘A.: •• i i /%■ j; ‘Vl.-.r •’■■■>. .-4 k- ! L .. J •' I • •»«#«•»*» ■ “-. ■.•*•; •i.':'ftp:';'.:' •■ ., •■ ., ■:. .;■ 'vfeivft:: :•• •.• •;■ > ••tft i‘•>;•»'* i .ij-- . •• ■j.' ‘4V.::.rs ’ TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator November 9. 1993 SUBJECT: ^1887 Robert L. Melamed. 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Ordinance Section 10.28, Subdivision 3 (A) - Conditional use permit required for guest house Required area = 4 acres Total lot area •- 4.4 acres (192,270 s.f.) Section 10.55, Subdivision 15 (A-2) - Propenies ser\ed by sewer may receive credit for wetland and drainageway areas List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List/Certificate of Mailing D - Grading Plan E - Hardcover Fact Sheets for Combined Property F - Hardcover Fact Sheets for Future Northern Lot G - Hardcover Facts for Future Southern Lot H - Proposed Division Review of Application Applicant is the current ow ner of Lot 1, Block 1, French Creek at Orono, the residential lot created with the recent subdivision of the City. A building permit has already been issued for applicant ’s principal residence located on the south side of the property, review Exhibits D and H. Applicant now seeks approval of a conditional use permit to allow the construction of his mother’s residence on the northern portion of the property. It has always been the intention of the applicant to subdivide the 4 r acre parcel but because of time constraints and the need to start construction, applicant has applied for the conditional use permit to allow the second residence to be constructed. As required by code, 'he guest house must meet all lot standards of the RR-IB Zoning District (Review Exhibit H). Note the 30’ side setback has been met and the 150’ structural setback from the ordinary high water level of the sewage lagoon and the southern basin of French Lake. The northern lot (the guest house lot) will contain 2.1 acres. The southern lot to be retained by applicant contains 2.29 acres. Zoning File #1878 November 9, 1993 Page 2 Hardcover facts have been provided by applicant recording propert>- in its combined state and at the time of a future subdivision. Hardcover facts are reviewed as follows: A. Combined property: 0-75’ setback area = 51,550 s.f. Allowed = 0 Proposed = 0 75-250’ setback area = 112,150 s.f. Allowed = 25% Proposed = 16.508 s.f. or 14.72% 250-500’ setback area = 28,570 s.f. Allowed = 30% Proposed = 7,490 s.f. or 26.22% B. Northern lot: 0-75’ setback area = 25,200 s.f. Proposed = 0 75-250’ setback area = 63,400 s.f. Allowed = 25% Proposed = 7,385 s.f. or 11.65% 250-50Q’ setback area = 3,820 s.f. Allowed = 30% Proposed = 600 s.f. or 15.7% C. Southern lot: 0-75’ setback area = 26.350 s.f. Proposed = 0 75-250’ setback area = 48,750 s.f. Allowed =25% Proposed = 9,123 s.f. or 18.7% 250-500’ setback area = 24,750 s.f. Allowed = 30% Proposed = 6,890 s.f. or 27.84% Access to the property is gained via the private driveway that currently serves the MWee facility and the future park site. As a condition of the final subdivision approval, the Zoning File #1878 November 9, 1993 Page 3 City was required to grant a nonexclusive access easement to applicant that will also serve the owner of the suest house and/or future nonhem lot. Floor plans and elevations have not been provided with the current CUP application but applicant has advised that they will be available at the public hearing at the Monday night meeting. Staff will have an opportunity to review the elevations and floor plans prior to the meeting in order to determine if there are any problems. Staff looks for no problems as the strucmre will be a single stor>' walkout. Staff Recommendation To approve Application #1887 granting a conditional use pemiit to Robert L. Melamed to allow the construction of a guest house on the property located at 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South finding that all lot standards of the RR-IB Zoning District have been satisfied in review of this application. Although it is understood that a subdivision of this property will soon be realized, in th;* event the subdivision is not finalized, that while property contains a second residential unit, this unit must never be used for rental purposes but must remain for the exclusive use of applicant, his family members, guests or hired help.i 'city'OF ORONO - GE21ZRAL LAND USE APPLICi PROPERTY LOCATION #4-RS7 Site Address OOO OLD hKY Road j ~y* *'" “vf“ \iti i/A # I C'» UI%WftUrr.VJ.v"* r«rrrrrui I luw property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^PUm ------ i i/VVrWJk V V Wv rumrV111^ A A i rrj V* ^ CkJ 1 7? I k. fCVi .V» ik/V* at-ach lecal descrioticn to aoolicaticr. if not incluceoccEIPT-TH^^K YOU on required survey. ________________________________________ Fhone (hone) 4ni~TTl2_________APPLICANT - - Name L. _ _ _ _ _ _ _Phone (work) - - - - -- Address \'2Ji'L WA.V2yVT7^ City OWNZR (if different than applicant)Fhone (hone) -lare CITf >TP OltOf^O CHt£56W7^ Phone , £c^ «6UiK® UT<.J CITT AfWwOAI. Address - - --- - - - - -- - - --- - - - - - - -" rf ^ ^ 4J a. Date Prooerty Acquired CiTT - - (month - (do) also own the adjacent parceis^t land. (month/year) (do) (^o PEES “ CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ~ S 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application $125.00 Residential accessory Use $175.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 ^uest ^ous^Guest Apartnents $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Comnercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration ___ Grading and filling - designated wetland__cr floodplain ___ Grading and filling - 101 ^ ‘ 75' of la.keshore Grading, seawall, retaxning walls wxu.n PRD/PID - see fee schedule Renewal Fee - $100.00 (no change frcn °tt^^tion^Fee^''''“'"°"^ After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Appl- OTHER APPLICATIONS $200.00 - - - - $250.00 "~ $175.00 $ 75.00 $300.00 — $300.00 $100.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation . . . . Easement Vacation With Sub j Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) Comprehensive Plan Amencment Appeals Other - see fee schedule i'RiiSi.M' USE OF FROPEKTY Present Zonina District Present Use of Property ClTf Residential _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) DESOaPTIONbOPr^QTOSTin td) 4LLpw ^ST^CT10>J A$> pgg. PLA^M of <^UEST Hou S^ OO _________________ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtai list from Kennepxn County Department of Finance rt~603 Governmen 3 4 5 6 7 if land Center 348-3271). Plat Mao. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). ToDographic survey (existing and proposed contours) alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). Construction plan/ if applicable (see staff for requiremenv,s). As an addendum to this application/ please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. mm ^m ^m mm mm ^m mm ^m ^m ^m mm ^m mm mm % m mm mm ^m ^m mmm ^m ^m ^m mm mm mm mm mm mm ^m mm ^m mm ^m mm ^m The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please reme.mber 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 th^ best. o:^his/her knowdredge. Applicant's signature JU)Jk Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorited reasonable entry onto the property by City staff/ consultan s, agentS/ commission members, and Council^ members for purposes or investigation and verification,pf thj|Ls reques Owner's signature Date lo/2o/^3___ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held e third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applican unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to nave_ an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. a ' J■9ft im M ■ I a: iw * I tm f44T • p • * *• %. TT-----7'* -1 V_ «.l . . C« ST iT c t; c -5W -----» rr- I' •v b im I 1 .c.:i3 /< l\ * 'IM 1 'if1 ^ilJi ^1/Js 1 - m ^ "V ^ 7'^3-U —. I rross AAM c' «'> A. I I A. -J If/ ■ ^ *>-4- 4 / 0^-fn'd§.; 0 t-wr / C r »ij Property owners list for the 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road --Orono Sewer Plant 09-117-23 13 0006 Ellis Kendall 1020 Old Crystal Bay Road South Wayzata, MN 55391 04-117-23 43 0012 Herbert & Erika Kahler 2725 Rainey Road Wayzata, MJI 55391 09-117-23 14 0001 Robert Gumnit 1100 Old Crystal Bay Road South P.O. Box 54 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 09-117-23 14 0006 Thomas & Phyllis Colwell il30 Old Crystal Bay Road South Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 14 0004 H. Johnston 935 Willow Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 11 0004 Robert & Joan Dayton 2465 French Lake Road Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 21 0006 Robert & Joan Dayton 2465 French Lake Road Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117^23 12 0004 Metro Waste Control 350 Metro Square Bldg St. Paul, MN 55101 09-117-23 12 0003 Leonard Carpenter 15500 Wayzata Blvd Apt 1020 Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 12 0002 A J Ellis S40 Old Crystal Bay Road South Wayzata, MN 55391 09117-23 12 0001 George Hust 820 Old Crystal Bay Road South Wayzata, MN 55391 )4-117-23 44 0004 jyndon Stubbs L85 Old Crystal Bay Road South jong Lake, MN 55356 I 04-117-23 13 0013 Scott & Susan Vickerman 2685 Rainey Road Wayzata, MN 55391 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO ) ss I, Jamie Bosma, cf the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Pubxic Hearing concerning the matter cf itl887, was mailed to the attached ■ j-* Dc: m "5 ozx. jz JOn 3 -H n >o> Oo r*»o» > O S O o sc Ga 'o O > p rq o O trq il ’pi' I ii«M \x :i ' *! < 3J ‘s Ei|H ir;* •» >1 »piytBiVi |^3?7i8iry^"V^ juOua:a 02 tD f • « <r-. 1/ Vi' ^/Ti^ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET =«: SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) (t Existing Hardcover in Zone )-g^ 75-250' 250-500' • 500-1000'\ • • A . ■ House ' x • •• 1 s:f.. • • LENGTH • X WIDTH • B S.F. iO * *V • X • • S.F. A / .1-JU • X • a ’ SiF. X a . S.F. B. • Garage x «r • a • • t S.F. 4 • C.D riveway ___ x _•S.F. X • • 8 • • s!f. D.Sidewalk .” x 'S.F. 1 X e S.F. X B S.F. •• E.^ATIO/ D eck X • • • S.F. ; ‘*4 F. Landscape x • S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY . X . S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING ... V • o • S.F. X •a S.F. «1 r . G. Other x • •a S.F. • • •• • Total Hardcover in Zone $ s.p:T • • Tnrit Property Area im 7one -S.F.T •• A ' ^ 4 B , X 100 « • % • 4^IT I ^ . / ■’hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK zone: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' < [/ 250-500' 500-1000' \ Existing Hardcover in Zone =^’ I • • . . A .. ‘ House '* +: 4-36Z • ^ ^ «.c. # LENGTH • . WIDTH • • • . • . •* •• • • * . * • X • 5.PI * • ■ • •. •• • • % • * 0 X . •• ♦ • • • * • •• • • • • X _ ■ . P . • t •• • X • • ■ ’ S.P. B. * •• ^ • • Garage X « *» ■ S.P. C. 37^0 ' Driveway _ •■ ^2ZO g^p. ’ • \X •• • • ■ S.P. • D..Sidewalk ’-4#-= ■: s.F. • . • . X * • • . ■ S.P. • • X _ » . S.P. E.Jatio / • S$p ,,..^3oSS S.P. . • - F. Landscape .X . S.P. areas UNDERLAIN BY . * • • • X ■ • S.P. PLASTIC SHEETING • • • • X •« - S.P. X “ _ S.F. G. Other ' _X - ho S.F. S • • Total Hardcover • IN Zone • S.F. A Total Property Area in Zone 4 6 /TZ.JSO s.f; [3 . • • . //Z/B<D X 100 - A" ^•5^ - I « • • » , * • V • • L f Srn^ iHEET... ..... 25^ s.>™.. SETBACK zone: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 /5 -3U ^ Listing Hardcover in Zone " A. • House «_—:- -x .* 4^7^ LENGTH WIDTH . X B. Garage . ^SSo 7ZB^ c. Driveway D.. Sidewalk ^X , • •X .. ■E. PATI0>^aftiS« '?■: F.Landscape •, AREAS • UNDERLAIN BY ■ f-PLASTIC • SHEETING • • .Jt t G. Other S.F S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. ^ S.F. S.F. Sip. S.F. S f F. ' S.F. S.F. * S.F. S.F. • Total Hardcover in Zone - Total Property A rea in Zone _ S.F. SfP# 12^JS-}0 S.F. 74‘^o .1 ZS^TO A 0 % ]l \ . • it "*17# • . HffiDCOVER mISlATIC.N WORKSHEET •^tr& /af _ \ (Si Other ' r.f SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ^7?) Existing Hardcover in Zone 75-250' 250-500' • 500-1000' • • 1. ■ House . 0 0 X • S. P.• LENGTH WIDTH • i . t • X m ■ • . • • S. P. • •. • . . • X » • • 4 • • • • • S. P. • _ ••X n S. P. •• •X * 1 S. P. B. • Garage • • X t* .* 'S .’P . C.Driveway •• X •m • • ^ A P A • X . • n • • • S. P. D.. • Sidewalk 'X • SiFi X SiF. ^ % X % SsFi£.JATIO/Deck •» • • ‘ ■ X . . '• • • • ••S.F. F.Landscape • • x' ., ■ S.F.AREAS underlain BY . • •• *• X • •• S.F.PLASTIC SHEETING • • * • X • 9* S.F. S.Fi • Total Hardcover in Zone . • V-'v,*- ..* • S.F. f ip, Total Property Area in Zone X 100 *• r. i B ^ '2Si20^ S.F. • E ■ •%* r •c » . • • lat HARDOfVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK zone: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' (n^j 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. ' House •• • B. Garage c. Driveway E. Patio/ Deck .*»• V •* F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other LENGTH • , • • • • D. Sidewalk i WIDTH X • 'Totau Harocovir in ZoNg • - ■ « ^ A • •• , ^ •• •* • V • . S.F. V • : 55tf> S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F ^ S.F. S.F S.F. S.F S.F. S.F • S.F S.F S.F S.F S.F =S‘ Total Property Area in Zone __________t.F • , £>3400 S.F [3 U! a 3 B ^34^0. X 100 /A^.o/Yo >• • *. ' . AV. * • 4 . JN « * 4*4* *> iD 0 ' . ' r*-* '*‘!:s25: i •. \ f ^/7<c • ^ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' Existing Hardcover in Zone 500-1000' A. * House - X B 332jd X 100 - ‘•?:• <% • V ‘• • ■•• •.»•V ... C F- » 4 ». & .. • • length width • \ . »• X • • m St F • «• ••• •. . •• • K •m • S. F i • • • • ,■' . ' x_ ■m S.F. 1 • #• *• X • St F. ' < B. • Garage ..X m S.F. C,Driveway .X A_- • . StFt • k • * X _ • • 1 • • S.F. D.. • Sidewalk • %. • ••• « X SiFt • 4 ^ • * X * . • * SiFi * V * ; # • •* •• X • • • ’ ■ _ N , . tf • Si F t • ,0 . • E. ••4 X • • •a-.StFim ^ . F. Landscape *- • • X • S.F.AREAS • ; underuin ; BY ■ » . •' V. * . *• • . T ^ • • . • ' . .* . X . 1 t S.F. t RUSTIC ’ SHEETING • . » •« • •« •-;* • * • . * • ' X * p • w w • s.f; • • • • r V. • • ••• • . .1 •*, # N ». •. . • • V .,. • *.• • s . V ’■ X • ’• • r « • i i . m • • • • S.F. ■ • •• G. Other .X • ■ * S.F. • •• 4 1 • ' »Total Hardcover in Zone $ • t.P.A • • • - L*-- . ^ * ' •. * ' • Total Property Area in Zone 3Szc^S • P • •\t\ ,<rs ^ / •••I 4• . . •(7'-. . i/ .• . ..... /oT HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET . SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ($r75^75-250* 250-500* 500-1000* Existing Hardcover in Zone A. ' House ! B. Garage c. Driveway E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS - UNDERLAIN BY ■ , , PLASTIC SHEETING • * LENGTH D.. Sidewalk _ WIDTH X -1 G. Other • Total Harccovir in Zoni 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 •Vi' * • t. Total Property Area in Zone S.F t.F S £_-r B • • . X 100 - .f. [5] • • I jD Ti I « % • « # 1 0// . HOTCOVE ^ou-My lo't’Q ICOVER CALCUUTION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' (75-250^ 250-500' 500-1000' E xisting Hardcover "in Z one A. ' House LENGTH WIDTH S.F. s.f; . iu « • _ S.F. S.F. • • • f B• Garage c. Driveway X */^ZO S.F. S.F. S.F. .1 D.. Sidewalk _Z^o ■m • ' S.F. S.F. S.F.« • E. Patio/ ,^ .)eck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , . PLASTIC SHEETING G. OTHE r-t X X yo Total Hardcover in Z one • %•* • Total Property Area in Zone 246 6a • • t , S.F , S.F. • • S.F. S.F. 0 S.F. • • S.F. I.P. S.F. . I Afn X 100 - S HI % • § • t . I • II /ai" WORKSHEET Q SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 4 0-75' 75-250'Q50-500p 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone • • A. ■ H ouse X. B . 2/^ s.p. LENGTH f • • * • • 1 • WIDTH • J / • ••• 4> • ; * X “ ‘ ‘ S.F,' ■?»> :/ \ X S.F. •■V S.F. •• *S • F • B. Garage S.F. c. Driveway S.F. S.F. D.. Sidewalk _i X .S.F. S.F, ^ « *4-^ S • F# • # * 0 i\ • ••• •0 ‘ •• •S.F. F.Landscape areas - UNDERUIN BY , . FUSTIC SHEETING ■ • • •• • . S.F. .. • •^ • X X X G. Other S.F. r S.F. S.F. Si F • ' • 1H* . «•• .% .*Total Hardcover in Zone • • * ^ Total Property. Aru in Zone t.F. a1 2£2^_s.f. [T| T ^4.«n s. m X 100 - —^<=> . • .:V*/ .-It• t *• 4*4' \J <1 • , • •' ^ 'V '' •• •'v ?•'-•• f.yy . > -/‘ •• *<*-,' • ;' #-^- mm . *•* ’.'•*■ V’ *'"^ ■V' V.’Vi-: ‘ IJ-A;V- i- B r '-M v: *|»i- 'v'' f-'i ■^mm ■ ■ - ••‘jfe.fV .*''- , V »j * *p r^‘ •• -V': i:;;^ ' m ■ 'ir *. J- .! * •. :-dv' t :•■ ‘ v^M '■-m •: ■ J.- / <y-p^ ;e?,M.. ! ♦•: ..“ ■ ■• i / / u "•»7nr^ fi BPSIli ...dil •*^/ (>U<PI^ , '-'‘J “•<; .v f,:iV V 'uZCl^f' UvS'S^-Sr-fSTf^o ^ in %,mmmMwwwmm: '?iwf • V\ V--‘,iI .I-'; To:Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator From: Dale: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator November 5. 1993 /I^i888 Paul and V^eNita Schnebele, 835 Forest Arms Lane - Variance Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance 1. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback variance required for lakeside addition to existing residence. Allowed = 0 ’ Existing = 18' Proposed = 20 ’ Review of hardcover. 0-75 ’ setback area = 10,725 s.f. Allow'ed = 0 s.f. Existing = 32. s.f. 75-250’ setback area = 25,025 s.f. Allowed = 6,256 s.f. or 25% Existing = 3,023 s.f. or 12% Proposed = 3.287.2 s.f. or 13% 250-500 ’ setback area = 10.069 s.f. Allowed = 3,021 s.f. or 30% Existing = 3.827.9 s.f. or 38% No improvements proposed. No changes proposed Total hardcover Lot area = 45.819 s.f. Existing hardcover = 6.883 s.t. or 15% Proposed hardcover = 7,147 s.f. or 15.5% Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of lot coverage, Allowed = 6,873 s.f. or 15% Existing = 2,675 s.t. or 5% Proposed = 2,939.25 s.f. or 6.4% No variance required. Zoning File ^1888 November 5,1993 Page 2 List of Exhibits A •• Application B - Applicants' Addendum C - Property Owners List D - Plat Map E - Aerial Map F - Elevations G - Floor Plan H - Survev Description of Request Applicant proposes the removal of a 14 ’ x 14.3 ’ three-season porch and replacement with a family room/office addition to the lakeside and west side of existing residence, refer to E.xhibit H. The improvement will require an average lakeshore setback variance. The existing three- seasi. n porch is located 18’ in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed addition will extend 20 ’. As applicants’ addendum notes. Exhibit B, the seven year old principal structure (built 9/86) was installed in front of the average lakeshore setback line without the necer- • 7 variance approval. Seven years ago the channel was probably not considered part of the mam lake for determination of average lakeshore setback line. Members with longer tenure may remember recent variance applications dealing with additions to principal structures along Forest Arm channel that required average lakeshore setback variances. It has also been noted by Council that the intent or application of this code is not clear when dealing with lots on channels or lots adjacent to lakeshore lots with narrow platted corridors to lake. There is 8% excessive hardcover within the 250-500 ’ setback area, very consistent with the development along Forest Arms Lane where homes are placed close to the road taking advantage of the higher elevations. Total lot hardcover with the improvement is at 15.5%. The improvements to the structure are located completely within the 75-250’ setback area where only 12% exists and 13% is proposed. The City has received no comment from the adjacent neighbors receiving the most impact from the addition. The single story addition will h.ave no more of a visual impact on the adjacent residences than the existing single stor>' three-season porch. The improvement will meet all other required setbacks. Issues for Consideration 1.Ba.sed on the facmal findings noted above, is it necessary that applicant remove excesses of hardcover within the 250-500 ’ setback area (807 s.f.)? Zoning File #1888 November 5,1993 Pace 3 Was the intent of the average lakeshoie setback code to consider view impact on lots developed along auxiliarv channels of main lake? // CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATIOtff /f *» 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 Q Q . 5 A' V ZIT( OF DFCSO Fi^A^ OFFICE A V ww tM rcxj tV\.. _ ^ • ^»wv/ rj f I i tm a I w • V V OCrCTDTiiALl** VHf I f > I imi\ f u’w 4 r*v 70 f n Ty V") f pfl 1 Ti'\ 7 • « ITwUf/AV UVV'l iTv 'A I t • a A\// PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Vi-: /i.'. / / • Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _(month/yea..) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: _ _residential _ _ _other (specify) Zoning District:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT Phone (home) Ncune ; •!f *Phone (wor)c) Address:/ •City: /Zip: OWNER (if different than annl •» r*an«-> 3a 07-117-23 12 0012 P E SCHN£3EL£ £ V SCHNE3ELE 835 FOREST ARMS LA MOUNO MN 55364 ®hone (home) Name Phone (work) Address y:Zip:_ DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback :Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshote Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:_ _ _ _ _ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the folloirLnq information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your 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). Certifica^^e of survey (siqned by a licensed surveyor) to include4. hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8J5"xll" for reproduction). 5. _Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8%"xll"). 6. _Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8%"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 got 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 ^e best of his/her knowledge. hi') /Applicant's Signature Date / ONNERS 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 request. Owner's Signature jit on of this request. Date /C' " 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 £md 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 S Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. r Paul umd VcNIta Sdinebdc S3S Fo*«st Jbrms Lane Ovono, IfIN S5364 <6I2> 47*2-4044 n .V• • / A* *a 1 “I - ^ o o o October 20, 1993 ..f> Ladies and Gentlemen Orono Zoning Commission 1335 Brown Road South Orono, MN 55364 RE: Request for inclusion on City Council Agenda of 11/22/93 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen; Thank you for approving our request for a zoning variance. V^e were surprised that this was required. Since our home is less than six years old, we expeaed that a variance would have been requested and approved prior to original construction (we did not build the home). Apparently, the owner^uilder managed to get around the variance requirement. The delay caused by this recent cevelopment has created some difficulty for us We planned that the construction would have begun late in September; completion was anticipated before the end of December. In addition to disrupting the holidays, the delay is causing problems with the financing, especially with the fluctuating interest rates. We would be extremely grateful if the remainder of the process could happen as quickly as possible. We respectfully request that our request be put on the City Council agenda for November 22, 1993. This will enable us to lay the foundation before the start of winter, and finalize the financing. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, RUN DATE 10/15/93 BATCH 002 PROP ADOR OltlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR Olt4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR V ME^t^EPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OlflERS LIST 36 07-117-25 12 000<V 00800 FOREST ARMS LA R H BONNEMA A J R BOTtlEMA ROBERT H A JANIS R BOTtlEMA 600 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 36 07-117-23 12 0009 00605 FOREST ARMS LA G B BORROW AHA VOLPE GEORGE BORKOH/MARILYN VOLPE 605 FOREST ARMS LA ORONO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0012 00635 FOREST ARMS LA P E SCHNEBELE A V SCHNEBELE P E SCHI4EBELE A V SCHNEBELE 635 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 TOTAL BATCH 002 00009 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 3 V 38 07-117-23 12 0005 00630 FOREST ARMS LA T K SAhRiEL A A SAMUEL T K A A SAMUEL 830 FOREST AWtS LANE MOUrU) m 55364 36 07-117-23 12 0006 00660 FOREST ARMS LA ROYETTA I MARCOTTE ROYETTA 1 MARCOTTE-SNOW 860 FOREST ARftS LA MOUr4D MN 55364 C 38 07-117-23 12 0010 00815 FOREST ARMS LA M A H HC ELLIGOTT MICHAEL A MARY MC ELLIGOTT 815 FOREST ARMS LA MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0011 00625 FOREST ARMS LA H 0 PARKS A K L PARKS MATTHEW D A KAREN L PARKS 825 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 V, i 38 07-117-25 12 0013 00855 FOREST ARMS LA C A C CARLSON C A CHARLEEN CARLSOT4 855 FOREST ARMS LAf4E Mourn) m 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0014 00875 FOREST ARMS LA DARLOW T MADGE DARLOW MADGE 675 FOREST ARMS LA H0UI40 MN 55364 I f w M 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATIOf4 OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEmEPIN COU»4TY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BES1 OF MY KNOWLEDGE MID BELIEF DAT EPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST-^s jrs ^ oS $ % I '■ , I ■ '«!*• '- v.v4 ■p M ■ i-M 7/ /' / ■>■ TW “f ! -.,?>! I ■i.:3 o H '1 4®l5#i ]l ■' y^v^?3g! \k-, jf 'r^*ii t.jsr^.—’I ^ !F i ' k!<^. ’ - II •p-.;.. •■ t"''.-;i9jS6t a* m ’ll X A ‘4 feci••v^ •• gi . •* > , v - .. ■ .rV'j Ifesr4£*s r’?5a i 'C' i'^ ^I mmi mm mm - -/iy > ■ • • mm§m V ai ' .-Vv.?;S,J -A-il ■■ ■r ■■. •■■ .:-•.............■•■•-•'^V'. *yy-''' ■ ••.^ >‘ftfi“''^ i . •"•vW, ' •:' V ' . Vv- • • [ y--- mit ■ -i :-:v llSssiilS ' Atv >r-r;..U 4 r CITY OP ORONS MUIUDINa WSNMIt I*l^N RHVIBW iN9t*tQi'ort ,„te (0 PCnMlT NO, \ 4. APPR0\CU A'.' SURNVTTTD APPROvrn wiiH c.ouni Cl K)rJS as noted , NOV AI PKOVU' — CORUUCT & RESUBMIT ,'U'^ 1-'i >oui tiit<vn>i»»lon. All wort« shall b«<l0M lo'l c'*•l;pll.Sl'<^c vvlH< -i’.! ^pvTt.aWe buidloR 1 wrtin aoifa f®* iiKiu-Iin,* »:im not swcilicaily noted in tWa r KEEP THIS PLAN SET ON SITE AT ALL TIMES. ise A*IrlPoJ PROVIDE SMOKE DETECTORS FOR ENTIRE BUILDING tiMSi of islrsp.it*i2. J/MJL-p l^iri ^A-fo _ f t: csr.-/>f T'<» HoUtc L|Jb 1 ‘ ELEVAric5hj-:L/l/^2 t »ner"—4: pf P*1 J-»p.r rK- r- ^in > %»M«| • «• «» M • •• •«• • • J 'f i ‘i!f Jix. R0BBINSDALE« mink S5422 Afris Ljn 4e . cf^sb r>sl« ^ I - 4^ «^*L+flROite •• • • •***.'S‘**, J.9 •• %■ < -•. • k, C f . •• • r** '.•.'t*: 5 ••1• V j ’illj:! /lilV'ivSLs-L : ■'.ii JOB NO.OTBO; To;Orono Plannine Commission Members Mavor Callahan and Orono Council members Ron Moorse. City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator November 8. 1993 #1889 Rodney J. Batzlaff, 1115 Brown Road South - Renewal Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, Rural Residential, 2 acre minimum Pertinent Ordinances 1.Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) - Variance required for placement of accessor)' structure in front of front line of principal structure. Accessor)’ structure to be located 22 ’ in front of principal structure. 2. Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (F) - Side yard setback for accessory structure Required Proposed Variance 10’* 8’ 2 ’ or 20% * 10’ setback is allowed for structures less than 750 s.f. in area Total area of accessory structure is proposed at 440 s.f. Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) - Front street setback. Required = 50’ Proposed = 23.1’ (to edge of 33’ of right-of-way) 43’ (from traveled road) Variance = 27.9’ or 55.8% Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of lot coverage Total lot area = 14,824.25 s.f. Allowed = 2,223.6 s.f. or 15% Proposed = 1,802.4 s.f. or 12.15% Hardcover review not required as property is not located within 1,000’ of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka or French Lake. Zoning File #1889 November 8, 1993 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Current Application A-1- 1992 Application B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map D - Survey E - Floor Plan F - Spec Sheet G - Section H - Council Minutes 7/13/92 1 - Planning Commission Minutes 6/15/92 J - Resolution No. 3138 Description of Request Applicant has filed a renewal variance application for setback variances approved by Council on July 13. 1992. Variance approval expired in July of 1993. Applicant has filed a renewal application proposing no changes from the original application ot 1992. Applicant proposes installation of a 20’ x 22’ detacheu garage (review Exhibit D) within the street yard of the residential property requiring front and side setback variances and a variance to the section that would require placement of the garage in front tl.c front line of the principal structure. The carage will be located 20’ from the 33’ defined county road right- of-way and 43’ from the traveled road. Doors face away from the stieet with himaround provided on site. The proposed structure has been located in an attempt to save two mauire trees within street yard. Lot coverage is maintained at 12%. The City has once again received no negative comments from the adjacent neighbors who originally signed off on the Neighbor’s Acknowledgement Form in the 1992 review. The original variance application conditioned approval on the existing storage shed located in the rear yard being relocated to conform to a 10 ’ side setback. Applicant had agreed to relocate structure at the time of the issuance of the building permit for the detached garage. Hardship Statement Please review Exhibits A and A-l. The hardships are reviewed as follows: The shape of the lot prevents structure from being placed adjacent to principal structure nor is there sufficient area to allow an access drive to rear of property without the removal of mature trees. The garage shall be placed on site so that trees will not be threatened by construction. The location of the proposed garage is consistent with setback variances approved ‘ iktF -v - .’•' 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) ^ -i A rrrv nc nr^nijnWA t I u‘i k.*i%cfiTwr cr*>\*jrc nL'CTrc $ uf I acu i 7Cs) r, V)MAa Wk/vt;»V'v ’W'V « « m * •f ULI k U I C'i rrxi i Ai"» a V • yv ^ #*»A aw • w PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ///^ ftgnOKi RDAD L^crcTur^TuAkik' vmiI fl.niTM I i/i/ ^v07c-QA r/*vi f oA I r f c- •uvva nva *a^* fA/vf . a V'/ a. a / Property Identif. Nxunber (P.I.D.) //~7 2.3 CCC^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _(month/year) I (do)(do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; _ _residential _ _ _other(specify) Zoning District;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT Ncime Phone (home) Hi (jp I 12-(—Af”F" Phone (work) S6rC'^2-^CO Address; j 3 S City OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work) Address;City;Zip; DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ is)Q0O ~ Describe request in detail; A ‘X^ETTAC H S&TUJg:£N) ^TREIET kou:^^oFf^ &sib cf^MLThRs\J^ ~ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width X Setback; )C Front X^Side Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hardcover ___Lot Coverage Rear ___ Average Lakeshore HARDSBIP/DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements; Li (v\ite :d -pug. r.RlEsiTAT/CKA C.f hicV/\B CtJ THE LQT AQCcV. Ta T'ME t^ACK. YAR'bilJb Builo (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the follQiwinq information amst be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete; 1. *^>Coinpleted Application Form 2. _ _Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Deoartment 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 8Js"xll" for .reproduction). 5. NiTopographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes ^in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8%"xll"). _Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8Jj"xll"). _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. 6. 7. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to th^^es^ of .his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature 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 op^his requMt. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all su^^tt^ls inti/the City offices 25 days before the Planning Comjnission 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. • • -4!' ui ^ ^ t \ 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 ter—the—Fact Fees (Double application fee) #17V A rrrv -rwill U'» U.*ML.'»TU 4, • .'J w * ^ » i i I ' *• 'Hi M » A *. w*t'^ W'W'V'V* _ ,'}i -kva trC^i U • ...........i ..............^ » V*^ vv PROPERTY INFORMATION :cri’vj^ua CVV'X i ' « AA .1 f VFVM,'*. • • •• • • •« * • • ^ _ t tJ • ^ i t ! *t# I W'w* Sout'HSite Address^_ Property Identif. Number (P.I.D. )(0-l (> Z3 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date P^p.rty Acquired_ _ _Vl' - - - - - I (do)(6o not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. property: jLr-idential - - -ether (specify) ^Zoning District: APPLICANT Name Phone (home) H *7 (r< 3 3 “Tl ANt> K. ^fierZ^LAf^one fwork) *=)(^G-2.‘Z.OO_ at UtS Gf^WfvJ 1^. SOLt~7^ r.irvt WMZ-ATA 2i?v. Phone (home)^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __— Addres OWNER (if different than applicant) Ncime Phone (work) Address:City;Zip: description op RBQOEST Estinated Construction Cost $, (oOOO .OO , "Roiu -d a xoiASue. •oerAcHeD&^RASE. Vilhu!4. OPF — VARIANCES RBQOIRED Lot Area Lot Width Lot Coverage_ _ Hardcover _ ^setbac).: Front Side _ Rear _ Average Lakeshore Other .jpecify) HARDSHIPA>BSCRIPTI0N OF ONUSOAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual -■ o conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:QfeO^ bu^tn^ 9^lor^,^q __l,sCrvs^w<» I.v f\\r,p niT CurrCT^ S>C|df. I mciP a#.i (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS __following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered coerolete ^\A^ii_Coinpleted Application Form ^>^v2._Y_Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150* (you must obtain \ fJennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). lO-'in ^3 2^^ 0OC>^ -----Map (obtained with property owners list). —Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8%"xll" for reproduction). 5.;^Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations! if any changes V in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8%"xll"). plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8%"xll”). *-----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 yotir variance ap plication is not complete if the above xnfonnatlon has not be*»n includ^. ~ ------------------------------- APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees co provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signatur^ll^tY^^^Date ~ ~ _ _ _ _ OWNERS SIGNATURE 2^/^/? f The owner hereby ackowlftges and t^re^to this application and further authorises reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agentsr Commission members^ and Council members for purposes of investiga— tlon and verification of this Owner's Sienaturencrt1 ft- Date *2) - 2.1'^Z- '~k: 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 Cammlsslon 2md 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 fi Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. -CDRUN DATE 05/15/92 OATCH 006 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAIC/AODR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR OEtCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADOR OI«CR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 58 10-117-23 15 0001 01000 BR»M RO S JAICS A ABBOTT JAMES A ABBOTT 1753 REGATTA OR FEWUrWINA BEACH FL 32034 38 10-117-23 24 0005 01115 8R«M RD S R I S 6ATZLAFF ROONEY A SHARON 8ATZLAFF 1115 BROFfI RO S HAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 24 0008 01140 NILLOH OR S D B LIESCH (CM LIESCH DAVID 8 A CARLA H LIESCH 1140 NILLOH DR S HAYZATA Tt4 55391 38 10-117-23 24 0053 01130 HILLON OR S S A 0 HCHILLIAMS SHIRLEY A OORCAS HCHILLIAMS 1130 NILLOH DR S CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 HEtfflEPIN COUFTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY aUJERS LIST38 10-117-23 24 0003 01085 BROIII RO S JAMES S BURANEN JR JAMES S OURAtFEN JR P 0 BOX 121 EXCELSIOR IN 55331 38 10-117-25 24 0006 01135 BROIFN RO S 0 A GLEH APS GLEH DUANE A A PATRICIA S GLEH 1135 BROIN RO S HAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 24 0011 OHIO NILLOH DR S C A SUESS A J J KEim JAMES KEMNA/CANDEE AIM SUESS 1110 NILLOH OR S HAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 006 00010 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 15 38 10-117-25 24 0004 01105 BROTM RO S ABIE J CHRISTENSON ETAL ABIE J CHRISTENSON 1105 S BROIN RD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 24 0007 01155 BROIM RD S PHYLLIS I SYMONIAK PHYLLIS SYMONIAK 1155 BROiM RO S CRYSTAL BAY IW 55323 38 10-117-23 24 0032 01120 HILLOH OR S SAD HCHILLIAMS SHIRLEY A DORCAS HCHILLIAMS 1130 HILLOH DR S CRYSTAL BAY IN 55323 1> 1 C C o •Q ; t i': t: i I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS OAIE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEIAIEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF^ / / y ^ oateW^y 1/ ( c TP ( •4«171 Certificate of Survey for Rodney^! Stiannon Batzlaff in Gov't Lot 6. Section 10-117-23 Hennepin County, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: All that part of Government Lot 6, Section 10, Township 117, Range 23. de scribed as follov/s: Beginning at a point on the East line of said Lot 6 distant 725.02 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof; thence West at right angles to said East lino, a distance of 258.72 feet, more or less, to an intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 216.69 feet Northeasterly from the center line of County Road No. 87; thence Southeast erly along said parallel line a distance of^47.95 feet; thence deflecting left an angle of 39 degrees and 45 minutes a distance of 234.2 feet, more or less, to the center lino of County Road No. 146; tlience Northerly along last said center line to the point of beginning. Note; Because of the various ways this section has been subdivided over the years, it may be necessary to judicially establish the boundaries to be certain of their location. • • iron marker found 0 : Iron marker set Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. Coffin & Gronberg, LNCr-ril ^ 'ly- > fi ■ 'i i a\*mu« ^MS '* ^ \ 1 hereby cetlify tluil Ibis survey was prepared by me ur under my direct super vision, and that I am a duly rep,islered Civil Enj^'ueer and Umd Surveyor under the laws of lire Stale of Minnesota. Mark S. Gronberg Miime.sota License Number 12755 6-18-92^ SCAI.H 1" |ou NO. 92-206 »a t ; Work order SUSSBLGARAGES7/ 1852 COMO AVENUE ST PAUL. MN 55108 Permit hy Legal Description------------- Lot------------------------------ BIk__________________ Add'n________________ Value______ Type Const SLAB: IjBv SUSSEL □ By Owner Approx___________ □ In 2-STARTING POINTS ONLY S.PL_________________________ S.S.P.L_______________________ RP.L________________________ Alley______________________ House^S?r^_____________ F Street ___________—------!------ Other □ Square With « □ Sod Rem By □ A.B.U. _____ □ 0 Grade Point --------------------------------------- □ Blocks CjBy Owner UBv Sussel □ Wtr proof DSy Own □By Sus. □ Backfill □By Own. □By Sussel □ Maintain 8' Total Wall Height Including Blocks OR □ Maintain 8' Wall Height on Top of 8 ’ocks Block Size (Top course! _______CiJl _______ WaTl Hei^rother than 8' HOME PHONE . ¥ / NAME JOB ADDRESS BLDG CODE AREA SALESM aS&BUS. PHONE n CONTRACT DATE,<»i7F 2J^xXd Slab ABU Sod Ramoval Sand Fill___ □ Existing garage No □ r. Detached □ Attached Yes Si/e of existing —/-Xm^ Existing garage will be □ Left as IS y Converted to L S. By owner □ Removed By: Owner □ Sussel □ Junk Must Be Removed By 0\.vner FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Blocks Biks. Oalivtry Waterproof. Back Fill ___ Other ___ D.W. S.W. Ftfl. Re-bar TOTAL iLAC-kT^P , ------------------------------■ Stakes visible • D Yes ^ No Survey available • DYes U No □ Special instructions from owner:------------------------------- ^ Good □ Fair □ Poor 33f=^T: AT" O xx J^£St s 1DIRECTION oi mrMA<;FR'S INITIALS; } .' * ^ * V j1 I *• #'! I * I j \ . * V r IK , I j • .*n,Afl Tf • ! • I *• GAMGE ESpMATE FORM ,~:i r'LiV; !' ,: 1 i 1 "t: vwi dimension is width □ ”N«Er-Bllt* Framed by SUSS EL ^ “AII-Bllt." Built by SUSSEL Detached ' •• □ Attached ^^TJfLE ' i'» fi * T i ■' Jj 5 ' ! >?• ‘ ?• i i ! ,..."■ ' ^ gable ^^Ea >re Overhang iCirci-* 0 <^1 18 ’ :'f Iteke Ovijrhanj Rustu*^ : i . I 12*18* REVERSE GABLE t Have Ov'jrhang (Circle One)' 12* 18* 24* Hake Ovtihang f-lush 12* t {! . • ■ If -•|!. , C HIP ' !j' Have Overhang (Circle One) 12' 18* 24 18’ '.I 5iu rg'ass^hingles w th * <terj‘'^ !•» roof sheathing »»• I m ■I ? irERS; ~!T' 2 X 6'o j jM.enli •»• ' itning Manufactured Trusses I . 2x4*3 '/.aP He'ght 3 '!:•* WMAU sheathinq V' ’ ^' .ra. te :5 J2'Biidrit . rj 1/2* Plywood □ 1/2* Wafer Board □ None ; 'T’fl ”1 ST| I- • L rp-7 t l • - (\^l '*• t '•: 5 • i; < lU BAD DOOR: \rl ftii ; If •!' 1 1 ijc i' * ** ; ^ .H-J :t ( □ Wood Panol *1 □ Glass 1 No Glass □ Raised Pintl G Raised Redwood ! □ Flush • □ Textured I 1^!* :t' - e * « JiM ^ V steel ‘i-! • •'’■Y ■ □ Ribbi ‘ '•f ■* > », • r Ribbed Raised Panel •I ■ ■» life.'.':. Ve: ■ L. No : 2 8' X 6*8* □ 3 0* X 8*8* I • 1 ^ * • 1« • Glass > • !: □ Wood No.Glass Steel if:-: , wRuncft Windows: ft’ pC '■Namb.,otaiiiS«li«l'S ’^<!{‘,;Vr i 'il •?i 8UB: ^ i i t ■fil i ;i’ J? Included 12. BLOCKS; □ Required ‘V'.irf C oui W11L-_LI L) By Purchaser Not Required Ihfl-T'': i ‘ • * IJDConaete OBlAcktop > ■ Driveway______Sq. FL IV l. ii: :• Suss el f' I i 1- i •• .t :i □t- !;• □4 I 'r J j’' ^ y y Sussel• '* i* : 'I *»• . : J □ □t!,f ■ I ^ ;• •' ° Ml. ' :) *: ’ / B/ Purchaser »■*'' |i □ , i' □f! ° By Owner f'rn IPg i-1 . , n • i ; J’; d M- -iMl! a f » h it •T ‘i • • t ‘ !: 1 i»ti'•54; rtiO I 3 V:i'* - * ,* Lt • * • ■ :fv9;w' • 1* i'a ; n::ii •if • '; • -)[ts > »t*S Wefe.:';': j:i:im I *•; ^ .J tU m C (-J.a Ji luai Monthly Installments ji^ f [ I 1 • Per Month If 5j:^|,ri. tj;jj ^uai Mor ^Bb, [fill I . IOtf ri'li r .V !• n;TlJ »*. u I j r. «.i f ^ f f ♦ * *. • *^ » • *« * ‘ i »• .•^k j * V • ! • ■ • • ) *'* ' • !• J K'l' I.’ ■V^t ' f ?f ROOF R0/ERSE GABLE HIP SUSSELGARAGES EAVE OVERHANG: 19' .!— RAKE OVERHANG SEAL DOWN SHINGLES WITH PLYWOOD OR WAFERBOARD ROOF SHEATHING AND 15 LB. FELT Root Sheathing Seal Down Shingles Trim Manufactured Trusses 2’* x4“ Double Top Plate NOTE 1) Roof approved by Minn. State Building Dept, as meeting Mmn. State Code Requirements of 30# snow load. 2) Hip roofs consist of T x 6" rafters. 2' x 6" cross ties 48" O.C.. 2" x 8" hip rafters and no plywood gussets are used. RAFTERS: Trusses ^4" O.C STUDS; 2" x 4" WALL SHEATHING: _ 24” O.C. SIDING: J2 ^ t-fj^ OVERHEAD DOOR HEADER: Double 2" x 12" or 2 • Micro Lams------ Siao on grade construction approved per Minnesota State Code. Refer to State Building Code Letter Numoer 11 SLAB *1 WITH MESH 6" x 6' #10 Gauge K 1" X 4" SuD Fascia Fascia Soffit 3/4" Cove 2‘x4"Studs Siding 1/2" X 7" Anchor Bolt 2 ' X 4‘ Treated Bottom Plate T Grade 1 4' J fr MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CRONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 13, 1992 ZONING FILE #1739 - CONT. Nelson noted that the survey does not indicate the trees are to remain He stated that the area in front of the pool a Minnesota woodlands. He said that removal of the designated trees will allow the other trees better lighting to replant bushes on the slope because it He noted they intend is very steep Mabusth reported that she and the City Engineer Inspected the site. She stated the Engineer’s report did not specifically address the loss of trees as it would be minimal in I ight of the adjacent heavy treed area. She felt it was better to install quick growing vegetation on the newly installed slopes to prevent further erosion. Jabbour stated that Butler’s concern was preventative measures to ensure the other trees wouldn’t die. Nelson noted that the trees provide privacy for the pool area and he Is very concerned about maintaining the existing vegetation. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to adopt #3137 for Application #1739 for Albin Nelson, 500 Oxford Road, approving a conditional use permit to allow filling in excess of 100 cubic yards. Ayes 3, nays 0. (#5) #1741 RODNEY & SHARON BATZLAFF, 1115 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3138 Mr. Batzlaff was present. setback area and within 23’ of the right-of way. J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 15, 1992 (#5) #1741 RODNEY J. AND SHANON K. BAT2LAFF, 1115 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 - 7:32 P.M. The Affidavit of Pub Iicat ion and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Batzlaff were present. Mabusth explained that the applicants seek approval of a variance lo allow a detached structure to be placed in front of the front line of the principal structure, and a variances to the side and st-eet setback standards. Chair Kelley asked about the shed in the rear which Is over the property line. Mabusth stated that the lot does not have a coverage problem. Mr. Batzlaff said ‘.hat the shed would have to be Jacked up and put on skids to move. Bellows said she did not have a problem with the shed If It were to be moved onto the property. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Chair Kelley, to recommend approval of Application #1741 for Rodney and Shanon Batzlaff of 1115 Brown Road South, for a variance to construct a detached garage, subject to shed being relocated within the property boundaries. Ayes 5, nays 0. Chair Kelley stated the shed would need to be moved 12’ Inward to meet required setbacks. (#6) #1742 JAMES AND AMY LAING, 500 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:33 - 7:38 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. James Laing was present for this application. ,958836 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.3138 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (D), SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 15 (F) AND SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE #1741 HBEREAS, Rodney J. Batzlaff and Sha»'on K. Batzlaff (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1115 Brown Road South within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Refer to Exhibit A attached, (hereinafter "the property"); and NBERBAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) to allow a detached garage to be constructed 42' in front of the front line of the principal structure, a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (F) that would allow the detached structure to be placed 8' from the side lot line instead of the required 10' and a variance to Section 10.38, Subdivision 5 (B) to allow the structure to be placed 23.1' from front/street lot line instead of the required 50' . Minnesota NOW, THEREFORE, BE £T RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1741, The property is located in the RR-lB Rural Residential Single Family Zoning District requiring 2 acres in area. The property consists of approximately 14,824.25 s.f. or .34 acres. TRANSFER ENTERED OtPT. OF PROPERTY TAX & PL'BUC RECORDS AuQ 21 1992 Page 1 of 5 HY _____DEPUTY CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3138__________ 3. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 15r 1992 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following hardships and findings; a.The shape of the lot prevents structure from being placed adjacent to principal structure. b.Insufficient barrier to allow an access drive to rear of property without requiring the removal of the only mature trees on property. c.The proposed location of the garage in the street yard is consistent with the pattern of development for accessory structures within this neighborhood. d.The .34 acre parcel is required to be developed under acre zoning standards. e.The proposed improvement does not exceed the lot coverage allowance for structural improvements proposed at 1,802.4 s.f. or 12.15%. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience, to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 J CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3138__________ 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 proposed variance on the health# safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings# the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.03# SuDdivision 9 (D)# Section 10.03# Subdivision 15 (F) and Section 10.28# Subdivision 5 (B) subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. Prior to the footing inspection for the proposed detached garage in street yard# applicants shall relocate accessory shed in rear yard to required 10' oide setback. 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 (July 13# 1993). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code# shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein# and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 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 5 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3138_ _ _ _ _ 1992. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of July, Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Shcu'^&^'uk'. fcai K. Batzlaff / Shanon STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of July, 1992, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. \9 if JAMIE LBOSMA notary pubuc «in .'«sota HENNEPIN COUNTY ^ My Comm. Expires 12-19-97 // )X O' 07^ v6' Notary Public Page 4 of 5 fO *. O'^CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3138_ _ _ _ _ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. ) On this n iJiun 'cms _ _~_ _ _ _ _ _ __ day of - --- - --- - -' before me a.Nptary ^blic with^in and for said county, personally appeared /(o df'* ^ iL. 'J • i" z !u , ry~> -i f' r'< f //---------- o me the personU) described in and who executed instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARt^PUBUcf - MWNE^A HENNEPIN COUN;^ My commission expires STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 1992, before meOn this ^ ^ ^ doy of /v/_ _ _ _ _ _- - - -, a Notary Public within and for s^id County, personally appeare L' I^SS known to me to be the rn7T^K'now“r/^;l fha\""h:'’ure7re1efute'a°\\"f?-e'rsTi^ (their) free act and deed. LISDA S. VEF NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My commission expiree S*12-B6 ituIay/ 'notary pubi.ic Page 5 of 5 I * CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _________ EXHIBIT A All that part of Govornmont Lot 6, Section 10, Tov/nship 117, Range 23, de- scrlbod as follov/s: Deginning at a point on tlie East line of said Lot 6 distant 725.02 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof; thence West at right angles to said East lino, a distance of 250.72 feet, more or less. Lo an intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 216.69 feet Northeasterly from the center line of County Road No. 07; thence Soutlieast- erly along said parallel lino a distance of 47.95 feet; thence deflecting left an angle of 39 degrees and 45 minutes a distance of 234.2 feet, more or less, to the center line of County Road No. 146; thence Northerly along last said center lino to tlie point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ■ RESOLUTION #3138 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO I Dorothy H. Kallin. City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County Hinnesota. do nereoy certify that I have compared .he foregoln* copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono the oriainal record of such resolution in the Minutes of the pr ce dtn a //sridVAy “cou;dr at a meeting f. = ‘'/--‘a J^ieon July 13 . 1992 . and that the same is a true and correct copy of said FTsolution was duly .uopted by said City Council at said meeting. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set 15th . day of July hand and seal this 19 Q? 4T^lin, City Clerk (^AL) « •O I -.1 i To:Crono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator Date:November 10, 1993 Subject: #1890 Craig Herizenberg, 115 Smith Avenue - V’ariances - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB Approximate lot area = 17.363.5 s.f. Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B). A.Riiiht side vard setback (proposed principal structure addition) Required = 30’ Existing = 37' Proposed = 18’ 4" Variance = 11’ 6" or 38.6% B.Lett side yard seibacK (second level replacement deck) Required = 30’ Existing = 29’ Proposed = 29’ Variance = 1’ or 3.33% C.Rear setback (proposed principal structure addition) Required = 50’ Existing = 56 ’ Proposed = 47’4" Variance = 2.6 or 5.2% Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of lot coverage Total lot area = 17,363.5 s.f. Allowed = 2.604.6 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1,772.1 s.f. or 10.2% Proposed = 2.002.5 s.f. or 11.5% Property is not located within a shoreland area and is not subject to hardcover regulations. Zoning File #1890 November 10, 1993 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Propcny Owners List C - Plat Map D - Survey E - Septic Inventory Information F-1-2 Council Minutes 4/78 G - First Floor Plan H - Second Floor Plan I - Elevations Review of Application The applicant proposes a two-story addition to the west side of the residence doubling the size of the footprint of the strucmre. The addition to the west side will require side setback and rear setback variance- I'h; second level replacement deck to be installed to the rear ot the existins structure will also require a side setback variance. The proposed addition will consist of a two-car garage, new entry/foyer, mudroom, family room and expanded bedroom area on the upper level. The detachec garage at 862 s.f. will be removed. The existing residence consists of two bedrooms and the proposed improvement will expand the bedrooms now to three. Steve Weckman has reviewed the improvement project and confirms that the existing septic system will not be encroached upon and confirms that the system can maintain and treat proposed three-bedroom luse level. Review Exhibit E. Note the approximate location ot the well. Staff did not locate well in street yard. Applicant should advise if w'ell has been covered over by grade level deck. Well must be relocated prior to construction. Residence structure on we.st lot is located 10* + from lot line. If addition is placed 18* 4- from west lot line, there will be adequate clearance for emergency vehicles. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. Weckman has confinned that the proposed improvement will not require additional septic testing to confirm there is an alternate site o.i the property. The Smith Avenue neighborhood has been designated as a "hot spot" by the City and is one of the areas to be considered for future sewer service. The septic inventory card suggests that the existing septic system has a three t- bedroom capacity. The City has received no comments from the adjacent neighbors notified of the proposed variances. In April of 1978, the City approved a rear setb.ick of 47 ’ for a proposed 12* Zoning File #1890 November 10, 1993 Page 3 X 24’ rear addition to the existing residence that was never constructed (review Exhibit F-1-2). Should the width of the addition be reduced to minimi :e side setback variance? Any recommendation of approval must include the requirement that the well be relocated. The addition cannot be constructed over the well. A condition of this variance approval must also require the removal of the detached garage. If this garage was to not be removed, total lot coverage would be at 2,864 s.f. or 16.4SI. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION *4^ % 4 :) '.•• • \ /*• 1 ^ ••• 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 rTTV f-r waif wi UMUMU CTAiAkifC nrcrrcI aitniu/t. Lri i ack. a w'wvwv'vwv ee)M i rryv'a PROPERTY INFORMATION St-niTH A'-^esoE |'L”V‘Ul /CWlV 1 7"a I w'.w f7cr i I w’. w o ct: t d t_ ru' ;;i’ vp» /f iiinitA # i.*w *v',H C',"W 7i“* ±Vf Site Address Property Identif. Namber ^P.I.D.)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Proger^ Acquired ^OC»» In tQ_ _(montn/year) I (do)G^noJ^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: pK residential _ _ _other(specify) Zoning District;____________________- APPLICANT Name Phone (home) C-12(«46> \Ae>Eg^ Phone (work) ‘RZQ-(»Cp8I Address: US •Sm-TTA A>/£City : Q 1201^0 Zip; ^5^1 OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Ncime Phone (worJc) Address:City:Zip; , ••• DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ *70^000^. Describe request in detail; ~lO_ ACC^,T7CiJ 70 Be. Apf>y^ /A ~ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width ^ Setback;Front ^ Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) TTARDRHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements ;UJg ------- UCFP fOarj^ 70 Cu£eA>r- Ml— n-r, ir: Wf.>ar)>-^ r -THg f ---- W /Jo Df^ec.710'^ TO Ot-J-------- 0«r>-fag. ----------------------------------------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1 of the following information must be submitted by the applicatior deadline date in order for yoxir application to be considered ccmplete; 1, J^Conpleted 7»ppli cation 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 8*5"xll" for . reproduction). Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8*5"xll"). 6,___S)cetches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8*{”xll"). 1 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 Ow.ner must sign this application. Please remember rhat your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLltJ^.MT*S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agreers to provide all information required oi 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 co^p^e^ct tf>J^he^esj of his/her Icnowledge. Applicant's Signature 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, aAd Cotncil members for purposes of investiga tion and verificatvd^Pjpf thfls^ req^^st. 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 malce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building 6 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. (:-y RUN DATE 07/19/93 HErtmPlN COUNTY PROPERTY lNFCRMAlIOr4 SYSTEM PROPERTY OMr4ERS 1.ISTDATCH 001 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 02-117-23 21 OOOA 00060 SMITH AVE F 0 VOIGT ETAL GLADYS VOIGT 60 SMITH AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 02-117-23 21 0022 00110 ORONO ORCHARO RD S J L HYFFELS A M J HYFFELS JAMES L A MAUDE J HYFFELS 110 ORONO ORCHARO RO S NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 02-117-23 21 0032 00100 ORONO ORCHARD RD S N N KINGMAN A E H KINGMAN NOODHARD H KINGMAN 100 ORONO ORCHARD RD S NAYZATA MN 55391 *• ■ *.. REPORT NO. Pt«S5401 PAGE 158 02-117-25 21 0016 00115 SMITH AVE CRAIG HERTZEIDERG ETAL CRAIG HERTZENBERG 115 SMITH AVE NAYZATA MN 55591 58 02-117-25 21 001700125 SMITH AVE B J S P J HORNER BRAOLEY J A PAMELA J HORNER 125 SMITH AVE NAYZATA MN 55591 58 02-117-25 21 0026 00110 SMITH AVE J A FISK A J K FISK JAMES A A JEltUFfcR K FISK 110 SMITH AVE NAYZATA MN 55591 58 02-117-25 21 0051 00095 SMITH AVE J A 0 AHLBERG JAMES H A OIAtME R AHLBERG 95 SMITH AVE NAYZATA Ml. 55591 58 02-117-25 21 0055 00120 ORONO ORCHARO RD LOUIS G MERCHAHT A NIFE LOUIS G MERCHANT 120 ORONO ORCHARO RD S NAYZATA MN 55591 TOTAL BATCH 001 00008 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEttlEPIN COUNTY DEPARTT1ENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOMLEDGE AND BELIEF./ / DATI ^ “I •) y i Jy •J 1 • • 't ••rc*;'• vr .■• / • . # * ' ^ * ’V•«» ••.•j; ; .v\S^ ■ ’ Jk ’ .« • i • ' /* • *:V"’ • S«SSM ■LM5-5 y ^ i I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR CRAIG HERTZENBERG OF LOT 63, ORONO ORCHARDS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA 0«.rev- LEGAL DESCRIPITON OF PREHISIS SURVEYED: Lot 63, ORONO ORCHARDS o: denotes iron marker All bearings are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property and the location o^ an existing house and garage, and the location of a proposed addition thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. CorriN & Gro\bi:r(., Inc.1 hereby cerlify Ihal this survey was'pr(‘pared by me or under mV dircci super vision, and Ihal 1 am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws rd the Stale id Minnesota t M\ -V,. Mark S. Gronbirg Minncsoti License Number 12755 DATl 10 -C* - SCALH \ s 50 JOB N J. 9 5- •s— i ‘'!» • J. t• * r f 0y #• •A.t I t * • V i1 •i ] r •V •|i > • i- .• > ^ CITV Of OHONO *prlj*a7r*l»}(* ***• Council,Councl s Butlor ^ Hayor v«n Uamt,^ini.trttor Bunion, ciL J !° cityAtt..„.y ........ cl.";;:;,7;, '""'-t, to O|,|,rov. »««... «.nca. ,00,100. Zy'.\iJ: Mo cc«tt«nt* fro, th. P<,rk Cu,-on,on. «0 C<«„t. frc» th. Pl.nnina w.l..ion. th. Bo.rd did .pprov.'^dr.rt^rlq^' *"'’Ounc.d th. LMCO Dock Ordln.nc., ^‘onc«rnln»j Mr. Al.n Olson, Cltv Pidnn«f r.oord th. followinj in'o™I;.^h. r.qu.it of^ain Dy. u? • <»*t.d lurch 17, 197i, Which‘ ^ nsf;' ••nicto,., .r. Of •ncro.chii.nt of th. vTunc. .f I would wcuining non-confonalti.., 1 a 1 A M • MlNU'rKo ^pril 17, 1978 TAKX COM.WIJSIOM PUVNNINC CC.SMISSJCM ^■0 l«2rORT *^AHiAl*CK 115 Slilth Av.nu. f J64 Ban Dya h th. ul.tlh. hoiiiMSSm ’S.'JinJJfJ*'*"' “ tuhco, Jrr i-iuiu A . v„i„« .„ao„i.„ ,. V, ■ . T. * . ' •» * **• X •'* hl.nl if.* rt . I i.-S 7. . . ./'.' ■ * • 1* t-f’c*'• ’**’ • <* fCofitiBw4) • I ■ - - ' • p ^ ' rv *•- • .%« 1!. - - • K-S'i:' ' ;• C4>VH : 3; An. RacooMnd App*.ovAl subject to vorlflCAtion of ••ptic sytt«a location and operation prior to building ;>«riiit iaauanco. Planning Connlaaion - April 10» 1978 Mr. & ttra. Dyo wara preaont. Ha a«jruos to ronova or ralocata tha oxiating kannal. Pl«nning CoMiaaion racooa&onda approval aubjact to ramoval of tho kannal and raviau of tha aaptio ayatan oparation prior to iaauanca of tha building pamit. Haating - April 21, 1978 Butlar ttovad, Pauura aacondad. to approva tha varianca raquaat of Ban Dya, 11^ Smith Avanua. par tha Planning Cooaiaaion naating of April 10, 1971, and to adhara to tha nawly adoptad on-aita diapoaal ragulatlona. Motion, Ayaa (4) - Naya (0). Mr. Alan Olaon, City Plannar, atatad that on March 30, 19V8, ataff racaivad a call fro« Hr. Gridlay aaking for an appaaranca, than racaivad calla froa Mr. Gridlay and Mr. Cliff Pranch, QanoapiA Cotmty Park Raaarva Diatrict, raapactivaly, ^aquaatlng a dalay to April 27, 1978 and adviaing that land aala had procaadad on Big laland. Council Haating - April 27, 1078 SUBDIVISION Big Xiland 1309 Durvall Vattar m vv • A ^ - Vjf* . :'.-u I- • •. T- ■;KKt i-^;.i:m:'2:A I t 9 1 £ i • £ PROJICTi HERTZENBERG RESIDENCE 115 SMITH AVENUE WAYZATA MN 55391 47t*4ora DESIGNER: CRAIG HERTZENBERG 115 SMITH AVENUE WAYZATA MN 55391 •ia<47f*4o?a DISCLAIMERS br-‘a 'i ( i;rvN r*. %' \ .<•»‘la ^ ■^*^4 v ‘*l i* I ■ J“* 5^* » ^.v •.*/?,» '»• .?.- .‘<'X I'i vJ .f ‘ I !'* I *r;v:i*f' t ■V .i ;-:-#189tr^ Z Q s' P I O A 3;- “ 1 1 1 s ! ! i *• a PROJICTt HERT2ENBERG RESIDENCE 115 SMITH AVENUE WAYZATA MN 55391 47t.407a DESIGNER: CRAIG HERTZENBERG 115 SMITH AVENUE WAYZATA MN 55391 •12-47S>4073 DISCLAIMERS n« MW«*« »• k» IVuCMtf 0 WMVM n*CMsWan^OM«.FMl«w«.MctaiekX •MN. McaiM. and te w#, t« IHWIllWI **!*^ *f!**M« m I ^ '“'HI ** ■i^aant»mne»tfrm0tmmmltnmarn.»urtiK0t*mmmr9 ■1.. • I . .• .V-' ;• V:*‘ VV^'I ■. •' ■ ;#0iMQ 0 O';- .U-.l ( I'! ,r>?■' r i ! 1• i 1 j i 1 HERTZENBERG RESIDENCE 115 SMITH AVENUE WAYZATA MN 55391 DEStQNER: CRAIG HERTZENBERG 115 SMITH AVENUE WAYZATA MN 55391 • 1I>47S«4073 DISCLAIMERS ■ *■. hi “ 1>9 OMIlfwr A* far w dMn«iWV)l «n«ri •fWMiMn* T>wOiMranarandwaM)<w<|r art tfiacii alneM *•<» w»iatiw> »««■»•. and wAfOinfwra* aw^ madirf Daifwaraiawi t mm»m% fa» pa»fafa wnaaw » wiiMiat aaaiaiaaaa Na a*a«fyitaa«» Wplid madiic »aiaMaf»aaifa>—i •faAa«»r««a< r' **‘>,**‘‘ V' '.I'■^1^ : i w DESIGNER: CRAIG HERTZENBERG 115 SMITH AVENUE WAYZATA MN 55391 •ia-47S-4073 disclaimers ^ ttratcur an»o> »>nw mj« ^»f w #«wi m ^TTiLT i*T^**^ ya tea fiB 0»« grout »?*' ?*?I*^t?*.**f^**< • I^;tee /Kid«<g 0P»«*a«a ■! ta ahn m«i Maamao ••(•(iroMaMag 6 To:Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:November 5, 1993 Subject:#1891 B. Ehalt/D. James. 140 Leaf Street - Variances - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) - Street setback variance. Required = 50* Proposed = a. 25’ right-of-way covered entr> way 40 ’ garage addition 41’ b. 33’ right-of-way covered entryway 32’ (traveled road 55’) garage addition 33’ (56’ traveled road) 2. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L-1 & 2) - Hardcover variances. 0-75’ setback area = 15,450 s.f.* Allowed = 0 s.f. Existing = 690 s.f. or 4.46% Proposed = 697.5 s.f. or 4.5% (add 7.5 s.f. of garage addition) ♦ Shoreline detemiined at 979 elevation as determined in review of Application #1792 - lot to north. 75-250’ setback area = 12,650 s.f. (Based on 25’ right-of-way for Leaf Street) Allowed = 3,162.5 s.f. or 25% Existing = 3,045 s.f. or 24.07'% Proposed = 3,255 s.f. or 25.7% (add 174 s.f. for covered entry addition and 36 s.f. of additional paving beside new entrance door) Variance = 92.5 s.f. or .73% 75-250’ setback area 11,210 s.f. (Based on 33’ right-of-way for Leaf Street) Allowed = 2.803 s.f. or 25% Existing -■ 3,045 s.f. or 27.1% Proposed = 3,255 s.f. or 29% Variance = 452 s.f. or 4% Zoning File 'H891 November 5. 1993 Pace 2 of 3 3. Sect.on 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - F.evievv of lot coverage Total lot area = 28,100 s.f. Allowed = 4,21,"' s.f. or 15% Preposed = 2,436.5 s.f. or 8.6% No variance required. List of Exhibits A B C D E I' G H I Application Property Owners Idst Plat Map Survey Hardcover Fact Sheets Staff Site Tian Survey for Development Plan for North Lot (110 Leaf Street) Elevations Floor Plan Description of Request The applicant proposes a 24’ x 30’ addition to the south side of the existing residence consisting of two-stall garage, bathroom, laundry room and new side entry to the first floor. The e.evations also show a lower level side loading garage (review Exhibit H). As applicants ’ survev/site plan shows, the addition will be placed over e.visting driveway/parking area. A small triangular portion of the addition will encroach the 75 protected setback area. Review Exhibit G. In an earlier variance review, the Ordinary High Water Mark of the tributary was determined at the 979 elevation. Ponding is controlled by the dam to the south of the property. The improvement will result in 7.5 s.f. of additional hardcover within the 0-75’ .setback area. The residence was constructed in April of 1959 under a zoning ordinance that would have required 25,000 s.f. in area and 120’ of lot width. The lot met the necessary standards in 1959. Note the property is platted to the centerline of Leaf Street. It is the normal practice of the City to define the front street setback line from the defined right-of-way at 33’. The neighbor to the north in an earlier agreement at the time of the sewering of the area, agreed to deeding tlie City 25’ for the right-of-way with a 10’ drainage and utility easement. Refer to E.\Iiibit G. If applicant wishes^to deed the City 25’ of right-of-way. 'fhe City would be able to :onsider the setback from the 25’ dedicated right-of-way. If not, the City to be consistent must consider the right-of-way shown at 33’. Hardcover facts would have to be adjusted by reducing area of 75-150’ setback area. Zoning File #1891 November 5, 1993 Page 3 of 3 Note that survey does not show a 6 ’ x 29’ covered entry porch. Proposed or existing access drive does not provide access to new garage at upper level (review Exhibits H and I). Staff has sketched the improvement on a site plan, review Exhibit F'. The covered entiy would be located 32’ from the street defined at the 33’ right-of-way. No.e the actual traveled road is 55’ from the covered entry' addition and 56’ from the closest projeetion of the garage addition. The development plan for the house to the north shows principal structure 46 ’ from the street line determined at a 25’ right-of-way dedication (38’ if determined at 33’ right-of-way dedication). The property was connected to municipal sewer in May of this year. Issues for Consideration 1. Applicants should be asked if they are willing to grant an easement for road right-of-way. The Citv has no rieht to ask for the easement as a condition of this variance review. ^ W Should structural addition be altered to minimize impact on street yard? Structure to the north is 61 ’ from traveled road, proposed entry addition is 55’ and garage is 56’. 2. Hardcover excesses will exist within 75-250’ setback area because access drive to upper level garage has not been included Applicant will be asked to provide an amended hardcover inventory. Will Planning Commission approve an excess of hardcover in 75- 250’ setback area? The lot to the north was approved with 30.37% hardcover w ithin 75- 250’ setback area. 3. Should addition be readjusted to eliminate encroachment within 0-75’ setback area? n ' ■f U ‘'/ CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Mt% Q O 1 "wr I O«-! X Initial Application Fee $1/5.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no chance from original application) Variance for non conforming use $200.00 ^£tg»-_the~Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION -I or rTV »*r .*o“’Hit wii~ ^' r C* n cc* fI ui • ^ wfc. Site Address F MO [BAf ST i "‘I *nnni} 1 V'V'vv\/ 'Di f ULI » U I icwi« V' 1 f I t u i I w*# VV ^ T *.1 I w* • vv ri rooerty Identif . Number *.P.I.D.) Q V^//.Z— ttach legal description to application if not included on requi^d survey. . . , . . . Date Pr^p^^t^y Accuired'^ \oe JLct^iAfXi/wJL lmonzh/year) I (do)(fdo no^ also own tne adjacent parcels of lan Present"TI^5^f property: residential Zoning District; A R i _____________- f ■ *C* Vf t*j 53-aa - 000^-'-'rv.f On/ . /j; U'V'VJI IW'A I t /A/o *-.•(: A ^ • other(specify) applicant Name Addresa D a /v i ITfrr t/\es Phone fhcme) V 00^0, Phone f wnr-V 1 "* ^ ^ s;15S'7S ^^,Uldel^A;(gUj (Lt_City; OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) 4^?^^ - FItoLT Phone (work)_,£/^2^:&22_Name Address _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST . mo CeZL::^ St*’_ _ritv; _—_ Estimated Construction Cost $ 6> ---------- Describe request in 1 ; VARIANCES REQUIRED Hardcover _ _Lot Coverage 'Lrix Lot Area Lot Vfidth Setback; )C Front Other (specify)_ _ _ Side Rear Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS /-al difficulty and unusual property Describe undue herdshrp zoning cJe requirements: conditions preventing ccm^lianc^ ; Ar^-rt- i-p A ,rr-r."/?ji ' lTA4r»v.e'S ._BA& (attach additional sheets if necessary) required submittals All of the following information must be sxibmitted by the application dead 1 ine date in order for yoiir applicat:ion to be considered complete; 1. l/^Completed Application Form 2.4'''Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Gcvt Center 348-3271). 3. 4^ 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 8J<"xll" for .reproduction). 5. ^Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8J!"xll"). 6. l^Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8h"xll''). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 0,_ _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 jnfoiT"ation 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 ^e^b^t of his/her knowledge, Applicant's Signature icTl \ ^ •4—-Date k,! ^ ^ • /c{^i ONNERS 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 ^^/th/s request. Date /Q/fo/^/j>_______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 tne third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an app ican xs unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & onxng Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUN DATE 10/ia/9S?BATCH 002RROR ADDR OlfCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR X* 5 PROP ADOR (MCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR J- PROP ADDR 0»t«R NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 1 ■1 <1- 58 OA-117-25 22 000500110 LEAF ST M S A K J 6R0NDERG HARK S GRONDERG 110 LEAF ST LONG LAKE Hi 55556 58 06-117-25 22 0010 00105 CYGNET PL G J EHALT ETAL GREGORY J EHALT 105 CYGNET PLACE LONG LAKE m 55556 58 05-117-25 II 0005 00095 LEAF ST E C GRAHAM JR ETAL E C GRAHAM JR 95 LEAF ST LONG LAKE m 5555b •*' >• V HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATIOTJ SYSTEM PROPERTY 0I«4ERS LIST REPORT NO. PI655601 PAGE 658 06-117-25 22 000600160 LEAF ST D G EHALT A B J EHALT BRIAT4 G A BARBARA J EHALT 160 LEAF ST LONG LAKE ffi 55556 58 06-117-25 22 000900085 CYGNET PL G J EHALT ETAL GREGORY J EHALT 105 CYGNET PLACE LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 06-117-25 22 0011 0C155 CYGNET PL H R ANDERSSON A E E HORIARTY H R ANDERSSON A E E HORIARTY 155 CYGNET PL LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 06-117-25 22 0025 00180 LEAF ST R N IIOVEY A T G HEALEY ROBERT H HOVEY THOMAS G HEALEY 160 LEAF ST LONG LAKE MN 55556 TOTAL BATCH 002 00007 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN C0UT4TY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO IHt BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. / /"to DATI #1 P,P) 1 * I • • t • • i . I I HARDCOVER CALCUUTION WORKSHE oO Xf SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250 ' 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House LENGTH 3. Garage c. Driveway D. Sidewalk _X £. Patio/ Deck - X PrA^iS F. Landscape areas UNDERLAIN rustic' ■ sheeting _ X X X G. Other width X _ /I. o Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone 385 235 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. Ft. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. B % • e20_^V%\J£3il£- X 100 - J I ff I HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET ^ V_-«' G_*/ _g_ SETBACK zone: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' (75-250]> 250-500 ' 500-1000' ... . Ex I S'TING Hardcover in Zone • • A . ■ House X 2^./) -ii'Sa tT7/_ S.F. LENGTH width • X s •S.F. X S.F. •X S.F. %X s S.F. B.Garage X • • •1 S.F. C.Dr IVEWAY X zi?y S.F, X • S.F. D.Sidewalk ' __X S.F. X S.F. \X S.F. E.Jatio/Deck \K =5 . • .• • S.F. p.lANnscApc . :< • S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN TiV . X S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X • SK • S.F. f s S.F. G t G • Ither X\ V * • •1 S.F. • • Tata? UAonrnvPP IN ZoNS -3 o^S S.F. . • Total Property Area IN Zone - '/2, ^SO S.F.m • » A 30‘^s 4 fTl /2, . X inn - 2V.^7 • • 4 j TV 2S «>./• CTdMri': /^/fo^es^a r J/Mf i:-. MtlTI V -‘y- .• f'V • / 'iV ‘ V • I? i '• <■:■ V V ii ■ H -IS .!• BSS5I '1'jiraualii J f)« t i /T :V n|ir -n ^ y Ql I f ‘ ,r »• «-i V11 / 1 foju nut/ j s n I-' ’ 1 Q rin TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator November 12. 1993 10. SUBJECT: /I'1892 Bruce Kehrinc. 4415 Forest Lake Landing - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB Required area = 43,560 s.f. or 1 acre Existing = 55.500 s.f. or 1.27 acres Required lot width = 140’ Lot is well in e.xcess of 140’ measured in a straight line at the shoreline and at the 75 ’ setback line. Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover variance within 75-250’ setback area = 13.700 s.f. Allowed = 3.425 s.f. or 25% Proposed = 4,462 s.f. or 32.5% V'ariance = 1,037 s.f. or 7.5% Total hardcover = 8% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicant ’s Addendum C - Property Owners List D - Plat Map E - Neighbor ’s Acknowledgment Forms F - Hardcover Fact Sheets G - Boundary Survey/Topo H - Photos of Architect’s Model 1 - Development Plan j - Elevations K - Floor Plans L - Sewer As-built The subject property consists of five separate tax parcels totaling over an acre in area. Applicant proposes constniction of a single family residence with a footprint area of approximately 3,460 s.f. All required setbacks will be met. Review Exhibit J, the flat roof structure will meet the 30’ height limit. The only variance sought by applicant is for excess hardcover within the 75-250’ setback area. Zoning File ^<^1892 November 12, 1993 Page 2 Special design considerations have been employed to minimize horizontal expansion and limit hardcover. The architect's addendum. Exhibit B. notes space has been utilized below and above the grade level garage as living space. A lower level patio lies under a portion ® ^ ^ main level greatroom. review Exhibit K. The roof deck eliminates need tor additional decks and patio. The most unique solution to the excess hardcover is the proposal to install a drainheld to treat runoff collected from the flat roof. 7.3% of hardcover from the walk and drive would be treated by surrounding ground area. 25% of the runoff from the hardcover would be disbursed and absorbed in the drainticld. The applicant also notes if City would consider vacating 5' on either side ot the 60 right- of-way of Forest Lake Landing that the area within the 75-250’ zone would be increased by 740 s.f. also reducing intensity of hardcover e.xcesses. The property has never been assessed for sewer. Review Exhibit L, the sewer is approximately 120’ away from property boundary. It will be the applicant’s re.sponsibihty to extend sewer to the property. Sewer connection charge will consist of the following charges: Plant charge ^ 225.00 Unit fee for 1970 LS-lproject 5 4,111.00 Lift Station 10 by-pass charge S 2.188.00 Front footage charge $25.30 per front foot $ 4,807.00 (190 x $-5.30) Total fee Service Availability Charge ($800.00 as of 1/1/94) $11,331.00 $750.00 The fee schedule provides no direction for properties where the sewer line does not abut the boundaries of the propertv but where the owner must assume responsibility for extending the sewer. The question is whether it is fair to charge applicant the front footage charge at this time. Applicant may wish to appeal to the Council at the time of the Council s review to determine if the $4,807.00 fee could be removed from total sewer unit charge. Statement of Hardship Please review Exhibit B, applicant’s addendum. Hardships are reviewed as follows: 1. Total lot area is 55.500 s.f. but only 13,700 s.f. lies within the 75-250’ setback zone. 2. Unique topography. ivjJ • Zoning File #1892 November 12, 1993 Page 3 3. The property is located on a peninsula. 4.Standard lakeshore lot with 55.500 s.f. in area would have yielded much higher allowable hardcover within the 75-250 ’ zone. Issues for Consideration 1. Are the hardships cited valid? 2. Has the house been designed to minimize use of hardcover? 3. 4. Is a 3.460 s.f. building pad reasonable for the 55.000 s.f. lot? Total hardcover for the property is maintained at 8%. Does the installation of the drainfield influence your recommendation? (25% of the 32.7% hardcover to be treated within drainfield.) Any condition of approval must include the condition that the five sep;.fate tax parcels must be legally combined prior to the City issuing a building permit for the new construction. Applicant may also wish to present an appeal to the Council concerning payment of a front footage charge as part of the sewer connection fee. • « CITY OF ORONO -* VARIANCE APPLICATION #1 C%'P< k 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) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site ^‘41-S - - - - ^ LI I I it i.»%UITU Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.) g OFFICE . Attach legal description to application if not ,w .vu ivc.» included on required survey. urTi. '" T Date Property Acquired Xgtnt 017061^0^' land. '^'"iSCUFT-TSm ®I (do)(do not) also own the a<33acent parcels fvfitW'iS i'®.'TIEJ- Present use of property: _^residential - - -otherispeciryf- - - - - - -- Zoning District: _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i V/ . applicant Name Phone (home) Phone (wor)<) u> Address: [(r> “LhC) 4.-UO OWNER (if different than applicant) ri^v; Eir^ew:^ ~PgA.ieg zip: Phone (home)_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ Name Phone (wor)c) Address: ‘ ~ - DESaii^io^or^DEST Estimated Construction Cost ----------- Describe request in detail: P’PFpvnrr gS7o VARIANCES required ___ Lot Area Setbac)c : _ Lot Width y Hardcover ___Lot Coverage Front Side ___ Rear ___ Average La)ceshore Other (specify) hardship/description OP DNDSDAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS =K.r„^^.■;s‘.Uurrts (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 complete: 1. 2. 8. 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 8*s"xll" for reproduction). 5. ___Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8>«"xll"). 6. _S)cetches or plans of floor & elevatioi views (provide 1 copy 8%"xll"). 7.As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your vari^mce application is not cocpi.ete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her )cnowledge. Applicant's Signature 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 request. Owner's Signature Date /o/? Applicant must have all submittals into t^ City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning CoKmission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission £md 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. KEITH WATERS &.\SSOCIATEaiNC DESIGNERS & BUILDERS November 7, 1993 10340 Viking Diivc Suite no Eden Pniric Minnesota 55344 (612)942-1060 Fxx 942-1058 Ltcenic Number • 0001508 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth: Fact s Lot Area - 55,500 sq. ft. Main Level Area - 2,596 sq. ft. Garage Area -- 864 sq. ft. Walk & Drive Area - 1002 sq. ft. Total hardcover: 4462 sq. ft. There is no proposed construction or grading within the o’-75’ zone. All construction lies within the 75’ to 250’ zone Hardship Although the total lot area is 55,500 sq. ft. only 13,700 sq. ft. lies within the 75’ to 250’ zone due to the lots topography and unique peninsular shape. Twenty five percent of the area within the 75* to 250* zone yields only 3425 sq. ft. allowable hardcover. This is inadequate for house, walk & drive. A standard shaped lakeshore lot would yield a much higher allowable hardcover for this large of a lot. Proposed Solution A) Limit amount of hardcover generated by utilizing space above and below garage as living space. B) Lower level patio lies under cover of main level great room. C) Roof deck eliminates need for additional decks and patios D) Flat roof design allows for the collection and control of all precipitation falling on the structure. Large heated roof drains collect water and bring it down through the house structure and into dispersion tanks. Our 4000 gallons of runoff can be held within the tanks (the equivalent of 2" of rain falling in one hour). The runoff is then dispersed and absorbed by the soil m a manor similar to a septic field. Only the runoff from the walk and drive would need to be shed onto Jcf to**250^^zone.'landscape. This area would only be 7.3% of th E) The site will be left in its existing heavily vegitated condition where possible. Additional Finding Orono currently has a 60’ street right-a-way, but only ^®bu^res 50’. If 5’ were vacated on each side and deeded back to ^Je prop y owners, this would increase the 75’ to 250’ zone by 740 sq. ft. Sincerely, 9> 1 1,I RUN DATC I0/19/9S HErtlEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OltlERS LISTBATCH 003PROP ADOR ONNCR NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 38 07-117-23 13 021A 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE LAND DEPT CITY OF ORONO FLOOD CONTROL < UNDER HATER I 2/5/62 ST DEED tieilM PROP ADOR CMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 36 07-117-23 24 0016 04450 FOREST LAKE LANDING R L i V A HOLFF ROBERT L I VELMA A HOLFF 4450 FOREST LAKE LANDING HOUND m 55364 PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 36 07-117-23 24 0019 00036 ADDRESS UNASS1GF6ED ROGER H BYBOTH ROGER N BY BOTH 676 EAST SARNIA ST HINONA HH 55967 PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 36 07-117-23 24 0022 C0036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROGER H BYBOTH ROGER H BY BOTH 676 EAST SARNIA ST HINONA HN 55967 PROP ADOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 36 07-117-23 24 0036 04465 FOREST LAKE LANDING JON 0 BLACKSTONE ET AL JON D BLACKSTONE 4465 FOREST LAKE LANDING HOUND It4 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 636 07-117-23 24 0005 04445 FOREST LAKE LANDING G L BAKER A R H lOHE GARY L BAKER AND REBECCA H LONE 4445 FOREST LAKE LANDING HOUND HN 55364 36 07-117-23 24 000701166 HILDHURST TR B D RASHUSSEN/S J RASMUSSEN BRIAN D A SANDRA J RASMUSSEN 1186 HILDHURST TR HOUND rt4 55364 36 07-117-23 24 0017 04440 FOREST LAK6 LANDING H S BRICKLEY A J H FUCHS N S BRICKLEY A J H FUCHS 4440 FOREST LAKE LANDING HOUND MN 55364 36 07-117-23 24 0018 04415 FOREST LAKE LANDING ROGER M BYBOTH ROGER M BY BOTH 676 EAST SARNIA ST HINONA m 55967 36 07-117-23 24 0020 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROGER H BYBOTH ROGER H BY BOTH 678 EAST SARNIA ST HINONA HN 55967 38 07-117-25 24 0021 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROGER H BYBOTH R^'GER H BY BOTH 676 EAST SARNIA ST HINONA HN 55967 J ! • 36 07-117-23 24 0027 01146 HILDHURST TR LYLE E RAHN ETAL LYLE E RAHN 1146 HILDHURST TRAIL HOUND MN 55364 36 07-117-23 24 0037 04455 FOREST LAKE LANDING S E PYATT I K M PYATT S E PYATT 4 K M PYATT 4455 FOREST LAKE LANDING HOUND MN 55364 r )• ■ 3S 07-117-25 51 0057 01200 HILDHURST TR OAVIO J KRUSKOPF A HIFE DAVIO J KRUSKOPF 1200 HILOHURST TRL HOUrW tti 55564 TOTAL BATCH 005 00014 QQOi. 3 RUN DATI 10/19/93« •y BATCH OOS \ :> I • ' At| A 7- ’/* 3 f • = Vf !*t f. 0 # * * •» • • HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWr^ERS LIST REPORT NO. PI^35401 PAGE 7 . ') : \ * I i 'i • 9 t O •V' ^ 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESEMTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HE(tCPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF • '/ f > • . DATE M.r ‘ »> I • » i ■; O ’ I n %: •4I 0 0)0 ^ . - i -Or /* • » * F r’’ "A ? " :i. 6C 1:23: TV —- ^ B ■ ^ \ f :v '' «’V 1 > .- TV 0^ -» iT»hi * **C' TV 4 . ^ / X# ^ — V \ — » r*r »f\ \ \ \ \ \ v< V *t*j -V 5 .4? :^‘*« « • ^ 4 •V •*\ \ J*. O ' X iV 1 mmsmon ■• —■—- *>• h/ * "1 <. \ '' '/ n /?^ n A - /.-^ / ''Xr,. ■<7 ' PJT^ Itti- io * / 5 \ i...« ..4-' T ’ ! .0' / ••• X ::'j 3 » t s jtqXiiJ (I I / -., . s « 46 ...(•jn^ '^'■ X ............ . f • • - '.2T5 VL ' / ■'■:} V- ■" ■—-r-^ :9) *. H V 4,^ / /■.‘A. *1 f«/,• % .«v : ^ y-- ^)^;K «? ■V 3) U f *» ■> * ,*>*^. ’ ^ -T- :3 <%**• ;25 ^ V 0 X / V - 0 / .V 4 >»'/ ’'jP / I (we) ia ' ''^’ ^ 'L^ Adjacent Property cJlJts* (Sr^^ L !3^k:tC^^ L^LCf L^(l Jx ----------------- T^int address)[print name (s ) J '■^ • ^ nlans -or the prooosed improvement or proposea use of the have reviewed the J_y‘ referred to as Land Use property located at Application No._ _ _ X („e, understand that in -ecutin, this ac.novle^^^ (are) not asjced to declare approval - ^ thri:rrivel:nt°Vla« tL proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner I (we)9>. CL C. VI [print name(s)] fSfL' gA<tP''i of H S ^ f [print aadress] C/4VA '-v*v Have reviewed the plans ^^^eier^^' -e property located at_ _* V j —— - --—' Application No. _ _ _,• I (we) understand that in ®*®tuting thxs acknowledgem^^^^,^^^ (are) not as)ced °?ty CounoTl that I (we) am (are) aware of ^h^ rmrto-renrpYaTs^°nd\\%"rhe%roposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. e V ( -5. \ \^ Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you havi your^commen‘ts’'^to^"the Building S ’oninroffita* ®t'’least 10 days pr)or to the scheduled meeting date. r Adjacent Property Ovme/s/ Acknbwle'dgement I (we) gA [print nanie(s)] of VV^/t— [print address] ^ , 4-h*> oroDOsed imorovenient or proposed use of the 5rop/A;'T=1afe"d = ° Application No.______• 1 (we) understand that in '^Phe property or use (are) not as)ced the'^City Council'that 1 (we) am (are) aware of but merely to confirr. proposed neighbor's project or use the improvenent plans and that tne piop requires Council approval. yjn- 0 4 - P'.io-.-'kx^--^fo-n-ya Date J ^ ■' //' Pr^er^y Owner **************** Date irk^-k******-** ********** I (we)6oL o- I'’’'! [print nar.e(s)][print address] 1 1-boroDOsed ii-noroverrent or proposed use of the pr^pert'/T^cafed "a ____1 -1- Application No. _____.• 4. ^ i-bab In executing this acknowledgement, I (we) amI (we) understand that rn of the property or use (are) not asked to ^ Council that I (we) am (are) aware of but merely to project or use the improvement plans and uhat tne requires Council approval. O property Owner / , ' z;// / ^ <L Date Date property Owner If you hav4 any yout'ccrnttn^ to "ht Bu\^'din^ tLTSfflce a^least 10 ^ays pric:.- to the scheduled meeting date. HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE CNE_) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' Existing H ardcover in Zone ^Ev'/5ep • • A. House u;.X = t7l6c S.F. LENGTH WIDTH X 3-Z-= 76fe S.F. rz-X = “233 • • S.F. X S.F. X S.F. 3. Garage X = '7 4fi>S • F • c. D riveway X “20 = 72P S.F. X S.F. 0. Sidewalk ^p(D X (a = ZC.O S.F. X S.F. X . S.F. E. Patio / D eck X S.F. F. Landscape . - X ss S.F. AREAS underlain BY X S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X S.F. X • S.F. ti. Pthfr X S.F. Total Hardcover Total Property A rea IN • Zone S.F,A IN Zone t%70O S.F.T -zS^ip 5-P. 6“7?S.F. 30 ^ )3,7ob HCU)B !S7C>0 X 100 •■% fc V, "TbT/su, L-on'Z •325% K “7c S40tT« # T. CJ) c:crti f i Ctito of Snrvov for Uoqer M. Uvboth of r.oV.n 13-17, Tonk;tviow Gardens llonnopin County, Minnesota <C/ /w - L \ /^a/^esr ZAfce ( lAk£ AtfA/x^cr<>A/f<A)I 1 m i Legal Poseription Lots 13-17, 'J'onknviov/ Garden*!. ll i This survny shov/s the location of the boundaries of the above described property and the tonography of said. lots. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroaclunents.II i /•/ » J*jr SCO £ • s /r#.» O t /TVi| fc^ ComN & Gronberg, l\c. r.'M-, t'f' ■< frijji.i.v' Lt' l >.'if;rvr« :? V I lu'ui')' aTlify Ih.U this survey w.is prep.iiul by lUf or uiuler my ifiriH I su|Ht- visum, .mil tli.il I .mi .i iluly ley/isleicil Civil Uiiy/mirr .uul Siirveyiu iiiuler Ihe l.iws uf llu* Sl.ili* of Miimesol.i Aumic * LiC-, MN sxIV} , M2PMUJ . M.uk S. Croiibery, Mimu ’sol.i License Numln ’r l27Sli DAM ‘U Al I /'*.*/■<?' lOIIKti 72^/0? i \ mm ,' A1: '^^ral,'A<'•^:' r--L. i.’: ''■u':.-‘=‘^'??' - -:. •• MPl^i *• , • / •• ^ V Sk • .1-<■> v^• :' «•' V •,rv r ' •* -'V • .* i « • ^ . «• «^** • # :' : •• • •'• ■ -i' V '■ f I %."';c-asia <.»'• -KSW•«'->\r, *' < - -1 iv !t2y*A .^<1 / I ./ ^ M Li'\' * • ’ I .’.V * f w, m^x ' 4^: ’ ': ; .vV '%- /v'‘ \ •■• ^ ,' Vo••^;•^{V.Nr•;i.;^'^|.';i•;•;.• V ( • * ■• ' .t/'•'v'\ V' M-* , * •,v .. '>1.'' ; \ ; >vru. ^ . «. ^ ’ ♦ ? H .4-S -a : I /; / <1 S •:' f. r. V ->,.v ’ ' •*. e->:^ I-;’ ^ . : ' X 5»'.’ ♦ V J H -f Tv. CcrtiEicnto of Survc?v for Koqcr M. livboth of Lots 13-17, Tonkr^vicw Gardens llonnopin Counny, Minnono^a i y ^ St.r- £Atc€ (UJirf Alr^Afer^AJ/cA) /^a/^err iA/<e (lAA'i Legal Description Lota 13-17, Tonkaviov; Gardens;. This survey shov/s the location Df t-.hn boundaries of the above described property and the topoqrnphy of said lots. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. SURVEY WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS A Afta * SS^ SOO S Jf. • S /r^A O I AT0A AtAfArA fcA > . y;/. ^ r.ifTJf.uCAunuc-* MNS$3V>t'^ I hereby certify Ih.U this survey ivns prcp.iicil by nu* i»t uiulvr iny iliivit super- visioM, iiiul tb.ll I am a July Civil r.iijpiicu aiiil l.aiui Surveyor uiivb r Ibc laws of Ihv Slate of Miimvsola. _________________________ M.nrk 5. Cmnbcry, Minnesota Ucense Number I27.SS DAII ^'^6-72 St At I /".- 5^0 ' *• lUHNO. 72-/OS . :i / / »• I j t k» \ ■t (• ' . i i- I n #1893 n / / / A / \ \ \ / \ \ #1892 K I UPPER FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/8'=1-0" /M o o !•> 1^ . 'i N CITY nf ORONO Munkipai Ofnccs (\Kt Office Bov 66 Cn^ Ba>, MinnenU 55323-0066 NOTICE To all affected property owners notified for the review of Application #1893, Christine Freeman, 2240 Shadvwood Road Please be advised that the applicant has asked to be rescheduled before the Planning Commission at their Januaiy 17, 1994 meeting. All properrv' owners will receiv- a second written notice for the rescheduling of the public hearing. Dated: November 5, 1993 ; ''s__Ld. //c<-»-/itc (p Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator TF.LI:PH0NE-473-T357 • FA.V-4734)510 To:Orono Planning Commission Members Mavor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator November 10. 1993 #1842 Tom and Sheila Browne, 760 South Brown Road - Request to Modify Approved Development Plan Exhibits A B C-1 C-2 D E F G Applicants ’ Addendum Original Elevations Approved Site Plan Approved Floor Flan (Deck/Three-Season Porch) Amended Elevations Floor Plan - Second Level Deck Plat Map Resolution No. 3314 On August 9, 1993 Council approved setback and hardcover variances to allow applicants to install three-season porch over an existing deck, an expanded deck com.ecting side deck with three-season porch limited to 250 s.f. and the enclosure of an upper level deck as part of a master bedroom expansion. The cement slab was to remain based on the area limitations of the property. During construction specific alterations had to be made that could not be approved by staff and requires Council review and action. Please review applicants ’ addendum, Exhibit A, that reviews the entire matter. It is the normal procedure for staff to present the issue before the Council. In turn. Council would refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review. At this time of year, the next meeting ot the Planning Commission would- be in January of 1994 and applicant must finalize the alterations before the winter. Planning Commission members are asked to consider the amended request and make a recommendation to the Council. Staff has been asked to schedule the application before the Council at the November 22nd meeting. Review of Issues A.Second story deck enclosure. Review E.xhibit B. Proposed enclosure was rot to expand beyond the existing building envelope. In order to make the enclosure function as an expansion of a bedroom area, the addition was extended 3-3‘A’ beyor4 the buildmg envelope to the south side of the residence (refer to Exhibit D). The e.xpansion beyond the existing building envelope involved an intensification of strucnire within the lakeshore protected area. L Zoning File #1842 November 10, 1993 Page 2 of 2 B.Three-season porch. BoUi the Building Inspector and the contractor have concurred that the existing foundation supporting the deck on which the three-season porch is to be constructed would not be sufficient to support the structure. The underlying deck shall be replaced but will not be e.xpanded upon. Joe Richter of the DNR confirmed in a telephone conversation that based on their original review of the issues, as long as the deck envelope is not expanded upon that they would have no problem with the improvement as amended. The improvements involving the three-season porch would also involve new structural work within lakeshore protected area. C.Overhang along south side of structure. Applicant wishes to install a 3-3'/:' wide overhang connecting the side door with the three-season porch. This was not considered during the first review and because it involves an intensification of structure within a lakeshore protected area, staff had no authority to approve the alteration. D.Connecting/new deck. In Council ’s approval, they allowed applicant to connect side deck with an existing deck adjacent to the three-season porch. 1 he connecting deck area could not e.xceed a total of 250 s.f. Refer to Exhibits C-1 and C-2. The Planning Commission did not address the matter of the connecting deck at the time of their review and was approved by the Council. Note that all the improvements above do not involve additional hardcover nor further encroachment into the lakeshore protected area. Review Exhibit G. Per the variances approved in Resolution No. 3314, the resolution need not be amended as a result of the amendments to the development plan. Staff Recommendation Staff would recommend approval of the amended development plan based on the findings h in applicant ’s addendum and that there is no increase in hardcover nor expansions.set forth in applicant proposed closer to Tanager Lake. November 5, 1993 f: Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono PO Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 RE: Variance Approval #1842 Dear Ms. Mabuslh: Thank you for your time on November 3, 1993 regarding the minor changes on our variance approval. Per the City’s request, the following changes and reasons for them are addressed. Enclosing of Existing 2nd Story Deck We started this project with a plan, but as we have learned in remodeling, even the well thought- out plans may change. A wall that we were exp>ecting to remove was tound to be a load bearing wall. Removing this wall would have turned into a major construction project and considerable expense. With the wall remaining in place and the 4 1/2 / 12 piich of the roof, this greatly reduced the amount of actual living space we were hoping to gain. The pitch causes a reduction in head room 2’-3’ from each outside wall. As we opened everything up we decided that in order to eliminate this h;; dship we could raise the ceiling height by changing the pitch of the roof to a 9 / 12. In turn a 3 o" to cantilever was needed to gain the living space we were looking for. This cantilever extends to the south, which meets the DNR requirement of no further extension to the east or toward the 929.4 water table line. We have also discussed this with our neighbor to the south, and she has no problems with the extension. Cther issues: We were told by the window company, Pella, that our T^woexisting windows to remain in the room would not be classified as egress if installed today. Also building codes require windows to be at least 18" off the floor or they must be tempered. The existing windows are 6"-8" off the floor and we considered this change sater, as it is a child’s bedroom. Ttiree Season Porch Jeanne Mabusth November 5, 1993 Page 2 Upon further review of the approval for the three season porch, it has been advised ’.y our builder and the City Inspector, Lyle, that the existing pole footings are not strong enough to support any additional weight. The pole footings have moved out over the last ten years and the joists are bowed. Therefore, for clarification purposes we would like the City to be aware that the existing deck needs to be removed and install stronger footings that the City recommends to support the new structure. Per your advice, 1 contacted Mr. Joe Richter of the DNR on November 4, 1993 to discuss this issue. He informed me that per their approval dated July 23, 1993, they had no problem with the removal as long as the new structure is not built any closer to the 929.4 water line. It would be built in the exact location of the deck that was removed. Weather Protective Porch/Qverhan Since our back door does not have a protective entrance from the weather, we would like to install a 3 ’-3 ’6" overhang that would run from our back aoor and tie in with our three season porch. Please refer to diagram. This would not affect any hardcover as this would be over the deck area. Additional 250 square feet of New Deck Please refer to design for changes that the Council allowed during the approval process, We look forward to the City’s review' of these minor changes and the November 22 Council meeting so we can proceed with construction. Sinc^ely yours, IjCJL(JU '^om «& Sheila Browne 760 S. Brown Road Orono, MN 55391 u. • r .• * . * • ' 0 ‘ r<' V V /y ;;iC .A n] f n —i ur- n ■»>'. ■' '\v •• if wi ', I . -' •• ,-<*.•.• '■f »*.s *. ‘ ». ' ...../ I* ..; V •.■• ■: », ^ i ' i. ■. ;•»* ■ *• ,.v‘ ^Vr ‘V : ‘ ♦ ‘ t - •• • J • * b'tv ’.‘V ' i ' •. •* •: . ^ : V,;.I r • ' j. ; -. 7 ■ 1 ! . • , V- V . I • * ' • ' V' -V 1 •. * ’ ■*' > . •.' -f{ I • *, •• ■» * •' i ■ I- ■ • I ’ . ■ • X.pip '■■‘.fl.X’li • ■ .-* \ • . *. ■» ' , • ■ ' K ■'1 ' . >•- *■ 4 %o % A V.*J 0 AtA 1^ / % / , V.Mii __ _ f i \ a 1 4 j -^53 V\5 % » Vi^' Vi)m S'ii 1 -VV N .y ) / /v'-' . * A': 0 / — s o o n;1V4 tr2 / V l«5' fiTl. r-Vy^ ‘,~iEpi‘J I I l\ «=7H On c::r.C'iA KJJr»r^-o:::^ H . ->'/J *. ;• I .' 4 • . • 5 •V «" VI 0 i I !se:r 5|ILi* ;« • . . i ■■• ■ ■ . .L'/. ■ .-.. ./ i %M *»•t - r , « ■ t V ' .1 ' • t. . >. - % •- , 4 • ‘ i \ <v • \ v i ' . ^ • •• • • .1 0 r I *4 , • S‘. I • i' ' ■ ; • ‘V» • ' • • . » • I ‘ • *. . i»' ••• ' • .• .» t,. \ 4 .> • v.‘ <• ^ */f ■ < •« ^ ■>r. :?r C ‘ 1 \. r •* 4*.‘ *4 , I'J-. * •.. - n * V‘. , . :/. J.' ’ i- *1 . -*.rVS ‘ , 'V-I& j -I .V .• 'V ‘ i--* ' . • . ’j'; i ♦ I • ♦ , -J , :l* .‘'A yyf • • • . ■', ;‘- •• 'i y! ‘•t •. * V 1 , V:.* , I ' !*■ •»■ V •;i *.• U’ f' , 1 i': •»., -'I•r. ...» *V ■rJ- ■•v-i •• * r i.V *■ ! ••,.i ■;>. ;f:' •j i •'r.. :*. V- i‘ ■o' Hi®awlK.-'ASjr-.ra.: t n••u !!•? ?io5 ,':l'l*iw'. :'o*■¥« tl 0 •r- /- m%;nwj;r. m . H g * / t ‘.*1 ' ■ .'i ■•.■.•■ •■'...< , lll‘Jlllj“ 4 f: Ii • I' « § I \mm'^f|!i!liill v|^l§'4-:y-, 9 IrV '*! I ' ;• V- • r I J .f<;» . - •IJ M,y,ir ♦•-:;;» : ! •:». ■'f^ l^ •■•’’i" ■<: ' •. '■ V “ V ' ‘ • •» ‘1' i i’ ,'•»•' -j!'- •i '^y;,; .-..'•...••■■.Vi •.t-Vi;.-'•:...:. d' '4. ♦ ^ • * 1. • . • • • *> •' - 4 , • «•• ■ t • • . • i -•- '.: ■* r .^ . r- * ♦ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COLIVCIL Q O "INO. o o •' _______ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIP.AL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.56, SUBDrSTSlON 16 (C-1) AND (L-D FILE NO. 1842 WHEREAS, Thomas R. Browne and Sheila R. Browne (hereinaner the applicants") are owners of the propern- located at 760 South Brown Road within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: The south 396 feet of the west half of the southwest quarter of the southeast r-uarter of Section 3, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the fifth principal meridian, e.xcept the south 93 feet thereof. Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning ’ Code Sections 10.56. Subdivision 16 (C-1) and (L-1) to permit the enclosure of an •; X T upper level deck located 56’ from Tanager Uke w-here a 100 ’ setbackjs where the structure already exists at 56’. screen porch addition proposed at a 4^ setback where a 100 ’ setback is required and where a structure exists at 48’, a deck addition attached to proposed screen porch to be placed 55’ instead of 100 ’ as required and wnere the existmg deck exists at 55’ and a 20’ x 26’ pool/deck structure to be located 59’ from lake instead of the required 100 ’. Hardcover variances are proposed within the 0-75’ setback area at 5,-j9.9 s.f. or 20.2% where 17.5% exists and where none is allowed NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE/0L\T:D by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDLNGS 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning File ^ 1842. The propertv is located in the RK-IB Rural Residential Zoidng District requiring two Teres of drv buildable area. The property consists of a total of 4.9 acres and has 41 315 s.f.'or .95 acres of contiguous dry buUdable are.i. Pace 1 of 5 CUT of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 3 14 3. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 19, 1993 and recommended approval of the proposed variances as amended based upo.i the following findings: A. The 4.9 acre parcel has appro.xirnately one acre of coiuiguou; dr>’ buildable area . B.Shoreland Regulations now require 100’ setback for all structures from the Recreational Develop.ment lake that encroaches the property placing ;evere restrictions on the building envelope and making existing struemres non- conforming. C.The existing septic system has been found to meet the 3’ separation required by new Shoreland Regulations and septic code. D.The majority of the dry buildable area, approximately two-thirds of the dry buildable envelope is located within the 0-75’ setback area where no hardcover or structural improvements are allowed. E.Structural setbacks for the newly classified shoreland property, make ?t unbuildable for new development. F.Proposed strucwral improvements are at 2,562.6 s.f. or 6.2%, well under the allowed 15% structural coverage. G.Total hardcover based on the dry buildable portion of the 4.9 acre parcel is proposed at 5,998.8 s.f. or 14.5%. 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 variances 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 nece.ssary 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. Page 2 of 5 inloalOMtav CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COLTVCIL O O "• f NO. ■ ■ The City Council has considered this application including the findin'^s and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and tlie effect of tlie proposed variance on the health, safMy and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER .\ND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants varian::es to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C-1) and (L- 1) approving an enclosure of an S'/i’ x 7 ’ upper level deck, installation of a l9Vz' x 16 ’ screen porch over an existing deck and a connecting deck addition of 250 s.f. and denies variances for a 20 ’ X 26 ’ deck/pool structure, subject to the following conditions; 1.Authorities granted by this variance run with the propeny 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 (.August 9, 1994). 2.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 5 i CITY of ORONO jr RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _S oQ O T ' Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota at a regular meetin held on the 9th day of August, 1993. cro STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing iristrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of August, 1993 bv Edward 1. Callahan. Jr. and Dorothy ,M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of Orono,' a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. NotafS' Public Page 4 of 5 NnaMOS CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL o o •* * NO. ■‘-■7 >' STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ^ day of J99^ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personallY^appeared T~/6<?/77 4'5 K. /t.nJ Sne''fj^- / A //'/) ^ rvja rn r ^ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrumerit, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY^PU^K^- MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My conr.misslon expires 8-1Z-90 NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ). On this _ day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, andicknowiedgec! that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 To:Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator November 12, 1993 /)^I885 Lundgrcn Brothers, 2675 Sixth Avenue North - Sketch Plan of Planned Unit Development and Rezoning of Property Located within Highway 12 Corridor Study Area Existing Zoning District: RR-IB Proposed: PUD Zoning (with underlying RR-IB) Review of Area: Gross =61.3 acres Area of Dedicated Right-of-Ways = 2.7 acres Net Area = 58.56 acres Designated wetland areas have been approximated at 10 acres. Pti'tintnt Code Sections 1. Section 10.52 - Special requirements for rezoning in the Highway 12 corridor study area. 2. 3. Section 10.53 - Planned Unit Development. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - No land alterations within 26’ of a wetland. Variance approval is required for any proposed alteration of a wetland. 4.Section 10.53, Subdivision 15 (A-2) - The property is located within MUSA and will be served with sewer and may apply for wetlands credit up to the amount of existing dry buildable land. Required dry buildable for 58 units at 1 acre per unit density = 29 acres dr\' List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - Application Addendum to Application Engineer ’s Report Flood Plain Map Watershed/Drainage Patterns Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 - Page 48, Recommended Alternative for Development Franklin J. Svobodia & Associates (Pertinent Sections from Wetland Classification. Etc. Report) I 1 Zoning File ^1885 November 12. 1993 Page 2 of 6 H - Map of Existing Land Use I - Map of Existing Zoning J - Map of Proposed Land Use K - Plan for Phased Development L - Plan Locating Curb Cuts of Private Roads along Willow Drive M - City ’s Wetland Map N - Highway 12 Corridor Alternative Development Plans Involving County Road 6 O - Sketch Plan Brief Review of Application The applicant seeks to rezone property to a Planned Unit Development with underlying RR-IB zoning. Applicant seeks approval ot one acre density. The property consists of 58.6 acres after the exclusion of the dedicated road right-of-ways for Willow and County Road 6. The code will allow credit for the wetland areas as property will be sewered. The PUD format of development allows for an area credit of the access roads and open space areas along with the area of the residential lots. Based on the 58 lots, the City must be assured that there is a minimum of 29 acres of dr>' buildable area for development e.xcluding all designated or protected wetlands, retention ponds and drainageways. Review Exhibit F. the recommended alternative for development of this area was for two acre single family residential development to be served with municipal sewer and water. Municipal services are located on the north side of Highway 12 at the Willow Drive intersection. The developer would be responsible for extending municipal services north to the subdivision. The developer claims it is not economically feasible to provide municipal services to two acre lot development. The rezoning from two acre to one acre is a major issue for the City as the area was to serve as a buffer to the surrounding rural residential neighborhoods to the east and north from the more intensely developed properties to the south. The applicant has provided a strong argument in support of the rezoning. Lundgren Brothers has asked for the sketch plan and rezoning to be scheduled before the Council be ">re formal plans are tiled by applicant. Staff will review the rezoning issue first. If members object to rezoning and '•ecommend denial, they need not proceed any further with the remainder of memo which will deal with the issues ot the development plan. Rezoning The applicant lias applied for a PUD rezoning at a one unit per acre density. The subdivision is plannee in two phases; the first or southern half to be developed in 1994 and the second phase to be ceveloped in 1995-96. Section 10.53, Subdivision 5 (D), the PUD code, provides additional protection to the City it development has not been realized. Zoning may revert back to the original zoning district. Zoning File #1885 November 12, 1993 Page 3 of 6 Please review Exhibit B. applicant’s addendum provides supportive findings for rezoning as follows: 1. There is adequate sewer capacity for 58 units as overall sewer needs for the area were projected at 300-450. The recommended alternative plan showed the 120 acre area at a maximum development density of two acres with a potential 60 units. Half of the 120 acres is being developed into ballfields and an elementary school. The propose*? 58 units could easily be accommodated. 2. Th*^ PUD has been designed to minimize impact on adjacent rural properties to east and north by providing larger, deeper lots with more restrictive setbacks on the north side and a natural buffer of existing wetlands and open space along the east side. Applicant also notes that the existing wetlands along the south side will provide a buffer from the multiple residential units planned for property to south. 3. The PUD was specifically created for the Highway 12 corridor to encourage the best development by allowing clustering and designation of open space areas to buffer and protect sensitive areas. 4. The PUD provides efficiency as fiir as consolidating lots along the interior road system and minimizine earthwork needed for correcting high water table problems. 5. The high water table and random location of wetlands require flexibility in design and lot layout. 6. The application as proposed would satisfy the special requirements for rezoning in the Highway 12 corridor study area as set forth in Section 10.52 and addressed on Pages 5-12 of applicant’s addendum. Review Exhibit 0. Applicant’s addendum has noted that a major retention pond at approximately 6-7 ,'icres will be installed as a re.sult of the Highway 12 safety improvements scheduled in the next few years. The City Engineer advises that the safety plans have been amended and the retention pond area has been reduced to 4 acres. The pond has been designed to treat onlv the runoff from Hichwav 12 and not the developed land areas to north. Issues for Consideration 1. Will the PUD as proposed be compatible with adjacent existing and proposed future uses of surrounding properties __ will it meet the intent of Comp Pfm Amendment No. 2.^ 2. Will the special design feanires ot the PUD layout assure future compatibility? Zoning File /!^1885 November 12, 1993 Page 4 of 6 3. 4. Review Exhibit N. Two alternate development plans lor an expanded Highway 12 corridor along County Road 6 will impact this property. Does this influence your decision? The City planned for a total of 300-450 units of future development where existing and proposed uses of City, the school and now Mn/DOT will limit the development of those units. Does this influence your decision? 5. Should the City ’s decision be influenced by the need to make payment for certain public facilities installed and planned for the servicing of these units? Planning Commission members should be prepared to make a recommendation to the Council with the necessary supportive findings. Review of PUD Development Plan Proposed average lot size = 44,010 s.f. Exclusive of road and open space outlot = 28 539 s.f. Smallest lot size is 17,200 s.f. Larcest lot size is 88,970 s.f. W Proposed building setbacks 30* front yard setback 50 ’ rear yard setback, 100 ’ along County Road 6 and Willow Drive 10 ’ side yard setback, 30 ’ adjacent to Willow Drive 26’ to wetland Lot Configuration Issues The R-1A or one acre zone would require 35 ’ street, 30 ’ rear and 10 ’ side setbacks. The proposed setbacks work for this PUD. They appear to function for this lot layout. Staff sees no problem. Note the 30 ’ side setback of the two acre zoning district was called out for the lots along Willow, Lots 1 and 3. As already stated, the lots along County Road 6 have 100 ’ setbacks providing not only a buffer to the northern residential lots but also to the busy county road. Some of the residential units do not meet the required 26’ setback from the adjacent wetland. Filling for the building pads is also located within the 26’ setback. Stafl recommends that the 26’ setback be maintained for all land alterations and structural setbacks. Grading, Drainage, Welland Areas and Flood Plain Note all building pads are lined along the road with filling proposed to raise building sites to allow for walkouts to rear. Lots 10, 11, 12, and 13 al.so propose a walkout design as information shows building pads raised 8’ to bring fill dangerously cloce to the wetland area, b is doubtiul whether four lots can be developed in the area. Zoning File n^l885 November 12, 1993 Page 5 of 6 Review Fxhibit G, wetlands defined as Number 6 and 7 are namral. Staff recommends that there be no alterations within the natural wetland areas. Lots 5 and 6 would have to be relocated and the road may have to be realigned. Seven of the potential wetland areas were deemed to not meet the wetland criteria and have not been shown as a protected area. The remainine wetlands are classified as agricultural - urban wetlands that have been altered - the land has been farmed for years. Some of the Ag/urb wetlands will be filled m and mitigated at a 2:1 ratio shown to the east side of the subdivision. It will be necessary for applicants to receive approval from the appropriate agencies for the filling and mitigation of wetland areas. The City ’s code defines wetlands 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 12A and 13 in their inventory. Variance to Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 is required as our code does not allow the filling of protected wetlands. Once again, these are not namral wetlands but w^etlands that have been altered throughout the year. It is not clear how much area within these defined protected areas is being altered. After January 1 of next year, the replacement of any filled wetland.s will be required at a 2:1 ratio and that replacement be of the same or better type wetland. What kind of setbacks will we require from the retention ponds? Will we require the same 26* setback that we require for the wetland areas? Review Exhibit D, the property is not located the flood plain. Sewer and Water As already noted, sewer and water will be extended from the existing municipal lines to the north side of Highway 12 at the V/illow intersection. Applicant will be responsible for extending sewer to the property. The City Engineer has asked that the w'ater main be extended to the northwest comer of the site for a future connection to the City of Medina s water system. The water main should also be extended to the west property line at the most westerly cul-de-sac for a fumre loop to the water main on Old Crystal Bay Road. Access/Street/l'rails The City will ask for a bike trail easement along the north side adjacent to County Road 6. The Engineer recommends that a w'alking trail be provided 'oetween Lots 14 and 15 connecting property with school. It may be better to locate the walking easement through Lots 17 and 18. The Engineer recommends that a connection be made to a platted corridor within the school property to the w'est. Based on former agreements with the school, the City has agreed to vacate the roadway upon the school ’s complete acquisition of the four parcels that make up this subdivision. It has always been the intention of the school to never have a connecting road from Willow Drive through to Old Crystal Bay Road because of the proposed uses of school and playground/ballfield areas. It is staffs understanding that applicant is working with the school to acquire additional area by the curb cut access road at the north (County Road 6). I Zoning File #1885 November 12, 1993 Page 6 of 6 Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13 are served by a single diiveway. Tlic City’s code requires a private road at this level of service. It is doubtful whether the four lots will be realized in this area based on the location of the natural wetlands and the need to fill for roads and four building pads. The City will also require the platting of drainage and utility easements along the perimeters of each of the residential lots. Summary Comments The location of the wetlands throughout the property will result in the loss of units. Staff cannot recommend the filling of a natural wetland nor should we allow variances to the 26’ setback. The real issue for the City will be if it allows the filling of protected wetlands and the mitigation of these wetlands. The random location of these wetlands creates a major hardship for this applicant. If replacement resulted in an upgraded improved wetland over one that has been altered over the years, this may be beneficial for the City and something to consider. The City cannot allow four units to be served by a private drive. Applicant will have to amend road layout. If applicant files a formal plan, the City will expect to see a landscape plan providing for landscape buffering within the open space outlots at 'he north and along the east. The City is already in receipt of a sample of the covenants used in a fonner Lundgren project and will be available at your meeting for review. It is staff's understanding that members will be contacted this weekend to determine if members wish assistance or guidance with the site inspection of the property. a :iTY OP ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address O ^_ _ _ _ ___ h rrrv nr ncfUfi lyA i I i/I i«l%C*l1t/i.'T«iAV"r ■•rrrrr I j, itnAc 4» wi# I A U’*» ^ Tr.‘T.A.AAAA a wv Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) _ _ _ Please check one - Property _ abstract or torrens? 01 300.00 CHECK. R 300.00 liECEIPT-THAKK YOU ii2B6990 cool iiCi T14:C 10/15/'■ Attach legal description to application. Phone vhcme)^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc._____ Phone (work) 473-1231 APPLICANT Name Address: 935 l-ast Wayza-a Boulevard Citv: Wavzata ______ 2ip:-----55.321 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Orono Center Properties Phone (home) c/o Reiersgord Law Firm Address: Halifax P.venue ______ Phone (work) 922-7114 _________ City: Minneapolis_____Zip: 55424 (attach list it more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Sire One Unknown Unknown 58.6 Present Use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units _ Other (specify) Aaricultural. Present Zoning District PROPOSAL X Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) 0 Existing Units New Units Total Units 58_ _ _ _ Units per 58.6 Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) ' 2. * 3. 4. MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form Preliminary Flat 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). As an addendum to this application, please attach a. separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application." Certification by Zoning Department tnat Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FEES X _ City Council Review of Sketch Plan X Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $100.00 $200.00 300.00 300.00 Preliminary Review (Class III & all non-residential) 325.00 + 25.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) Renewal of Preliminary Subdivision Application Renewal of Final Subdivision Application 175.00 150.00 100.00 The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees ro pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Owner's Signature Date /g>» Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. p DRAFT ORONO PROPERTY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) CONCEPT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAN PREPARED FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO, MINNESOTA Submined by: Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc, 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 (612) 473-1231 c :\wp51\jobj\3 812 ipp L I. n. in. IV. V. VI. vn. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. TABLE OF COrrENTS DEVELOPMENT TEAM INTRODUCTION GENERAL STATEMENT OF CONCEPT A.Location B. Legal Description C. Zoning D. Project E.P.U.D. Criteria F. Comprehensive Plan Acceptability 1. Land Use Guide Plan/Density 2. Site Utility Availability and Service 3. Traffic Access and Circulation TENTATIVE STAGIN'! AND SEQUENCE SCHEDULING FINANCIAL CAPABILITY NATURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS WETLAND MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT TREE PRESERVATION / MONUMENTATION/ SIGNAGE COVENANTS/HOUSING PRODUCT NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATION ROAD SYSTE.M DEVELOPMENT FLEXIBILITY CONCLUSION ATTACHMENTS 4 ■»ti riH » « (*KWk-rr~v I. II. DEVELOPMENT TEAM The fee owners of the property are Oioiio Center Properties. The developer of the property is Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation located in Wayzata, Minnesota. The Lundgren Bros, tradition has been synonymous with quality neighborhoods throughout the Metropolitan Area for 23 years. The Development Team is coordinated by Brian OLson, Director of Land Development and manager of this development. Consultants Planner:The site plan design by Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc., Minneapolis, MN Engineer:The plat and public facilities engineering by Schoell & Mad.son, Inc., Minnetonka, MN Surveyor:Site surveying by Schoell & Madson, Inc. Wetland Biological Analysis: Regulated wetland permits, delineation and monitoring by Franklin Svoboda, Wildlife Biologist Landscape Architecture: Entrance monumentation and landscape design by Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban. Inc. Market Analysis:Preliminary market analysis by Conhaim & Assoc Minneapolis, MN • * INTRODUCTION The purpose of this presentation is to provide the Orono Planning Commission and City Council details of the proposed Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and to obtain the necessary concept plan, preliminary plan and preliminary plat approval with a wetland alteration permit. Lundgren Bros, will hold a neighborhood meeting prior to the public hearing. GENERAL STATEMENT OF CONCEPT A.Location This proposed residential P.U.D. by Lundgren Bros, is located in Orono in Section 28, Township 118, Range 23. The ±59 acre project is serv-ed by C.S.A.H. No. 6 to the north and Willow Drive to the east. B. Legal Description See attached. —.z.-zi__c. Orono Property P.U.D. Submittal 5 November 1993 C.Zoning The property is currently zoned RRIB, one family rural residential - 2 ac. The developer proposes to rezone the property to a residential P.U.D. with a gross density of 1 unit per acre. D. The Project The project site is located within the MUSA line and is considered pan of the Highway 12 Corridor. The general area to the west and south is undeveloped but guided for multiple housing to the south and commercial adjacent to Highway 12. To the west the Orono school system is planning a new elementary school and is presently using the old church site for daycare and other school purposes. Also, part of the Orono School site has a proposed ballfield recreational complex which is adjacent to the project site. The site itself has been heavily cultivated except for the wetlands along Willow Drive and the southern border of the property. The property has a very high water table making onsite septic systems unfeasible and envronmentally restrictive. City sewer and water can be extendi to the site which makes the project suitable for development witl'.out onsite septic systems. Of the various areas in Orono th:.t aie within the MUSA line and exhibit severe conditions for onsite septic systems, this property clearly should be served with City utilities and developed with reasonable density to make utility construction economically feasible. The development is being proposed at one unit per acre which is at the very low end of density that can afford the construction of City sewer and water. The project consists of 58 single family residential home sites that will be developed on lots ranging from 100 feet to 150 feec in width with lot depths varying from 170 feet to 400 feet plus. Each lot will be developed to match the site with a choice of pre-designed models. Each home will have a minimum two car garage with a driveway and major emphasis placed on walkout basements where topography allows. Gross Average Lot Size Net Average Lot Size SmallCxSt Lot Size Largest Lot Size 44,010 s.f. 28,539 s.f. 17,200 s.f. 88,970 s.f. Proposed Building Setbacks; 30’ Front Yard Setback Typical 50’ Rear Yard Setback (minimum) 100’ along CSAH 6 and Willow Drive 10’ Side Yard Setback (minimum) 30’ adjacent to Willow Drive 26 ’ to Wetlands Large, meandering wetlands create a variety of constraints to development, retjuiring unique approaches and mitigative efforts aimed at providing quality homesites while maintaining the i Orono Property P.U.D. Submittal 5 November 1993 integrity of the wetlands. Measures such as conservation easements, reduced setbacks, road design, and restrictive covenants all contribute to this and will be discussed later. As previously noted, lots will vary in size from 17,200 s.f. to 88,970 s.f. The range of lot sizes provides an opportunity to accommodate different home styles besides offering the advantage of a highly varied streetscape. The mixture of home plans and lot sizes can help to diversify target markets. Development Summary: Total Acreage Open Space R.O.W. Net Developable No. of Lots 58.6 acres 15.4 acres 5.2 acres 38.0 acres 58 E.PD.D. Criteria The subject property is located in the Highway 12 Corridor and is discussed in the comprehensive plan as being an area for single family development. The overall projected^ sewer needs for the area was 300 to 450 sewer units with the proposed development requiring 58 units. The recommended alternative lor this area shows commercial along Highway 12 then multi-family residential and single family residential over a 120 acre area at approximately a two acre density. Half of that area is being developed for ballflelds and an elementary school leaving the 58 acres of the subject property to accommodate the anticipated 60 single family homes that were designated for this whole area. The PUD ordinance is specifically for use on development within the Highway 12 Corridor allowing development flexibility to adjust to the specific conditions found on the site and its perimeters. Since the Corridor Plan was adopted by the City of Orono, City Hall has moved into the Corridor and Orono School District has purchased the old church site and is further developing plans for a continuation of school facilities adjacent to the subject property. To the south is also planned multifamily and conunercial. With these adjacent uses, a PUD is being used to consolidate development in a pattern to adjust to the high water table by grading home sites to a higher elevation while creating extensive ponding and weUand mitigation areas. This also creates an enhanced perimeter condition for a rural atmosphere on the eastern and northern edges of the proposed development. The flexibility sought in the PUD is specifically used to encourage the best development according to the City’s Comprehensive Plan as called for in the PUD ordinance. The PUD will create a variety of lots while adjusting to the lower density to the north and the higher density to the south. Sensitivity through the departure of the strict application of required setbacks and lot sizes is being sought as recommended in the City’s PUD ordinance. Within the Pud, home sit^ can be consolidated generally on a central collector road allowing significant open space to form the perimeter and protect sensitive areas of the site. This allows the PUD development to Orono Property P.U.D. Submittal 5 November 1993 maximize the development potential of the land while remaining sensitive to its unique and valuable natural characteristics. This consolidation of building along the road also makes the grading, ponding system and public utilities efficient and cost effective. Efficiency is a key element in the PUD and has been addressed in our plan by consolidating lots along an interior stre-^t system and minimizing the amount of earthwork needed for correcting the high water table of the property and the installation of utilities. To spread the development out more would increase the cost significantly for each lot and would impact the natural feanires and push development closer to the perimeter of the subject property. Density transfer is utilized creating a great variety of lot sizes with an overall density that was originally contemplated in this area in the comprehensive plan which would be 60 units or less. Since the school and recreational facilities are absorbing half of the area and utilities were contemplated in the comprehensive plan for this area, a realistic one unit per acre density is proposed. At one unit per acre density, utilities can be installed cost effectively to make the development feasible because the water table is high and onsite septic systems would be environmentally prohibitive. Ihe PUD is applicable to this property because it is limited in the City ordinance to Just those lands in the Highway 12 Corridor as set forth in the City of Orono ’s Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 adopted May 23, 1988. It is clearly the intent based on the comprehensive plan and the City ordinance to have this property developed as a PUD with a density tor this area no greater than 60 units to be served by public utilities and to adjust through the PUD system to the varied adjacent uses set forth in the comprehensive plan. Additionally, the project is incorporating a great deal of open area to assure preservation ol wetlands, woods and the creation of enhanced water quality management. PUD Design The proposed PUD is designed to achieve a maximum coordination between the propcseo development and the surrounding uses, as well as provide for the common protection and enhancement of wetlands in the area. Additionally, the drainage system has been carefully constructed to increase the quality of runoff from existing cordition. The development is proposed to use City sanitary sewer and water eliminating the negative impacts of onsite sewer systems and wells in an area with a very high water table. The overall design creates a variety of lot sizes and a density of one unit per acre. The larger lots are located along the periphery of the development to cre.ite a neighborhood feeling consistent with other area development. Significant open space is also located along Willow Drive largely separating most of the development from the road. Two homes are proposed to be directly adjacent to Willow Drive along the 2,000-foot eastern perimeter. No direct driveway acce.ss is proposed from the lots out to Willow Drive. Large ponds and lots with extra rear yard setbacks will also create a rural type edge to the CSAH 6 neighbors to the north. Here again, direct access to CSAH 6 is not proposed with development off a future, central collector road which will also serve to some degree the property to the west. Orono Property P.U.D. Submittal 5 November 1993 IV. TENTATIVE STAGING & SEQUENCE SCHEDULE The developer intends to develop the project in approximately two phases over a period of approximately three to four years. Obviously, economic conditions may affect the actual time frame and specific areas of development. This sequence is derived by the approximate location of utilities which will ser\'e the southern pan of the property first. Undeniably, the phasing will be heavily influenced by market conditions. V. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY Orono Center Properties, Properties owns the land free and clear. As the optionee, Lundgren Bros, intends to develop the property once they receive every governmental approval necessary for development to occur. VI. NATURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS The topography is generally fiat terrain with the highest elevation being 1,038.4 feet and the lowest elevation being 1014.8 feet. There are sixteen separate wetlands on the site with the Army Corp of Engineers and City of Orono having Jurisdiction. A separate wetland report has been field with the City. The ±59 acre site is a mix of cultivated fields, wetlands, areas with miscellaneous vegetation and some significant wooded areas. The developer has taken these features into consideration in the planning of this neighborhood community. Much of the land has been under intense agricultural practices with no water quality management. Sediments from cultivation and farm chemicals presently drain directly into the wetlands. In addition to these natural features, the development will include significant ponding and some enhancement of existing wetlands and along with additional landscape elements proposed by the developer, we believe the result will be an overall development that is attractive and enduring. VII. WETLAND MITIGATION & ENHANCEMENT Tlie project contain.^ a total of 10 acres of wetlands of various types. The sixteen wetlands have been mapped and analyzed by Franklin Svoboda. His report is included for review. Sedimentation ponds will intercept and collect storm water runoff prior to discharging it into the wetlands. The developer’s intent is that upon its completion, the site should have greater wetland acreage with overall higher quality than existed prior to development. This should provide an improv'^ variety ot plant types and a better habitat for more species of wildlife. Also, the extensive ponding system will produce higher quality water than the untreated farm runoff. Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetiand losses shall occur in tne form of a wetland creation system. This would provide a ratio of 2 1 acre for acre replacement of wetlands to be affected by the project. Orono Property P.U.D. Submittal 5 November 1993 8 A conservation easement will be established over and around each wetland including a natural buffered edge. The primary purpose of the easement is to provide nesting habitat 4ind wildlife cover peripheral to the wetland. In addition, the easement combined with the sedimentation ponds will work together to improve and maintain the character of the wetlands further filtering runoff. ■i I \ TABLE 1-1 THE ORONO 51TE WETLAND DESCRIPTION INFORMATION * • Appendix E * • From Soil Survey of Hennepin County * • From Hydiic Soils manual Area Welland Type On NWI Map (Y/N) Quality Class' Dominant Vegetation Soils’ Present Hydric Soil' (Y/N) Welland Conditions Met No. Circ. 39 Cowardin 1 1.2 PEMIA Y Ag/Utb Reed Canary Crass llarnel Y Y 2 2.3 PEMIC N Ag/Uib Spikerush. Cattail Hamel Y Y 3 N Giant Ragweed. Smartweed Glencoe Y N 4 N Barnyard Grass. Smartweed Le Sueur N N 5 2.3 PEMIC N Ag.'Urb Spikerush. Caiuil Glencoe Y Y 6 2.3.6.7 PEMI/SSI/FOIB/Y Nat •Reed Canary Grass. Catuil. Elm. Dogwood. SedgL Glencoe Y Y 6A 6 PSSIB Y AgAJrb Willow, Hummock Sedge Glencoe Y Y 7 2.3.7 PEMI/FOIB/C Y Nat Reed Canary Grass. Green Ash. Elm Glencoe Y Y 8 2.3.4 PEMIC/F Y Ag/Utb Reed Canary Grass. Cattail Glencoe Y Y 9 1.2.3 PE.V1IA/C Y Ag/Ufb Reed Canary Grass Glencoe Y Y 10 N Ragweed. Clover, Barnyard Grass Glencoe Y N II N Barnyard Grass, White Clover. Common Ragweed Le Sueur N N 1 t0L~.ir\rt TABLE 1-2 THE ORONO SITE WETLAND DESCRIPTION INFORMATION ' • Appendix E ’ • Fiom Soil Survey of Hennepin County * • From Hydric Soils manual Welland Delineated in field is larger than what is shown on NWl map Area Welland Type On NWl Map 0/N) Quality Class' Dominant Vegetation Soils* Present Mydric Soil’ (Y/N) Welland Conditions MetNo. Circ. 39 Cowardin 12A 2.3 PEMIC y Ag/Urb Rccd Canar>' Grass, Sofisicm Bulrush Glencoe Y Y 12D 2.3 PHMIC Y Ag/Uib Reed Canary Grass. Softstem Dulrush Green Bulrush Glcncoc Y Y 13 3.4 PEMIC/F Y Ag/Urb Rccd Canar>' Grass Bu'rush. Cattail Glencoe V Y 13A 3 PEMIC r Ag/Utb Reed Canary Grass Glencoe Y I3B N Wliiif Clover, Barnyard Grass L: Sueur N N 14 2.3 PEMIA/B N Ag/Urb Spikerush. Softstem Bulrush Glencoe Y Y 15 2.6 PSSl/EMIC Y‘Ag/Urb Willow, Spikerush, Reed Canary Grass Gicncoc Y Y ISA 2.3 PEMIC Y‘Ag/Urb Rccd Canary Grass. Sedge Glencoe Y N 16 2.3 PEMIC N Ag/Urb Cattail. Spikerush Hamel Y Y 17 N Red Clover. White Clover, Common Ragweed Le Sueur Glencoe N Y N 18 N Common Ragweed. White Clover Le Sueur Glencoe N Y N ( i * Orono Property P.U.D. Submittol 5 November 1993 vm. TREE PRESERVATION / MONUMENTATION / SIGNAGE The western and southern portion of the property is wooded, with Oak and Maple being the predominant trees. Ash and Boxelder are found in other areas of the site and in cultivated areas with other woody shrubs. Careful attention has been paid to all of the Oak-Maple woods on the western and southern edge. Our primary goal is to minimize as much tree removal as possible in the development process so that premier wooded home sites would be created. Through careful location of streets, utilities and specific road design considerations, we will be able to preserve about 80% of the trees with site development. Professionally designed and landscaped entrance monument'j and medians will be provided at each entrance to the PUD. The elements of the monument, tion and signage shall be consistent throughout the neighborhood community. The tlrsign team shall take aavantage of the creativity the PUD ordinance allows and develop an identity that blends well widi the namral surroundings. All monumentation shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association and shall be consistent with the quality monumentation found in other exclusive Lundgren Bros, neighborhood communities. Additional landscaping along perimeter roads will be added where needed to buffer the traffic from the home sites. IX. COVENANTS & HOUSING PRODUCT As in all neighborhood communities created by Lundgren Bros., strict architectural and protective covenants shall be established and recorded to protect the investment of each homeowner and the wetland conservation easements essential to wetland protection. Examples of Lundgren Bros.’ home models have been submitted to the City to show anticipated home construction. These proposed executive homes will be very complimentary to other homes in the area. Additionally, street trees will be planted with each home in combination with tvpical new home landscaping. X. NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATION AREAS Lundgren Bros, proposes to pay the City of Orono s park dedication fee for future park improvements in the community. It is anticipated with a further development of elementary school and other facilities on the school property, immediate recreational needs may be amply met. XL ROAD SYSTEM The overall road system within the property is an interconnecting road from Willow Drive northerly up to Highway 6 intersecting at the far northwest corner, thus giving access to the school property to the west. Two cul-de-sacs are proposed to reach the interior areas of the property to minimize curb cuts on the adjacent roads. A private drive is also proposed for the heavily wooded areas to minimize tree removal. Orono Property P.U.D. Submittal 5 November 1993 12 / / / Thirty-three feet of right-of-wav is being dedicated for Willow Drive and 40 feet of right-of- wav is being dedicated for CSAH 6. The tots along Highway 6 are well over 200 feet deep wi^ only four tots directly abutting the highway. Although Highway 12 relocation studies have indicated a potential alignment along CSAH 6, this plan is developed with the understanding that the City of Orono prefers the Highway 12 improvements to be made on the existing alignment of Highway 12. The development of Highway 12 on its existir:? corridor anticipates a frontage road system on the north side of the highway. This would be a continuation of the frontage road as noted m the Comprehensive Plan and partially developed with the completion of Orono City Hall ^ facilities In order to properly address storm drainage in the area, MnDOT is proposing with its current channelization project that a urban runoff pond be built between Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow Drive. This is proposed approximately 400 feet west of Willow Drive and is about six acres in size with a dimension of approximately 300 feet by 900 feet. This would absorb land anticipated for development so that the overall development of this area may be ^ less intense tlian anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. Because the school will be developing its land for school purpose' and less commercitJ may be developed along Highway 12. the overall intensity may not reach expected proportions. The 58 units proposed on the Lundgren project will not overload the traffic or pty infrastnicture systems and will provide a unique and environmentally rcsponsib e eve opmen for this area of Orono. XII. DEVELOPMENT FLEXIBILITY Within the PUD. requested flexibility is to develop the property at one unit per acre with the understandi''- that there will be City sewer and water and enhance water quality storm system for the overall development. The perimeters of the development will also be developed to minimize impacts on adjacent properties. The flexibility includes varying lot si^ to allow a clustering of homes to preserve consolidated open spaces. Setbacks are proposed to mate e development intent of clustering and protecting the wetlands. Xm. CONCLUSION The proposed development conforms to the goals and principles of the Comprehensive Plan and will provide an excellent example of Orono community standards for housing development within the Highway 12 Corridor. The consolidated open space and enhtmeed wetland and ponding system will greatly increase the water management on the property versus the uncontrolled intense agricultural practices of today. The Lundgren Bros.’ plan buffers the intense land uses of CSAH 6. Willow Drive, future Iltifamily housing, and Orono School facilities, and creates a large lot. rural appearance along the surrounding roads. Lundgren Bros, will be building high quality homes and an excellent neighborhood that will further strengthen the Orono community and surrounding area. Orono Property P.U.D. Submittal 5 November 1993 The land to the south is guided for multiple residential and will be separated by a series of preserved and enhanced wetlands and increased setbacks for homes. To the west is a future elementary school site and other planned recreational facilities. These have not yet been built but will form a typical edge to a residential neighborhood. The wetlands are combined in large, commonly-held open space lots that provide both upland and newly enhanced wetlands for overall natural habitat suitable for wildlife nesting. Additionally, the few lots that are located in the wooded, southwest comer are extra wide and accessed by a private drive to minimize the impaa on the existing woods. Clustering the single-family homes and preserving expanses of wetlands with further enhancement through the storm ponding system and peripheral buffering are important elements of the PUD concept which creates a neighborhood that is fully complimentary to adjacent land uses and to the goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. F. Comprehensive Plan Acceptability 1.Land Use Guide Plan/Densitv The subject property is currently guided for 2 acre single family. This designation is also for all the adjacent area (120 ac.) surrounding the property, including the school and old church property to the west. Lundgren Bros, proposes 58 residential single family lots on approximately 58.6 acres for a gross density of approximately 1.0 dwelling units/acre. 2.Site Utility Availability and Service Sanitary Sewer and Water Service The subject site has a problem with a high water table. The onsite septic system ordinance of the City of Orono recognizes the problems with onsite septic systems when the water table is less than 5 feet below the surface. Also, by requiring dual septic sites makes the likelihood of an acceptable onsite system for housing on the subject property very unfeasible. The economics of development when contemplating city services require that the cost be reasonably spread over each lot created. With an overall density of one unit per acre, these costs can be reasonably shared by all the lots created. A project that is less dense but with the same utility costs would not be feasible. Since the site is in the MUSA line and the City’s comprehensive plan contemplates City sewer for this area, it is only reasonable to approach the project by clustering the density into a pattern that can be economically served by extending utilities to the area. The quality of the water that eventually drains to Lake Minnetonka will be enhanced. By having centralized City sewer and the extensive wetland and ponding system on the site, watej quality should exceed what is running ott ot the property today under its agricultural use. Orono Property P.U.D. Submittal 5 November 1993 Municipal sewer and water service to the site would be provided by extension ot water and sewer mains from the existing facilities along Highway 12. It is proposed to extend the water and sewer mains along the w'est side of Willow Drive to the site and then within the proposed streets r.o.w. within the site as required to service the proposed lots. Based on discussions with the City Engineer, the municipal water system has adequate capacity to service the site. Temporary capacity is available in the sanitary sewer on Highway 12 to service the site. However, ultimately a new trunk sewer wi e necessary on Highway 12 extending to the Long Lake treatment plan. The trunk sewer assessments paid by the proposed development would fund a portion of this trunk sewer. Stormwater Management The stormwater runoff from the proposed streets and the front yards would be conveyed by storm sewer to stormwater management basins for treatment and rate control. The majority of the lots are walkout type lots which back up to wetland areas. The rear yards would drain toward these wetlands with the grasses filtering the ^water and wetland protection enhanced by creating a natural buffer at the wetland edge. Because of the extensive onsite ponding, the project may not need the pond being proposed by MnDOT along Highway 12. —' Site Grading The site is relatively flat with the ground water table close to the surface. In general, the basement levels of the walkout homes would be established close to the existing ground elevation. The front yards and streets would be filled to create conventional walkout type lots. Some of the fill is obtained from excavation of the stormwater ^.basins and lowering of the ground elevation in the northeast comer of the site. Also, ? cooperative grading with the school property to the west is being sought to help | balance both sites, develop ponds as needed, and prepare areas for athletic fields. 3.Traffic Access & Circulation The road system has been developed to best facilitate the movement of traffic safely and conveniently in accordance with the City’s designated road system. Primary access to the dev flopment will be through a north to east collector connecting C.S.A.H. 6 and Willow D.'ive North. The road system is designated to identify a hierarchy of traffic with cul-dt sacs running into this collector. A private drive is -i ' proposed for three lots to minimize the impact on the woods. " f ? 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene AnderlikA I Associates Engineers & Architects November 5, 1993 Otto G Bor^isxx a flcsene p£ • C pf Vjr.’r L Scr\ja P£ E Tufr>e» PE G^fnn 9 Coo« PE ’''Omji £ PE PpC^ G krH>n<r* PE SwWn M Eter n C PA •Seno^ CcniuWn; •“•owva'3 A 5 j'^*o*0 PE A Ooroon P£ P-rC'T'* 9 pv*V»N» P£ Jl Eci:?' PE C9VX3 O LCWOfa PE PocefT C A ' A ;f% A 9c P£ A p£ T Pjwl'^^r'n P£ TetJ K PE Trcmjs ff Anje^VP A» A C-o''JC C P£ T^'o-rji £ An*;ui P£ vr»'rfe- \Un,rr: P£ P Pau PE Aijnes M 9^i; A I c p P*^-<0 J PE Trc^Ji \i P^erv?n P£ Vv-ar C p£ >arr^t ? Vj.arvJ p£ ,e»rv O Pforw' p£ krn J At^jre* pE p A'lCe'V^n P£ Va't 9 -'cf\ P£ var« A >0 PE Gj^. W PE Darri j EJ^ero'' Pe A e<k Sc''r*jt PE P** '0 ^ Ciu\r<i PE V<jr«t 0 Aa \ PE V ei 3 P£ L P“ ;o Gravr« p£ Aar^ L PE Gary o ^r sTc^tr P£ P 'ocJcJ Po'.rr* pE 9 ^JCi3 PE Dcu^as J Bene: PE Srav.'wf' D GoMafson Cac o C v-a' PE PauJ G *-»AuAr PE jortn P GcAJAf PE C*'J'^5 A £'<Ason LAC V PaAA''iy *-*a'*ar *.♦ 0 yen ja'-AS P Er^harjt I ■ V '. »•c i-/ Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Bo,x 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re; Lundgren Bros. File No. 139-GEN ^ear Jeanne, We have reviewed the preliminary sketch plan prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc. for Lundgren Bros. Construction. Tlie property is located west of Willow Drive and south of eSAH No. 6 in the southwest quarter of Section 28. There are several issues that need to be addressed relative to engineering matters. 'File street alignment is acceptable and appears to be in conformance with City Codes. It should be discussed whether the streets will be public or private. We recommend that the right-of-way for a future through street be platted to the west at the most westerly cul-de-sac. This right-of-way can easily be aligned with the e.xisting platted right-of-way on the school property. If development plans are prepared for the school that do not include this connection, the right-of-way could be vacated. A trail outlet should be platted along the south side of CSAH No. 6. Also, pedestrian access to the school property should be provided by means of a trail between lots 14 and 15, or at the end of the most westerly cul-dc-sac. We recommend that the trails be constructed as part of the site improvements. Both sanitary sewer and water main will need to be e.\tended north from Trunk Highway 12 along Willow Drive. Tlie water main should be extended to the northwest corner of the site for a future connection to the City of Medina ’s water system. Water main should be extended to the west property line at the most westerly cul-de-sac for a future loop to the water main on Old Crystal Bay Road. Tlie four lots at the southwest corner of the property (Lots 10, 11, 12, and 13) are proposed to be served with a single drivew,ay. Tlie City Code allows only two lots to be served on a single driveway. Three or more lots will require a street be constructed for proper access. These four lots have proposed house pad elevations 8 feet higher than the e.xisting ground and proposed driveway elevations. No grading contours are shown for the fill placement that will be needed to develop these lots. Fill in this area w'ill likely affect the wetlands in that vicinitx'. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth November 5, 1993 Page -2- The City Code requires a 26 foot setback from wetlands that are identified in the City’s wetland inventory map. These wetland areas are identified on the sketch plan as numbers 6, 8, 9, 12, 12A, 13 and part of 7. All other wetlands that have been delineated are regulated at the State level by the Wetland Conservation Act. At the present time interim guidelines for the Act are in force. Beginning on January 1, 1994, the permanent rules will be in effect. These rules will require the replacement of any filled wetlands at a 2:1 ratio based on area. Tliis ratio applies for replacement with the w type of wetland that was lost. At the Federal level the wetlands are regulated by tne U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Tlie plan shows some of the wetland areas that will be filled as part of the site grading, as well as the wetland replacement u a. However, due generally to the random location of wetlands, it appe.irs that the '^roposeu density of 58 lots may be more than the property can accommodate. Drainage and utility easements will be required 5 feet wide along all lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of-ways. Drainage easements should be provided over the ponding, wetland and mitigation areas. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. M Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. .-f ^ D f fA..up __CORPORATE LIMITS •MIT OF DETAILED STUDY City of Long Lai- AREA NOT INCLL l_.WATC A.^r. CITY r i Reconunended Alternative - The wetlands and natural vegetation in the area provide an excellent transition between the more intense use planned for the south and single family 2-acre to the north. Utilizing this as a break, the area to the north will remain at the 2-acre rural residential standard. For the area south of the wetlands, the planning consultant has offered four development schemes, pj^oviding multi —family units (either town house or apartments) to the immediate south of the wetlands with alternatives for varied commercial uses abutting Highway 12. The four alternatives of development are considered at an acceptable level for projected sewer needs ranging from 300 to 4 5 0 sewer units.The configuration of the frontage road would be dependent on the type of development undertaken but would provide for access points at Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow Drive, approximately 3C0' back from their intersections with Highway 12. I Co. Hwy No.' 6 ?• • •*•*•*•*• **X ! • t »•••••> •*>•••••*•• ******* * *** *** K*. • ••••• • •••••••••• a *1 • *•*•*♦*•*•*•*• •*•*•*•* • •••••••'••••••at• ••aaaa»a*a«**aa • •a>«aataat**»aa«• •aaaa»aaa*«*aa*• a*aa*a«a*a • ••• ••••a**»aaa«»*aaaa • • a* aaa« * •* <*aa«a*aaa*»a«4 • ■«*aaaaaaa«a • • a«aaaaaaa»*aa4la*a*aa*« »a^• aa«a»aa«a*««a« • aaa>*«>*a**** aaaaaa>a**aaaaa aa a»aaaaaaa*aaa a«aaa<a«*aaaaaa aaa*aaaa«a . • aaa»aa*'aa, “ a*aaaaa*>a* aaaaaaaaaaa* a~a~a aa*»a aaaaaaaaa aa>aaaa-aa«aaaa« a * a# • aaa* aaaa • •' a*aaa#a*aaaaaaae aaaaaaa*aaaa<* a^ aaa«t aaaaaa> *aa^ «*aaaa*aaaaaaaA • aaaaaaaaaiaa# aaa»#aaa*aaaaa| • aaaa«t»**a-*a«aaaaaaaaar.aiaj a*aa«*aa*.aaa•a-a*aaaa*a«aa«val aiaaa^a - a«aaaa • • • a>aaa««aataaaaaaa. • •aa»*aa«aaaa»*ai ataaaaaaaaa aa> aaa't aaaaaaaa**aaaaa .aa*aaaa*aaaaaaai. a a*a a*a a"a a a • -*■*• a a^f 'ataar • -• aa*aa< aiaaaaaaaaaaa aaa ataa aaaaaaaa a m aaaaaaata-aa a^k^ aaaaaaa-aaaa a.aaa*aa«a.aa a aaa««aa-aaaa aaaaa aaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaa# •aaa.aaaaataa « 3 a aaaaaa aaaaaaa j^B>a a a aaaaaaaaaaaa a aaataaataaaaa a ^ a aaaaaaaaaaaa a. aaaaaaaaaaaa* - aaaaAata-a#a aWAM j aaaa a a a a a a a a^aa aaaaaaaaaaaa* aaaa*aaa*a-a*aaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaa** aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa*.aaaaaaa«a*aaaaaa aaaaraaaaaaaaaaaa aa#aaaaaaaaaaaaa_ aa«aaaaaaaa*aaaa« aaaaa*ia*aaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa* aaaaaaaaaaaa* aaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa4 aa*aaaaaaaa*a*a a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa* aaaaaaaaa.«*aaaa taaaaaaaaaaa#aaa« aa<>aaaaaa«aaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat aa#aaaaaaaaa*aaa aaa**aaa*aaa.taaa• aaaaaaaaaaaataa. ■»#*... .*.•.*.* *T.*.'. • yr. r.’.'r aa*a*a •aaaaaaaaa - aaa*a>aaaaa« V V ' a <> aa*aaaaaa>a>aa*aaaaaaa«aaa>a • •aaaaaa**aaaaaaaaaa*aaaa.aaaaaaiaaaaa* aaaaaaataaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'Baaaaa aaaaa*aaaaaaaaa*aaaaaa*aaaa*.aaa'>aaaa« m-a«r«a a**a*aaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaava**aa a*a«aaaa# ^a aa A aaaaa*a*aaaaaaaaaaaa** aaaaaaaaa»aaaaa • aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Aa*a% ataaaaaoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaa*■ a a a a% a*.*aa-a*aaaaaa>aaaaa*aaaa*aaaaaaaa*aaa*aaaaaaaaaaaaa ■ aaaa.a* .at.aaaaataaaaaaaaaaaaaa^aaaaaaataaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaa■ • aai%*a>a«aa*aaaaaaaaaa*aaaaaaBaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa*aaaa4<aa*aa B . aa*0« - * *aaaaaa*aaaaaaaaa aaa M aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa**aaaaaaa*■ aaa a • a laaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa^aa*#* aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa*aaa ■ **••%* a*a#a«aa aa«aaaaa*a**a * aaaaaaaaaaaaaOaaaaaaaaaaaaa*^ aaa ^ .aaaaaaa a.aaaaaa .a^taaaaaaaaaaaaaa.aaaaaa^aaaaa m ..aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa** * *B«aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. *aaaaa* ■ • a • ■ •..aaaaaa**aaaaaaaaa ^ *..a-a .aaaaaaaaaaaaa«a*aa -aa■ - .aaaaaa'aaaaaaaaa • ^ >aa*aaaa*aaa«aaaaa*aa*aaaaaa* ■ ... H. .a.aaaaaaaaaaaaaa* r • aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa«aaaaaaaaaaa ■ . . . • aa* - aaaaaaaaaaaa* *a*aaaaaaaaaaaaa*aaaaaaaaaaaa■ - . a V ••**aaaa*aaaaaaaa. •.*aaaaaaaa**a*aaa*aaaaa*a**aa ■ ... ^ aaaaaaaaaaaaaa. aaaaaaaa. aaaaaaaaaaaa. aaaaaaa*■ .*^ . .*aa*«a**a« •' - *a*aaaaaaa*«aaaaaaa«a*aa*a*aaa^ a - a*^. .a.aaaaaa*#*. a .**aa*aa*aa**aaa***aaaaaa«a*aaa* ^ * .aaaaaaa.## «* a •# ..a_a a a a a a a a* a a a a * a aa* a^ MEoau MOANiMcmoc :im a* • - • • a***a*aaaa*aa«*aa*a.aaaaaaaa*>*aaaaaa**a«aaalaa.^4_• a ■ ..aa.aa.aaa - a a..aa*a**a**a*aa*- a*aaaaa«a*«*aa«*** 4. aa- a.aaaaaaaaa*** - *.*«#**. *a*a***a*a*aaaaa* a a * a a ...-.a.*.a*a.......#..**#aa..*a**aa.a#**aaa*J## a^ * •a* .*a.a.*4-aa**a****a--a.a*aa*aaaaaaa**a*«aaaa*a m* * • aa.*. .a#i****a**aaaaaa*.*..*aaa***a**a*aaa**aaa**«JlaaVBa« •#. • a.*.*aaa#**.a**aaa* - .a*a«aaaa*aa**aaa*a*aaaaC**C***a.. .a.«aa.aa a* •**#.. ...aaaaaaoaaa.aaaaaaaaaaa.^a a^» a a • aa.*..*>.*.aa **a«*aa.aaa.*aa*a***aaaa*aa*a*aaaaa&.ai4*a-a 4r.aaa«a*a«a - .*.>aa*aa**.aaaaa*aa***aaaa • ' % * ^.*> .*a«**a.a*aaa**. >.aaa***aaa.**a**a*aaa*aaTa* M aa .... ...•.*a«a'*aa*a*..a*a*aa.***aaa-**a*aa*a**a •*■*#*• a .-.aa'aaa. a..-*-* •.*->>aaa**»**a.aa**.a*.P-BM*** .. aa.a.aaaaa^aaaaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaa* ^ . a^ a a ^ ; ; Single Family 2ac. *a*a*a .. .**-a«***a aa* * ^ *a*a*aaa*aa a • a a a *** ******* a* a*a a***.*# « *a-**^-**'*a*****a •••aaaaaaa*. >a ***.. *, ...**a.*aaa.«<4>*.*# *#**a**v* aaaaaaa****** .. • a • ..* - *.-.«>*•*■•*•*. aaaaaaa*. %. aaa*. aaaaaa* • • *’... ••**aa*a**aa* <Aa aaaaaaaaaaaa** ^ *aaa*a***a***. a... aa*a##a*aaa«¥<* *****>aaaa*<m**paaa«*a** M * • • «.* •*a*aa*aaaa»a#*aB**aaa*aaaaaaaa ***aaa*a** ^ *.*<»*aaa a a.aaaaaaaaa*** 1^. aaaa***** m. . * * a*. -aaaa*****'* aa*a****a*****m**aaaa«aa ^a... >aa**a*.a **••• -•.•*. ‘**a**a**p***a*a*B i^P * • ■ •>... .***.**•**' . .aaaaaaa*. aaaaaaa** *■ . *.*a.a.«**.-a>*' • - aaaaaaaalaaa.aaaa^.#... .•** -•**. ***** •****aaa*^**a*aa**^ . ^ M, a^V% - aaaaaaaaV .*•*•*• ^ ■ • F . . ^ CEPTOR it Multi-Family Residential !| , * . ^ . a***.. • .a.aaaaa* •******••**•******•* . ■ a** • . ^ **• «■•••*•* •**•*•***. *********** •. . **-**...>a.****Bk>.a ******* ■ L . . . ^ .. .-a ••.*.##***•.».**•#••* * a a *• .aaaa** • a •' . ' a * a a a ^ ..*. ******** >••**** a. > ... a a .•.#*•#*#•##. ****** • •- ' a a a a • **••••* • • .»••*** a • a a a a as a^•aaaaa* **aa***M^ a * *aaa«aa*a*aavv Commercial §11^ SSS3™“ ■BS Primary Frontage Road aaaa Alternate Frontage Road Proposed Alternative Area 3 Fig. 29 m PROJECT OBJECTIV ’ES The objective of the site examination was to evaluate the site for the possible presence of areas satisfying the technical definition of a wetland and to delineate any such areas found. The proposed development of this parcel is for single family residential housing. A variety of Federal. State, and Local regulations govern the use and alteration of wetlands in the development process. i 1 m 1 i 1 ] DATA SOURCES DNR Protected Waters Inventory. 1983 - Hennepin County, Minnesota U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map, 1" = 2000’ scale; Excelsior. Minn. Quadrangle; 1989. Date of aerial photos - May, 1980. Soil Survey of Hennepin County, U.S. Dept, of Agriculmre, 1974. Hydric Soils of the United States. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1991. METHODS AND PROCEDLUES W’etland Survey Topographic maps. NWl maps. DNR maps, soils maps and aerial photographs were reviewed prior to visiting the site to identify probable wetland habitats. All potential wetland areas were then ground checked during the field survey. Basis of Determination In order for an area to be classified as a wetland it must possess 3 determining characteristics - hydric soils, hydrophvtic "egetation and hydrology in accordance with the 2 delineation methods Jfc... i i I 1 I I ] I I I 1 I I f i I I \ presently in use. Prevailing practice by the regulatory agencies has been to determine the presence of hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation. If one or both of those indicators are present, the presence of suitable hydrology is assumed. The presumption is that the hydrology characteristic is more difficult to determine by casual visual observation and therefore is not used routinely. The project site was searched for areas satisfying the 3 indicator characteristics of wetlands. Areas possessing those characteristics were more closely e.xamined to determine the appro.ximate edge of the Jurisdictional wetland. Field Procedures Wetland classification follows the methods described in Cowardin et. al. (Cowardin. L.M.. V. Caner, F.C. Golei. and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Office of Biological Services. Washington D C. Publ. No. FWS/OBS-79/31. 107 pp.) and as used in the National Wetland Inventory being completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The site was examined on August 17. 18. 19 and 20. 1993 for areas meeting wetland criteria in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency Coimnittee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. Washington. D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 76 pp. plus appendices.) and the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Rept. Y-87-1. January. 1987). Procedurally. both methods are generally similar e,xcept that the Corps mt :hod requites that soil inundation or saturation occur within the root zone (generally within 12 inches of the surface) during the growing season and that all 3 wetland parameters be present. In the i989 Manual, if only one of the characteristics is present, the presence of the other 2 is inferred. Wetl'nd edges were delineated ... accordance with the foregoing procedures. The edge of each wetland was marked with 4-foot lath sequentially numbered and flagged with orange wetland boundary" flagging tape. I I i 1 1 m M 1 1 I J 1 i m I 4 I 1 I The criteria of chroma less than 2 was not relied upon on this site since this 'ow chroma was observed in definite upland areas which had clearly upland vegetation and no hydrology. Wetland Hvdrologv Hydrology on the site varied between standing water marshy areas to places that simply had saturated soils throughout the basin. The basins found to be non-wetland either had dr>- soils no different than the surrounding upland areas (Basins 3, 11. 17, and 18). or had saniration only in the top 3 inches of the soil with dry soil below (Basins 4, 10. and 13B). Wetland Description The site was reviewed in accordance with state and federally required delineation procedures In the northwest comer of the site is Basin 1. a Type 1,2 Ag/Urban wetland (PEMIA) dominated by reed canary grass. The basin is along the edge of the parcel. The adjacent upland on the parcel is the soybean field and off the parcel is smooth brome grass. The NWl map shows a small dot near this basin. Basin 2 is a Type 2.3 Ag/Urban wetland (PEMIC) dominated by spikerush and cattail. This basin is entirely within the soybean field and not found on the NWl map. There was adequate soil saturation for this to be considered a wetland basin. Basins 3 and 4 were found to be non-wetland due to lack of hydrology, soil characteristics, and the marginal nature of the vegetation. Basin 3 is a: the head of a westward-flowing drainage ravine where a drainage tile outlets the soybean field. The tile is greater than 2 feet below the ground surface at the lowest point of this area; no gleying or mottling of the soil was observed here, nor was the soil saturated. Vegetation consisted of giant ragweed, a smanweed species and quackgrass. Basin 4 did not appear on the NWl map and was cropped at the time of the 1/2 section aerial photo. Tlie soil ill the basin was identical to that of the adjacent soybean field. While some 8 I I 1 I I t P ! I I i I I I I f surface saturation occurred in the top 3 inches of the soil, the soil beneath was dry with no sign of mottling or gleying. Both die soil and hydrology criteria were not met on this basin. The ve-^etation was a marginal mix of barnyard grass and a smanweed species. Basin 5 is a Type 2.3 Ag/Urban wetland (PEMIC) dominated by canail and spikerush found in the soybean field. This basin was cropped through at the time of the 1/2 section aerial photo, but currently has saturated soil below the ground surface. Basin 6 is a Type 2.3.G.7 Nararal (-) wetland (PEMl/SSl/FOlB/C) located along the western edge of the property in the southern portion of the site. A sugar maple-basswood forest is on the upland adjacent to the basin. The basin is dominated by reed canary grass, cattail, and American elm with silky dogwood, blue flag iris and sedge present. Basin 6A is a Type 6 Ag/Urban wetland (PSSIB) that is a monoopic stand of willow with some reed canary grass and hummock sedge along the fringe. The adjacent upland is upland meadow consisting of goldenrod. smooth brome grass and prickly ash. Basin 7 is a Type 2.3.7 Natural wetland (PEMl/FOI B/C) along the south edge of the site. This basin has a mixture of plant species including reed canary grass, dogwood, cattail. American elm and green ash. A sugar maple-basswood forest is on the adjacent upland along the western two- thirds of this basin. Cropland and upland meadow are upland of the eastern third. This basin connects to Basin 8 south of the parcel. Basin 8 is a Type 2,3,4 Ag/Urban wetland (PE.MIC/R that is dominated by reed canary grass and cattail with some red osier dogwood, green ash and softstem bulmsh. This basin is connected to Basin 7 south of the property. Upland meadow and cropland are along the up.and edge. Basin 9 is a Type 1.2.3 Ag/Urban wetland (PSMl.A/C) in the southeastern corner of the property. The basin is dominated by reed canary grass with some willow and dogwood along the edges. The basin is adjacent to Willow Drive, with sumac, prickly ash. and upland meadow along rhe upland edge. 9 I n 4l Im 1 H \m 1 iS 1 1 to» 1 1 Basins 10 and 11 were found to not meet the wetland criteria even though they were not cropped this year (due to extremely high rainfall). Both basins had a mixture of marginal vegetation that includes ragweed, clover and barnyard grass. The soil in Basin 10 was the same as found in the adjacent soybean field. There was saturation and small pockets of standing water, but the saturation was only on the top 3 inches. No saturation, mottling or gleying was found below the ground surface. Basin 11 had soils that were very dry and were the same as the adjacent soybean field. No mottling or gleying was present. Both Basins 10 and 11 were cropped at the time of the 1/2 section aerial photo. Neither appear on the NWl map. Basin 12A is a Type 2.3 Ag/Urban wetland (PEMIC) dominated by reed canary grass with some green bulmsh, softstem bulrush and cattail located in the soybean field. The basin drains to the west to Basin 12B. The area between Basins 12A and 12B was not cropped this year due to extreme rainfall, but did not appear on the NWl map or the 1/2 section aerial photo. This area was not included with these basins because the soils were similar to those in the soybean field and no mottling or gleying were was present. Basin 12B is a Type 2.3 Ag/Urban wetland (PEMIC) inonorypic stand of reed canary grass with some softstem bulmsh. This, along with other basins in the soybean field, had a fringe of upland plant species between the basin and the field. Vegetation included smooth btome grass, thistle and tall goldcntod. An area of channelized fiow e.xits this basin on the nonh side, passes through an upiwd meadow and empties into Basin 13. Basin 13 is a Type 3,4 Ag/Urban wetland (PEMIC/F) dominated by teed canary grass with cattail, pinkwccd, sedge and duckweed. Much of the basin is in the soybean field with a fringe of upland vegetation such as Canada thistle, common ragweed and clover. This basin outlets to the east off the site There is an open upland meadow between the basin and the eastern edge of the site. 1 i i 01 I I D I V Q I I I ! I I I I I Basin ISA is a T>'pe 3 Ag/Urban wetland (PEMIC) dominated by reed canary grass with canail, green bulrush and sedge located west of Basin 13. There is an upland meadow area between Basins 13 and 13A. The upland adjacent to this basin is dominated by common ragweed and white clover with other species between the basin and the soybean field. Basin 13B did not meet the wetland criteria of soils, hydrology and vegetation. The soils were the same as those found in the adjacent soybean field with no mottling or gleying. While there was some ponded water on the ground surface, the saturation was only on the top 3 inches of the soil. The soil was dry below 3 inches. Vegetation included white and red clover, barnyard grass, giant ragweed and spikerush. It is our opinion that the wet conditions are due to the extreme rainfall amounts experienced this year. Basin 14 is a Type 2.3 Ag/Urban wetland (PEMIA/B) consisting of spikerush. softstem bulrush and reed canary grass among other plant species. While this basin did not appear on the NWI map nor on the 1/2 section aerial photo, there was enough saturation below the soil surface for this basin to meet the wetland criteria. There was a zone of upland vegetation between this basin and the soybean field similar to other basins. Basin 15 is a Type 2.6 Ag/Urban wetland (PSSI/EMIC) dominated by willows in the southern portion with cattail, spikerush and softstem bulrush in the north end. The adjacent upland is soybean field with an upland plant species fringe in the southern portion that consists of Canada thistle and smooth brome grass. Only the willow area was shown on the NWI map and 1/2 section aerial photo. Basin 15A is a Type 2.3 Ag/Urban wetland (PEMIC) that is dominated by reed canary grass with sedge, river bulrush, cattail and smartweed. The adjacent upland is the soybean field with an upland fringe similar to other basins. As with Basin 15. only a portion of this basin was shown on the NWI map and 1/2 section aerial photo. Basin 16 is a Type 2.3 Ag/Urban wetland (PEMIC) not shown on the NWI map or 1/2 section aerial photo. This basin had standing water with soils that were saturated below the ground I I 1 I 1 i I 1 1 I J 1 J 3 1 1 J I surface so the hydrology criteria was met. In addition, the vegetation is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation such as cattail, spikerush and some softstem bulrush. Basins 17 and 18 were found to not meet the wetland criteria. Both bas ns are dominated by non wetland plant species such as red and white clover, and common ragweed among other plant species. The soils in both of these basins were the same as in the adjacent uplands. There was no saturation, mottling or gleying in these basins. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Activities which impact or potentially impact wetlands are currently regulated at several levels of government. Federal (Corps of Engineers). State (Department of Natural Resources. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). Watershed, and Local Governmental Unit agencies may all be involved in reviewing a single project. To avoid project delays associated with wetland regulations, it is essential that applicants acquire necessary permits from all jurisdictional agencies before imtiatmg activities. Any grading or filling in wetland areas may not commence until all permits pertaining to wetlands have been obtained. Violation of wetland regulations has resulted in substantial civil and criminal penalties. Local ordinances may regulate wetland modifications such as brush and tree removal and burning in addition to grading and filling. Permils granled may have special provisic is and condilions which need lo be followed. It is the responstbility ot the applicant to be aware of and informed about all special condilions and provisions within the permit. These provisions and condilions may include construction monitoring, photo-documentation, plant community establishment, agency inspections and extended post-construction monitoring. Failure to heed these conditions may be considered a violation of permit conditions subjecting the permittee to civil and criminal penalties. It is the responsibil.ty of the permittee to see that all permit conditions are complied with. i: 1 If i « ■ ■ f ■ I I I I I I I I During construction it is recommended that proper erosion and sediment control measures be implemented to prevent excess sediment from entering wetlands. The establishment of an undisturbed vegetation buffer zone is recommended along the upland side of Natural and Pristine wetland margins to act as a filter for those higher quality wetlands. This filter reduces the nutrient and sediment load of sheet flow stormwater runoff that enters »he wetland. Since Ag/Urban wetlands in their current state are already degraded, a higher level of protection may not be necessary. These basins are ideal candidates for restoration. Utilized water bodies may not need buffer zones due to the fact that they are designed for purposes such as cattle watering and stormwater retention. Erosion and sediment control during construction is recommended. Site-Specific Since most of the basins on this site are Ag/Urban basins found in agricultural fields, the quality of the basins is not as high as those found in non-cropped areas. Basins 6 and 7 are of higher quality and are worth protecting at a higher level due to their more naniral condition in the maple - basswood forest area. There are several large green ash trees located in the wooded portion of the Basin 7 that we would recommend be left standing due to the uncommon occurrence of naturally occurring green ash specimens this size in this area. 'f-'; 1 i.iB si m mTABLE 1-1 THE ORONO SITE WETLAND DESCRIPTION INFORMATION ' • Appendix E >. From Soil Survey of Hennepin County ’ • From Ilydric Soils manual __ m mTABLE 1-2 THE ORONO SITE WETLAND DESCRIPTION INFORMATIONA«.Welland Type On NWl Map (Y/N)QualityClass'DominantVegetation Soils^Present IlydricSoil’(Y/N)WellandConditionsMetNo.Circ. 39 CowardinI2A2.3 PF.MIC Y Ag/Urb Reed Canary Gr.tis. Softstem Bulrush Glencoe Y VI2B2.3 PEMIC Y Ag/Urb Reed Canary Grass, Softstem Bulrush, Green Glencoe Y YDuhush 13 3.4 PEMIC/F Y Ag/Urb Reed Canary Grass Bulrush, Cattail Glencoe Y Y 1 I3A 3 PEMIC Y‘Ag/Urb Reed Canary Grass Glencoe Y Y 13B N —White Clover, Barnyard Grass Ijc Sueur N _____N_____ 14 2.3 PEMIA/B N Ag/Urb Spikerush, Softstem Bulrush Glencoe Y 1 Y IS 2.6 PSSI/EMIC V Ag/Urb Willow, Spikerush, Reed Canary Grass Glencoe Y Y ISA 2.3 PEMIC V Ag/Urb Reed Canary Grass, Sedge Glencoe Y N 16 2.3 PEMIC N Ag/Urb Catuil. Spikerush Hamel Y Y 17 N Red Clover. Wliite Clover, Common Ijc Sueur N N Ragweed Glencoe Y 18 N .....Common Ragweed, White Clover Lc Sueur N N Glencoe Y ' • Appendix E * - From Soil Survey of Hennepin County ’ • From Hydric Soils manual * Welland Delineated in field is larger dun what is shown on NWl map m ' •----- 9 •4 ?s* IP J.L. n I * • I /3/ 1 liil 1 j Ijiis; i'iii z' » * 5 O « ' ■ S a O rl-,o V / ^ . ‘“M y .\\ V • ' \ ' t*! I ! / V ^ A ’ • • ' \ "'Jt ( ^ 4 ♦•I V ' • :i*l •#• 'cvi *a , . . ^ A a A__ I- ---- KtT^ f----------- r^« • ♦,ViV*^ '1 ——----------------■ ................................—»r>. icviC'5 V* • • I • a /; j •ei»« <ii D^:i At* ' ' OJ ’ •*» , lc.-i..i\. .fCitvtiiv.-'-*''* \ ^ ^ • "/ I*. I J /.. j< -•i» I ^ / X ^ I •;«« 'S \ll ■/ X ««4«t I f / / ■ ■•■•• ■«»• V ^V‘iY lUI r'\' -1 i t \ •«•< V XT \ ■\ •t<«* "I ’ ^;:.A ^ • '«•• I X-. I • *' > L>- • */A E -•an %^ •^/. I. |■•t (J-;.: // //^ • t<**urn, (je -f* of'S*i A ''x n V \' '"^ -I. X u\ i:: r N 2 •r«t ^ ia ♦ ...... g )’|5? ■?,-»< t Hm ; ..i—' \u i. a P ^ I ;i'il ?ii: 1=1 H r. v» M {{ CD CO CD CD (J1 Ak u« u ^ cno o p) yt yt n b M a» » ? sr p ' -.1 hi r;.v? • •■■. .'-j-*;. .'V, » iliV»Vv7*-fe r .vJ': mi lil® .Pl=Ali-5>—“ «T- - ■ -— .1- — r/*: Jr.r^'/''' „■ .. . .•* ^TOilV^- ■ P *.il ;■ ..^,, v-.t|f$ir.5f?hr^-s!pKtepS^II piiMK;-;;;:^-t:; ^'1', /. li313 <n ii-ri.'. i{^ 1 •X)■•A ^ ir 1(’ ■ . / « » V •r.: i:;’* ■' '■ ’i' -./A-'J'v. n : ■ VliJMliv ••'j .*• V'.*-. -V* JBB , . •-, *ylfJTr: L■ f - I V pi V\1 :• iiV-*iie L ' ■ v’ l i. .:v. w M‘),viwl M »jiiim mf: ,-. ;■:^J ,* ;■»■'ss® mm i.^:* •:-'-a^> ifi! '■ - • • •' nirfip: M V?' ! • -y ^ / If itajtt',;! l*f!l i'«" '■:■ iiiit'- :ikYV * fVA’ : '*♦ .^ ♦ felM mm Wm. % ■iflli ■ft >v- .■3'I r» ■■ ■- ^'i «•. 1 ii?.\ • 'V. ii' -L ’ *> . ^V -,-^1 • rr. vv> ly^ •>’;^t-vr '' ** * V ••* 7 .rca V '-t •$*2p *='i '.' '""■\.-vs<-' . - •;..1 ijaBBri: t“ I* 1- • V.«••»•:> - r ♦.;•. • • ■I'i'i ti fcvi- iWil" iW>■':> J V. r "7 V. T.r-^>^/ vV s;:v i j'-^V.-.' ' -or •N'-- p ■» • iK 1V • '1 •. •V I . *y • IPWjO wIm P^lr^ w j~‘.-V ..»,<•-.>• ■>. 1 . I ■' *■ ’ isi^aixf? A'-v ;, 'ir J ii’ ^ f^«,» ^: Hi I.»-.‘.p". - ij f' .'•! * .' ■ \ ■I »( *‘ ^ -t I'lJ • '*., Fif), •55^ ' /'.r. 1 ' \ mr. *v--;T-, . W •' y V ; • V >•: -i-lr .: . -v-s'r'A. .!> • ' ;' , '• :v<ai?V' -'SS3«iS?K7v; -.; 'fcigfe.-. ^ ;«1 •»:. V : V . \ --■' I ^.■ \ f ' ':S J\' - ‘ - '■' ' ■. ;•".■y'x,.r^Y * .., ‘': ■ - A-**- ..........' -.- S V ' * I * • - « \ Y ‘{'a. - ■■ .'vi. X \ fe^'S' • V ‘ \ 1'“'^ '■/>'.V \ 9,r^ \ \ • .•T>f>M'i • iL__ft 1 . ' _ —ir* f>Mn .<* m !••:• - I >-• ■^ V 0 w\ V ■•" '- 'jt ^ V . t I i . '■ •4 \ .*-.£it. :•.*<*. /i • 1 1- •j- \ r*«* ’'^vV *0 -<;; \ ....' « -.. !f'.)IS I ■•^• -I,.. i-tiwi % !&?' !.• • 'm^m 5''i- ‘ " ■ ■•^V ' iar^f<. ^ -•.#.U - iV I Vri« fli'':y4 tr^.v ' •.j*’' "} ;'>^r mm '■'♦':^:>-rr;,-is:> 14’ M: mm5T\ -./r . r^cil^K N>.'; J '-1 ‘» * #^«. \' - MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Charles Nolan Jr., Sandra Smith. Stephen Peterson. Janice Berg, and Dale Lindquist. The following represented the City staff: Assistant Building & Zoning Administrator Michael G-'^ffron and Recorder Lin Vee. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (#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 Certificate of Mailing were noted. Frederick and David White were present. Gaffron e.xplained that this was a request for a one lot subdivision. A parcel is proposed to be split off from the lot with an existing house which would be 2+ acres leaving a 17 acre parcel for future development. This application was before the City Council about four years ago md 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 ol 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. There 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 times and they teel that it would cost more do what the Citv asks than the land is worth. Scliroeder stated that what the Planning Co.ninission 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 that originally they proposed three iots bui the C-.ty would not approve that unless interior roads were installed. When a building permit tor the existing house was taken out, three lots were established in the area and now they can t even get one lot trom that same area. Gaffron e.xplained that if the applicants wish to make any changes from the original approval resolution, a different application with a ditferent fee structure would have to be tiled. 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 Citv denied that request. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#1) #1875 FREDERICK AND DAVID WHITE - CONT. Schroeder reiterated that the Planning Commission was 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 tha» the Court could decide in February. Gaffron explained that a court case is pending because a purchase agreement in 1984 required that a portion of the 17 acres be sold off. In order to do that, the subdivision process must be followed witl. 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 proceed to Council in the current form. If this form is not agreeable, Schroeder suggested the application be tabled so the Whites could work further with the Zoning staff. 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 allowing 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 with 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. ME'OrrES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1995 m JAMES W. OGLAND/DONALD J. STOYKE 3345/3339 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VACATION OF ROAD - PUBLIC HEARINCJ - 7:19 P.M. - 7:50 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Ccnificate of Mailing were noted. James Ogland and Donald Stoyke were present. Gaffron referred to a letter received from the DNR today that was handed out to Planning Commission members as additional information to the packet. He e.xplained that this application IS a request to vacate a portion of Hillside Place, a 25' wide dedicated right-of-way which probably goes back 75-100 years. This e.xtends from Dakota Rail to the shore of Crystal Bay. Within that strip is a paved, travelled right-of-way called Crystal Bay Road that doesn’t show on the maps. The City has maintained that road for many years and it is the sole access for many houses m 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 is.sue with the DNR letter is that by State statute, the City is required to notify the DNR of any vacation of a public tighl-of-way on lakeshore property. Schroeder read the letter addressed to Mike Gaffron from Manha Reger of the DNR which was received by fax on October 18, 1993. Jim Ogland, 3345 Crystal Bay Road, stated that he and Don Stoyke, 3339 Crystal Bay Road, were requesting vacation of this fire lane, in which case the land would revert to the adjacent propeity owners. He noted that the fire ianes were originally platted to provide access to the lake for water in ca.se of fire at the cottages. At one time, diere v;ere three such tire lanes but two others have already been vacated. Ogland stated that he at».j ni: parenis have 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 tule for thv. adjacent property owners. He added that the land is quite steep with several large ees with liriited and obsolete use. He has also talked with John Gerhardson, Public Work- director, who had no objections to the vacation as long as a sewer easement was granted. Ogland stated that although the DNR has the right to be notified, the City has the authority to make a final decision. He felt that bec:*t.se 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 felt the DNR would always take the position to keep land for public use. MLNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18. 1993 {HI) JAMES \V. OGLAND/DONALD J. STOYKE - CONT. Smith asked if there were other access points in the vicinity. Ogland responded there was an access 600’ to the west and in Spring Park. Smith asked about other properties that had been vacated in this area. Gaffron e.xplained that there was a 1969 vacation of a neighboring property but there was very little information in City files regarding the process. Warren Paschke, 3349 Crystal Bay Road, stated that he owned 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 for residents on that road because of the width oi the road. There are fire hydrants available for fire fighting and he did not feel fire fighting equipment could reach the lake. Paschke noted that 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 ownership of the propeny. A vacation with granting ot"ea.>ements would be simpler than the City maintaining ownership of an island that was 38 ’ X 25’. Smith asked if tliere were any intentions to develop the property. Ogland confirmed there were not. Lindquist noted that no sewer easement currently exists but typically a 10’ ea.sement 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 tnis 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 u.se. Schroeder agreed with Paschke as a practical matter but legally it may be different. Schroeder noted that if vacating were approved, the Planning Commission would have to tind that it was in the public interest to do so. The letter from the DNR must be considered. lie felt if the DNR had a chance to look at this property, they may take a different view. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNLNG COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18. 1993 (#2) JAMES \V. OGLAND/DONALD J. STOYKE - CONT. Ogland stated that vacation would put the property back on the tax roles which would be best for the public interest. He does not like the encumbrances on the property because they don ’t know if they should maintain it or not. Smith asked about similar vacations on two neighboring properties. Gaffron explained that one goes back to 1969 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 sl;.ce 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 tlie possibility of vacating everything except the portion between the lake and the landward side of the road. He questioned if any problems w'ould be solved by vacating everything back from 10’ off 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 within the legalities of the system. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Nolan, to table Application #1876 to allow th"! applicants. City and the DNR time to discuss the DNR concerns. Ayes 6, nays 0. (#3) #1874 GARY DESANTIS/SAILORS WORLD 1955 SHORELIIVE DRIVE, VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:52 P.M. - 8:28 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Gaiy 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 Planning Commission were interested in allowing more hardcover or the existing hardcover to be changed from grade-level to a larger structure. The character of these structures ,'«hould be considered vs. existing buildings. DeSantis explained the recent histoiy of the property. Ownershin ot the prope ty was gained 1 1/2 years ago. They felt the property vvould be more valuable witn a building on it. It was a long process obtaining a building permit. There is no storage in the building or on the property for storage of lawn mowers or boating accessories. He expressed his concern over MINLTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 m) mi4 GARY DESANTIS/SAILORS WORLD - CONT. hardcover noting that some ol'f-site parking had been secured at the Minnetonka An Center. He felt that it may be better to take a couple parking spaces for placement of the storage structure than to attempt to place them on a grassed area. Peterson asked if ihe applicant was aware oi DNR comments on this application. DeSantis was iiot but they were included as part of the original packet. Nolan asked what the intended schedule of completion of improvements was for the property. DeSantis responded that they had three years to complete the commercial site plan and that time has not expired. The rainy season this summer has caused problems completing the parking lot and landscaping. DeSantis explained that the structures are moveable with no foundations and could be considered temporary or peimanent. Nolan observed piles of lumbei. a tractor, ro ;.ng timbers and a dumpster on the property and questioned the standard practice of operation regarding use ot these landscape areas. The City has desiijnated certain areas yet Nolan noted most of these areas had some type of coverage on them. i.e. boat, construction materials, etc. DeSantis responded that the marina is in a winter storage mode and has the ability to use the property for winter storage. Landscape timbers will be removed when the landscape contractor has time 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. Nolan added that was the point he was trying to make. Even if the landscapinu were complete, w'ould there still be materials left in landscaped areasIs this the standard of operation the Planning Commission could expect to see in the future.^ DeSan", did not feel he should be criticized for not completing the improvements. Part of the landscaping price was removal of the old timbers and the contractor has not completed that pore n. Schroeder noted there were worthwhile improvements. The B-2 zone has been an issue tor consideration by the City for some time. He has concern over adding more hardcover in the form of storage. He did not see renting .storage space as part of the overall plan. He suggested storage could occur across the street or on some other part ot the property turther from the lake. He also expressed concern that aesthetically the storage buildings would not be consistent with the existing buildings. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANTSENG COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#3) #1874 GARY DESANTIS/SAILORS WORLD - CONT. Lindquist asked to have the 75' setback area defined and noted his objection to hardcover in the 0-75’ setback area. Peterson aiao expressed concern over adding more structure to this already developed property. He suggested looking at parking spaces 35, 36. 37 and 38 if the structures were to be placed on the property. He felt the DNR was implying that the structure may be acceptable if placed over existinc hardcover. Nolan stated that these structures tend to "look bad" after a period of time even though they are galvanized. He asked if DeSantis would consider any other type of structure. DeSantis said Uiey would but explained tnat one of the strong points of these structures was the longevity of weathering. He felt that maintaining the building w'ould not be a problem since it would be similar to some boat maintenance. Berg asked if the structures wou^d be leased. DeSantis confirmed that they could be with an option to buy. He stated dock boxes do not prc-vide sufficient volume for storage. Schroeder 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 tlie applicant, it may be i workable compromise. DeSantis stated it vvould depend on what could be attached. There is a need to store pumps. Currently the shed houses only electrical equipment. He questioned if he would gain enough 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 tor two storage structures. The proposal location is unacceptable and there does not seem to be enough ot a hardship. DeSantis a.sked 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 of the building and hardcover are still issues. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETLNG 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 the site and it would provide some storage, probably not all, but would be an impro\ement. Gaffron stated that if the application were denied and sent to Council, Council could send it back to Planning Commission for further consideration. Tabling the application would bring it back to Planninc 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 was 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 locations. Peterson and Lindquist withdrew their motion. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson, to table Application #1874 for a request for hardcover ana lakeshore 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:.^0 P.M. - 8:40 P.M. The 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 entryway 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 garaue. The addition to the house is still proposed with 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 breezeway MINLTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (;^4) #1878 CHARLES AND SHIRLEY PYLE Pyle explained *hat the architect redesigned this with the architecture of the roof. He thought some reduction would be possible. The garage could not be moved right next to the house because there are bedroom w indows on that side of the house. He confirmed that the exterior of the garage would be redone at the time of the remodeling project. Gaffron noted the breezeway could be shortened up with less sidewalk and more green space to help reduce hardcover. Pyle stated he would be agreeable to some reduction in the bree/.ew'ay as well as some asphalt in 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 the breezeway for a total hardcover reduction of approximately 250 s.f. The new design will be brought to Council. Other conditions recommended by staff arc still appropriate other than the change in percentage. Ayes 6, nays 0. (#5) ALLEN AND KATHLEEN BAXKE 1127 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - VAR1.ANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:42 P.M. - 9:05 P.M. The Affidavit o"" Tublication and Cenificatc of Mailing were noted. Allen and Kathleen Bakke were present. Gaffron explained lliat this application 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 confinr.ed that the existing deck was refurbished in 1985 with an additional deck to the front. He stated he had conversation with Tom Jacobs, the Budding Ofticial at that time, who told him no permit was necessary to refurbish the deck. He teels there were inaccurate surveys which IS why the fence w'as not within 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 would be moved when they left the property. There was discussion about the accuracy of the survey submitted with the application. It was determined tliat the survey submitted, dated October 6, 1993, is accurate. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#5) ALLEN AND KATHLEEN BAKKE - CONT. Noian asked about the intricate pipe structure on the roof. Bakke e.xplained it was for solar heating of the pool. 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. Peterson thought the deck should be approved since it was done so long ago but the fence should be moved to comply w-ith the lot line. The ether fence had already been removed. Schroeder asked if there were any other removals possible since there is still an excess of hardcover. Gaffron explained that in the 250-500 ’ zone from the lake, only 30% of the properi} is allowed to be in hard surface which includes driveways, sidewalks, retaining walls, landtcaped 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 e.xisted prior to the deck addition, now 35% e.xisis. Bakke stated the turnaround was not necessary as they were able to back out. The shed currently occupies that space but will be moved so this portion of paved area could be removed. Smith asked about any precedents being set regarding alter-the-fact variances for decks. Peterson 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 #1879 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 tee. Smith referred to an earlier application (Sieffs) which was tabled because the Commission did not feel they could approve 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 Siett application such as: n ii. > 1 . The Sieffs had very intense hardcover/decking - probably twice that as Bakke s. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PI.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING HEL D OCTOBER 18, 1993 (ffS) ALLEN AND KATHLEEN BAKKE - CONT. 2.By taking the removals proposed at Bakke's. they come very close to conformance of the hardcover requirements. 3. Fewer concessions were granted by the Sieffs. 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 likely 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 coiuersation with the Building Official at the time the construction wr;- done. (#6) #1880 THOMAS Al^’D 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 of an addition. Schroeder asked about removing the fence. Regnier confinr.cd 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 waiting 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 Thomas 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 RE\TEW - PUBLIC HEARING John O’Sullivan requested to be moved to the end ot the Agenda MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNLNG COMMISSION MEETLNG HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (;^8) ^1883 STEVEN M. ENGLLTsD 3855 CHERRY AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:13 P.M. - 9:35 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Cenificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Steve Englund were present. Gaffron e.xplained this was a lot area variance for determining the buildability of a lot that is 0.37 acre. The Zoning Code requires .5 acre. Although 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 consultation with the Public Works Department on the neighboring Anderson property. There are mature trees on the property and it is not a designated wetland according to the maps. The propeny 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 would be proposed. The property has been assessed for sewer and a well would be required. A 14’ alley to the rear would not be necessary to vacate. 15% lot coverage is allowed. Lot sizes vaiy in the neighborhood and mis lot is not inconsistent with the area. Lindquist asked why Englund had no proposed house plan. Englund responded that he wanted to be sure the lot was buildable before incurring the e.xpense 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 house and the driveway would be level with the road. Some berming may be necessar>'. Englund noted that fill required would be approximately 5-6’ in height. A neighbor questioned what was being proposed and exprej».sed concern over previous water problems in tliis area. Englund confirmed there would be no grading on the back ot the 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 fill 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 construction, it can be brought in as part of the building permit. Smith asked if how the fill was brought in could affect the drainage. Gaffron responded that a grading plan would be required before any till was brought onto the property. 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNLNG COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (/?8) #1883 STEVEN M. ENGLUND - CONT. Lindquist expressed his concern over the drainage issue and cautioned the applicant as he proceeds with development of the property. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, to approve Application #1883 for Steven Englund, 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. Aves 6, navs 0. (#9) #1884 ORVILLE FISHER 475 OXFORD ROAD, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 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 complaint 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 issued 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 0-75 ’ zone. Violation 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 look at the proposed restoratiou plaii 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 w'ere 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 to 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 w'ere removed but they would be replaced with trees (as large as possible) that could survive in a low level, high water table area. A boxelder is considered a weed tree that can ’t be purchased commercially so more expensive trees will be replaced. i MLNUTES OF THE ORONO PL/VNNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#9) #1884 ORVILLE FISHER - CONT. Melvin J. Peterson, who formerly lived on the property and is technically the current owner as the closing has not yet taken place, expressed his concern over what impact the cunent problems could have on the November closing. He did not know about any of the activity in the yard or tree cutting. Fisher noted the title is a transfer for a Contract for Deed. Schroeder noted that typically the Planning Commission deals with the owner of the property, 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 tull\ 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. Schroeder asked how he would gam views by cutting only trees froin 75’ back since there would still be trees in the 0-75 ’ area. Fisher respv)nded 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. He mieasured from the waterline with a tape measure. Gaffron explained this would not work because the water is acmally lower than normal at a 929 elevation. Schroeder pointed out that had Fisher cut only 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 they would be Ash and Linden trees as tall as those taken out and 4-5" in diameter. Schroeder asked if all 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 trees 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 ’ zone civen the nature of this particular issue. Gaffron felt it could be tied to mitigation of the area. Peterson asked how staff felt about the planting proposal. Gaffron responded that there had e.xisted understory and screening, and that the replantings proposed might have a different character which might be considered good or bad. If the root system is still in place, some of the understory may grow back which would be better 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-tw'ig dogwood. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18. 1993 (#9) #1884 ORVILLE FISHER - CONT. Gaffron explained that the landscaper had suggested gray-twig dogwood as a species that 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 wanted by clear cutting the area and then only replacing a few trees. This is similar to the previous discussion about 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. This problem is really only paying a little e.xtra money to get what you wanted in the first place. Fisher 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 acmally provide more screening than the lower boxelder trees that were previously there. From the house, the Fishers actually looked over the boxelder trees while the new trees will be much taller and larger. They will be placed in the exact location ot the previous trees. Schroeder thought it would be a long time before the trees would be large enough to impact the views. Lindquist asked what could be done other than replant the larger trees and add some understory Schroeder 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 stated the project could become quite costly. Schroeder 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 of plantings to replace what was destroyed. Gaffron suggested the landscaper. Dale Gustalson, would be able to help resolve that issue. Peterson stated that the Planning Commission was being asked to consider the atter-the-lact variance, not plan 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 understory to come close to restoring the area as it was. It was moved by Schroeder. seconded by Nolan, to deny Application #1884 for Orville Fisher, 475 Oxford Road, for an after-the fact variance related to clear cutting in the restricted 0-75 zone. Staff is directed to work with the Fisher ’s land.scape engineer to develop a plan that would . PUBLIC MINLTES 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 understory so as to duplicate or improve what existed prior to the clear cutting. This plan should be complete prior to the next Council meeting so the plantings can be done as soon 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. (#7) #1882 JOHN M. O’SULLIVAN/O’SULLIVAN’S 2420 SHADYWOOD ROAD - COMMERCIAL SITE PL/VN REVIEW HEARING 10:15 P..M. - 10:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. John O’Sullivan was present. Gaffron e.xplained that in 1987 the City did a commercial site plan review for this property. One of the City's iv.,uir.-iucnts 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 propeny owner feels he should not be required to do so. This application is essentially a request for an amendment to the commercial site plan approved previously. Schroeder asked why this application was before the Planning Commission. Gatfron explained that it is part of the appeal process stated in the Code when the applicant does not want to comply with City requirements. Because Mound is a contract city, the appeal process is to the City Council, not to the State Fire Marshal. O’Sullivan gave a summar>' of his position on how this situation came about. He noted in February of 1988 he was given a permit that stated he complied with all conditions. He indicated there never has been any striping or signage indicating a fire lane and he has operated 5 1/2 years without these. O-Sullivan coniinued that on July 15, 1993 an Orono police oftlcer tagged one of O'Sullivan’s einplovees 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 would not tag anyone for parking there and it wasn’t a legal fire lane. O’Sullivan noted that the citation ended up ^ing revoked but it became an issue with the Chief, and this resulted in a letter from Stephen Sullivan, Chief of Police, to O’Sullivan, dated July 28, 1993. (O’Sullivan gave copies of this letter to Planning Cotnniission members.) .MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18. 1993 (#7) #1882 JOHN M. O’StXLIVAN/O'SLLLlVAN’S - CONT. O’Sullivan's response, in a letter dated August 10, 1993 to Steve Sullivan, included the statement "1 am not aware of any officers parking in our fire lane and my night managers have also confirmed this. We do not have a legal fire lane and only consider the area directly in front of our entrance/e.xit doors 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 assumed that the letter he sent would not be shared with the officers. He stated he felt the officers were getting some 'unfair heat". He noted that he also copied the letter to the Orono Police Officers Union rcpre.sentative so they would know O’Sullivan ’s feelings on the matter. O’Sullivan continued that this lead to an interoffice memo dated August 9 from Officer L-irry Tomcheck to Chief Sullivan regarding the research he did as to whether O’Sullivan ’s had a fire lane. Apparently Tomcheck concluded that there is no code for it or no need for a fire lane. O’Sullivan stated the ne.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 stated there was no code mandating a fire lane and it was ludicrous to impose it on O’Sullivan as other stations did not have fire lanes, and Babb told O’Sullivan it would 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 for the past 5 1/2 years would be upset when they were cited for parking in that area. O’Sullivan indicated that on approximately September 25, he had a phone conversation with Jerry Babb regarding the past issues and asked Babb for a wriuen letter confirming the tact that no fire lane was necessary. On October 5, O’Sullivan received a letter trom the Mound Fire Chief regarding the designation of a fire lane. There was nothing in tlie letter that said anything about a City or State code that would require the tire lane. The letter was signed by the Fire Chief and two Fire Marshals, one of them being Jerry Babb. He questioned who had caused these people to change their minds but did not call either one of them. O’Sullivan noted he then talked witli some members of the Orono Council as he expected fu^er problems over this issue. On September 24 he filed this application with the City since he dic.n t know how else to proceed. 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#7) nmi JOHN ^\. O’SULLIVAN/O'SULLrVAN’S - CONT. O’Sullivan then distributed to the Planning Commission a letter, dated October 18, 1993, to John O’Sullivan from 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 somethinc in the building plans, but said to me that Tom Jacobs, the former building inspector, may have placed a fire lane on the building but he is unauthorized to do so. " O’Sullivan noted he confirmed that with Don Bryce. Mouid Fire Chief. He also wanted Bryce to e.xplain why he needed a fire lane for "life safety" beiuuse he felt they 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 pennit application and variance did require a fire lane. O’Sullivan stated that the code the Chief quotes indicates that the fire lane can only be designated b\ 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 without a fire lane. 2. He contends they never had a fire lane because Tom Jacobs did not have the authority to impo.se one on the site plan. The plan was not approved by the Mound Fire Department. Immediate competitors do not have fire lanes. He feels he is being discriminated against with a required fire lane since other businesses do not have this requirement. Surrounding communities do not require fire lanes, including Wayzata, Plymouth, Shorewood, Tonka Bay, and F.xcelsior. Pictures were passed around of neighboring businesses that do not have designated fire lanes. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 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 police department. O’Sullivan also indicated he found out that the letter had not been written by Bryce but by Mike Palm, one of the Fire Marshals. MINUTES OF THE OI DNO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#7) #1882 JOHN M. O’SULLIVAN/O’SULLIVAN’S - CONT. O’Sullivan went on to say that Bryce stopped at O’Sullivan ’s at 5:30 p.m. today and asked if he would agree with striping a small area in front of the windows. He did not agree because of the principle of the issue when no one 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 overlooks the gas pumps. Peterson asked if O’Sullivan had ever received a registered letter from the Chief of Police of Orono stating that a fire lane was required on the property. O'Sullivan responded that he had not. Peterson then asked Gaffron to look at Orono Code Section 9.34, .Section 7 (C) where there is discussion about the Fire Marshal and the Mound Fire Chief, Peterson quoted. "The Chief of Police is hereby empowered to order the establishment, designation and maintenance of fire lanes on public or private property wherever and to whatever extent as he may determine is reasonably neces.sary to ensure open and unobstructed eme.^-ncy access. In this determination, the Police Chief (not the Fire Chief) may confer with and accept the recommendations of the Building Official or the Fire Chief of the applicable Fire Service District. The F»re Lane Order shall be in writing and shall be served in person or by registered letter upon the property owner of record." Peterson suggested that this states 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 that Chief Sullivan had not taken the issue up with him but had let others deal with the problem. Schroeder thought the requirement for fire lanes would have to be consistent and should not be applied inconsistently to the detriment of the business owner. Schroeder asked if a 16 ’ section of white striping wt)uld solve this matter. O Sullivan responded that it would for the Fire Chief Schroeder stated this appears to be an issue that tlie Fire Chief and Police Chief must sort out and resolve. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, to reler the issue ot lire lanes to Council and the Chief of Police for his opinion regarding Section 9.34 of Section 7 (C) and determination if, in fact, there is a need for a fire lane or not. Schroeder added that all other similar situations should also be reviewed. Ayes 6. nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANMNC. COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18. 1993 (#7) /^1882 JOHN M. O SULLIVAN/O’SLLLIVAN’S - COST. O'Suilivan 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 WATERTOW’N ROAD - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION - NO ACTION REQUIRED Dick Putnam (Tandem Properties). Jim Deanovic (Peter Andrea Company). Mark Gronberg (property owner) and Robert Hare (broker from Burnett Realt\ ) were present. Gaffron e.xplained this was a sketch plan review for development of 130 acres at Old Crystal Bay Road and Watenown Road. Some concerns to be considered are access issues, wetlands, trails and the historic significance of the propeny. Putnam explained that on the west side ot Old Crystal Ba% Road is the Coltin 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 of the old homestead where there are trees and the arena. The Coffin property has a number of fields with some forests and a number of wetland areas. When the property was bought, the City did ni't show any wetlands on the map. Other agencies define these wetland areas differently. Putnam stated the plan connects the two properties by continuing the existing public road from Old Crystal Bay 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 ot the historic site including the barn, 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 Line. That propeny has been donated by the Dickey’s. A trail would also be considered along Old Crystal Bay in an easement over the right-of-way. On the Coffin property', two cul-dc-sac roads ate being considered because the wetlands and woods make it difficult to design a looped road. Two acre lots are being 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 MINXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELP OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#10) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES/PETER ANDREA COMPANY - CONT The Park Commission felt it would make more sense to restore the existing home rather than the barn to use for an interpretive center because it would be less expensive. Gaffron commented on the public vs. private road access issues. Putnam expressed his surprise when they 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, where he lives was plowed bv the City which was a cul-de-sac and the City wouldn’t maintain this tvpe of road The 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 constructed to public standards but maintained as private. Topography, existing homes and proposed lots will determine where the roads will 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 no 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 sacred grounds exist. Two medicine men. one from Montana and the other from Canada, have already been to the site and detennined the same area as sacred ground. Smith asked if members of 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 Native 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 tormed who has 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 determine the stams 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. Pumam explained that has been dropped from the plan tor two reasons- 1) They were unsure if the soils were useable in the pasture area. 2) They did not have enough infomiation when they first considered it. Feedback about having a riding arena at this location was not positive. Smith asked '‘'hat the plans were for screening the lots that abut the Luce Line on the Co in 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 maintain it financially. The Park Commission has indicated there is not money available tor maintenance 31 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18. 1993 (#10) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES/PETER ANDREA COMPANY - CONT Deanovic thought that it 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 barn kept at least in its present condition. Putnam commented that there were other considerations for the bam site. Parking has been a problem for users of the Luce Line and this site could be a possibility to provide parking and some use of the barn. Smith asked if the DNR would be interested in working on the trail idea connecting to the Luce Line. Putnam stated that as a regional trail, this would not meet the criteria but as an ottshoot for the municipality it would make a lot of sense. Smith asked if the desicnated trails were on outlots so they could be convened to roads if that was ever desired. Putnam responded that discussions had taken place with agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Depanment and Corps of Engineers to create a drainage system of creeks and ponds that do not currently exist. The trail would be 25*30’ wide and publicly dedicated but not a road. Smith asked if the location where ilie sweat lodges are could be protected. Putnam responded that there is no significance to where they are placed, that was just the most convenient location. Putnam stated that as developers they would like to try to create a path so that everyone benefits but if the City says that path has to be subtracted from the 2-acre lot area, it may not be worthwhile. For the person owning a lot and selling, it may be better not to have the trail. However, for the benefit of the whole area, a trail makes a lot ot sense. Schroeder asked the stams of the trail along Old Ciy stal Bay Road. Gaftron thought things had come to a halt and did not know how the agreements with the property owners along the trail had mmed out. Money continues to be a problem. Peterson asked what the feelings were about the possible choice of a southern corridor for Highw-ay 12 as it would greatly impact their property. Putnam tclt there was some risk but added that development could discourage this route as the final choice. Peterson stated that the proposal looks g<3od but has a concern with the wetland issues. How will it be handled if there is no septic site available on some of the lots and how will the lots be designed since there are w'etlands scattered throughout the property.^ L. ^^NUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18. 1993 (i^lO) mil TANDEM PROPERTEES/PETER ANDREA COMPANY - CONT. Deancvic responded that a large group had visited the site including representatives of the Watershed District. City staff, Anny Coips of Engineers, BWSR and Steve Schirmers for septic sites. In the end. Ci:y ordinances will be a determining factor. Deanovic thought 1.1 mitigation may be possible. The Watersned representative felt this was an opportunity for improvements. One of the main issues is that wl at was classified as wetlands in the past differs from cunent definitions. Most of the wetlands were clas.sified as Type 1 . Gaffron confirmed that under MPCA standards there arc certain types cf 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 che 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 cn the Coffin property of 62 acres, if the City maps were used lot sizes would be 2.-7 acres. If the wt.lands were subtracted, lot sizes would be reduced to 2.08 acres. The Cirv’ 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 oP' of the two acres. At this time it is a 1:1 replacement but alter 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 world have to be replaced somewhere else. This could be done on site, within the Watershed District or witnin 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? Putnam 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-acie requirement may t.reate a problem on some of the lots w'ith the wetlands considered and meeting the 75’ setback frem the wetlands for septic svsteins. I rarfi iTi ■ i f i ^^r- MINLTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#10) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES/PETER ANDREA COMPANY - CONT. Dcanovic 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 disclosure. Gaffron explained there were designated septic sites in that planned development of 1-1.25 acre sites. However, when the sites were developed, there were different views of where the house should be placed, etc. so it was difficult to protect the septic sites. Peterson opined that it may be the best alternative to replace wetlands in Medina if the ultimate coal 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 in another area. 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. He thought some five acre lots might 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 arc involved but also aesthetics. The 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 tor lots in the Orono area are looking for space between their neighbors yet want to be part oi a community. Schroeder asked what 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 property would be higher, more comparable to Tuckborough in Medina. Hare thought that enhancing the wetlands may make the property more valuable. Putnam stated they would probably relocate some of them. This is an opportunity to alter Type 1 wetlands but you wouldn’t want to alter Type 3 wetlands, nor would that be allowed. Nolan asked what other developments the developers have done. Some of the projects they did were Copperfield in Mendota Heights, several projects in Eden Prairie including Summer Oaks, and manv sites for Centex Homes in Eden Prairie, Plymouth, and Mendota Heights, They have not done any projects with septic systems. 24 MINXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (/i^lO) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES/PETER ANDREA COMPANY - CONT. Nolan felt it desirable to take some of the Type 1 wetlands and integrate them through the neighborhood with a good plan. Some areas could be developed into more productive wetlands. Mitigation on the site is preferable to looking in other areas. A meeting with the developer and Planning Commission members was scheduled for 9:00 a.m, Saturday, October 23, The sketch plan will alsD be presented to Council at the October 25 meeting. (#11) FLAG LOTS - FINALIZE RECOMMENDATION TO COL^CIL A motion was made by Schroeder, seconded b> Berg, to table discussion of this item until Thursday morning at the special Planning Commission meeting. Ayes 6. nays 0. (#12) REPORT BY PL.MSNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE Lindquist and Peterson reported that in the Jundt application pioblem 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 been pointed out. (#13) OTHER ISSUES Smith mentioned the meeting with Long 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 tiie Policy Committee meetings which are MnDOT meetings. Two meeting dates are set in November and again in January. The meetings are open to the public and held at the Orono Council Chambers. Smith commented that MnDOT stated the reason they are looking at Highway 12 upgrades is because the people from Wilmar want to get into the Cities. Schroeder reminded members further discussion needs to take place before the end ot 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 whether they arc insured if they injure a dog, etc., not if one of the members is injured on an inspection. Gaffron will research further. 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#14) APPROViVL OF MEVUTES It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Lindquist, to approve the minutes of the September 20, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. Ayes 6, nays 0. (#15) REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNCIL MEETING Berg volunteered to attend the November 8. 1993 Council meeting (#16) PLANNING COMMISSION - PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 21, 1993 AT 8:00 A.M. Schroeder reminded members of the Thursday meeting regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Lindquist, to adjourn the regular Planning Commission meeting at 12:38 p.m. Charles Schroeder, Chair Person. MEVUTES OF THE SPECUL ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETLNG HELD OCTOBER 21, 1993 ROLL The Planning Commission met on the above date with the tollowing members present; Chairman Charles Schroeder, Planning Commission Members Sandra Smith, Charles Nolan, Stephen Peterson, and Janice Berg. Commission Members Rowlette and Lindquist were absent. City staff was represented by Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Mike Gaffron. Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. (#1) PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Gaffron presented background information regarding this proposed amendment to add policy language to the Environmental Policies section of the Comprehensive Plan, relating to the application of National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards for new stcrm water ponds, and the application of "Best Management Practices" for land alteration projects. He noted that adoption of this language is required by the Metropolitan Council before they will approve Orono ’s MUSA boundary amendment for the Nenles and sewer plant propenies. He noted that forty other metro area cities had adopted similar language to-date. Gaffron noted that the City Council had adopted a resolution of intent to add this language to the Comprehensive Plan and implement the policies by revising the zoning code by May 15, 1995. He further noted that adoption of NURP standards will result in the general use of "w’ct" detention ponds, as opposed to the fully draining ponds that were commonly incorporated into subdivisions during the 1980s. He also noted that the "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas", a document provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, contains methods and practices that are commonly in use by the City staff and engineer currently, although they are merely guidelines rather than code requirements. Gaffron noted that the proposed revisions would incorporate one paragraph regarding Best Management Practices, and one sentence regarding NURP standards. He also noted that the May 15, 1995 deadline was the same deadline date by which Orono must have its storm water management plans in compliance with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District’s 509 Plan. Schroeder questioned how adoption of the NURP and B.MP standards would affect the City’s current practices. Gaffron indicated that the main difference would be in the use of wet detention ponds, which have somewhat different dimensions and parameters than dry ponds, but which should have only a minor financial implication for deveh’pers. He also noted that staff and the City Engineer already have put into use many of the Best Management Practices identified. He indicated as we progress with our storm water management plan review, ordinances will be developed regarding the use of fenilizers, street sweeping, and many of the practices which are not currently required by code. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL ORONO PLANNING COM^USSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 21, 1993 Peterson questioned whether the City needed until May 1995 to upgrade its storm water ordinances, and indicated that he would hope they could be completed sooner. Gaffron noted that most cities had been allowed six to eight months by Met Council for implementing their "Interim Strategy", and Orono’s May 1995 deadline was apparently somewhat of a compromise on Met Council’s part. It w’as moved by Janice Berg, seconded by Charles Nolan, to recommend adoption of the proposed language into Part II. Chapter 3 "General Policies for Natural Resource Management" in the Orono Community Management Plan as proposed. Schroeder indicated this is a public hearing and no members of the public were present to comment. The motion carried on a vote of 5 to 0. (#2) FLAG LOTS - RECOiNLMENDATION TO COUNCIL Schroeder asked whether any Commission members had questions on the proposed recommendation to Council regarding flag lots. Smith questioned as to whether some of the standards should apply to existing lots or existing residences. Schroeder questioned what would be the impact of applying these standards to existing properties. Gaffron indicated that some of the area and setback standards would certainly result m additional variance applications in neighborhoods that "bought into" the existing situation, and therefore the new requirements would probably be a nuisance. Some existing buildings would become nonconforming structures. Schroeder noted that, for instance, ‘‘creening might only be an issue for an existing flag lot in a dense area such as Casco Point, and questioned whether there were complaints of this nature. Gaffron indicated theie are virtually no complaints regarding existing flag lots. Schroeder indicated that there appears to be little need for imposing these recommended requirements on existing properties. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to transmit the recommended standards for the creation and use of new flag lots as outlined in the staff memo, as Planning Commission’s recommendation to Council. Motion carried on a vote of 5 to 0. Schroeder reminded the Commission of its scheduled 9:00 a.m. Saturday meeting to view the Coffm and Dickey properties. Motion was made by Smith, seconded by Berg, to adjourn at 8:35 a.m. Motion carried. Charles Schroeder, Chair Person 1: Policy Writers Insurance Agency November 9, 1993 Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Att: Jeanne Mabusth On October 7th I wrote you a letter regarding the Workers Compensation coverage for Planning Commission members. I won^t go into the reason in this letter but I was wrong. The City of Orono has coverage for elected officials, but not for appointed officials. Please accept my apology for the erroneous information. Sincerely, Ql_0JL. Duweyn Carlson DPC/mj i ! ii... NOV' T O 1898 P.O.Box 24068 • 5885 149th Street West • Suite 102 • Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 • (612)432-3132 REVISIONS hpw orrao^o^ ir>^ Deck 0% m^owfd 3 I h»rebjr certify tint Ihij ttirtfy wt ^ prvp«r«d oAtfpr ay tvpenrltioH «nd Ihtt I •« • Llc*)ii*d Lind Surviyer under the Im of^tiw State of NlnMieta. . Thec^n 9. Ke«ii OaU: Ftb 1». l«a Uctnu «o. IJOM , SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.^ CNQINEERS-SURVEyOnS-PIRNNERS SOIL TESTING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DAVID CARLSON CO. LOCATION DIG ISLAND LAkie MiNNeroNM ORONO, MINN. S.M.I. PROJECT N0.^O589 O€3