The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-03-1988 Planning Packet•'V PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF OROMO MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOlt FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (pl«A8« print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from Agenda) O I. ; jj ■ f 6. Wu± U./k'A.^iC UC- v»u CU. jy.! 14.0-PV^e>^^ ;nJk LfirM,ILir>j'7ti~ d(TiW 33 V 34c t. .(/ j)j WiMcOiWJtS. = 57^: P^vL ys itu. e/. ■iAj'C A>. U /j'^o iMkiZ/y ^'<- ^/, - njep ■54 •V yj't /3J/ HOi:<, /5i; fp/ys^ ///'/i'i^ 1"^C D 1 d vy» 0 <"€. Rf a Lt/U..A^\/4xfiL /oqo6/J,'/Ip)j\^•) c /y /?A ^ / ? %Sy •m . *i r*»-- * n ll>"2 ■!> yj! / 7^C' it I ^''>‘v v*-UC ({<?r<o /f- /^ r? r*v-a t •1». V^'jg '■^SS m -yyr-. :w ■•c I - m MEETING DATE )R OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER PRESBKT FOR (from agenda) z (f'C ‘C %njo /jyc. /33i 7 /yy^,/35; */3%S> -.'V'WR JLiX. 1 V -♦ < .. -ft /7?C'- • m- iijyp*' i it • V)___________________ ••r-T ^ l! •fev-.-rnmm T; ';' Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusthr Building & Zoning Administrator September 28« 1988 *1327 Arnold Soskin, Wildhurst Trail i Unimproved Garden Lane Class III Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing isg District * LR-IB Total Area - 7 acres Application - Subdivision Class Illr seven lot plat. Pertinent Ordinances ~ Variance to minimum lot width1.Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) - required. Required for Lots 6 and 7. Required * 140* Proposed ■ 119* Variance * 21* or 15% 2.Section 11.03, Definition 14 - Dry buildable land. Exclude lands with slopes of 18% or greater. 3. Section 11.03, Definition 24 - Lot area - minimum. Minimum of 1/2 acre of dry contiguous land required for building envelope. The major drainage ditch with lands with 18% or greater slopes divides the building envelope. The eastern portion contains 19,212.5 s.f. The code would require 21,780 s.f. The western building envelope consists of 10,710 s.f. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Application Property Owners List Plat Map Preliminary Plat Total Development Plan Engineer's Report Engineer's Sketch Sewer As^Builts Review of implication - The applicant proposes the division of Lot 2, Block 1, Heathercroft, consisting of seven acres. The plan shows a seven lot, one acre plat, three lots served via the existing Wildhurst Trail and four lots to be served by unimproved Garden Lane at the time Yorktown Development group completes their subdivision application. It should be noted for the Planning Commission that the City has received the formal 30 lot plat application of Yorktown included in your packet as Exhibit E. The Yorktown plat will be reviewed at your October 17, 1988 meeting. w m ¥ V j 1" ■ s>.... Lot Drai bece upor York use ment of t defi Sewe or ed Garden Lane ng inimum lot width i. Exclude lands . Minimum of 1/2 elope. The major )pes divides the 19,212.5 s.f. The envelope consists 1, Heathercrof t, , one acre plat, four lots to be Bvelopment group 36 noted for the ‘mal 30 lot plat : E. The Yorktown Zoning File #1327 September 28, 1988 Page 2 of 3 Lot Configuration « As noted above. Lots 6 and 7 do not meet the required lot width and staff would concur with the City Engineer in asking that a shared access be required for Lots 6 and 7. It should also be noted that Lot 5, to the rear of the front yard setback line, measures 130* and technically require a width variance. Staff has reviewed the property along Wildhurst Trail and would concur that the topographies with 14-16% grade are not prohibitive for driveway access. It would be helpful to have the surveyor extend the topographic information into Wildhurst Trail. The travelled r^d should also be designated within the right-of-way to facilitate selection of the safest access points. Lots i through 4 all have adequate width along the roadway. Garden Lane will Le improved as part of the Yorktown development. Mr. Soskin's plat improvements will be reviewed in conjunction with the Yorkto%m development road improvements. Per Section 11.03, Definition 14 and 24, the dry buildable envelope of 1 is encroached by the major drainage ditch that intersects the lot with slopes of 18% or greater and this area cannot be credited as dry buildable. The 1 acre area standards satisfied as the property is sewered. Staff would ask the Planning Commission ’s opinion and interpretation and a r©coniinendation the buildable envelope of Lob !• In reviewing Exhibit E, the total development plan of the surrounding property, the drainage ditch will be used for drainage coming from the southwest. Feasibility of moving this drainage ditch along the roadway should be reviewed by the City Engineer at the time of the Yorktown development review when other more comprehensive storm sewer considerations are made of the overall area. Drainaqe/Access - Lots 6 and 7 will be required to share an access along Wildhurst Trail because of the minimum lot widths. Access to Lot 1 shall be determined upon resolve of the location of the drainage ditch within the lot. Yorkto%#n Development proposes the major upgrading of Garden Lane and all use of the four lots are dependant upon completion of the road improve ments. The Engineer will reserve all final comment on the drainage needs of this division until the Yorktown Development's storm sewer plans are defined. Sewer - Lots 1 through 4 will be served by sewer to be installed by the Yorktown development in the Garden Lane right-of-way. Lots 5, 6, ^ will be served by sewer to the south of Lot 7 (review the as—builts, enclosed for your review as Exhibit H). Mr. Soskin, the developer of Lot 2, Heathercroft, will be responsible for the extension of municipal sewer to the properties. It should be noted that there is adequate capacity in the existing sewer lines to take the additional units. m y h ' j.' / Zoning Pile #j September 28, Page 3 of 3 Staff To table lots until th< Development i surrounding t preliminary | grading, and review, the easements fo: Planning Comi raised during A. The Note tha setback Section : 1. app Wha^ 2. com] 3. wou resi Planning width varianc B.Re so 1. 2. 3. C. The i vacation as a 60* reductioi surveyoi vacation plat wit D. Appl: within W e required lot width and ig that a shared access be id that Lot 5, to the rear id technically require a along Wildhurst Trail and rade are not prohibitive B the surveyor extend the he travelled road should :ilitate selection of the adequate width along the the Yorkto%m development. . in conjunction with the dry buildable envelope of that Intersects the lot innot be credited as dry 3 the property is sewered, i and Interpretation and a e of Lot 1. In reviewing urrounding propertyr the ling from the southwest, ng the roadway should be :he Yorktown development considerations are made of ess along wildhurst Trail )t 1 shall be determined i ditch within the lot. j of Garden Lane and all ion of the road improva- 3nt on the drainage needs :'s storm sewer plans are to be Installed by the if-way. Lots 5, 6, and 7 (review the as-bullts# inr the developer of Lot snslon of municipal sewer i is adequate capacity in its. ^ At’." H- f i in "lx Ivi ■m •V3 imm Zoning File 11327 September 28« 1988 Page 3 of 3 Staff laoo datioa - To table Application #1327, Arnold Soskin's preliminary plat of seven lots until the City cosiRletes a comprehensive review of the 30 lot Yorktown Development subdivision that surrounds the entire property. The issues surrounding this subdivision are dependant upon Yorktown Development s preliminary plans for drainage, access, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, lot grading, and Interior access plans. Upon completion of the compreheraive review, the applicant will be asked to dedicate additional drainage easements for surface drainage or storm sewer. In the meantime, the Planning Commission should advise the applicant on the following issues raised during this preliminary reviewt A. The need to approve lot width variances for Lots 5, 6, and 7. Note that the lot width is measured to the rear of the front yard setback line - 35* in from the street. Review the neccesary findings Section 11.02, Subdivision 10 A 1-7: X, Is the variance request excessive. The City consistently approves lot width variances for lots adjacent to cul-de-sacs. What are the hardships? 2. Are there undeveloped contiguous land available for combination with property? 3. Can the lots be reasonably replatted with a shared road that would reduce need for width variance? Greater tree removal will result in addition to increased hardcover. Planning C width variances. e)M*M Ission should respond to the above before approving the B. Resolve of the dry buildable envelope within Lot Is 1. Approve it as is; 2. Request a realignment of the ditch; 3. Lots 1 and 2 should be replatted as 1 lot. C. The applicant should advise if he plans to proceed with the formal vacation of Garden Lane as shown on the former Tonkaview Gardens plat as a 60' width. The City will only require 50'. Note the proposed reduction of right-of-way along the west lot lines. The applicant s surveyor should advise how the applicant wishes to proceed on the vacation of the 5' of right-of-way or will this be completed as a re plat with the total Yorkto%ra Development project. D. Applicant's surveyor to provide additional topographic information within Wildhurst Trail and designate existing blacktop road. '.ii. • ^.4-. ! -.1 •- mmm ml CITY crUSL% PROPERTY Id Site Addre Property I< Please che Attach leg RPPLICABT Name i Addre OWNER (if Name Addre (att BZZSTING L Numbo Devel Prase: Prase; PROPOSAL _ P M P I - • mlnary plat of aevan E tha 30 lot Yorktown roparty. Tha isauaa ktown Davalopmant*8 sanitary sewar» lot of the comprahar.siva iddltional drainage 1 the meantimer tha :he following issues iT Lots 5, S, and 7. r of the front yard e neccesary findings \e City consistantly cent to cul-de-sacs* land available for th a shared road that :er tree removal will before approving the Lot 1: t. >ceed with the formal nkaview Gardens plat Note the proposed es* The applicant's iB to proceed on the e completed as a re- )pographic Information icktop road. vr-.- • Hi V-; v;_ r - iili %b. » u fc -:. V .te-. r w. it im M:- ■; bb .i) iSiafimftAiCT^^PLICATION JiiH S^o^Siiv^ P80PSBTT LOCATXOa -• ♦ Site Address A^iirrikCKnK ' fJJiaroJ —oLK iX cm OF or<ae - Fimi^ OFFICE Property Identification Buaber (P.I.O.) Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application. CHECH Jl 705,00 f<ECUPT-rm( YOU i104900 cool ROl 709: Phone (home) A/iina <rdSKiaJ Address:City: Phone (work) JTQC __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Zip: omnSR (if different than applicant) Name fid Lb - - - - Phone (home) Phone (work) Address: Pi City: (attach list if ny&re than one) ll^AtYjlt< Zipt ■XISnSG LAID OSB Number of Tax Parcels I Development Size 5 y. AcrSs Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total# all parcels Present Use (check)Residential; no. of units Other (specify) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites:E- Proposed Gross Density: Existing Units New Units Total Units > Units per 7 Acres Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check)Residential Other (specify) ..-.i 'I,*:.:' Pii ■■m ,*4 A- If MINIMUM H 1. Comn Prel Cert this 348- Stan name obta As a any Certif ic. complete• Zoning Of Payn Sign Titl Ease Deve Certiflea Zoning Of Pr Pr Pi *( The nppl requeste* Planning further a Applicant Owner's S Applicant Planning third No! review me unable t< authorize Office of ^vv. ^ tnii-ie- tAe-e^C PA. D ?M.fy !»>A- ssv4s^ U \zMia tens? CITY OF Cr<(X - *• - OFFICE 1050200000 01 m 705.00 cmi TL 705.00 HECEJFT-nm YOU 0104900 coot kOl 70?:-----------------------ag/jg/ ark) .<V^ _____ Zips_____ ork) < 11 parcels o. of units ) ew building sites) :S .ng Units lits Units ^ ^ . per ^ Acres tt Dry Bulldable Land »ntial (specify) •••VI-,' fcf mm <1 I mm m Mtfel |Lvr-"] LETS PHBLIfUNART APPLICATIOM 2. 3. MiaiMOM MATERIAL HECBSSARY FOR C 1. Comr>leted Application Fora Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). w * -.wStamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). As an addendum to this application# please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 4. S. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Payment of fees (park fees# filing fee# sewer and water assessments). Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. Title opinion. Easements# Covenants# etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is c Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ’ Date_ _ _ _ •Jtn*lete FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I# II ft III) Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) 300.00 + 20.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) •(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 150.00* The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator# City Engineer# City Attorney# Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Date J 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 meetiin^s of the Planning Commission and Council* ^ 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 ft Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. i ■h- Ml Ml':mm uH^ICATIOH ey. 0' (you must obtain e A-603 Govt Center Bed to each of the ise kddresa labels a separate list of ition. Lat Application is Date _______11. ater assessments), mal plat. cation is complete. Date _ _ __ • •• • tial) $150.00 250.00 300.00 ^ 20.00/Lot 150.00* lation required or sr. City Attorney, his application and ^ ordinance. :e t/u kre/jL :e 25 days before the jB are held on the at all scheduled an applicant is jements to have an Building & Zoning ^ in.mm f . ill < |s| r-**' - s S li M M turn IBK IK ly ^ S: > ?l Ml Ml IM I I ;i.l5 sii-t!" e M ae &m HI M 9tis:s |ls| E ■-■S • I I ...ijl. - B S o.o E wm 'P- • /- .0 ■•:=•■■•- ■ . 1.. ■>■ ■ '-!^i ■ «... ^.- liJSfe i .. • f K^-vijj:-':: ;■.-<' ;7 ; :• -pi mrarr no. muMi PAM If ■5'V ■■■.X- RATi AND TRUE I DATE ON THE RECORDS ^nON> TO THE REST i »• * PIBM■' .77 ’7.V ' :•■,■ -.j ••■ •-■.•■7.1■■■p-^-w..w i.-.-'a-'**.’'■:i? •m M S:. „ • ' ».= ;■ ‘i .. \4^ ' !, (W ?*r; t-. Ji>L a jW4 r •• r •* Cf) s\ \A *•• oo J \ \^ t>*) I ’Vt K|. iS _____-t /■-■u 4fJ * * X \ - _ S! K. 91 M«T L®T 53 ♦/ vV >____ ..*' *.i» I , V, t'vv N % , ^ Vv\>-« «n>«itia V ~ tj>^y' A^Pi \ I / ^ •i 1 \' rY ■' V) i - K I \ I \ V 0 > r,'- R.L.S.*^:^ A 3k M)\^.1) ■: \ > A * ^ ‘ "• mr »•,V'p"-^Sh< .> *>.| —«Y •■ f /' y aaat a» rtf" PI ' 111) ^ / x^': L*»^* 4 wm ,■' / WS53 i it’ll 44;' .<»/ ,•;»; 't* S7 ^Ol#R4V|t|^ 70 |tOT 7t^ *0 -*Ae X^\ • y^:-\vB J »V j?»' I . J^^V\Covt ^/ (i>)^ rf , ^ !, ‘V ' CO - Oft•■—^ nO JfM —y'^0 V,/ |.'0»4\>’- V' R84 0z n c M1$ •J 1500!*c (”) \ % * UA.. . ■ **fy •• • -^>' o’ ' ■ ■ .. ''•/ ■ '■'* /'/ *v)*. *• A-> '-,.-. I A* /■YV t\ / ST^4N :;k . ^.*Point > vr .A'CS?)^'l7- .■% 12 -\ V O') r<9- Pft Ot REST Lf.V’ < VT’3® w I A ■■•<;■ ■:-, 77,: ».f !»' m l^jl % Engineers Septembei City of I Box 66 Crystal i Attn: Jei Re: 139-; Dear Jeai We have i The subd: proval a: There is a 50 to ' ments ar< The topoi cation o: driveway cause of (14-16 p. The sani The sani property Garden L. the York There ma; Yorktown developm If you h Yours ve BONESTRO Glenn R. GRC:br yl) ■ ‘RKanaat.^^■r.y ...ikt ■■''-#l ■.•■«. CSao a ■wfWft « Bonestroo RDsene Anderiik & |\j| Associates linginccrs A Architects mML PchMi W taitt PI.MdlMCliPAPC.MBA A. SMfkM. OonM C. typpiP. PC.jMB • mrnm. PC.mspjiCaMMM.ni A. U jOTyACMtovPI^mnnmp MBrtia vMMh.ra. pr, PiA mwa ^mm A CKfvnonn. PC. Ca OMll. Pi.MC MAPC.MM t. Aolfi PC.UP M. m»iuay Qann 1. CMfe. <*€•MkfiMtT imwiiiiii. PC.MmC lyiM. AIJI.HMtM* M. OtMn ThMi a NeM ai ,teMC.PMMiPl fhoMi C. ArptfL PX Sam Ml maxM, cka . SepCeiid>er 26, 1988) Cit/ of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MH 55323 Attn: Jaanoe Mabusth Re: 139-1327 - Soskin Plat Dear Jeanne: We have reviewed the Soskin Plat on Wildhurst Trail North of County Road 19 The subdivision approval will have to tie into the Yorktown subdivision ap proval as discussed. There is a major drainage way across lots 142. The developer should provide a 50 to 75 foot drainage easement as shovra. In addition 5 foot drainage ease ments are required along all lines. The topography for Wildhurst Trail should be included on the plat. The lo cation of the existing surfacing and elevations are necessary to review the driveway access points. The driveways for lots 647 should be combined be cause of the substandard lot widths. The driveway grades will be rather steep (14-16 percent); but are acceptable. The sanitary sewer services for lots 6,748 will be from Wildhurst Trail. The sanitary sewer line will have to be extended and services placed to the property line. The sanitary sewer s*ui.vlce for lots 1 thru 4 will be from Garden Lane. This sanitary sewer line is planned to be extended as a part of the Yorktown development. There may be some additional street 4 storm sewer work required off the Yorktown development plat as previously discussed. The requirements of that developoient should also apply to this subdivision. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 4 ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:br Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 . •; Thofim W. P(Mton, PM. MKflMf C limit PJ. jmiM ff. M jlan^ fX KtnMh P Vitfmvt Pi. Mttth A. tidwnana P4L MM ft Mfk Pi. fiDMt C IHMir, AJ^ Jhmm L AngnA ^JL Mow^M A. Sanford, PJL •th of County Road 19. :town subdivision ap- leveloper should provide >n 5 foot drainage ease* >n the plat. The lo- :essary to review the ihould be combined be- les will be rather steep Erom Wildhurst Trail, srvices placed to the thru 4 will be from e extended as a part of required off the e requirements of that 1600 PRELIMINARY PLAT Par: Arnold Sookin M. 'i'r 15? >J \ |P*- / ^ .1 ttates: 1. 0«W 2. 2 foot contour Inttrvol. 3. 1 acrt ainiaua lot sizt. Otnotcs proposes elevation. 5. *•* Denotes direction of drtitMQe. 6. Lot areas and distances are scaled. #7^' 115 / . 'n ^lu c.r\\f' j /vW*i»4r,'''//// — /•//'I • /'/// '' / /' AS'i 'Jl ’^ ! /' /■' /// //TliTfi: f/!n Ul : •'/ ! I! ! ’lla I I Lot 2. Block 1, HEATHERCROFT, Hennepin County. Minnesota sad d**«4 Scak. Book ^___ or report tvos prepareat ion ana that / am a dut^ Pait - Job tio.OJ2L thereby ctrtiQ that this p/an^survev by me or um/ir my direct suptrviSn ^ Ktiisttrtd Land Surveyor imder the. taws of 'he State of Minnesota. Dated this.jefULday tl“T^ j t3_a&,. e.Q. ffUO i SONS, INC. LAMO SUOVBYORS 9660 LtxinSton Avt. V. Circte t^nisj Mn. 55014 Tit. 7B6 ‘5556 c3. Tot Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning « Zoning Administrator Dates September 27, 1988 Subjects 11343 Edmund W.P. Rydell, 135 Orono Orchard Road North - Class I Preliminary Subdivision - Public Bearing Application - Split existing 39.8 acre parcel into two parcels of 21.9 acres and 17.7 acres respectively. Zoning District - RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, Unsewered List of Bxhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B *■ Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - " F - Pertinent Facts Application Plat Map Property Owners List Topographic Survey Showing Proposed Division Staff Sketch _ 1.The applicant's property currently consists of a single tax parcel of 39.6 acres, of which 19.2 acres is wetland. The property contains the applicant's existing residence which is located at the end of the 1,300' private driveway. 2.The applicant is proposing to split this parcel to create two parcels for tax purposes, in order to place a portion of his property assets specifically in his wife's name. Under some other 'Cities' ordinances, this might be called an "administrative split", however, Orono's Code classifies it as a Class I metes and bounds subdivision. 3.This subdivision was submitted as a Class I subdivision, which is exempt from platting and is allowed to be subdivided by metes and bounds description because it meets the following criteria per Municipal Code Section 11.03, Definition 66; a) The subdivision results in no more than two buildable lots, each exceeding five acres; • Dates Appll List i 'M j Administrator ird Road North - learing ito two parcels of 21.9 itialr Unsewered 1 Division a single tax parcel of le property contains the :ated at the end of the 1 to create two parcels of his property assets :hei cities' ordinances, , however, Orono's Code >division. subdivision, which is ibdivided by metes and >1lowing criteria per han two buildable lots. -if*y: [■ : ’yM ■.*;* i ■n>tr.t w iv : K n’i-'Pljfc ^cz■Hi* 'i •v;:P p-i I# » TOs Dates Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator September 27, 1988 Subjects #1343 Edmund W.F. Rydell, 135 Orono Orchard Road North - Class I Preliminary Subdivision * Public Hearing Application - Split existing 39.6 acre parcel into two parcels of 21.9 acres and 17.7 acres respectively. Zoning District - RR-IB, single Family Rural Residential, Unsewered List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C “ Exhibit D - Exhibit E - u F “ Pertinent Facts - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Topographic Survey Showing Proposed Division Staff Sketch The applicant's property currently consists of a single tax parcel of 39.6 acres, of which 19.2 acres is wetland. The property contains the applicant's existing residence which is located at the end of the 1,300' private driveway. The applicant is proposing to split this parcel to create two parcels for tax purposes, in order to place a portion of his property assets specifically in his wife's neune. Under some other cities' ordinances, this might be called an "administrative split", however, Orono's Code classifies it as a Class I metes and bounds subdivision. This subdivision was submitted as a Class I subdivision, which is exempt from platting and is allowed to be subdivided by metes and bounds description because it meets the following criteria per Municipal Code Section 11.03, Definition 66: a) The subdivision results in no more than two buildable lots, each exceeding five acres; ' ” '"A'-- .-'V mm pi1 Pii f* . y / I ] '••‘n ■iWi,';''-' ,J y'' •I*'c ■to ;:»*V •■=.•■-vV^-:’-:'- V.;t<srf Zoning File #1343 September 21, 1988 Fage 2 of 3 b) Bach lot has at least 300’ of frontage on a public roadway or on a private roadway pursuant to an easement between personal c) Not a flexible zoning application (i.e. does not require any special or conditional use permits, variances or rezoning). The proposed driveway easement is 50* in width and includes a cul-de- sac of 100* diameter, hence in a future subdivision, dedication of the private road outlot would be coincident with this proposed driveway easement. Note that the proposed driveway easement is centered on the existing driveway. The Public Works Director has indicated that a future division into 2-acre lots would likely result in the developer having to share in the costs of raising Orono Orchard Road 5* to 6* at the private road access point. Also note that the City will require during this current division that the property owner quit—claim deed an easement for right-of— way/drainage/utility purposes over the platted Orono Orchard Road (and perhaps additional if that road is not within the defined corridor). This property contains 19.2 acres of designated wetlands, as shown on the attached wetlands air photo. Since the applicant is ..t this time not proposing to plat the property into two acre building sites and since the wetlands are protected through our existing wetland ordinance, there would appear to be no real benefit to the City in requiring that Flowage and Conservation Easements be granted until this property is platted at its maximum denity. The proposed dividing line between Parcels A & B will leave all improvements associated with the existing house well within the property boundaries. I ■ T mm .--T I k ^' A - i..v i k' . id my n a public roadway Of ; between persons; does not require any Bs or rezonlng). id Includes a cul-de- on, dedication of the ils proposed driveway nt Is centered on the has Indicated that a suit In the developer chard Road 5* to 6' at current division that ment for rlght-of- rono Orchard Road (and i defined corridor). etlands, as sho%m on .cant la it this time e building sites and r existing wetland neflt to the City In tits be granted until & B will leave all )use well within the I li m ..V Zoning Pile 11343 September 27, 1988 Page 3 of 3 The applicant has absolutely no plans to further subdivide this property Into two acre lots at this time. In reviewing the access situation, staff Is comfortable with the concept of not requiring that a private road be platted at this time as long as the proposed driveway easement over Parcel B In favor of Parcel A Is a non-excluslve easement, such that a future buyer of Parcel A would have the right to subdivide and have each newly created lot access through Parcel B. That easement should Include language that would allow the owner of Parcel A to develop a private roadway to the City's private roadway standards within the 50' easement corridor. Additionally, this easement would have to specify that If a single new residence Is built on Parcel B prior to a future subdivision, that residence will have to be located a distance from the easement equal to or greater than the required front setback for the RR*-1B zoning district. Staff would additionally request as a condition of approval of this division that the proposed driveway access easement be drafted and submitted to the City by the applicant's attorney for staff review to Insure that the necessary wording Is In place such that Parcel A will not be construed as being land*-locked. As noted above, this property contains a number of designated wetland areas. Staff would recommend that no Flowage and Conservation Easements be required for the current subdivision, but advises the applicant that If either of Parcels A or B Is divided In the future. It Is likely such Flowage and Conservation Easements will need to be granted. Staff Rer n—ci niTatlon - Based on the above noted concerns being adequately addressed, staff would recommend approval of the metes and bounds subdivision for Edmund W.F. Rydell as proposed. Staff would recommend further that septic testing not be required at this time. Staff also recommends that since Parcel B could be sold as separate building site, that the Park Fee of $100.00 per the current fee schedule should be paid with this subdivision, noting that the Park Fee paid at this time would be credited towards Park Fees for a future subdivision per Section 11.62, Subdivision 8. m : % ' ■ y ■•Y i' ■' A wm Ala. f. •iri CITT OF ORO FROPBRTT U3 Site Addr'es Property Zd Please chec Attach lega jkPPLicjyrr Name ^ Addres ONNBR (If d Name Addres (atta RUSTING LA Number Develo Presen Presen PROPOSAL NU] Pr< Mil Pr< «?.^, . ^tsBiiahg^ * ' further subdivide this i reviewing the access of not requiring that a I the proposed driveway lon-exclusive easement, e right to subdivide and B. That easement should Parcel A to develop a tandards within the 50* lid have to specify that L B prior to a future ted a distance from the nt setback for the RR-IB ion of approval of this sement be drafted and ey for staff review to that Parcel A will not er of designated wetland onservation Easements be s the applicant that if ire, it is likely such granted. [lately addressed, staff subdivision for Edmund ther that septic testing nds that since Parcel B Park Fee of $100.00 per subdivision, noting that towards Park Fees for a .. /> . i Wm 4 i'. id/ u 4^:; ■ •. - ...#-l 3 4IIVISIOH AFPLICATIOa 'T CITY OP aaam> * PMOTBKTT lOCATXOH Site Address* T?S ACdfl. Property Identification Nuabar (P.I.O.) i,. / f JF. was : . ' FtSAieS QFrItS ■ ' ■ '15SS2000CO' -,..01 BM ZO.SO . t CHEX.^ .JL SO.X ■ nECEiFT-T>m mu -—-410S320 CtCl ROl- TOT: Please check one - Property X abstract or __torrens? ' ' 09/09/. Attach -leeal description to application.e . • .. APPLZCJOn Phone (home) ^/>2/^ m «* Nam#JfY/y^LL Phone (work) • ^ Address: /SS fiv4p \ (if different than applicant) City: ^L/4'fZJTJI »mm mm mm ^^mmm^mi^mK^mtmmmmm^m mm < Phone (home) lip: SSJJ/ Naise Phone (work)mm- m # Address: ' (attach list if more than one) City:Zip: EZISTIHG LAMD OSB Humber of Tax Parcels Development Sise n.z 19. g Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check)X Residential; no."of units Other (specify) y Present Zoning District *. .e PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes -• Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) j_ _Subdivision for New Building Sites • Number of Building Sites: e • f* Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Units per Acres me # mm m Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check)Residential Other (specify) -'-•A um. r. • •• y« 'i'' ■■ ■•y . A m m w i '4 m mNlMUN 1 any Certific complete. Zoning 01 Payii Sigr Tit] East Devf Certifies Zoning Oi PEES The appl requeste< Planning further a Applicant Owner's S Applicant Planning third Moi review me unable tc authorize Office of i ^ '|||||- ' ■" ’rii. i .’.»■; # < • • • i,i,Yif.Drm ........ FmmoFFuz ■■ 'nso2coi>oo’ .- ■■■i^OtSH 2S0.06 , . ■? C/iEOt; > . tt. 250.00 . • •• RECEm-Tim rai -.- 4108320 cool 801- TOT:. ma7 '■' •-■■■ 09/09/. « • « «•> •« ‘f7.9-/92/jr rk) 0 ZlDt Ss?^/ rlc) Zip: L parcels '; * * a* ,”of units * / t ^ 9 building sites) j Units :s lits . . - •. <w .* Acres ^ • • « Dry Buildable Land tial specify) r ' " S ■■ •.‘* ¥ ■ '^ ' ' ' v5 V * ■ MATERIAL MBCBSSART FOR COlPLBTB mLliaHART APPLICATIOT Completed Application Form Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property Oimers List of o«mers within 350* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348<3271). Stamped^ legal si'red envelopes.XflO)^pre'^addressed t^o each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). As an addendum to this application* please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete• Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date Payment of fees (park fees* filing fee* sewer and water assessments). Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. Title opinion. Easements* Covenants* etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I* II & ill) Preliminary Review (Class I & ll Subdivision) Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) $150.00 250.00 300.00 -t- 20.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 150.00* The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator* City Engineer* City Attorney* Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Oimer's Signature Date q Ht'St D VF 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 h^*ve an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. mr' ION rou must obtain 603 Govt Center to each of the idSrese labels parate list of Application is assessments)• 9lat. m is complete. $150.00 4^ ‘\ 250.00 300.00 + 20.00/Lot 150.00* n required or :ity Attorney, pplication and inance. lays before the re held on the all scheduled in applicant is nts to hfive an Iding 6 Zoning IT sijg- M Ml Z IMM.pt!« S3 P Ml =eS3 |b Ml P :s«P 0| tt P s-s= a Ml p Ml Ml P «J -i®# rSSS t m ^8 8 P • g Hi ~ 8 S i HI « X O i *> U M M I «C < 8 S4! ■ qc HI J^8l3s M O N O 8^ 8 8 HI itS§gs l|i§ # p p “iBa " 8<>2„ HsitlzuiRiSlii = a S m O OI ^o pP o ^g P z ’'Sss p 8 <»■ 4. fm ap : >? y. f . . . 4..:= V.P -4 w>- ■- ■»! ;. •■: .t i s»^ mm S 8i Sg 8M I. s c I S O 3 8 /'t i ,3 . 8 iilhlrUi S«l8i 8Sci83 HI 88 SSi 3PP P ^8 I-* 28 P X P P I P s;i® 3.*- sS p X P P P P Q 6 I P X z 2 8 »> M HI I • a« ..S3 8888a !!8 III 2 S I sNlhs'^slis Ksilsi i m 8 Ss U i 8 21!S ih9siJ:|3 i:S3lP P P P w 5 1 w § |55 !| s.;'8= SriSSfi S ® 2 -4 ttp 8|§832 18s :i iji l'!:h 8g.aS8E«8 8SuS--^sS s s|^s;2z =» ii cllh! iuh. p q X o N □ z^hi'48q^8«8j!!^ si«iQ Z P < III 8I-y 2 P P ';!« i:i:i|5 IE)! 2«"* -i' n 8SxS-i 2 •J P P •-3 i*-p 8 ei'l::! 2 8 huR“|*»Irisi Q Z P ^ 5 >• X -H “ ? *** Sr®’113 m m K ^.•••, ':■ •i, ^v '•■■;^at>‘V *v ^ ’’"i Ll04b- # ■ "if •fir f! 14 I .•sy ■ m 2. 3. KIMIiaJN MAI 1 a Comply Prelii Certil this J 348-3: Stamp names obtaii As an any oi 4. 5. Certificat complete• Zoning Offd 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 a Paymei Signec Title Easem< Develc Certificati Zoning Offi FBBS Skel Prej Pre: Fini *(P] The applii requested Planning C further agi Applicant * i Owner's Sic Applicant 1 Planning C< third Mond review meel unable to authorized Office of i MI«1]1. 2. 3. 4. RJM MATniAL VBCBSSART FOR COWPLBfB vmLBmOm JU?»FLICA¥ZOII Completed Application Form Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property 0%mers List of oimers within 350* (you must c'.tain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Stamped# legal si'ied envelopes..010).pre-addressed ^o each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). As an addendum to this application# please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat 7ipplication is complete• Zoning Official’s Signature Date 1. 2. 3. 41. 5. Payment of fees (park fees# filing fee# sewer and water assessments). Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. Title opinion. Easements# Covenants# etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Pete FBBS Sketch Plan Review (Class I# II & III)$150.00 Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision)250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) 300.00 + 20.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) . *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 150.00* The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator# City Engineer# City Attorney# Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature 2^ Date «=! Hn Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plemning 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. PPLICATIOH urvey. 350* (you must r’jtain ance A-'603 Govt Center ressed each of the I (use address labels ch a separate list of ication. f Plat Application is Date _ _ _ _ d water assessments), formal plat. • e plication is complete. Date $150.00 250.00 dentlal)300.00 4- 20.00/Lot 150.00* ormation required or .neer. City Attorney, s this application and i by ordinance. Date ^ i<m Date ^ ses 25 days before the tings are held on the ient at all scheduled If an applicant is rangements to have an bhe Building & Zoning :WzL>*■ ♦ 4 V /. •^ t « » i: ^ : M tt ■1^ "■Hill lilMiiwii^iifi -•. V /**• tfs ^ 5: fool said K east qua the Southv quarter of t ending; ALSO that pert of S.S.i", '‘Subdivision "Subdivision No. 1 of Lot f Ranj;o 23*', described as follows: East line of said Section 34, which poi Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the tion; thence running Southwesterly, making an angle to the ri line of nnld SA<*t’.1nn n nnn «■. ».u_ 4.U- L *•* V V- •»- • V‘"'i ,1:* • 5 ■vizr 4' m ^ > ?r3 in ^0 **and the «rncraf Mc » u ty ---------------------- ; r • 57 feet, aald K east qua the Southv quarter of t ending; ALSO that part of S.i", ''Subdivision ieion No, 1 of Lot !' escribed as follows: action 34, which poi heast quarter of the Ij an angle to the ri U.______A.U* .»:i ik f.M Wl It wm '■i-i K- m •V. r>v m ,i! ; . AC2i:iCij;^V T « ** ♦ •%•• > ». 'Is' fe ! •i .1. v.>7. r/«a.. > A • *S« 4 vJ :^w ** •2r f/T rf iMMr’vir.- wm ‘T V..' V - y-;-¥m&m ! I # •*r * f /• ' V «vl •.. •V i »» ^ • A y.%. ‘t-vi >'^ > wl‘j. ; •i I •*» • •. I :» •ii'^ifS y.'H ^iMIii^ T^i Wrtmt Jeann Dates Se;?te: Subjects 11331 Preli: Soning District Application - construct Variance 1 soning dia findings f< Total Property * Lot 1-28 Lot 2 — 3,* Variance to Lot Lot 2 - Requi: Propoi Variai Variance to Lot Lot 2 - Requi] PropOi Varlai List of Bxhibiti Exhibit A ■ Exhibit B • Exhibit C * Exhibit D • i.-'- .• ' ^ •ry'. /T ''V*" ' /r / ry •V^T \i vv, W^m -.-1t:-.AI’ • :*4 im mwM-iii't.T: .?.t.i}t>i¥C':T .. >» * r- > >• >; ^.1?. 4i^i wm ' ’M \ ^'1! ' .♦ ■ rf**" r'^ . -\\^ V'..i-m i^rfl ^•. . 4- tv■ : .,:. ...♦l . v-;.j= ...Js,- :vt «':v' M l:w| l ' ’-W"^!:/- -J.::%.A-.. ,.<i«£daB .. ________ . ^ - 4,' J^j:^ It Tot IPlanning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning CcMsmission Members City Administrator Bemhardson A J Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building i Zoning Adtaiinistrator DatOi September 27, 1988 Subjects •)nM lission, 3280 Notth Shor# Dr Preliminary Subdivision Class II - Public Hearing ling District - LR-lc«l Application * Subdivision application required by the MUW.c.C. in order to construct lift station structure. Variance to minimum lot requirements to subdivision within LR-lC-1 zoning district. Review Section 11.12, Subdivision 10 - Necessary findings for variance approval. Total Property Area - 31,177 s.f. Lot 1 * 28,083 s.f. Lot 2 * 3,099 s.f. Variance to Lot Area - Lot 2 - Required » 21,780 s.f. Proposed 3,099 s.f. Variance ■ 18,681 s.f. or 86i Varianoe to Lot width • Lot 2 - Required = 100' Proposed ■ 48.9* Variance * 51.1' or 51% List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Application Property Owners List Plat Map Preliminary Survey Zoning Septern Page 2 Rifvieif A drive as a ] outlol additi curren T intens diffic outlet This m built must a would abandc respon< parcel subdiv by the Staff ] T. creati (possil by the follow 1. c< 2. o^ 3, at ■•■V Mia Istrator on, 3280 North Shore Dr Hearing the M.w.c.c. in order to Lvialon within LR-lC-1 vision 10 - Necessary j'. mn >a . .’vi u . .r rv >7 I* • . I t-'- .r ; • • iL^ •,!.4.i'- •» Zoning File #1331 September 27, 1988 Page 2 of 2 ■Awiew of Implication ^ Access to the proposed parcels will remain via an existing gravel drive along the west side of the subject property and should be designated as a road outlot with a minimum width of IT-t-*, The owner of the road outlot must grant an access easement in favor of newly created Lot 2 in addition to the exception to the north of Lot 1. These properties are currently under single o%mership. The need to address the creation of Lot 2 results in severe and intense variances. To suggest that Lot 2 is a buildable lot is the one difficult aspect of this subdivision review. Lot 2 should be labeled an outlot, suggesting that it is unbuildable at the time of the platting. This may create a problem for the M.W.C.C. if the lift station can not be built on an outlot. If Lot 2 cannot be labeled an outlot, then the City must ask that special restrictions be filed against the chain of title that would require that it be combined with the adjacent parcels if its use is abandoned by the M.W.C.C. at some time in the future. The M.W.C.C. should respond to the legal issue of the outlot at our meeting on October 3, 1988. In the future, this whole property may be rezoned and replatted to one parcel for combination with the adjacent B-2 properties. The current subdivision will have no negative impact on any proposed future subdivision by the current owner. Staff Recoms»ndation To approve the subdivision application of the M.W.C.C. for the creation of two lots. Lot 1 a residential buildable lot, and Lot 2 (possible Outlot A) deemed unbuildable for residential use and designated by the applicant for exclusive public utility purposes, based on the following conditions: 1. Creation of a road outlot, maximum width to meet width of west corridor of Lot 1 at the intersection of County Road 15. 2. All access to the newly created parcels must be via the road outlot. 3. Approval of the variances noted above if lot cannot be designated as an outlot. ¥ m. *i\ •^>3 •• . 2x1 U'“ MM 7% V- 1. Pre Pre PROPOSAL • . ■ rla an existing gravel rid should be designated The owner of the road newly created Lot 2 In These properties are results In severe and Lldable lot Is the one 2 should be labeled an time of the platting. 1ft station can not be outlotf then the City the chain of title that t parcels If Its use is e. The M.W.C.C. should blng on October 3, 1988. ed and replatted to one »pertles. The current losed future subdivision the M.W.C.C. for the dable lot^ and Lot 2 :1a 1 use and designated urposeSf based on the i to meet width of west ^ Road 15. I must be via the road ot cannot be designated *7" '■’1^i i -w r" =1i A t X • V- -V ,.v ■ vyV'.,h SCBOIYISIOII APPLICATIONCITX OP OROHO - ___ Ml «N» «■» 4•» mm mm mm ^mmm ^m PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Perth’Shore Drive, Orono Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 08-U7-023-44-0003 . ' - Please check one - Property ^ abstract or torrens? CITY if CRm Flrim OFFICE 1J50200000 01 CSi Attach legal description to application jypPLICANT * Attachment A Phone (home ) 250.00 CIEK Tl 250.00 RECEIFJ-Th^K YQO 4105590 cool ROl T0S:C Minno Metropolitan Waste Control Commissiq»||onq Address: E 5th Street_ _ _ _ _ City: Paul_ _ _ 2ipi 55101 ONNER (If different than applicant) Name Rita M. Straley_ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (home)N/A Phone (work) Windjammer Condos^Address: ia«>n ri^y Rnad City: Stuarts fl (attach list it more than one) *5^^ Attachment^^_^^ KRISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Zip:33494 Present Ose (check) Residential Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Totalf all parcels Residential: no. of unlwS Other (specify) Present Zoning District LR-lC-1_ _ _ _ _ PROPOSAL __ _ _ _ _ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) X Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Slues: Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Sizer Proposed Use: (check) 3,094 X Existing Units New Units Total Units I Units per . 07 Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land ^ J.I ^ WastewaterResidential - Other (specify) Station fv*m)-: •• •. 1 mm. Zoning Pile §1343 September 27, 1988 Page 2 of 3 ««k % b) Each lot has at least 300* of frontage on a public roadway or on a private roadway pursuant to an easement between persons; c) Not a flexible xoning application (i.e. does not require any special or conditional use permits, variances or resoning). The proposed driveway easement is 50* in width and includes a cul-de* sac of 100* diameter, hence in a future subdivision, dedication of the private road outlot would be coincident with this proposed driveway easement. Note that the proposed driveway easement is centered on the existing driveway. The Public Works Director has indicated that a future division into 2-acre lots would likely result in the developer having to share in the costs of raising Orono Orchard Road 5* to 6* at the private road access point. Also note that the City will require during this current division that the property owner quit-claim deed an easement for right-of- way/drainage/utility purposes over the platted Orono Orchard Road (and perhaps additional if that road is not within the defined corridor). This property contains 19.2 acres of designated wetlands, as sho%m on the attached wetlands air photo. Since the applicant is t this time not proposing to plat the property into two acre building sites and since the wetlands are protected through our existing wetland ordinance, there would appear to be no real benefit to the City in requiring that Flowage and Conservation Easements be granted until this property is platted at its maximum denlty. The proposed dividing line between Parcels A & B will leave all improvements associated with the existing house well within the property boundaries. I MS: m -■ ^.1 ■m m Zoning Fj Septembez Page 3 of Discnssic The propert''' situatio private easement such that have each include pilvate easement if a sin subdivis easement zoning di Staf division submittec insure th be constr' As n> areas. SI required either ot Flowage a: Staff Rec« Base' would rec W.F. Rydel not be re< could be the currer the Park : future suh Si ^ %' on a public roadway or it between persona; . does not require any ees or rezoning). and inciudes a cul-de- ion » dedication of the :hls proposed driveway lent is centered on the ' has indicated that a esult in the developer rchard Road 5* to 6* at current division that ement for right-of- )rono Orchard Road (and le defined corridor). wetlandsr as shown on Licant is it this time re building sites and ur existing wetland enefit to the City in ents be granted until & B will leave all )use well within the I i. mm \ P - ... pm:'- I- 'Ml * Zoning Pile #1343 September 27, 1988 Page 3 of 3 Dieeiuiei( The applicant has absolutely no plans to further subdivide this property into two acre lots at this time. In reviewing the access situation, staff is comfortable with the concept of not requiring that a private road be platted at this time as long as the proposed driveway easement over Parcel D in favor of Parcel A is a non-exclusive easement, such that a future buyer of Parcel A would have the right to subdivide and have each newly created lot access through Parcel B. That easement should include language that would allow the owner of Parcel A to develop a private roadway to the City's private roadway standards within the 50* easement corridor. Additionally, this easement would have to specify that if a single new residence is built on Parcel B prior to a future subdivision, that residence will have to be located a distance from the easement equal to or greater than the required front setbac)c for the RR-IB zoning district. Staff would additionally request as a condition of approval of this division that the proposed driveway access easement be drafted and submitted to the City by the applicant's attorney for staff review to insure that the necessary wording is in place such that Parcel A will not be construed as being land-locked. As noted above, this property contains a number of designated wetland areas. Staff would recommend that no Flowage and Conservation Easements be required for the current subdivision, but advises the applicant that if either of Parcels A or B is divided in the future, it is liJcely such Flowage and Conservation Easements will need to be granted. Staff Re*[ation - Based on the above noted concerns being adequately addressed, staff would recommend approval of the metes and bounds subdivision for Edmund W.F. Rydell as proposed. Staff would recommend further that septic testing not be required at this time. Staff also recommends that since Parcel B could be sold as separate building site, that the Par)c Fee of $100.00 per the current fee schedule should be paid with this subdivision, noting that the Par)c Fee paid at this time would be credited towards Park Fees for a future subdivision per Section 11.62, Subdivision 8. 1; mm 14""' 1 CITT OF OB FROPBRTZ X Site Addr'e i ^ ^ Property Z Please che Attach leg APPLZCAflT- Name Addre ONHBR (if Name Addre (att EZISTIN6 L Nufflbe Devel' Prese: '■i • I.-: Ni P: N: mm: subdivide this ng the access squiring that a posed driveway sive easement, 3 subdivide and sasement should i to develop a within the 50* to specify that r to a future tance from the Ic for the RR-IB proval of this e drafted and taff review to cel A will not Lgnated wetland on Easements be licant that if s likely such dressed, staff ion for Edmund septic testing since Parcel B of $100.00 per m, noting that *ark Fees for a mm i A a 1' Vvl ly CITT OP • i: * •D -Cl • I; ‘ •IVISIOH APPLICATIOB > i« 1 . « « PROFEKTr LOCAXXOV Site Address* Aifd/} t,..( OF. O.’iCmt: . ■ FTUAXS OFrlS t^SOSQQOSS'•Oi ex zo.x 4 . * V Please check one - Property X abstract or torrens?09/09/ .* m 0 • • • ' .•. - —Attach legal description to application. * APPLICJUR__ — - — • Phone (home) Marne _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (work) - -U.-1., Address x /JS ^A.PAyo ^v40 omiR (if different than applicant) City: ^AYUrJ! Phone (home) Zip» Name Phone (work) Address x City:Zip: (attach list if more than one) BUSTING LAND OSB Number of Tax Parcels ♦ * Development Size /9.2 19. < Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check)Residential; no.“of units ' / ^ Other (specify)_ _ _ _ '. Present Zoning District IPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes -- - -■ —Lot Line’Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites:Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Units per Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check)Residential Other (specify) hi . f--' • ' NINllfUM MATERIAL 1 1. Completed Ap] Preliminary 1 Certified Pr< this list fr< 348-3271). Stamped, le< names on the obtained wit) As an addendi any other pe: Certification by complete. Zoning Official*s Payment of fi Signed certiI Title opinior Easements, Cc Developers A^ Certification by 2 Zoning Official's Sketch Plan Preliminary Preliminary Final Plat ♦(Plus any The applicant he requested by the Planning Commissic further agrees to ] Applicant's Signat Owner's Signature , Applicant must hav Planning Commissio third Monday of et review meetings of unable to attend t authorized agent a Office of this cha f ♦ I ^i,'i(F.orm . . ■ FIHAHCE OFFICE ■ ■ 'lESOEOOOOO' .- ',,-OX iE» 2M.00 C«EDt; !-.a, »0.00 . FEUIFT-Tim m ■■■- 91083E0 cm m TOT:. W/09/. # >m ;ip» ssj^/ ;ip: * :els • * ^ 9 inits * / ^ » Lding sites)■V . •TT % • mm ■% .' :s A ^ ^ e •*# '• • e • «• • • _ Acres . — • luildable Land ^y) . r»N 1m m-ir . ■■■} i ■m ' '■{ • .' A.:L\ -.- V • -4s N h-^ ; 1'«. 1^1 mvniOil MATERIAL IBCBSSART FOR CONFLBTB PRBLIMIRART APPLICATIOH 1. Completed Application Form 2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. 3. Certified Property (Vners List of o%mers within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 4« Stamped, legal si'sed envelopes_(ilO).pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete• Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _■ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. Title opinion. EaseiMnts, Covenants, etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is c Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- Date lete. Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) $150.00 250.00 .* • * 300.00 * 20.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) . *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 150.00* The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature \j Date 9 Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Pleuining 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 h Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. o;Id-mm m mm mm k'i .a f. mi 5^; )\ fco"* - t icm rou must obtain 603 Govt Center bp each of the iddreas labels parate list of Application is assessments)• plat. )n is complete. $150.00 250.00 300.00 + 20.00/Lot 150.00* n required or :ity Attorney, application and inance. 9 hlr? lays before the re held on the all scheduled in applicant is nts to have an Iding Zoning If ■*' ^ -.J m- ' ^ R-' < . ^ w^rTf.i / U'*1 I •*- !»• ,v ? t b' ; ON ,s S’; m w 1 f i z • c$ 4 . M'fters. \-'=- ^ 'i* ^ ‘ • \ \ « **■ * _ _ ____iL •'* ——»k.1 nu n*y \ _Ml* i a -4 M 8 S S M ^A iS“g •838“* •838®®PiSuSMa 3 n o M U lil 7 ^SSH o X «J M Q M « ly 2 M O 8 88^^ 8888 r!.S33oz•i« O M- ly S 7 UiJZ<isi OH O IIA O O ft < •-« UJ Ul O N • 8§3u.^ o<acQ Q Z lil < < H N- « 5 aft lU QU Z -yK: 7-. ' -• ^ - . >.»»• - -•..‘ •, • • rv V t . •» '■ - —-" » • ••> 1 • • V •• • , . - -tV. V *f. r'.f/’'* >'ir. «/>•***• *itH nu ^ 1* I ' 5 ■V’ •i I-J U'xC »'•.'. ■.*.■'■.■•, .»'i*A ill ^ •• m ui dl2!§i® J :iSS«i -ass-?»aSS5““i»X c»uSm&Z S88.>«sSa 0 Ml kJ m 0 0 0 -4 U 0 O -•0-1 0 M 0 0 2 0 ft ^ 0 M Jl. ^S-|i O CK |0 O < iX O U ^e fSL ^ ^ ^Q ly ly X M 2 ^ ^ O^isssi 7 u u S < ^ ®o m 0 0 a < 0 O 9 9 0 < >• 'm a S U ^ X & w ui < j lasaissg t:9*“sis 10 O ly Do 0 ly ly u < 0 H H t O < < flL 0 0 O H H 0 H 0 e 0 0 O 0 0 Q 3 OC O X < M E T *« O M M -«82 KM >*' ag®'* iiii mmt^ m Q mmm 0 X ^ I X S • o * S <« M lassos: 8 M 0 0 00 0 o *S O 0 •i < < M g lA H K 3 Ml O Oe ss S 0 88^-S t 0 0 S *i s rg “S8S 29“-B >• N 0X00 —7S»«Si0 0 «J l-« •*« O 0 o 0 0 - ^ ‘3 w • U-_ a «r» « E £ M SSmI^mz • 0 Q o ESOgSsg i §a I S 0 3 > u u ^vSiSoi S8Sh9» 1 *"|3 0 0-100 ^ S 0 C 0 S b :- 0 S M 0 X •« 5 3 -10 0 J SeSiA0n|g 0 K 0 0 XX# lgl 1 0 88 S *“gSm ft 0 0m 0 0 Q -1 0 0 ft 0 5§< M 0 98“* I 0 1 ^ S *2:|8 « « » « •>°^SS83•* ® _ IS e E g 9 Z 0 < TT uQ M inI B M ly 2g»“-s*D 9*nm IIICfgg i:iSi § ty AKA KIN6 DRIVE 55356Ise HIsm*S lyssM is^_ «n ly m z X i»» aM Ui (pe S”8!8|(o yiiii 2 \mm 4Ti m elllsi 5 I i s 2|S i T*i:l| M Or-S^^lsl M ts i liSh! J‘|IS iS%E o S.r...SE^ csu IeS * « i-“l^ fisiisi Sji i “3*-8_3 j2a-g “i» IA ^ H ^ M Z ^ -J~ift 3 s m s 8 hi pn nt 1 is 3 J “sIS-o» *•-3*- Ijf^mmi I < m |tf _ sp niZ ""3 Bl i s^ - *5□ ^ Z HI M “S| m m 3 2I < _ o ^ E?'I:!3 2-.BeSrS si HI >■ N ^ Ul ou O Z XII ^ > 3s ?lss^5 SK3«|.hUk EsCisSi lil 8 I 3 t^r »^ . m m HI;i!l> C m U O ill I U ^ S* —o«2 si• _ M 94fs, si>• N I ’.: :v m 'IWi The appl: requested Planning further ac owner's S: Applicant Planning < third Mon review me< unable to author1zee Office of «J» V.,-, •it i:lOTI PRBLXMIHART APPLICATIOH 2. 3. KlVlllini MATSiaAL HICBSSART WKm. !• Conpleted Application Fora Preliainary Plat infomation on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you must c*>tain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Stamped, legal si'ted envelopes.XtiO).^o each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of th^is application. 4. 5. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is iplete Zoning Official's Signature Date 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. Title opinion. Easements, Covenants, etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is c Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _" Date M I •lete. Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II ft III) Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) 300.00 + 20.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) . *(Plu8 any legal or engineering charges) 150.00* The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature \J F — Date Owner's Signature <3^jJbJU2 . 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 ft Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ‘i'i Jit ZCATIONBy 0* (you must obtain e A-603 Govt Center sed 'to each of the ise address labels a separate list of itlon. j Lat Application Is Date ater assessments), mal plat. e • cation Is complete Date $150.00 250.00 tlal) 300.00 20.00/Lot 150.00* latlon required or sr. City Attorney, tils application and f ordinance. Le 25 days before the igs are held on the t at all scheduled If an applicant Is Lgements to have an Building & Zoning - ; JHr--- ^ >-tz^Ik Z X in ly M X"JiS f-* • -\ ■ ;■-■ . ■:{ Li m ^ .?*< •: ■ ■ ’.' 'l 57 fOQl. east qua the Southv quarter of t ending; ALSO that part of S.S.i"» "Subdlylslon "Subdivision No. 1 of Lot I Ranpo 23'', described as follows; East line of said Section 34» which poi Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the tion; thence running Southwesterly, nalcing an angle to the rl line of nnld n *•- *-u- — ’ri i: n 'x I . ^ II \ y V t t I / > » Wi ■ill% in th9 and tha iwiepoii;.'. Sr i^9H,rmf «f S4C H «i t3 ~------------------------------ ........................ / l-HT X^ .......... • • / fool said i: east qua the Southv quarter of t ending; ALSO that part of S.S.i", '’Subdivision iivision No. 1 of Lot f > described as follows: i Section 34, which poi mtheast quarter of the cing an angle to the ri *.U- —A-.—Ti—- A.U- >p '^1 . '."a • ••- • :’;?A''-.?H’!iaiilS.*lSSs; «>>•^ . r- mm 'WMA Plllli. $ m % 9oi PlSL Oro Cit Jea Dat«f Sep Sobja^s #13 Pre lug Diatri Application construe Variance zoning d findings 96tal Propert Lot 1 - Lot 2 • Variance to Li Lot 2 - Reqi Pro] Var: Variance to Id Lot 2 - Reqi Pro| Var: List of 41 lib: Exhibit J Exhibit ] Exhibit ( Exhibit 1 •-"T . ■'<1 jLJL ^ ■ ^ '^- T. • ^ • :3 . „* V.'-*'-^,?-.'.7- r . • 'i-^ * . V- />■: ;'\i 1, ■r->5ir.-'-^^' ■ ?f; •*4>'/ . / "xv^^.;;-,-.'.''.- ^; <■_- r*^ x» '^V **^:. p^ ♦ . • ■ .r-riTtwSlJyiS 1 ,'-'M b m •y.■w I .pi I '. -v :• ! - .-ij^fai! • ’! Planning Conmiaalon Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Coanission Members City Administrator Bemhardson Jeanne A. Mabasthr Building a Zoning Administrator September 27» 1988 bjects #1331 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, 3280 North Shore Dr Preliminary Subdivision Class II - Public Hearing ling District *- LR**1C-*1 Application -* Subdivision application required by the M.W.C.C. in order to construct lift station structure. Variance to minimum lot requirements to subdivision within LR-1C*1 zoning district. Review Section 11.12, Subdivision 10 *- Necessary findings for variance approval. iPotal Property Area ~ 31,177 s.f. Lot 1 “ 28,083 s.f. Lot 2 - 3,099 s.f. Variance to Lot Area - Lot 2 - Required ■ 21,780 s.f. Proposed “ 3,099 s.f. Variance ■ 16,681 s.f. or 86% Variance to Lot Width Lot 2 - Required = 100* Proposed » 48.9* Variance ■ 51.1* or 51% List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit 0 Application Property Owners List Plat Map Preliminary Survey lJ C:. strator n, 3280 North Shore Dr earing he M.W.C.C. in order to /Ision within LR-1C~1 Lalon 10 - Necessary Zoning File #1331 September 27, 1988 Page 2 of 2 Sewiew of Applicatim - Access to the proposed parcels will remain via an existing gravel drive along the west side of the subject property and should be designated as a road outlot with a minimum width of 17+*. The owner of the road outlot must grant an access easement in favor of newly created Lot 2 in addition to the exception to the north of Lot 1. These properties are currently under single ownership. The need to address the creation of Lot 2 results in severe and intense variances. To suggest that Lot 2 is a buildable lot is the one difficult aspect of this subdivision review. Lot 2 should be labeled an outlotf suggesting that it is unbuildable at the time of the platting. This may create a problem for the M.W.C.C. if the lift station can not be built on an outlot. If Lot 2 cannot be labeled an outlot, then the City must ask that special restrictions be filed against the chain of title that would require that it be combined with the adjacent parcels if its use is abandoned by the M.W.C.C. at some time in the future. The M.W.C.C. should respond to the legal issue of the outlot at our meeting on October 3, 1988. In the future, this whole property may be rezoned and replatted to one parcel for combination with the adjacent B-2 properties. The current subdivision will have no negative impact on any proposed future subdivision by the current owner. Staff Recommendation ~ To approve the subdivision application of the M.W.C.C. for the creation of two lots. Lot 1 a residential buildable lot, and Lot 2 (possible Outlot A) deemed unbuildable for residential use and designated by the applicant for exclusive public utility purposes, based on the following conditions: 1. Creation of a road outlot, maximum width to meet width of west corridor of Lot 1 at the intersection of County Road 15. 2. All access to the newly created parcels must be via the road outlot. 3. Approval of the variances noted above if lot cannot be designated as an outlot. WxV- .i-.- mu** y ma: ■ e :i: I *- •■■.■*3 Name Addr< OWMKR (if Name *Addr (at BZISTZH6 Numb Deve Pres Pres PROPOSAL ih ■''"1 via an existing gravel &nd should be designated The owner of the road newly created Lot 2 in These properties are results in severe and lildable lot is the one : 2 should be labeled an s time of the platting, lift station can not be n outlot, then the City : the chain of title that It parcels if its use is re. The M.W.C.C. should Bting on October 3, 1988. ned and replatted to one operties. The current »posed future subdivision f the M.W.C.C. for the Idable lot, and Lot 2 itial use and designated purposes, based on the h to meet width of west y Road 15. s must be via the road lot cannot be designated w I i-nr. 1 ‘ ?. ■ ■ ms . i; / in iinSIOH APPLICATIOH IV c:-) -O‘<C CITT OF OROHO - SLl _ _ __ _ _ _ . mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 4BI mm mm imm mm mm mm mm mm mm m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm ^mm mm mm mm ^m mm mm ^m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm ^m PBOPBMT LOCATION Site Address Bcrth^Shore Drive, Qrono_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Oa‘117“023-44-0003 Please check one - Property _ abstract or _ _ torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT - Attachment A N/APhone (home) CITY iT CRm • FINAhtE OFFICE 1150200000 01 (IH 250,00 cm Vu 250.00 roo 4ms?0 cool ROl TOSiC Name Metropolitan Waste Control Coromissi<ji||on0 (workl^^^~*^^^'~‘^^^^ 230 E 5th Street_ _ _ _ _ Citv« St. Paul_ _ _ Zip» 55101Address: (if different than applicant) Name M. Straley_ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (home)N/A Phone (work)N/A Windj£unmer Condos — ^Address: Palm rity (attach list if more ^han one) Attachment B City; Stuart, FL Zip: 33494 NIISTING LAND DSN Number of Tax Parcels Development Size .7 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check) Residential Residential; no. of uniwS __2 _ _ _ _ Other (specify) Present Zoning District LR-lC-1 PROPOSAL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites:Existing Units ’ New Units Total Units •• •_ _ I Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Sizer Proposed Use: (check) 3,094 X _ Units per .07 Acres • Sq Feet Dry BuiIdable Land „ . , 1 WastewaterResidential _ ’ Other (specify) bift Station ' vt i! f-' -f s : - : W; . J :sm A ■I mm iiAPPLIGATIOHHXVIMaM'MATERIAL 8BCBSSARY FOR COMFLBTB FRELIMT 1. CoBipleted A^llcation Form Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property Owners List of o%mers within 350* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A~603 Govt Center Stamped, legal sixed envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to^each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application • w. J «•» • Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete.. Zoning official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water asses Signed certifiedl:e of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. Title opinion. Attached Easememts, Covenants, etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. lents). Certification by Zoning Department that Pinal Pl^ Application is c Zoning Official's Signature t)At% lete. Sketch Plan Review (Class I# II * III)$150.00 « • ^ Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision)250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non—residential)300.00 20.00/Loc Final Plat Review (Class III) • *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 150.00* The applicant hereby agrees to provide all requested by-the zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees .to pay <*fll additional fees established by ordinance. . . Applicant's Signature Date Owner's Date Applicant must have all submittals into tlie^ty offices 25 <3ays Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings “®^“ 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 . authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Z g Office of this change prior to the meeting. t kv ,vl % i n y- PLICATIONrvey.350' (you oust obtain tice A-603 Govt Center issed to each of .the (use address labels r • * jt, : h a separate list of cation. Plat Application is Date water assessments)• ormal plat. • e lication is cOTuplete. Date $150.00 . 250.00 3'*0.00 + 20 jO/Lot 150.00* ential) nation required or ler. City Attorney# :his application and >y ordinance.____ . late late is 25 days before the .ngs are held on the nt at all scheduled If an applicant is ingements to have an le Building & Zoning NS3 4 f f 'w a Planning Commisaion Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Conniaaion Membera City Adminiatrator Bernhardaon Jeanne A. Mabuath, Building & Koning Adminiatrator September 27, 1988 Sabjecti #1306 Metropolitan waate Control Commiaaion, 3286 North Shore Dr Conditional Uae Permit/Variancea - Continuation of Public Hearing iteeiesf of Application - Application #1306 waa tabled at your July Planning Commiaaion meeting pending the M.W.C.C. filing a formal aubdiviaion application with the City for the creation of approximately a 3»099 a.f* parcel for the future conatruction of a pumping atation/llft atation atructure. In addition, the M.W.C.C. waa to addreaa the concerna noted by the Planning Commiaaion in revicn# of original application §1306. Pleaae review the original ataff memo dated July 13, 1988 with Exhibita (A through K) included in your Auguat 18, 1988 packets. Additional List of Eidiibits Exhibit L - Notice of Planning Commiaaion Action Exhibit M - M.W.C.C. Reaponae Letter of 9/16/88 Aa of thia writing the M.W.C.C. has not submitted a revised site plan/building elevations that would address the concerna of the Planning Commission cited at your July 18th meeting and repeated again in the Notice of Planning Commission Action dated July 28, 1988 (review Exhibit L). Review Exhibit M, the M.W.C.C.'s written response to the Planning Commission for this review. Ms. Linde advises that there will be no noise or special odors that will be omitted from this structure. Any noise will result from the operation from the generator if there is an emergency or for 1/2 hour a week when the generators are being exercized. The M.W.C.C. also suggests that landscaping be resolved by both staffs. Staff would certainly recommend that'’'*screening type'* landscaping be provided along the east and north lot line where the building does not meet the required 50* setback from residential zoned properties. Low level screening should be provided in the street yard because of the substandard setback and the need to prevent viewing/sighting hazards at the intersection of the County road. m 'I .4 Zoning Fi September Page 2 of Sine MS. Linde difficult station i redesign M.W.C.C. I pitched maintenar facia to surrounded that the The I exhibits the entin to allow minimum o Prlo staff mus final Ian conditioni becomes a Staff Race To a| for a pro] lot consii 1. 1 alloi 2. T of tl consi 3. surr< comme ". mm-(1 Imlnlstrator Lssiorif 3286 North Shore Dr linuatlon of Public Hearing lanning Commisaion meeting application with the City f. parcel for the future tructure. In addition# the he Planning Commission in i review the original staff rough K) included in your ction 6/88 submitted a revised site le concerns of the Planning epeated again in the Notice 1988 (review Exhibit L). esponse to the Planning :hat there will be no noise 3 structure. Any noise will .f there is an emergency or ,ng exercized. The M.W.C.C. f both staffs. Staff would iplng be provided along the s not meet the required 50* r level screening should be :andard setback and the need rsectlon of the County road. ft' ■ !V •• ttir. I', J--- :■ -...v^ = V r- I.-. ■ V. . Zoning Pile #1306 September 27# 1988! Page 2 of 3 Since receipt of the September I6th letter# staff has talked to both Ms. Linde and Mr. Keegan of the M.N.C.C. and advised that staff would have difficulty recommending approval of the conditional use permit for the pump station if the concerns of the City were not addressed at a minimum with a redesign of the roof of the pump station. Prior to your meeting# the M.M.C.C. staff will submit a revised plan with elevations that show a pitched roof. They wish to retain the brick facia because of the maintenance-free aspect. Staff sees no problem with allowing the brick facia to remain. The applicant was advised that the subject property is surrounded by future B-2 zoned property scheduled for major upgrading andi that the property to the south is residential (Bohn's Point). The parking area was actually defined on the site plan in the original exhibits (original packet# Exhibit G). In fact# it shows paving throughout the entire rear yard area. Staff would recommend that this be trimmed back to allow for the screening/plantings along the north sice rear yard a minimum of 5* to 8*. Prior to scheduling this application before the Council for action# staff must be In receipt of a complete site plan reflecting parking and final landscaping. The applicant should be advised that in dealing with a conditional use permit of this type for a substandard parcel# landscaping becomes an issue for the City to resolve and not solely for the staff. Staff Eeo • ' t H , ^ndati« To approve a conditional use permit and setback variances (see below) for a proposed pumping station/lift station structure on a newly proposed lot consisting of approximately 3#099 s.f. based on the following findings^ 1. The applicant has filed the necessary subdivision application to allow the legal transfer of land to the M.W.C.C. 2. The amendment of the original Improvement plans for the upgrading of the existing sewer lines owned by the M.W.C.C. is required and is considered an important# intregal part of the proposal. 3. The proposed structure will have no major impact on the surrounding residential property nor on the use of the adjacent commercial property. has talked to both b staff would have permit for the pump it a minimum with a your meeting, the tions that show a a because of the ,1 lowing the brick ubject property is ajor upgrading and int). an in the original I paving throughout lis be trimmed back ) side rear yard a auncil for action, acting parking and : in dealing with a arcel, landscaping tor the staff. riances (see below) n a newly proposed following findings: ion application to I for the upgrading is required and is sal. Dr impact on the i of the adjacent :¥ 5,''- v-v ■■■ ■ -V .S':":'. r- Ik ^ Zoning File il3Q6 September 27, 1988 Page 3 of 3 Thm setback variances required are as follows; 3 OSection 10.20, Sobdivisioi Required « 50' East Lot Line ■ 10' North Lot Line • 25* Variance Bast Lot Line ■ 40* or 801 variance North Lot Line * 25' or 50% Section 10.25, Snbdivisi Street Setback: Required * 30' Proposed « 5' Actual Travelled • 40* Road Variance - 25' or 831 Rear Setback: Required Proposed Variance 30' 25' 5* or 171 This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to scheduling this conditional use permit application before the City Council, the applicant must submit a revised site plan designating the following: a) Amend the parking area along the north side of the building adjusting for planting area along the north property line. b) "Screening type" landscaping along the north and east lot lines adjacent to the residentially used property and provide low type hanging vegetation/bushes within the front/street area. 2. Approval of a pitched roof for the brick facia structure, not to exceed 20x32 per plans dated 5/88 by Bonestroo, Anderlik and Associates. 3. All access to the site must be via the private driveway along the west side lot line, no direct access onto County road will be allowed. 4. Any proposed change in use of this structure or a major intensification of use must be approved by the City of Orono. CITY OF 01 P.O. Box i Crystal B Timo' Metri Hear St. TYPE OF A DATE OF M Planning Tabl NOTES AND The permit fc would co: existing subdivis the exist staff wai the upcoi 1988 meet Staf as the rc Planning the props 1. Wii: Proi the pla lam The Comi sug res: str MWC stn Pie before tf It is St. of the P Tim like to week of and it applicat ■ ikKt ■ 6 S 83i 17% Lcation before ed site plan the building f line. and east lot id provide low eet area. icturer not to l^nderlik and sway along the 11 be allowed. s or a major rono. % ‘4 V.» 'i' ii t . '•;v mu f- ••4 u.* citt OF OROHO P.o. Box 66 Crystal Bayr MN ZCRfIMG FILE BO. 1306 HOnCB OF FIAMBIB6 COMBI SSIOB ACTI' 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice; 7/28/88 TO:Timothy P. Keegan COPIES TO* Metropolitan Waste Control C<aasission Hears Park Centre, 230 East 5th St St. Paul, MN 55101 Jim Olson Bonestroo, Anderlik 2335 W H%#y 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 AsiOO TYPE OF APPUCATIOB* Conditional Use ______ VOTE* 6 For 0 Against FlZnSg*^SH«siop recons^nds the followings Tabled for reasons noted below BOTBS MD SWCM CamiTl^t action on the condition.! use l?*,or t?r HWCC°.“ of construction of a building that /„nt.ln a lifr?tation%^ a. part of the upgrading of thewould contain a iirt srarxo irtirr filina for the appropriate existing Metro sewer lines, lit* , # carcel from subdivision application that would divide off -he >.k« mWCC,fir” nn “^no • f carcel. In a recent conversation with v.ne nwuv., at^ff*iM^rdvisirthat*the subdivision application would not be filed for ^he up^o-ing meeting, b^ would make the deadline for the September 19, 1988 meeting. staff will re-schedule the conditional use permit at the same meeting ri.rin%-’c^o*:m?Ll?n and the proposed use? landscaping and we request landscaping for the structure. The building design has been questioned by the members of ^*>e Pljinnl^g MWCC's use that would be more appropriate than the des gn p structure. 2. 4. Parking area should be defined on site plan. Please see that your information is submitted at least before the scheduled meeting for the review of the subdivis on app part $rirsta1f*s hope to get a comprehensive action and approval on the part of the Planning Commission at the September meeting. Tim Please contact my office at your earliest convenience ” ^ like to discuss the filing of the applications^sometime rnfi%'Sd^*lUs%“tS:t°Vc^mpTete ^ of this specific application since I commenced the review (473-7Jt>/;. m m:Ki «l (LI "1 W i •i September 16, ; Ms. Jeanne A. 1 Building & Zon: City of Orono Post Office Boj Crystal Bay, Ml Subject; Condi This letter is 7/28/88 notice, 1. Will thei structure There wil is operat cipate th We do noi tion. Provide 1 that all original tion prov for the s Commissio plan. 3. The build Planning surroundi] making th public w< possibly use that this stru< The desig decided di staff. T si stent w. to the ea there is dominatinc LE NO. 1306 3MMISSION ACTION te of Notice: 7/28/8S son roo, Anderlik 6 Assoc. Hwy 36 ulr MN 55113 Against n the conditional use Ion of a building that E tne upgrading of the Ing for the appropriate 2,880 s.f. parcel from rsation with the MWCC# would not be filed for for the September 19, nit at the same meeting iould be noted that the .ng the proposed use of essed by the MWCC: ing from this structure Lng Commission that all the original upgrading ion provided no such structure. members of the Planning urrounding neighborhood \e structure look more se. Note other similar lave been designed for the design plan of this :ted at least two weeks subdivision application, ind approval on the part n. convenience as I would itime wj^thin the fourth :wo weeks of September Lew of this specific ■j • • •• ‘'■ m i wm.. i ft -j*" ^ u ’-L J V:- Mm-Wm m->«•\i'-•. ■ Wiste /iMean Mirk Centre, 230 East Fifth St ^btraLCommiss I. str^.^ t September 16, 1988 i Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building 6 Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Orono Interceotor MWCC Project Number 85-67 Subject: Conditional Use Permit and Plat Appllcatiofi This letter is in response to the city's concerns as summarired in the 7/28/88 notice, zoning file No. 1306. 1. Will there be noise, or any special odors eiiiittlBg from this structure and the proposed use? There will be some noise from the facility when the generator is operated in an emergency or when being exercised. We anti cipate that this would happen about 1/2 hour per week. We do not anticipate a problem with odors at this lift sta tion. 2. Provide landscaping - it was noted by the Planning Commission that all the other lift stations and improvements with the original upgrading plans provided landscaping. This applica tion provided no such landscaping and we request landscaping for the structure. Commission staff will work with the City on a landscaping plan. 3. The building design has been questioned by the members of the Planning Commission finding it not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood suggesting a re-design of roof and making the structure look more residential rather than for public works type use. Note other similar structures, possibly in Eden Prairie, that have been designed for MWCC's use that would be more appropriate than the design plan of this structure. The design and type of construction of the building was decided during bi-weekly review meetings with the Commission staff. The building has a brick facing and flat roof con sistent with this type of facility. The facility has homes to the east and north and a marina to the west. Because there is a mix of building types, with the marina probably dominating, a commaicial type building was designed. v^ars 1938-1988 C1 m. r ■i-' ham. •V .%■ Jeann Page MWCC Septe 4. Diann this will Bones Engin Pleas or CO Since "arol Admin Right CliL:s L78 ■■ %if f§M£Ws m ommiss] I. St^feul/ I 222i Cnterceptor reject Number 85-67 I summarized in the tting from this m the generator raised. We anti- >er week. this lift sta ining Commission jments with the This applica- :est landscaping t a landscaping members of the riate for the .gn of roof and rather than for ar structuresr gned for MWCC’s design plan of 3 building was the Commission flat roof con- Llity has homes west. Because narina probably igned. ■V mIS. 1^ • -^r ' ■-.i’ ::f'-v] \^4 'T'-{»> ^incite ir Jeanne A. Mabusth Page 2 KWee Project Number 85-67 September 16, 1988 t It is possible that the landscaping plan may trees and/or shrubs for the purpose of a screen. incorporate 4« Parking area should be defined on site plan. Off-street and off-driveway parking is provided on the northt side of the building. This is now shown on the site plan. Dianne Wanner, the Commission's Public Relations representative for this project, will be giving a brief overview of the Commission and will introduce Tim Keegan, Staff Engineer, and Jim Olson, of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, the Consulting Engineer, at the meeting on the 3rd. Please contact me immediately at 229-2147 if you have any quetfelons or concerns. Sincerely, !arol L. Lrnae Administrative Assistant Rights-of-Way Section CLL:sma L78 cc: Jim Olson J. K. Matross T. F. Keegan D. Wanner ,,Y- rVvv 14-.' i -iH p;; m -U-? ■-'.f TOi Proas Dates Subjecl Diecass PI That mi request action factors api ly incorporate i on the north site plan. esentative for Commission and rim Olson, of le Consulting any questions •V. #9 •f' • ....Vlj Mi-- .y-* is? ik IS m ,"-j' .;* ,1 r . % . • t w ■ .•/ i-i m i'i .It'- TOf Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator Dates September 26, 1968 Snbjectc #990 Ward Ferrell, 3405 Watertown Road - Variance - Revised Proposal - Referral Prom Council Zoning District - RR-IB, Single Family, 2 Acre, Unsewered Application ” The applicant has revised his proposal, and is requesting a variance to bu^..d a new residence on one of his three one*~acre parcels, rather than his previous request to build a house on each of the two vacant one-acre parcels. Idst of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Council Action Dated 9/21/88 Exhibit B - Memo a Exhibits of 9/8/88 Discussion - Please review carefully the memo and exhibits of September 8, 1988. That memo will give a background regarding the applicant's original request, a history of City codes in relation to this property, a history of action by the City to date on this request, and additional pertinent factors. Planning Commission is specifically requested to make a recommendation to Council regarding two issues: 1. Does the Planning Commission still hold to the Planning Commission recommendation of February 18, 1986 to recommend approval of one additional house on the total three acre property, for a density of one house per 1.5 acres? 2. If so, which of the following configurations for the property is appropriate: A) Require a lot line rearrangement and combinations so that there are two 1.5 acre tax parcels. B) Grant buildability to one of the one acre parcels, deny the other one acre parcel and require that the new building site be a combination of the two vacant lots. .;v. ;■ ' -V ' m - .«!fcs >?♦ .;w j ■. Zoning Fi Septembei Page 2 ol Plej about 11 the exis is about The appl septic s limited family x houses Ol attempt 1 given ap allowing would be Staff Re< Aga provided addition would re« that the acres of additions A. issi B. app C. rea: sue] Y-I-. .^-i-^. :■ ^.t •'•■ 4/■• ■••• -^- imlnistrator :ouflcil red and is requesting a his three one-acre Id a house on each of f September 8, 1988. }plicant's original •operty, a history of [ditlonal pertinent lake a recommendation Planning Commission nd approval of one ty, for a density of for the property is ombinations so that acre parcels, deny le new building site ■r'i Si-, mi"mm f ■'Y *.A m-i: 1- -.-uSU^ 1 m ‘ ' * f A • ■-% . ■ ’"•'y t v;. 1 h ■ ■ A]■£. Ja:4.% •• -■ ^-. V Zoning File #990 Septesiber 27, 1988 Page 2 of 2 C) Same s above except attach the denied lot to the existing residence property. D) Same as above except leave the denied lot uncombined with either the approviid acre or the existing house acre. Please refer to the survey/sketch attached as Exhibit N/E of 5/19/87, about 11 pages back in your packet. This indicates that the parcel with the existing house is about 1.01 acre, the next vacant parcel to the west is about .85 acre, and the western most parcel is about 1.04 acre in area. The applicant has shown that technically there is room to provide for septic systems within the property, however, the sites wr Id be quite limited in potential for development with more than just a simple single family residence. Staff is on record as suggesting that constructing houses on each of the two vacant lots will not ultimately further Orono*s attempt to keep municipal sewers out of the rural area. Past Councils have given applicant at least some suggestion that two l^s acre parcels, i.e. allowing one additional building site on the entire three acre property, would be worthy of consideration. Staff Re<tation - Again, staff would ask that you review the packet of information provided. If Planning Commission feels that a variance to allow one additional building site on the three acre property is justified, staff would recommend that a lot line rearrangement and combination take place so that the existing residence and the new building site will each contain 1.5 acres of land. Should Planning Commission recommend such an approval, additional appropriate conditions include: A. Payment of standard Park Pee at the time the building permit is issued. B. Access location for the new buildable lot shall be subject to City approval. C. The applicant shall file an application for a lot line rearrangement, and this variance approval shall not take effect until such time as the lot line rearrangement has been completed. I '' ■ ■ t-- life t ; 1 u mmi cm OF osm P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, TOs Ward F« 3405 Wi Long La TXFS OF APPI lOLTE OF MBS1 •it.#IHCIL ACTI Counci 1 Commission f This it October 3, 1 will be the Please your repress: If you ( are availab approval by mk to the existing uncombined with ;re. N/E of 5/19/87 r the parcel with reel to the west 04 acre in area, to provide for wr-Id be quite a .iimple single ftt constructing further Orono ’s St Councils have re parcelsr i.e. e acre property» of Information e to allow one astifiedr staff 3n take place so each contain 1.5 3h an approveIf tiding permit is e subject to City for a lot line bake effect until leted. h C, .. JK- f ■ H r/i 1^.i.*# M * •r;*]9ezrr OF P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay# MN BPPLIGATIOV BO. |990t I BOFICB OF COOBCIL ACTIOB 55323 473-7357 Date of notices 9-21-88 90s Hard Ferrell 3405 Watertown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 OOFIB8S TXPB OF APPLICATIOB: Variance DATS OF !TIB6s 9-12-88 VOTBs 5 For 0 Against OOOBCIL ACTIOB - NOTlOBs Council voted unanimously to refer this application to the Planning Commission for consideration of your revised proposal. This item is scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on Monday# October 3r 1988. The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m., and it is expected thie will be the first item reviewed that evening. Please contact Mike Gaffron or Jeanne Mabusth at 473-7357 if you or your representative cannot attend that meeting. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutesr they are available from the City Recorder^or City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. * » K : idh' M! '■m ■4 ■m V'H m If •1*-^ m V. * . ■y 1 tot Frosi Mic Dates Se| Subjects #9S Vai NOTE s Per tl the Cit3 This wai List of Bxhil Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit (p^AFr (te Discussion - Mr. Per of the two a also is on Residential building sit On Febx denial of 3 approval c recommendati appropriate. Ferre1] on April 14, a vote of 4- adopted and in May of 1' tabled at a\ .r,:V ■/: 'v inning onday^ 1 this rou or they w and t./'i’: k V \ ii‘ •V k^V- r-.-; ■x'a ■}' l>-. ’ '1 M4itsSi •V A>: m 4 i‘4 I . ■>.m=^-**3. .. ■■•V .. • ; -;^J ■i ^'■v■ .-4t3 .ft*,i?irT *■■: W-:;JOM •' TOl ffayor Grabek 6 Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson FrdBl!Michael P. Gaffrofti Asst Planning fc Zoning Administrator Dates September 8# 1988 Subjects #990 Ward Ferrell# 3405 Watertown Road Variance - Continued Review HOTE: p«r the letter dated Augu.t 4. 1988, Mr. Perr.ll has reque.ted that the City re-open File #990, a lot area and width variance application. This was last reviewed by the City Council on May 26# 1987* List of Bzhibits Exhibit A - Letter From Applicant Dated 8/4/88 Exhibit B - Staff Letter to Applicant Dated 8/9/88 Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Survey With Staff Notations Exhibit E - Current Applicable Code Section Exhibit P - Planning Commission & Council Minutes Exhibit G - Various Pertinent Staff Memos & Exhibits ft€SDLu.Ttc*^ cF p^cRer^ Discussion -- Mr. Ferrell originally requested to be able to build a house on each of the two approximately 1 acre lots he owns 3 Rura^ also is on a 1 acre lot. This property all is in the RR 13 Ruia Residential Zoning District, which requires a minimum 2 acre lot size for building site. on February 18, 1986, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend denial of 3 total residences on the applicant's 3 acres, but recommen e approval of allowing 1 additional house on the 3 acres. That recommendation did not clarify whether a lot line rearrangement would be appropriate. Ferrell continued hi- 3-total-house request at the Council on April 14, 1986 Council directed staff to draft a resolution of denial by a vote of 4-1. Although that resolution was drafted, it was never or adopted and was tabled at applicant's request. The iter -as OP®"®^ “9® " in May of 1987 at applicant's request, discussion ensi’.jd, and <S tabled at applicant's request. m 1 -m ^ Zoning File #1343 September 27, 1988 Page 2 of 3 b) Each lot has at least 300* of frontage on a public roadway or on a private roadway pursuant to an easement between persona; c) Not a flexible zoning application (i.e. does not require any special or conditional use permits* variances or rezoning). The proposed driveway easement is 50* in width and includes a cul^de-* sac of 100* diameter* hence in a future subdivision* dedication of the private road outlot would be coincident with this proposed driveway easement. Note that the proposed driveway easement is centered on the existing driveway. The Public Works Director has indicated that a future division into 2>acre lots would likely result in the developer having to share in the costs of raising Orono Orchard Road S' to 6' at the private road access point. Also note that the City will require during this current division that the property owner quit-claim deed an easement for right-of- way/drainage/utility purposes over the platted Orono Orchard Road (and perhaps additional if that road is not within the defined corridor). This property contains 19.2 acres of designated wetlands* as shown on the attached wetlands air photo. Since the applicant is ..t this time not proposing to plat the property into two acre building sites and since the wetlands are protected through our existing wetland ordinance* there would appear to be no real benefit to the City in requiring that Flowage and Conservation Easements be granted until this property is platted at its maximum denity. The proposed dividing line between Parcels A & B will leave all improvements associated with the existing house well within the property boundaries. f on a public roadway or It between persona; does not require any ces or rezoning). and includes a cul-de- lion, dedication of the this proposed driveway Rent is centered on the : has indicated that a esult in the developer irchard Road 5* to 6* at s current division that lement for rlght-of- Orono Orchard Road (and he defined corridor). wetlands, as shown on llcant is it this time :re building sites and our existing wetland benefit to the City in lents be granted until & B will leave all ouse well within the Zoning File #1343 September 27, 1988 Page 3 of 3 DiSCOMiCHI * The applicant has absolutely no plans to further subdivide this property into two acre lots at this time. In reviewing the access situation, staff is comfortable with the concept of not requiring that a road be platted at this time as long as the proposed driveway easement over Parcel B in favor of Parcel A is a non-exclusive easement, such that a future buyer of Parcel A would have the right to subdivide and have each newly created lot access through Parcel B. That easement should include language that would allow the owner of Parcel A to develop a private roadway to the City's private roadway standards within the 50* easement corridor. Additionally, this easement would have to specify that if a single new residence is built on Parcel B prior to a future subdivision, that residence will have to be located a distance from the easement equal to or greater than the required front setbacJc for the RR-lB zoning district. additionally request as a condition of approval of this division that the proposed driveway access easement be drafted and submitted to the City by the applicant's attorney for staff review to insure that the necessary wording is in place such that Parcel A will not be construed as being land-loc)ced. As noted above, this property contains a number of designated wetland areas. Staff would recommend that no Flowage and Conservation Easements be required for the current subdivision, but advises the applicant that if either of Parcels A or B is divided in the future, it is lilcely such Flowage and Conservation Easements will need to be granted. Staff Repnimsf ndation - Based on the above noted concerns being adequately addressed, staff would recommend approval of the metes and bounds subdivision for Edmund W.F. Rydell as proposed. Staff would recommend further that septic testing not be required at this time. Staff also recommends that since Parcel B could be sold as separate building site, that the Park Pee of $100.00 per the current fee schedule should be paid with this subdivision, noting that the ParJc Fee paid at this time would be credited towards Par)c Fees for a future subdivision per Section 11.62, Subdivision 8. IK •V.. m fp- ‘i I •••:■■ CITT OF OI ntOPBRTr ] Site Addrc Property 1 Please ch« Attach -lec APPLZCAHT Name Addre ONHBR (if ■ v.-j.Name Addre (att EXISTING L Numbe Devel< m Presei . Presei PROPOSAL Pi Mi Pr further subdivide this 1 reviewing the access of not requiring that a \ the proposed driveway non-exclusive easement, e right to subdivide and B. That easement should Parcel A to develop a tandards within the 50* ild have to specify that L B prior to a future ted a distance from the nt setback for the RR-lB ion of approval of this sement be drafted and ey for staff review to that Parcel A will not Br of designated wetland nnservation Easements be 8 the applicant that if ire, it is likely such granted. lately addressed, staff subdivision for Edmund :her that septic testing ids that since Parcel B Park Pee of $100.00 per ubdivlslon, noting that towards Park Fees for a _X[ V.- % .5 m y •mli % ■■■ Z'r 'T. iMMii - ■ CITY OP OROHO - SOBDIVXSXOV APPLICATIC»I VROPBRTY LOCATIOa * - - Site Address* 7PS Aaj/i # 13 4 w*i.- —. 'FUiA}€S(FFm ''13^200000' ' ^ 2SO.OO Cm.y.R: 250.00 Propei^y Identification Humber (P.I.D.) • • FtCFIFT-Th^’ TW '^-■•^ 4108320 COCl T07:. tofrens?' • ' 09/09/. «• . * » • - •& . -<A«. ... era .• ae- -awi« . Please check one- Property X abstract or Attach 'legal description to application. AFFLZCAIT^.. — Phone (home) ^7^-a2//F Name Phone (work)_ _ _ _ _ m X 4 J t Address i /S^ (if different than applicant) name TjfMF • -m City: Phone (home) 2ip» SSJ^/ Phone (work) Address: ' ' ' ' (attach list if more t^an one) City:Zip: SZ1STZ9S JMKD USE Humber of Tax Parcels Development Size 20. /9.2 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels m ee Present Use (check)Residential; no."of units * / ~ Other (specify)_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ - Present Zoning District^__ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ PROPOSAL ________ Division for Tax Purposes t — _ _:x...- . ••j .Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) _Subdivision for New Building Sites . rfT*' •» « Number of Building Sites:Existing Units ” New Units * Total Units e ^ ,e »ee «e«e*^ m • • Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) Units per Acres ..... ^ Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) ..H ■twr tr-e;: frk.y : '-i :LA;. •ri ^•1 i MINIMUM 1. 2.Pre 3.Cer thi 348 4.Sta nam obt 5.As any Certlfle complete Zoning O: Pay: Sigi Tit] Ease Dev< Certifies Zoning Oi FBBS Sk Pr Pr Pi *( The appl requestec Planning further a< Applicant Owner's S: Appllean Planning third Mo review m< unable t authorize Office oi ^0M Tm OF. orm; . .' Fimm (s^FicE 1350200000 ■ 01 SH 250.00 T CHECK: y .IL. 250.00 OpaJ ■ ' RECEIFT-THm: rOU ---■m08320 cool m jot:. en«?‘ : 09/09/. rk) 21p« SS7J/ rk) Zips • •« L parcels . "of units e # building sites) f Units :s lits sr Acres Dry Buildable Land :ial specify) LBTB PRBLIMIHART APPLlCATldNman MATBRIAL KBCBSSART WOR Completed Application Form ^^®li®i^®^y Plat infomatxon on Certificate of Survey this list fn 348-3271). obtained with property owners list).;.r^v/a »■ Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application ia Zoning Official's Signature Date filing fee, sewer and water assessments). Si^ed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat.Title opinion. Easementsp Covenants# etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. '^PPlicatlon 1. complete. Date Sketch Plan Review (Class 1, ll & m)$150.00 Preliminary Review (Class I 4 ll Subdivision)250e00 Review (Class III and all non—residential) m* ♦ 300.00 20.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges)150.00* agrees to provide all Information required or Planing Engineer, City Attorney.* .. dssion and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature _ Date - ^ Date submittals into the City offices 25 days before the reviewApplicants must be present at all scheduled nn^K?^ ®®®tings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is au^hirirfn \ a scheduled meeting# please make arrangements to have an Offleo advise the Building & ZoningOffice of this change prior to the meeting. cm DU must obtain 03 Govt Center :p each of the li'dress labels >arate list of pplication is assessments)• lat. 1 is complete. $150.00 . 250.00 300.00 + 20.00/Lot 150.00* required or ,ty Attorney, plication and lance. 4 ^ HI? lys before the a held on the 11 scheduled applicant is ts to have an ling & Zoning •jsr '"" ^ ^x in ^-. . ^ii 'S°'"^’Vv • nu n'^ I _ : ^tJsiL^- mi - ■ >■ #'’'•'■■ m '•nn-r vr-''n «#•I • ;m- A I i 2S; ifit *. I K ss^ HI «« :5!Ht :SM‘ 1:h’3S8=**ss- A dS*a£ •SS«“*-css HfL 0 ^IS sa 0 0 ly tn M 0 U yi 0 M 0 0 S s Lfl M :* :i^*Si •»55 “*« aS5i®®s:0 o u Sx 0 E si.l Q Z Hi <3 >- \ 0 < ly -m^SSBBBHIESm ! H*Ml ss% zHit ^ 0 «l y Ml 0 M Q O 0 Ml Z 0 M ft 0 0 -32gri ^S*Si S^«“» s O 0 0 0 O u -I X «MV I 0I M 0 0 0 0o 0 Q 0S 0 0 0 n 0 8 S 0 0 0 < ^sssissis 0 0 0 u < 0 I- H H a. o < < a 0 O H K 0 r« H e 0 0 o 0 0 I 0 gss9 >• s 0.22" O g 0 a £ r^TI- 7T if :ll|i< O «j 0 O 0 7 -2-2«i| 9S<»3SS I S3 ^00 82 s 0 0 0 ft log “•e. §1 *28810 o o o 00 O 0 0 *4 o z 0 3 < >• N ^ ft < 0 &s 3 i. -s*« ♦^®2g •"2M I 0 >•- -Si S 9 0 u 0 0 •• > K 0I s ^ ^ < Z 0 0 j 0 0 0 < ft . 0 u 5 K S c 9 NO-g0 ft 0ISS 58 Si 0 Si 0ft S 0 0 0 H* 0 Z 10 0 O E S9SSS0 ^ H ft ft• a^s3 iZiH8-.883 0 o “So N O ft ft Oi# O § ft S 9^!S2 g2§^U < K I f siS 0 O:s 3* 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 a O E n 0 0 I 0 0 S83 L‘||3A:m 0 gg _ 0 5g 2 "S 0 0 “gssi:§. 7 3^29 < 0 0 SS“*28 ^Srsas g 9 oeax ut gS2 sii r » _ Itf 94 m M lU Zisr"* M niM oe ^o^l!(7S W%ss “u.2 o'S M Si ^ssf§‘L:*S3 *S“S8*e «i III z MO H ^ B ^00003 -a=lij cniii S -J uS Sr lu iM ^ !SrS8S f . *. 28“ Ml0 oe oS“ s MO M t#l^s; ss M W S & Ui Z1 lu w B a Z2RR*aj S-siXPi^-SS M e ^ 8 r>» SO CK K m ^ r •• I ¥'i: • ^ /, - f.•if % 2 Sit 1, ^ / f_ if' i 3 •0" 8^ I o 3 O94 8 *LiJ «3 S ^ X M u%t M 5 8 p 2mui1 *«S3 A'hif^oxsSS i[[!jlSI8lu Hi 8 ^ 94i hBl 3 *mmrn.si^i;i mm 1 8 csllsi IK niZ 2 tgaass O Ul HI o S3H H OM ^ H K III □ *^5SS8 >- N. ^ .* 2 3 n mI S X O 2 O |f 8 s s ft o g ly «5t3i iis^i: :i-M/M 5 & p 2 2 Xii-i-|!3 §*spO H O M £~s>=SSsi ShIbI • V 21! < u B lu fa o < e o o 9^!S ^3:, 4 f •• Payi Sigi Tit; Eas< Devi Certifici Zoning Oi ■ :r*^i ^4 The app] requeste Planning further a Ovmer's S Applicant Planning third Moi review me unable tc authorize Office of i s ® S?5 < 8 HI l^a it III I ^p snI u B ui "si s«gUl . ■Mi® ZSlfiNh#** mVIlfOII MATBRIAL HBCBSSAKT POR COMPLBTB PRSLIMIHART APPLICRTIOB 1. Completed Application Fora Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must c'^'tain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Stamped# legal si'sed envelopes_(ilO).pre-addressed tp each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). As an addendum to this application# please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Flat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _■ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date Payment of fees (park fees# filing fee# sewer and water assessments). Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. Title opinion. Easements# Covenants# etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date Sketch Plan Review (Class I# II * III) Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) 300.00 + 20.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) . - *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 150.00* The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator# City Engineer# City Attorney# Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Date <3^jJb2 . 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. vey. 150* (you must obtain ce A-603 Govt Center seed 'to each of the (use address labels 1 a separate list of ;atioA. Plat Application is Date water assessments), rmal plat. ication is complete. Date $150.00 250.00 ntial)300.00 20.00/Lot 150.00* mation required or er. City Attorney, :his application and »y ordinance. s 25 days before the Lngs are held on the nt at all scheduled If an applicant is mgements to have an e Building & Zoning 57 fool said h east qua the Southv quarter of t ending; ALSO that pert of S.S.i", "Subdivision "Subdivision No, 1 of Lot f Ran^e 23'% described as follows: East line of said Section 34, which poi Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the tion; thence running Southwesterly, naklng an angle to the rl line of r.n Id .9r»rtdrm n « ».u-----* --i i - - 7^- ^ k/'- h:M\ mmmmi mm ' '■ -y. wm Wm i * V. T. .w > - T 'i I.J ,S ’ill • ^ Ll ^ t • / M- I m: t ». * / r'/*y " hlv V % 'S »»v 1 M V 9 In the end the SE4erj s •f U*. M na 13 ........................ ; • •fH » I 57 reel, said K east qua the Southv quarter of t ending; ALSO that pert of S.S.^", "Subdivision ivision t4o. 1 of Lot V. described as follows: Section 34t which poi titheast quarter of the Lni' an angle to the ri A.U- A-'-- V v'Y * :**■ . V'«r t >3A’ ' *t5<m.V •r 7, ai^SiS mmm riS' Subjects 113 Pre Soiling Distri Application construe Varianci zoning d findings Total Property Lot 1 - : Lot 2 - : Variance to Id Lot 2 - Reqi Proj VarJ Variance to Lc Lot 2 - Requ Prop Vari List of Badiibi Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D - r. *.i.v * Zl ‘^r ‘ ** * -j^-*^y~-•• •■ ' ~'in^'‘*-j^'/^ ■ •'* ; i'-. ^Tc>'7 (T7’Arr iSfiM!ii>l > ^r:M ii T > - *tAu^ i;i ■' T^:V '• >. 1 r*v‘■'V&.V '"%s«|g||«--rs.im m^-cm wm "V- ................4r mmrnmm, rot Planning Commission Chairman Kallay Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson PVais Jeanne A. Mabusthr Building & Zoning Administratozr Dates September 27, 1988 objlec^s #1331 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, 328 Preliminary Subdivision Class II - Public Hearing ing District - LR~1C-1 Application - Subdivision application required by the M.w.c.C, in order to construct lift station structure. Variance to minimum lot requirements to subdivision nithin LR-lC-1 district. Review Section 11.12, Subdivision 10 •• Necessary findings for variance approval. T<otal Property Area - 31,177 s.f. Lot 1 « 28,083 s.f. Lot 2 - 3,099 s.f. Variance to Lot Area - Lot 2 - Required • 21,780 s.f. Proposed - 3,099 s.f. Variance * 16,681 s.f. or 86% Variance to Lot Width • Lot 2 - Required == 100* Proposed » 48.9* Variance « 51.1' or 51% List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Application Property Owners List Plat Map Preliminary Survey a_. .:V: rf: ■ 'Sv'- ■m ■ ‘Vi Ua ■ij nM V; i A 'if- n Zoning Septen Page 2 drive as a ] outloi additj curren T intena diffic outlot This m built must ai would abando responc Ii parcel subdiv: by the Staff I Tc creati< (possib by the followd rn listrator on# 3280 North Shore Dr Hearing the M.W.C.C. in order to Lviaion within LR-lC-1 riaion 10 - Neceaaary * *■ C. |, # ^ .'.r. fm vv^ t- ; ■4^ 1%. w ^ ■:-- -V'i ;..vj -V-;' A mm f\ ^ 1.r^^ ViJ3r!' a - • Zoning File «1331 September 27, 1988 Page 2 of 2 Seriev of Application - Acceaa to the propoaed parcela will remain via an exiating gravel drive along the weat aide of the aubject property and ahould be designated as a road outlot with a minimum width of 17+*. The owner of the road outlot must grant an access easement in favor of newly created Lot 2 in addition to the exception to the north of Lot !• These properties are currently under single ownership. The need to address the creation of Lot 2 results in severe and intense variances. To suggest that Lot 2 is a buildable lot is the one difficult aspect of this subdivision review. Lot 2 should be labeled an outlot, suggesting that it is unbuildable at the time of the platting. This may create a problem for the M.W.C.C. if the lift station can not be built on an outlot. If Lot 2 cannot be labeled an outlot, then the City must ask that special restrictions be filed against the chain of title that would require that it be combined with the adjacent parcels if its use is abandoned by the M.W.C.C. at some time in the future. The M.W.C.C. should respond to the legal issue of the outlot at our meeting on October 3, 1988. In the future, this whole property may be rezoned and replatted to one parcel for combination with the adjacent B-2 properties. The current subdivision will have no negative impact on any proposed future subdivision by the current owner. Staff Reccmssendation - To approve the subdivision application of the M.W.C.C. for the creation of two lots. Lot 1 a residential buildable lot, and Lot 2 (possible Outlot A) deemed unbuildable for residential use and designated by the applicant for exclusive public utility purposes, based on the following conditions: 1. Creation of a road outlot, maximum width to meet width of west corridor of Lot 1 at the intersection of County Road 15. 2. All access to the newly created parcels must be via the road outlot. 3. Approval of the variances noted above if lot cannot be designated as an outlot. 4 ■ »•.: i'-is V >!•■* r V t.' K 1-: ■) ✓ 1 ClTf OP PROPKRTT Site Add Property Please c Attach 1 APPLICAV Nam* Pre Prei PROPOSAL c ■'^ ^5^/^ ■■;r^ via an existing gravel and should be designated The owner of the road newly created Lot 2 in These properties are results in severe and lildable lot is the one : 2 should be labeled an B time of the platting, lift station can not be n outlot, then the City ; the chain of title that It parcels if its use is re. The M.W.C.C. should »ting on October 3, 1988. tied and replatted to one operties. The current posed future subdivision ! the M.W.C.C. for the Ldable lot, and Lot 2 tial use and designated purposes, based on the ti to meet width of west f Road 15. 5 must be via the road Lot cannot be designated ’**•5 V-‘ iffl / Mi,' . rt •i’5! ■; / awSa 71 cm OF ORONO - SUBDIVISIOR APPLICRTIOil tttm MR RM MR MR 4M MR MR MR MR MR MR «RR MR MR MR MR MR ^R MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR 4R MR MR RR MR PftOFBRTT LOCATION Site Address ^290 Scrth‘Shore Drive, Orono Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 0B-il7-023-44-0003 Please check one - Property ^ abstract or _ _ torrens? Attach legal description to application. “ Attachment A APPLICANT . Phone (home) ^/A CITY if rROm • FINAKE OFFICE 1350200000 01 Cit^ 250.00 cm 71 250.00 RiCEiPT-TMm YOU iil05B?0 cool ROl JOStC 25/B Metropolitan Waste control Commissiqg)on0 (iiO£>]c]|512-222-8423 Address. 230 E 5th Street City8 St. Paul Zipi 55101 (if different than applicant) Name Straley Phone (home)N/A Phone (work)N/A Windjammer Condos ^Address: lH«>n Palm rit-y PnaH (attach list if more than o^ City; Stuart, FL Zipi 33494 *See Attachment B BUSTING LAND USB Nvunber of Tax Parcels Development Size .7 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check) Residential Residential; no. of uniws ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) I • MR R » • Present Zoning District LR-lC-l PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Sizer Proposed Use: (check) 3,094 Existing Units New Units " ' Total Units Units per .07 Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential . Wastewater Other (specify) Station ■ I m % Zoning Pile #1343 September 27« 1988 Page 2 of 3 b) Each lot has at least 300* of frontage on a public roadway or on a private roadway pursuant to an easement between persons; c) Not a flexible zoning application (i.e. does not require any special or conditional use permits, variances or rezoning). The proposed driveway easement is 50* in width and includes a cul**de*- sac of 100* diameter, hence in a future subdivision, dedication of the private road outlot would be coincident with this proposed driveway easement. Note that the proposed driveway easement is centered on the existing driveway. The Public Works Director has indicated that a future division into 2*^acre lots would likely result in the developer having to share in the costs of raising Orono Orchard Road 5* to 6* at the private road access point. Also note that the City will require during this current division that the property owner quit-claim deed an easement for right-of- way/drainage/utility purposes over the platted Orono Orchard Road (and perhaps additional if that road is not within the defined corridor). This property contains 19.2 acres of designated wetlands, as shown on the attached wetlands air photo. Since the applicant is t this time not proposing to plat the property into two acre building sites and since the wetlands are protected through our existing wetland ordinance, there would appear to be no real benefit to the City in requiring that Flowage and Conservation Easements be granted until this property is platted at its maximum denity. The proposed dividing line between Parcels A & B will leave all improvements associated with the existing house well within the property boundaries. I “ f mmmmm I on a public roadway or mt between persons; e. does not require any nces or rezoning). and includes a cul-de- .8 ion, dedication of the this proposed driveway unent is centered on the >r has indicated that a result in the developer Orchard Road 5' to 6' at Ls current division that sement for right-of~ Orono Orchard Road (and bhe defined corridor). d wetlands, as shown on pllcant is it this time icre building sites and our existing wetland benefit to the City in ments be granted until A & B will leave all house well within the I Ik. m. 'i % pm Svr vr’ ■ ....: ; . •• m Zoning Pile #1343 September 21, 1988 Page 3 of 3 DiSCIUMli( The applicant has absolutely no plans to further subdivide this property into two acre lots at this time. In reviewing the access is comfortable with the concept of not requiring that a road be platted at this time as long as the proposed driveway easement over Parcel B in favor of Parcel A is a non-exclusive easement, such that a future buyer of Parcel A would have the right to subdivide and have each newly created lot access through Parcel B. That easement should include language that would allow the owner of Parcel A to develop a private roadway to the City's private roadway standards within the 50* easement corridor. Additionally, this easement would have to specify that if a single new residence is built on Parcel B prior to a future subdivision, that residence will have to be located a distance from the easement equal to or greater than the required front setbacic for the RR-lB zoning district. Staff would additionally request as a condition of approval of this division that the proposed driveway access easement be drafted and submitted to the City by the applicant's attorney for staff review to insure that the necessary wording is in place such that Parcel A will not be construed as being land-locked. As noted above, this property contains a number of designated wetland areas. Staff would recommend that no Flowage and Conservation Easements be ^OT the current subdivision, but advises the apulicant that if either of Parcels A or B is divided in the future, it is likely such Flowage and Conservation Easements will need to be granted. Staff Recosimendation - Based on the above noted concerns being adequately addressed, staff would recommend approval of the metes and bounds subdivision for Edmund W.F. Rydell as proposed. Staff would recommend further that septic testing not be required at this time. Staff also recommends that since Parcel B could be sold as separate building site, that the Park Pee of $100.00 per the current fee schedule should be paid with this subdivision, noting that the Park Fee paid at this time would be credited towards Park Fees for a future subdivision per Section 11.62, Subdivision 8. ■. >. ■ ■ m hmm EZZSTZN6 : Numb< Devei P M P ^ f ) further subdivide this Cn reviewing the access t of not requiring that a IS the proposed driveway non-exclusive easement, lie right to subdivide and B. That easement should f Parcel A to develop a standards within the 50* )uld have to specify that »1 B prior to a future ated a distance from the ont setback for the RR-IB tion of approval of this asement be drafted and ney for staff review to ti that Parcel A will not oer of designated wetland :onservation Easements be Bs the applicant that if ure, it is likely such granted. [uately addressed, staff I subdivision for Edmund :ther that septic testing (nds that since Parcel B i Park Pee of $100.00 per subdivision, noting that towards Park Fees for a 3. T.r ■K Wm _ 'N . r i.; ■r' : ■ i 2 litMW rnmiX ciTT or attomo * PBOPBRTr LOCATIOr Site Address* T?TAai/i ^“’^#1343IXVZSIOH ATtlLlCATIOH 1 • % « - i,.ii oF.omm ' . FTNAIKSOF-m 'ijSO^OOSCtr so.co ..rCm.y.lL: SO.OB Proparty Idantifieation Huabor (P.I.D.) ■ ■ FEC£IPT-Th^’TX'— - -—’-— Diosno cm m- tot:. Pleas* check on* - Property X abstract or Attach -legal description to application. torrena?09/0?/ —• mSi. •-A. . e . - ^ APPLiGJurr name _ m Phone (home) ^7:9- au/t _ _ Phone (work) • •• Address > /Ss /fAPA/O City; 'fZJTA ____ lipt SSJ^/ • « OHHER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (work)m m • Address: (attach list if more than one) Cityi Zipt EZZSTI9Q LAND USB Humber of Tax Parcels Development Sise n.z 39.^ Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels m m ‘ mm Present Use (check) e» • e Residential; no. of units Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _’ nt • Present Zoning District t .a, PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes X •J.Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) _Subdivision for New Building Sites * • «•« e . « Number of Building Sites: ^ i Existing Units New Units Total Units * .•♦ ^,*1. «. • * # <■.*.» •»« Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: ♦ Units per Acres • -mmm B Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check)Residential Other (specify) •it 1 -mm ii/: :■ Stf 4 8K| BIS wm m mininum le Co Pr Ce th 34 St na ob As an' Certlfi completi Zoning ( Pa] Si< Til Eai De\ Certific Zoning C fees p p F * The app requestc Planning further i Applicam Owner's I Applicani Planning third Mo review me unable t< authorize Office oi . W--. ‘t». ^ .<1*. *. mom MATERIAL I ’M c SARY FOR OWLBTB PRBLIMIIIART AFFLICATldRCompleted Application Form Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey.His.''” •< sn ?isj; obtain.d with property owner* list). As an addendim to this application, please attach a separata list of any other persons you wish notified of this application, f COTpletV^*^^°*' Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is Zoning Official's Signature Date 1. of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and^waterasseslments)!" ?’ certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat.3. Title opinion. 4. Easementsp Covenantsp etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. zlnIn“Mfi“a?'.*l?^2tS?r'’”“'^ Application is cos^lete. Sketch Plan Review (Class Ip ii « m) Preliminary Review (Class I « II Subdivision) Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) Final Plat Review (Class III) *(Plu8 any legal or engineering charges) $150.00 250.00 300.00 20.00/Lot 150.00* to provide all information required or a^7ic*ariSr:?dfurther agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant• s Signature \j F , Date 9 |<)n Owner's Signature \J^ Date —^ submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the review^iJL^tl^cT«^rI^*^h Applicants must be present at all scheduled nnlnfo of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is author,-a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an Offlof place and to advise the Building 6 Zoningorrice of this change prior to the meeting. TIOS (you must obtain -603 Govt Center each of the address labels separate list of m. Application is B r assessments)• plat. Lon is complete. $150.00 250.00 L) 300.00 + 20.00/Lot 150.00* 3n required or City Attorney, application and linance. L45L4 days before the ire held on the all scheduled an applicant is ints to have an .Iding & Zoning Tfe*Of * V. S‘* ' ^ * "* •• W*.. .-■ '^ •. .V •* • ‘ CO : ■ - •.*.‘;5 •J 8- ■*> i ,:.;i •■ \ ■■•l A -*’*.'-*' -Tr ■• ^ ' ■•*- i •.»: . wiX j t ♦.. ■•:.£• ;i- ■r.r . '• » IL. * ■ • •"•9 • ^ ^ *f/4L' •ru4 nn I - ^ r fi ^ r-' • "= ■: r.- • Efims'; #•f.#- >> •• • uSmil 8 u oI O lA in HI ft ^ M M O N 28S^ >*sslriilsi 8 Hi Z M 3-jS3nm o>«J Hi HI ft ft HI n HI ft HI M A 5S-8 •SSg“*0 0 J K ft Z -gsi®®9 ft u -i X ft Ui Q III ft li HI 3 M 8 8s|ii|r sssSjjjjuu, o H» H* _ ft < ^ a. HI 5 ® H H Ui H ft HI ft O HI ft V ^ j / #*'"I# ft S ftft Z ft lU HIsiifsss®il8i S 8 ^ ft ft z ft ft Hi Zj * ®«« o ft g ^ ft ft 2 i ft ^ o S ft o 8 ft ft^ Hlft 8 ft ft 8 HI ft S .J u ft ft ft -j ft 2 2§*-e"* ft r r ft ft ft o 5in ft ft ft Its i.r ♦§®2g S2-“«a I ft >» ft o E ‘s*!SJ HI ^ ft ft ft ft I- ft 2 I ft HI o E ft B or ^ M •>« U ft ft HI ft • S-S3 •-« 8 u I- 9 ft I *"S3ft ft HI ft ^ * ft B ft ft ft hi 5S ft O Ml ftZs jjg** ft ft M ft 2 iSS"^8* U 9 ^ HI ft i =eS3 *:!8 ft ft ft ^ S8S^^ • =:S3*i“SSO ft ft ft O _ H ft K ft HI HI ft • -s-s*S S ft ft HI ft7 8-.s|ft ft ft ft ft ftft s r dBijfe ioitu. '§ §sHln: HI H ^ ft UI ft Q ft Z I ft ft Q ft E ft ft b 3 »!2 ^ □ g HI ft ft ft N ft ft ft :S3i°i r • ■4 '1 ■W-: f ■ rl ‘•'i" mu 5S s IS"** «1: >•*<»»<_ aft UI ft H g ■ i- M Ml 2 “■e* 3 2 tt 2 3 ft Ml 10 Ml Ml Ml ^ • _ M <0 O r B «M HI rUSh 28" "-> U 10 Ml X Ml Z Z Ml C Ml Ml Ml ft I Ml Ml V’l r •*• i ■'>1 ;■»;* 1 M I# > ■ft S' ^§283,iilii! ^ Mi S S z I 3 s > s_ ^ ^ ^ g rg-igi 58|-i| 2 S E ^ ^*i:|8!MO. N O 8 H ►- ± H H Ml *15228 ft - ^r • :i|i|« !!!§ .iMsl ci;$s! -«2S;r^ilSsi 58a:is*.;-83 .1^111 8^1Ei3 lO ^ H O M Z -s'SgsiN O -> -> ft «i< 3 7 h>5$ •••aSSO $ iitl I *SbiM «i 9 z I ^ o5*^1I ^ ^ 9 < Ml "•rSSio ft Ml ft ifs2^ I = -s-Ss| r ■ ;: f ' 1 # • ■■;-.. ••w? : ' ilmm kr-$.::S?j ^■V". ■ . ■: MM 1. ■J.v mm. H'- /-' -v-;'i'v s ;:4 ft. I \ 0-MIKIMON K1 • Comp! 2. Prel: 3. Cert: this 348-; 4. Stam 5* name obta: As ai any < Certifies complete• Zoning Ofi Paym< Sign< Titl< Eases Deve] Certificat Zoning Ofi FEES The appli requested Planning C further ag Applicant' Owner's Si Applicant Planning C third Mon< review mee unable to authorized Office of ... MIHlilini MUTBRIAL IBCBSSARY FOR !• Conpleted Application Form 2. 3. 1.BTB PRBLIMIHART APPLICATI 4 Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you must o'" tain this list froB Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Stamped, legal si'zed envelopes.,(110).pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). 5« As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Payment of fees (par)c fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. Title opinion. Basements, Covenants, etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _• Date S)cetch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Preliminary Review (Class I 6. II Subdivision) $150.QO 250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) 300.00 20.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) ♦(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 150.00* The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Ovmer's Signature 2m. Date ^ VF 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 6 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. mm y m I O Pf ^ isa a /• * rvey 350* (you must c’^tain nee A-603 Govt Center eased 'to each of the (use address labels h a separate list of .cation. Plat Application is Date water assessments), ormal plat. lication is complete. Date $150.00 250.00 ential) 300.00 + 20.00/Lot 150.00* rmation required or eer. City Attorney, this application and by ordinance. ete 9 hn »te ^ HYi es 25 days before the :ings are held on the ent at all scheduled If an applicant is -angements to have an he Building & Zoning ■■. ■■■% ' ■‘k »V wan 4- -r. e;': 1 ■p ■ e ii M i§i IIi O S “Ah St# 5*; fool said i: east q\ia the Southv quarter of t ending; ALSO that part of "Subdivision "Subdivision No. 1 of Lot V Ran^e 23'% described as follows: East line of said Section 34» which poi Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the tion; thence running Southwesterly, raking an angle to the rl line of r.n Id 5?<»<'tdnn t% nnn ».u-----4.U. 1ST' said east qua the Southv quarter of t ending; ALSO that part of , "Subdivision ion No. 1 of Lot !i cribed as follows: tion 34» which poi ast quarter of the an angle to the ri ______a.____1 i - - -X* 4-U- ?3^t/ X ^ Jur*. ■■ t^^iwiiffwCiSB I #- • w ^>#• • •v ' 0;'|y v; /i •1 4 5'/^ f ♦ mi -i r‘t A: V-..* JV;'* m \ ■w. ■» VI ♦Visn ?S‘ v-if “.V, £ m isi Plannl Orono City A Sat: tarn Subjacts *1331 Prelim. Sonliif District Application - Si construct 1: Variance tc zoning diet findings foi 9otal Property Ai Lot 1 - 28,C Lot 2 ■ 3,OS Variance to Lot J Lot 2 - Require Propose Varianc Variance to Lot s Lot 2 - Require Propose Varianc List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D imm 'jm»V-v-\>,-r «^st;wj#fi •<■-■^ '-rjii.1— '■m^: I m u .r-«iS»;"1-1^>;'' *-$t.t^M^- r . V : Planning COTmission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning C^omission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth# Building i Zoning Administrator September 27, 1988 Subjects #1331 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, 3280 Morth Shore Dr Preliminary Subdivision Class II - Public Hearing Soning District - LR-lC-1 Application - Subdivision application required by the K.W.C.C. in order to construct lift station structure. Variance to minimum lot requirements to subdivision within LR-lC-1 zoning district. Review Section 11.12, Subdivision 10 - Necessary findings for variance approval. Total Property Area - 31,177 s.f« Lot 1 « 28,083 s.f. Lot 2 « 3,099 s.f. Variance to Lot Area - Lot 2 - Required *• 21,780 s.f. Proposed ■ 3,099 s.f. Variance - 18,681 s.f. or 86i Variafice to Lot width - Lot 2 - Required = 100* Proposed * 48.9* Variance * 51,1* or 51% List of Sadiibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Application Property Owners List Plat Map Preliminary Survey -V', m r 'r -H ■4 ■V - in ±11 vLv ■K Zoning File #13 September 27, 1 Page 2 of 2 Review of Appli< Access to drive along the as a road outl outlot must gri addition to thi currently under The need intense varian< difficult aspe< outlot, sugges' This may create built on an out must ask that s{ would require t abandoned by tt respond to the ] In the futu parcel for coml subdivision wilj by the current c Staff Reconmenda To approve creation of twe (possible Outlot by the applican following condit 1. Creatlc corridor of 2. All aci outlot. 3. Approve as an outloi ilBE Ay istrator on# 3280 North Shore Dr Hearing the M.W.C.C. in order to [vision within LR-lC-1 rision 10 - Necessary r y> * ► .;'^S . •• ^ ■ ‘A It A:"; :,f ;.!«m% t5V.. •■•? ^ y ■ lit- :.-A .A' Zoning File #1331 September 27# 1988 Page 2 of 2 Nsrlew of Application • Access to the proposed parcels will remain via an existing gravel drive along the west side of the subject property and should be designated as a road out lot with a minimum width of 17+*. The owner of the road outlot must grant an access easement in favor of newly created Lot 2 in addition to the exception to the north of Lot 1* These properties are currently under single o%#nership. The need to address the creation of Lot 2 results in severe and intense variances. To suggest that Lot 2 is a buildable lot is the one difficult aspect of this subdivision review. Lot 2 should be labeled an outlot# suggesting that it is unbuildable at the time of the platting. This may create a problem for the M.W.C.C. if the lift station can not be built on an outlot. If Lot 2 cannot be labeled an outlot# then the City must ask that special restrictions be filed against the chain of title that would require that it be combined with the adjacent parcels if its use is abandoned by the M.W.C.C. at some time in the future. The M.W.C.C. should respond to the legal issue of the outlot at our meeting on October 3, 1988. In the future# this whole property may be rezoned and replatted to one parcel for combination with the adjacent B-2 properties. The current subdivision will have no negative impact on any proposed future subdivision by the current owner. Staff Recommendation - To approve the subdivision application of the M.W.C.C. for the creation of two lots# Lot 1 a residential buildable lot# and Lot 2 (possible Outlot A) deemed unbuildable for residential use and designated by the applicant for exclusive public utility purposes# based on the following conditions: 1. Creation of a road outlot# maximum width to meet width of west corridor of Lot 1 at the intersection of County Road 15. 2« All access to the newly created parcels must be via the road outlot. 3. Approval of the variances noted above if lot cannot be designated as an outlot. r ■. : ’■ •■r, ■A A r- si • A ^: Wt- a' • .. CITf OP PROPERTY Site Add Property Please c. Attach 1 APPLZCAW Nam< Add: OWNER (i: Nam< *Add (a EXISTING Num] Dev< Pres Pres PROPOSAL n existing gravel 9uld be designated 3wner of the road ^ created Lot 2 in se properties are ts in severe and le lot is the one uld be labeled an of the platting, itation can not be ot, then the City hain of title that ;els if its use is he M.W.C.C. should »n October 3, 1988. 3 replatted to one .es. The current future subdivision M.W.C.C. for the lot, and Lot 2 ise and designated es, based on the set width of west 15. be via the road mot be designated M Is ■ b. ■H II ' .rr'S^'-rM '\ u Ui. f "3 1 Q J) CITX OP OBOMO - SCBDIVISIOM KPPLICKTIOB 419 mm dHP 419 ^ mm mm mm 49 «9 mm 91^ mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3290 Berth Shore Drive, Orono Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 08-il7-023-44“0003 Please check one - Property X abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application. “ Attachment A APPLZCABT Phone (home) CITY vF vrm • FINALE crnc£ 1 TC.^-Vi/VAAA itfc'WVtaV'VVVV Oi CEH cm' R RLCtiFT-THAi^S: rW ‘TC.'V .V A' *•9 e^ -e Name Metropolitan Waste Control Commissi<^Qn0 (|^Q^]()6i2~222-8423 Address: 230 E 5th Street City: P^'il Zip: 55101 ONBBR (if different than applicant) Name Straley Phone (home)N/A Phone (work)N/A Windjammer Condos ^Address: (attach list if more than one)Aore mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmi BZI8TIB6 LAND OSB Number of Tax Parcels Development Size __ City: Stuart, FL •See Attachment B Zip:33494 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check) Residential Residential; no. of uniwS ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s m ^ e Present Zoning District PROPOSAL LR-lC-i 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 Sizer Proposed Use: (check) 3,094 Existing Units New Units * ^ Total Units Units per .07 Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential . Wastewater Other (specify) Station I r m ji:: Jiy: V 1^ ■ V.-. ^ 5 Sr*f __ _ _ _ _ _ ' ..—- - -.jt^..‘.' ■ -.;i- - - • w--*-'V MXimiim'MATERIAL HBCBSART FOR COMPLETE PRELINIHART APPLICATIOH 1. Complete'! Application Form 2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. 3. Certified Property Owners List ot o%mers within 350* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A~603 Govt Center 348-3271). 4. Stamped^ legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of .the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). ^- 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. - . Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Cfificial'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. Attached 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 Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II 4 III) . . $150.00 . . • > « • • %/ Preliminary Review (Class I 4 II Subdivision) 250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) 300.00 ““ 20. V 'Lot « * . Final Plat Review (Class III) -- - • • 150.00* *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by "the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay rll additional fees established by ordinance. . Applicant's Signature Date Owner's Signature**^)^^t!^rTDate ^ Applicant must have all submittals into tne.^ty offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to ad\;ise the Building 4 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 4PLICATIOH rvey. 350* (you I nee A~603 Bssed to e "(use addr< :h a separa .cation. Plat AppI Date water ass( ormal plat licatlon i Date iHiIi mill entlal) •mil rmation r< eer. City this applJ by ordinan ate ate les 25 days :ings are h ent at all If an ac rangements ^he Bulldin m m I- :- ' ,y m im isj .' 4 fti i ii I M ii SI M u S‘ B. H S H -« IB DC Q L ss IB Sasi“ =”“l®i *8S;!*8"iia_ M «• O fg >-8s.&»a !$ mS. ly o ly M.III ass* i^SsS egs Mz|ssIB M ^ 7SSSISI «| so S oe Q gSui^ QC ^ ly CL ly Q. Ciiai v_L. mw *4 iMiy ^ iSI ly Subjectt 1 i Review of J Appli< pending th< for the c] constructic N.W.C.C. wa the review memo dated August 18, Additional Exhibj Exhibj As of plan/build: Commission of Plannir Review Ex Commission or special result fro for 1/2 hoi also sugge certainly i east and nc setback frc provided ir to prevent L Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator September 27, 1988 Subjects #1306 Metropolitan Haste Control Commission, 3286 North Shore Dr Conditional Use Permit/Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing Befeiew of Applicatioo * Application #1306 was tabled at your July Planning Commission meeting pending the M.H.C.C. filing a formal subdivision application with the City for the creation of approximately a 3,099 s.f. parcel for the future construction of a pumping station/lift station structure. In addition, the M.H.C.C. was to address the concerns noted by the Planning Commission in the review of original application #1306. Please review the original staff memo dated July 13, 1988 witl. Exhibits (A through K) included in your August 18, 1988 packets. Additional List of Exhibits Exhibit L - Notice of Planning Commission Action Exhibit M M.H.C.C. Response Letter of 9/16/88 As of this writing the M.H.C.C. has not submitted a revised site plan/building elevations that would address the concerns of the Planning Commission cited at your July 18th meeting and repeated again in the Notice of Planning Commission Action dated July 28, 1988 (review Exhibit L). Review Exhibit M, the M.H.C.C.*s written response to the Planning Commission for this review. Ms. Linde advises that there will be no noise or special odors that will be omitted from this structure. Any noise will result from the operation from the generator if there is an emergency or for 1/2 hour a week when the generators are being exercized. The M.H.C.C. also suggests that landscaping be resolved by both staffs. Staff would certainly recommend that''^screening type^^ landscaping be provided along the east and north lot line where the building does not meet the required 50' setback from residential zoned properties. Low level screening should be provided in the street yard because of the substandard setback and the need to prevent viewing/sighting hazards at the intersection of the County road. -idlL f V :’' ■ j i::: ■*m A Zoning Septeml; Page 2 Th exhibit the ent to all< minimun Pr staff m final 1 conditi( becomes Staff R< 1. al] 2. of con 3. sur com: - ^ (i mlnlstrator ssion, 3286 North Shore Dr inuation of Public Hearing lannlng Coimnisalon meeting application with the City f. parcel for the future ructure. In addition, the le Planning Commission in review the original staff ough K) included in your tlon /88 lubmitted a revised site concerns of the Planning peated again in the Notice 1988 (review Exhibit L). sponse to the Planning lat there will be no noise structure. Any noise will there is an emergency or g exercized. The M.W.C.C. both staffs. Staff would ing be provided along the not meet the required 50* level screening should be ndard setback and the need lection of the County road. I 1 m ‘i:' :>»l Zoning Pile #1306 September 27, 1988 Page 2 of 3 Since receipt of the September 16th letter, staff has talked to both Hs. Linde and Mr. Keegan of the M.W.C.C. and advised that staff would have difficulty recommending approval of the conditional use permit for the pump station if the concerns of the City were not addressed at a minimum with a redesign of the roof of the pump station. Prior to your meeting, the M.W.C.C. staff will submit a revised plan with elevations that show a pitched roof. They wish to retain the brick facia because of the maintenance-free aspect. Staff sees no problem with allowing the brick facia to remain. The applicant was advised that the subject property is surrounded by future B—2 zoned property scheduled for major upgrading and that the property to the south is residential (Bohn's Point). The parking area was actually defined on the site plan in the original exhibits (original packet. Exhibit G). In fact, it shows paving throughov.c the entire rear yard area. Staff would recommend that this be trimmed back to allow for the screening/plantings along the north sice rear yard a minimum of S' to 8'. Prior to scheduling this application before the Council for action, staff must be in receipt of a complete site plan reflecting parking and final landscaping. The applicant should be advised that in dealing with a conditional use permit of this type for a substandard parcel, landscaping becomes an issue for the City to resolve and not solely for the staff. Staff Recommendation - To approve a conditional use permit and setback variances (see below) for a proposed pumping station/lift station structure on a newly proposed lot consisting of approximately 3,099 s.f. based on the following findings: 1. The applicant has filed the necessary subdivision application to allow the legal transfer of land to the M.W.C.C. 2. The amendment of the original improvement plans for the upgrading of the existing sewer lines owned by the M.W.C.C. is required and is considered an important, intregal part of the proposal. 3. The proposed structure will have no major impact on the surrounding residential property nor on the use of the adjacent commercial property. 'W m V: ■n ■■■■■ i-V^. t Sonii Sept: Page Seetd Requd East Nortt Varii Varii i*-. ■f- ^ n mm■ ' Vs 'f has talked to both hat staff would have e permit for the pump 1 at a minimuin with a 0 your meeting# the vations that show a cia because of the 1 allowing the brick subject property is major upgrading and Point). plan in the original >ws paving througho.’.t this be trimmed back th side rear yard a Council for action# lecting parking and lat in dealing with a parcel# landscaping y for the staff. rariances (see below) on a newly proposed following findings: Lsion application to ns for the upgrading > is required and is losal. jor impact on the se of the adjacent Mm ¥j ' ■ •- ...V • •• - V . V' 'V. h'- : m f--U: m if'v: / ■ ■ 'V 1 Zoning Pile #1306 September 27# 1988 Page 3 of 3 The setback variances required are as followss Section 10.20c Subdivision 3 D Required » SO* East Lot Line ■ 10* North Lot Line - 25* Variance East Lot Line <■ 40* or 80% Variance North Lot Line ■ 25* or 501 Section 10.25c Subdivision Street Setback: Required ■ 30* Proposed ■ 5 * Actual Travelled * 40* Road Variance * 25* Of 83% 0 B Rear Setback: Required Proposed Variance 30* 25* 5* or 171 This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to scheduling this conditional use permit application before the City Council# the applicant must submit a revised site plan designating the following: a) Amend the parking area along the north side of the building adjusting for planting area along the north property line. b) "Screening type" landscaping along the north and east lot lines adjacent to the residentially used property and provide low type hanging vegetation/bushes within the front/street area. 2. Approval of a pitched roof for the brick facia structure# not to exceed 20x32 per plans dated 5/88 by Bonestroo# Anderllk and Associates. 3. All access to the site must be via the private driveway along the west side lot line# no direct access onto County road will be allowed. 4. Any proposed change in use of this structure or a major intensification of use must be approved by the City of Orono. m B''. i V V nr :? ■ •^=‘. .! CITY OF P.O. Bo Crystal TO:Ti Me Me St TYPE OP DATE Of Plaanin Ta MOTES A Th permit would • existin subdiV the exi staff K the up< 1988 mi St as the Planni the pro 1. W1 an 2.Px th li 3.Th Cc SI re St Ml St 4. PJ before It is s of the Ti like t< week oJ and i t applicc \5, Snbdlvisioa 6 B ick: id * 30' id - 5* Travelled ■ 40* ;e 25* or 83% » • k • id id le 30' 25' 5' or 17% tions: irmlt application before t a revised site plan ih side of the building ;h property line. the north and east lot roperty and provide lovr front/street area. acia structure# not to estroo# Anderlik and vate driveway along the :y road will be allowed. structure or a major City of Orono. F' #*•* m pp1 ■'li. r.‘ (. u cm OF ommo P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay^ MH 55323 IOHIH6 FILE HO. 1306 HOnCB OF PLAHHIHG COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 7/28/88 Timothy F. Keegan COFIBS TO: Metropolitan Waste Control COTiission Mears Park Centre, 230 East 5th St St. Paul# HN 55101 Jim Olson Bonestroo# Anderlik 6 Assoc. 2335 W H%ry 36 St. Paul# HM 55113 TYPE OF APPLICATIOH: Conditional Use Permit DATE OF NBETIH6: Planning CcMmissi 7/18/88 VOTE: € For inds the following: 0 Against Tabled for reasons noted below H0TB8 AHD SPECIAL COHDITICWS: ^ ^ The Planning Commission tabled all action on the conditional use permit for the MWCC seeking approval of construction of a building that would contain a lift station/generator as part of the upgrading of the existing Metro sewer lines# subject to the MWCC filing for the appropriate subdivision application that would divide off the 2#880 s.f. parcel from the existing 30,300 s.f. parcel. In a recent conversation with the MWCC# staff was advised that the subdivision application would not be filed for the upcoming meeting# but would make the deadline for the September 18# 1988 meeting. Staff will re-schedule the conditional use permit at the same meeting as the review of the subdivision application. It should be noted that the Planning Commission did have some comments regarding the proposed use of the property and would like the following items addressed by the MWCC* 1. Will there be noise# or any special odors emitting from this structure and the proposed use? 3. Pi^ovide landscaping — it was noted by the Planning Commission that all the other lift stations and improvements with the original upgrading plans provided landscaping. This application provided no such landscaping and we request landscaping for the structure. The building design has been questioned by the members of the Planning Commission finding it not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood suggesting a re-design of roof and making the structure look more residential rather than for public works type use. Note other similar structures# possibly in Eden Prairie# that have been designed for MWCC's use that would be more appropriate than the design plan of this structure. 4. Parking area should be defined on site plan. Please see that your information is submitted at least two weeks before the scheduled meeting for the review of the subdivision applicat_on. It is staff's hope to get a comprehensive action and approval on the part of the Planning Commission at the September meeting. Tim# please contact my office at your earliest convenience as I would like to discuss the filing of the applications sometime w_thin the fourth application since I commenced the review (473-7357). « ■mi Vi Iv:■ .'rr:- 1. k ■V; Sept Ms. Buili City Post Crysi Subj: This 7/28/ 1. 2. 3. • >‘;r'. »9i..r^L 80. 1306 IISSION ACTI08 of Notice; 7/28/88 i, Anderlik & Assoe* ry 36 , MN 55113 linst the conditional use I of a building that ne upgrading of the for the appropriate 880 s.f. parcel from ition with the MWCC» II Id not be filed for >r the September 19, ; at the same meeting Id be noted that the the proposed use of led by the MWCC: j from this structure Commission that all \ original upgrading i provided no such ucture. bers of the Planning ounding neighborhood structure look more Note other similar e been designed for design plan of this at least tv;o weeks ivision application, pproval on the part venience as I would le within the fourth weeks of September of this specific St 'M ; ti i ili ■f-:: V-- y- r Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Subject: Conditional Use Permit and Plat Application • % -1 7/^a/oo^^^firesponse to the city's concerns as summariied in the 7/28/88 notice, zoning file No. 1306. in rne strLturJ^.^H special odors emitting from thisStructure and the proposed use? We do not anticipate a problem with odors at this lift sta- tion. ‘ IIIPS s SS eSII Co^ission staff will work with the City on a landscaping design has been questioned by the members of the public works type use. Note other similar structures use* that designed for MWCC's this structJirt. appropriate than the design plan of to the east a.it. north and a marina to the west. Because 50 vears 1938-1988 m, m: Mm Ih: Jeanne I Page 2 MWCC Prc Septembe It tr I . Pa Of si Dianne W this pro will in Bonestro Engineer Please c or cor.ce Sincerel 'arol L. Administ: Rights-o; CLL:sma L78 cc: Jim ( J. K. T. P. D. Wc ti^i ^ Interceptor roject Number 85-67 3 summarized in the Ltting from this in the generator raised. We anti- ?er week. this lift sta- ming Commission aments with the This applica- est landscaping I a landscaping members of the riate for the gn of roof and •ather than for ar structures, gned for MWCC's design plan of i building was the Commission flat roof con- .lity has homes west. Because larina probably Lgned. •••.I '1^3 i,4\ ■••T .■i ■ • ■ ■ ’fev- m Vi ■ .•'i Jeanne h, Mabusth Page 2 MWCC Project Number 85-67 September 16, 1988 It is possible that the landscaping plan may incorporate trees and/or shrubs for the purpose of a screen• 4, Parking area should be defined on site plan Off-street and off-driveway parking is provided on the north side of the building. This is now shown on the site plan. Dianne Wanner, the Commission's Public Relations representative for this project, will be giving a brief overview of the Commission and will introduce Tim Keegan, Staff Engineer, and Jim Olson, of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, the Consulting Engineer, at the meeting on the 3rd. Please contact me immediately at 229-2147 if you have any questions or corcerns. Sincerely, ^rol L. Liirde Administrative Assistant Rights-of-Way Section CLL:sma L78 cc: Jim Olson J. K. Matross T. F. Keegan D. Wanner m.. nay incorporate n. ed on the north site plan. resentative for Commission and Jim Olson, of the Consulting e any questions r-'V-' mm^m'r m •-Li % ’ / ■. " i jv . .• V- .-**4^ ■. •'y.-■ ... niiiiSii.••'uSjiliife W: ‘.ta :'• S- y.lai Planning Commission Chairaan Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning i Zoning Administrator Datet September 26, 1988 Sobjects #990 Ward Ferrell, 3405 ffaterto%m Road - Variance - Revised Proposal - Referral Prom Council ZoBlng District - RB-IB, Single Panily, 2 Acre, Dnsewered Application - The applicant has revised his proposal, and is requesting a variance to bu^*d a new residence on one of his three one-acre parcels, rather than his previous request to build a house on each of the two vacant one-acre parcels. Itiat o£ Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Council Action Dated 9/21/88 Exhibit B - Memo a Exhibits of 9/8/88 Discussion - Please review carefully the memo and exhibits of September 8, 1988. That memo will give a background regarding the applicant's original request, a history of City codes in relation to this property, a history of action by the City to date on this request, and additional pertinent xactors # 4. P^«nning Commission is specifically requested to make a recommendation to Council regarding two issues: 1. Does the Planning Commission still hold to the Planning Commission recommendation of February 18, 1986 to recommend approval of one additional house on the total throe acre property, for a density of one house per J.5 acres? 2. If so, which of the following configurations for the property is appropriate: A) Require a lot line rearrangement and combinations so that there are two 1.5 acre tax parcels. B) Grant buildability to one of the one acre parcels, deny the other one acre parcel and require that the new building site be a combination of the two vacant lots. Zoning ] Septemb« Page 2 < Pl< about 1 the exi is abou' The app septic limited family houses < attempt given a allowing would hi Staff R< Ag< provide additio would r€ that the acres o: addition A. iss B. app C. rea sue •V?'W'-'k-:*■■■ ng Administrator rom Council sewered >sal, and is requesting a of his three one-acre build a house on each of ll/BB ts of September B, 1988. e applicant's original .s property, a history of d additional pertinent to make a recommendation the Planning Commission smmend approval of one perty, for a density of ons for the property is id combinations so that >ne acre parcels, deny t the new building site ■j; ’•V' " • ■ ^ ■■H i] u- S.A* :•> .ir^ -V»-1%k.<as ii- ^•1 T- •• .r I; . .= • ^' V m m ■ Zoning File #990 September 27, 1988 Page 2 of 2 C) Same >^ 3 above except attach the denied lot to the existing residence property. D) Same as above except leave the denied lot uncombined with either the approved acre or the existing house acre. Please refer to the survey/sketch attached as Exhibit N/E of 5/19/87, about 11 pages back in your packet. This indicates that the parcel with the existing house is about 1.01 acre, the next vacant parcel to the west is about .85 acre, and the western most parcel is about 1.04 acre in area. The applicant has shown that technically there is room to provide for septic systems within the property, however, the sites wr-Id be quite limited in potential for development with more than just a .simple single family residence. Staff is on record as suggesting that constructing houses on each of the two vacant lots will not ultimately further Orono's attempt to keep municipal sewers out of the rural area. Past Councils have given applicant at least some suggestion that two 1% acre parcels, i.e. allowing one additional building site on the entire three acre property# would be worthy of consideration. Staff Recommendation - Again, staff would ask that you review the packet of Information provided. If Planning Commission feels that a variance to allow one additional building site on the three acre property is justified, staff would recommend that a lot line rearrangement and combination take place so that the existing residence and the new building site will each contain 1.5 acres of land. Should Planning Commission recommend such an approval, additional appropriate conditions include: A. Payment of standard Park Fee at the time the building permit is issued. B. Access location for the new buildable lot shall be subject to City approval. C. The applicant shall file an application for a lot line rearrangement, and this variance approval shall not take effect until such time as the lot line rearrangement has been completed. >: ■ »i r CITY OP P.O. Bo Crystal TXPB OF DATS OF CODHCII. Cou Commissi Thi October will be Pli your rep If : are ava: approve 1 .5 ,v-;- - to the existing incombined with re. N/E of 5/19/07r ;he parcel with cel to the west 4 acre in area, to provide for wr"Id be quite » simple single t constructing further Orono*s t Councils have e parcels# i.e. acre property# of information B to allow one istified# staff n take place so each contain 1.5 h an approval# kdlng permit is subject to City or a lot line ke effect until (ted. ■a rJ PIp- ■ :.7 ■• ••• •■ . ■ ""fi-.■-K-i.:-: y*r*-'V:®*• •■ my ■■■_. . . . . „ (? CITT OF OROaO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay# MN 55323 473-7357 BPPLXCBTIGV BD. «990 BOTXCS OF COmiCIL ACTZQB Date of notice: 9-21-88 TO: Ward Ferrell 3405 Watertown Road Long Lake# MN 55356 COPIBS TTPB OF APPLICATIOB: Variance BIB 4BB MB MB Mie MB * DATB OF MBBT1B6: 9-12-88 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Bi8:i fBCIL ACnOB - MOTIOW: n 4. scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on Monday# «fi? 1^ A-^#4^^*4. »«®tlng starts at 7:00 p.m.# and it is expected thlewill be the first item reviewed that evening. Please contact Mike Gaffron or Jeanne Mabusth at 473-7357 if you or your representative cannot attend that meeting. J * If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes# they cl?" R.corder.or City CX.rt ,ft.r r.vl.w .„S t mm i- ,'y <• m • y ijh !••.1 . •' -t • ■ V • ■Mt ■■'y- '-i5. T- . V ■; ^ rot wtmi Mid Date:Sep^ Subject: #99i Var. NOTE: Per th the City This was List of Eidiib Exhibit i Exhibit : Exhibit < Exhibit 1 Exhibit ; Exhibit ; Exhibit < ftesc Discussion - Mr. Perr of the two ap also is on Residential Z< building site On Febru denial of 3 t approval of recommendatioi appropriate. Ferrell on April 14# a vote of 4-1. adopted and w in May of 198 tabled at app 1990 CL ACTZOV 9-21-88 o the Planning ting on Monday, expected this 7357 if you Or minutes, they er review and ■ * - ’ . X f ■ . / 7;" 5 >ts-. •y ^ ■•tri <'ll K'-x. ■13 ^■v Aft; ■> ;-rJ :S i mm ^4rVl , xf •: wm - - 0: . t'l ■M r ^ '■ ■ ■: '7;--- it ,, • ■ Xr» •X( Tot Dates Subjects Mayor Grabek k Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning s Zoning Administrator September 8, 1988 #990 Ward Ferrell, 3405 Watertown Road « Variance - Continued Review NOTES Per the letter dated August 4, 1988, Mr* Ferrell has reguested that the City re-open File #990, a lot area and width variance application. This was last reviewed by the City Council on May 26, 1987. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Letter From Applicant Dated 8/4/88 Exhibit B - Staff Letter to Applicant Dated 8/9/88 Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Survey With Staff Notations Exhibit E - Current Applicable Code Section Exhibit F - Planning Commission & Council Minutes Exhibit G - Various Pertinent Staff Memos & Exhibits (p^2»w=r <J.eauutT/cO at of P%ckct^ Discussion - Mr. Ferrell originally requested to be able to build a house on each of the two approximately 1 acre lots he owns adjacent to his home, which also is on a 1 acre lot. This property all is in the RR-IB Rural Residential Zoning District, which requires a minimum 2 acre lot size for a building site. On February 18, 1986, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend denial of 3 total residences on the applicant's 3 acres, but recommended approval of allowing 1 additional house on the 3 acres. That recommendation did not clarify whether a lot line rearrangement would be appropriate. Ferrell continued hi«" 3-total-house request at the Council level and on April 14, 1986 Council directed staff to draft a resolution of denial by a vote of 4-1. Although that resolution was drafted, it was never formally adopted and was tabled at applicant's request. The itPia was opened again in May of 1987 at applicant's request, discussion ensued, and it was again tabled at applicant's request. rr-o . * *,,_K;-.:r^-:' ,1:.i^:iiifcL.-.^ •; ,; Zoning File §990 Septei&ber 8, 1988 Page 2 of 6 Now, Ferrell is revising his request: he wants approval to build on 1 of the lots in exchange for accepting a denial of buildability of the other lot. My letter to Ferrell dated August 9, 1988, responds to his request, hence the application is again before the City Council. Brief Synopsis - Although I am including here much of the information that has been reviewed by past Councils, I will try to synopsize the facts and policies which affect this application, as briefly as possible: 1. Ferrell bought the house at 3425 Watertown Road with 4 total aegts of land in 1948. 2. Orono's original Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1950, prior to division of Ferrell's property into separate parcels. As of 1950, the property was zoned for 1 acre minimum lot size. 3. In 1955, Orono's original Platting Code was adopted. 4. In 1958, Ferrell requested to build a second house on the property per Council minutes of 9/22/58, Ferrell was presumably told by Herb Ross, Mayor, that in order to build a second house it would require a subdivision, since the 1950 zoning ordinance allowed only 1 residence per lot. 5. In 1959, Ferrell presuir.ably completed subdivision of the property into 4 lots o^ approximately 1 acre each. He built his current house on the easterly lot. He eventually sold the westerly lot with the house at 3425 Watertown Road. He kept the two vacant lots west of the new house. 6. On October 12, 1959, the City Council adopted Ordinance #22 which requires minimium lot area of 1 acre, minimum lot width of 140', which Ferrell's lots would meet or nearly meet. Ordinance #22 also allowed Council to approve building permits for substandard lots held in single, separate ownership, inferred that substandard "common ownership" lots would not be granted building permits, and established that the Council could allow variances to this section at Council's discretion. -2- I4 IP kt ir ■i ■Q 1 Zoning File September 8 Page 3 of 6 7. A 1 was zo the 19 exist! could not ad specif, again 8. Thi rezone minimu properl single But aga lots. 9. The at 1900 lack of of situ 10. Th Council conform: or widtl requirec into sul . .:■■ii •'::A mm .•ffk emos (with associated reviewed at 3 Planning t 9 Council meetings, t the April 14, 1986 be open to allowing 1 minutes whether other at that time, did not continued tablings at formally adopted a acre lots. ent letter of request ts without doing a lot sach vacant lot which posals, a modest house eivably be constructed Ltional amenities that ily restricted, and the lie greater density of tional house on the 3 imately even split of require a lot line would not be in favor ere lots and deny the a future Council to would leave severe M h. I h *' Jk r. ■ ► 1 /ki r J i: I!’ mm l; :v 1v'.r Zoning File #990 September 8, 1988 Page 5 of 6 3. Council is cautioned to be aware of the distinction between Ferrell's property and properties such as the Smieja lot on Cygnet Place, which was recently approved for buildability. The Smieja lot had long been in single, separate ownership > was not owned by an adjacent property owner, and therefore acquired substantial property rights because it had few alternative uses available to the property owner. In Ferrell's situation, Orono's codes have long held that properties owned adjacent to and in common with a homestead lot cannot be built on if they or the homestead lot are substandard. The codes have continually inferred that substandard properties owned in common with a homestead residence have a reasonable use as yard area by the homestead property owner and do not acquire building rights by virtue of having been previously divided off. Approval of the Ferrell's request would be precedent-setting in that many other 1 acre commonly-owned lots in the unsewered residential zone could request similar variances. Specifically, staff has identified 22 situations in the City where we could expect similar variances to be requested. Although 22 new houses on substandard lots out of 1,100 existing developed unsewered lots is a relatively small number, building on those 22 properties would not further Orono's goals to maintain a rural character and avoid installation of municipal sewers* Ferrell's current proposal to have 2 houses on 3 acres also would be precedent setting, for the same reasons, but would probably have less substantial impact at a 1.5 acre/house density than at the originally proposed 1.0 acre/house density. Staff Reo sndatioB - If Council feels that allowing 1 additional house on the 3 acre property is appropriate, staff would recommend a referral of this application to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation regarding whether the property should remain in 3 parcels or whether a lot line rearrangement and combination should occur to leave just 2 total parcels. If this item is referred to the Planning Commission, although staff previously indicated to the applicant that it could go directly to the September 19th meeting, due to unforeseen application loads, staff would prefer that referral be to the October 3rd Planning Commission meeting. -5- rT’-- Zoning Septeral Page 6 II additii resolul been dx bion between ot on Cygnet te Smleja lot owned by an :ial property the property ng held that id lot cannot 3. The codes led in conmon d area by the Its by virtue bting in that dentlal zone dentifled 22 lances to be out of 1,100 , building on italn a rural lIso would be ly have less 3 originally the 3 acre il of this ommendation lether a lot ust 2 total n, although directly to staff would meeting. ^ A p: m tMmm■r ■■2 F:. ■# «s>< 0 Zoning Pile 1990 Septesdoer 8, 1988 Page € of 6 If the Council feels that there is no justification to allow any additional houses on Ferrell's property, staff would recommend that a resolution for denial be adopted. A resolution of denial has previously been drafted, but would be amended to also deny the revised request. t;: - 'W . m I r .'f : . 4 » , « •• »•• V * • -. — ---------------------- m •1 1 % ■- -Ifc . ■ it the o pay aview lance loura. some will . If nning Lonal at iving tmo on Any lit to ;ember vSV ^mm mfm f- '.MMr. ':-.h dM* mii zoo 00 *525.a> A ■•‘•’If • ■ ••'•■. J .'S^' ■’^.r • i?'"^ - ^ 4 , # / . « \: iff T-- ♦ ‘i ■< T ^ »i 4 . • • • : , ^A//| C"/0 • ^ M' f/ r '9M9 ** «... ^ ‘-•r nL//? i.‘?* \ • •: NrtwfU: ifAfe MIC • -> 11 * n pi;? I A’0' *> •kA% ,? I ina 17J{f /-• y ISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 8 fW tid f..*? \%k-.:- m li ■■'■*v ’'-'vr H- r i" ,r;--i_. ? I \ -*«-.4a^^-aL^K- j,_ / Wof«#o X. I 'V% It ;S>yv}'::,.'h;^ iit^r':-^^-: : A rtiasiBfc^pilh>' ■ ■ 5-3-^ e^ti/e s r-zi -»7 V, • -» — ■»•*•• •« t ■f* ‘ <?■■• :?vr:,^-^ •^v5 :^=...- ■■;i' ■ 'hf ‘:A:i ^ I?..-? 'C <Vv- S 10.03 , ^ , I- Alterations nay be aade to a building containing w residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or bulk of the building. Source* Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 . Apply to *Use8" Only. The non~conforming use provisions of the Zoning Chapter apply only to the use to which land and buildings are put, and do not apply to situations where location or height of structures, lot size or other factors not involving the use of the premises prevent strict conformance with fhe Zoning Chapter. Where, however, such a situated-*;exists^ ’-" '-- -legally under the prior applicable law, the Councir-will not unreasonably require strict compliance and will look with favor on granting of a variance under Section10.08. Subd. 6. Lot of Record. A lot of record is any lot for which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County, Minnesota, prior to January 1, 1975, and after approval by the Council if required. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January ^ 1975 in an -R" District, which does not meet the requirem^ta^of<«the^Zoning-Chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgment of the Council such use does not 'adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements aremet: Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 .,1^,- Districts of One Acre or Less and With Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record existing upon the effective date of this Zoning Chapter in any "R" District of the City of up to and including one acre, which lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval if the area measurements and width of that lot are within eighty percent (80%) of the requirements of this Zoning Chapter. However, the lot of record shall not be more intensely developed unless ORONO CC 253 (4-1-84) 1 -<>i u. % . A- fi il^ I I combine to crea and Set Distric require be uti] Council average public this Ch Sanitai not sei require single lot or platted being 1 trict, land ac acreage system credite of this the prc improve conforn alignet private not nei requxr< buildir Zoning ORONO C .f■ttSlr'_'t' -Hi p ■;\.- '■ ."^iiiv-i^a.,,.:5:,..■mm. ' ..ft :J * 5V,-e. 1958,at 7:30 P.M. C.W«Maxwell,Trusteea nstable;0.S.Johnson. rrad and approved. lOp at Navarre was 19 at the Intersection JOS versus parallel her and bring up an Hennepin County ised and ordered held ind Tumhaoi suggested l,if this coul^ be . .1 cl eared it next meetir^.^^^ raived in the case of ; location. residence on his ‘nham,that his request if our Planning Com. aeration and The bon,on Sep 25th,at IS of our Council aporoved with the he Sear8*Boebuok Co. imo. invoice. Johnson,Clerk. / ■ ^ /M^ / / / It'. ■■'I ■'I V*'j, jv; ft \r if. i rr If ' Hikv'' ■•h MirUTES OF THE ORONO PIJVNNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL IS 1895 f.M. CROSBY IS, 1985 pagI: Approval is subject to the following conditions, --^-07 1. PID 11-117-23 32 0004 and northern portion of rearranged PID 11-117-23 32 0005 to be combined with Crosby hcsnestead lot. 2. FID 11-117-23 32 0006 and southern portion of rearranged FID 11-117-23 32 0005 to be legally combined for tax purposes. • 3. All future construction on undeveloped lot that involves the alteration of flood plain fringe areas must be reviewed and approved by the DNR before a building permit can be issued by the City of Orono. 4. Tested septic site area on undeveloped lot must be staked and protected prior to construction. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). 1903 WARD FERRELL 3405 WATERTOWN ROAD REQUEST TO CONFIRM INTERPRETATION OF ZONING CODE PUBLIC BEARING 8:10-8:49 PM ard and Mary Ferrell were present. Chairman Callahan announced that now was the time and place for the public hearing to be held concerning Ward Ferrell's application to confirm the staff's interpretation of the zoning code. There was no one present from the public for this application. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Ward Ferrell explained that in 1948 they bought the property on Watertown Road. Ferrell stated that in 1958 they decided to divide the property to build a new home. Ferrell stated that he was informed by staff at that time that he had to appear before the Council. Ferrell stated that everyone agreed on the Council, except one person. Ferrell stated that this property was divided at the previous Mayor's (Herb Ross) request. Ferrell agreed and he met the zoning at that time and noted that he could have had 5 lots but chose four lots to make bigger lots. Ferrell explained that the surrounding lots are all the same size. Ferrell stated that the zoning has since changed. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed with the Planning Commission that in 1967 this area was zoned 1 acre. Gaffron stated that from 1967-1975, Ferrell could have built on those lots without variances. Gaffron noted that in 1975 the area was rezoned to 2 acre. Gaffron explained that in a similar case on Shoreline Drive, the Council denied the ^ applicant the variances giving the City a clear policy in the y common ownership issue within the rural areas of Orono. ' Gaffron reviewed with the Planning Commission the tax V1^w;^nr\/ r> "r t" V MINIJTBS OF THE ORONO riAHHlHC COMMISSION MEFTINC HELD APRIL 15, 1985 iPAGE 4 1903 WARD FERRELL Roycgno noted that for 20 years it has been taxed as a separate buildable site and for the past 3 years it has not been taxed as a buildable site. Ward Ferrell stated that n? has kept the property all these’ years thinking he could build on each parcel and he noted he would like to build his retirement home on one of the parcels. Ferrell noted he has owned the property since 1950 and is entitled to build. Planning Commission agreed with staff's inter" .etation of the zoning code that the property needs a variance. Chairman Callahan sugg- .ited that the Planning Commission be polled as to their feeling on the application if it were an actual variance recuost. Kelley felt that Lots 7 and 8 should be combined into one lot# thereby only allowing two lots (the existing let with the existing home and ore other lot (7 & 8 combined)). Mary Ferrell stated that the code is not consistent and is contradictory in that the loni ig has changed along with the code over the years. Sime felt that there is very little doubt that staff interpreted the zoning code correctly, but whether he agrees with the basic premise is another point. Sime felt"that there are a bundle of rights that go with the land and should not be taken away from people by changing the rules or zoning while they still own the land. Sime stated that the common ownership issue seems to alter the rules for people. Most of the Planning Commission felt they could only approved two lots (the existing lot with the existing home and one other lot] conditioned upon Lots 7 and 8 being combined. Chairman Callahan closed the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. Rovegno moved, Sime seconded, to confirm staff's interpretation of the zoning code that these lots do need variances. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). Rovegno felt that a less intense use of the property would be more reasonable by combining Lot 7 aud 8 and that way the applicants would only need a lot area variance and not a lot width variance. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that this application was brought in under a request to confirm the interpretation of the zoning code in order to save the applicants money. Mabusth noted that a completed application would require payment for area variances for each proposed and existing building site in addition to septic testing for each undeveloped site and an alternate test site for existing I IW F •"i J-v MfNUTES OF fllB QRC «905 DENNIS TBOMP 250 OLD CRYSTAL B CONDITIONAL USE P PUBLIC HEARING 8:50 - 8:51 PM ■t 1907 JAMES BIGHAl 1545 LONG LAKE B) VARIANCE PUBLIC BEARING 8:52 - 9:12 PM IL 15, 1985 PAGE 4 J taxed as a separate t has not been taxed property all these reel and he noted he one of the parcels. f since 1950 and is i interpretation of s a variance. nning Commission be ation if it were an ibined into one lot, .sting lot with the combined) ]. : consistent and is nged along with the doubt that staff it whether he agrees t. Sime felt that the land and should the rules or zoning ted that the common Bs for people. could only approved sting home and one 8 being combined. aring at 8:49 p.m. confirm staff's these lots do need e property would be 8 and that way the iance and not a lot t this application the interpretation applicants money, lion would require posed and existing testing for each site for existing 1 O m i V I i V .. ^ . mm- HINUTES OF THE ORONO PIANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL IS, 1985 PAGE 5 house. Mabusth noted that staff concluded that in light of Council's recent amendment of the zoning code dealing with rural lots under common ownership and their decision on the Shoreline Drive property of Alden Anderson^ that this approach was the most inexpensive way to ^jet an answer for the applicant. #905 DENNIS THOMPSON 250 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC BEARING 8:50 - 8:51 PM Dennis Thompson was not present. Chairman Callahan announced that now was the time and plice for a public hearing concerning Dennis Thompson's conditional use permit c.pplication. Zoninq Administrator Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. There was no one present in the audience for this application. Chairman Callahan closed the public hearing at 8:51 p.m. stated that duringZoning Administrator Mabusth construction on the Thompson home, staff noted a second kitchen and a separate apartme.it area being constructed and felt that a conditional use permit should be applied for. Mabusth stated that Thompson has agreed that the guest apartment will never be rented out. Ke}ley moved, Sime seconded, to recommend approval ® coi ditional use permit for the guest apartment within the residence located at 250 Old Crystal Bay Road finding all standards of Section 10.20, Subdivision 3(G) to be statisfied subject to the condition that the separate apartment unit way never be rented. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). !i V.1 r :■M #907 JAMES BIGHAM 1545 LONG LAKE BLVD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:52 - 9:12 PM rMkB • ■ IV ■■ -'0§ t. r'' . * I James Bigham was present. Chairman Callahan announced that now was the time and place for the public hearing concerning James Bigham's variance request. There was no one present from the audience for this application. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to construct an addition to his home which will increase the hardcover in both 0-7 5 and 75-250' setback zones. Gaffron stated that the addition will increase the potential water usage since they plan to construct a bedroom. Gaffron noted that Bigham replaced his septic system in November of 1984, but that there are no alternate drainfield sites on the property and that if the new system fails at some point and it could not be repaired, a ( I V n f MINUTES OF % ^a^Il^ARD 1 3405 WATER1 ZONING AP] 1905 DENNIS 250 OLD CR3 CONDITIONAI RESOLUTION 1907 JAMES 1545 LONG 1 VARIANCE RESOLUTION VV 5, 1985 PAGE "5 that in light of >de dealing with decision on the rson^ that this in answer for the llahan announced public hearing lal use permit jsth noted the of publication, ience for this e public hearing that during noted a second constructed and be applied for. that the guest i approval of a ment within the oad finding all .n 3(G) to be t the separate , Ayes (6), Nays n announced that I'ring concerning s no one present assistant Zoning ,e of mailing and plained that the ruct an addition rer in both 0-75' :hat the addition nee they plan to jham replaced his lat there are no f and that if the ot be repaired, a wmM r. ■■ >. « .» s • •**V MINDTES OF THE REGyiAR C'OHO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 13. 1985 PAGE 11 0W.ARD FERRELL 3405 WATERTOWN ROAD / ZONING APPEALS Ward Ferrell was not present. Building fc Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the applicant has requested that the application be tabled until May 28. 1985. Mayor Butler moved, CounciImember Frahm seconded, to table the Ferrell application until May 28. 1985. Motion, Ayes (S). Nays (0). #905 DENNIS THOMPSON 250 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #1757 Dennis Thompson was not present Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to adopt Resolution #1757, A Resolution Approving A Conditional Use Permit to allow a guest house apartment. Motion. Ayes (5), Nays (0). #907 JANES BIGHAM 1545 LONG LAKE BLVD VARIANCE RESOLUTION 11758 James Bigham was present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed with tne Council the applicants proposal to construct an addition to his home. Gaffron noted that the applicant replaced his septic system in November, 1984. Gaffron stated that no alternate drainfield site exists on the property and that if the new system fails a holding tank would have to be installed . Gaffron noted that with Bighams proposal a future 8 member family could move into the home and the current septic system might not be able to handle such an intense use. Gaffron noted that Bigham has not met some of the requirements in Resolution #1600 regarding drainage and retaining walls. James Bigham stated that the requirements could not be met be. ause of the weather and the frozen ground. Bigham stated that he will fulfill the requirements as soon as possible. Councilmember Frahm stated that there is a drainage problem on the property already. Frahm expressed concern for adding on additional hardcover and noted that the septic system cannot handle any future f *.:.iily larger than Bighams. James Bigham explained that the drainage problem does not come from his lot and that the drainage problem is caused by the lots across the street. Bigham noted that his lot serves as a drainage spot for others runoff. Bigham addressed the septic issue by noting that he could replace his septic system if needed in the same location as the septic system is currently located. Bigham noted if that does not work, then holding tanks would be installed. Bigham noted that he doesn't mind holding tanks and stated that he felt the whole neighborhood eventually will be on holding tanks. mm- -^ 7 / / i M • ''h fa?- • MINUTES OF 1 #897 CHUCK ] 825 OLD LOM( PRELIMINARY r#90y\ARD FI ZONING APPEI . . ••! ■ ■ ft w iia IT" 'wiasatiLix.'». • S'.lMeX/^ ■ ^4 • B, 1985. PAGE 4 t after the patios are odded. as a problem approving Mayor Frahm seconded r .on denying variances it with a deadline date B5r for 3424 Eastlake stlake Street and the i porch to be refeired review. Motion, Ayes ^ant Zoning Adminis- >r reconfirmed the dry [ at the last meeting, cres of dry buildable rictly as a seasonal ncilmember L. Ad«uns iminary subdivision n. Ayes (3), Kays (0). It. Assistant Zoning It the applicant was tn order to save the >lained that if the that the application oil's past precedents Led the application. h the full variance loted that by allowing the City is saving the matter the City is not nee and not using the the decision reached ime decision would be ition. Eron stcited that the plus the applicant's fork, plus the extra t. Gaffron estimated t V‘/ I.-;-. 7} ’S 4 M' MINUTBS OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD HAY 28, 1985. PAGE S §903 FERRELL that the application could have cost the applicant $1,000 just to get denied. Gaffron noted that staff felt that the applicant could get some general direction from the City under the zoning appeals application process. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the Alden Andersen application is very similar to this Ferrell application. Gaffron explained that the applicant owns four adjacent tax parcels totaling 2.90 acres. Gaffron noted that the applicant wishes to obtain a building permit for the 1.04 acre lot. Ward Ferrell stated that he has owned the land since 1948 and built the existing home in 1958. Ferrell stated that he bought and has saved this land with the intent to build his retirement home. Ferrell stated that Herb Ross (former O: *>no Mayor) had requested him to • divide his property. Ferrell stated that as a favor to Ross and the City and to stop trouble in the future, he divided the property into four parcels. Ferrell stated that then the zoning changed in 1967 and at the time the hearing was held regarding this zoning change, he asked whether it would affect existing lots and he was told no by the City. Ferrell noted that he is willing a parcel of land for his daughter to build on. Ferrell stated that in 1980 the Stubbs Bay Marina was divided and the City allowed very small lots. Ferrell felt that he should receive the same treatment that Stubbs Bay Marina had received. Acting Mayor Frahm explained that the Ci' * agreed to smaller lots in the Stubbs Bay Marina because the City felt that it would be a less intense use on the property with residential units rather than the intense use of the commercial marina. Frahm stated that there were very extenuating circumstances with the Stubbs Bay Marina and shouldn't be used to compare with this application since the circumstances were significantly different. Ward Ferrell asked if the City was going to honor what Herb Ross requested. Ferrell stated that Ross told him to contact George Hanson (former assessor for Orono) to see what the lot sizes should be when he was subdividing the property. Ferrell stated that Hanson told him 140' width for each lot. Acting Mayor asked staff what the typical lot size is in the neighborhood. Ward Ferrell stated that the average lot size is one acre and only one parcel is two acres. Councilmember T. Adams asked how many units the applicant is requesting out of a total of 2.9 acres. ' .Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron answered that the applicant is requesting a total of three building sites (one existing, one for the retirement home, one for his daughter). I i m mm •t.s' I® . IL ik:-i MINUTES •903 Fe: 'r- '.: *- '■ ^■:V: re and ant is it the s (one ite.r). / ■r ■mm■ N'- MIMUTl^ OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL HEETING HELD MAT 28, 1985. FACE 6 1903 FERRELL Zoning Adainistrator Mabusth noted that in 1967 the standards changed when the zoning code was revised effecting the applicant. Acting Mayor Frahra explained that it is hard for the City to honor a vernal opinion that was made in 1967. Frahm felt to be fair to the applicant that hr. would consider two building sites, but certainly not three building sites. CounciImenber T. Adams stated that before deciding the Council should see all relevant background information. Councilmember L. Adams symphathized with this type of problem when the owner purchases property imd keeps it with the intent in the future to build on the property only to have the zoning code standards change. Adams stated that he cannot see installing three septic-tank systems on three small lots since the septic tanks will be the permanent system installed there. Adams noted conceptually that he would consider two building sites only because of the problem that the applicant owned the property with the intent to build in the future only to have the zoning code standards change. Adams noted that if it weren't for that reason he would net even consider two building sites. Adams stated that when the septic systems are placed too close together on small lots such as these, there are potential problems with ground water contamination when these systems fail. Acting Mayor Frahm expressed his concern that if the City approved three lots that the City would create a density pocket similar to the Crystal Bay neighborhood in which the City would have to go back in the future to correct the problem by sewering the area. Ward Ferrell staLed that his septic system is 28 years old and has never had a problem witn leakage. Ferrell pointed out that he has paid taxes on the property as if they were buildable lots since 1948 and now he cannot use the property. Ferrell stated that up until two years ago they paid taxes on the two vacant lots as if there were separate building sites. Ferrell noted that two years ago the taxes were lowered from $11,000 to $5,500. Ferrell explained that he has already told his daughter that she can have the lot and he is not going back on his word. Ferrell asked if the City was going to honor what Herb Ross told him years ago. Acting Mayor Frahm stated, in his opinion, no. Mrs. Ferrell asked if the City was going to refund their taxes that they have paid for buildable lots all these years. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that should a variance be applied for that in the review it should be considered what position the applicant would have been in if he had not subdivided the property. ^ ?•> ■ i" V i I 1 ■ • • ... ■« MINUTES OF THE R^ULAR §903 fERJRLLL Coun appl of t Coun seco code #908 A #924 JON SCBBRVE 2649 CASCO POINT RD (#908) VARIANCE - RBSOI (#924) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION Jon Assi appl exis pare hard into cond requ( pare: propi seco] note< subj( 1) ip may n he reI is SI Actin for t Assis entra entra the u Zonin recent simila Counc. to SU] Jon Sc the he has of able 1 will a the gi 1- i.V- 28, 1985. PAGE ^ .on should the applicant Ling to consider a total )uncilmeinber T. Adams pretation of. the zoning father A.W. Scherven. Ffron stated that the tory addition over the the lake side of his the applicant proposes sposed deck does extend fron stated that the scause the applicant is juest apartment for his ted that applicant does ut has agreed that the i rented out. Gaffron pprove the application le guest apartment use: i only; 2) apartment use guest apartment may not by staff yearly; 4) use f four years. :e entrance is proposed :on noted that the main once inside the main nt and a door leading to ed that the Council did 1 use permit which is Lot is really too small nts have tried to sell Icherven stated that he , and then they would be rven confirmed that he ncil wishes to place on -XV:,■ : - ¥ • •• . 1 ‘ MlWTBS OF TSM FLAllllIliG COHMISSXCMI MSETIHG SELO MOVBMBBR 18, 198S. 4 #988 tTBS contimed Tom Corson, 3241 Casco Circle, was present and stated that the lot in question was not consistent with the other lots in the area. He also stated that the existing garage on the lot should be resK>ved whether the variance is granted or not. Mr. Corson felt that the original variance should not have been granted being this lot is only 54* in width. Tim Hertes stated that they felt they would not have a problem meeting the setbacks and hardcover requireme. ts. Goetten stated that the entire Casco Point area is a high intense residential area. She noted that the lot size was consistent with the area although it would be one of the smallest lots. Tom Corson stated that they would be making a crowded situation even sx>re crowded. He questioned the initial intent of the ordinance requiring a IQO* lot width. Chairman Callahan stated that the lot w^s intended to provide a residence and the hardship is that there is no other adjacent property available. There were no more cosoaents from the public and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Rovegno, seconded by Goetten, to recommend renewal of the lot width and lot area variances noting that the Issues (1-7 ) and Findings (1-19), prepared by staff, were found to be sufficient. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 1. Kelley voted nay stating it would be overbuilt for lot size. §989 HESMBPIN COOHTT DEPT. OP TSANSPORTATIOK HENDRICKSOM ACCESS COHDITIORAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEALIRG 11:40 -11:50 Hennepin County proposes dredging approximately a 20'xl26* wide corridor, removing 4.5' of lake botton along the edge of the Hendrickson boat ramp, and constructing a 126* long seawall along the sides of the inplace boat ramp. There were no persons present regarding this matter at this time. Planning Commission table this matter until the December 16th meeting. ( §990 l^hRD FERRELL Va41d:^3415 HATERTOHM ROAD VARIAHCB PUBLIC HEARING 9:29 - 9:37 Applicant requests lot area/lot width variances to construct homes on two substandard vacant commonly-owned lots adjacent to the exisiting residence at 3405 Watertown Road. 2^ mm u':\ X- ' <11 I: •'J- il ;• •<. 1 "T i.-ri ^ j WHUT #990 #991 W] 1535 Bt CONDIT] PUBLIC ‘Y. IBER 18, 1985. Pi^B 4 ex» present and stated that It with the other lots in dating garage on the lot ce is granted or not. Mr. ice should not have been in width. would not have a problem requireme’*t8. CO Point area is a high id that the lot size was it would be one of the d be making a crowded questioned the initial a 100* lot width. : w(^s intended to provide that there is no other le public and the public ly Goetten, to recommend a variances noting that , prepared by staff, were 5, Nays 1. Kelley voted for lot size. pproximately a 20'xl26' botton along the edge of instructing a 126* long >lace boat ramp. iing this matter at this :ter until the December variances to construct ily-owned lots adjacent Watertown Road. 2^ i r ■ - V 1^- ^ 4 Wk f .•1". •Bk.■ -.y- HlliCffKS rriWG BBLD HQVEIIBIR 18V 1985. PAGE 5 1990 raoiBLL contiiuied CJwirman Callahan noted that the application was incomplete absent a survey of property containing the existing house and septic site information necessary for assurance of an alternate septic site if needed. to. 4 tos. Ward Ferrell were present for this matter. Mr. Ferrell stated that there should be no problem with an auxilliary system being the lot is 3/4 acre, therefore not necessary. Mr. Ferrell felt that a survey of the property with existing house was also not necessary. Chairman Callahan stated that this information was necessary *"** ‘''•y wuid “ot .ctuntil this information was provided. to. Ferrell stated he l*ad a survey dated 1958 and would submit It. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated he would look at the survey and determine if it %rould be adequate. There were no persons present regarding this matter at this time. It was moved by Chairman Callahan, seconded by Kelley, to table this request pending a complete application. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Chairman Callahan a Jvised applicant that they would give him their general opinions regarding his request although a difference^ survey and septic site information may make Goetten stated she was personnally opposed to three lots Kelley, referring to his statement in the Planning Commission minutes dated 4/15/85, felt that Lots 7 s 8 should be combined into one lot to allow the existing home and one other lot. Taylor and McDonald agreed with Kelley's opinion. Rovegno and Callahan felt that two lots with dwellings would probably be reasonable with the proper septic site testing, three lots would be setting precedent. #991 WILLIAM ULRICH 1535 BOHN'S POINT ROAD CONDITIONAL USB PBRMIT PUBLIC HEARING 9:40 - 10:37 Chairman Callahan explained the after—the—fact application ??F ®. *^ouditional use permit and variance to do grading and filling within 75* of lakeshore. • i.. 'A • <1 I mM ’f'-i Ef-. x‘-‘* '.*00^- -i* MINI) 1842 ROBS S'#967 & #9 2580 FOX PRBLININA CONTINUA1 9 » WARD 31US, 341 VARIANCE . i .jSi, '■WK^■ -r^jB1' -V •O •-Ut-i.w.V. ' I, 1986 I that there id all have oetten, to .ance in the removing 2 hed garage present for onberg# was ilalned the t e no houses gr sites. He buildable t also noted 1 lot which t was noted he driveway h proposed »d driveway .n order to ed that the the public raylor, to ivision and 0 staff*s lained that S months ago reneral idea :uations of ownership. 1 i mi L-’v' - :/ i . i ■ : j'-rj m. : . fUHUTBS OP THE PIAIWIBG CONIITSSI TIMG BEU> mmKKt 1», 1$8& • <990 Wuto FKRRSU. continued All the Planning Comniission members basically concurred with their opinions stated at the November 18, 1985 Planning Commission meeting, that this property should be allowed a total of only 2 buildable lots. Mr. Perrell stated that the City of Orono reguested him to divide the property back in 1958 so there would not be future problems with building another home, and that this fact should be honored. He also noted that when the zoning changed from a 1 acre to a 2 acre zoning district, he was told that this would not affect existing lots. Assistant Zoning Administor Gaffron reviewed the history of zoning changes in that area from 1950 to 1984. He noted that the proposed lots meet the criteria required of lots in single separate ownership based on the 1975 zoning code, but a density issue and setting a precedent are open, because these are substandard lots in common ownership. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Taylor, to recommend denial of the 3 lots because they do not meet applicable zoning code criteria. Motion, Ayes 2, Nays 3. Motion dies. Rovegno, McDonald, and Goetten voted nay. Rovegno stated tha he felt this is a difficult decision because it seeu.s that 3 lots would have met code requirements up until a few years ago. McDonald stated that because of the many years of ownership by applicant, it would be inappropriate to deny. Goetten concurred with McDonald in this matter and stated that 2 lots would be acceptable. It was moved by Rovegno, seconded by Goetten, to recommend denial of 3 lots but could recommend approval of a total of 2 properly laid out building sites and recognizes the efforts, time and reliance the applicant has put in his 1958 application but still recommend denial of 3 lots. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. #999 BVAH MBLIHE 3598 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE -> SECOND REVIEW Benn Belden, being half owner of the property, was present for this matter. He noted that Evan Me line was unable to be present because he is in Europe. This application was tabled from the December 16, 1985 Planning Commission meeting, so that the applicants could firm-up plans to purchase additional property from Hennepin County. 2 -/ 2 RD FERRELL 411, 3415 \ VARIANCE lY IB, 1986 cally concurr** ember 18, 198S property should >ts. lo requested him :here would not home, and that (d that when the 2 acre zoning Id not affect swed the history >0 to 1984. He iteria required Bed on the 1975 ing a precedent lots in common a by Taylor, to hey do not meet n. Ayes 2, Nays Goetten voted is a difficult nrould have met ago. McDonald f ownership by deny. Goetten d stated that 2 y Goetten, to >mmend approval ding sites and 5 the applicant ^ill recommend property, was van Me line was >pe. ember 16, 1985 he applicants property from -/ 2- mm ii 1C-^ Jam ■k: Ii Hm•'if li ex»HINOTBS OF THE REGULAR OROMO COUNCIL TING HELD fOOKm 10, 1986 . #967 ft #968 Il^TROM continued Assistant Zoning Administrator noted that the driveway has been reviewed by staff and finds no problem with the access location. He also noted the potential of a future third lot which would create problems for the applicant. Mayor Butler stated that the resolution should note the potential problems regarding future re-subdivision which would require the relocation of the access to properties off the private strec^t. Mr. Idstrom stated he was not concerned with a third lot at this time and would deal with that problem in the future if it arose. CounciImember Adams stated he ^;^und no problem with the proposed subdivision of two ’ots only but would if there were three. It was moved by CounciImember Adams, seconded by CounciImember Prahm, directing staff to draft a resolution with the appropriate variance relating to the frontage and specifying that this is approval of two lots noting the future problems of a third lot, to be presented before final approval at the March 24, 1986 Council meeting. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 0. LRD FERRELL _ 411, 3415 HATERTONN ROAD VARIANCE Ward Ferrell was present for this matter along with his attorney, Leroy Haglund. City Administrator Bernhardson explained the request for a variances on two existing lots, which are in the 2 acre zone and are substandard under the current code. He stated that this was presented last May as a zoning appeal. He noted that applicant has had septic site testing done and has proposed acceptable primary and alternate sites. Mr. Haglund stated that applicant's dream was to build a house on one of these lots and was platted as such many years ago. He submitted a petition signed by the neighbors stating they have no objections to this proposal. He also submitted aerial photos to show that the applicant's proposal would not be inconsistent with the area. t 3gS w-t mk M y ' i\ i s*t: MINUTES or #990 FERRELL co II-■ fi #1006 CHRIS ft DA 1710 SHADYWOOD R( VARIANCE RESOLUTION #1935 -m^ lUiRCH 10, 1986 ,ai >ted that the driveway ids no problem with the d the potential of a eate problems for the lution should note the :e re*-subdivision which le access to properties lerned with a third lot h that problem in the nd no problem with the >nly but would if there : Adamsr seconded by ng staff to draft a iriance relating to the Ls is approval of two of a third lot, to be at the March 24, 1986 Nays 0. matter along with his plained the request for 3, which are in the 2 ider the current code. 1 last May as a zoning t has had septic site ::ceptable primary and s dream was to build a platted as such many tition signed by the 3 objections to this al photos to show that t be inconsistant with /y m k. H r i". Mi m h ^ mt S»*~- ^<#1rc-“ ^ MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORORO COUNCIL IffiBTIHG HRTJ> MARCB 16, 1986 *1990 PERRELL continued Mayor Butler explained the problems that are involved in this application and that the reason this area was rezored in 1974 to 2 acre lots was the problem with septic system overcrowding and failure on 1 acre lots. She noted that other similar applications have been denied for this same reason and Council would be settinc a precedent by approving this. Mr. Haglund stated that this situation is unique and that properly installed septic systems do not fail. CounciImember Adams stated that problems are showing up with septic systems in 1 acre areas. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed the history of the zoning code from 1950 to present. He noted the similar request by Alden Anderson in 1981 which set a precedent for denial in these cases. Mr. Haglund stated there there is no proof of setting a precedent by approving thib because of the unique situation. Mr. Ferrell stated that the present zoning code would prevent subdivision requests of 2 acre parcels, but he has already subdivided his property, upon the request of the City. Mayor Butler stated that she felt the entire Council should be present to make a decision on this application. Mr. Ferrell stated that the Council has a moral obligation to honor previous councils* actions. It was moved by Mayor Butler, seconded by CounciImember Adams, to table this application until the April 14, 1986 Council meeting for the presence of the entire Council. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 0. #1006 CHRIS a DALE PAUI 1710 SBADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #1936 City Adninistrator Bernhardson explained the request for hardcover variances to construct a home addition and attached garage. The proposed hardcovers increases are from 17.5% to 18.2% in the 0—75* zone; the proposal shows a decrease from 27.3% to 26.8% in the 75-250* zone, but on staff's recommendation for safety reasons, a back-up apron should be included, so the proposed hardcover would be increased to 29.0%. 2 'nii fARCB 10, 1966 that are involved in tason this area was as the problem with lure on 1 acre lots, lications have been Lcil would be setting ation is unique and sms do not fail. blems are showing up iffron reviewed the 950 to present. He en Anderson in 1981 these cases. o proof of setting a iuse of the unique it zoning code would icre parcels, but he upon the request of the entire Council decision on this iincil has a moral s' actions. ied by CounciImember intil the April 14, ence of the entire ined the request for i home addition and overs increases are Bone; the proposal 1.8% in the 75-250' for safety reasons, d, so the proposed I. 2 yi ■OTBS OF THE REGULAR OROHO C008CXL iTIRG HELD APRIL 14, 1986 FERRELL TERTOWN ROAD - SECOHD REVIEW Acting City Administrator Gerhardson explained the request for a lot width and lot area variance for two rural properties on Watertown Road noting this was previously reviewed by Council on March 10, 1986 which at that time was tabled because the entire Council was not present to review it. Ward Ferrell was present for this matter and stated his attorney unaware of this meeting and was unable to attend due to a previous appointment. Mayor Butler asked Mr. Ferrell if he wished to defer this matter until the next Council meeting in order for his attorney to be present. Mayor Butler informed him that if this application is denied, he must wait six months to reapply. Mr. Ferrell stated that he would like to proceed with his application and depending on the outcome will consult with his attorney. He noted that he still feels that he is entitled to build a house and sell cne lot to help pay for his retirement home as long as he has owned the land since 1948. Ferrell stated he divided it because the Council asked him to in 1958, and the Council accepted the four lots and that the present Council has a moral obligation to honor what that Council told him. Zoning Administrator Gaffron updated CounciImembers Grabek and Hammerel (who were absent ac the March 10th meeting) that Mr. Ferrell was requestj :ig permission for 3 homes on a total of 2.9 acres in a two-acre zone. The 3 lots are commonly owned by Mr. Ferrell and consist of 1.01 acres (upon which Mr. Ferrell's present home is located), 1.04 acres, and .85 acres respectively. He noted that applicant has submitted soil testing and site plans to indicate that both septic systems and houses can be placed on each lot. He noted that the question is whether this would set a precedent by granting approval. Mr. Ferrell noted that the "28 similar case" parcels noted in staff's memo are less than two acres with the exception of one and that none of these parcels have been owned as long as he has owned his property. Mr. Ferrell stated that he had planned to build a retirement home on o le lot and sell the other lot for payment for the house and retirement equity. He feels that the financial hardship should be considered. fOnOtBS OF TB& REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL HEBTING HELD APRIL 14* 1986 HARD FERRELL continued Mayor Butler stated that the Council has to consider the legalities involved with future requests if they were to approve his application. CounciImember Adams noted that even by allowing one home to be built would require a variance of the 2 acre minimum lot requirement. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that the zoning code has changed during the time that Ferrell has owned the property^ however the code did not specifically address "commonly owned" lots until 1984. City Attorney Blatz stated that it was the Council's duty to enforce the code as it stands today and that comments made by previous counciImembers are not legally binding. CounciImember Grabek noted that (per memo) within a 1/2 mile radius of the applicants property^ there were 37 houses with less than 2 acres and 39 with 2 acres or more. He stated that part of the common ownership rationale was "how do these lots fit in the surrounding area"? He questioned if Ferrell's lots would support septic systems. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated lots would support septic systems under development i.e. no tennis court# pool# etc. that the limited CounciImember Grabek asked City Attorney Blatz the legal ramifications involved if this were approved. Attorney Blatz stated that there is a potential problem which the Council should reveiw. As far as granting a variance# Council must find an undue hardship to Mr. Ferrell. She noted that in 1981 a similar request was denied because applicant did not demonstrate a hardship# no sanitary sewer was available# and insufficient area and width. She stated that it is her opinion that if Council cannot differentiate Mr. Ferrell's property from others# that by granting the request in effect they would be changiug the ordinance. CounciImember Grabek questioned whether there would be legal justification to approve this application without changing the ordinance based on 1) a house can be built on each lot safely with septic system 2) it is consistent with the neighborhood size lots 3) applicant has been a citizen of Orono since 1936. P 1- ■ EM *990 m ■' :^m IPRIL 14, 1986 has to consider the ests if they were to 3y allowing one home ince of the 2 acre fron noted that the .me that Ferrell has the code did not ” lots until 1984. t was the Council's nds today and that bers are not legally : memo) within a 1/2 arty, there were 37 39 with 2 acres or e common ownership : in the surrounding lots would support ron stated Bms under d1, etc. that the limited rney Blatz the legal approved . a potential problem \a far as granting a lue hardship to Mr. similar request was onstrate a hardship, id insufficient area ler opinion that if roll's property from est in effect they her there would be application without house can be built system 2) it is lots 3) applicant *.. * ■ r • ■u of - tel •v.B tm W:i HnroTBS OF THE RBGDIAR OROlK) COOHCIIi KBBTIHG HEW APRIL 14, 1986 #990 lRD FERRELL continued Attorney Blatx stated that it is a policy Council must decide upon and that the undue hardship finding must be spelled out in the resolution to support the variance approval. CounciInember Grabeic stated that it seemed to be the ■just" thing to do to grant this variance and he felt it would not be making that much of an exception for other cases that may come up. Mayor Butler stated that this was a dilemma due to the unique circumstances however# she felt realistically she would have to recommend denial because# in her view# it would completely change the zoning policy. She expressed her fear in having to plant another sewer system. Counci Imember Frahm stated that he has problems with the ■common ownership" issue and whether there is a difference between sewered areas vs. non-sewered areas. He noted that if this request were approved the ordinance should be changed and be more clearly defined. CounciImember Grabek stated that he felt the direction of the change made in 1974 was to be able to provide a reviewal on an individual basis. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that one way to differentiate between common ownership vs. separate ownership# in separate ownership the hardship would be not allowing them to use their property# whereas# in Mr. Ferrell's case he is able to live on his property and use it. She also noted that the only hardship in Mr. Ferrrell's case is financial which cannot be considered as a valid hardship. Mayor Butler noted that she would be open to allowing one additional home but not two. Councilmember Hammerel stated that this is a hard decision but he felt two houses in an area where there is not enough area for one house without a variance is an excess# especially in an unsewered zone. Councilmember Adams stated that he felt sympathetic in Mr. Ferrell's case but he felt 1 acre lots in an unsewered area is undesirable. Councilmember Grabek questioned whether there would be a problem because Mr. Ferrell's attorney was not notified. ■1^ mmm a: -:': -V ■ US”-*.'* • . • ■ I 14, 1986 lolicy decision undue hardship ution to support eemed to be the i and he felt it option for other emma due to the alistically she in her view, it policy. She : another sewer iroblems with the ter there is a i-sewered areas, s approved the clearly defined. It the direction 3le to provide a ed that one way Lp vs. separate rdship would be whereas, in Mr. is property and tiardship in Mr. >t be considered >pen to allowing his is a hard :ea where there t a variance is .t sympathetic in tcre lots in an there would be a was not notified. 7 ••• >y-. MmmmMm MIHUTBS of tbs RKOIAR OfiOBO IHCIL MBBflMG BBLD APRIL 14» 198f AD FBBKSU. Blatz stated that she felt Mr. Ferrell made a knowledgable waiver of attorney and was made aware he could have delayed the matter in order to have his attorney present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that in his opinion, it would not have a significant impact in that particular area. Mayor Butler stated that taxing into consideration that the request is for development of three residential units on 2.9 acres in a 2-acre zones it was “<>^•'1^ Mayor Butler, seconded by CounciImember Adams, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial based on the following: At this point. Mayor Butler again stated that she felt tote*wd^dec\"s?on^ option to“ reVest tabling of his application in order for his attorney to be present. Mr. Ferrell's response was would make any difference already made up their minds. that he did not think it because the Council has 1) Extent of variances. 2) Known fallibility of septic systems on small 3) Denial does not deprive owner's rights to reasonable use as residential property as it stands now.4) No hardship to the land justifying request 5) Zoning code demands 2 acres of dry buildable propsrty p©r p®rcel wh©r©in tihls parcel is 2#9 acres overall requesting 3 buildable lots. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 1. Councilmember Grabek voted nay #1007 CAROL TRAPP* 4701 WBST BRAHCH ROAD prbliminiart subdivision resolution #1979 Carol Trapp was present for this matter. granting Preliminary approval for a plat at 4701 West Branch Road. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. f PUBLIC CO ZONING ADMI NARD I NATBR1 #819 NILLX 200 LEAF S PINAL SUBD eesolution #998 MAURI 265 BRONN FINAL SUBl besolutioi [L 14, 1986 . Ferrell made a made aware that cder to have his ipproval of this non-sewered area. >n stated that in ficant impact in snsideration that kree residential it was moved by Adams, to direct Lai based on the ed that she felt efore an actual ption to request his attorney to did not think it the Council has systems on small tier's rights to srty as it stands 3 request. dry buildable cel is 2.9 acres s. Grabek voted nay r. ihm, seconded by Resolution #1979 plat at 4701 West publicHiwms or *HB Rreotw •j ^BKit wnwiws HI A r •APUI. 28, 1»B6 monies available to pay would have applied H. felt th*\^°|:tler for that prograa. to be used to payfroa HOD would have to lost. Councilaoiaoer i««sMnts or the aoney would program. FMhi asked if hVrdwr.tated there was none. cltThdainistrator was unaware that there ni stared that the City “M'lislifv for the grant but would be tesio.nvs because of the payr.« i. M?**Lbriel Jabbour, 780 i!fs rSad and heard some 't? this’time he wishj^ them to continue. SOHIK MHimSTBhlOR’S B«K»T njym persbll* HATBBtCMIl ROA] Motion by Councilm^r^M^^^^^ deJuaT this ^'olutionj^ill 5, M,y, 0. at their May 12, #819 WILLIR* mills 200 LEAF STRSBT j, SUBDIVISIOM ^__ aioaSss«ss-»-.« §998 IIAlJBE®i S. BKIJI3IWS* "I wSSrHOW) SOOTH J. SOBDIVISIOH ^_ _ _ __ ATOORrBSOLOTIOB #1985 „.«c w C.CU-*.. c.r.vv.%« «?.•“ Mays 0. •I »• 5e -‘m^mm ■xMMM. y . V ■,^<'1 j - a •Su :-n .■> ■ MIMUTBATTBNDAMCB 7 amsBsn agen APPROVAL OF PARK COMMISS PLANNIMG COM PUBLIC COl ZOHING ADMIH #991 & #1018 1535 § 1595 AFTBR-THB-FA ■if ii iii ' •! '^9 APRIL 28r 1986not have to be paid p7.ied for the grant 8 iust delaying the . Mid. He felt that if led that there was tnts and there s would have appliad tated that the money sd to pay of* "** lost. CounciImember loney for the Ptogr^ ated there was none. B unaware that there Ify for the 9f“"t bu • the pay in February 1987. oad, stated that he arding the C°“"ffh«d this time he wished e are residents who ent job and wished to work and encouraged d by Council®a®ber a resoluti-^n ofa resoluti‘‘n ox ited to the Council Ayes 5» Kays 0. otion, Ayes 5r Nays 0. 3WS. ^Motion, Ayes 5r •i if ^ mm mm pm .'!• .' '''ft- •■.?■ J a ’^Mp\ “A?MIHITTO OF THB REGULAR 0R080 COUHCIL MBBTIRG HELD MAY 12, 1986AfCTIDAHCB 7sl5 P.HThe Orono Council met on the above date with the following members present: CounciImembers Adams, Grabek, and Prahm, Mayor Butler arrived at 7:27. CounciImember Hammerel was absent, the following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Public Works Coordinator Gerhardson, Building 6 Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Peterson. Also present were City Attorney Blatz and City Engineer Cook. COMSEMT AGBHDA*It was moved by counciImember Frahm, seconded by CounciImember Grabek, to approve the Consent Agenda* as Motion, Ayes 3, Hays 0.presented APPROVAL OP MIlTOTES* . , w - v k..It was moved by CounciImember Frahm, seconded oy CounciImember Grabek, to approve the Minutes of the April 28, 1986 Council meeting as submitted. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 0. PAUL C0MMISSI08 COMMENTS ^ ^ There were no comments frcro the ParK Commission at this time. planning Commissioner McDonald was present and had no comments at this time. PUBLIC CO ITS There were no comments from the Public at this time. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: FERRELL* ROAD It was moved by CounciImember Frahm, seconded by CounciImember Grabek, to defer this matter until the May 27, 1986 Council Meeting as requested by the applicant. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 0. #991 & #1018 WILLIAM J. ULRICH 1535 & 1595 BOHN'S POINT ROAD AFTER-THE»FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS William Ulrich was present for this matter along witn his representatives: Attorney Thomas Humphrey Jr., Attorney Gregory Halbert, Project Coordinator .John Noble, Landscape Architect James Robin, and Surveyor Mark Gronberg. 10^ 1 MINDATflMDANCl CONSENT AC APPROVAL C PUBLIC COI ZONING ADI /099^^*ARD / WATEI ( VARIANCE - #991 AMD \ 1535 AND : AFTER-TBE- #999 BELDl 3598 NORTl VARIANCE • SLD MAT 12, 1986above date with the Imembers Adams, Grabek, at Till, Councilmember 19 represented the City lardson. Public Works & Zoning Administrator istrator Gaffron, and sent were City Attorney c Frahm, seconded by the Consent Agenda* as 0. c Frahm, seconded by /e the Minutes of the as submitted. Motion, Park Commission at this was present and had ho ublic at this time. Frahm, seconded by s matter until the May sted by the applicant. his matter along with Thomas Humphrey Jr., ect Coordinator .John s Robin, and Surveyor / 0/ / 7^ ' :-V*7' V l‘7 ;■ -.1 PI': ' V' a m .’1 w§m I fimiTl^ OP THE REGULAR OROBO V.liKIW U:L iO^TXllG HELD MAY 27, 1986JkTTEHUUKIE 8s28 P.M. i-heThe Orono Council met on the above date witn tne following members present: Mayor Butler, CounciImembers Grabek, Frahm, Adams, and Hammerel. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Public Works Coordinator Gerhardson, Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Peterson. City Attorney Barrett was also present. COHSiiT AGWA*It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by Councilmember Hammerel, to approve the Consent Agenda* as submitted. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. AP PRdPJUL OF il'i'ITK*It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by Councilmember Hammerel, to approve the Minutes of the regular May 12, 1986 Council Meeting as submitted. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC O There were no comments from the public at this time. SOHXHG ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: #990jkARD FERRELL UTERTOflH ROAD VARIANCE DENIAL ^ ^ was present and requested that this matter be tabled because his attorney was unable to attend this meeting. moved by Councilmember Adams, seconded by Councilmember Grabek, to table this matter until the • June 9th Council meeting* Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. #991 AMD #1018 WILLIAM J. ULRICH* 1535 AMD 1595 BOHN'S POINT ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ^ ^ ^Upon staff recommendation, it was moved by Councilmem^r Frahm, seconded by Councilmember Hammerel, to table this matter until the June 9th Council meeting pending additional information. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. 1999 BBLDEH/MELINE 3598 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIMCB - DENIAL ,,,, ,,, applicant’s, Benn Belden and Evan Melina, were not present. Assistant Zoni“f Administrator Gaffron recommended that this matter ne tabled for a month and he will notify applicants. H HHPHHHI' 77^ ^■Pipiwii : JSiiiHSlt:■•3! • •. . / • ■ r-T MINIATTBNDAMCl CONSENT A APPROVflJa PARK COMI 9 MAY 27, 1986t>ove date with the tier. CounciImerobers el. The following :ity Administrator dinator Gerhardson, Mabusthr Assistant and City Recorder 3 also present. Frahm, seconded by the Consent Agenda* 0. Frahm, seconded by e the Minutes of the seting as submitted. lie at this time. ted that this matter inable to attend this Adams, seconded by his matter until the Ayes 5, Nays 0. 3ved by Counci Imember nmerel, to table this :il meeting pending es 5, Nays 0. *s, Benn Belden and Assistant Zoning that this matter be :y applicants. H Pi?> A... -S' ■ :••• . ' -V- ; mm ■ 1: - -n Mm . ... MM loi m BBt^nAR (HCIL MBBTHIG H30J> JOT& 9, 1986ATTSn>AlK3 cemsmr agtoa* ap^oval of Mm Th. Orono council Vi"* r “-.eVabek^FM^m. and Haomerel. Mayor CounciImembers GraoeK, rronro, following r^Vres.pd'VhTci?,^^ Peterson. City Attorney Blats was also present. It was moved by CounciImember Frahm, JouiTcilmem^r HaLerel, to approve the Consent Agenda* as submitted. Motion. Ayes 4, Nays 0. It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, Councilmember Hammerel. to Aves mI? 27, 1986 Council Meeting as submitted. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. TV w>« moved bv Councilmember Frahm, seconded by councilmember Hammerel, to »PP/°j^/ V®M?y ”27r^9M 1986 Board of Review Meeting held on May 27, l»so as submitted. Motion, Ayes 4, Hays 0. PARK COMMSSIOS CO«^ „„ comments from the Park Commission at this time. PUUniMG Co,mlssion member J. Diann Goetten was present and had no comments at this time. PUBLIC COMMEIITS There were no comments from the public at this time. TRATOR’S REPORTS LRD F 3405 WXTBRWWN ROAD VARIANCE DENIAL RESOLUTION City Administrator Bernhardson reviewed the three options in this applications afted I; »eVh"VLVtVr""nd°e"flnitly upon request by V‘*A!ioVthe applicant to revise his application to a 1-additional-building-site request. H ’• r. .. “ '"V-..«r .Vfe. ■ .ir .V 9, 1986ate with the Mayor Adansr lerel. Mayor !he following dministrator Gerhardsonr thr Assistant ity Recorder esent. seconded by onsent Agenda* , seconded by minutes of the J. Motion, Ayes , seconded by minutes of the ay 27, 1986 as mission at this ten was present *c at this time. iwed the three a. iipon request by s application to H mmm mmmM MIBDTBSIIAiU) FERRSUi continued . .ftnrnev. Jerry Rice, were pr«sf"^Ward Ferrell and h_s Stated that he is familiarfor this natter, because he lives in the areawith the area \act for deed on property acrossand also holds a contract to .^ated that h® has the road from applciant s. ^ a substantial researched the involved and that this is aissue of equitable *stoPPel invoi^ „i,e by a Mayor. irs«\U’tUVHrrFVrr'e"ll is prepared to proceed with legal suit if necessary. considering any alternatives.consiaetxiivj ----- a. ♦.«!§ Mr. F.rr.ll ttbllU City Attorney Blatz l^tween Mr. reaarding the apparent vanNest, she noted that and Planning found no indication ?he record was r®®®®/<=h//^;;iV?hat he could Pl®^ word was given to Mr. Ferr ordinances. property ^L"%"o ’unc?l°ca')fn”otone councix — It was moved •’y *2 °un^cilmember Frah^^ resolution rSrif^" ra^oVa°/- 9. 1986.as araJLucui — - 4 « ,r .hi. “«« reconsxucx , j 4« ^A iiV6» the matter tabled in oraer%"Sr “h?rtoto^\^lt “«rth his client, Mr. Ferrell. order ror ux». ------------ j a.u,4. ehft would recommend city Attorney council's intent is to alloi* tabling the “^“^l^bis application for 1 additio !i;' "-f* «991 6 »1018 I 1535 A 1595 B( aptbr-thb-fact RBSOLOTIOB f2( 1986were present is familial s in the area perty across that he has i substantial hat this is a e by a Mayor# »roceed with a he wanted the lotsr notee r. Rice stated 1 tabling the It it. clarified Mr. Ferrell s noted that [cation that Id plat his lot apply to whereas the ns made by a uphold the to the word »latted his Iways told that m, seconded by mial resolution >rney were given this matter to houses. :ter tabled in Mr. Ferrell- lid recommend t is to allow L additional i fmmmm i' • f 8TBS OF THE RBGXnAR COfJHCIL WffiTIHG HELD JUHE 9, 1986:vA-•ii>^o^cilmerober Frahm withdrew his motion.It was moved by CounciImember Hamraerel# seconded by JoJcil«e^r Ma-s. to table this matter at this time. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. 4991 6 #1018 WILLIAM J. OLRICH BBSOLOnoa »2004 Administrator Bernhardson reviewed the conditional Sie p^its and variances and the drafted resolution nrr followinq items: berms are limited to 3 1/2* with^no fences on them, staff has devised standards ior the drainfield and the plan will be aPP^oved in accordance with those standards, ® lagoon, fill between the the two of credit and developers agreement has been Staff recommends adoption of the resolution. that Planning Commission will review the f®<J^®®^® a geothermal %stem and extension of seawall in lagoon at their June 16th meeting. i Present representing applicant were: Halbert, Surveyor Mark Gronberg, and Engineer Don Brauer Mr. Halbert stated that they have reviewed the proposed resolution and m"ua^t ^bS#3 ^ing that the former residence on Lot 2 be hv Julv If 1986. He stated that they are cu^ent^ly Ssing^ the house for storing materials, and sanitation facilities for the laborers, reauesting that they allow the house to remain until September 1, 1986 subject to keeping the property neat and c derly. staff stated that they had no problem with that request City Administrator Bernhardson noted ^ jj* received any more complaints regarding the construction hours. It was moved by Acting Mayor Adams, Councilmember Hammerel, to ad^ pewits and tSce^men^^^^^^^ Condition #3 to September 1, 1986. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. V.’ •' ■' ‘ ■ ' =. "‘r- r 1 _|TOTBS OF TI JU> FERRWLL _ :TKRTOWN ROAI VARIAWCBSOOHTINDATIOW OF RE’ IHE 9, 1986rel# seconded by :ter at this time. d the conditional afted resolution are limited to 3- devised standards 1 be approved in Iteration of the ►rties, and letter las been secured, lution. He noted the requests for seawall in lagoon Attorney Gregory nd Engineer Don lave reviewed the lent of Condition >n Lot 2 must be d that they are aterialSr housing ►orers, therefore to remain until :he property neat with that request. :hat they have not g the construction ams» seconded by Resolution #2004 nal use permits and Lon #3 to September [VOTES OF •: #990 V^ED FEREELL14 Q&'^IIATEETOIfH RBGOLlUl OR0EOOF -atter wer, Mr. . Mrs. Hard FerralX.OHCIL MfflflEG HELD MAT 26, 198?-------------- City Administrator ®?'"i‘\'^5°api»ximBtely^4.19*a^^ FsrJell owned a /“lots t“ -int.r of 1958. which was subdivid^ uhich ."ced in April of 1985, Mr. Ferrell * a to b^ld on the 2 remaining is that he The application was vacant parcels Council in April 1986, whosubsagueptly brought to Ccuncix ^ directed ^taff to draft a denial res^^^^ tabled cwice. At the applicant then asked to adopt the denial res ^hat he requested that tSaf i? be tabl^. /“b'.quent j meeting, it not be considered a _ «fated that is where the City Administrator y^e previous Council hadapplication currently stands. „ indicated one of | request from two additional Ferrell to amend hi _ <1 option was to pass building ""^bs to one The « P Ferrell ImXWiU ^ -la ^*r*a/ 1*2^ ltrM“and^the*SthM^prop«ty^^ rcr.'i^hiVh cC/cirwVt^trey^cVnsrd^r^ /o°^b:together. He asked the Councix wn»t a hardship. Mayor Grabek noted that -hen 'CntS — Mr. Ferrell house'iTiTth^garag^ on 40,000 s.f. one lot is a 2,000 s.f. h liaht. He also noted of land which will not \ .-orator Gaffron stated that Asst Planning ‘^“Jgjlctory for rfeptic systems. He that both lots were satisfactory tor „ot feels that bbe surrounding^prop^ ^ residence decrease and may m fac on the vacant lot.on wiks w—— - bu\-ld?n"pe™i:sUteuJ,uer " ““““-Sorth"Br"oti"Roa^“ residence - septic system 4i “iri\\lTre\\d"e*nle '(lust south of Ferrell .ra'7rown Road - house built on 1/3 acre and the rest of the lot is all dxteh. H Tmm" •V m ■w MIHUTBS ( 1990 IWRD FBRR] #1112 & #1142 1950, 1955, IS COHDITIOHAL US COMMERICAL SI1 VARIANCE 1987a Ferrell 6d thet Mr* y 4.19 acres. [Iter of 1958. pril of 1985r 2 remaining .cation was .1 1986, who Lon which was Council moved int then asked ’eguested that L986 meeting. is where the ,8 Counci 1 had to allow Mr. 3 additional n was to pass t Mr. Ferrell ix months. it reaftis one perty at .97 ,r both lots onsider to be g whether a if feet of the a welfare of » be built on i 40,000 s.f* e also noted ffron stated systems. He es will not ew residence he believes h less than 2 - septic system nth of Ferrell 1/3 acre and the H % '■ I ■ 5 mm ■V "./• It a :TIBG held MAT 26, 1987§999y-- mm I n ■f MIEOTBS OF THE REGULAR OROHO COORCILIE vr,?r.-s 'rrwould be a financial loss to him. Mayor Grabelc atat^J he would “k* \if„\ properties that applicant says are similar case . Mrs Ferrell stated she felt that since the lots were already subdivided with past Council's approval, they should be able to be bui'.t on. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember sLe! to «ble this Batter until staff “as had time investigate the mentioned lots by the applicant and bring ba’ck the application again at the June 8th, 1987 meeting. Motion: Ayes 5, Nays 0. #1112 6 #1142 SMITH BAT MARINA 8 TACHT CLUB 1950, 1955, 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COMMERICAL SITE PLAN REVIEif ’®*^^*** Present for this matter were Woody Love, project planner, and Mr. Toberman, the ovmer. City Administrator Bernhardson explained ^hat this is a reauest which covers three parcels of land. The aoolication for 1955 Shoreline Drive involves a recon;!iguration of the current structure, of a new structure, layout of a parking lot which is^ec^mnendenrbe asphalt with lessen the concerns for run-off, removal ®°®® . current wood platforms from the P«r=el» ?!Sr’thannew building y^iid be further setback from ^^e lake than Vh. current structure. In addition, the new structure would be 25' in height, 2 story with an open ®? top. Currently the property is zoned maiina district. The property at zon^kourrentlv Tonka Transmission property, is zonea residentiil which currently exists under use permit for a legal non-conforming f ProDosed is a boat and accessory retail sal®* 'O be leased to a separate operator, cut °“bo Drive would be removed making the only access ^ orooerty from Spates Avenue. The intent is to d®®" "P ^HhJ^oroDertv plus put some additional parking on the property which^does not currently exist. proposal brought to the City, the applicant has ?n Convert the 1950 Shoreline Drive property to a parking 1. t. Such a change would "®c®®®^*^*'^® * * in residential distracts. 2 ^ ■y-Ti;’ Jiir;?' M. ' ■r'.' MINUTES OF T1attendance 7*01 P®> Ki IT AGENDA* AFfttOVAL OF MINOTl p^jynilNG C0MN1S8IC PUBLIC CO m S0NIN6 ADNINISTRA' i jtD FERRELL .TERTOHN RO VAPIANCB mu m. r' s r . :"rSV ?m m 26, 19871 value for each : vacant lot in le 2 vacant lots 3t at $29,000 it to look into the Lar cases* :e the lots were i approvalI they by CounciImember tf has had time a applicant and e June 8th, 1987 f Love, project a that this is a of land. The .ve involves a re, construction ng lot which is sring strips to 1 of some of the and proposed the :om the lake than fie new structure an open deck on B**2, commercial Shoreline Drive, arty, is zoned er a conditional se and structure. ail sales to be It onto Shoreline f access onto the it is to clean up 1 parking on the . In part of the cant has proposed a property to a issitate a zoning t permitted or 1 a residential ancil reyiewed a Dwed parking lots 2 ♦ » I ■if ■/Jit I tamms or td nsoLMt osomo •i t J inpijM uwyi';-Ktrm^mcE The Otono Council cratek, VouncilmoJersfol -«“»-/• P;Ve"r^„ "“?oS«cnSS!lUr 22! lahan wa.!bn;t°°*^h‘e *ollo«in, represented the City ^^“Vnfto?st?^:rr.rn?°iufr2?!;r/’fonin^^ ritn*-r^dirpVV ’er^or -a City Engineer Cook were also present. CUBSEW * Motion, Ayes 4, Hays 0. Of ™eS*^ -as -oved by Counci Imember Si..,^ .^^^^^^ C.„ncil-e»ber^^^^ 4, Hays 0. h meeting. ffJBLIC CMMiTS There -ere no cosanenti from the public at this tim*. S^miG JtfUlIHISTHATOR'S IBPORT: FBRRBLLf ^i 4» M VARUOKS ho. r Council delayed this p”^^^,J^^®o*”repre^entative^ n-M* JpViSc.” or r.pr....l.tlv r.,o..t.O to 0. pr—o.. Motion, Ayes 4, Hays 0. ’r* IN'• >•• I"* ? IP .o' fm-m .. ':?T ■■■ ■■:■.■ } to:Fro«s Date: Subject:I List ol Bz Exhifa Exhib Exhib Exhib Exhit Exhit Exhit Exhil Exhil The . zoning di and septi totaling acres res permit fo Mr. 1967 zoni Zone R-l< stated, T‘ 31.2 14, sine whic to deta the or t shii Sfhe nor did ; record, allowed cause th< B 8, 1987date with the, CounciImembersber Callahan was :ity staff: Cityrks Coordinator itrator Mabusth, tor Gaffron» and ^ Blatz and City ie» seconded by i Consent Agenda* (rinits Guidelines n and Goetten* \e, seconded by le Minutes of the ed. Motionr Ayes intents* Planning tfed later in the at this tiste* ftd of the meeting representative by CounciImember itter until d to be present. m - W. V* • 1 4 ■h }] f •• To:Ftob:Date:Subject Planning Commission Members ^5-/9Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant zoning AdministratorApril 8, 1985,903 ward P. Ferrell,. 3405 Waterto^ Road sewered zoning district* List o£ Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit H Exhibit I Application Property Owners List Plat Map Survey Pifoposed Site Plan Staff Sketch of Staff Letter to Applicant 2/27/85 Draft Resolution From Alden Anderson (Application #635) Exhibit J - Tax History The applicant owns house! weli! zoning district within the two easterly parcels and septic system Licels are 1.04 and 0.85nuv:i.p.«“”iV. irpi "."t permit for the 1.04 acre lot. Mr. Ferrell ct;^e°lecUrlrt\ri^"nil/U-tlo/a^ nil ric"f ricre'stngle Family Residential. That 1987 Code stated, regarding lots of record, as follows. 31.200. Existing Lots. A lot 14, 1967 (the a“e°tive date of ^zo^nin^^^^ District, single separate °*"®5®*'_^A„irements of the Zoning Cods aswhich does not meet the requiremen ^ family LV/htd d«el?/n^g^uryosf p^ .^^1?^ ^^%ar/y!' sTngir!eprr:trownerships includes joint owner- ship by not more than two persons. *he 1967 code did not discuss nor did it differentiate ®^®^^nt would likely have been record. Under this code, -in^auestion without a variance be- S... r/> V • : Th<Acre Si record#MJaundoor dvi Cc sa 3] oi a< Ci ti grants ship# dards City zonin in cc sepal clud€ incli idability RR-IB un- the RR-IB ser wellr y parcGls [ and 0.85 building ior to the question as 1967 Code Don Sept, i) under LStrictf Code as ! family fement of .c health it owner* erties _ _____ots of e been ice be- V,-^ m mm The 1974 zoning ^as ar" as ^existing lots ofAcre Single Pa»iXy record, it stated as follows.•a 09 --------,, 201 Existing Lots. A, 1°^ °|,’^:rthe"Jonin;%X)ji;u«y 1. 1975 (the District, whichinilr ^nalS 5l|2f|5\\r°i^^ Zoning Co- «« to areadoes noTroTt €Be 'ITlized for a single fan or width "orovided that in the juddwelling adversely affect put ^Ifeti^nTt^^oU-ing reguire.ents are net: _ ____nni* <4istricts of Greater Than 0n< 31.203. in District in the City m of record in any . the reguirements < tcre, Which “tfofly, nay be utilii ^^^riraetac'h^d d^elUng purposes if the Count V.'r r.' a " Other governmental body, an (3) it otherwise meets the requireme other applicable ordinances. Under the 1974 granted a lot area specifically di Ihip, but the of commonly owned lots dards for the separatio ouTcome of at le City policy# iq81 was that unsewered adja zoning b^considered buildable a in common could uot lot or combinat separated ®/^^^/eage in that zoning distrieluded the required acreage m ncxuui^ -------- ^ \ C. The separation ^served by public fV>ing. rarr^ngenent, undivi2^'* aliened in a contiguou _ _^ -*>/^ nnde SSnsirTMwi,*?'• staff's ib^®‘^P’^®^^.'i5*ied°frcM^*separat''ng applicant would either of the wester lots, since seP»Ff^°" °| ?„ the creating of bud main property bhan two acres m eli«li •A"- • •: :( It,-.' i ^:0Sg:'rnmMr'^ :'«.a r mim.- ; 1 u liiM "a••A.Va’;:;'.! • •; . ■ - .v/ • . c-j; mwi mmM mm M r.'-^-. .' ■'/.v "JM staff has told the applicant on nuffierous occasions over recent years that it is unlikely the City would allow building peraiits for his adjacent parcels. A similar application by Alden Anderson at 1900 Shoreline Drive resulted in Council voting 4-0 to deny separation of adjacent 1.4 acre and 1.8 acre commonly otmed parcels from each other, based on 1) lack of demonstrated hardship; 2) no sanitary sewer available; 3) insufficient area; 4) insufficient width. I have included the draft resolution from this application, which should help to clarify the City's past position on applications of this ty^^. - (note that the Anderson resolution was never adopted because he withdrew his application after Council voted to have staff draft a denial resolution). I have included the tax history for 1974-1985 on the properties (see Exhibit J). It is noteworthy that the valuation of the parcel in question (P.I.D. 0007) was reduced starting in 1983, and the parcel was assessed incrementally as compared to the parcel with the house; i.e. the adjacent parcels appear to be valued as part of the main lot, not as separate building sites. Because Mr. Ferrell insisted on bringing this application to you even though he was told of the slim chances for approval, staff accepted the application on an appeal/interpretation basis. Does the Planning Commission find any hardship or circumstance that would suggest the standards should not apply to this property? • « TOiFrom: Dates Subject List of Ex EX Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex Tt zoning and se] total ii acres permit Ii cant, : the rec was ef Alden grant i the ap varian denied, zoning P the PI inf orir the ap Lots 7 house grant! code. ccaslons over Ilow building !ation by Alden 3il voting 4-0 acre commonly I demonstrated ifficlent area; esolution from he City's past : the Anderson iis application ssolution). 4-1985 on the the valuation ed starting in as compared to .s appear to be Iding sites. application to for approvalr rotation basis, r circumstance apply to this c « ) •* r S, ' r\~; ■ ’rrvScg^;-. . . W'm ¥■ a ■ i;. . i' HiJ :kA: ;r 'm 'rhl: Ifj ew-iiy-/9>87TotOrono council MembersFromsMichael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Dates April 30, 1985 Sublectt #903 Ward P. PerreXl, 3405 Watertown Road - '■ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^-2.9-SS* Zoning Code Interpretation Mst of Esd&ibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Ovmers tist Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Proposed Site Plan Exhibit P - Staff Sketch of I.ot Aieas Exhibit H - Staff Letter to Applicant 2/27/85 Exhibit I - Draft Resolution From Alden Anderson (Application #635) Bxhibit K - Minutes^FrL Planning Conmiiasion Meeting 4/15/85 Exhibit L - Staff Memo to Planning Commission 4/8/85 The applicant owns four adjacent tax parcels in the RR“1B *onina district totaling 2.90 acres. The existing house, well, and septic system are contained within the two easterly ® totaling 1.01 acres. The two westerly parcels acres respectively. The applicant wishes to obtain a building permit for the 1.04 acre lot. in staff's preliminary review of this request ^® cant, it was cleL that thethe request of Alden Anderson on Shoreline Drive in 1981, whic was effectively denied before it was withdrawn. ®^s®d on the Alden Anderson^ denial, staff felt Council ^^ grant a variance for the Ferrell application. Rather than the applicant to spend extreme amounts of money for the variance application, soil testing, survey work, ®^®‘ denied, staff felt obligated to advise the applicant to submit zoning appeal application with $100.00 fee. Please review my memo to Planning Commission the Planning Commission minutes, and the exhibits. informal consensus of the Planning Commission was that at most the applicant might be allowed one building site Lots 7 and 8 for a total of 1.89 acres, leaving the existing house on 1.01 acres. Please advise the applicant whether or not you granting a variance to the rural common ownersnip section of the code. H' V :=-V • :i mmm m Applicat subs resi List of B Bxhi -V. occasions over allow building cation by Alden icil voting 4-0 acre commonly f demonstrated ufflcient area; resolution from the City's past t the Anderson Ills application esolution). 4-1985 on the the valuation ed starting in as compared to Ls appear to be .Idlng sites. application to for approval, rotation basis, r circumstance apply to this Tos Frt Dates Subject: 6W.il Orono Council Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator April 30, 1985 1903 Hard P. Ferrell, 3405 Hatertown Poad Zoning Code Interpretation List of Badhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E List Application Property Owners Plat Map Survey Proposed Site Plan Staff Sketch of lot Areas SA Exhibit P - SNMeeee9 Exhibit H - Staff Letter to Applicant 2/27/85 Exhibit I - Draft Resolution From Alden Anderson (Application #635) Exhibit J - Tax History Exhibit K - Minutes From Planning Commission Meeting 4/15/85 Exhibit L - Staff Memo to Planning Commission 4/8/85 The applicant owns four adjacent tax parcels in the RR-IB zoning district totaling 2.90 acres. The existing house, well, and septic system are contained within the two easterly parcels totaling 1.01 acres. The two westerly parcels are 1.04 and 0.85 acres respectively. The applicant wishes to obtain a building permit for the 1.04 acre lot. In staff's preliminary review of this request by the appli cant, it was clear that the application was nearly indentical to the request of Alden Anderson on Shoreline Drive in 1981, which was effectively denied before it was withdrawn. Based on the Alden Anderson denial, staff felt Council would likely not grant a variance for the Ferrell application. Rather than force the applicant to spend extreme amounts of money for the full variance application, soil testing, survey work, etc. only to be denied, staff felt obligated to advise the applicant to submit a zoning appeal application with $100.00 fee. Please review my memo to Planning Commission of 4/8/85 and the Planning Commission minutes, and the exhibits. Note that the informal consensus of the Planning Commission was that at most the applicant might be allowed one building site by combining Lots 7 and 8 for a total of 1.89 acres, leaving the existing house on 1.01 acres. Please advise the applicant whether or not you will consider granting a variance to the rural common ownership section of the code. i::,: ■■■ A" ■"•11 ■ ii'-M'ii mM Applica subs resj List of 1 Exhi Exhi Exhi Exhi Exhi Exhi Exhi Exhi Exhi Exhi Exhi C. unde cont; easei Coun< of s area Sectj A. 1 an "F Chap- deta< Counc the f 3. 1 recoi sewer and s witho ew.il nistrator I - " TAAL^ Lfr^-rlL. ^-2.9-35“ %f^LicA^r coui^ \1^ ffJt^ s » on leeting 4/15/85 4/8/85 s in the RR-IB g house, well, sterly parcels \ 1.04 and 0.85 &ln a building by the appli- indentical to in 1981, which Based on the Id likely not her than force for the full tc. only to be nt to submit a of 4/8/85 and Note that the s that at most \ by combining the existing will consider section of the TOt Wramz ■i Planning Conmission Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator November 13, 1985 #990 ward FerreXl, 3405-3411-3415 Watertown Road - Variances Application - Lot area/lot width variances to construct homes on two substandard vacant commonly-owned lots adjacent to the existina residence at 3405 Watertown Road. List of Exhibit Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C • Exhibit 0 * Exhibit E * Exhibit P • Exhibit G • Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J • Exhibit K - Applications For 2 Vacant Lots Plat Map Property Owners List Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan For Center Lot Survey, So^ls Report, Site Plan For West Lot Planning Coiomission Minutes 4/15/85 Council Minutes 5/28/85 Notice to Applicant 5/31/85 Tax History Council Minutes 9/22/58 Pertinent Ordinances Dating to 1950 Code Sections Pertinent Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C) (Current code) C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non-conforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (A) (3) A. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 in District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgement of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: 3. In ^R" Districts Not Served by Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record in any "R" District in the City not served by public sanitary sewer must meet the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter and shall not be utili'^ed for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval. m d. or .4- I it. (f Zoning F: November Page 2 oi or : Reg Mini if The district are conti westerly wishes tc The district! was loca- of one a Ferrell ; likely t build an< Code all minutes Planning Commissi existed i 140* wid* platting, since th« have beei the 1967 and 140* garding 1 31.2 196- own! reqi for jud< hea] by r The differen using the ownershi Under thl the 1.04 the 1-aci Council 4 was incli: O /--)3-2-8tr tor ad - ruct homes on two to the existing er Lot Lot non-conforming, wer, aligned in a vate road or road permitted without if the separation that satisfy the anuary 1, 1975 in Its of the Zoning a single family judgement of the ilth or safety and r Sewer. A lot of ' public sanitary he Zoning Chapter dwelling purposes if’ 1% -fa m '--y' . V. ^ .-•sf- M ■>1^ • '7 . .. w . i . .‘ V i ■;? • JV m 4 zoning File #990 November 13, 1985 Page 2 of 5 Per Subdivision 6, a "Lot of Record” is any lot for which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded in the office of the Registrar of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County, Minnesota, prior to January 1, 1975, and after approval by the Council if required. The applicant owns four adjacent tax parcels in the RR-IB soning district totaling 2.90 acres. The existing house, well, and septic system are contained within the two easterly parcels totaling 1.01 acres. The two westerly parcels are 1.04 and 0.85 acres respectively. The applicant wishes to obtain building permits for each of the westerly parcels. The 1950 Zoning Code (adopted 7/10/50) established a number of zoning districts, including the "Stubbs Bay District" in which Ferrell’s property was located. The "Stubbs Bay District" required minimum building lot size of one acre. This one-acre minimum was still in effect in 1958 when Ferrell requested to build a second residence on his property. It is very likely that Ferrell was told by the City at that time that in order to build another residence he would have to subdivide, because in general the Code allowed only one principal residence per building lot (see Council minutes 9/22/58). Note that at that time his request was referred to thj Planning Commission - minutes have not been found for the Planning Commission meeting or any subsequent action. Although a platting code existed in Orono as of 1955, Ferrell apparently divided off 2 lots each of 140' width and approximately 1 acre in area, in or about 1959 without platting, and the parcels have apparently been separate for tax purposes since that time. The parcels including the road right-of-way would likely have been considered conforming or nearly conforming lots of record under the 1967 Zoning Code which designated the property as Zone R-IC, 1 acre and 140' width, Single Family Residential. That 1967 Code stated, re garding lots of record, as follows: 31.200. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon September 14, 1967 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under single separate ownership in a "R" Residential District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Code as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgment of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety. Single separate ownership includes joint ownership by not more than two persons. The 1967 Code did not discuss common ownership properties nor did it differentiate between sewered and unsewered lots of record. However, by using the term "Single Separate Ownership", it implied that other types of ownership would be treated differently but did not define in what way. Under this code, the applicant would likely have been allowed to build on the 1.04 acre lot without a variance because the lot met the standards of the 1-acre zoning district. The 0.85 acre lot would likely have required Council approval, depending on whether the area in the road right-of-way was included in the lot area at that time. r- 5:1 ui!. *" h •I*: Zoning File November 13 Page 3 of 5 The Single Fami follows: 31.201 (the separa quirem a sing ment o or saf 31.203 in any meet t may be Counci C tl C tl be ( Under t lot area va again did n commonly owr of at least adjacent lot not be sepaz the required Upon re following Se C. The develo] contigu easemen Council of such area an< •w y lot for which a deed in the office of the ( for Hennepin Countyr ipproval by the Council s in the RR-IB zoning el If and septic system ng 1.01 acres. The two vely. The applicant sterly parcels. hed a number of zoning lich Ferrell's property imum building lot size i effect in 1958 when property. It is very time that in order to because in general the Lding lot (see Council St was referred to the und for the Planning hough a platting code .ded off 2 lots each of jr about 1959 without arate for tax purposes ht-of-way would likely g lots of record under as Zone R-lCr 1 acre 1967 Code stated, re- ing upon September 14, under single separate Lch does not meet the width may be utilized 3 provided that in the /ersely affect public icludes joint ownership properties nor did it f record. However, by ed that other types of )t define in what way. en allowed to build on t met the standards of d likely have required the road right-of-way .4* m i-: ■;v.' :V::> Zoning File #990 November 13, 1985 Page 3 of 5 The 1974 Zoning Code declared this land to be zoned RR-IB, 2 Acre Single Family Residential. As far as existing lots of record, it stated as follows: 31.201. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under single separate ownership in an "R" District, which does not meet the re- iijquirements of the Zoning Code as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judg ment of the Coundil such »^sc does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: 31.203. In "R* districts of Greater Than One Acre. A lot of record in any "R" District in the City in excess of one acre, which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Code as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if the Council finds: (1) it is at least one acre i»i size, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; and (2) it is either served by public sanitary sewer or meets all the septic system requirements of the City or other governmental body; and (3) it otherwise mets the requirements of this or other applicable ordinances. Under the 1974 Code, the Council at their option could have granted a lot area variance for a lot of single separate ownership, but the Code again did not specifically discuss the standards for the separation of commonly owned lots. The general City policy, as evidenced by the outcome l®3st Ciie typical zoning application in 1981 was that unsewered adjacent lots owned in common could not be considered buildable and could not be separated unless each resulting lot or combination of lots included the required acreage in that zoning district. Upon recodification in 3.0b4 tne Zoning Code was amended to include the following Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C): C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non-conforming, un developed lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or pri^^ate road cr road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. .51 m mi-: - jIm-A ■ 4 Zoning Novembe Fage 4 St. be proh either creatir appears varianc been tu directi< dollar fees, e' was thai allow o Api be decl provide could i] all sit applica house, I alternal the "not refuses two vacc notice < Twc 1. pel apF 2. i.e zon The lots in and are benefit which pr We parcels separate value, s Perhaps lots wer until 19 same as separate >e zoned RR-lB, 2 Acre of recordr it stated as .ng upon January 1, 1975 lode) under single does not meet the re- Ith may be utilized for '^ided that in the judg- y affect public health t: Acre. A lot of record le acre, which does not :o area or width only, slling purposes if the I the average width of iry sewer or meets all or other governmental its of this or other n could have granted a nership, but the Code for the separation of idenced by the outcome 81 was that unsewered !d buildable and could ation of lots included amended to include the f non-conforming, un- ' sewer, aligned in a r private road or road not permitted without ired if the separation ites that satisfy the ir. * m: M iff ■s i i mi Zoning File #990 November 13, 1985 Page 4 of 5 Staff's interpretation of the current code Is that the applicant would be prohibited frcmn separating his fcur adjacent lots, since separation of either of the westerly lots from the main property would result in the creating of building sites less than two acres in area. The applicant appeared before you in April 1985 on an appeal basis rather than a full variance application at staff's urging because a similar application had been turned down in recent years and staff wanted applicant to get general direction from the Planning Commission and Council prior to spending large dollar amoiints in developing plans, septic testing, surveys, application fees, etc. The Planning Commission and Council directive to the applicant was that it is unlikely chey would aprove two new houses, and perhaps would allow one new house rer.ulting in a 1.5 acre density on the total property. Applicant now apE>ears before you requesting that both westerly parcels be declared buildable. He has provided surveys of both parcels, and has provided soil testing and septic system designs indicating that each lot could in fact support a primary and alternate drainfield system (mounds at all sites) to serve 3-bedroom houses, given no future encroachments. The7 applicant has not provided a survey of the property with the existing house, nor has he provided septic testing to prove that the property has an alternate site for a drainfield. These items were specifically requested in the "notice of Council action" sent to the applicant on 5/31/85. Applicant refuses to accept the fact that in order to grant variances to build on the two vacant lots, we also grant variances to the existing developed lot (see notice of 5/31/85). Two questions, then, need to be answered. 1. Does each lot, of and by itself, have the capability to permanently support a house, septic system, well, and the other appropriate amenities in the rural zone? If so, 2. Is the Planning Commission and Council willing to set a precedent, i.e. do away with the common ownership limitation in the unsewered zone? The ramifications of Item 2 are significant. As many as 28 vacant lots in the rural unsewered zones are commonly owned with adjacent parcels and are 1/2 - 1 1/2 acres in area, and could expect to request the same benefit of buildability. Many more such lots have been legally combined, which presumably denies them any status unless re-subdivided. We saw during the appeal that the tax valuations on Ferrells adjacent parcels were lowered as of 1983, which gives the appearance that the separated lots were then given "accessory lot" value and not building site value, since the main lot land value increased markedly at the same time. Perhaps this was a result of the assessor realizing that the two westerly lots were not buildable without variances. It would appear that perhaps up until 1979 and perhaps as late as 1982, the extra lots were valued much the same as the main lot. Ferrell obviously felt he was paying taxes on these as separate building sites. ' w . ^ ftfliMfcl’ I I lat the applicant would S0 since separation of :y would result in the i area. The applicant sis rather than a full Lmilar application had »plicant to get general irior to spending large , surveys, application ctlve to the applicant ises, and perhaps would on the total property. : both westerly parcels both parcels, and has Heating that each lot , Held system (mounds at ire encroachments. The7 t rty with the existing C flat the property has an cifically requested in on 5/31/85. Applicant iances to build on the :ing developed lot (see e the capability to well, and the other ing to set a precedent, tion in the unsewered As many as 28 vacant with adjacent parcels ;t to request the same been legally combined, ^divided. s on Ferrells adjacent i appearance that the and not building site edly at the same time, that the two westerly appear that perhaps up s were valued much the s paying taxes on these as 1 A- Zoning Pile #990 November 13> 1985 Page 5 of 5 A further criteria to consider is how do the lots in question fit into the neighborhood as far as lot size. Given a radius of 1/2 mile from Ferrell's property, 39 developed lots are 2 acres or more, 13 are 1.25 to 2 acres, 23 are .75-1.25 acres, and 11 are less than .75 acre. (These were picked so that the Ferrell lots could be categorized in one group.) (Note that the Stubbs Bay Study Area, where sewer is contemplated wO serve Eastlake Street, Tonka Avenue, and Crestview Avenue, was excluded a X^I iou ^Ii it xs witlixn tl)6 X/2 iniXA tsdius* Thos6 38 oir so houses Aire on i/2 acre or less.) It is clear to see that in Orono's two acre zone north and east of Stubbs Bay, the majority of existing lots are less than two acres. In general terms, the existing density and lot sizes are letrimental to our long-term program of development without City sewers. Additional houses on relatively small lots, will not help that situation. Recall that the Alden Anderson application to allow a second building site on adjacent properties totaling 3.5 acres, was In effect turned down a few years ago. Are there any circumstances or hardships in the Ferrell application that justify a recommendation of approval? m uestion fit into f 1/2 mile from 13 are 1.25 to 2 5 acre. (These itegorized in one is contemplated uer was excluded lo houses are on t in Orono's two listing lots are ty and lot sizes [It without City 1 not help that second building ct turned down a ill application i -* p”. V J ssm 'arVl-.v- f.-' >i m .1*^ ‘P-: 6A. vA-a To: l^Qlis Planning CoimissiOh Members i^/Sfw ^ 5^-ff “07Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date: Subjects February 6» 1986 #990 Ward Ferrell 3405*3411-3415 Watertown Road Variances * Update to Memo of November 13# 1985 l^st of Exhibits Exhibit A - Memo of 11/13/85 With Exhibits Exhibit B - Survey of Property With Existing House Exhibit C - Soils Report# Site Plan For Existing House Exhibit D - Planning Commission Minutes 11/18/85 Mr. Ferrell has now submitted the additional survey and soils report to show an alternate drainfield site for the existing house. Given no future encroachments# there is adequate area on the lot wifti the existing house to replace the septic system with a fully conforming system. Please review the memo of 11/13/85. As noted in that memo and considering the additional information submitted# it appears technically possible to place a house, garage# driveway# well# and primary and alternate septic systems on each of the lots. The possiMe house location would be somewhat limited by the drainfield sites. There would be potential conflicts if a situation occurred where an extremely large house# pool# tennis court# etc. were proposed. The properties lend themselves to relatively low levels of development. Finally# from a zoning code standpoint# even if only one new building site is granted# this is precedent setting. In the past# Council and Planning Commission have generally held the line in similar unsewered common ovmership situations. Approval of 1 or 2 new building sites might have long-term impact on Orono's effectiveness in avoiding sewer. Weigh this against the applicant's real and preceived rights as a property owner and the history of zoning code changes over the years. Are there sufficient justifications to grant a variance? ■H;. ;• Council origl appeal# at whi 1 additional building sites D# the compos] is requesting adjacent to hi the current 2- To briefly re^ this property: 1950 Zon; separate 1958 - Fe a second 1 told by H require a residence 1959 - Fe of Ordina width of allowed C in singl' X dmlnistrator artoim Road - 13, 1985 9 House sting House 18/85 lonal survey and Id site for the there is adequate place the septic 3ted in that mono itted, it appears * driveway, well, sach of the lots, t limited by the . conflicts if a jLse, pool, tennis nd themselves to n if only one new setting. In the nerally held the itions. Approval j-term impact on this against the rty owner and the ars. Are there :! I ■i I ,i ft: ■: H N. rv K 1 Vf: TO: FBON: DATES SUBJs exw. VOrono City Council Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistaint Zoning Administrator March 3, 1986 #990 Ward Ferrell, 3405-3411-3415 Watertown Road - Variances S*/'? List of Exhibits: A - Applications for variances on 2 vacant lots D - Plat Map C - Property Owners List ‘z. - D - Notice to Applicant 2/20/86 -- - £ - Composite Site Plan 6 P - Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan for existing house, east lot G - Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan for center lot H ~ Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan for west lot I J L M N - Staff memos 11/13/85, 2/6/86 - Minutes: Planning Commission 4/15/85; Council 5/28/85; Planning Commission 11/18/85; Planning Commission 2/18/86 - Tax History, 1974 - 1?85 - Council Minutes September 22, 1958 - Pertinent Ordinances Dating to 1950 - 1981 Draft Denial Resolution - Alden Anderson property, 1900 Shoreline Dr. (similar case) Council originally reviewed this application in May, 1985 as a zoning appeal, at which time Council gave applicant general direction that perhaps 1 additional building site would be considered, but that 2 additional building sites would not be looked upon favorably. Please review Exhibit D, the composite site plan for this 2.9 acre group of parcels. Applicant is requesting permission to build houses on each of the two vacant lots adjacent to his home. The lots are substandard in area and width based on the current 2-acre, 200 foot width standards. To briefly review the code standards that previously and currently affect this property: 1950 Zoning Ordinance - (Prior to division of this property into separate parcels) - Property zoned 1-acre min. lot size. 1955 - Original Platting Code 1958 - Ferrell builds house at 3405 Watertown Road, requests to build a second house on property per minutes of 9/22/58. Ferrell presumably told by Herb Ross, Mayor, that in order to build a second house would require a subdivision, since 1950 zoning ordinance allowed only one residence per lot. 1959 - Ferrell presumably completed subdivision. 10/12/59 - Adoption of Ordinance #22 - a) required minimum lot area of 1 acre, min. lot width of 140', which Ferrell lots would meet or nearly meet, b) also allowed Council to approve building permits for substandard lots held in single separate ownership, inferred that substandard common- ■k m if M MZoning F March 3, Page 2 own« tha dis4 196 sub sub; sep tim not inf€ 197- Thi: sepa But lota The 1900 2 ac Ferr 1984 ad ja resu Ferr confi Note that acre even variance have requ Finally, 2/6/86. recommend: of 1 addii site (see Approval the Alden applicant septic CO' swimming p Staff wii: direction. r :ator >ad * Variances £.U€ TO ^ “ Si» "z." mser east lot 1/28/85; r Commission 2/18/86 property, 1900 1985 as a zoning rection that perhaps that 2 additional ease review Exhibit arcels. Applicant he two vacant lots and width based on nd currently affect bhis property into size. t requests to build Ferrell presumably second house would :e allowed only one 10/12/59 - Adoption >f 1 acre, min. lot larly meet, b) also bstandard lots held labstandard common- IK -'■-m • l-r m f :w r>Zoning File #990 March 3, 1986 Page 2 ownership lots would not be granted building permits, and established that the Council could allow variances to this section at Council's discretion. 1967 Zoning Code - Property still zoned 1 acre, 140* width, no substantial changes from 1959 Ordinance #22, but did state that substandard existing lots of record as of 9/14/67 under single o^nershxp could be granted building permits if the CouncxT* finds they would not adversely affect public health or safety. Did not specifically discuss common ownership lots, but by omission inferred again they would not be granted permits. 1974 Zoning Code - Property rezoned to 2-acre, 200* minimum width. This cov.e set specific standards for use of substandard single separate ownership lots of record in the 2 acre zone i.e.; 1) must be at least 1 acre, 100* width 2) must meet all septic requirements or be sewered 3) meets all other applicable standards the 1974 code specifically did not discuss common ownership The Alden Anderson common ownership lot buildability application at 1900 Shoreline Drive was denied in 1981 based on lack of the required 2 acre lot area, setting a precedent for denial of situations such as Ferrell's. 1984 Zoning Code - requires Council approval to separate (read **sell'*) adjacent undeveloped non-conforming commonly owned lots if the resulting lots do not meet area or width standards. Clearly in the Ferrell case. Council approval is required in order to separate the conforming 2.9 acre group of parcels into substandard parcels. Mote that the 0.85 acre center lot, which would only be approximately 0.97 acre even if road right-of-way was included, would likely have required a varxance ^nc^er previous zoning codes, and both vacant parcels would please review the exhibits, especially the memo*s of 11/13/85 and 2/6/86. Planning Commission reviewed this application on 2/18/86 and recommended denial of 2 additional building sites, but recommended approval of 1 additional site for a density of approximately 1.5 acres per building sxte (see exhxbit D). Approval of even 1 new site will set a precedent in complete reversal of the Alden Anderson denial in 1981. Weigh this against the fact that applicant has shown that the 2 proposed building sites both can meet the septic code requirements if development of the property is “minimal (no swxmmxng pools, no tennis courts). Staff will draft a resolution for your next meeting reflecting Council's direction. « .MbWr |f<!, i. ,««r ■ ...... Hote: List o£ 1: I. Re: F€ lots woul( The I the only (p.2.). Do Cl I ha previous i separate f of at lea: so which h nits, and established section at Council's ;re, 140' width, no but did state that '14/67 under single rmits if the CounciT alth or safety. Did ts, but by omission 200' minimum width, substandard single me i.e.: iwered suss common ownership Llity application at lack of the required if situations such as sparate (read "sell") owned lots if the :ds. Clearly in the rder to separrte the ard parcels. e approximately 0.97 feely have required a ncant parcels would mo's of li/13/85 and :ion on 2/18/86 and recommended approval S acres per building >mplete reversal of inst the fact that is both can meet the srty is minimal (no reflecting Council's m Mi vv •••! •V 4 life- ♦ m 'sm ms i ■ Pi.' r-. 3^ -^Ty Brut. IC Freas Dates Council Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assitant Zoning Administrator March 14, 1986 Subjects #990 Ward Ferrell - 3405 Waterto%m * Variance * Additional Information Motes Please refer to your memo from the March 10 meeting. Met of Exhibits A - 1974 Public Hearing Minutes - Rezoning B - Similarly situated properties - A-M (map) C - Sketches I. Res Ferrell comment that at time of rezoning. City stated that existing lots would still be buildable. The attached copy of the 1974 rezoning public hearing minutes contains the only reference I could find regarding the status of existing lots (p. 2.). II. Documentation of Similir Cases in the Rural Zone. I haye again reviewed the "28 similar cases" referred to in the previous memo, in which substandard lots of record are commonly owned but separate for tax purposes. Actually, this second review uncovered a total of at least 30 such situations, of which I will document here the dozen or so which have a high potential for a future variance request: A) 320 Woodhi 11* Road - 2 parcels: w/house-3.5 acre? vacant-l.l acre; vacant lot fronts on Edgewood Hills Road. B) 105 Cygnet Place - 2 parcels: w/house-1.0 acre? vacant-1.0 acre. Q 3865 Bayside Road - 2 parcels: w/house-0.7 acre; vacaht-1.2 acre. D) 341 West Lake Street - 3 parcels: w/house-0.5 acre: vacant- 0.5 acre; vacant-0.5 acre. E) Lakeview Golf Course - 4 parcels: Golf Course-125 acres? vacant-1.98 acres; vacant-1.98 acres? vacant-0.75 acres(only parcel with road frontage). F) 1080/1090 Heritage Lane - 3-plus parcels: w/house-7.0 acres (estate); vacant-1.0 acres; vacant-1.0 acres. G) 1425 Bayridge Road - 2 parcels: w/house-1.0 acre? vacant-1.1 acre. H) 1900 Shoreline Drive - 2 parcels: w/house-1.4 acre; vacant-^ 1.7 acre. .?■J" : :V Wlm IVtt' I File #99 Page 2 o Thes III. To Y variances r £x//. Kbor sting. :ated that existing ng minutes contains of existing lots sferred to in the commonly owned but uncovered a total : here the dozen or lest: ) acre; vacant-1.1 3 acre; vacant-1.0 7 acre; vacant-1.2 1-0.5 acre: vacant- Course-125 acres; t-0.75 acres(only 3els: w/house-7.0 :es. .0 acre; vacant-l.l -1.4 acre; vacant- V ; »> ’• mi 1 .Pile »990 Page 2 of 2 I) 300 Sixth Ave. H.- 2-plus parcels: w/house-100 ac.-*-; vacant^ 1.5 acre. J) 879 North Brown Road - 2 parcels: w/house-1.0 acre; vacant 2.6 acres. K) 960 N. Willow Drive - 2 parcels: w/house-l.O acre; vacant 1.0 acre. L) 320 Turnhan Road — 2 parcels: w/house—1.7 acres; vacant-1.1 acres. M) 200 Bederwood Road - 4 parcels: w/house-0.9 acre; vacant - 0.6 acre; vacant - 1.1 acre; vacant - 1.0 acre. These 13 cases can be broken down into a number of categories: 1* Total acreage of commonly-owned parcels is great enough to yield conforming lots if lot lines are re-arranged: A,E,F,I. 2. Total acreage of commonly-owned parcels yields only enough area for a single substandard lot with existing house: C^D^L. 3. Total acreage of commonly-owned parcels yields enough area for a single conforming lot with houser but not enough additional area for a second conforming lot: B,G,H,J,K,M (these are very similar to Ferrell situation). To help Council assess the impact of granting or denying the Ferrell variances» consider the following figures: - Number of existing developed lots in the unsewered residential zones: 1,050 approximately - Number of undeveloped, substandard sized lots, in single separate ovmership in unsewered zones: 15 identified - Number of unsewered common ownership situations with a JCQelistic potential for requesting variances to lot area in order to gain an additional building site: 22 identified (13 of these shown as A-M attached) - Within a 1/2 mile radius of the Ferrell properties (excluding the 3 Stubbs Bay Study Area streets Tonka Avenue, Crestview Avenue, Eastlake Street where sewer is contemplated) the existing developed lot sizes are: 2.0 acre or larger - 39 1.25 acre to 1.99 acre - 13 .75 acre to 1.24 acre - 23 Less than .75 acre - 11 Tot From: Date: Subject: Attac Mr. Ferre] The C 1. H Ferre the \ 2. T only subst 3. i addit membe f avoi the d. denie raque appro 1986 be wa commi Staff reque Commi! Staff the resolu 41. i was a< substc to re< of 2-« to fui appl i applic CO mm ►use-100 ac,+; vacant- use-1.0 acre; vacant ise-1.0 acre; vacant- 1.7 acres; Vacant-1.1 se-0.9 acre; vacant - ;re. f categories: s Is great enough to rranged: A,E,F,I. s yields only enough Ing house: C^DfL. s yields enough area not enough additional K,M (these are very denying the Ferrell insewered residential ed lots, in single ientified situations with a to lot area in order sntified (13 of these >roperties (excluding i Avenue, Crestview nplated) the existing 1-1 mi mm •y-- €XH.£ fo:Orono Council Members Froll:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date:May 21, 1986 Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell 3405 Watertown Eoad - Variances - Denial Resolution Attached is a resolution for denial of the variances requestedl by Ferrell to construct 2 additional houses on his property. The Council's procedural options are as follows: 1. Adopt the denial resolution as drafted. In this case, Mr. Ferrell would have to wait 6 months before he could reapply for the variances, if he so wished, per Section 10.08, Subdivision 5. 2. Table the application indefinitely. This would be advisable onlx if the applicant requests a tabling based on additional substantial evidence he wishes to present. 3. Allow the applicant to revise his application to a 1- additional-building-site request, if he wishes, which some members of Council have indicated would be looked upon more favorably. In this case. Council could either cease action on the denial resolution, or adopt a revised denial resolution which denies the 2-additional lot request but finds that the revised request is a change of conditions which was recommended for approval by the Orono Planning Commission at their February 18, 1986 meeting, hence, the 6—month reapplication moratorium would be waived. Aixowing such a revision of the application does not commit the Council to approving the 1- additional lot request. Staff would recommend that if applicant does wish to revise his request, the application be referred back to the Planning Commission for further review. Staff would suggest the following language be incorporated into the resolution as item #41 if you choose Option 1 above: 41. At the City Council meeting of 1986, the applicant was advised of the options to a) table if he has additional substantial evidence to submit; or b) to revise his application to request only 1-additional lot on the 2.9 acre parcel instead of 2—additional lots; or c) choose neither and waive any right to furi-her review of this application by the City Council. The applicant chose to waive further Council review of the application. yvA TC? APP(__I CAaJ-T^ CO L 1\H. £ Btrator ices requested by roperty. this case, Mr. ould reapply for If Subdivision 5. aid be advisable d on additional .cation to a 1- leSf which some ooked upon more cease action on resolution which :hat the revised recommended for eir February 18, noratorium would ication does not lal lot request, ih to revise his o the Planning icorporated into e: , the applicant has additional his application t parcel instead waive any right :y Council. The review of the 5-' •**.*•'■ 'A-:r . m ;Hl To:Mayor Grabek Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson P^roBx Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date:May 29, 1987 Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell 3405 Watertown Road - Variances - Denial Resolution Met of Bzhibits Please refer to your information packet from the last meeting. Additional Exhibits: Exhibit A - Information/Surveys Submitted by Applicant at 5/26/87 Meeting 1) Swan Lake Plat - Mills New Subdivision 2) 900 North Bro%m Road 3) 1925 West Farm Road Exhibit B - Denial Resolution as Drafted With Exhibit "A" (Sketch of Properties in Question) Discussion - 2. Cases/situations that applicant feels are similar. The applicant, at your May 26 meeting, suggested that there are many cases similar to his that the City has approved. In fact, because the prime differentiating factor is common ownership, none of the cases he brought up are similar: A) Swan Lake Addition - specifically William Mills* Jr. plat - this is a recent plat (1985"*86} which divided Lot 7 into twi.> lots each of which contains two dry buildable acres exclusive of the lake/pond area. This plat has absolutely no similarity to what Ferrell is requesting. Note that the City has granted variances for individual, pre-existing, separately owned substandard lots in the Swan Lake Addition. The key is separately o%cied. B) 900 North Brown Road - this lot was created as part of the plat "Farm at Long Lake" in 1978 under current zoning standards. The lot 900 North Brown Road contains about 2.1 dry acre? ' r!: total, but of which only 0.9 acres is outside of an extensive drai^rae easement on the property. This lot was in separate ownership, wa& created under current lot area codes and obviously was not considered as being a substandard lot when created, as long as any house proposed to be on it could meet the City's septic concerns (primary and alternate site) and setbacks, which it does. (NOTE that at that time in 1978, the City did not exclude drainage easement area from the dry buildable. Now we do.) Tli!; 'W •• ■ •<?■■’?<#■ • *■' • • • '••“H PKM*:;:;.s Zoning File #990 Nay 29, 1987 Page 2 of 4 C) 1925 West Farm Road - This is a single building lot containing 2.1 acres of which about 0.27 acre is contained within a drainage easement for a creek (the same creek that traverses 900 North Brown Road), leaving 1.83 acres dry buildable. The septic system is not as shown on the site plan submitted by Ferrell, but is a mound system located southeast of the house, set substantially back from and at a much higher elevation than the creek. This case is not at all similar to Ferrell's. The fact is, the City has not issued a building permit or granted a lot area variance for any substandard, commonly owned lots in an unsewered zone since that 1974-75 resoning. Mr. Ferrell's request, if approved, would set a precedent that would suggest at least 22 other substandard lots in unsewered zones could be requesting similar consideration. It is staff's opinion that allowing substandard, unsewered lots to be built on will not be advantageous to the City in its quest to keep sewer out of the rural areas. IX. Ferrell's ownership and 1958 subdivision in relation to codes throughout the yearx. Please review the memos of March 3, 1986 and November 13, 1985 for a summary of how Ferrell's current situation came about and how changes in codes have affected his properties. The lots Ferrell created in 1958-59 appear to have met or nearly met the standards In effect at that time. On October 12, 1959, the Council adopted Ordinance #22 which allowed Council to grant variances for substandard lots in single separate ownership, inferring that commonly owned lots would not be automatically granted variances, and inferred that in the case of common-ownership lots, enforcement of that ordinance with respect to lots held in common ownership~wouId not arbitrarily deprive the property owner of a valuable right. (See Exhibit 2-3 of last meeting's packet.} The 1967 Code said substantially the same thing, i.e. by stating that it would be appropriate to consider variances for substandard size separate ownership lots where health, safety and welfare concerns were satisfied, it inferred that such variances were not appropriate for sub standard common-ownership lots. The 1974 Code rezoned the property to 2-acre, 200' minimum width, and set up standards for the granting of variances for unsewered single separate ownership lots, i.e. 1 acre, 100' width, septic OK, meets all other zoning standards; again implying (but not saying) that common- ownership lots could not be granted variances. In 1981, the City Council effectively denied a similar application for common-ownership unsewered substandard lot buildability, establishing City policy clearly. >/:m wm j't i;-. ■ • ... . r. > 1 s Zoning File #99 May 29, 1987 Page 3 of 4 The 1984 C common-ownersh result was a su Staff beli since October 1 it never met tl" Staff als< supported and i Staff bel since 1/1/75, 1 Each Zoni Zoning Code e unsewered lots effective 4/1 undeveloped ur if such a sale III. Regardii building Staff bel 2 undoubtedly buildability 10/12/59 unti rights only tc Ferrell \ not as buiIda] them, and as without varii approva1» An variances, ac basis, hardsb requirement. taking of rig) that the City subdivision o additional 1 additional 1 the existing J;:: ^ -;t;.r:^imm^. 1 ■ I lot containing 2.1 a drainage easement North Brown Road), tem is not as shown ound system located from and at a much : at all similar to )ermit or granted a ots in an unsewered uest, if approved, er substandard lots ition. nsewered lots to be ]uest to keep sewer relation to codes mber 13, 1985 for a and how changes in e met or nearly met 1959, the Council ant variances for ring that commonly i, and inferred that hat ordinance with rariiy deprive the 3 of last meeting's L.e. by stating that substandard size fare concerns were »propriate for sub minimum width, and »s for unsewered h, septic OK, meets lying) that common- lar application for , establishing City 'm • r' MM mi. if:--- iM-M M ' '-ip’ k•M h hn % ‘ Zoning File #990 May 29, 1987 page 3 of 4 .. ««-A«>ed that unsewered substandard! ^®®'.hr^'lot".“ciSlSTotTe separated from adjacent lots if the =::?l\"rs"r*s!li5ta^“dVrd'Tot"in either case.•C ^ - - - - Staff^lieve. that Parcel 2 tL^'l *”e re"<^i "ement of the 1950 Zoning Code. rcea ««w -- - - - -- - - - - « 1 ^ been unbuildable without variances Staff believes ^^*^.?*wf*\,ithout variances prior to 1/1/75. since 1/1/75, but was buildable witnout vat ^ ^ 1 ^ 9 m 1% As W X/ J»/ 9^9 - - Bach zoning Code «Jom Ordinance 22 adopt^ aSbs?and«d r^^e’reriots^wtr^^-t =s"uh7t"a\d.1 irs°ubs^nrr"d^?ndividull lots. xr SUCH Cl -- - - - - -- - d. 4r ^9 Ferrell’s ■loss* if he doesn’t get two new III. Regarding the extent of Fe building sites. staff believes that since an tha^^acrL’hf had'^e 2 undoubtedly not buildable due . 1^^^^laing lot (Parcel 3) from buildability ^^^ht to /rom*l/l/75 to the present has buildability Ferrell would have had the right to *.®“^*’*/w|4)'but"h^not arbiridarie lots) to other parties prior to 4/1/M^^^ buildable them, and as of as separate lots without Cowc^ without variances,and can t be soia o 4/1/84 and applied for aoorovaL;. And even if he ^ad sold^ the^^ P^ 10/26/84, there would be no variances, ®=“tding to Alan Olson granting the variances to the area basis, hardship, or . en«<-ains would logically be related to a requirement. Any "loss , staff suggests that, taking of rights he has .d a‘lot «ea variance for Parcel 2 «hen his that the City formally Mr Ferrell has never had -he 'ig“t to 2 subdivision occurred in 1958 59, • ,2/31/74 had the right only to one additional lots. */°“ ^°//“/|| to th® additional lot, and from 1/1/75 to tne p the existing developed buxlding site. Zoning Fill May 29, 19# Page 4 of 4 Staff granted to reviewed h wording of however, t mention of that the C: recognized 1955 Code the road r: Staff Recoi Attacl Ferrell to The O 1. A( would if he 2. T. if th evidi and a rehea 3. A buil< have Counc revis but f recos Febru would commi would appl revie Staff resolutioi 41. advi evid< addil c) appl: Counc •f^t- •.'■ leered substandard cent lots if the without variances buildable because le. nee that tima has without variances > 1/1/75, 59 up through the twned substandard The current Code at a substandard )ld off separately >esn't get two new /12/59 made Parcel 1 acre, he had the 5t (Parcel 3) from has buildability racant parcels (but but he didn’t sell ely not buildable Kg without Council 34 and appliea ror , there would be no iances to the area .ly be related to a unless he proves c Parcel 2 when his had the right to 2 right only to one i the right to only rz fll •-V i Mi m^m-m zoning Pile 1990 Itoy 29, 1987 Page 4 of 4 staff has been able to locate no tv2n?^rirwtd"Si"^"bd“i^^o^^”Th^"cltr.s:pt:r/p^ the road right-of-way as part of his lot areas. Staff Se I r—endatiop - Attached is a resolution for Ferrell to construct 2 additional houses on his property. The Council’s procedural options are as follows; 1 »*. «.ka <4An-iAi resolution as drafted. In this case, Mr. Ferrell». ~">5 «“ if he so wished, per Section 10.08, Subdivision 5. 2 Table the application indefinitely. This would be 2^ iti^‘;;c?fe^ri"sUTo"p^r“es“ent!“iS!s^^^^^^ and applicant presented no new relevant evidence when the item reheard in May 1987. 3 Allow the Ipplicant to revise his application to a 1-additional- building-site request, if he wishes, which some “?”‘»®” have indicated would be looked upon more favorably. In this case, eSuncif could either cease action on the denial revised denial resolution which denies the _2 hut finds that the revised request is a change of conditio ..k—4 - l?S%retrg^ h^c ‘e^^ t//iV’tTditU*’/! “fSt^^?:^u^“stf° It SoSTd rtcon^end that if'^appliclnt does wish to revise hi® '®^®/‘- Application be referred back to the Planning Commission for further review. staff would suggest the following languap incorporated into the resolution as finding #41 if you <=ho°se ^tion 1 at»ve: applicant was advised of the options to a) table if he has additional substantial evidence to submit; or b) to revise his additional lot on the 2.9 acre P®>^°®\.,^"®head °f 2-additi^^^^^ ^ c) choose neither and waive any right to further review or u application by the City Council. The applicant chose to waive -urth Council review of the application. * %• ; t r:■< variance was ever he City ever even I code in 1955, the trrell's division, re reviewed and no d. Staff believes or they might have had platted as the 1lowed to consider :es requested by Mr 1 case, Mr. Ferrell f for the variances. I be advisable only tional substantial occur in June 1986 when the item was to a 1-additional- lembers of Council ily. In this case, elution, or adopt a tional lot request inditions which was ommission at their lication moratorium pplication does not lot request. Staff se his request, the ission for further ncorporated into the the applicant was ional substantial to request only 1~ dditional lots; or er review of this se to waive further ^ •• I*. l4^ soy .Uil't'TmTot r.cns bearing only the^liif ^ oKi-! names af U.e reeidcutj of U» da-f^ Hon rf . HI inwnt •£ tb*-'* ' irict, ur.d ‘-be ramcs of dyrellmg^ n^r.ce. aud -JxeTein except afreet arwl rois» n?tu2at>oa afid ■ jn;SSrand traffic xigns. and ex Seciioiain* ;cept »i«n» advervUin* for ® AVD be rr iJuiriHlR EE*|rent,^ cnt\^D ASD CtiaAOJBD, Tb«» j may be tocated. VlS ”, »■ No Xmaii"* O' scjd Oruno TownsTo^ b*. toJ *b«itur« is hercoy zon*r^ district d-1 ! ^cio'a buiidin^ 'zon*r;l distfin Oj ^ iOronow pursuant la the la^ ®» I the State cf Mint^ta, to-wit; Ortaao OIttrict - m y No buudu , mod **be j ture shall b« erected upon an detigliMlcS aa •(land within the above ronmj ai i? U m Town of trict except wh Seetin XV. . *1' * Is&^JnS'oSJSSIS tbe ioUowing irex oaS said Oreno Township bo, a»d isame U hereby desipteted: y ioam« datrict qf Onmn, pursuant to tbe XawaW[w «...__rHI iM .ita nweritr.-Va I f E^SSsvs Twtr.*y-three (W). lleanepin Co—-.te. MlnnesTta, «id of . tion Thirty.Cve (3S). TowmJ^ 1 Ore Hundred «»btw (!«). t Par.i^a TwentT'Uiree (S). Hen- nepm County. ,;imB«eoU. de scribed as foUowa: _ .All of S«etio« Two (p» Toy» ship One HtBidfOd (1171, Range Tw«*y-three (23)^ ^iSct except where the land ti| which the buildinc flr othtr .ti U to be erected ccnit;t\iles "buildinis lot" M hereinatrer dj nned. A -building lot" is hertf defined to be land owned und one ownership wh.ch equals exceeds an aree of one and 05 half acres, provided, howe^ ♦hat where, at the time this n lur.on arl ordinance ihall t; effect, the land has been pUti into lots and a plat filed of re ord with the Register of Deeds Hennepin County, and the trar of Titles of Hennepin Coirf tv. and w here the area of any itw platted l(rta is less than one * ..A —-------------- IftanasoU. I. Stabb*a Bey Wrtiia That part c. Seetlone CM OK and Township One»H undred teen (lU). Banff TfrgUy^Utfa. (23), Heniwpitt Coiag. »»« sola, and S«ctiowJl^ ^ («) and Eight (•), Hundred Twtaiy-thre# (23), County, M^J!S€iotae o#igloy* * ana laaa-aw. —- ------^ una . ‘^„-;7r^^rrff of ‘he area of Vff unpUn?d »*P^ of land Iruf ,, \ piece of property under one ^ “ _s_i— i- I-,..- AfWb r»nd AJUU* ______ jcr.'V’r s the arnto piece of property shall **“ rtit.ita one “buildiai lot." ‘SSSS'^lying East of County BoedNum-1 .«» i-e. . iLr One Hundred Forty-si* (148). and $c risbt of way U1 iMaw.<i«ue*a • ------------- ~~ ing. 3 d ccosidc.ed a part of famuy dsrellinf may be nlhi of way of the ^^^^.S^^^rba decawd 7/c5tem Railroad, (also kno ... biuldinis as r» •w vhe.Euce line); ——^ ----—...cottafes, gaiafes. l^t l». ___ %f ^ -------—and mw.* e^ flyyA * OUfTttJ OT w*-U hcuj®% cliic,sSS"Sprr:rr: f *5ie to prohibit an owner j of land o{ wax^land from continuing on the of th? Luce I dustrv or profession which is ro^d. southwesterly line existence on the lend at tha ti 1)‘[‘thv “-l«h^of war of the mam ^ of the adephon of this w line of the Great Northern Rail road and the South line of s*' Section Thiny-rive (35). be it further RESOLA a D and ordained . That the fol- lowint? rules. regulaticM and m- -tnction.-; with rcrpect to the lands and buildinss witom the aforementioned zonmg di thet shall be .nnd are hereby adopted as follows, to-wu: 1 Said zonmg district is here 01 me aoopwii «*. ...y •— tioD and ordinance, and the actment nl this regulation and ctrictitx). f'r from constructing building or buildings for use connection with such trade or duJtry'or profession which is gjjjjtcnce on the laod at tht* ti of the adoption of this rcsolut and ordinance, and the etuictm of this regulation and restricti nor shall anything herein c tained'he constnied to prohilit «______fbiA c»n m ***^i*^ «5aid zonmg district is here- tjje us* of nnx land m the s«d ..euiiAi ox-^* comainod.be xcR-lor ulhci .ttnuJture ov improve Twenty-three M»). County, Minneeota, ^****f^ the southerly side of ^be ri^- at way of the MinnesoU Wert- em Railroad (aho-known as w Luce line): thence in a north westerly direction ioutherly line of said ggbt o- wav of said Minnesota Wester Railroad to a point where said line iniorsectj the Wert liM oi the East o»«-baif tion Thirty-one (31), Tw^P One Hundred Bghtetn (U8). Range Twenty-three (**>{ ^“^ Scuth aloM U» «n,er liB. ul S*^ T»- ty-one (31) and Section to \f>. Township One Hundred S^-as- teen (117). Range (23). to the centOT potot M said Section Six (6), To^JWp ^ Hundred Seventeen (IID, Twenty-three (23); thence along the North line ji tto Southeast One-quarter <SEH) « Section Six (6). Township.One Hundred Seventeen (IXJ), Twenty-three (23), to tj« west comer of the N*JlI52 f- One-quarter of the Southeast y' One-quarter (NEV«, SB14) of " ‘ ^tlon Six (8). Township. Ow t^tfulred Seventeen (117), Twenty-three («); <bencoJo^ along the Wert ^ Northeast One-quarter oX»e Southeast One-qoart» (H®1J. SE^4) of Section to ship One Himdred 3«wwo« to a point where ^ U m gf " s.?cts the shore Jbie "«» *rtr .ttnicture ov improve*-nnxma , r ,’^ k ^'3 • tv •!• •t». . i.line f'.'i r\v-\v j,<; ancr rc-------- „.., c.-).e .ihare o' .V.i:;-. I poi.nt where .'«id j‘ V •..':*eets tl;* >,€ ,le ( Aannel ccn."><*crM; ' iSax and S'ubbv c3a> ' netonk.:; thcr.ee jv • along the wciurly t channel to a point I tcrsccts the ihor* lii I Bay. Ijdet Minnttoi • westerly, northerly i • along the west shore Stubl'3 Ray to a poir ?aid shore line in* West side of townsh I ning North and Soi let section line of S (3), Townrhip On> • Seventeen (117), Rar three (23) extend .North along the W I said teanaahip road } the point'oTbeginnir ■and which said zon • shall be refanieU to as 'Bay distriR. BE IT ftftmODl '.VVD ORDAINED..T] j lew rules, reguiauons Uuns with respect to I lands and buildlngp zoiiing-dirtricf^: jS;’ hereby adopted ; .o-wi*’: • 1 Said ,Tt*nuic dirt ieclartd :o be t j \ .itial di.«iict. and : >or other structure oi ir '*lu«U hereat'.er be ert*t 'o;- repaired for use or ■ny purposes o:]uir tl '“Si-ien'ial purposes. 1. Mo billboards oi vc,ii.»ing signs, di.spla: . 'jr.3 of 4iny kind sha’I ji m iintaintd in 5aid avet except signs be •'h"* r.:i:n-.*s of the resid tis'.rlc;. and the name r..r'? therein, excep? .oai n.'unes iird traffic e.'aept sipn.s advertisj, or rw*nr. the prem ’sts )h..*y may bo loeat^'d. .i. No building or c I tiro shall bvx erecied i.aiv.I v.'ilhir* the said ; ‘tri.n o.c'*ept wheic ♦•'t. ' Which t.'ie building or c 'ture js to be eroct«?d a building lo*" as here ir.-jbcsi. A “building Ic y dtfineS*lo be iaua ' .le.iLip uimili yqu. '•lii .11) ai'sa 8f 'jue 'U'- 'i'.“ JiOtWiiVCT, ihare ;> unio this resolutic .1 c«; shall take ofl’oc .:V. 'ioen platted into ’^a.; *;led ♦ I rectxd witi “l.’r of Deeds of Heunf *•'■, Mui.'iesola,. ,or ■;iio Titles of fadnaeftii •tutnesoua, and Where i .iny such platted lot i.s ar»-e in ..roa. ea-i mm ‘t ciub buiidin;- S#ctioo XV« NT> BE IT FLTtTHIR jrc .VED AND ORCAINBjTtu following •»« und Orcno Township bo, a»o th* le is hereby dcsignotta go ing district <rf mo, pursuant to tliote ot HJnoosOU, UkWit:. «% 1. StaW/o Bor Wotrltf. hat part ci SeeUons tfilm M (31) and Thii^-^o^»> owBship Quo •Himdrod ^ sen (118), lUnfo Twonty^Ugf- 13), Hennepin C«»ty» »«f Qta, and SoctionoJItw (W» SI 5) and Bight (•), ^ [undrtd (117), B0S •wenty-three (23). jountv, lilinaesoU, doscnw* * ihip road ns^jiai ®®* South on centor Section Five I3>« flundrod Sevontoen (117), Bang»: rwenly-three '(23), Honne^ County, MinnoooU. ^tcr*^ the southerly side of the ri^ ol way ol the MiDuesotA em Railroad (also-known Luce line); thonce in o noi^- westerly direction southerly line of said way of said Minnesota Wester Railroad to a point where saic line intersects the 01 the East one-half (E^^ tion Thirty-one (31)* One Hundred ^th along the center line of »d ty-one (31) and Section Sa W. Township One Hundred teen (117), Range (23), to the centor point m swa Section Six (6). ^ Hundred Seventeen aiT), Twenty-three (23); thence E^ Jong the North line ^ tte Southeast One-quarttr (^H) lection Six (6), hundred Seventeen Twenty-three (23), to the vest coiner of the VatV^ Dne-quarter of the f^jtheast Dne-quarter (N^«* gcctlon Six (6). Hundred Se\’enteen Twenty-three (23); tb«nc«B®^ atone »t» ^ SNortheast One-quarter ofthe Southeast One-quarts (HD^. SE*-i) of Section Six (6 ), ship One Hundred (117), Range to a point where sects the ahege .jjouthetJy awl said «hof^ »iOP.dt,ftM»r®lE? 1 i ;; !• P I -•■rl * *•-■*ih.ri- tivm c7 f'a.rvtvit L*• '*• .. *1, t»--*** *-ri.u n-' ' rl.-snt.I;: v T-Vh ..icftee rivriv uio.-ii,; the wcf V-• ♦ftC f»n';i i*f i*iv .<?ry- c,-*.e shor® o* JV!;uj~. ell R;i» to 3 j ^atp w p'Ot.-erty ui’. if." or.® point v>-hcre .-aid i^o^c Lr.p I.1 sects the «®e .itriy j:Ce ot -h.inncl ccopepr.'iif Maxwell I»a« and 5<ubbs Bay. Lake Mm- netonk..; thrr.ee northjr»*steiiv ;.•• Iei.i thtn er.. c.,.-u m iii?.*. p»c;i s'aich wpwati’ p^ec* of precerijf *11;iW' f'TITJ ■?(! ’uuil.im^ ioT. y Only unc family . . ..Jwtijrg •*■.!« faCcefSHy buildings , - } along the westerly i:de of said ’Jc istitmarily toed conjusetiunj { channel to a point where it »• Jwuh family dwellinga and con- • ’ *• * * . I.*•*■ **‘ • •■..«* P ItiW•'S' ^-rrt .V.th-t."ice a a io-.'hv-csi—;:- ! -n iu*:.q In- ;a.d centtj ):r.* of J .. j • »:Iruai r:gl t ol way »o ihj :.nt cT xicriatl'wn of ^aia jcn- ■ r h'.iC 'it said railroad •igh; of y *.\it;i tl«i' >rt. uthu’esti;riy Lr.e AuliUm*> Subdivision fCum- tr Tivnhf Hundred Fifty-six I tcrsccts the ohore line of Stubbs \ Bay. Lake Minnetonka: thence • westerly, xwrtbcrly and easterly * elcmg the west shore line of said stdered e part of such family dwelling may be erec^ <wi ”^^*ldr’Pg b>» ** AixesKHry mgs be Mcxned„ . , _ , -"j'icrmgs he decxned M in- otubo3 Bay to a point wncrc the • rluo® »uch buildings as guest cot- raid shore line intersects the 1 tapes, ;:ariges boet houee^ pump ” est side of township road run- j or well houses, chicken houses,. I nihg North and South 00 cen- • b?ms otiit* farm buildings. ICT sccti<m liM of Secticii Five fiothing herein contaiiwd shall be (5), Township One Hundred .‘'eonjideicd to permit or author- Seveatere (117), Range Twenty-1. :^e any person whatsoever to three (23) extended; thence uh'ize such accessory buildings. North along the West side ofjjor .my of them, in o: rtiated tu I said tewiiahip road extended totan>- commerual enterprise cor.- { the point orbeginning, j Jucltd upon thr- piemi.>«s. jC.nd which said zoning district | -shaii be refeefeU to as the Stidib’s Nothing herein contain,.^ 'Bay diatzitt. BE IT ftnmflDl RESOLVED f.VND OROAlIfEXk.That the toi- I Ic'v rules, reguiations end restric-' - ----- •urns with respect to ujes of thel'’»* profcMjon which i J lands and * within thep^ existcrte on said jinej at th'_ , Hb<-r? zoningilishrtcl^shall be and bm+* of the adoption of this reso- •r-» r!#r»hv <utnnt®ri At f.-k)!r>iiri h.ificii an<^ (VtJinancc, and the en- shall be censtrueJ to prohibit an owner of land within the ssiid zoning di5trict from continuing or. il'.e land owned by him, any trade ,e:e hereby adopted as follows, Uo-wi*: ^ • aiirr.er of thw vcaul-non and re- i.- •? cticn. or fr«>m ocnsi! uctin-: anv ), liensepia County. Minne- ta. erttended northwesterlv;. nee running _j|outhe«stcriv{ ag the aaid aouthwesierly of sasd subdivisiaB, and its westerly extennen to tlw teisecticB of said line with the rcLnary low water aoark ef k« Minnetonka; thence run- ng along said shore lm« in a ortheosterly dirertton, and then r on eastern directioa, and then in a southerly direction, and then m a minherly direction-fonow- tng the line defined by the wdi- nary low water mark of Lake Alixmetonka. to the point of be ginning, and which said sotting diatnet- ihall te referred to aa the Brack ett’s Point diatrlcL , • ^ J I- ^ 4*: W4 i;wm wv ucufi ; anvI S«d !onm:u..-tny, ■ .“I •. »"h -''I- >!>■ ' ^ "j'' or pro:«jion whlrh u In >lmU hereaiter be erected. aJteicdl' ' ’ ! thf’tS '^ 1 at the i rr.e of the adoptii*:. EE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDAINED, That tlie fol lowing rules, regulaiicns and r®- .'^trictions with respect to uaes of he lands and buildings 'vithin he above zoo'ng district shall o« nd irc hereby sde-.ted as fcl- uws, to-wit; A. Usa Dlstxicis or repaired for use nr be used i-j: i„.- ,,.... _rr_____... - ,i____ **'- this resci’Jtmn j,i.i ordininvi»ny purposes o:'ier than prr,-£!o ,.j ,, , ^ ,v. 13U-DQSAC ’ of thu rtguia- i p rpo , rc'stnci’on; nor shal! . L No billboards or ether ad-!be con- vcitising signs, dwplayr. or other to prohibit Uie u;-c of ar.> Said rsring dis'ri.-t is herpoy ivided into use a;.-?fficts to be lisna.ed cs "r‘.*s?d?ntial dis- let' anti 'commerciai dislrirt.’' .■’^'r.3 of any kind sha'l be erected i^’ the said zorsm^t d'b-.iict .ii mvintaincd in said zoning agricultural or faim.n,; pur- U“ct f, xcept sians bearing only j - >h' r..-trn-.*s of the rssiden‘-s of thei iistrlcT. and the cjme.'i of dwell- r..?s tberein, excc-p? street end I -^ND BK H' FURTH.JR R£- . . ________ .oad n.-imes and traific signs, and'i»'’i-VED AND OitD.klNED. That ;PC'-tion of said zoning autrict is o:;iept sipn.s adveidising for saleil'*'-* foilowing area and district in hereby designated and established 1. All that portion of said ron- ^ ig d-strict other tiian that here- * fter '..escribed and designated > the “commercial di.strict’* is ereby designated and established as th® ‘ residential di.str;ct.“ The foUo’.v’.ng deacribod Tv-nr. the prerrrs.r cn which,■‘‘d Oro;'o Township be, rnd the «’s a “commerciai district’'. th«.’y may bo locati'd..oic IS hereby dtsigr.'-lcd a i. No building or other slruc-{ uiro 3h:di bo erected upon any; i.and v.-ithir the said zoning di.-; ;tri.'T ox-nipt wheio l^rd uponj i which the building or oi’her s»ruc-' 'tur® IS to be erected constitute*j a 'cuikiing lot’* as hcreinarter do-i ;rnbe<i. A “building lot” is here-' " defined to be laiia LiuJer or.c- di.,lr:ct of the To vn ror.o, pursuant lo tlic la’vs of •c :itatKjf Miraiesuto. to-nif Parts of Government Cots One (1) and Two (2), .>ectioi» Eleven ‘ (IT*. Township On? H'undred 1. Brackotf’s Point District Sconi^ (117>, Puinge Twenty- thri® iJD}, Hennepin County. Minnesota, described as follow? riie pa;!s of Sef-inr.i Ten (10) j That part of Govenui'.ent Lot ind EIvvrn (II), Township Cae One (1) deacrined folinw^- • rrcTTs hip IbTUcli equals or ex- ^,pndrcd Seventeen (117), Range •vvi'nty.three (23). Un n c p i ;i ’ Kinty. Minre.iota. dc.scriheu as One (1) deacribed as follows: Commencing at a point on the shore ef iliid Lake which point IS determined as follows. Com- ■nOWAVET. mar -.vnere o.t^ ;• time this rcsoiutioiT and or- 3 i'«; shall take effect, '.nc Laic. .cV. '>cen platted into ’ots and . ’'a.: i f recuu with tiie Rtg- of Deeds of Kennepin Coun* Minnesolau ,or ■yso Heg'-lrar Titles of likmiepin County J .-inH Whare tl.c ar< Ic U jus : Co?r-m.fncing at the ' mcncing a- a point oa the !ni;c ic.iit where the North line of I thnre of Lake Minnetonka ’A'.hich icction S].T’.'cn >11), Tovm.?hip j point ,s distant Seventx* (70) >ae Hundred .'>»vcnteen (117), feet nortl.westcriy :u riyb* an- ^t.angc Twenc:.--th.mr! i2?.' inter- | Sics from a line b*jaiinu N»«rtii ^ro*r me ordluary I<'W w.iter*. ^i:tty-s«-v, n dofirccs. forty-sigin r,ark l.uary ................., of the V/est shore of th.ot ! lortior of Lax® Minnetonka • now Ri Hrowa’: Buy; nbenr.' 'e ar*’® in oa'-ff .«..th icc I''mrer>-cf‘.if: • vfrra.r minute.. East («;7*43') L-om a point 'A’hich is South Tea dc- 'lOM riigiii Hundred T h: •: 7 - ;; x and .:iv®/tamhr from the Northeast rPn-.'r-.ri»r.r Lot Cn® ' Vk * •s 4 ^ Asttre 4s mm\ \ -y- c Ha* te B ▼I Tba VUtogt Ca lag. of OroM or ThMi the toUoi be. ond the M •dt^ted and aPR -VUlaft ol Oh lUculationa.** te It ordar te aa ixiiif hia tet of tha VUlaga a; f ♦ ^♦ . to It banaficial to all It la ohvioui plansiiifi af t hiring tt dlaasb patchwork of i eireulatloB ol dcaiftt aod airi reUted to a M aiming at a t community inti fore, naceisar] VUlaga Counci regulationa a which contrite safoty, conven welfare of tt tho long rango ning Commte regulationa w proporty valui crandwttltff' in tho plattin of a logical I -Subdivisloi maana tha dlt land Into two parcola for th for of ownan vclopmant; p: aiott ol land i poaaa Into lo' (S) aeroa or i ing a naw i not bo dao^ term tncludo wbon approf ■h®a ralata t dividing or Diviaion of i col or plot I sidcrad wit thie ordinan OEHCXA] 1. teany •T ..U-We' V.A r rnsm im 3708 yb.h'-T:<7-/2- 0Xf(' y-i^ -e^ Ordinance No. / •dopted and «ppr««*d; -vmait «<^o» BegulatieM. Si^vi< thorouilif«^ ^riaSl 10 0 Mo»*« s«s^ ^‘^ ss torTnoc*-^ ** *5* ,2SSViDafO Council to rcinaStione end requir«e«to which contribute to tl» heelth» safety, convenience •**^J2“**j! ^Uara of commii^t]^ to tbm tone analyiiSe to« ^gCommission believes thw Nations wiU aid in «i»mf SSpMty values for the subdiv^ —^ effect many economias •«a^ vbiAttiiiM and davelopmtntg si *r*^ pe«i for the «» "L*™^5La'Si?^‘dW. ocaaa into tots or parcels of five sMr*i=ai^!ss-s when appropriate to the •heU r^ta to the ®*52lor the land sul^videi Division of any exiitinf l^ par- ^ or plot of land shaU beco^ 33,^ within tha purview of Dds ordinance. ITS strem m — SsgL.rtgs^hT'jj odtoiainc property •Mvtoed. In extension of suA streets. gSiSxr g.'taSwf Or COD^ public for street maintenance, safety end fire protection to do so.) 3. Street rifhtw>f-way vd^ AeU be designed in with their character •»! following widths are sugg—ts^iM minimum right-of-way for var ious types of streets:Right-Of-Way e. Major arteries and ^ parkways ....................***^ b. Secondary and main thOTOUghiftTM C. Neighborhood residen- flel greets ----- ®'* '*• ___50 f«tgtr€€ts ........... 4. It is desirable that *11 •tiMil intersect as nearly at nght angles as seems practical, toking other factors into consideration. 5 Minimum center line radii of local minor streets shall be not tminal streei nacemary •• A turnaround JLS! au terminal streets ^ eatl^shS^^^W ^ gSSi K . sioo of that particular Mreet. JUtoya 1 In gewral. alleys diall be permi^to a division. Serviea dit»« provided on asajor thoroughfa^ Where alleys are "f***^^^ approved by tha Co««^^*!S fKaU be not less than feet in width. Alleys *?■ quired in <ha rear of be Ilf** for butt ness purposes. 2. Where two (D all^ sect, a cut-off of not ima th^ ten (10) feet along «^^£2S2 line from tha normal of the property lines shall ba pro vided.yiWwP* 8. Dead-«Ml alleys sh^ avoided J5 unavoidable, shall be with adequate turn-around IkU- lues at^ dead-end as detar- mined by the CounciL Tr^ end JJ^'ndary th^ug- fares should be not less than SOO Blfttfl l, la any areas where the Plan- feet 8. The location of all cur^ streets should be so arranged m to fit the natural topography m closely as possible and to SSSble desirshle 1^ JSoM and safe vehicular traffic. 7 Terminal residential streets or *cula-de-sac should be platted not longer than W ***\_^!f*! tooographical condiUons make a Where rileys are at the r» ar of properti^ there must be *T t Ibment as a part of the plat Tbm purpose of such easement Is to pto^ poeaible location tor util- fty linta^ m Lid phono lines. Such thaU be not less than flye «> on each side of the ing a total of ten (10) feet ^ garages nor structures ^ built upon this easenient Km- quate easement proviMons s^ be made fwr area drainage and storm water carry off. Blecka Considerable latitode as to s^ of blocks is d*®®*!,****^?^* the Council In order that tha subdivision may ba blocks to iiiit tho topogrspny» tno aoneral character of the site and the type of development appr^ SSato^ the lidlty. With the Increased use of the automobile. the trend sions has length of of the pel to street! tions, bio 1200 toet ceptable. 1. Resi and area, and subh YilUge C declared form in s in the gi posed su event shi thousand area, and hundred ' ing line, ment for « ities easel 2. Dept ties resen mercial a shall be I the off-str facilities i use and d' cd. 3. Each a public I minimum feet at str tered Ian* upon privi nonethelet provisions set fort)> i 4. Doub frontage 1 except wh separation ment fron overcome of topogra planting » least ten which the; access, shi the line o traffic art! tageouj ui 5. Side stantially i to street 1 Areas w the Villas flood condi the Engin Orono will subdivisior quate drai. 7/0 (S dSTDe-tt n«cea»ry i]4 b* Bvoia powiblt. tiali be ropertf line, lay be indi> upUeate nor jno or in the Isiftini «tr^ ezten* liar ftreet. ft ihall not oroughfatee. cessary and ouncilt they I twenty (20) I wiU be re- d all loU to I purpoMS. alleya inter- nt le« than uch property intera^on haU be pro 's shall be ble, but if M provid^ round facil- d as deter- lot provided srtiet, there public eaie- le plat. The ement is to tion lor util- >r, water and 1 of electric ffh easement I five (9) feet ot line, mak- 10) feet No ires shall be ement Ade- ivi^ons shall drainage and tude as to size d desirable by eder that the be planned in topography, the of the site and lopment appro- Oity. With the the automobile, •f-M 'll I' 1 4!l t "-V ■ the trend in rendential subdivi* sieas has been toward a loc^iw length ol block and a reduction to streets. Under certain condi- tiona, blocks up to 1000 feet or 1200 feet in length may be ac- eeptable. 1. Residential lota, m to and area, shall be governed by ami sub)^ to the policy <d the Village Council which is hereby declared to bo that all lots con form in an» to the existing tots in tlM genc^ area of the j^ro- posed subdivision end in no event Aall be less than fifteen thouSHKi (15,000) square feet in area, and minimum width of one hundred (100) feet at the build ing line, exclusive of any ease ment for driveway purposes (util ities easement excepted). 2. Depth and width «f proper ties reserved or laid out for com mercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the off-street service and parking facilities required by the type of use and development contemplat ed. 3. Each lot shall adjoin upon a public street and ihall have a minimum width of thirty (30) feet at street line. Lots In regis tered lend surveys may adjoin upon private streets. Said streets nonetheless shall comply with provisions pertaining to streets set fortli in this wdinance 4. Double frontage, and reverse frontage lots, should oe avoided except where essential to provide separation of residential itovelop- ment from traffic arteries or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. A planting screen reservation of at least ten (10) feet, and across which there shail be no right of access, shall be provided along the line of lots abutting such a traffic artery or other disadvan tageous uses. 5. Side lot lines shall be sub stantially at right angles or radial to street lines. Flood Areas Areas within the jurisdiction of the Village Council subject to flood conditions as established by the Engineer of the Village of Orono will not be considered for subdivision purposes until ade quate drainage has been provid ed. Fianllngr m FubUe Piepecly Tlw planting ot trees, type, pacing, etc., <m publto prop«ty dkall be rabjcct to the regulations of t)w ViUage CouncU. No plant- ilar improvwneitts riiall be made on puUk property except with permwaion and ^prevel of the Village CeunctL It is the declared general policy of the Village Council that in all new subdiviaiana net lees than Ave per ent of the gram atea of all property subdivided shall be dedicated tor public use, each five per cent being in mtoition to the pn^rty dedicated for streets, alleys or othn public wa^ Tim Village CouzKil may waive this rcqturemcnt if it feels that public property, other than roads, is not necessary in connection with this subdivision. The area thus dedicated thould be either usable area or tree which can be put into usable shape by the tubdividcr. The tubdivider shall leave land so dedicated in a ccmduion satisfac tory to the Village Council. The varying tire of Iota, the size ot the subdivision, etc., will have a direct bearing on tho de sirability of and the necessity for such dedication as well as the size of tho piece to be dedicated. It will be within the discretion of the Planning Commission to interpret th^ regulations in the light of the overall plan and pet- tem of park development. In the interests of the Village as a whole, and, therefore, of benefit to the aubdivision, the Village Council of Orono is de sirous of conserving certain areas of natural beauty and establish ing in various areas the logical distribution of the following types of facilities: 1 Play lots, for preschool chil dren. Children’s playgrounds, for children fnm five to fifteen years of age to use for active play. Athletic field, es e specialized center fer organized games and sports. ** Parks, large and small, for their velue in passive recrea tion and as a long range pro tection from congestion of de velopment A cooperative intereat in this larger program is eought by fhe Village Council and it ia expadsd the Bubdivider will aid ia ing to make this Ftatttof The Coundl of the VUlage of Orono requires that all proposed subdivisions shall have the prior approval of tha Plaaniag Com- miseion before recciviaf final ap proval by tha CounciL R is, therefore, neceaaary that certain stepe be taken and data amma- bled that wiU eaabla tha »aa- ning Commission to study the proposed subdivision in the light of its n^timt to tho VUlage plan for growth and dovelopmant, and in tho light of the goml topof- raphy and tha charactar of tho developanent. To accomplish thh purpoaa, tho Planning Commission wUl wish to submit tho preliminory plat to their ViUage Engineer and to thair ConmUtant for tkoir study in Sold and office end fer theh recommendations. This prrtim- inary plat for tho eonaldoratfoa of the Planning Commiasion shall be filed with the Village Engineer or Planning Cmnmiasion not lass than five days in advance ot • regular meetmg of tha Planning Commiasioa to allow sufficient time for review, study and o recommendation portaining to this plat, at tha next regular meeting. Whenever poaaible, it ia daelr- able that the prelimin^ plat ba accompanied by e writlan elate- ment specifying the intentions of the owner respecting tho pro posed character ot the develop ment, deed restrictiona, drainaga, parks and playgrounds and the intended date ol baginning devel opment He should expresa hb wiUingneu to proceed to file a plat of record of his subdivision or such part thereof as he may wish to put upon the market and to instaU all monumenta shown on the plat The Planning Commiasion, in its consideration of the preUm- inary plat will take into consid eration the requirements of the Community and the best use of the land being subdivided. Par ticular attention will be given to the arrangement location and widths of streets, the general drainage situation, lot sizes and arrangement ter Plan re parka, echoi highways, e conntcUons insure aeeesi fle drculatio The subdi proval of tl the Plannir prior to the plat shall after the d such Umger nuig Coma .ause tha pr in accordam tentative pi changes the the Plannin survey shall ance with tl and princlpl and all moa Ject to tha proval of 1 County Au proval of th Pinal plat to tha ViUa ning Comm flva days in masting of t sion for its i mission to t The CouE streets shaU tiled as a ment Such under the a lage Engine! ifleations pr Engineer an tha VUlage lal The Bubdl gravel stree In case this ed for a lo| final plat is ance bond pany appre CouncU sha final plat is Bee Tha subd prior to ac plat, that tk ling ba don full costs benefltted p not to exce Pre Four prir plat of a rrative intercft in thia gram is sought bjr the uncil and it is txpactad idar will aid In aasist> taka this aehiavaiiiant mcU ol tha VUlaga of uiras that all propoaad IS shall hava tha prior of tha Planning Com* fora racaiving final ap* ^ tha CouneU. It is, nacassary that cartain akan and data asaam* will anabla tha Plan* imission to study tha nibdiaision in tha light ion to tha Villaga plan 1 and davalopmant, and tt of tha ganaral topog* I tha charactar of tha nt nplish this purposa, tha Commission will wish lha prsliminary plat to iga Enginaar and to ultant for thair study td oMca snd for thair iations. This pralim* for tha considaratioo mint Commission shall th tha Villaga Enginaar g Commission not lass days in advanca of a sating of tha Planning to allow tuffieiant raviaw, study and a lation parlaining to at tha naxt regular ir poiaibla, it is dasir* he preliminary plat be ed by a writtan state* ifying tha intentions of r respecting the pro- ractar of tha develop* I restrictions, drainage, playgrounds and tha ate of beginning daval* fa should express his I to proceed to file a wrd of his subdivision lit thereof as ha may t upon tha market and all monuments shown It. nning Commission, in iration of tha prelim* will taka into consid* e requirements of tha f and tha best use of icing subdivided. Par* mtion will be given to lament, location and street^ tha general ituation, lot sizes and tsr Plan ra quiraaaants such as pmks, school sites, boulevards, hi^arays, ate. Adequate street cosmcctions arill be required to insure access and treedma of tnf* fle circulatkm. The aubdividcr. after the ap* proval id the tentative by the Phuminc Commission and iwlor to the tubmimioo of a final plat, rimB arithin six asenths after tha data of * Sttdi hmgar period as tha Plan* niitg Commission saay grant, causa tha property to be surveyed in aceoedanea arith tha a^roved lemativa ^t and any and all chongas therein as amoved by the Planning CammiaskMi. The survey shall be made in accord* ance erith the stendard practices and principles Inr land surveymg and all nmnuments shall be sub* |act to lha inspection and ap* proval of tha Village and tha County Authorities before ap* inoval td tha final plat. final plats must be Mibmitm^ to tha Villaga Enginaar or Plan* ning rnmmissinn not 1cm than five days in advance of a regular meeting of tha Planning Commis sion for its approval prior to sub mission to the Village CoundL Tha Council requires that all streets diall be graded and grav* cUad as a part of tha davtlop* mant. Such work shall ba dtma undar tha suparvision of tha Vil* laga Enginaar and subject to spec* Iflcations pnpared by the VUlaga Engineer and placed on Ala with tha VUlaga Clark. Interior Sinais The aubdividcr shall grada and gravel streets at his own expanse. In case thia erorit la not complat* ad fw a logical naaon when tha final plat is preaanted, a perform* ance bond with s Surety Com pany approved by tha VUlaga CouncU shsU ba furnished before final plat Is accepted. Boundary Siraals Tha subdivider may petition, prior to acceptance of tha final plat, that the grading and gravel* ling be done by the Village with fuU costs sissssrd against the bancflttad property over a period not to exceed ten years. Prallmlaarr Ptol Four prints of the preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision A^ii be submitted to the O«ao Planning CimimimioB drawn to a scale cUhm inch equals one hujMired teat or wie-balf inch one hundred fact. The preliminary plat con tain the following tafonnatkm: 1. The propossd name or legal daacriptien of the subdivision. 2. Its location with rclmence to known existing thorough fares or section corners, ate. 3. The btnoMisry lines with di mensions Uw tract to be siUxlivi^d. C A topographical ump of the ares (thowmg contentra of the land in genmal not frsetcr than otM foot intervals). Map should indicats location snd width of existing adjjcmit strsets snd utilities with m* asntisl elevations snd make note of bench mark \atd and its elevstion. S. Owner's name, 8ubdividcr*s name, and the Surveyor's name and certificate. (Sur vey shall be made by Regis tered Land Surveyor.) i. Scale, N<wth point and date of plat. 7. Preliminary street proAlce showing present grade, pro posed grade (every 100 fact), complete with percent of grade and showing satisfac tory disposition of storm wa ter. Two prints of profllo— one to be returned to the aubdividcr when H>proved and acceptabla. t. All plats and profiles shall bear the standard State Board of Registration Certifi cate, properly executed. 0. Proposed buUding linca on aU lots intended for residen tial use and in some cases re quired on lots Intended for businem uae. end at least the setback required by the BuUding Ordnance and any appUcable Zoning Ordinance. 10. Owner’s name of unplattad property, lota, blocks, and nama of subdivision of plat ted property within ISO feet of the boundary lines of pro posed subdivision. 11. Copy of the provisions of any protective covenants where by the subdivitl^r proposes to regulate land use in tha sub division. liiwd above is • prereq^kdle to the submissten of the final plat. naal Plat Raquirement The preliminary plat os out- is tentative only. Approval of tiui final plat ihaU be obtained fttxa the VUlaga Council after first re ceiving approval from tha Ptan- ning Commisskm uptm submia- ston of tame with the complete inftwmation outlined in the re- quirementa specified herewith. The final plat shall conforaa to the preliminery plat as approved, and, if desired by the subdivider, it may constitute only that por tion of tha a^roved preliminary plat which he propoma to record and develop at the time, provid ed, however, that such portion conforms to aU requirements ol these regulatiotts. The foUowmg data shaU be shown on or submitted with the final plat: 1. Boundary survey. 2. Dimensions — aU necemry. 2. Angle*—at aU boundary and block comers. 4. Purixae for which sites, other than residential lots, arc ded icated or reserved. 8. Minimum building setback line when required by the Village CouncU. 6. Locatim and description ol monuments. 7. Other data: such other cer tificates, affidavits, andorsa- menu, or dedications as may be required by the VUlaga Council lor the enforeement of these regulations. 8. In Ueu of the cmnpletion or instaUation of any or all of the above improyeraenta, and before the final plan is ap- provad and recordad, tha Vil lage of Orono may accept a cash deposit or surety bond to secure to the VUlaga the actual cost of such improve ments as estimated the ViUagc Engineer. 9. StreeU and alleys (by anglas and distances). 10. Above description should In clude aU canterlina curva data. 11. Street names. 12. Block lines and block nuro* b«a. 13. Lot lines and lot numbers. 14. EasemenU and their widths. 15. AU necessary certificates re quired by law. 16. Nama of subdivision, acala, date, north point and all oth- am re is a prerequisite to uion of the flnel plat, of the preliminary plat B only. Approval of the shall be obtained from B Council afta flrat rc' »proval fitnn the Plan* mission upon submis* me with the complete n outlined in the re* s specifled herewith. A plat shall oonform to linary plat as approved, lired by the subdivider, institute only that por* B approved preliminary 1 he proposes to record op at the time, provid- irer, that such portion to all requirements of ilations. llowing data shall be or submitted with the lary survey. isions — all necessary. a—at all boundary and comers. M for which sites, other residential lots, are ded* or reserved. lum building setback when required by the ;e CouncU. Ion and description of ments. ’ data: such other cer* es, affidavits, endorse* I, or dedications as may rquired by the Village cil for the enforcentent Bse regulations. >u of the completion or lation of any or all of hove improvenents, and B the Anal plan is ap* id and recorded, the VU* of Orono may accept a deposit or surety tend cure to the Village the 1 cost of such improve* s as estimated by the Ke Engineer, ts and alleys (by angles distances). 'e description should in* i all centerline curve et names. k lines and block num* lines and lot numbers, ments and their widths. necessary certificates re* ed by law. le of subdivision, scale, !, north point and all oth* k nii plat -M tatematian tsh- ^ VUlage of Onmm at a rag mnOf requteed eat IT. Tha faem af vprtmd AaU ha aa fallowK a. ma plat wee approved and ____day ef AJX It— Chaiimaa affect the validity of tha aril* aanee aa a whola or aay part thteeot other iten tha part aa declared to ha invalid. dl of tha YiUafo of OroiM» e Checked and appeavad thio ......day of ------- Thh ordinawca flhsJI ha pidi* Ushed tel the Ifiimetnaka Barald pubUshad at Wayaata. Iflnnoa nta and shall ba oMiva from and A.D. It— approved Iqr of County County, Iflimesnta Siottld any aodiea^ parapiph, yiyti— or condHioo of this ordi* nance be declared by tha courts te ba invalid, the same UmU not ssr.5.-ui day at S^teashsr, IMft. B. It Rota. Ifayar Attest: a E Jotenn, cM. iPilB’:- *'V*'i' * --r>irr.—r,-?* ofJdity oC tlM oi4l* rhol« cr war P«i than tlM pwt •• I iBvaUd. net ihaU be pub- llUiMtaaka Btrald •metivt from aad tit VUUgt Cou ncil I oC Orono tbit 12tb mbtr, 19SS. ibyor. JolMMon, dtriu C»a>XNAMCE ISO, S tef Ltii WHKBBAS* tiM Yilltf* Oif CM hdi ZK> CMMMBity —stem and depends up« aepti: »-«w. and aoa tbearptioa iy»- tant lor tit dicpotal ol vattt; 5^4 '4^ WHBB1A8. tueh di«»o«l mttbods trt apt to ere^ t m- ieut moblem affectiBC tie l^ti of tit eommunitr where tpidled in residential aieat aarrinc more one dwelling pat acre; and wMy.ngAS. other com munitiaa ha^^SouTiealti problems by reason ol tie enlargement of r^ areas with aubatandart lot sizes aereed by septic tanks and abaorptimt systems; and WHBREAS, tie Planning Com mission of tie Village of Ororo yia« recommended to tie Council that regulatiooa should be esUb- Ushed now to prevent the same aort ol serious health problem from arising in the Village of THEREFORE, for tie sake of the general welfare a^ health of the residents ^ Village of Orono, It is ordained as follows: Section After the effective date at this ordinance, no build ing permit shall be issued tor the erection of a residence in any residential zone of the Village, except upon a building lot con taining a minimum area of one acre, and having a minimum • width of 140 feet at the building^ line. . Section 2. It is recognized that there are several buUt up resi dential areas in the Village which are substandard and overbuilt by the terms of this ordinance. In such areas, building permits m^T be Issued for lots not meeting the minimum requirements ^b- lished by this ordinance. If the Village Council feels that such building will conform to the gen era characteristics of the nei^- ^ ,,borhod and will not have an im mediate and specific edvtem ^ect upon the public bmlth. Scctioa 1. It is recognized that the enforcement of the minimum l^visions required by this ordl^ ance with respect to 1<^ might be an arbitrary d^ari- vation of a valuable right fromt f*ui owners. Therefore, where • lot which fails to meet the mim- mum standards of this ordi nance is held in a single, separate own- offhip at the time of the pas sage ol this ordinance, Um Coun cil may issue a building permit, provided that there wiU be no Immediau or specific advwse ef fect upon the public health. Scctioa 4. This ordinance su percedes Mid repeals any provi sions in the platting «din^ or zoning ordinances ol the Village which are inconsistent Imrewith, except that provisions of prior ordinances establishing standards than those prescrih« by this ordinance art continued in effect. Section 5. It is recognized that the mtablishment at definite standarda for all lots In the entire Village is impossible, as there may be, in every case, reasMis to relax the standards, or to en force stricter standards. The Council reserves its discretion to increase or decrease the stand ards hereby set for good caus^ whenever the particuUr f^ of the situation convince the Coun cil that the public welfare, and particularly the public health, re quire such modification. Section 6. This ordinance shall be published In the Minneto nka Herald at Wayzata. Minnesota, and fbaii be effective immediate ly upon such publication. Passed by the VUlage Council of the VUage of Orono this ^ day of October, 1959, by a vote of 4 yeas end No nays. H. R. ROSS, Mayor Attest: O. E. JOHNSON, Clerk (10-15-59) i have an im- eifle advtaM )Uc health. tcognized that the minimum by this ordin- n lou held in pership at the tbu ordin* rbitrary depri- >le right from etore, where a neet the mini- this ordinance separate own- e of the pas- nee, the Coun- wilding pennity re wiU be no Ifle adverse ef- Uc health, ordinance su- sals any provl- ig ordinance or of the Village stent herewith, isions of prior lishing higher tiose prescribed s are continued ecognized that of definite ts in the entire ible, as there ase, reasons to ds, or to en- andar^s. The n discretion to ise the stand- or good cause, ticular facts of Ince the Coun- c welfare, and iblic health, re cation. ordinance diall he Minnetonka ita, Minnesota, tive immediate- blication. Village Council Orono this 12th 1959, by a vote ) nays. B. BOSS, Ml IN, Clerk 15-59) Load 8^ft EleegBioni ^ OOllMBOCTlONr fooniiQi 3k^l»owmMAOMM rffltnue WOWIKX (f/f 3 ^VILLAGE OF ORONO ENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.•Kl.OF wniMHO'jl4 --------StnLDCRADOKSSraoisiia PEEMITTO^ BmUHNO LOCATION Dte.FiomBocRi OlaSidM DiaBadi Brick. Sohd Brick Veneer CeraemHodi Least Depth Avon C. ^ Sise Y • ♦- Floor %tocii^ Spun No. Feundailon rf • Helghi Above Roof Type loMs ii i/ " nooM SabFVjesiag ^w- Hr. V. ^ Joists Spo cing /1> She ^ Biidgiag ^ ^ UtrjoqVj). 9* ^ ^ / fU S ’ n. - ? ' mDOOKM RATTERS CEOJINO JOISTS She V. 7'She 52* ^ a^pocing /i. ** facing ' Spocii^r * Plmaa ^ Spun f * LoogeelSpan Bracing i- >L *!’ V,:." - Birrs Basement — Nd / 1st Floor — No. Shs^^ ’c* Stairway 'y Sse Stairway LATION Ceiling L $ u h i - . tj Walls t* S Adc'JBoa or SiibdBvhien __1 -ya 7 VCNTnATION AND UGirr Distance From Well Constructfoo DRADCriELD Depth Width Length e* DfstaneeFioaWeO Dbriostee Fam lot Linee * 0 U___Je FLUMBINQ niTUBES Sinks / Laundry j Bath Tub j / ToOst 2- Lavatory ”2^ bsceby agree dun in case permit is grantsd oQ work which lU be d<shoU be drae ai^ all moteri^ s^k uiaU be used shall---- ply with the ^ans and nedficattaas submitted and with ail the __________.a At-. 19:11________^ ^-------- ------e« -.a-i- -----------ordinoncee ai the ViUo^ of Orono aj^koble thmelo. ■ -7 ; fNOTES: A/6 HZ' Hc<a Sc Signed A ,;Zg^ Receipt No. 6a ^-§1 -------------Dale f ^/ V tY^ Bldg. Plumb. Sewage S3>*^. Total THE SEWAGE SYSTEM INSTALLED BY NAME /V 6 c.7 t V ADDRESS. %-J c f •ttU: *-* mr ■:-vr-.:--'. '. 'i' 1- V w;"-if w- ■ % I^^MITNO. ibdhrWon ■yj. 7 Ot ^ /•> fUM SpCB C' \ Distance Ff«n i % instance From lot Unse/t^T^ • Shower / Toilel Z. Larotory mnit is granted all work which ediich shall be used shall oon* Oons submitted and with aU the no applicable thereto. ' rs Jkde.' .1 /r.K Sewage tj *inJL Total Sa^ rEM INSTALLED BY 'V * 4» •HI 1 Ml <H Xk •H K i< i4 « uo KM 2 M U iS C o •H M « > O s O'M oo i4 O < m X < 9 uo o x: M ON O « o M O D Wi# • ^ O o < £ X 4i muo M in O CO M • > O o o M g MU O 4^ M C Id r* O o Id • >•-1 oog o . o < & I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I O CC O I Mt o I e e e I Ml O I O Ob I «P m ^ I rc I# o dr o s • • O CS Ml rtsH o rcf«rd I I I I I I •M n HF I Ml CM I • • • I 00 r* I • I • O O O I O O O I CM CM CM I I I I CM CM CM CM d» CM M M» m see o Ml o CM CM O CM CM CM I » CM CM CM I IM M Ml I • • • • I IM CM Ml I O iH O I % «• w I CM CM IM I I I O O O I O O o I O O O I % % » I m m m I CM CM CM I I CM O O rM CM r* • • s flO dT 10 CM |d| Ml 10 m m %. w w « r4 iH iH 0l « o o o o o O 10 o r-d CM Ml m % «I w dr dr m CM O O I 00 10 00 10 m m I 00 00 M. e e e I e e e 00 tn m I m M» CM Ml O Ml I dT CM r-l iH CO iH I CM CM CM O O O I 1 I I w e» e. f Ml in in I I I I I I O dT O I 10 Ml Ml I • • • I 00 in CO I Ml O C^ I rM CM iH I O O O O O O 10 10 00 10 ID Ml O CM CO ro m Ml f • e H* dT 1*1 00 Ml 00 m m CM o o o o o o o o o *r dT CM % % % Ml ^ M) I I I III O O CJI rH rM 10 e Ml o % CM m 1 *# HP cn Ml 1 Ml o s •1 e • • O O 1 o flo 10 o 1 10 r- CM o o 1 r* r* 10 %«1 % % m IM CM 1 rdrdrd 00 cn em o e CM sH d f-d •H e f-d iH Ml 10 Ml s 00 Ml e-d Ml e Cd| e Ml 10 •H O O sH Oo 10 oo CM Ml O' Ml e 1*1 00 f-d s Ml 10 wd O rd O O 10 oo CM in H» cn 1 1 CM rd O 1 Ml 00 r* 1 1 10 Ml HI 00 00 00 1 00 00 00 1 r-1 c*^ r*“ Ml Ml Ml 1 Ml Ml Ml 1 Ml Ml Ml 1 Ml Ml Ml i-d rd rd 1 rd rd rd 1 rd rd rd 1 rd rd rd t P 04 rd M 4J 4 rd O 6m I g rdmu oc s IX CM 10 O Ml #*l O e e em I m8 9 44 O SI U\ 44» H d %m c d *9e ^ Ml Ml X 0 JC X 2 Co •H CM 10 m 1 <0 in 00 1 C « JS i• i i t Ml e in e 10 e I dT HP Ml 1 e e e ew C a 1 m 1 r*1 O r* rd 0 1 9 44 r*00 in 1 10 Ml dO •d M3 1 c 1 10 IT 1 H» d0 in 44 C 1 4 0 %%%1 WWW X m 1 ed 44 $ rd rd rd 1 trd rd rd 1 a rd 1 1 %4 mo e0 Md 1 0 •H OOOOOMII0H0 *2 o ! Sr** o HP O HP cn 1 « 0 0 s 6 f OMICMinr^CMlHHH m 0 MW •H • w %% %% 1 0 0 0 rd 9 1 ^ A r- rd C*l e e e rd dT rd Ml Ml HI rd rd rd O 0 4i •Hs wd »4 9g2 44 04o s rd 5 O C o<o o o Ml CM CM Mi mo X 8 0 X X3 cn cn c*i I 00 ^ 00 r* rd cn see rd dT rd Ml Ml dT ee 0 rd o %4 O O O O O O Ml CM CM 05 « 0 0x: 44 cn cn cn a •Hm D i-.y ■ .'•v;.'. A!.:’ ;. % X idt •H X 9ammmm \ I • I *4* • •I ■ •) V-:: d::v: :a .y: 4.^ r.’: 4 W- • S> • •IV) '•♦wl (^Lm • •:. t .. . 0 October 2€» 1 Ward Ferrell 3405 Waterto% Long Lake $ Mi Dear Mr. Fen 1 have recei' you own on W< time to ansv< As I underst< or lots* on \ with the nexi home. You n< another built We measure tl the next par< all exclusivi The soning ii of land for < available an< Your three p> It any of th> minimum lot > Because thes the City %rau own the lots City to gran The only opt tell you tha I know this change as th Sl'ILUINCaZUNINU -41 ASStSSINti - » ^14 C4SC O oi m o • • • fo ^ ^ i-l r-i iH a €0^0 r* H rn « • • r4 ^ r4 in m ^ •H H H in n M ^ % fo m <n $ 11 C M « 1 10 4i • 1 00 ^ 00 f-4 « i:•• 1 fH <n 4^m 1 • • •04 «d c: 1 fH ^ iH 0 a 01 a 1 in in ^fO M g 11 iH rH »-4 S-.&H 0 1 •H C 1 1 O O O fO 10 C 0) 1 m C4 n .c 1 % ^ %^ cu 42 1 m m m 01 0 $ 1 1 U Kg o: 11 Id 01 3 X (4 as •H 01 1 « « «D 1 « « 1 ID m ^ r* D\ 01 0> r-4 rH rH i • i • J r i;.^' * . • 11 * I ‘♦ •'*** • 7rm: 1 I'-S s£yi'\ I riMiif-•••li--' r jr/ny*’^-'- ■* ?'nJr■V • 4 .»L «»1- Af»f‘. . ^ i. • *V*^ • ' ‘t •’•i--V • - «_________ .. .............................'*?-• vV'-r u: ■■••o*.-:i ■..XIBH>4IWh»^ * *•'%.»- .».*■• «■ ; » . % , »>-. » ... . ■ 4 r. . .. . -yk* V • ' .•• , ■ . « * .^4 ,1^ 4k. • • V* »%*.<»*.• • 44^ ■• ■•’. t ? -3>~^ r.(TW T IT 1 F ! t -- . I - - .-w^4t V I r-/<t-e7ONO• « '- ■•- -X^ CITYofOI'hM <lffk» Hw* k***rnnrt.*l tUy>. Mtnn^mtts .WCi'MknMtpst iHTn-ra Iht thf Xi»nh Shtirp itf Lakf ^^|rwt•f•^nkn OciQbcf 26t 1981 Ward Ferrell 3405 Watertown Road Long Lake, MU SS356 Dear Mr. Ferrell: j }i^VQ received your re ent letter to the ■ xty concerning the lots you own on Watertown Road. First, let me apologize for not having time to answer your questions sooner. As I understand the problem, you own three separate tax parcels, or lots, on waterto%m Road. Your home is on the eastern parcel with the next two parcels being the open yard area west of your home. You now wish to sell one or both of the other parcels for another building site. We measure the parcel with your home as about .86 acre in area, the next parcel as .82 acre, and the %restern parcel as 1.04 acre, all exclusive of road right of way. This totals 2.72 acres. The zoning in your area since 1975 has required at least 2.0 acres of land for each house. This is because there is no City sewer available and each house must maintain its own septic system. Your three parcels together now comprise one conforming lot. If any of the parcels were to be sold off, none %rould meet the minimum lot area including the one with your home. Because these lots would be less than the minimum area required, ^he City would not issue permits for any new ^house, whether vou ovn the lots or if you sold one. There would be no basis for the City to grant a variance to the zoning area requirements. I mustThe only option would be a general area-wide rezoning tell you that such a prospect is very, very unlikely. X Know this is not the answer you were looking for. Things do change as the years pass. If you wish to discuss xt further. * BUILUING a Z0Nir«0 -47) 7157 \SS4SSIN<i ADMIMSIK4ll0r»a UNANCF. - 47) 7)58 Pl BLICWOltKS •47J 7)5 ‘» !MI ! ■wt% -'ii *•* V ^ *■. B|.r ■*f-* '^'*■4r. . » A* m 'i ‘ .-i'Ti •' »’^4; miin. 'l-\vr ■■ •' U BT ‘ ‘ V^' ll' [»■ ^ , y VV • » * t • ’ v' ‘ • . »* * : **K. ""i* * t *' * # • v.'-aA?'- ♦ » A’ -'5,*? ■ *.e Ilf- Ll I ;'f ’.'I - ■•tS^r-y - j|f 5' t ' ■■ • k»- ■< .’ » t C . ..r, ■;5rA' . -U '-*' - '-- -i '. » *• ,’?•* ; * •*' |> r^. [I i ' . , - V/* -«. V*«i—;'T-i 'V. -. V I*- w. I ’■ V *. * ■i. ■f • Vi M •j . E •V;.,••'r: - I^ .V ■t i tjr fT-ward Ferrell Page 2you are alwa) AdministratoiSincerely« m ✓ ,* mao'!*. Olso 'city Planner cc: City Cc Walter Jeanne K .'i / ^5, \\' . —. •• 1' f. 'r. —Ill ir;..................t • •':Vt .>r-i.!r'r;T t‘:7,:*.';*,-''. I ..-:; ji ,;;• I <■ hiM'M Ik —r*f —■ — "V-: - ..................-.............—“2r-(<i-e;7[>NOnicipsl iHfirrm t lots laving ils, ;el >ur for 5a, &cre. acres Mer red, vou r the KS • 47J 7359 iV'* Tf/j?Ward rcrrell Page 2, ■ w ¥ .-.“a'V-'.'-W® , ’•'I you «r« al%»«y* Administrator.to e«U M or «»"»• "«»'»•»•’' *•“• ♦t M. tJ'iT/ ii wiP K > ' 'iViVi-'.'lV,!":. ..>*“' . :■ •- ■» . %•»/ -' *■* '• I ^ *• ■ ■♦>■' >T'; ifr ? :■ a 1*-. '"■'■•»«-• 'V^’ ^ ^*"' rr.'i.. «.\ .. .' ■id-v-- • ■.•raijau,-- i'A • ir‘ ... - . F>Ir''^Mk^o • -.••' •. ’ W» . * -VIt'- ^If.'V- -o , r ^ ‘- * •■ ;•, ) . * y;. m* If hf ■■ "\ ;*:‘ ' .r* I • r.;** iJ-i - <<ii.t^tHOni»^'i'-- -•. Vv.V *. iy •;-■■ ;*: T) r. .V- • *." ••• '♦•; ‘ • ' '• * b :'^. ■ ..• • . 'v' ,"■*1 f ,4St^X *4 ,. •* .i‘'Vo . A' . V ..•' . -‘ V.- ^ * • •' ' . . «»k ••^* • * .•*'.ti r> »♦ f ^ ■ / , ^^.V-.' ■ . * . .’- I. i . 5 ■• . h -V ' ■* • >■>:. '•^ ^■•r:; Ir ’ ^ ^ ;4.; f * <*«f« rv , ^ - r . ..,* ->. 1 > , \ . V • «. •% *. .« • rt -S' f^k.. it" •■ .::.;:\;.v/,::-::<:, \v.;:.- ;:; :.^v- ’:■ ^ ■a:\. v:::='v:.i.: Mim iSi»: ^; tic;;::.: s «.h•sr;;?5.:;~ ;;\yi;•• ♦ »••. ^ , *» -4» % Vi 'f* '* ■''• ■ ^ •*.>»»4- ** -•> *■ •••1^■ -*-..'a.- ji.i , i“'..I? • ^1,-^t~i‘i-b7 f#^i«#%*r S9( ttil LgQrgQ^fgJf^ 0CT-8BBI m city •! Orono Ordtt«» maoAeota SS)9t i. i lTV OF ORONQ Huiui^e^ MiJt ?6*f Cd-6JW la tha auaaar af 1938, 1 v«nc to tea Caorga Hantan co gat a bttiliiag garait. At tliae ciaa 1 via laforaad that 1 had to aaa tha Couaeit for approval. At tha aaxt aaatiog t approachad Cha Couaeil for approval. 1 asplainad that 1 had about fiva ($) aarat of land and 1 vantad to build at tha aaat and of thia laad. Warb Iota, than Mayor, koaa tha property and aada a ■acioa to approva tha parait. A aacond aorioa ucj about to ba ■ada vhaa Mr. Buglay quaatioaad tha lagality of tao hoaaa on tha aaaia proparty. Ra raid two houaaa on a lot of a aub*diwi** aton «aa not legal. 1 aaplainad that there waao*t any dlwiaion of proparty and that the houaea would be it leaat 400 feat apart. 1 already had a aortgage apprcvel tirnr Midweat fadaral for an incraaae in the esiating aortgage. Tha approval waa tablad until legal advice could be obtained froa tha Village lawyer. I waited about two aontha to hear the reaulta that never cane even when 1 aaked what waa going on. I called Herb Roaa at work early one Saturday norning and inforaed h la X couldn't wait longer beeauae of winter coning and waa going to atart conatruction that day. About two weeka later Herb called and aaid to atop in and gat a building perait. It waa finally approved. At that tine he expreaaed hia wiah that 1 would conaider dividing the land to aatiafy Council nenbera and alao a doubtful legal tangle. I aaid I would think it over. Whan I vent to get the perait froa George Hanaen I iuqvir- ed about reatrictiona on lot aise If 1 divided the land. He inforaed ae of no reatrictiona of lot aize, but expreaaed hia deaire to have it et leaat 140 feet wide at the building aite. Raving 693 feet of land on the aouth would have given ae 3 or 6 Icta. I decided to divide the land and contacted Gordon Coffin for aurvey. Finding 5 or 6 lota not appealing to ae, I aettled for 4 lota. I - 150 feet, 2 - 140 feet, and the third I left 263 feet for ayaelf. Thia waa accepted by the Village and Herb thanked ae for ay cooperation with their requeat. 1%V. ;*'• ^ ii?r •. .% . rT~/9-B7 Jii ^0 /«L>f Aft.lW 1 Co goc had CO pproachod t fivo 1 of chia da a at CO ba ■a a on ab*dlai" diviaion faat fadaral 1 waa lllaga C oevar rb Rosa couldn't acart p In and hat ciaa ha land angle. I I tuqvir- 6. He sed hia ng aice. me 5 or 6 Ion Coffin 1 aectlad I 1 lefc I- and Herb . •» ft-■%1 <1 U - d ^alaMsagaa t8i ^ :city of Orono -2-i«pCember 2I, ItSltill., am .aaiat ataft.< aa4 aa.tiai. »»|4 for »obli« i H/ili eircMocancaa bacamaa of Cha loc alsa <1.25 •*'*?^; *.^** that it momld ba a vaaca of time aeon Co approach •oard for approaal. Tbla waa cold so ma oear tha phone by J«Mi at cha ClCf Hall. bail, aa thi. let la Or.ao. I would Ilka CO tall Chit loc. Tl- bjyar wanca to lUa in Orowo but diacoaragad by cha flat HO by .he City for parwlt witbouc any axcapciona. 1 would Ilka chle aacclad ao land can ba aold. I hare a.l4 e.aa. oa (hi. U«4 .loc. IMb .o4 ‘L. ,, claan. Thla amounce to quite a eum of money and tiwa. Than hear It can't ba uaad la quite a blow. Tom people of Che Planning Commitcaa, Council membara and choaa who work for tha City work for cha Improwamant of Th... lot. .b..U b. .ppr.r.d for balUlo*. aiora joba - Improwamant bringa more rawanua for tha Cj*P* in turn helpa the City Improwa aarwice to tha community. Let'a not hinder prograoa, let'a gat new citisena In Orono • to wowa forward let'a Improwa and develop what we have. tatpeccfully Ycura, f09t^ 0 • -b* »,a. a r j. .fess; fdiw: ■J. J.*- ^ 1 b - •*im -f -% •<.' •w. a ■••* '•■v. A. C :*c: *. -T •* I r u- I ** ■ .» a ’ ■ ^ *4 ‘ '• >* ir- V ) - W'-^' -* f. ■ - /I • a-•U*;,y:. 'iihr< ■l»-r *4.A' R. V % xj-1;- viW*; '.•W* ' > ■ « # .#fV ^ bo* - ♦- •■aa-vr.: ■ L.'b* ,V:r,v-.V,- : ,vi ; J • 1 A organized seq. the regolatlc general w« owner of ] Orono and PARC; 118N, the 2 Soutl" feet, publ dire< poim and That Rang< Soutl Soutl the I Soutl begin 118-2 PARCI Towns point of th line the p intex begir quart P.I.D. ? Vi ' * t <*•I' * ,t ■ - * H * 4 i'■<^•111^ Jfiii’iTif**^ r 29, 1981 >r public (2 - existing ll a lot to the and code Itr any [ vaa told Planning tea by J#Ail ncil to a, to hava cad by nav aibla to CO liva in parole I hava »ep iC I. Than Co Bobara and of cha buC do noc here. pla davalop ClCy. Thla ley. a in OrottO hava . O' VV.iiJi*. --': V . . py * f * ‘iauBk4ttua|:-E'? k‘^j4vfC?C.T la^- ■^'hl ^ kV'a. 4r-'-VS •' W.^ k ;l • - Vv- . •« ••x:; iir-hi ■ ■ - ‘ - v'V ■ <• o T.'Jl' v.M? -t '.'ft- tV'.-.'i r*f ft* -•*-'^- . ;:V I . ..■* • O '*-*'’ - l>t • ' Va *‘‘ ^ I- ;.^l ■•..;•,>•■•> '■■ -t-’A’-- '.* J V 'i'■ Af *r n.,*/ •’ 1. A. ^41 o 4% ' ^***> »•' 'i r-r ‘-1 »* * • V ^ ■<- ■ c\. >. *?;> r. iV pa» •• ' " ^ f a y A: . :^ ..V .V ■ v'- ■v'- "/x :?:>:■ i>ieAi==T“ A RBSOLOTIOH DENYING VARIAHOIS TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) PILE NO. 990 NHBIIEAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEIUSAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq. the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Ward Ferrell (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of property located at 3405 Watertown Road within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: PARCEL 1 That part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, Township 118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 50 rods West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South line 263 feet; thence North at right angles to said South line to the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to a point directly North of the point of beginning; thence South to the point of beginning. (Also known as P.I.D. #32-118*23 44 0009); and That part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, Township 118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 50 rods West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence North 6 rods to the center of the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to the South line of said Section 32; thence West to the point of beginning; excluding the public road. (Also known as P.I.D. #32- 118-23 44 0010); and PARCEL 2 That part of the Southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 1088 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South line 140 feet; thence North at right angles to said South line to the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to its intersection with a line drawn North through the point of beginning at right angles to the South line of said Southeast quarter; thence South to the point of beginning. (Also known as P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0008); and Page 1 of 9 •■/t; ^<r;r I r. 3 4 m A 1 I I i def in attacl recomi neigh appli 1. A! Resid< in ar> stand prope exist. .pal corporation Minnesota; and , seq. and 462 et. adopted zoning Llthr safety and pplicant") is the .thin the City of ion 32r Township Lng at a point on rods West of the d South line 263 >uth line to the road to a point nee South to the 118-23 44 0009); r Township 118M, It a point on the ods West of the to the center of said road to the to the point of wn as P.I.D. #32- of Section 32r Beginning at a r, 1088 feet West ilong said South aid South line to said road to its jh the point of f said Southeast (Also known as PARCEL 3 That part of the Southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 118M, Range 23W, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 1228 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South line 140 feet; thence North at right angles to said South line to the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to its intersection with a line drawn North through the point of beginning at right angles to the South line of said Southeast quarter; thence South to the point of beginning. (Also known as P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0007); and WHEREAS, for discussion purposes the property has been defined as 3 separate parcels as described above and per Exhibit A attached; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a principal residence structure on a lot containing approximately 1.04 acres or 52% of the required 2.0 acres in area and 140 feet or 70% of the required 200 feet of lot width (Parcel 3); and to further permit the construction of a principal residence structure on a lot containing approximately 0.85 acres or 42.5% of the required 2.0 acres in area and 140 feet or 70% of the required 200 feet of lot width (Parcel 2); and requesting Council approval per Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C) to separate non-conforming, undeveloped, substandard, contiguous, unsewered lots of record under common ownership, which separation would result in individual building sites not satisfying the lot area and lot width stiandards of the Zoning Chapter of the Orono Muncipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission; comments of the neighboring property owners; and materials and comments made by the applicant and applicant's attorney. HOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the requested lot area and lot width variances and denies the request to separate the commonly owned lots for the property described above based upon one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property; FINDINGS 1. As of January 1, 1975, the property has been zoned RR-IB, Rural Residential Zoning District, requiring a minimum lot size of 2.0 acres in area and 200 feet minimum width. Based on the required performance standards for the RR-IB zoning district, the proposed use of the property for 2 new residential building sites in addition the one existing building site would require the following variances: Page 2 of 9 . •■.v-y- 2. Th contigi propert; excess require! 3. Pri< since S acre in 4. Pri< "Stubbs residen area. 6. PrJ approxiti 3425 Wal a : of Section 32, : Beginning et a iT, 1228 feet West along said South laid South line to said road to its igh the point of )f said Southeast r. (Also known as roperty has been ind per Exhibit A Zity for variances m 5 (B) to permit ucture on a lot equired 2.0 acres eet of lot width n of a principal ely 0.85 acres or et or 70% of the questing Council 6 (C) to separate s, unsewered lots i would result in rea and lot width L Code; and application; the ; comments of the ments made by the ity Council of the »a and lot width mmonly owned lots I or more of the oned RR-IB, Rural : size of 2.0 acres quired performance >posed use of the addition the one ariances: Parcel 1 (with existing house) a} Lot Area Required Existing Variance 2.0 acres 1.01 acres or 50.51 0.99 acres or 49.5% Parcel 2 (vacant) a) Lot Area Required Existing Variance 2.0 acres 0.85 acres or 42.5% 1.15 acres or 57.5% b) Lot Width Required Existing Variance 200 feet 140 feet or 70% 60 feet or 30% Parcel 3 (vacant) a) Lot Area Required Existing Variance ^.1 2.0 acres 1.04 acres or 52% 0.96 acres or 48% h) Lot Width Required * 200 feet Existing « 140 feet or 70% Variance ■ 60 feet or 30% 2. The property consists of 4 separate tax parcels which are contiguous and which are owned in common by the applicant. The property in total contains approximately 2.90 acres and has a width in excess of 500 feet, in both respects meeting the area and width requirements for the single existing residence on the property. 3. Prior to January 1, 1975, the property was zoned R-IC, effective since September 14, 1967, a residential zone requiring a minimum of 1 acre in area and 140 feet minimum width. 4. Prior to September 14, 1967, the property was included within the ■Stubbs Bay Zoning District", effective since July 10, 1950, a residential zone requiring a minimum building lot size of 1 acre in S. The applicant purchased the property in August 1948. 6. Prior to 1958, the property was undivided and contained approximately 4.19 acres and contained only the residence located at 3425 Watertown Road. Page 3 of 9 m ^7 1 '.'I 7. on 5 Mr. Fen The re< Commiss: constru< kno%m ai S. Som< that 34 parcel, acre pa parcjsls 3425 Wa 9. Mr. their c; 10. On varianc At sta£ zoning recomme complet 11. P^ Commiss on Aprd varian< and the that PI new hou 12. Th 1985, a code th vacant stated two. 13. On for vai Commiss and tab survey 1. 14. On comple recomme 1 new b • , ■ - — ■ ■■■■ • 51 5% 5% 5% reels which are applicant. The nd has a width in area and width property. R-IC, effective ig a minimum of 1 ;luded within the :ly 10, 1950, a size of 1 acre in 18. and contained dence located at 7. On September 22, 1958, the City Council approved the request of Mr. Ferrell to construct a second residence on ComissionV%ubseqJently? Mr*^ vas issued a building perMt ^ construct a new residence on October 13, 19S8, which residence is now kno%m as 3405 Waterto%m Road. 8. SometiBe during 1958-1959, Mr. Ferrell suMivided the property so that 3425 Watertown Road was contained within a separate parcel, the new house at 3405 Watertown Road was a.^4 acre parcel (Parcel 1 per attached Exhibit A), 2 parcels (Parcels 2 and 3 per Exhibit A) were created between 3405 and 3425 Waterto%m Road. 9. Mr. Ferrell has retained ownershi^^ of Parcels I, 2 and 3 since their creation as a result of the 1958-59 subdivision. 10. On March 18, 1985, Mr. Ferrell requested City staff to accept a complete survey and soil testing information required. 11. Pursuant to the zoning appeal application, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on this matter. Application No. 903, on April 15, 1985. The Planning Commission confirmed that many variances were necessary in order to build on either of Parcels 2 or 3 and the Planning Commission gave the applicant the general direction that Planning Commission would likely only recommend approval of one new house, and only if Parcels 2 and 3 were combined. 12. The zoning appeal was reviewed by the City Council 1985, and the Council affirmed staffs interpretation code that many variances would be necessary in order to vacant lots, and at that meeting certain individual Council meters stated they would likely consider one additional building site but not two. 13. On October 9, 1985, Mr. Ferrell submitted a ^ for variances to build new homes on Parcels 2 and 3. The Planning commission held a public hearing on the matter on November 18, 1985, and tabled the application pending submittal of additional required survey and soil testing information for the existing house on Parcel 1. 1 new building site using the combined Parcels 2 and 3. Page 4 of 9 IS. The tabling i the City on the fc a) RR-3 b) Oro: sys 3 3( c) res: a r< d) jus* At the A] could nc wished t Applican 16. The at the 1 adopted Ross woi: completi 17. The such th. accordir does noi previous 18. The designsi indicate residenc setback! consider case an< matter < housing effect o ed the request of idivided property, of the Planning milding permit to i residence is now id the property so eparate 1.29 acre located on a 1.01 and 2 additional 1 between 3405 and 1, 2 and 3 since n. staff to accept a home on Parcel 3. application as a lely review and It submitting the id. U n, the Planning (lication No. 903r firmed that many of Parcels 2 or 3 general direction approval of one (uncil on May 2B$ ion of the zoning to build on both 1 Council members Lding site but not ormal application I 3. The Planning November 18 r 1985, dditional required ng house on Parcel again reviewed the sion unanimously imended approval of a 3. m:-■msrnm ■... y: ^ - ^ •.: TP 15. The City council reviewed the application on March 10, 1986, tabling it until April 14, 1986 for final action. On April 14, ^86, the City Council directed staff to draft a resolution of denial based on the following findings: a) The extent of the variances requested is excessive for the RR-IB zoning district. b) Given the history of septic systea Orono and surrounding Lake Minnetonka, a density of 3 septic systems on 2.9 acres in a district where 6 acres is required for * 3 septic systems, is excessive. c) Because the property is currently used as conforming residential building site, the applicant would not be deprived of a reasonable use of the property. d) Applicant has not demonstrated sufficient hardships to justify granting of the requested variances. At the April 14, 1988 Council meeting the applicant noted could not be present at the meeting. The applicant was . wished to have the matter tabled until his attorney was present. Applicant waived his right to have his attorney present. 16. The applicant maintains that he divided the property at the request of then Mayor Herb Ross. 8®=®“®* i^'lno*lot^Mavor adoDted in 1950 allowed only one residence per f Rosf would have been legally bound to req«i'® ’"'L“tJ*ltted\n 1958 completed in order to allow the new house which was permitted in 1958. 17. The applicant maintains that the property was divided in a manner such that new homes could be built on each \ Soe^not and never did contain the 1 acre in area required under previous zoning of the property. 18. The applicant has provided soil testing, proposed s®Ptic system dLigns, and proposed site plans for each of ®7Lrvt a indicate that technically, septic systems can l^® to serve a residence on each of Parcels 2 and 3, meeting the required sanitary setbacks. However, technical feasibility is not the on T ®^,“ considered by the City in reviewing variance applications, and in this case and otLr similar cases, the City ‘'®!®^so considered, as a «,s»4-4-sar- of no 1 icv the Dotentlal adverse effect of higher density homing on'the quality of Lake Minnetonka and the potential adverse effect on the general health, safety, and welfare. Page 5 of 9 'S .'irrf rch 10, 1986, )ril 14, 1986, f denial based ssive for the n the City of ' of 3 septic required for s conforming be deprived of hardships to ‘d his attorney IS asked if he f was present. :ty in 1958-59 5 zoning code ng lot. Mayor a division be itted in 1958. »d in a manner cels 2 and 3 act. Parcel 2 equired under septic system 2 and 3 which led to serve a ired sanitary only criteria s, and in this sidered, as a igher density ntial adverse mi ill m m 19. The applicant maintains changed from R-IC <1 tLt hi^ lots would still be buildable public hearings and ''«%.*^°^tccur«nce h^^not ^en documented by the under the new zoning. verified by the City. Whether or not it applicant nor can it be ^ rit-v Council would be h^pS;”.’. ""..‘Sks =»p *« apon l»q»Up.' H-t u.d.t th. J"”*"' jt/'K pr.n.i.pnew house would be issued, and that no basis exisrea loi of variances, record: 200 Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon September 31.200. effective date of the Zoning Code) under si^le 14, 1967 (the Residential District, which does not mee^thi of the zoning shirincl^udL joint ownership by not more than two persons. The 1967 Code ilid not discuss common ownership "°However^ d?lferentiate between sewered and implied' thaTothei by using the term Separate but dii not define in wS?My.°”urd«'\hTs“ code, the T^t me*’®“ e“UtnltrdS ^rthe°R-irzoning"d\';t^^^^ have regulred a lot area variance in order to be legally buildable. pj^perty" to°"bi"lonet V-Ilf 2\c?e""l^gl^' FamiVy ^etlSentia^rVtateS as follows regarding existing lots of record. ......HP i» —.p b. '?^lised ®f"oV a°single f^ily detached dwelling purpose provided met: 20*1 Tn -R- districts of Greater Than One Acre. A lot Record in any -R" District in the City in excess of one acre, which does not meet the °fd for singllCode as 1.- area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if the Council find . Page 6 of 9 Under tl lot area again di common1\ 22. Cit substand by an ac develop wide va< was deni 26, 198 sanitar; width. 23. The 10.03, S non-conf aligned road or specif i< lots sal performi code. 24. At similar variance 25. Sir became e common1’m residenc 145 perm issued f to the i to creat rebuild was aln permits lots in r was proposed to be 74, he attended the still be buildable in documented by the Whether or not it ' Council would be y the City in 1981, Iding permits for a ted for the granting roperty as R-IC, 1 g existing lots of sting upon September Code) under single :ict, which does not :o area or width may i dwelling purpose 1 such use does not ngle separate owner- n two persons. operties nor did it »f record. However, implied that other It did not define in ave been allowed to Dt met the standards reguired a lot area which declared the f Residential, stated ting upon January 1, :ode) under single h does not meet the >a or width may be ng purpose provided does not adversely ing requirements are m One Acre. A lot ty in excess of one nts of this Zoning bilized for single Council finds: M- 4 1) it is at least one acre in slxe, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; and 2) it is either served by public sanitary sewer or meets all the septic system requirements of the City or other governmental body; and 3) it otherwise meets the requirements of this or other applicable ordinances. Under this Code, the Council, at their option, could have granted a lot area variance for a lot of single separate ownership, but the Code again did not specifically discuss any standards for the separation of commonly owned lots. 22. City policy regarding the separation of unsewered, undeveloped substandard, contiguous lots in common ownership was clearly defined by an action of the City Council in 1981, in which the separation of a developed 1.4 acre lot from the adjacent vacant 1.7 acre, 120.3 foot wide vacant lot in the LR-IA 2-acre, 200 foot width, unsewered zone was denied. (Application No. 635, Council action to deny on October 26, 1981, based on: a) lack of demonstrated hardship; b) no sanitary sewer available; c) insufficient area; d) insufficient width. 23. The 1984 Zoning Code eunendments included the addition of Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C), which prohibited the "transfer or sale of non-conforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership" unless specifically approved by the City Council, or unless the resulting lots satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Code. No performance standards for approval of such transfers appear in the code. 24. At least 13 properties or groups of properties in a situation similar to Ferrells with a high potential for request of similar variances have been identified within the City of Orono. 25. Since January 1, 1975, when the 2 acre RR-IB zoning district became effective, no permits have been issued for new residences on commonly owned substandard lots in the RR-IB district. Of 153 new residence permits issued in the RR—IB district from 1/1/75 to 5/1/86, 145 permits have been issued for conforming lots, 7 permits have been issued for substandard lots of record in single separate ownership due to the inability of applicants to combine or acquire additional land to create conforming lets, and 1 permit was issued to demolish and rebuild on a substandard single separate ownership lot where a house was already existing. The City of Orono has consistently denied permits for substandard lots owned in common with adjacent developed lots in the RR-IB district. Page 7 of 9 ... S . ! m mmrni mm Vl:: m: 26. T1 unsewer exceed be buil must b require 27. Th section of the minimui City wh 28. Ir that tc lots tc enviror be deti also Ic in its distrii safety welfar draina* must pr of dens 29. Th propert of Citj protect 3 0. Tl City w« Zoning 31. : longstj of subt adverse 32. D€ proper always on Parc 33. T intent ^ .7- - ize, and the average eet; and ic sanitary sewer or rements of the City or lirements of this or could have granted a rnership, but the Code for the separation of sewered# undeveloped > was clearly defined :h the separation of a : 1.7 acre, 120.3 foot idth, unsewered zone on to deny on October ed hardship; b) no ea; d) insufficient 2 addition of Section "transfer or sale of ublic sanitary sewer, { a public or private )n ownership" unless unless the resulting the Zoning Code. No nsfers appear in the rties in a situation request of similar Orono. :-lB zoning district or new residences on istrict. Of 153 new com 1/1/75 to 5/1/86, 7 permits have been eparate ownership due [uire additional land sued to demolish and ip lot where a house consistently denied h adjacent developed 5. 26. The City Council has always required that when two or mot® unsewered lots are owned in common, each lot must individually meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any of the lots can be built upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in common must be combined so that the resulting combined lot meets the requirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built upon. 27. Thfc granting of such a variance would require amending the many sections of the Comprehensive Plan that govern the rural development of the City. The City of Orono has been consistent in requiring a minimum of two acres for a buildable lot in the rural areas of the City where there is no sewer service. 28. In review of the factual findings noted above, the City finds that to establish a precedent that would allow severely substandard lots to be developed to be in complete conflict with the established environmental standards for rural development within the be detrimental to the public, health, safety and welfare. The City also looks to the broader, environmental principals and goals setfortn in its Community Management Plan and the intent of the specific zoning district when dealing with matters related to the public, healtn, safety and welfare. Issues involving the public health, safety and welfare are not only resolved in securing the obvious traffic and drainage concerns of surrounding property owners but the City also must provide its citizens with a designated and approved optimum level of density, open space and quality of life. 29. The granting of such a variance would require the rezoning of the property to an urban lot size in addition to requiring the extension of City services to the property to maintain a suitable level of fire protection. 30. The granting of such a variance would require the extension of City water and sewer to maintain the standards setforth in the Orono Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan for an urban sized lot. 31. In granting such a variance. Council * longstanding, consistent policy in consideration of the buildability of substandard lots under common ownership and thereby establlsn an adverse precedent. 32 Denial of the subject variances would not constitute a takir^ of property or loss of substantial value because Parcels 2 and 3 nave always had value and have been used as required area for the residence on Parcel 1. 33. The intent of the application is contrary to the letter and! intent of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. Page 8 of 9 ^. when two or more dividually meet or ny of the lots can :b owned in common ed lot meets the be built upon. amending the many rural development snt in requiring a ural areas of the e, the City finds rerely substandard :h the established Ln the City and to relfare. The City and goals setforth he specific zoning e public, health, lealth, safety and vious traffic and but the City also 3ved optimum level he rezoning of the ring the extension ible level of fire e the extension of forth in the Orono ed lot. would abandon a f the buildability sreby establish an titute a taking of cels 2 and 3 have I for the residence to the letter and -r '• '•*^1 -M m3 4 '.VV.V ■ ' V t Li ■ mI 34. The variances would have an adverse effect upon the health, safety and welfare of the community for the reasons outlined herein. 33. The amount of light and air in the neighborhood would be diminished by adding a structure on the substandard lot. 36. The values of surrounding properties will be adversely affected. 37. There are no special conditions applying to the land in question which are peculiar to the land or immediately adjoining property. 38. The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right o applicant. 39 The granting of the variances will serve mainly as a convenience to the appjicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 40 In order to put everyone on notice that the above referenced substandard lots in common ownership must remain council ^ership to maintain the existing house as u conforming use, Sl^tby directs the City staff to file such notice against the properties legally described herein. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held May 27, 1986. ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Mary C. Butler, Mayor Page 9 of 9 • r • • - f mm C:MSi ipon the health# jtlined herein. ^rhood would be ot. ersely affected. land in question ng property. essary for the ty right of the as a convenience ite demonstrable bove referenced .n under common ling use. Council Lee against the Orono, Minnesota, £xHt&irA ^€soLuriofJ Aio. m tiS£- • Ir h "V. . N ‘S'V>- 0^ -r.': ■7 CONSTRU 7900 BEECH STREET 7 September 2 City of Oro Box 66 Crystal Bay Attn: Ms. Re:File Howa Dear Jeanne In response by the Plar Park Consti cubic yards is based or a 20% weatl Conversely, projects, ( placed at { yards per \ Park Consti A tandem ti yards of mt Park Const] projects. Constructi« traffic of of the egr< if require) 15 «ii' - rwm^• •w CONSTRUCTION CO ESTABLISHED ISIS m COMME RCt AL ANDINDUSTRIAL EXCAVATINO • ROAD BUILDING ■ BILE DRIVING B SEWER. WATER INSTALLATION R BRIDGES BOOLE COURSES RSUB DIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT IPMENT RENTAL LNG AND DESIGN 7900 BEECH STREET N.E. » MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55432 ■ TELEPHONE 788-9800 IL. September 29, 1988 13IC> City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth He:File No. 139-1310 Howard Eisinger Dear Jeanne, In response to your letter of August 8, 1988, I will address by the Planning Commission. the concerns raised Park Construction, wilr. a '=*teady supply of fill, would be able to place 100,000 cubic yards of fill on the Eisinger property in approximately five weeks. This is based on placing 5,000 cubic yards each day, working five days per week, with a 20% weather delay factored in. Conversely, if fill material were available sporadically, whether from different projects, or one project with stage construction, etc., the material could be placed at a rate of 5000 cubic yards per week up to between 70,000 to 80,000 yards per week. The latter example would only occur if time were a factor and Park Construction elected to work a double shift six days per week. A tandem truck can legally carry about 9 cubic yards (bank volume). 100,000 cubic yards of material would be approximately 11,100 truck loads of material. Park Construction has an excellent safety record on all of their construction projects. When trucking to a disposal site located on a major highway Park Construction would place a series of signs which would warn both directions of traffic of the construction ahead. These signs would be placed well in advance of the egress; stating. Road Construction Ahead, Trucks Entering Highway, and, if required, Flagman Ahead and Prepare to Stop. - AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER mm V.-■ 'a V <oM COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EXCAVATING■ ROAD BUILDING■ PILE DRIVING■ SEWER, WATER INSTALLATION ■ BRIDGES ■ GOLF COURSES ■ SUB DIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT ^ iHSUIPMENT RENTAL LNG AND DESIGN concerns raised nil) place 100, ^e weeks. This I per week, with : from different Lai could be )0 to 80,000 5 a factor and 2k, ). 100,000 cubic Eiterial. construction Ighway Park directions of well in advance Highway, and, mCONSTRUCTION CO ESTASLISHED ifia 7900 BEECH STREET NJE. • MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55432 • TELERHONB TBMWJ ■ COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EXCAVATING■ ROAD BUILDING■ PILE DRIVING■ SEWER, waterinstallation■ BRIDGES ■ GOLF COURSES ■ SUB DIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT ■ EQUIPMENT RENTAL ■ ENGINEERING AND DESIGN PAvlE 2 The Minnesota Department of Transportation requires advance signing for any construction that may disrupt traffic. Temporary construction is allowed on State Highways with a oermit; however, in this case TH 12 has a 10 foot paved shoulder and a bypass lane would not be required. All major state highways are designed to carry truck traffic as described above. The shoulder section at the point of entry to the Eisinger site would probably break up with the volume of turning truck traffic into the site. If this should occur, Park Construction would be responsible for any repair required on the shoulder. I will be attending the special meeting of the Planning Commission on October 3, 1988 to clarify any questions that may arise on the above mentioned subject or answer any other questions you laay have. Sir.* ;ly, PARK CONSTRUCTION. COMPANY _ dota Gannon, P.E. Project Manager JG:gp cc: Howard Eisinger - AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER - staff has told the applicant on numerous occasions over recent years that it is unlikely the City would allow building permits for his adjacent parcels. A similar application by Alden Anderson at 1900 Shoreline Drive resulted in Council voting 4-0 to deny separation of adjacent 1.4 acre and 1.8 acre commonly owned parcels from each other# based on 1) lack of demonstrated hardship; 2) no sanitary sewer available; 3) insufficient area; 4) insufficient width. I have includethe draft resolution from this application# which should help ww clarify the City's past position on applications of this type (note that the Anderson resolution was never adopted because he withdrew his application after Council voted to have staff draft a denial resolution). I have included the tax history for 1974-1985 on the properties (see Exhibit J). It is noteworthy that the valuation of the parcel in question (P.I.D. 0007) was reduced starting in 1983# and the parcel was assessed incrementally as compared to the parcel with the house; i.e. the adjacent parcels appear to be valued as part of the main lot# not as separate building sites. Because Mr. Ferrell insisted on bringing this application to you even though he was told of the slim chances for approval# staff accepted the application on an appeal/interpretation basis. Does the Planning Commission find any hardship or circumstance that would suggest the standards should not apply to this property? caslons over low building tion by Alden LI voting 4-0 ere commonly demonstrated ficient area; solution from e City's past the Anderson s application solution). •1985 on the :he valuation 1 starting in s compared to appear to be ding sites. pplication to or approval# station basis, circumstance jply to this Hates Orono Council Members Michael P. Gaffron# Assistant Zoning Administrator April 30, 1985 Subject s #903 Ward P. Ferrell, 3405 Watertown Road - Zoning Code Interpretation List of B:idilbit8 Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property C5wr.5rs List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Proposed Site Plan Exhibit P - Staff Slcetch of Lot Areas Exhibit B Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Staff Letter to Applicant 2/27/85 Draft Resolution From Alden Andersoft (Application #635) Tax History „ j/ve/oeMinutes From Planning Commission Meeting 4/15/85 Staff Memo to Planning Commission 4/8/85 and septic system are contained within the two easter y ® totaling 1.01 acres. The two westerly parcels «>^® acres respectively. The applicant wishes to obtain a building permit for the 1.04 acre lot. 2: ‘K-X' Alden Anderson denial, staff felt Council ^ grant a variance for the Ferrell application. the applicant to spend extreme amounts of money for the full variance application, soil testing, survey work, denied, staff felt obligated to advise the applicant to submit a zoning appeal application with $100.00 fee. Please review my memo to Planning Coiimission of ^8/85 and the Planning Commission minutes, and the exhibits. ^ ^ most informal consensus of the Planning the applicant might be allowed one building site Lots 7 and 8 for a total of 1.89 acres, leaving the existing house on 1.01 acres. '2 tsr 2,."?.Vp° ~2i ‘on “2 ‘a; code. ' 'Vv, f? ^ ' i . •b.i:.”!.’-. IM-' To* From* Date* Subject s Applicati subst resid< List of Bx Exhib Exhib Exhib Exhib Exhib Exhib Exhib Exhib Exhib Exhib Exhib Code Secti Secti C. T undev conti' easem< Counc. of su area . Secti< A. E: an "R' Chapt detac Counc. the fi 3. I recor sewer and si witho’ ■■■u tor SSA^T, g 4/15/85 5 :he RR-IB ie, wellf f parcels and 0.85 building i appli- tlcal to 1, which 1 on the :ely not an force he full ly to be submit a i/8/85 and * that the it at most combining existing L consider .on of the ?•c Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator November 13, 19S5 #990 Ward Ferrell, 3405-3411-3415 Watertown Road - Variances ex*i- Application - Lot area/lot width variances to construct homes on two substandard vacant commonly-owned lots adjacent to the existing residence at 3405 Waterto%m Road. List of Exhibit Exhibit A ■ Exhibit B ■ Exhibit C < Exhibit D < Exhibit £ Exhibit P Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Applications For 2 Vacant lk>ts Plat Map Property Owners List Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan For Center Lot Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan For West Lot Planning Coiomission Minutes 4/15/85 Council Minutes 5/28/85 Notice to Applicant 5/31/85 Tax History Council Minutes 9/22/58 Pertinent Ordinances Dating to 1950 Code Sections Pertinent Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C) (Current code) C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non-conforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (A) (3) A. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 in an "R" District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgement of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: 3. In "R" Districts Not Served by Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record in any "R" District in the City not served by public sanitary sewer must meet the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter and shall not be utili-sed for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval. kWT mm ^- -aBE"-m •,-T. V. ri; m-l Zoning File I9^ November 13, li page 2 of 5 Per : or regist Registrax Minnesota if requir The appl district total are contained ' westerly pare wishes to obta The 1950 districts, inc was located, of one acre. Ferrell requea likely that F build another Code allowed minutes 9/22/ Planning Comi Commission me existed in Ore 140' width an platting, and since that tin have been con the 1967 Zoni and 140' widt garding lots c 31.200. 1967 (th. ownershi requirero for a si judgment health o; by not m< The 1967 differentiate using the ter; ownership woi Under this co the 1.04 acre the 1-acre zo Council appr< was included / •y r i i ' .» ;^ i 1 7,-= I tor ad - ruct homed on two to the existing er Lot ; Lot non-conforming, »wer, aligned in a ivate road or road permitted without I if the separation s that satisfy the anuary 1, 1975 in Its of the Zoning a single family judgement of the ilth or safety and ' Sewer. A lot of public sanitary he Zoning Chapter Swelling purposes >■ '.ateik'.* * 1 * ..-•r-v; .■ V m r;m ll A. mm Zoning Pile #990 November 13, 1985 page 2 of 5 per subdivision 6. a -Lot of Record* is o"f‘^?heor registered land •-jey ha» recorded in the o«i.ce^o^^ if required. d..„is »vVdr.?£V;£z “" w«te?ly^parc?l\^ «^!.oran^^^ respectively. The applicant w"^es t^ oSwin building permits for each of the westerly parcels. The 1950 zoning Code (adopted 7/10/50) established a lfrr-11 reruns J^to r..-.ir/K\ra Vnc‘d^ing thi road right-ofr-ay would iid.ly htve bten considered conforming or nearly conforming lots the 1967 Zoning Code which designated the Pr°P®rty as Zone R 1 » and 140* wlStS! Single Family Residential. That 1967 Code stated, re garding lots of record, as follows: *»! onn Kvistina Lots. A lot of record existing upon September 14, 1967 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under single separa e ^ ^ District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Code as to area or the for a single family detached dwelling purpose judgment If the Council such use doeshealth or safety. Single separate ownership includes joint ownersnip by not more than two persons. The 1967 code did not discuss common °«n®''®bip properties nor did it differentiate between sewered and types of using the berm "Single Separate^ne^^^^^^^ i„t a^" n®b -Jefine in what way. ownership would be treated different y allowed to build on under this code, the applicant would likely have oeen aiio standards of the 1.04 acre lot without a »®“®“®® because the lot met tne s« the 1-acre zoning district. The 0.85 acre lot would li y . Colnoil approval, depending on whether the area in the road right of way was included in the lot area at that time. \ xt k. 1 ■W: Zoning File November 13 Page 3 of 5 The 15 Single Fami follows: 31.201 (the separa i]quirem a sine m.ent c or saf 31.201 in ani meet t may bi Counci ( t ( t h ( a Under lot area v again did commonly ov of at leas adjacent Ic not be sep£ the require Upon z following S C. T1 devel contig easeme Counci of sue area a r- 'TT ■•‘Vr )■ lot for which a deed \ the office of the or Hennepin County» roval by the Council in the RR-IB zoning 1, and septic system 1.01 acres. The two ely. The applicant erly parcels. 1 a number of zoning h Ferrell's property un building lot size sffect in 1958 when roperty. It is very .me that in order to cause in general the Lng lot (see Council was referred to tha d for the Planning ugh a platting code id off 2 lots each of about 1959 without ate for tax purposes -of-way would likely lots of record under s Zone R-lCr 1 acre )67 Code stated, re- g upon September 14, der single separate 1 does not meet the dth may be utilized provided that in the rsely affect public Ludes joint ownership operties nor did it ecord. However, by that other types of define in what way. allowed to build on let the standards of likely have required e road right-of-way wm V-.. 1 A 1 Ml VJ W ll-- - Zoning Pile #990 November 13, 1985 Page 3 of 5 The 1974 Zoning Code declared this land to be zoned RR-lB, 2 Acre Single Family Residential. As far as existing lots of record, it stated as follows: 31.201. Existing I^ots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under single separate ownership in an •R* District, which does not meet the re quirements of the Zoning Code as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judg ment of the Coundil such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the foll<^ving requirements are met: 31.203. In ■R* districts of Greater Than One Acre. A lot of record in any "R" District in the City in excess of one acre, which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Code as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if the Council finds: (1) it is at least one acre i*i size, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; and (2) it is either served by public sanitary sewer or meets all the septic system requirements of the City or other governmental body; and (3) it otherwise mets the requirements of this or other applicable ordinances. Under the 1974 Code, the Council at their option could have granted a lot area variance for a lot of single separate ownership, but the Code again did not specifically discuss the standards for the separation of commonly owned lots. The general City policy, as evidenced by the outcome of at least cae typical zoning application in 1981 was that unsewered adjacent lots owned in common could not be considered buildable and could not be separated unless each resulting lot or combination of lots included the required acreage in that zoning district. Upon recodification in 10tf4 tnc Zoning Code was amended to include the following Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C): C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non-conforming, un developed lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private^ road cr road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. mmmmmm •.vi P Zoning Fi November Page 4 of Staf be prohib either oi creating appeared variance been turn direction dollar an fees, etc was that allow one Appl be dedal provided could in all sites applican house, nc alternate the "noti refuses t two vacan notice of Two 1. pern appr 2. i. e. zone The lots in i and are benefit c which pre We £ parcels separatee value, s Perhaps 1 lots wen until 19 same as f separate T f zoned RR-lB, 2 Acre recordr it stated as r upon January 1, 1975 3e) under single oes not meet the re- i may be utilized for led that in the judg- affect public health re. A lot of record acrer which does not area or width only# ling purposes if the the average width of y sewer or meets all Dr other governmental :s of this or other could have granted a irshipr but the Code Dr the separation of ienced by the outcome . was that unsewered buildable and could :ion of lots included imended to include the non-conformingr un- sewerr aligned in a : private road or road not permitted without Lred if the separation Ltes that satisfy the r. "V '■M:. m •V ■. i.. Zoning Pile #990 November 13# 1985 Page 4 of 5 been turned down in recent years and staff wanted applicant to get general direction from the Planning Commission and Council prior to large dollar amounts in developing plans, septic testing, fees, etc. The Planning Commission and Council directive to the applicant was that it is unlikely chey would aprove two new houses, and perhaps wcmia allow one new house rerulting in a 1.5 acre density on the total property. Applicant now appears before you requesting that both westerly parcels be declared buildable. He has provided surveys of both parcels, and has orovided soil testing and septic system designs indicating that each lo could in fact support a primary and alternate drainfield system (mounds at all sites) to serve 3-bedroom houses, given no future applicant has not provided a survey of the property w^ith house, nor has hi^rovided septic testing to prove alternate site for a drainfield. These items were the "notice of Council action" sent to the applicant on 5/31/85. refuses to accept the fact that in order to grant variances to build on the two vacant lots, we also grant variances to the existing developed lot (se notice of 5/31/85). Two questions, then, need to be answered. 1. Does each lot, of and by itself, have the °®P®^^ permanently support a house, septic system, well, and the other appropriate amenities in the rural zone? If so, 2. Is the Planning Commission and Council willing to set a precedent, i.e. do away with the common ownership limitation in the unsewered zone? which presumably denies them any status unless re subdivide . We saw during the appeal that the tax valuations on Ferrells adjacent lots were not buildable without variances. It would appear that perhaps up until 1979 and perhaps as late as 1982, the extra lots were valued much th- same as the main lot. Ferrell obviously felt he was paying taxes on the..e as separate building sites. ■ ■ Zoning Pi November Page 5 of A fu the neig Ferrell's acres, 2 increment group.) to serve although lots ave acre zon< less thai are d« tr sewers, situatior Rec£ site on i few yean Are that just the applicant would since separation of ^ould result in the ea. The applicant rather than a full Lar application had Leant to get general »r to spending large urveys# application ve to the applicant 3, and perhaps would the total property. Dth westerly parcels th parcelSf and has ating that each lot , Ld system (mounds at encroachments. The7 r with the existing v, the property has an Eically requested in 5/31/85. Applicant nces to build on the g developed lot (see the capability to rellr and the other j to set a precedent, Dn in the unsewered B many as 28 vacant Lth adjacent parcels to request the same in legally combined, vided. n Ferrells adjacent ppearance that the ,d not building site Ly at the same time, at the two westerly pear that perhaps up fere valued much tl.e aying taxes on these as mmt. (■ mm t''-- l?--. :■■■ -i ■ >. r -■^-'1 h -^1 '4 ml k■ J Zoning File #85(5 Hovember 13, 1985 Page 5 of 5 A further criteria to consider is how do the lots in question fit into the neighborhood as far as lot size. Given a radius of 1/2 mile from Ferrell’s property, 39 developed lots are 2 acres or more, 13 are 1.25 to 2 acres, 23 are .75-1.25 acres, and 11 are less than .75 acre. (These increments were picked so that the Ferrell lots could be categorized in one group.) (Note that the Stubbs Bay Study Area, where sewer is contemplated to serve Eastlake Street, Tonka Avenue, and Crestview Avenue, was excluded although it is within the 1/2 mile radius. Those 38 or so houses are on lots averaging 1/2 acre or less.) It is clear to see that in Orono’s two acre zone north and east of Stubbs Bay, the majority of existing lots are less than two acres. In general terms, the existing density and lot sizes are detrimental to our long-term program of development without City sewers. Additional houses on relatively small lots will not help that situation. Recall that the Alden Anderson application to allow a second building site on adjacent properties totaling 3.5 acres, was in effect turned do%m m few years ago. Are there any circumstances or hardships in the Ferrell application that justify a recommendation of approval? Tos Froms Date: Subje soil exist area syst€ and < tech and The drai situ< cour rela buil past line of 1 Oron appl hist suf f uestion fit into f 1/2 mile from 13 are 1.25 to 2 5 acre. (These itegorized in one is contemplated luer was excluded so houses are on It in Orono's two cisting lots are .ty and lot sizes nt without City LI not help that I second building ict turned down a ell application 0 Tos WTi Pates Subjects XPlafsftin^ Connnissiorv Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant toning Administrator February 6, 1966 «990 ward Ferrell 3405-3611-3415 Road Variances - Update to Memo of November 13, 1985 leist; of Exhibits Exhibit B - Survey*of^Pro^rty^with*Existing House “Sibit I - SoilsVport. Site Pj^n For Exi.tin| House Exhibit D - Planning Commission Minutes 11/1 / noT ^bmitted the additional survey and system with a fully conforming system. Please review the memo of 11/13/85. 'k* memo and coilidering the additional ^^Viveway. technically “ept\ •°8yst^^ on each of the lots. relatively low levels of development. Plnallv. from a zoning code standpoint, even if only one new buil/ing“^7te*if granted! gent^i;!'held line in similar unsewered long-term' impict onof 1 or 2 new building sites might have long ter orono’s effectiveness in owner and the applicant's real and preceived rig ,-h^ v.ars Are therehistory of zoning code changes over the years. Are sufficient justifications to grant a variance? TOtfEOHsPATE: SUBJ: OronMichMarc I99C Iiist of Bxhibj A - Appld B - Plat C “ Prop« D - Noti< E - Comp< F - Surv< G - Survi 7 Surv< I - Stafl J - Minui K L M N Tax 1 Coun< Pert. 1981 Short Council orig appeal# at wh 1 additional building site D, the compos is requestin< adjacent to h the current 2 To briefly rt this property 1950 Zoi separate 1955 » O 1958 - F a second told by require residenc 1959 - 1 of Ordii width of allowed in sing I*' ministrator -B7 rtown Road 13, 1985 } House iting House L8/85 onal survey arid Ld site for the there is adequate ^lace the septic ted in that memo tted, it appears driveway, well, ich of the lots, limited by the conflicts if a se, pool, tennis d themselves to if only one new stting. In the jrally held the ;ions. Approval •term impact on :his against the ty owner and the rs. Are there ■til ft"'1 :c ■ < ......................' • ..1.- V" ■ .* “• *: • ■. Br m ,y TOffSQH: DATS: ^IBJs s-/^Orono City Council MembersMichael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator March 3, 1986 ♦990 ward Ferrell, 3405-3411-3415 Watertown Road - Variances List of Exhibits: _ « i«,.-A - Applications for variances on 2 vacant lots B - Plat Map C — Property Owners List D - notice to Applicant 2/20/86 E - Composite Site Plan P - Survey, Soils Report, _ A a. 5-ra-gi, - fov.fe's. “TO Site Plan for existing house, east lot G - Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan for center lot Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan for west lot I - Staff memos 11/13/85, 2/6/86 ,, c/oo/oii.J - Minutes: Planning Commissicn 4/15/85; Council 5/28/85, j Minut commissicn 11/18/85; Planning Commission 2/18/86 K - Tax History, 1974 - 1985 L - Council Minutes September 22, 1958 M — Pertinent Ordinances Dating to 1950 innr» « 1981 Draft Denial Resolution - Alden Anderson property. Shoreline Dr. (similar case) .*1 ,^4 na 1 1 V reviewed this application in May, 1985 as a zoning appeal, at which tiL Council gave applicant general d^lrection that perh^^ i^additional building site would be considered, but that 2 add ... Lfldina sYtes would not be looked upon favorably. Please review Exhibit building % 9 acre group of parcels. ApplicantD, the composite site plan for tnis acre yiwup ^ lots is reauesting permission to build houses on each of the adjacent to his^ home. The lots are substandard in area and width base the current 2-acre, 200 foot width standards. To briefly review the code standards that previously and currently affect this property; 1950 zoning Ordinance - (Prior to division of this property into separate parcels) - Property toned 1-acre min. lot size. 1955 - Original Platting Code 1958 - Ferrell builds house at 3405 f ® hSU". ~require a subdivision, since 1950 zoning ordinance allowed only one residence per lot. 1959 - Ferrell presumably completed subdivision. 10/12/59 -Adoption nf Ordinance #22 - a) required minimum lot area of 1 acre, • nf ^40* wLch Ferrlll lots would meet or nearly meet, b) also :4-.- V . ' • * m'-'' ^3 ■ m ..* . *! » i 'f-- 4 k- ’f. r #' jj. * * «.v^:x Zoning Fi! March 3, i Page 2 owne] that disc: 1967 subs subs sepa find not infe: 1974 This sepa: 4 But i lots The 1900 2 ac: Ferrt 1984 ad ja resu Ferr conf< Note that acre even variance have requ Finally, 2/6/86. recommend! of 1 add! site (see Approval the Aldei applicani septic cc swimming ] Staff wil direction Di. itrator Road - Variances -^j£,U6: TO ^ f!T‘ J^T-^ Jir. ^ <^^*W ^ ptzK^^i-r I houser east lot Dt 1 5/28/85; ing Commission 2/18/86 n property# 1900 ay, 1985 as a zoning lirection that perhaps at that 2 additional Please review Exhibit parcels. Applicant the two vacant lots ea and width based on y and currently affect )f this property into .ot size. >ad, requests to build . Ferrell presumably I a second house would ince allowed only one . 10/12/59 - Adoption of 1 acre, min. lot nearly meet, b) also substandard lots held substandard common — msmmm 1 Zoning File #990 March 3# 1986 Page 2 ownership lots would not be granted building permits, and established that the Council could allow variances to this section at Council's discretion. 1967 Zoning Code - Property still zoned 1 acre, 140* width, no substantial changes from 1959 Ordinance #22, but did state that substandard existing lots of record as of 9/14/67 under singleElUIL/O UdllVAOIJL va Ak W W o ^ ^ --------------------- ^ separate ownership could be granted building permits if the Council finds they would not adversely affect public health or safety. Did not specifically discuss common ownership lots, but by omission inferred again they would not be granted permits. 1974 Zoning Code - Property rezoned to 2-acre, 200* minimum width. This code set specific standards for use of substandard single separate ownership lots of record in the 2 acre zone i.e.: “ must be at least 1 acre, 109* width 2) must meet all septic requirements or be sewered 3) meets all other applicable standards But again, the 1974 code specifically did not discuss common ownership lots. The Alden Anderson common ownership lot buildability application at 1900 Shoreline Drive was denied in 1981 based on lack of the required 2 acre lot area, setting a precedent for denial of situations such as Ferrell's. 1984 Zoning Code - requires Council approval to separate (read "sell**) adjacent undeveloped non-conforming commonly owned lots if the resulting lots do not meet area or width standards. Clearly in the Ferrell case, Council approval is required in order to separate the conforming 2.9 acre group of parcels into substandard parcels. Note that the 0.85 acre center lot, which would only be approximately 0.97 acre even if road right-of-way was included, would likely have required a variance under all previous zoning codes, and both vacant parcels would have required variances since the 1974 zoning code. Finally, please review the exhibits, especially the memo's of li/13/85 and 2/6/86. Planning Commission reviewed this application on 2/18/86 and recommended denial of 2 additional building sites, but recommended approval of 1 additional site for a density of approximately 1.5 acres per building site (see exhibit D). Approval of even 1 new site will set a precedent in complete reversal of the Alden Anderson denial in 1981. Weigh this against the fact that applicant has shown that the 2 proposed building sites both can meet the septic code requirements if development of the property is minimal (no swimming pools, no tennis courts). Staff will draft a resolution for your next meeting reflecting Council's direction. •r'fr , ei . .<Wi* I m WMm h' r- • ■ " ..f •'it • Jf h fo:Prcns Date: Subject Note: List of I. Re; lots wo Th the on! (p.2.). II. previoi; separat of at ] so whic .ts, and established ection at Council's re, 140* width, no but did state that L4/67 under single mits if the CouncTT ilth or safety. Did s, but by omission 200' minimum width, substandard single ne 1.e.: birered uss common ownership lity application at Lack of the required f situations such as parate (read "sell") owned lots if the ds. Clearly in the der to separrte the ard parcels. s approximately 0.97 :ely have recjuired a leant parcels would imo's of li/13/85 and tion on 2/18/86 and recommended approval 5 acres per building implete reversal of Lnst the fact that IS both can meet the irty is minimal (no reflecting Council's •fv. F'"i i <!> ■ m il ■7 A r4 x.y. ? I •mmToirrcai:Council MembersMichael P. Gaffron# Assitant Zoning Administrator Date:March 14, 1986 Subject: 1990 ward Ferrell - 3405 Watertown - Variance Additional Information Motes Please refer to your memo from the March 10 meeting. List of Exhibits A - 1974 Public Hearing Minutes - Rezoning B - Similarly situated properties - A-M (map) C - Sketches I. Re: Ferrell comment that at time of rezoningx Ci^ seated that existi^ lots would still be buildable.. The attached copy of the 1974 rezoning public the only reference I could find regarding the status of existing lots (p. 2 •). II-Documentation of Similir Cases in the Rural Zone. SO which have a high potential for a future variance request. A) 320 Woodhill* Road - 2 parcels: w/house-3.5 acre? acre; vacant lot fronts on Edgewood Hills Road. vacant-1.1 m B) 105 Cygnet Place - 2 parcels: w/house-l.Q acre; acre. vacant-1.0 C^ 3865 Bayside Road - 2 parcels: w/house-0.7 acre; vacant-l'Z acre. D) 341 West Lake Street - 3 parcels: w/house-0.5 acre: vacant- 0.5 acre; vacant-0.5 acre. E) Lakeview Golf Course - 4 parcels: Golf Course-125 acres; vacant-1.98 acres; vacant-1.98 acres; vacant-0.75 acres(only parcel with road frontage). F) 1080/1090 Heritage Lane - 3-plus parcels: w/house-7.0 acres(estate); vacant-1.0 acres; vacant-1.0 acres. G) 1425 Bayridge Road - 2 parcels: w/house-1.0 acre; vacant-1.1 acre. H) 1900 Shoreline Drive - 2 parcels: w/house-1.4 acre; vacant 1.7 acre. Pile #990 Page 2 of III. To 1: ICBtrator nee - 0 meeting. ap) ty stated that existing learing minutes contains :atus of existing lots « >ne is" referred to in the are commonly owned but eview uncovered a total :ument here the dozen or B request: se-3.5 acre; vacant-1.1 Road. Be-1.0 acre; vacant-1.0 ase-0.7 acre; vacant-1.2 /house-0.5 acre: vacant- Golf Course-125 acres; vacant-0.75 acres(only 5 parcels; w/house-7.0 .0 acres. )use-1.0 acre; vacant-1.1 /house-1.4 acre; vacant- am r; Pile «990 Page 2 of 2 I) 300 Sixth Ave. N.- 2-plus parcels: w/house-100 ac,^; vacant 1.5 acre. j) 879 North Brown Road - 2 parcels; w/house-1.0 acre; vacant- 2.6 acres. K) 960 N. Willow Drive - 2 parcels: w/house-1.0 acre; vacant- 1.0 acre. L) 320 Turnham Road — 2 parcels: w/house —1.7 acres; vacant-1.1 acres. M) 200 Bederwood Road — 4 parcels: w/house-0.9 acre; vacaiftt — 0. 6.acre; vacant - 1.1 acre; vacant - 1.0 acre. These 13 cases can be broken down into a number of categories: 1. Total acreage of commonly-owned parcels is great enough to yield conforming lots if lot lines are re-arranged: A,E,F,I. 2. Total acreage of commonly—owned parcels yields only enough area for a single substandard lot with existing house: C#DrL. 3. Total acreage of commonly-owned parcels yields enough area for a single conforming lot with house» but not enough additional gix’ea for a second conforming lot: B»G»HrJ»K»M (these are very similar to Ferrell situation). III. To help Council assess the impact of granting or denying the Ferrel1 variances> consider the following figures: - Number of existing developed lots in the unsewered residential zones: 1,050 approximately - Number of undeveloped, substandard sized lots, in single separate ownership in unsewered zones: x5 identified - Number of unsewered common ownership situations with a realistic potential for requesting variances to lot area in order to gain an additional building site; 22 identified (13 of these shown as A-M attached) - Within a 1/2 mile radius of the Ferrell properties (excluding the 3 Stubbs Bay Study Area streets Tonka Avenue, Crestview Avenue, Eastlake Street where sewer is contemplated) the existing developed lot sizes are: 2.0 acre or larger - 39 1.25 acre to 1.99 acre - 13 ,75 acre to 1.24 acre - 23 Less than .75 acre - 11 To: From: Date: Subje Hr. F- the r e-100 ac.+j vacant- e-1.0 acre; vacemt- 8-1.0 acre; vacant- 7 acres; vaeant-1.1 0.9 acre; vacant - s. categories: is great enough to anged: A,E,FrI. yields only enough ig house: C,D,L» yields enough area )t enough additional ,M (these are very denying the Ferrell isewered residential d lots, in single sntified situations with a to lot area in order ntified (13 of these coperties (excluding Avenue, Crestview plated) the existing H exH.i:fo: Froa: Date: Subjects Orono Council Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator May 21, 1986 #990 Ward Ferrell 3405 Watertown Road - Variances - Denial Resolution Attached is a resolution for denial of the variances requested by Hr. Ferrell to construct 2 additional houses on his property. The Council's procedural options are as follows: 1. Adopt the denial resolution as drafted. In this case, Mr. Ferrell would have to wait 6 months before he could reapply for the variances, if he so wished, per Section 10.08, Subdivision 5. 2. Table the application indefinitely. This would be advisable only if the applicant requests a tabling based on additional iubstantial evidence he wishes to present. 3. Allow the applicant to revise his application to a 1- additional-building-site request, if he wishes, which some members of Council have indicated would be looked upon more favorably. In this case. Council could either cease action on the denial resolution, or adopt a revised denial resolution which denies the 2-additional lot request but finds that the revised request is a change of conditions which was recommended for approval by the Orono Planning Commission at their February 18, 1986 meeting, hence, the 6-month reapplication moratorium would be waived. Allowing such a revision of the application does not commit the Council to approving the 1- additional lot request. Staff would recommend that if applicant does wish to revise his request, the application be referred back to the Planning Commission for further review. Staff would suggest the following language be incorporated into the resolution as item #41 if you choose Option 1 above: 41. At the City Council meeting of JIfny 3 986, the applicant was advised of the options to a) table if he has additional substantial evidence to submit; or b) to revise his application to request only 1 —additional lot on the 2.9 acre parcel instead of 2-additional lots; or c) choose neither and waive any right to further review of this application by the City Council. The applicant chose to waive further Council review of the application. TC? APPi.i y\A A-2-l'SC. H-C> WM$. ator s requested by erty. lis casef Mr. Ld reapply for Subdivision 5. i be advisable on additional tion to a 1- , which some :ed upon more ase action on solution which t the revised :ommended for : February 18, atorium would ition does not lot request, to revise his the Planning orporated into the applicant as additional is application parcel instead live any right Council. The eview of the AB'irr , fie®" Dates Subjects Mayor GrabekOrono Council MembersCity Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator May 29, 1987 #990 Ward Ferrell 3405 Watertown Road - Variances - Denial Resolution List of Bzhibita Please refer to your information packet from the last meeting. Additional Exhibits: Exhibit A - Information/Surveys Submitted by Applicant at 5/26/87 Meeting 1) Swan Lake Plat - Mills New Subdivision 2) 900 North Brown Road 3) 1925 West Farm Road Exhibit B - Denial Resolution as Drafted With Exhibit "A" (Sketch of Properties in Question) Discussion - I. Cases/situations that applicant feels are similar. The applicant, at your May 26 meeting, suggested that there are many cases similar to his that the City has approved. In fact, because the prime differentiating factor is common ownership, none of the cases he brought up are similar: A) Swan Lake Addition - specifically Williaun Mills* Jr. plat - this is a recent plat (1985—86) which divided Lot 7 into two lots each of which contains two dry buildable acres exclusive of the lake/pond This plat has absolutely no simxlanty to what Ferrell is requesting. Note that the City has granted variances for individual, pre-existing, separately owned substandard lots in the Swan Lake Addition. The kev is separately ovmed. B) 900 North Brown Road - this lot was created as part of the plat Farm at Long Lake" in 1978 under current zoning standards. The lot at 900 North Brown Road contains about 2.1 dry acres > *;otal, but of which only 0.9 acres is outside of an extensive drai easement on the property. This lot was in separate o%imership, wat, created under currsnt; lo^ aroa codas and obviously was not considarad as baing a substandard lot when created, as long as any house proposed to be built on it could meet the City’s septic concerns (primary and alternate site) and setbacks, which it does. (NOTE that at that time in 1978, the City did not exclude drainage easement area from the dry buildable. Now we do.) Staff has told the applicant on numerous occasions over recent years that it is unlikely the City would allow building permits for his adjacent parcels. A similar application by Alden Anderson at 1900 Shoreline Drive resulted in Council voting 4-0 to deny separation of adjacent 1.4 acre and 1.8 acre commonly owned parcels from each other^ based on 1} lack of demonstrated hardship; 2) no sanitary sewer available; 3) insufficient area; 4) insufficient width. I have included the draft resolution from this application, which should h»lp to clarify the City's past position on applications of thi& yp® (note that the Anderson resolution was never adopted because he withdrew his application after Council voted to have staff draft a denial resolution). 1 have included the tax history for 1974-1985 on the properties (see Exhibit J). It is noteworthy that the valuation of the parcel in question (P.I.D. 0007) was reduced starting in 1983, and the parcel was assessed incrementally as compared to the parcel with the house; i.e. the adjacent parcels appear to be valued as part of the main lot, not as separate building sites. Because Mr. Ferrell insisted on bringing this application to you even though he was told of the slim chances for approval, staff accepted the application on an appeal/interpretation basis. Does the Planning Commission find any hardship or circumstance that would suggest the standards should not apply to this property? :.. ^ I j ^ ‘t- T" w 1 Tot Frews Dates Sul) ject I Xdst of Ext- Exl* Ext* EX^ Ex) Ex) Ex) Ex) Ex) Ex) Exl Th zoning and sep totalin acres r permit In cant, i the req was eff Alden I grant a the apt varianc denied, zoning PI the Pla inf orm< the apE Lots 7 house c PI grantin code. ccasions over Llow building atlon by Alden ril voting 4-0 acre commonly demonstrated fficient area; esolutlon from tie City's past tne Anderson is application ^solution). 1-1985 on the the valuation id starting in IS compared to s appear to be Iding sites. application to for approvalr rotation basis. : circumstance ipply to this eW-il Orono Council Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator April 30, 1985 #903 Ward P. Ferrell, 340S Watertown Road - Zoning Code Interpretation List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners L^st Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Proposed Site Plan Exhibit P - Staff Sketch of Lot Areas Exhibit H - Staff Letter to Applicant 2/27/85 Exhibit I - Draft Resolution From Alden Anderson (Application #635) Exhibit K - Snute^IrL Planning Commisaion Meeting 4/15/85 Exhibit L - Staff Memo to Planning Commission 4/8/85 “.7 “.' acres ^Lpectively. The applicant wishes to obtain a building permit for the 1.04 acre lot. In staff's preliminary review of this request cant, it was cleL that the application was the request of Alden Anderson on Shoreline Drive in was effectively denied before it was withdrawn. Based on the riLn'lnde^s^i'' denial, ®taf^®^t Council wou^ grant a variance for the Ferrell application. the applicant to spend extreme amounts of ®°"®y variance application, soil testing, survey work, etc. only to be denied, staff felt obligated to advise the applicant to submit zoning appeal application with $100.00 fee. Please review my memo to Planning Conmission °J YHH the Planning Commission minutes# and the exhibits- most informal consensus of the Planning Commission was that at most the applicant might be allowed one building site Lots 7 and 8 for a total of 1.89 acres, leaving the existing house on 1.01 acres. Please advise the applicant whether or not granting a variance to the rural common ownersnip section of t code. w i i*.- '-'■jq Toi Froas Date I Subjects Applicat subs resi< List of B] Exhil Exhi) Exhil Exhil Exhil Exhil Exhil Exhil Exhil Exhil Exhil Code Sect: Sect: C. unde cont: easer Coun< of SI area Sect: A. I an "I Chap deta Coun< the i 3. reco sewei and £ withe ay-/9-67 tor f*r aA^T, j 4/15/85 5 :he RR-IB le, wellr ^ parcels and 0.85 building i appli- bical to 1, which 1 on the :ely not an force he full ly to be submit a /8/85 and 5 that the it at most combining existing L consider Lon of the C UTOsPlanning Co: Ttmz Michael P. Date:November 13 Subject:#990 Ward Variances Application - Lot area/lot width variances to construct homes on two substandard vacant commonly-owned lots adjacent to the existing residence at 3405 Watertown Road. List of Exhibit Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Applications For 2 Vacant Lots Plat Map Property Owners List Surveyf Soils Report» Site Plan For Center Lot Survey, So:* Is Report, Site Plan For West Lot Planning COinmission Minutes 4/15/85 Council Minutes 5/28/85 Notice to Applicant 5/31/85 Tax History Council Minutes 9/22/58 Pertinent Ordinances Dating to 1950 Code Sections Pertinent Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C) (Current code) C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non-conforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (A) (3) A. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 in an "R" District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgement of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: 3. In "R" Districts Not Served by Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record in any "R" District in the City not served by public sanitary sewer must meet the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter and shall not be utili-^ed for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval. mmwm f V ^ - n zoning File #9S November 13, 15 Page 2 of 5 Per J or regist Registrar Minnesota if requir The appl: district total are contained ’ westerly pare wishes to obta The 1950 districts, inc was located, of one acre. Ferrell reques likely that F build another Code allowed minutes 9/22/ Planning Comi Commission me existed in Ore 140' width an platting, and since that tiir have been coni the 1967 Zoni: and 140' widt gardlng lots c 31.200. 1967 (th< ownershi requirem for a si: judgment health o: by not m< The 1967 differentiate using the ten ownership woi Under this co« the 1.04 acre the 1-acre zo Council appr< was included •■-jw&^H^J trator Road - istruct homes on two ent to the existing ;enter Lot rest Lot of non-conforming, f sewer, aligned in a private road or road not permitted without .red if the separation .tes that satisfy the r. n January 1, 1975 in iments of the Zoning :or a single family e judgement of the health or safety and :ary Sewer. A lot of i by public sanitary >f the Zoning Chapter led dwelling purposes \ : : ■V Kl:. •.•.'4 ■vrfi • yVv::'; a mj m p it' * 4 if’m hS ” - ■m- A '.jST's Zoning File #990 November 13# 1985 Rage 2 of 5 per subdivision 6. a ‘Lot of Record* is or registered land »“" ^r^ftt^s^or Hennepin Counfy. Sin^Mo”. %io% to January 1, 1975, and after approval by the Council if required. dt t ft tow\^f 2 9°o" acrir" TOV*efistinrho'’uVe';*wM? «d TepUc Vyftemdistrict totaling 2.90 acres. ahc ^ 1 ,*«« ^ m The two wi.he. to 5bt.ln building pgin»it« for «.ch o( tho we.totly patcel.- The 1950 zoning Code (adopted 7/10/5“> lSedf"'^f *sU"b^'^y biiid nnothot iMid.nc. bo would hauo to “"‘^^xide, ^caoM in g.n.t.l th. Planning Commission - minutes ha aithouah a platting codeCommission meeting or any subsequent action. Although a piacring ;fonidfh rd"%ppr:liiVt^^iy^^ lince'th^t uL!*'%L*"^%^\ls“?ncl^^drng the t°a^i9ht-of-way w;ul/ fhri9irzin;rcfdt and 140* width. Single Family Residential. That 1967 Code starea, garding lots of record, as follows? •»! onn R.l«tlna Lots. A lot of record existing upon September 14, 1967 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under siji^lg separ^^ ownirship in a "R" Residential District. rcquireSints of the Zoning Code as to area or «tdth may be utilize for a single family detached dwelling purpose Provide „ubiio judgment of the Council such use does d®<Ji<^er^shiphealth or safety. Single separate ownership includes joint ownersn p by not more than two persons The 1967 Code did not discuss common by differentiate between sewered ®^""®®."®/®^^^that other types of using the term -Single Separate^er^^^^^^^ did^^nft def"ine in whl[? way. ownership would be treated differently w,„_ been allowed to build on under this code, the applicant would likely have been aiiowea the 1.04 acre lot w^ut a variance because the^lot -t^f/Ve"fequired cfunfi?lppr°o"a!,^%1enfingfn%^ the area in the road right-of-way was included in the lot area at that time. KL ?>>; fn'-.' i 4 >••1,1 I j mm Zoning F November Rage 3 o The Single F follows: 31. (tl sec qui a fl men or 31. in mee ma^ Cou Und lot are. again d: commonly of at 1 adjacent not be I the requ Upc followin C. de^ cor eas Cot of are » y : lot for which a deed i the office of the or Hennepin County, roval by the Council in the RR-IB zoning 1, and septic system 1.01 acres. The two sly. The applicant srly parcels. I a number of zoning h Ferrell’s property im building lot size ‘ffect in 1958 when roperty. It is very me that in order to cause in general the Lng lot (see Council was referred to ths i for the Planning ugh a platting code id off 2 lots each of about 1959 without ate for tax purposes -of “way would likely lots of record under s Zone R-IC, 1 acre >67 Code stated, re- j upon September 14, ier single separate I does not meet the dth may be utilized trovided that in the rsely affect public Ludes joint ownership operties nor did it ecord. However, by that other types of iefine in what way. allowed to build on et the standards of .ikely have required e road right-of-way I •; V' riL.mm A- i •-V. r If ■ ■m Zoning File #990 Hovember 13, 1985 Page 3 of 5 The 1974 Zoning Code declared this land to be zoned RR-IB, 2 Acf# Single Family Residential. As far as existing lots of record, it stated as follows: 31.201. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under sin£l.e separate ownership in an "R" District, which does not meet the re- quireinent.s of the Zoning Code as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judg ment of the Coundil such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: 31.203. In "R" districts of Greater Than One Acre. A lot of record in any "R" District in the City in excess of one acre, which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Code as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if the Council finds: (1) it is at least one acre ia size, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; and (2) it is either served by public sanitary sewer or meets all the septic system requirements of the City or other governmental body; and (3) it otherwise mets the requirements of this or other applicable ordinances. Under the 1974 Code, the Council at their option could have granted a lot area variance for a lot of single separate ownership, but the Code again did not specifically discuss the standards for the separation of commonly owned lots. The general City policy, as evidenced by the outcome of at least cae typical zoning application in 1981 was that unsewered adjacent lots owned in common could not be considered buildable and could not be separated unless each resulting lot or combination of lots included the required acreage in that zoning district. Upon recodification in 15tf4 the Zoning Code was amended to include the following Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C): C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non-conforming, un developed lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private^ road cr easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. -ij .v:t •V. A Zoning Fi. November i Page 4 of Staf; b# prohib either of creating appeared variance been turn direction dollar an fees, etc was that allow one Appl be declai provided could in all sites applican house, no alternate the "noti refuses t two vacan notice of Two 1. pern appr 2. i.e. zone The lots in t and are : benefit c which pre We E parcels separatee value, s Perhaps t lots wer« until 19‘ same as t separate A-'l .as zoned RR-IB, 2 Acre recordr it stated as ] upon January 1# 1975 3e) under single oes not meet the re- i may be utilized for ied that in the judg- affect public health re. A lot of record acrer which does not area or width only, ling purposes if the the average width of r sewer or meets all r other governmental s of this or other could have granted a irship, but the Code 3r the separation of ienced by the outcome . was that unsewered buildable and could :ion of lots included imended to include the non-conforming, un sewer, aligned in a private road or road lot permitted without red if the separation tes that satisfy the r. tm- -•u m ■;S w- ms 4V zoning Pile #990 November 13, 1985 Page 4 of 5 appeared before you in April 1985 on an appeal variance application at stcff's urging because a similar application had been turned down in recent years and staff wanted applicant direction from the Plannirg Commission and Council prior to spending ^9 dollar amounts in developing plans, septic testing, fees, etc. The Planning Commission and Council directive to was that it is unlikely chey would aprove two new houses, allow one new house rerulting in a 1.5 acre density on the total proper y. Applicant now appears before you requesting that both westerly be declared buildable. He has provided surveys of both parcels, and has orovided soil testing and septic system designs indicating that each lot could in fact support a primary and alternate drainfield all sites) to serve 3-bedroom houses, given no future applicant has not provided a survey of the property with the existing house, nor has he^rovided septic testing to prove that the property has an 2l?erna?e site for a drainfield. These items were refuses to accept the fact that in order to grant variances to two vacant lots, we also grant variances to the existing developed lot (see notice of 5/31/85). Two questions, then, need to be answered. 1. Does each lot, of and by itself, have the permanently support a house, septic system, well, and the other appropriate amenities in the rural zone? If so, 2. Is the Planning Commission and Council willing to set a precedent, i.e. do away with the common ownership limitation in the unsewered zone? The ramifications of Item 2 are significant. lots in the rural unsewered zones are commonly owned with and are 1/2 - 1 1/2 acres in area, and could expect to request the same benefit of buildability. Many more such lots have been legally combined, which presumably denies them any status unless re-subdivideo. We saw during the appeal that the tax valuations on Ferrells adjacent parcels were lowered as of 1983, which gives the ®PP®®^®5J®® separated lots were then given "accessory lot value and ^ value, since the main lot land value increased markedly at the Perhaps this was a result of the assessor realizing that the two lots were not buildable without variances. It would appear that perhaps up until 1979 and perhaps as late as 1982, the extra lots were valued much th- same as the main lot. Ferrell obviously felt he was paying taxes on the..e as separate building sites. Zoning Pi November Page 5 of A fu the neig Ferre11 * a acres, 2 increment group.) to serve although lots ave acre zon< less thai are d^tr sewers, situatior Reca site on a few yeari Are that just i*’ ■ . r ■ T ' - ..'V . . jB«P e appllcani: would! nee separation of Id result in the . ?he applicant ither than a full r application had int to get general to spending large veys# application to the applicant and perhaps would s total property. westerly parcels parcels^ and has Lng that each lot , system (mounds at icroachments. The7 \ ith the existing, t le property has an(^ lally requested in ^31/85. Applicant 3s to build on the leveloped lot (see le capability to .1, and the other to set a precedent, , in the unsewered lany as 28 vacant adjacent parcels request the same legally combined, ded. Ferrells adjacent sarance that the not building site at the same time, the two westerly ir that perhaps up e valued much the Lng taxes on these as v. . . . ">■ . ; . / Zoning Pile #990 Itovember 13, 1985 Page 5 of S A further criteria to consider is how do the lots in question fit into the neighborhood as far as lot size. Given a radius of 1/2 mile from Ferrell's property, 39 developed lots are 2 acres or more, 13 are 1.25 to 2 acres, 23 are .75-1.25 acres, and 11 are less than .75 acre. (These inersaents were picked so that the Ferrell lots could be categorized in one group.) (Note that the Stubbs Bay Study Area, where se%fer is contemplated to serve Eastlake Street, Tonka Avenue, and Crestview Avenue, was excluded although it is within the 1/2 mile radius. Those 38 or so houses are on lots averaging 1/2 acre or less.) It is clear to see that in Orono's two acre zone north and east of Stubbs Bay, the majority of existing lots are less than two acres. In general terms, the existing density and lot sizes are detrimental to our long-term program of development without City sewers. Additional houses on relatively small lots will not help that situation. Recall that the Alden Anderson application to allow a second building site on adjacent properties totaling 3.5 acres, was in effect turned down a few years ago. Are there any circumstances or hardships in the Ferrell application that justify a recommendation of approval? Tos Frosts Dates 8ubjec:t List of P] and coi techni and pr The po drainf situatd court, relati' F; buiIdi past, line i of 1 c Orono'i applic histor suffic ;ion fit into '2 mile from ire 1.25 to 2 :re. (These >rlzed in one contemplated was excluded 9uses are on i Orono's two Ing lots are nd lot sizes rithout City ot help that ;ond building :urned down a application • . y I y ' .-T Planning Conanission Members ^ Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date: February 6» 1986 Subjeirt: ZiMt of Badlibita _ wiK4«- X - Memn of 11/13/85 With Exhibits B - Survey^of Pro^rty With Existing House Exhibit B - survey or Fvistina Bouse Exhibit C - Soil* Report. Site PI*" Exhibit D - Planning Commission Mxnutes 11/18/85 pe'rrtl^*h ’ls noTEmitted the additional survey and “°i*\*inrhouse *'°Gi ‘ve°n’' nriutirr^ncVoactaents? therV i^^ adequate :fea on%he lot SilS t“e existing house to replace the septic system with a fully conforming system. Lainf’eld sites. There ^hVus^ :ou “t"'e"tcr«"e":^prt;o:e^ "?he properties lend themselves to relatively low levels of development. Finally, from a zoning code standpoint, even if Orono's effectiveness in . ®roMrty owner and theapplicant's real and preceived rights as a proi^rty own history of zoning code changes over the years. Are sufficient justifications to grant a variance? 'v^ fm rv*.i;v I* ■■ ■1. /T 90:FROM:DATE: SOBJ: Orono Ci Michael March 3, #990 War Idst of Exhibits: A - Applicati B - Plat Map C - Property D - Notice tc E - Composit€ F - Survey, S G - Survey, S H - Survey, S 1 - Staff mer j - Minutes: K L M N Tax Hist< Council 1 Pertineni 1981 Dra: Shoreline Council original appeal, at which i 1 additional bui building sites wo D, the composite is requesting pei adjacent to his h the current 2-acr To briefly revie\^ this property: 1950 Zoning separate par 1955 - Origi 1958 - Ferre a second hou told by Herk require a sr residence pe 1959 - Ferre of Ordinanc width of 14C allowed Cour in single i X y and r the tquate eptic : memo spears wel 1 f lots, y the if a tennis res to B new i the i the :oval :t on t the d the there fOsFBOM: DACT s SOBJs Orono City Council MembersMichael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator March 3, 1986 #990 Ward Ferrellr 3405-3411-3415 Watertown toad - Variances Idat fQj- variances on 2 vacant lots B - Plat Map C — Property Owners List D - Notice to Applicant 2/20/86 E - Composite Site Plan n" ^ V S Fit ^ I P - sSr?^“''soiirKe^rt, Site Plan for existing house, east lot G - Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan for center lot p - Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan for west lot I - Staff memos 11/13/85, 2/6/86 «s/oo/qc. j - Minutes: Planning Commission 4/15/85; Councilj ninure Commission 11/18/85; Planning Commission 2/18/86 K - Tax History, 1974 - 1985 L - Council Minutes September 22, 1958 M - Pertinent Ordinances Dating to 1950 iQfift N - 1981 Draft Denial Resolution - Alden Anderson property, 1 Shoreline Dr. (similar case) D thriomoolitVsite plan for this 2.9 acre group of parcels. Applicant i; requesting p«misSion to build houses on each of the adjacent to h\s^ home. The lots are substandard in area and width based o the current 2-acref 200 foot width standards. To briefly review the code standards that previously and currently affect this property; 1950 zoning Ordinance - (Prior to division of this property into separate parcels) - Property zoned 1-acre min. lot size. 1955 - Original Platting Code residence per lot. 1959 - Ferrell presumably completed subdivision. 3^/12/59 of Ldinance #22 - a) required minimum lot area of 1 acre, min. lot widfh of 140* which Ferrell lots would meet or nearly meet, b) a so ,• 'V mm y.' '■1 Zoning File #990 March 3, 1986 Page 2 ownership lots i that the Counci discretion. 1967 Zoning Co substantial ch. substandard ex separate owners finds they woul not specifical inferred again \ 1974 Zoning Coc This code set separate owners! 1) must be 2) must me€ 3) meets a] But again, the 1 lots. The Alden Ander 1900 Shoreline I 2 acre lot area Ferrell's. 1984 Zoning Code adjacent undev resulting lots Ferrell case, C conforming 2.9 a Note that the 0.85 ac acre even if road ric variance under all i have required variant Finally, please revi 2/6/86. Planning C recommended denial of of 1 additional site site (see exhibit D). Approval of even 1 n the Alden Anderson applicant has shown septic code require; swimming pools, no t< Staff will draft a j direction. r itrator Road “ Variances m 3C-. ^-p-i p.y ^ Fts.jfft^i^l L^ house/ east lot )t 1 5/28/85; ing Commission 2/18/86 n property, 1900 ay, 1985 as a zoning direction that perhaps ut that 2 additional Please review Exhibit : parcels. Applicant : the two vacant lots :ea and width based on y and currently affect )f this property into .ot size. ad, requests to build Ferrell presumably a second house would nee allowed only one . 10/12/59 - Adoption I of 1 acre, min. lot nearly meet, b) also substandard lots held substandard common- • I**,? Pi : ■••1- • :y ••■>1 i* ‘ ’m. o:- i Zoning File #990 March 3, 1986 Page 2ownership lots would not be granted building permits, and established that the Council could allow variances to this section at Council's discretion. 1967 Zoning Code - Property still zoned 1 acre, 140' width, no substantial changes from 1959 Ordinance #22, but did state that substandard existing lots of record as of 9/14/67 under single separate ownership could be granted building permits if the Council finds they would not adversely affect public health or safety. Did not specifically discuss common ownership lots, but by omission inferred again they would not be granted permits. 1974 Zoning Code - Property retoned to 2-acre, 200* minimum width. This code set specific standards for use of substandard single separate ownership lots of record in the 2 acre zone i.e.: 1) must be at least 1 acre, 100' width 2) must meet all septic requirements or be sewered 3) meets all other applicable standards But again, the 1974 code specifically did not discuss common ownership lots. The Alden Anderson common ownership lot buildability application at 1900 Shoreline Drive was denied in 1981 based on lack of the required 2 acre lot area, setting a precedent for denial of situations such as Ferrell's. 1984 Zoning Code - requires Council approval to separate (read "sell") adjacent undeveloped non-conforming commonly owned lots if the resulting lots do not meet area or width standards. Clearly in the Ferrell case. Council approval is required in order to separate the conforming 2.9 acre group of parcels into substandard parcels. Note that the 0.85 acre center lot, which would only be approximately 0.97 acre even if road right-of-way was included, would likely have required a variance under all previous zoning codes, and both vacant parcels would have required variances since the 1974 zoning code. Finally, please review the exhibits, especially the memo's of 11/13/85 and 2/6/86. Planning Commission reviewed this application on 2/18/86 and recommended denial of 2 additional building sites, but recommended approval of 1 additional site for a density of approximately 1.5 acres per building site (see exhibit D). Approval of even 1 new site will set a precedent in complete reversal of the Alden Anderson denial in 1981. Weigh this against the fact that applicant has shown that the 2 proposed building sites both can meet the septic code requirements if development of the property is minimal (no swimming pools, no tennis courts). Staff will draft a resolution for your next meeting reflecting Council's direction. TotPrcai: Date: Subject Motet !List of I. Re: lots wo Th the oni (p.2.). II.D previoi: separat of at ] so whic f * ) ind established n at Council's 40' width, no id state that under single if the Councri ir safety. Did t by omission minimum width. ;andard single ommon ownership application at of the required nations such as (read "sell") lots if the :iearly in the 0 separrte the reels. roximately 0.97 have required a parcels would of 11/13/85 and on 2/18/86 and fnended approval es per building ite reversal of the fact that th can meet the is minimal (no cting Council's Subject. KCouncil MembersMichael P. Gaffron, Assitant Zoning Administrator March 14, 1986 mif #990 Ward Ferrell - 3405 Watertown Additional Information Variance - Please refer to your nemo from the March 10 meeting. List of Exhibits A - 1974 Public Hearing Minutes - Reroning B - Similarly situated properties - A-M (map) C - Sketches I. Re: Ferrell comment that at time of rezoning, City stated that existi^ Tots would still be buildable. The attached copy of the 1974 teioning public hearing minutes contains the only reference I could find regarding the status of existing lots (p • 2 • ) • Doc^imentation of Simil ir Cases ifbe Rural Zone^ 3 ’o “*suOTt\a\io^=snVlhi^c ’’h^ X t^T^o^^^t her°e''rhe^ dor^“o^ SO which have a high potential for a future variance request: A) 320 Woodhi 1 !• Road - 2 parcels: w/house-3.5 acre; vacant-1.1 acre; vacant lot fronts on Edgewood Hills Road. B) 105 Cygnet Place - 2 parcels: w/house-1.0 acre; vacant-1.0 acre. 3865 Bayside Road - 2 parcels: w/house-0.7 acre; vacant-1.2 acre. D) 341 West Lake Street - 3 parcels; w/house-0.5 acre: vacant- 0.5 acre; vacant-0.5 acre. E) Lakeview Golf Course - 4 parcels; Golf acres, vacant-1.98 acres; vacant-1.98 acres; vacant-0.75 acres(only parcel with road frontage). F) 1080/1090 Heritage Lane - 3-plus parcels: w/house-7.0 acres(estate); vacant-1.0 acres; vacant-1.0 acres. G) 1425 Bayridge Road - 2 parcels: w/house-1.0 acre; vacant-1.1 acre. H) 1900 Shoreline Drive - 2 parcels; w/house-1.4 acre; vacant- 1.7 acre. w§mm ■ ■ ■ mm "■m m Mrc file #990 Page 2 of 2 1.5 2.6 K) 1.0 L) acre 0.6 These 13 1. yiel 2. area 3. for area simi III. To help C variances, con - Nu zone - Nu sepa - Nu real to q show - Wi the Aver dev€ •« ¥ - Ktor Bting tated that existing ng minutes contains I of existing lots , iferred to in the commonly owned but uncovered a total : here the dozen or jest: .5 acre; vacant-1.1 ,0 acre; vacant-1.0 D.7 acre? vacant-1.2 je-0.5 acre: vacant- E Course-125 acres; int-0.75 acres(only reels: w/house-7.0 cres. •1.0 acre; vaeant-1.1 se-1.4 acre; vacant- file #990 Page 2 of 2 I) 300 Sixth Ave. H.- 2-pluS parcels: w/house-100 ac.+; vacant l.S acre. J) 879 North Brown Road - 2 parcels; w/house-l.O acre? vacant- 2.6 acres. K) 960 N. Willow Drive - 2 parcels: w/house-l.O acre? vacant^ 1.0 acre. Ii) 320 Turnham Road — 2 parcels: w/house—1.7 acres? vacant—1.1 acres. M) 200 Bederwood Road - 4 parcels: w/house-0.9 acre? vacant - 0.6 acre; vacant - 1.1 acre; vacant - 1.0 acre. These 13 cases can be broken down into a number of categories: X. Total acreage of commonly-owned parcels is great enough to yield conforming lots if lot lines are re-arranged: ArE^Prl. 2. Total acreage of commonly-owned parcels yields only enough area for a single substandard lot with existing house: C^OrL. 3. Total acreage of commonly-owned parcels yields enough area for a single conforming lot with house* but not enough additional area for a second conforming lot: B*G*H*J*K,M (these are very similar to Ferrell situation). III. To help Council assess the impact of granting or^ denying the Ferrell variances * consider the following figures: — Number of existing developed lots in the unsewered residential zones: 1*050 approximately - Number of undeveloped* substandard sized lots* in sinSL^il. separate ownership in unsewered zones: 15 identified - Number of unsewered common ownership situations with a realistic potential for requesting variances to lot area in order to gain an additional building site: 22 identified (13 of these shown as A-M attached) - Within a 1/2 mile radius of the Ferrell properties (excluding the 3 Stubbs Bay Study Area streets Tonka Avenue* Crestview Avenue* Eastlake Street where sewer is contemplated) the existing developed lot sizes are: 2.0 acre or larger - 39 1.25 acre to 1.99 acre - 13 .75 acre to 1.24 acre - 23 Less than .75 acre - 11 m Mm mM !: • l! ’ A, ^ I To: Frexa: Date: Subject: Atta. Mr. Ferre: The < 1. i Ferr< the 2. ■ only subs' 3. addi memb f avo the < deni raqu appr< 1986 be w. comm Staf: requ Comm. Staf; the resol .t/o c-< L- 6? ■ ouse-100 ac.4-; vacant ouse-l.O acre? vacant- >use-1.0 acre? vacant- -1.7 acres; vacant-1.1 use-0.9 acre; vacant - icre. of categories: !ls Is great enough tO arranged: A,E,P,I. ils yields only enough {ting house: C,D,L. Is yields enough area not enough additional ,K,M (these are very ^ denying the Ferrell ‘ unsewered residential ized lots, in single identified £ situations with a >s to lot area in order dentified (13 of these properties (excluding k Avenue, Crestview mplated) the existing 5^ 1 r.{, ■ t-.' yi ■M 5l r. ' i m v.f j % 4 exH.A.To:Orono Council Members Proas Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: May 21, 1986 #990 Ward Ferrell 3405 Watertown Road Variances - Denial Resolution Attached is a resolution for denial of the variances requested by Mr. Ferrell to construct 2 additional houses on his property. The Council's procedural options are as follows: 1. Adopt the denial resolution as drafted. In this case, Mr. Ferrell would have to wait 6 months before he could reapply for the variances, if he so wished, per Section 10.08, Subdivision 5. 2. Table the application indefinitely. This would be advisable only if the applicant requests a tabling based on additional substantial evidence he wishes to present. 3. Allow the applicant to revise his application to a 1- additional-building-site request, if he wishes, which some members of Council have indicated would be looked upon more favorably. In this case. Council could either cease action on the denial resolution, or adopt a revised denial resolution which denies the 2-additional lot request but finds that the revised request is a change of conditions which was recommended for approval by the Orono Planning Commission at their February 18, 1986 meeting, hence, the 6-month reapplication moratorium would be waived. Allowing such a revision of the application does not commit the Council to approving the 1- additional lot request. Staff would recommend that if applicant does wish to revise his request, the application be referred back to the Planning Commission for further review. Staff would suggest the following language be incorporated into the resolution as item #41 if you choose Option 1 above: 9 1 . 4.41. At the City Council meeting of JJny 1986, the applicant was advised of the options to a) table if he has additional substantial evidence to submit; or b) to revise his application to request only 1-additional lot on the 2.9 acre parcel instead of 2-additional lots; or c) choose neither and waive any right to further review of this application by the City Council. The applicant chose to waive further Council review of the application. -TO /A/rr caaJT-ts, yvA s'-o V ^uvvs ^-O i.-o ■ ■ mr WM fell ¥ i ■■■■■ ■■ * t •; .v- M ■ y' *.i .. j;.* • • • •• To Date: Subjei Mat < Discui cases prime broug] i' y f/ rator es requested by perty. his caser Mr. lid reapply for Subdivision 5. Ld be advisable on additional ition to a 1- 3, which some ked upon more ease action on •solution which at the revised commended for ,r February 18, ratoiium would :ation does not 1 lot request, to revise his the Planning corporated into , the applicant las additional :.is application parcel instead /aive any right y Council. The review of the Date: Subject : Mayor GrabekOrono Council MembersCity Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator May 29, 1987 #990 Ward Ferrell 3405 Waterto%m Road - Variances - Denial Resolution List of BShibits Please refer to your information packet from the last meeting. Additional Exhibits: Exhibit A - Information/^urveys Submitted by Applicant at 5/26/87 Meeting 1) Swan Lake Plat - Mills New Subdivision 2) 900 North Brown Road 3) 1925 West Farm Road Denial Resolution as Drafted With Exhibit "A" (Sketch of Properties in Question) Exhibit B - Discussion Cases/situaticms that applicant feels axe sisd.lar* The applicant, at your May 26 meeting, suggested that there are many cases similar to his that the City has approved. In fact, because the prime differentiating factor is common ownership, none of the cases he brought up are similar: A) Swan Lake Addition - specifically William Mills* Jr. plat - this is a recent plat (1985-86) which divided Lot 7 into two lots each of which contains two dry buildable acres exclusive of the lake/pond area. This plat has absolutely no similarity to what Ferrell is requesting. Note that the City has granted variances for individual, pre-existing, separately owned substandard lots in the Swan Lake Addition. The key is separately owned. B) 900 North Brown Road - this lot was created as part of the plat "Farm at Long Lake" in 1978 under current zoning standards. The lot at 900 North Brown Road contains about 2.1 dry acres cotal, but of which only 0.9 acres is outside of an extensive drai easement on the property. This lot was in separate ovmership, wa^, created under currsnt loti drca codes end obviously was not considered as bein^ a substandard lot when created, as long as any house proposed to be built on it could meet the City's septic concerns (primary and alternate site) and setbacks, which it does. (NOTE that at that time in 1978, the City did not exclude drainage easement area from the dry buildable. Now we do.) fe-:: Zoning File 1990 May 29, 1987 Page 2 of 4 C) 1925 West Farm Road -* This is a single building lot containing 2.1 acres of which about 0.27 acre is contained within a drainage easement for a creek (the same creek that traverses 900 North Brown Road), leaving 1.83 acres dry buildable. The septic system is not as shown on the site plan submitted by Ferrell, but is a mound system located southeast of the house, set substantially back from and at a much higher elevation than the creek. This case is not at all similar to Ferrell's. The fact is, the City has not issued a building permit or granted a lot area variance for yy substandard, commonly o%med lots in an unsewered zone since that 1974-T5 rezoning. Mr. Ferrell's request, if approved, would set a precedent that would suggest at least 22 other substandard lots in unsewered zones could be requesting similar consideration. It is staff's opinion that allowing substandard, unsewered lots to be built on will not be advantageous to the City in Its quest to keep sewer out of the rural areas. Ferrell's ownership and 19S8 snbdivision in relation to codes throughout the yearx. Please review the memos of March 3, 1988 and November 13, 1985 for a summary of how Ferrell's current situation came about and how changes in codes have affected his properties. The lots Ferrell created in 1958-59 appear to have met or nearly met the standards in effect at that time. On October 12, 1959, the Council adopted Ordinance #22 which allowed Council to grant variances for substandard lots in single separate ownership, inferring that commonly o%med lots would not be automatically granted variances, and inferred that in the case of ccsnmon-ownership lots, enforcement of that ordinance with respect to lots held in common o%mership would not arbitrarily deprive the property owner of a valuable right. (See Exhibit Z-3 of last meeting's packeFT) The 1967 Code said substantially the same thing, i.e. by stating that it would be appropriate to consider variances for substandard size separate ownership lots where health, safety and welfare concerns were satisfied, it inferred that such variances were not appropriate for sub standard common-ownership lots. The 1974 Code rezoned the property to 2-acre, 200' minimum width, and set up standards for the granting of variances for unsewered single separate ownership lots, i.e. 1 acre, 100' width, septic OK, meets all other zoning standards; again implying (but not saying) that common- ownership lots could not be granted variances. In 1981, the City Council effectively denied a similar application for common-ownership unsewered substandard lot buildability, establishing City policy clearly. dmi*''‘4- j -^4 r.V >1» .• Ui J m K- ■I • tir h ■ rsi Zoning File #9' May 29, 1987 Page 3 of 4 The 1984 common-owners result was a s Staff bel since October it never met t Staff all supported and Staff be since 1/1/75, Each Zon Zoning Code < unsewered lot effective 4/ undeveloped u if such a sal< III. Regardl boiIding Staff be 2 undoubted1 buildabilitj 10/12/59 unt rights only t Ferrell not as buildi them, and as without varl approval . A variances, a* basis, hards requirement, taking of ri< that the Cit subdivision additional additional i the existing w lot containing 2.1 drainage easement orth Brown Road)# em is not as shown and system located rom and at a much at all similar to »rmit or granted a ts in an unsewered est# if approved, r substandard lots :lon. sewered lots to be lest to keep sewer elation to codes ber 13, 1985 for a md how changes in met or nearly met 1959, the Council nt variances for ing that commonly and Inferred that St ordinance with arily deprive the of last meeting's e. by stating that substandard size are concerns were iropriate for sub- minimum width, and s for unsewered , septic OK, meets ring) that common er application for establishing City mm mmm d mm ■: - V ■■mm- f- % 'm m my P«R^r- Zoning File #990 May 29, 1987 Page 3 of 4 .. «4>*ted that unse%rered substandard C was « -- - - - - - - - staff balieve^ that „*^av biildabll'bacauae -e Zonin, Code. « been unbuildable without variances Since^^r/Trr buVVa."h‘uiiIab“^ithout variance, prior to l/i/75. _ ^ ^ M ^ ^ i m Ak Am Ml '-- - - - - - -- - w W 4-Ka Each zoning Code *5°“ d”t?ft‘'coL“^^^^ ^ub?Wnd«d zoning Code effective 1/1/75 for variances. The cur^t C^? unsewered lots were not to io„able terms that a substandard effective 4/1/84 "Ot be sold off separately .. 4. -e v.rrell's ’loss" if he doesn't get two »•*III. Regarding the eatent of Ferrell s boi Iding sites. staff believes that ““ *o'i t" be ing "l*e m than^l^acre, he had the 2 undoubtedly not buildable due lot (Parcel 3) from buildability right to “wwys to^ t^^^^ h«» buildability 9 ww —— - 1 /K Ferrell would have had the right sellnot arbJildable lots) to other parties prior to 4/1/84^ buildable SSU and as of 4/1/84 the Code says_ they without Co;mcU without variances,and can t be soia o 4/1/84 and applied for aooroval.^ And even if he of 10/26/84, there would be no variances, e°t°tding to Alan 0 so * „bing the variances to the area basis, hardship, or 3““tifwould logically be related to a requirement. Any "loss Staff suggests that, l*y ® taking of rights he has always ha • variance for Parcel 2 when his that the City formally granted « tiL never had "he right to 2 subdivision occurred in i”® 12/31/74 had the right additional lots, to the present has had the right cv on.yadditional lot, and from 1/1/75 to tne p the existing developed building site. m 4 U If V! Zoning File May 29, 1987 page 4 of 4 Staff : granted to reviewed hi wording of however, th mention of i that the Cit recognized 1955 Code a the road ri< Staff Re Attach< Ferrell to « The Coi 1. Adc would if he 2. Tal if the evider and ap rehear 3. A1 buildd have i Counci revise but fi recomn Februa would commit would appli' review Staff resolution 41. / advis evider additi c) cl applic Counci 'tmm red substandard It lots if the :hout variances .Idable because e that time has thout variances yi/75. p through the substandard current Code substandard >ff separately in't get two new 59 made Parcel re# he had the Parcel 3) from buildability It parcels (but he didn’t sell not buiIdable ithout Council nd applied for ere would be no ces to the area be related to a nless he proves reel 2 when his the right to 2 ht only to one e right bo only Zoning File #990 May 29, 1987 Page 4 of 4 staff has been able to locate no *.hf'citv%^er Jven the rwd right-of-way as part of his lot areas. Staff ftecowBendatiofi -> The Council’s procedural options are as follows: 1 f-Ha f^Anial resolution as drafted. In this case, Mr. Ferrell iiu “?ave''to wa"it 6 »o‘nth"."^fore he ~uld reapply for the variances, if he so wished.- per Section 10.08, Subdivision 5. reheard in May 1987. 3 Allow the applicant to revise hie application to a buildin7-»ite request, if he wishes. «hich son.e members of v.ouncil have indicated would be looked "P°" or Jdopt a S^lc?^r^“e r\^"errld‘llck“fthfpian'nin^ C^mmi'^io^n ^o^/urt^er review. staff would suggest the following language ^ incorporated into the resolution as finding #41 if you the applicant was l^visVd "o‘’f%hi%t!SS:^^"a?tine° ifTe%a> evllence to submit; or b) to revise his ®PP“<=V=\°Ud°it\Tal lo?s^^ or additional lot on the 2.9 acre parcel instead ^-additional lots^ or c) choose neither and waive any right to °/^th^^ application by the City Council. The applicant chose to wai Council review of the application. i K-:: « y riance was ever City ever even ode in 1955r the ell's division# reviewed and no Staff believes * they might have ijA platted as the owed to consider requested by Mr ase# Mr. Ferrell !or the variances# >e advisable only onal substantial ;cur in June 1986 hen the item was a 1-additional— bers of Council . In this case, ition# or adopt a mal lot request itions which was nission at their ;ation moratorium Lication does not : request. Staff his request# the sion for further >rporated into the 3 applicant was lal substantial request only 1- tional lots; or review of this :o waive f ..xther nwi 4#^ ♦ l».U • * : of noy teir.d .id ^nir.ce, atui th** except nfreet tM to>|re?uli:i«a and rc»tict!<5h ■ , - -. ‘CiWiw r^'.» IV. 3^1 XXL cert $ixni adven »m« toe sale o: .oOLVED AND ANX) BE rr > H. Wdi.. or o..Vr ---------------- “ h-fW draitaiiiif »* •lland within the above *onmf di; . diatriH ©a’ U»« Town of'triet except where *-he lautd un 1 S^";o plJsuam%) the Uwt cf ‘ which the bvuUl-.r.s or ^ i^‘«;‘’-'te^Mini:c.ota, to-trlt; tjxe is t.> be erected conil.tates jthc S.ae cl >i «*buUdmc tof as hereuialrer d A. OroM DUidet A “buildlnf lot* is here! _ . Two r>1 defined to be hind owned undlThat part of Sections two \-/i ^ .w ----1. Three (3). Township C»ean'^ Tnn?€ vj#e ----- nunuitd Seventeen (117). Bani* Twtr.*y-ihrea (*0. Ueaaop*o Cu-nt^. iltnr.es Tta. and of o«- , tion fhirty-r.ve (35). T owmI^ Ore Hindrcd «sfiitean <U»). I ?.an»;a T arr-nty-tbreo (33). “**'* I nepm County. Jlinnisota. de- ' senbed as loUooili \ sjl o( Sectio* Two (3)» Toe^, ship One « ---------------V (117), TtifTt acres in area, except the tjj, lot shall coiutitvite one "builJ land U-iM no^aaterly “ f . ^nd proeided further, t r:jh- wry of tte v^h-reTt iS^ime this rcsolutt. the Great ^nd”^d^nanc« shaU take effe< nnd t scef t Ibt tnangtttor piece a unpUtt?d separd one ownership wh.ch equals exceeds an area oX one and o! acre*, provided, ho we’" that where, at the tune this rt I'jfion and ordinance shall t. ctTcct. the land has been into lots and a plat filed of r ord with the Renter o? Hennepin County, and the trar of Titles of Hennepin Coi ty, and where the area of any « platted lot* is less than one said Orrno Township no, »« same is hereby designateof* xoning district qf the .^bwu^ - Orono, pursuant to the lam SUte of kl^nnesnU, ^ 1. Slahb'a Bar Wsttidr All of Section Three (3>. dweuin/ with aeec . .. cusuimmly — ^ m 0%__T2#wiael ^>Xlim.* as ihe-Guce Unei. cotaifas. gar ages, boat hou.«“- .at * - *------ \ ^ ’ OUfTttf UT W*'-U lie chtC three .v„-outh-.j stfued to prohibit an owner j;l. Of l:mo wnunumg on the 1••.sterly hue ofoi^._ ^ of as the Luce strv or profession which is ';!ft.i“Siiisierly toe l^xirAcnce on the Isnd at tbn t. 'TI k ^ith?0f wrr^f the mam• of the adoption of this wo of resTNortnern Rail- tion and ordinance, and the ISTd Ina .he south lino o. »'4 ’ .ctm^-a toj;eP|U^ro^iu ------------ Section Tluny-Uye <35). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED and ordained . That the fol- lowini; rules. regulaUcns and re* ctr.ction. with rc-pecl to of the lands and buildmss witon th- aforementioned zonmg dw- ♦nct shall bo nnd are hereby adorAed as follows, to-wit: ww ------------ . - 1 q-iM tonma district is hero- us* of ana land m the s, h- deef^ed to be a private rcci-i^.aning district for agricult^al •eutiai dhtoct, and no building (arnnng purpiues; _ lor .Ahci -trixture m improve* i- - -be x< •r...nt : r.all hcieutter Ia: rtGVlIlCai* ------------- strictioo. or from constructing building or buildings for use connection with such trade or dustry 'or profession which is existence on the land at the ti of th© adoption uf this rcsolut and ordinance, and the enactnv of this regulation and restrieti nor shall snythmg herein ci tained'b* construed to prohilit «______%«« fKxs Ct^Q -w. ------------- (arming pufp<»«s; ntir shaa ihuig eomaincxi.be i- u.nt • I'.all hcieutur 'a: crr.; v ’-.ntnied to pcohibrt !'.'t. rri i.- rtt'ind for 'se of be it.^a M opdratio^.0»- % t* %l». , IS'fSTa^ Township One •Hnwired Sgb teen (118). Rang* Tw*oty*w»** (23), Hennepin Comty, Ij^W K>ta, and SoctionaJlwe (8) and Eight (•). Hundred Seventeen (IIT), B*nE Twenty-three (23). Countv, MirncaoU. descrtD*a a II where the Vf^ Ito* «£5f y ship roed n^j^ing n South on center Section Hv« Towwi^p Ont Hundred Seventeen (llT), Rangv Twenty-three '(23), Hennepu County, Minneeota, inter^i the southerly side of the ilgh of way of the Minnesota cm Railroad (abo known as t^ Luce toe); thence in a north- vresterly directly '‘l': sou* herly line of said ^Cht^ way of sold MinnesoU Western Railroad to a point whem saic line intersects the Wert <3t the East one-half (E*(0 of Sff* tion Thirty-one Out Hundrtd ©ihtefti <Uo)» tijatt Tw«ty-U«» <Wi SSth =loM lb. N»2t*Sf' «n.er to o« aid ty.one (31) and Section to W. Township One Hundred SrtJn- teen U17), Range (23). to the ?w Section Six (6), Town^ One Hundred Seventeen (117). Twenty-three (23); thence E along the North Southeast One-quarter Section Six (6). TownsW^^e Hundred Seventeen ®*®{* Twenty-three (23), to the North west corner of the NJfSHSt ^-i One-quarter of the So^^e-J >y' One-quarter (NBVe, SBM) of " ’ atetion Six (6), Township. One Hundred Seventeen Twenty-three (23); thence So^i alone the Wert of tte Northeast One-quarter of^e Southeast One-quarter (W^. SEU) of Section Sw (j)» Tb^ ship One Hundred Sersennim (117), Range Twenty-tlg**jy to a point whem^ M*» s.'cts the shoo* line ol HjRh said »iO* d|lbl|*<43S632?. . • • • xh iit'e of Max* , ; anc** nci^.ivriv i ' o.d.e shore u* A!o::**. oil I point where ^aic! jhsrc ^ *.*:sects the ’ve.ttriy ^ h.mnci cca.''.\?rn;f liay and S'ubbs I’ay, L; • notonk.:; thtrve north } along the wciiwrly side I channel Xa a point whe 1 tcrsects the ihore Une o I Bay. Lake Minnetonka; westeri)*, northerly and ' along the west shore to Srubl's Bay to a point w raid shore line intenM West ?ude of township n nmg North and SouUi ter section line of Secti (3), Township One 1 Seventeen (117), Range ' three (23) extended; North along the We«ft I saiJ township road cxti i the point'or^ginning, ja.nd which said zoning • shall be referred to a* the 'Bay dirtritt. BE IT ftHmam re ^ •.VN'D ORDAINED..That I low rules, reguiauons and 'uj.ns with respect to uje Hands and building^ ■ wit , atK>r» zoning districf^shal ,a;r* hereby adopted as io-wi‘; „ ) Said .’(.>111115 di-trict 'f leclartd lo >jc i p»‘ivj \ .ttial diJtiict, and no i 1 or other structure or impn ‘itiall hereat'.cr be erected, 'or repaired A'r use or be 4ny purposes other than '“siien^iai pu.’poi'; s. i. No billboards or c Vuttising sinn». di.splay:: . ‘.•>'.3 of any '-vinrt sha'l b ji miintained in said ro ir.'t except signs bpc.*i ■h’ .n.-t n-.-s of the residen Ufttfic:. and the njniG.*! t r.j'' thorei.'s. excep: st: .oad n;unes and traff.c Ji oiAcpt sif.n.s advertising or rent, the prtmis.s c ’h.?y may bo locat^'cL T 2. N’o building or othe uire shall bvi ertcied up i.kn'-l v.'ithir the .said zonj .tfi.'T e.<'*i;pt wheiv* **^0 I^r I which the building or othe tuie IS to be erected cor a building lo'” as hereina »rribc*d. A “building lot”. y dcfinecT to be la mi um * iie.stjip UMJCli cq'ials .!ri Tl/'(*5"0f 'JMe aiJJ ' u. ifr JlbtWift'Cr. iha^ '.vh :• lime thi.s resolution •t ce shall take ofloei, t •tV. 'ictn platted into ’ot: "iul rdgd »I rccca d with t .*r -yf ;>>Gris of Hennopii *-v. ’'.IdinesoLa* or *.h* H Titles of henn^-pin ' •t'.iinesoui, and Where U.e •my such piclted lot i.*; io ••■•'« ar»^ in .,rja. oa'-ii .< ..i iciulj buiitiifir • • t ‘o-j L' 9‘ uc SMtioo IV. th« iollowinji ar«a »nd tf***"®*^ said Orono Townahlp ba, » same U hereljy ^**^****2|” ^ zoning district qX Orono, pursuant to the law SUte o£ l^nawU, UKwll: 1. Stabb'a Bar That part of Section* on* (31) and Township Ooe*lto»dref teen (118). Range Twenly-ttre. (23), Hennepin Cowty,. sota, and Soctione-Jlve W. ^ (0) and Eight (8), Hundred Seventeen (IIT), Bang Twenty-three (23), County, Minneiota. otfcnDta a iW hovis i Section Five t?). Hundred Seventeen (117), Rang<. Twenty-three '(23), Hann^ County, Minn^ta, totenw^ the southerly side ol ol way of the Minnesota W^- em Railroad (also known a* t^ Luce line); thence in a north westerly direction .^«®8 southerly line of said Hght^ wav of said Minnaaota Westerc Railroad tn a P®*"* ^5*7 “iJ: line intersect* the Wert oi the East one-half (EMi) ol Sm- tlon Thirty-ona (31), One Hundred Range Twenty-three Scuth along the Wo^-So^ center line of said Swtfoo Tto- ty-one (31) and Section ft* <f>. Township One Hundred Sev en- teen (117), Range (23). to the center point « kxtion Six (G). Hundr^ Seventeen (llT), Twenty-three (23); thence E^:^ along the North Southeast One-quarter Section Six (6). To^WP-^ Hundred Seventeen Twenty-three (23), to west coiner of the Norttie^ One-quarter of the One-quarter (N1^4, §fcction Six (6), Hundred Seventeen (il7). Twenty-three (23); thence So^> along the Wert l^e of ^ Northeast One-quarter ®(^® Southeast On«-Q«art» (W^* SEVi) of Section Six (6), ship One Hirnd^ (117), Range Twenty-tteee W to a point wham ^ “*?25S sects the shore line W«th constric- di mm *!« i il ® . t V-n• * MbjTir c: P i:,:— ^ ncr^ntjrir th** wc:*-• wteu. ck ’jnp^t.ttv .i 5rv I 3av to 3 { ar:»t^ or.d* , point ®.vhf?re jaid Lno io%*K'r-n:p ic®.; thJn o?;* r. ru ^ til* ®/r side oi | m aif-8. «^urn piecb hmnel Maxwell joi pnu^rn# \\\i~ ....... ijj ; :sau 3ml Stubbs ^ar. Lake Mm- !"builjmy Lg/*/^Iy vine fairiilv nctonk.:; th^rve^ north w;Tfi i«cce*90f)* buHdings along the weiicfiy $:de of |lc'ijtuinarily used ia corjiusctSun Mmm!l> •» •. . '.U.'-U IT.-tW ."ice a a i.jjMhv'csi'—-i,(.'<•.! •n £!,.;;q (o- sa.d ci-nui ):r.* of I J ■ Rilroai ra*l l c*» v-iy »y ihj ' C'*nt Ci •ntor ’i-c.ctiwn of '.'cn- • r li’.ic of suiJ railroad -jgh; oi y tin; V, uthwesteriy l.ne Auditor ’^ Subdiviajcn Num- TJiree Hundred Pifty-*ix I channel to a pomt where it ui- 1 tcrsect* the ahore line ol Stubbs ’ Bay. Lake Minuctocka; thence ; westerly, northariy and easterly, • along the west shore line of said* with famiL’ dwellings and con sidered a part of such family dwelling may be ererted on _ cne “building lot.”^*‘"Apr«atorv < ruiidings n'wiu he ‘darned M -tai- otubos Bay to a point where the 5 «*!uo« aoch buildrngs as guest cot- Mid shore line intersects th« |t<iees, ;Tuiiges boat house;,, pump West side of township road run- } or well houtrs, chiclien houses,. • ning North and South on cen- < h<iiri» *nd other farm buildings. iCT soclion line of Section Slve Nothing herein contained shall be (5), Townrhqj One Hundred coniideied to permit or author- Seventeen (117), Range Twenty- j, ue any person whatsoever to three (23) extended; thence uUI'zo siK:h accbsscry buildingi. North along the West s;de ofjor nny of them, m or rtiated tu ( said towiMhip road exteudod toiaa'‘ commercial enterprise con- ; the point ofheginning, i Jucltd upon the prcrr.cies. ,snd which said roairg district i • shall be refanred to as Uu Stubb’s Notliing herein contame?! 'Bay distrlet. BE IT ftnmODt RESOLVED •^ND ORDAXNEDk aThat the foi- shall be construed to prohibit an owner of land within the said zoning district from continuing or. i lew rules, regulation* and restric- owned by him. any trade, 'tian.s with respect to u^es ol the! profeMion w h.ch is J lands and buildhigp - within the|‘^ existtrce on said -«nd at theiwgraB uiMi uuiiUiOilEB' WIIIUII ^ , .- -. 7 - - ,nvK*r» zoning'dirtricf^shall be and ^ ‘' '^option of this reso- -netebv adopted as ^odows, the en- Uo-wi ‘: avimer of this rcHulitJon and re- u), licnnepia County. Minna. U. extend'-Mi Borthwesteriy; • itnce runaioK .j^oytheastcriT^ nng tl» aaid southwesterly Inc of said tubdlviato*. and its >rthwesteriy extennea tb the t tei sf cticn of said line with the ntinary low water mark cf ke Mmnetonka; thence ruli ng along Mid sh<we line in a ortheaaterly dirertioo, and then r an easterly diractioa, and then n a southerly direetkw. and then m a northerly diractian-lonww- ing the line defined by the ordi nary low water mark of Lake idinnetemka. to the pcial of be ginning, arul which said conkig district ■ .diall be referred to as the Brack- «t’a Point district. . 1 c-ij , .* •, u cJiCO-nr from cc.nst! uctin ; anv V . “‘--‘"-t f or brnw^n.. ,'or or. in . pror.r;,or, whlrh Ir EE rr FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDAE mED, That L*ie fol lowing rules, regulaticas and re- .<tr:ctions with respect to uses of the lands and buildings v.-ithin he above zonmg di#trict shall be nd irc hereby adcvi».*c as fcl- uw <, to-w;t; • or other structure or i-’nproverr.'-m ■ . ; . h.r,,i>r b, ,r,«^ aitt.cdr' vTl lhlf?! f"'’* »la.. 1 It lae rmt of the adopt:!): A* U m Oiairiefs • t ^ % _3 ^ • • • ^IV ^T-f^ V IIa CT * o 4?or repaired for use be used w; j„,- ,w..^, -.._... ..... . • .Ci ijitA re.>c* jtion uo*., o,diri4,n^iany purposes other than private. - V --id-r'irt pvDOsr-s ■ «^tinctrncrt of thu rtgula- i._i—n lai pv.poi.:,. rrstrictfon; nor shall: i. No billbcards or ether ad-'***•-con.aircd be con- vc,ii.»ing sign*, displays or other to piuhibit uie ui-c of any Said zcriip; dis^n^t is het-o.^y ivided into use di.^trlct* to be d§3i5na;ed os “rosidenUal Ji»- ict and •commercial distrirt.'* .•'.T.s of *ny '-cind sha’l be erected s'a’d zonin" disuiict ji rnxmtaintd in saii roning •Jis-j^'.'* «2i»cul;uial or faim.ng pur- iri.'t f xcept signs Iv-c.-ing only; - >h^ .'•.-'•mvs of the resident* of Uc'.ric;. and the njme.« of dweE- " r.i'* therein, except street and I vND BK rV FURVildR RE- i • oad nmnes and traffic .ond'B^'EVED ORDAINED. Thai ; oiitcpt sipn.s advei'tising for saleil'*'-* feiicminc area and district in or r..'nr. the premises on which,w*^ Oro.’o Towriship be, rnd the 1. All ihat portion of said zon- , g d'strict other tlian that here-.* after described and designated • s the "commcrrial district” is liereby designated and established as the ‘ residential dwtrict.” 2. The foUov.-ing described portion of said zoning dutrict h they may bo locat-‘d.I !.mo !S i'crcby desigr.-ted oo a • a; di tr.cf ..jf the To vn .if ptirsuant ;o tJic !an-s of’•4iro ahaii ereevee upon an> ; I.and v.-jlhir the said zoning di. -1 -■p ;tri.rt ox-cpi wheic ♦"c :„rd upon ; • which the building or o»her *fiut- turc IS to be erected constitutes} & building lot ” as hcrcir.attcr'ie-j imbed. A “budding loi ’^is here'-' y defined to be iaiia i.ind5r or.c • .hiu UtiKili equals l-c .Slat: of .\'irjiesot.'i. tu-wit I. Brackotl's Point Dlslricl hereby designated and established as a “commerciai district”. Parts of Go ”erament Co».» One (1) and Two (2), .'Section Eleven (11 h Township On? Hundred Sc-entcea (117>, Range Twenty- thrip /JO), Hennepin County. ic:«.diiip WfU4;fi CL^UcasB OT eX- «i■L '1. max '.vherc at V li.nie this resolution und oi .1 ce shall take effcci, th^: Lui--. .•iV. '>cen platted into ’ots and . "'»«.l '.Igd • I rccotd with tiie Rcg- rl.?r Deeds of Hannepin Coiin- *•'. Minnesc'iau, .or ■yie H.eg''txar Titles of befinemu Coumy •titinesoLa, and Where Uie area •>: •my such plotted lot i.i ics* than e arm* »n .,.-oa. ua-'h .«..ch ici pie pa; is of Sec'.jons Ten (iO) i 'md EI»:vrn (ill. Township Cae }iund:rd Seventeen (U7), Range v/i'iity-iSj ee (23). H e n n o p i a ■ tiinty. I»Iinre;<ota. de.’iciihea .as |cUjMi: Commencing at the ? io.in where the North line of ' .cction 2!.’vcn .11), Tovmiship j [>nf? Hundr.rc ."cventeen (117). ’ (iangc Tweni.v-ihrvn «2:r, inter- | me ord.nary I< v/ w.it‘.-r\ ruirk of the v/est zbore of th.nt ! icrtior cf La*« Minnetonka ■ TOMm Ri Bruwa*; Buy, i fiyim-as.- westerly aiong the, of said Sictioa Eleven *i)-tl‘.tb«? c.'-'i’t : I inter•••«'• lor: ■ ; >v».i ; Minnesota, described as follows: That part of Govenurient Lot One (1) desenned a* follows: Commencing at a point on the shore cf Mud Lake which point is deter-mint-d a: follows. Com mencing *i a point on the !nkc thorc of Lake Minnet-'inka w.hich point distant Seventy (70) feet northwesterly ox an gles trom a line bearing N.*.rth Sixty-:^cVI n dcRrcrs. forty-eigin niinuio.. Sail (o7'48‘) f;-om .i point which is South Ten de- *;mcn 'lO') Tilj.,? rtigiii Hundred •*< V . J. jj, uve/tanih.-W *4 4 4i ! * <’. * (U20.5) icet from the Northeast cfrra?r rt ui»r.' Lot 0:»c li ^ to • •• * »» »•%s . ' r*- 1 km OHl iia« ia Tbe VI lage oi < Tbat I be. end •dented -VUlage Regulati iB e*^ iBterwrti and to I monizin of the 1 nance h •III- benetci It is planniti bring I patchw eireuial design related ■iming tore, 1 VUlagi regulai wftch safety, welfar the loi ning ' reguls propel S708001 ^..1 IMIc<rn3s^ f-■7-/2- Ordinance StSSsjr- %5 STwi.-to« ~*.^ s^srr BegulatioBa’* tott viU brtof r«ult» to all ceDcerned It IB obeiooe ,^*****?^^ tst:spies'i« 23JSJ and ertwnein^ SSS to e ll«*t« P*“ Study ![^ib« at a unified echeme of commiir**T tatereeta It la, Sr~^-nr <or the Otnno Vinage Council to t^^XiaoM and whSf contribute to the he^ aafety, convenience and of the commuwty. to the long range anali^ the Pl^ wing Coouniaeion believea toeao regulatloao will aid in 55^**2? property values for the iSS will effect iwr «««^^ in the platting and development of o loclc®! fubdiviiioH. •^Subdivisloii** in this ordiMnw moans tha division of a ^ land into two (2) or “O" parcela for fer of ownership or ^lopnent; provided that a divi- wbtB «pswprt»» *° Division of any existing tot, par- ^ or plot of land shaU sidorod within the purview of iftiM ordinance. rommiarV** has • «S* JLISS mSu^ itau - “i, de^gneteddivtsMB a«» thorooghfare. ei^ main art«y shall be p^ * SSTand^ b* dedicated by the subdivider. I Inth. dMl*n w^gtoA, provision shall be *•** fw the proper connections witt Uistlng SSK to a^o^jjto- adjom“»* PV»Pw.7*^adjoining property s2sr,^'Jur^sr iwSXr Si^iTr ««ts of «n^*J riKmkl not be *SSSding streets \inleas it is dejw^ nJUssary in the publ« lnt«^ for street maintenanw. srfety and fire protection to do so.) S. Street right-of-way ahall be designed in with their character following widths are *®<y***~ “ minimum rifht-of-wsy for var ious types of streets: Rlght-of-Wsy a. Mejor arteries and ^ piufkwsys ....................^ b. Secondary and main thoroughfares --------- e® c. Neighborhood reslden- tial streets d. Minor residential gtreets _____________^ *** 4. It is desirabto that all strwto shaU intersect as nearly at right angles as seems prsctlc^ Uking other factors into consideration. 5. Minimum center lto« of local minor streets shall be not leas than 100 feet; centerline radii of major and secondly fares should bo not less than 300 feet. taun, «««» l> of that paitleular stroat. Anste 1. to general, alleys sl^ oj bo permiit^ln a diviatoa. Service drives «1^ be provided on major thereugy^ Where alleys are approved by »be ^o^ ttoj ShaU be not less than feet in wid^ Quired to toe rear of a ll tota to be UKd ft* businem purpoesa. 2. Wbcra two (2) alleys to^- sect, a cut-off of ten (10) feet along line trmn the normal in tat section of the property lines shaU be pro S. Dead-end aUeys sh^ h» avoldad where possible, but tf unevoidebto, shaU ba with adequatf ities at tha dead-end aa deter mined by the CouncU. Where rileys SuTb. *s;mcnt as a part of tha ptot purpoaa of sud» eaaament is to ?SSvSa possible location for uW- ity lines such ss £M and for location of electric L»d phone lines. Such sbaU be not less than five (3) *««* on each side of the tot Une, ink ing a total of ten (10) f^t. ^ garages nor structures built upon this esaem^t quate easement provisions s^ be made for area ^inaga and storm water carry off. asMOua. VL 1 iOiSNTS to any areas where the Plsn- g. The location of all cut^ streets should be so srrsng^ es to fit the natural topograp^ ■» closely ss powible and to possible desirahle •“iSic5^ and sale vehicular traffic. 7. Terminal residential or cula-de-sac should be platted not longer than 500 feet unless tooographical conditions make a Blocks the Council to order toat tha subdivision may be Pl**^JJ “ blocks to suit the topography, the ganeral character of the the type of development appio- prtsto to the locality. With the increased use of the automobile. the trer Simla hi length i of ttoi p to stree tions, h 1200 fm ceptable 1. lU and are and sub Village declared form in in the I posed event si thouaant area, an' hundred ing line ment foi Ities eas 2. Dei ties rose merclal shall be the off-s' facilities use and ed. 3. Ea< a public minimun feet at s tered la upon pri nonethal' provisior sat forth 4. Dou frontage except w separatio ment frc overcomi of topogx planting least ter which th access, s tha Una traffic ai tageous \ 5. Sidi stantially to street Areas i the Villi flood con> the Engl Orono wi subdivisic quate dri ed. n y m 9- be if eda- sr- se* lie to til- ind trie lent teet i«k* No be ide- ihaU end I size e by the d in r, the t end ppro* b the lobile, ij i M.rS msm ■r- -..-I ■ ij ' ill • i the trend in residential subdiri* ■uma has be» toward a lonfer length of block and a reduction of the percentage ci land devoted to streets. Under certain con«U> tions. blocks up to 1000 feet or 1200 feet in length may be ac* ccptable. Lets 1. Residentiai lota, as to dze and area, shall be goverTwd by and subj^ to the policy of the Village Council which is hereby declared to be that all lots con form in area to the existing lots in the genere) area of the pro posed subdivision and in no event shell be less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in area, and minimum width of one hundred (100) feet at the build ing line, exclusive of any ease ment for driveway purposes (util ities easement excepted). 2. X)epth end width cf proper ties reserved or laid out for com mercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the off-street service and parking facilities required by the type of use and development contemplat- 3. Each lot shall adjoin upon a public street and shall have a minimum width of thirty (30) feet at street line. Lots in regis tered land surveys may adjoin upon private streets. Said streets nonetheless shell comply with provisions pertaining to streets set forth in this ordinance. 4. Double frontage, and reverse tnmtage lots, should be avoided except where essential to provide separation of residential develop ment from traffic arteries or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. A planting screen reservation of at least ten (10) feet, and across which there shail be no right of access, shall be provided along the line of lots abutting such a traffic artery or other disadvan- tageouf uses. 5. Side lot lines shall be sub stantially at right angles or radial to street lines. Areas within the jurisdiction of the Village Council subject to flood conditions as established by the Engineer of the Village of OroDO will not be considered for subdivision purposes until ade quate drainage has been provid ed. PTewHf esi Feblie Fz^erty The planting ci trees, type, pacing, etc., <m puUtc propnty Shan be subject to the regulations ot the Villa^ CoimciL No plant ing. gateways, entrances and sim ilar imiwoveroents shall be made <m public property except with permission and ^noval d the Village CoundL It is the declared general polky of the Village Council that in all new subdivisions not las than five per cent of the groaa area of all property subdivided shall be dedicate for public use, each five per cent being in addition to the property dedicated for sireeta, alleys or other public ways. The Village Council may waive this requirement if it feels that public property, oth« than roads, is not necessary in connection with this subdivision. The arte thus dedicated should be either uuble area or area which can be put into usable shape by the subdividcr. The subdividcr shall leave land so dedicated in a condition satisfac- XoTf to the Village CoundL The varying size of lots, the size of the tubdivisitm, etc., will have e direct bearing on the de sirability of and the ncce^ity for such dedication as well as the size of the piece to be dedicated, tt will be within the discretion of the Planning Commission to interpret these regulations in tha light of the overall plan and pat tern of perk development. In the interests of the Village as a whole, end. therefore, of benefit to the subdivision, the Village Council of Orono is de sirous of conserving certain areas of natural beauty and establish ing in various areas the logical distribution of the following types of facilities: 1. Play lots, for preschool chil dren. 3. 4. Children’s playgrounds, for children from five to fifteen years of age to use for active play. Athletic field, as a specialized center for organized games and sports. ** Parks, large and smaU, for their value in passive recrea tion and as a long range pro tection from congestion of de velopment. A cooperative interot in this larger pcogram la aought by the Village Council and it la exp ected the subdivider will aid in a«at- ing to make this achiercftent possible. Ftaltiag Ffoe Tile CouncU of the VlUage of OrocM requires that all propoaed i subdiviaions ritall have the prior approve! of the Planning C<wi- mission before receiving final ap- iwoval by the CounciL It ia, therefore, necessary that eeitain steiM be taken and data asaoa- bled that will eimble the Plan ning Coouniaeion to study the proposed subdivision in the li^it of its reUtkm to the VlUage plaa raphy and the dmracter of the development. To accompliah this purpoaa, the Planning Coaamisaien wiU wiih to submit the pRliminary plat to their Village Engineer and to their Cmsultant tor their study in Held and office and tor their recommendations. This prelim inary plat for the coneideration of the Planning Commiaaion shall be filed with the Village Engineer or Planning CommisaioB not laaa than five days in edvanee of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to allow sufficient time for review, study and a recommendation pertaining to this plat, at the next regular meeting. Whenever posaible, it ia dasir* able that the prelimin^ plat be accompanied by a written state ment specifying the intentions of the owner respecting the pro posed character of the develop ment, deed restrictiona, drainaga, parks and playgrounds and the intended date of beginning devel opment. He should express hb willingnesa to proceed to file a plat of record of his subdivision or such part thereof as he may wish to put upon the market and to install all monuments shown on the plat. The Planning Commission, in its consideration of the prelim inary plat. wiU take Into consid eration the requirements of the Community end the best use of the land being subdivided. Par ticular attention will be given to the arrangement, location and widths of streets, the general drainage situation, lot sizes end 1__1 arrangement, as well as ar t«r Plan requirements s parks, sciwol ntes, boul highways, etc. Adequate conmctkms wiU be requ Insure access and freedom fle circulation. The subdividcr, after 1 ^vel of the tentative ] the Planning Commissk prior to tha submissitm of plat, thaU within six after the date of appro such longer period as thi ning Commission may vsuse the pit^erty to be tt in acccffdancc with the t] tenutlve plat and any < changes therein as appro the Planning Conun issioi survey shell be made in ance with the standard p and principles tor land su and all monuments shall jeet to tha inspection a proval of the Village a County Authoritias befc proval of the final plat. Final plats must be su to the Village Engineer « ning Commission not Ic five days in advance of e meeting of the Planning C Sion tor its approval prior minion to the Village Co The Council requires ‘ streets shell be graded an ailed as a part of the c ment Such work slutll I under the supervision of lage Engineer and subject ifleations prepared by the Engineer and placed on f the VUlege Clerk. Interior Streets The subdivider shall gr gravel streets at hia own < In casa this work la not c ed for a logical reason w final plat is presented, a t ance bond with a Suret pany approved by the Council ahell be fumiahei final plat is acceptad. The subdivider may prior to acceptance of t plat, that the grading and ling be done by the Villa full costs assessed agei benefltted property over i not to exceed ten years. FreUmlnarr PUt Four prints of the pre! plat of a proposed sul ve intercft in this n it tought by the U and it it expected r will aid in aasitt> this achievement 1 of the Village of s that all propoaed hall have the prior he Planning Com* t receiving final ap- le Coun^ It it. essary that certain n and data attem* 1 enable the Plan* ■ion to study the livitioa in the light to the Village plan d development, and the general topog* e character of the ih this purpose, the imistion will with preliminary plat to Engineer aiid to mt for their study iffice and for their ont. This prelim* r the consideration ig Commiation shall he Village Engineer lommission not less t in advance of a ng of the Planning to allow sufficient tew, study and a m pertaining to the next regular nstible, it it detir* prelimin^ plat be hy a arritten state* Ig the intentions of tspecting the pro* er of the develop* itrictiont, drainage, lygrounda and the of beginning devel* should express his proceed to file a of his subdivision thereof at he may Mut the market and monuments shown Ig Commission, in on of the prelim* 11 take into consid* iquirements of the id the best use of I subdivided. Par* >n will be given to ent, location and reeU, the general ition, lot sizes and • 4- * i arrangement, » well as any Mas* ter Plan requirements such m parks, school sites, boulevards, highways, etc. Ad^uate street connections will be required to insure acceei fie circulatioB, Ihe subdividsr, after the S|^ proval af tfM tentative plat hf the Plwming Commits km and prtor to the submission of a fiial plat, shall within six months after the date of approval, or muA longar period as the Plan* ning Crnmnisicm may grant. in accordance with the approved ^tative plat and any and all i^Mngcs thereto as approve d by the Plamdng Commisaion. The survey shall be snade to accord* anee with Um standard praetios and prindplca for land mrveying and all raoaumMts shall ba sub* ject to the inspection and ap* proval of the Village and the C<MaBty Authorittos before op* imval of the final plat. Final plats must be submitt^ to the Village Engineer or Plan ning Commission not less than five days in advance of a regular meeting oi the Planning Cmnmis* Sion for its approval prior to sub- miaaion to tho VUlago CounciL The Council requires that all streets shall be gnulcd and grav elled aa a part of the develop ment Sudi work shall ba dons under the supervialon of the Vil lage Engineer and subject to spec* ifleations preporad by the VUlaga Engineer and placed on file orith the Village Clerk. The subdivider dial! grade and gravel streets at his own expense. In case this work is not complet ed fw a logical rtaaon when the final plat is presanted, a perform ance bond with a Surety Com pany approved by the Village Council shall be furnished before final plat la aenpted. Boundary Bireels The subdivider may petition, prior to acceptance of the final plat that the grading and gravel ling be done by the Village with full costs assessed against the benefitted property over a period not to exceed ten years. Prdimiaary Plai Four prints of the preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision shall be mbmitted to the Or^so Plasuiiiv Canunisaion drawn to a seals etthar one inch equals <bm hundred feet or <me-half inch equals one hundred feet The preliminary plat sluiU con tain the following information: 1. The propoeed neme or legal description of the sitodiviaiesu 2. Its locatioa with reference to known cxisUng thereu^* fares er seetton comers, etc. J. The boundary lines with di mensions of the tract to be subdivided. 4. A topographical map of tha area (showing conto' -s of tho land in general not :reater than one foot totervals). Map fhouid indicate location and width of existing adjacent streets end utilities with es sential elevations end meke note of bench mark used end its elevation. 5. Owner's neme. Subdivider's name, and the Surveyw's name and certificate. (Sur vey shall be mada by Regis tered Land Surveyor.) 6. Scale. North point and date of plat. 7. Preliminary street pities showing present grade, pro posed grade (every 100 feet), complete with percent of grade and showing satisfac tory disposition of storm wa ter. Two prints ot pitrfllo— one to be returned to the subdivider when approved and acceptable. 8. All plats and profiles shall bear the standard State Board of Registration Certifi cate, properly executed. f. Proposed building lines on all lots intended for residen tial use and in soma cases re quired on lots intended for buainem use. and at least the setback required by the Building Ordinance and any applicable Zoning Ordinance. Owner’s name of unplatted property, lots, blocks, and of subdivisiim of plat ted property within 150 feet of the boundaiy lines of pro posed subdivision. 11. Copy of ti;e provisions of any protective mvenants where by the subdivider proposes to regulate land usa in fot sub division. 10. Final Plat Raquireresnt The preliminary plat as out- ■:V lined above is a prcreqviattt to the Kibmisaim cd the teal plat. Approval of the prelimiaary plat is tentative only. A^rovel of the Anal plat shall be obtained from the Village Council after find re ceiving approval firaaa the Plan ning Commission uptm submis- sion ot leroe srith the complete information outlined in tlw re quirements specified herevritk The final plat M m II conform to tha preliminary plat as approved, and. if desired by the subdivMer, it may conititutc only that por tion of the approved proliaatoary plat which he propoeee to record and develop at the time, provid ed, however, that such portion conforms to all requirement! of these regulations. The foUoorlng data shall ba shosvn on or submitted with iUmi final plat: 1. Boundary survey. 2. Dimensions — all necessary. 3. AngIeo> at all boundary and block comers. 4. Purpose for which sites, other than residential lots, are ded icated or reserved. 5. Minimum building oetbock line when required by tht Village Council. 8. Location and description of monuments. 7. Other dau: such other cer tificates. affidavits, endwae- menu, or dedicaUmu aa may be required by the Village Council for the enforeement of these regulatimw. S. In lieu of the completion or installation of any or all of the abovt improvenenta, and before the final plan ia ap proved and recorded, tho Vil lage of Orono may accept a cash deposit or surety bond to secure to the Village the actual cost of such improve ments aa estimated tha Village Engineer. 9. Streets and alleys (by angles and distances). 10. Above description should in clude all centerline curve data. 11. Street names. 12. Block lines and block num bers. 13. Lot lines and lot numbers. 14. EasemenU and their widths. 15. All necessary certificates re quired by law. 16. Name of subdivision, scale, date, north point and all oth- ■ ^ .. '1 bw ITJs p thi Ph %m ' '1 \; v; ' ';; • *.ii is a prcre^^iiaitc to on of the fluid pUt. the preliminary plat mly. Approval of the all be obUinod from ^uncil after first ro' oval from the Plan* ission upon submis* e with the complete outlined in the re* ipecifled herewith, plat dun conform to ary plat as approved, ed by the subdivider, titute only that per* ipproved preliminary M proposes to record I at the time, provid* r, that such portion I all requirements of ttions. wing data shall be r submitted with Hms y siirvey. ons — all necessary, -at all boundary and imers. for which sites, other idential lots, are ded* r reserved. ti building setback len required by the Council. 1 and description of mts. tata: such other cer* affidavits, endorse* )r dedications as may lired by the Village for the enforcement ! regulations. of the completion or ion of any or all of ve improvements, and the final plan is ap* and recorded, the Vil* Orono may accept a •posit or surety tend re to the Village the :ost of such improve* estimated by the Engineer, ind alleys (by angles ances). lescription should In* tU centerline curve names. lines and block num* s and lot numbers, fits and their widths. essary certificates re* by law. of subdivision, scale, irth point and all oth* hi TLtft plat was tlMi maanhn !L.„ . ar petHaeal infa rma tlon gen* erally nquirad on plate. IT. The Cans el appro^ shaUi ha as firilewt: a. This plat was appcsfvad and ett of lha TUtege d Oees^ the Village of Orono d a rag* meeting hereof he*.d Oua n<»y ef .......-A.D. tg...» affect the validity of the ocdl< MiM* m a arhali or any tert tberaof ether teaa the part fo c. Checked and app roved this ......day of AJX ll~. Coimty Airveyor, Bmmapia County. ThH ardiaanea shall bt pi^ Ushad la tha lliimateaha Baeald pubUahed at Waymta. Wimaa nfa and thaU ba affective Ma and Should any sKtion. paragraph, Mail — 0g ccmditlon of this eedi* be declared by the ceitfta to be invalid, the mam shall not Paaaad by tha Village CouacQ of the Village of Oroao this lHh day of Se^mher, IMS.a R. Rosa, Mayor. Attest: O. & Ichnaoa. teh. •V. V, 9m B ' ■ '■m itj of tbo oiM olo or aay pvt IMO tho port M nvoUd. 0 dull bo p«^ lanttoBlui Bofold toetivo tM and I ViUogo Coimdl f Orono this 12th >er, 19S8. M^ror. Awmij dob. % # OROXHAMCE HO. 22 ^ OtdiaaMO lo Pw»nro lb* publk HooUii of tho QHaoos of lag Lois whereas , tho vaioio of Of* ono boo no eomiBunity sowoga •ystom and dopw^W* teaks and soil absofpfa« «y^ lor tlM disposal of wasto, WHEREAS, such disposal art apt to croato a s«- ious probtoa aflocting tho boal^ of tho community whoro a^liod in itsidential areas sorring mors thin on« dwelling p« icre; ind WHEREAS* other communities have iorious health problems by reason of tho enlargement of m* identiil ireii with mbitindird lot sizes served by septk tanks and absorption systams; and WHEREAS, the Planning Com- misskm of the Village of Onmo recommended to the Council that regulations should be estab lished now to prevent the s^e sort of serious health problem, from arising in the Village of Orono; . NOW, THEREFORE, for the nak* of the general welfare aM health of the residents Village of Orono, it is ordained as follows: Section After the eflecti^ date of this ordinance, no build ing permit shall be issued for the erection oi a residence m any residential zone of the Village, except upon a building lot con taining a minimum area of one acre, end having a minimum width of 140 feet at the building^ Section 2. It is recognized that there are several built up resi dential areas in the Village which are substandard and overbuilt by the terms of this ordinance. In such areas, building permits may be issued for lots not meeting the minimum requirements ^b- lished by this ordinance, if the Village Council feels that such building win conform to the gen era characteristics of the neigh- -ir borhod and will not have an iaa - mediate and «>ecific adverae effect upon the public Imaith. Section 2. It is recognised ttat the enforcement of the minimum provisions required by this ordin ance wUh respect to lots b^ to snee might be an arbitrary depri vation <d a valuable ri^t from aaid owners. Therefore, where a lot which fails to meet the mtoi- mum standards of this ordinance is held in a single, separate own ership at the time of the pas sage of this ordinance, the Coun cil may issue a building permit, provided that there wUl be no imm«liate or specific advro ef- Upon th€ public hcElta. Section 4. This ordinance su percedes and repeals any provi sions in the platting ordinance or toning ordinances of the Village which are Inconaiatent berewiSb. except that provisions of prior ordinances establishing big^ standards than those prescribed by this ordinance are continued in effect. ^ Section 5. It is recognised tMt the establishment of definite standards for all lots in the entire Village is Impoaalble, as there may be, in every case, reasons to relax the standards, or to en force stricter standards. The Council reserves its discretion to Increase or decrease the stand ards hereby set for good caus^ whenever the particular facta « the situation convince the Coun cil that the public welfare, and particularly the public health, re quire such modification. Section 8. This ordinance shall be published In the Minnetonka Herald at Wayzata, Minnmt^ and shall he effective Immediate ly upon such publication. Passed by the Village Counefl of the Vilage of Orono this I2th day of October, 1959, by a vote of 4 yeas and No nays. H. R. ROSS, Mayor Attest: O. E. JOHNSON, aerk (10-15-59) V/.74 > / m OWHER W/ RODBESS ^ MOlSIia ^ 1 LAND DCSCBIP Sim of Lot Land Sq. Ft iTivcno ftocco Stone rOOUNGS Depto ^ Z. rOONDATIOlf Coastreetton SASEMEHT Ground Draii Bearing Poeb B mub M ' K p FLOORS Sub Flooring Joists Spoctiig BtcrjoqVj). STODDOlOa Sba ^ Spacing f Pkitoa (Z EXITS Bosmnent — 1st Floor — INSULATION CeiUng [}, Walls . I an im- advteM smith, izad that ninimum it ordin> I hald in ip at the lit ordin* ry depri- Kbt from where a the mini* ordinance >ata own* the pat* he Coun- g permit, iU be no Iverse ef- alth. inee tu* y provi- nance or t Village lerewith, of prior higher rcscribed M>ntinued poized that < definite \ the entire , as there reasons to or to en* art’s. The iscretion to the stand* {ood cause, iar facts of \ tiie Coun* relfare, and • health, re- on. Inance shall Minnettmka Minnesota, immediate* ation. age Council no this 12th I, by a vote ys. OSS, Mayor />: "V ^ ' IS m>Ci ISJ 31 VHJJIGE OF OBONO tniAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGSOf BUILDING i SfddIHHt PUAk^t^i MOMEfla ^ 3 9 7g BUILDEB ADDR^ PRONE !fa PEaMRNO. MTV /(d L 0 AdcUhon or SubdirMon StaeefLol Land 8^ Ft BUILDINO LOCATION Ihs. From Rood Die. Sides Dls.Back COHSnOCTW Frames Shioee Brkk. Solid Brick Veneer Cemmit Block leal Depth Below Qode FOUNDATION 0a, L She BASEMENT Groaad IhotaMige J •I X f ^ Floor Si, SpoeiDiji Span i No. Fonadatlea rf • 4^ ^ ;^ Beigld Above Roof SaaoksP^w —DiataDceFromloista Type * X |fc*a.r FIOOBS Sub Flooring P" ■ Joigm ’* She ^ ^ Spacing IG Bridging ^ ' Bgo’JtqVj). ^ y />> .1 t. - 7 StmmOM RAFTERS Sisa^X^/ SlseCXt/ M •*. .‘t; w . . • ee .r Ji^ * % • • •'» »*5 facing > Span I ' Bracing > >L V.i" * O JOISTS QlSO ^ X Spacing * Longest Span -f , ■ i EXITS Bosement — Na / 1st Floor — No. Sae^ ' Stairway 'y She Stairway i: INSULATION Ceiling /?/-X 5 * "" Walls VENTILATIOM AND UGHT Percento g e of Floor Area Vent /' Percentage of Light lo Floor Area UNTEU She'S- y '' WELL TYPE ConstnictkK Locotloa f D 4 ' y r ^ I /.. SEPTIC TANB She 2- ~ ^ ^ Distamce From WeO » .L V Span S* DRAINFIELD Depth :: Width >’ • Length ^ ^ ‘ .* EHstOBce From WMl { ^ IhstonM Ftom Lot Linee/^'y* Sinks /Shower ^ Laundry f ToOet Z. Bath Tub /Lavatory I hweby c^pree that in case permit h granted all work which shall be done and oU materials ediich shall be used shoU com* ply with the plans ond specifications submitted and erith cdl the ordinances oi tke VUlage of Orono op^icable tberetp. NOTES: A/en/ PCcA. Se . IT Signed Receipt No. Bldg. s^:T<J Plumb. Sewage Total the sewage SYSTEM INSTALLED BY NAME /V 6 / / ADDRESS tfLf-Z ^ ; • -.»4" 4 mm PERMIT NO rSubdivlaii ■ ^^7 I V*nt ^ )or Aim Span \ ^ C ^' !’/ „ » •< . Distanc* From Well ^ % Dictcmeo From Lot Uam/>^"^ Shower / Toam 2- Lorrotory » pormit ia granted all work which ale which ehoU bo used ohoU com* KcaUons oubmillod and with oO the Orono opplicoblo thereto. : s‘7 J J>OtOL Sewage Total *30 YSTEM INSTALLED BY f. . ^ C tfU-Z • 1 41 XX *0i\ Xi\Mim muu c M Ou ^m •> o is XI M i5 «-l €h • ^ O 6/-3 lAJ'iua 41 w4 M U iO 3 4i a' I M O X M ^m ^ e e e O Ci ^ ^ «« «k ^ iMMM X < o m ® So X Si ct e e e r* ® r* o o o o o o Od rd CM « « X < 9So « O »3 o D |4 Q < flb CM CM CM ^ CM Ol e e e M» #H CM 0\ O iH O fM CM CM CM « CM 1 1 1 «D(ID f 1 1 CM ID O rd MP CD 1 m o 1 91 m o • • e 1 ■e e 1 e e e NO m • cn 1 *n 1 m MT «r o o o i 1 1 o o>o 1 1 a a o CM CM o 1 CM rdf ed 1 91 91 OI CM CM CM 1 rd 1 1 1 r-t rd 1 1 11 CM O O 1 1 1 1 CM VD m i 1 1 1 ID cn a rd CM 1 Ol m iD 1 a a 91 e e a 1 e e e 1 e e • CD dT ID W 1 O r^ rd CM m OS 1 «0 m 1 ID lA MP ID in tn 1 ID ID ID 1 ^ m « W % di 1 ««k •t 1 % « w •H rd ^ di 1 rd rd rd 1 rd rd rd a o o o o o o o o o % I m in fMfM CM e e e ^ CM ^ CM wd O % % % CM CM CM O O O rd CM m % w w w ^ *f> m CM SI 1 O MP O 1 o CM a 1 •CM o 1 a 1 a a a p a in in 1 e e e 1 cn <n a e e • 1 1 a e a e a 1 e 1 r* rd cn e e e a in m 1 a m 1 a m a 1 rd a rd W o a o a 1 a in a 1 a a a 1 m in a D Id ss rd CM rd i 1 m n CM 1 1 rd rd rd 1 1 1 rd rd rd U 4i Id ai 1 O O O 1 o o o 1 1 o O i O 1 O O O a id M > 0« O O O 1 O O O 1 o o o a a CM 1 1 o rd o a O 1 CM 1 o o o in CM CM u o D • > c« m » % % 1 i m m m 1 1 ‘ ‘ ! % % % o o a rd rd 1 1 1 1 in 1 1 a a a cn m m inr*o CM CMm e o o % CM m e o % CM o o o o o in r* o M» o #n o oi CM m r* CM ^ Ik % « m MN m M» MF X <o a o a a a w 1 1 CM o a 11 a a a rdm a in m e e • a a 9^ e e e 1 a 1 • a e e 1 rd cn 1 e e e >, a a mm cn a CM 1 a m a 1 rd a rd •H *0 o a o a a CM rd 1 a a a 1 m m a P 01 k e D o »rd fO rd CM CM CM 1 rd rd rd 1 rd rd rd i 0 41 U 0 41 nr PID 0 MKT VALUO O O o o o O O O O O O 1 1 1 o 1 o O O O o 1 11 o o o 1 o o o C 0 0 -rd •H » l4 A e D m 0 a m • > o o o o « « « m m m a a a » <w>a a m 1 rd 1 % 1 m 1 1 a CM 1 m CM CM 1 ^ % 1 m m m 1 1 41 01 Id Id • Q P-H a4i 0 • in a m 1 CM rd O 1 a eo 1 a m a a a a 1 a a a 1 r*1 a a a 1 a a a 1 a a a 1 a a a rd rd rd 1 rd rd r1 1 rd rd rd 1 rd rd rd <0m 4X 4 rd r»* dro e • n o or va r- CM r* lo 8 wd «• U u I C! > 4* X Id c 0 id 4» Ua « « « « « « « di « « di « C 4 iH IMo 9 ^'WIr (4iatii» : M mu tJl Pi Ui m S *a 0m rd M I »d S 1 I |4 P tJ 2 M3 G *oc wM §!3 wd I til 3 &1 - I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IMo tMo p rd P e-d 3 M3m 4i •H fl wd i4 M3 0> 4» 3 ■H b4 I g Id I eem rdIo «M P X 41 G •H >d rd 41 Ida •i U\ PiI 4«HI 1 4 %d O P rd €1 X 4» 5 S a •HI I o M3 m M3 M 8 01 Id M 3 01 5 Id 01 >i # M 01 X 4^ I- G fd U i di di di di 1. . ■■*■CHdSf^ v' -'i ii October 26 ward Ferre 3405 Water Long Lako« Dear Mr. F< I have rec< you ovm on time to an As 2 under or lots, o with the n home. You another bu Ke measure the next p all exclus The zoning of land fo available Your three If any of minimum lo Because th the City w own the lo City to gr The only o tell you t I know thi change as •ULDiNU a ZONING \SSI-SSING '-mm rplaiP IT™!tKS!>!ffa*^:ir? -'r^ '!#?'■•p «. . ^■?t -: •j.'V-rif -vM■ *»r > '* ♦ i.< '• ■•a-** . rtt -*‘t>^»“ * ■, ..a j ■ ^ . . •. ■ .♦ -♦• »-. •. f ■■Ml*Af ,t fT*t- A%*t4 ;i; •!a. ■ .?*.. ■ ■ .-^r ‘ £;•*;.*;** ‘*'“T"' *■ ♦».«• - *-• T •• 4-- — '■^. • A ■ V •- * . ^.a *1. r- »• » • # - •^ • f . ..-^-.I; !«v-;. ..- t-' V Vr-^ F-f, •?• ••.-:'*.t:| :. t-t- ' ■ V.':y.v,--.V.-k ~ -i9 ■*•*■'-■ -•-•■■ ■^. ■«■ » ' • A .«. * • « ». - ,. a • •« nJl •*.';»— ,.«.•■ i ■ .«■- # ' . k. • - ••-•■ •■«• ^. , »• 4 % . * -4m>- :H4 .saJ**•N «- • •ww.tr-/<t-€i?GlTYofORON<»Tmil fH6o» Hu» *«i»rry»Hl May Mm flu fli«’ Auf^fA SA»*»v 0/ Lakt' .Ifinm^unktt a .Vkl;£i*M«nM.npal Ofru-r* October 26* 1981 ward Ferrell 3405 Watertown ROad Long Lake, MN S53S6 Dear Mr. Ferrell: j tiave received your re ent letter to the «'^ity concerning the lots you own on Watertown Road. First, lot me apologize for not having time to answer your questions sooner. As 1 understand the problem, you own three separate tax parcels, or lots, on Waterto%m Road. Your home is on the eastern parcel with the next two parcels being the open yard area west of your home. You now wish to sell one or both of the other parcels for another building site. We measure the parcel with your home as about .86 acre in area, the next parcel as .82 acre, and the western parcel as 1.04 acre, all exclusive of road right of way. This totals 2.72 acres. The zoning in your area since 1975 has required at least 2.0 acres of land for each house. This is because there is no City sewer available and each house must maintain its own septic system. Your three parcels together now comprise one conforming 1°^* Xf any of the parcels were to be sold off, none would meet the minimum lot area including the one with your home. Because these lots would be less than the minimum area required, the City would not issue permits for any new house, whether vou own the lota or if you sold one. There would be no basis for the City to grant a variance to the zoning area requirements. The only option would be a general area-wide rezoning tell you that such a prospect is very, very unlikely. I must I know this is not the answer you were looking for. Things do change as the years pass. If you wish to discuss it further. SL'iLUINGa fONIMU -47I 7JS7 \ss4ssi>«; ADMIMSIKATIONSHNAMCF -47J 7JS3 II BLIC WORKS •47J 7JJ1 r w-',4.;;1^*t- ^4- »l>~ » «4 .BT ■ IT'4*r*'yt♦ ^ 4 ,.* -H*. -r. •' . * A.. ■tr - *■' !'!5t f.-i- • yUtvc T > .1 * ^ * M* t ■7 « ■ •' ^ W y:V .v-v.-' - ' .. .'H • , :n' . \{j ". • -A* ■ w *<• '■* P • I .••9w «• . . n: .■ - . •;V/ 7« ,, 4/ ». , *u.i;.. r :-;V • •* 4 . V ,--7... V'T'.:! *V .. ^ ‘.y' * -V f,'. B r*-*»‘* KT'-**^* V’ *v /V A ' «i : -'.;iA . -4 9 ^ * " r C*zFt -'" ■:ward Ferrell rage 2you ere elway Administrator Sincerely, Aian'P. Olso: 'city Planner ce: City CO Walter Jeanne -\ *f :/':M4 ■■■ J;,.,■•■r::, t....: I ;■ ij •* ■'. ii ?• • *• #< , > v 1^;, 4* ^ * 0 * ^ .9 ^ 'll ♦j *rrriBi —jiri^r "I-----r. .fc-' I•r-/<?-€-?NROX(>2^1 •Municipal Offfm r the lots lot having )arcels, parcel >f your :els for 1 area, .04 acre, res. 2.0 acres y sewer stem, lot. et the equired, her vou s for the I must .ngs do rther, ICWOMKS • 47J 7SSV , H • f • - .. » •V * -‘ **t •*» ifviCr ;r i.vi .'•'A. rV 4■>». ,•«.»•-»-"4-...p^M. i ^•-.. 4^' 4 - * '.v" • s W. >-:aT • ' >‘k*> •'t-J.^•••• •• ./t**V'' |i adl^gl iv'i^ -*- • [i ..♦^'••4 »-,-•*«—- * - ['*7 ^ - .-- - IL>vi..nA.^ I.W «* <.«. *4p>.^ . IV > •*« !k . k . .t * ■?-" * ^ ■ /; ,4 • ’S. * < I' vti ,'t: . |•.^•‘. . V-H’ ‘ , • • ■>!; * ,f.:v • ;•■•■ --•• . r r>'Vin ^ > . > • t 5^ :• ^ » *♦ i r ‘ .v • • '^V--5yV;c ’-r- •4 . .♦••yjrVfV • - . .. -T •-♦* '•r- r - |i ^ vVx • 'V,'’.-•-.« IV»- 4.-: v I.i V*' f li i‘; , V . , 4 . • - k'f- '.7*. . '*• '* •^'•v .-•''ri; ">:•* r*- -v»r?4:f:yp,T:i.. •• ,*7*;' ^a‘-' •* ' ■l^’X %' V.P *. -4 . Aa I . . * ■.-t- •f • . • . . ^ ■ \S ' -i 4 .T mm m: -yj:' m--^ .• *--74 i#» r<f r f 'JK-*''* *HI;"i * V : ^ ' If''a * ‘r- •• •••“•_ r‘ “44‘r*? ‘Pi n*'•» p. 0 *4 •* '•T-if? 't {>*' ■ '.»-» :4 • ^T .1 •*.r V , . »f •ward Ferrell Page 2 , „ or J«»nn« ltobtt»tl>. the loningyou »r« aiw«y» •.Icon* to c.ii m »jkdainlstrator. Sincerely# 'V' man'?. Olson 'city Planner City Council Walter R. Benson Jeanne A. Mabusth \h i-m .*.—■• «• 1* 4 ■ *: »4» .» •' •. J ar- ^i*/w4,ii it.'fii't.itfUi’. 0' '-.■•>• .,' '. •> V . ■p'-ft’'* *’► -*■ \»- ^ '" r *, :•» ;•:' ■•?r:.#v.i’*.‘^--t.'!^v;: ■,.' •■^■.■-'-V; ■4’^ „a • • • ^’TS- !* •' ? ’'ip*^.,'. J> - •. . %1..' ' « ••*•>r^r^ r r'Tr ■ • ISS:^vdri?.-:^ a • - .■ .* X. - ^ '1 ^ hrif ? rfW" 4, 4)%.-. 4 .. i,.. ■>.»...*« »«.' I« « , J>L ^ 7^- V*^ - ^ , .i.'. 4. •■-71 .•0r.^%m.i :4^:^^.: ; f, ^ r ■ ■ ■ % “ y ; • .. ' --4 rv l^. taiaio^^^'a * ...* ♦ lawSia^xro^^ - •' VP- 4* ■. .V ’ . * . . r .•* I • ..*«.• ■!>•■• -4. . ■* . . t S .*. 4- f . wf • "T »^* trar - .r- *a ♦.*» -. .» ■- -\ ' ..■.f,4 ?;; V-- ^ . V 1 ^ 1. >■' * ' ‘t •^'■ V v.->:\-••■|. t»» - V|*.'.4=,# a<4,y,^ lit;- ^ ♦ H aCw ' • \ ‘t*" f ■'•■ •■• *..-V-i;:';.*'*.. - A 'v'-jiV it »V / • ^ ’ '•’- • II vi*: .:-'*4.-';:i,-*''-;‘.^-'»;'-; li >■• -■'|| ,J . «. -A ..j;f .<y« ^«*Ti, ‘ ;.:':''.isi;^j.t'.<i'-5:*.‘!-*' #*» *».• 7- ‘ • • • .• .• ' V '* Ik *••■• • ■■* '• . ■■*«* V. • j •. * *• .4' * , [|»* I.' * ■* # -.%•.♦-.•.• » ,i • ji'»* • -ft• : • . :4 J • 'll ^4 a r. ■Jim • ’-i, ■ 'f:iilHi . i..-.V WVv ^mmpmymrnm 2 y ■' ■■ ' ■■yyxmm^ p „Jh4pRii^:. a.«,„Xijf j 'jjg^ug^^g^-rr’pr~;rr ' :' %;: w:. ;:::;»r» V^~r f'i.'i.'r;;:^’-i».4- ----------- -----.,,ii: r-'*~**^rt‘"rirr ---‘---'-1 Irt . pa •.-.1 r .'-i, iJ 1, . .. < * ./ ■1 'J I f I --jy fipt««%4if 2f« tftl f r. . J 0a-8SBI city of OroRo Orooo, Ninaoioco SSSfl t ilTyOFQRQNO ?«*f K«^ Of In tlio oumor of 1958, I vcnc eo t*« C«org« linnstn to |«C 0 bttilOing o«mit< At thnt cine 1 vet inforn«4 chat 1 had to aaa tha Council for approval. Ac cho ocxC nacCint 1 approachad Cha Connell for approval. 1 axpUtnad chat t had about fiva (9) aeraa of land and X vane ad to build ac the caac and of chia land. Varb toaa, than Hayor, knav tha proprrty and nada a notion to approva tha parnit. A aacond notion vra about to ba nada vhan Nr. Buglay quaationad tha legality of two honaa on Cha aana proparty. Ha aaid two houaaa on a lot of a aub*divi* •ion vaa not legal. 1 axplainad chat thara vaan*t any diviaion of property and that tha houaaa would ba !t laaat 400 faac apart. I already had a nortgaga apprcvul t^nr Midwaat fodaral for an incraaaa in tha axiacing nortgaga. The approval waa tabled until legal advice could be obtained fron tha ?illaga lawyer. I waited about two noncha to hear the reaulta that never cane even when I aahad vhat waa going on. 1 called Herb Vo** at work early one Saturday norning and inforned hin X eoaldn*C wait longer beeauae of winter coning and was going to start eonatruction that day. About two weeks later Herb called and said to atop in and gat a building parnit. tc was finally approved. At that tine ha axpraaaad hia wish that I would consider dividing the land Co saciafy Council nenbers and also a doubtful legal tanglo. I said I would think it over. When 1 went to gat the pernit fron George Hansen I inquir ed about reoCricCions on lot size if X divided the land. He inforned ne of r.o restrictions of lot size, but expressed hia desire to have it at least 140 fast wide at the building site. Raving 693 feet of land on the south would have given ne 5 or 6 lota. I decided to divide the land and contacted Gordon Coffin for survey. Finding 5 or 6 lota not appealing to ne, 1 settled for 4 lota. I - 150 feet, 2 - 140 feet, and the third I left 263 feet for nyself. This waa accepted by Che Village and Herb thanked ne for ny cooperation with their request. • . • • I • V* II .:n: ^y.s r-/9'87 aa tONO tS/^HSLf kiP (kt6,^W i«n Co got I hod CO •pprooehod 9uC fivo tnd of chio ■«dt a bouc CO ba hoooa on oub*dIvl- ny division 0 faoc •c fadoral vat vao Villago hac navar Harb loaa I couldn'c ^ o acarc Lop in and Chac cina cha land cangle. I n I Inquir- and. He asaed hia ding aice. n oe 5 or 6 rdon Coffin I, 1 aecclad rd I lefc ige and Herb . a. w 1 .... • 51 i- -•• > ■■'L • ••:. f.. ; ■3*?4 % iX,'-Ik. m m .d ^ i’ ■''ViSSi-'T"Tjr^----------JSLV ••n. • . • .. .-J»—••b« <:» « .. .cdl^.4 i-. • i iJ.m\i—....^------------ 'k^.—■ r % •Clcy of Orona -1-geplcabaf 29, i98t Ifbaa now aoniag acarcad and •aacinga ••»• held for publte eircoaacaacae kaeaaaa of cha loc aisa <1.25 •*'**^‘ ai.-Bjiia chac ic voald ha a vaaca of cl.e aven co approeeh cha loard for approval. Thla was cold to aa ovar cha phona by Jmm at Cha Cicy Halt. U ..M. .t.Mg. »l..t .«t.t . r.,...t divUa land ca aaclafy cha fillage and Council aeabara, Co have acacaaaaca aada chac aaiacing loca would not ba ?*'•***?.^^."** aoning eadaot that now a huyar of a lot ia cold lapoeaibla c hoild OB thia tec ia Oroao. I would Ilka to aatl thia lot. TK. bjyer wanta to lUa ia OroBO hot diacouragad by the flat HO by h, City for paralt wichaut BBy axcapciona. I would lika thia aacclad to land can ba aold. I have paid casaa on chla land ainea I90f and aapantea to heap I* claan. Thia aaonnca to quita a auw of Boney and tiue. Than to hoar it ean*c ba uaad is quite a blow. Too paopla of Che Planning Coaoictee. Council aeBbara and choaa who work for cha Clcy work for cha j*P'®'^***®*. City of Orono. Ha hava land (lota) alraady plotcad but do not ■aac naw codae. People want co buy in Orono to live hare. Thaaa lota should ba approved for building. •ore jobs - Inproveoent brings note revenue for the City. XBie in turn halpa the City inprove service to the eooBuniCy. Let's not hinder prograns, let's gat new ciciaens in Orono - CO Bova forward let's iaprove and develop what wa have. tcspeccfully Tcurs, .T ‘ • ■A %«• '.Vi; ‘ |u • <’i.- vf Si# IL^: '• *• f kt- v’p'; issnm v-j . organize seq. th uegulat general owner o Orono ar PA] TH the Sot «v^ fee put dii poi and The Rar Sot Sot th€ Sot beg 118 Tow poi of lir the int beg qua P.I I;**1 ; ff ' • ^• *r•*♦'♦ t'-.' *4 * * ■ ^ ^ r 29, t98l }f publie (2 - IsiStiAg 11 a loc CO ch« •nd coda d«r any 1 waa cold Manoint na by J«Ml incil Co •a, to hava icad by natf laibla CO to liva la parole I hava fcap It Then to enbara and of the but do not hare. pla develop City. Thla Ity. a In Orono hava. ’> i f * *** ersm lb ’ •r40^,ar ■%c *.■'4 *• ■’Hy:"-'r«Y- i J*" :■ --.W . •. -..» ■ r f.'r f ,*. ar» r * • - Yv f. :V’ j i« -. ' ’ . . . ‘ * -I i ‘ ^ i t -* :W V f • * ^ ' 'm V- ■’' - :.ri ,.v,j* . s V|^ .Mt ■ ..'SlfsSXy;-, »k* * . ■ ‘ ’ ■ rv 'ii. •! ■•• • ^, . . b 91* K Viv'-. •' V • . • (•• * • t* .«. a « 'l»^* ■■•i'i ■•V- . ii...' I*! i^YVi >■ M 'ii n *»y ■ :‘3* H' h ■!:•. l>jeAf='r II KESOLOnOH DENYIliG VARIANCE TO HUNICIPAL XONIIIG CODE SBCTIOII 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B> FILE NO. 990 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuanr to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq. the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Ward Ferrell (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of property located at 3405 Watertown Road within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: PARCEL 1 That part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, Township 118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 50 rods West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South line 263 feet; thence North at right angles to said South line to the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to a point directly North of the point of beginning; thence South to the point of beginning. (Also known as P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0009); and That part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, Township 118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 50 rods West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence North 6 rods to the center of the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to the South line of said Section 32; thence West to the point of beginning; excluding the public road. (Also known as P.I.D. #32- 118-23 44 0010); and PARCEL 2 That part of the Southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 1088 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South line 140 feet; thence North at right angles to said South line to the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to its intersection with a line drawn North through the point of beginning at right angles to the South line of said Southeast quarter; thence South to the point of beginning. (Also known as P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0008); and Page 1 of 9 •S' W : i*. h % Ii def in attac] to MU the € conta in ar (Parc resid 42.5% requi appro non-ci of re indiv standi recomi neigh appli City varia for t folio 1. A Resid' in ar stand prope exist .AiMJKsai .cipal corporation of Minnesota; and St. seq. and 462 et. 18 adopted zoning lealthr safety and applicant") is the within the City of ction 32, Township ncing at a point on 0 rods West of the laid South line 263 South line to the id road to a point hence South to the 2-118-23 44 0009); 32, Township 118N, ^ at a point on the rods West of the Is to the center of g said road to the t to the point of nown as P.I.D. #32- er of Section 32, list Beginning at a ter, 1088 feet West b along said South said South line to j said road to its Dugh the point of of said Southeast ng. (Also known as ■ • . “ ■ PARCEL 3 That part of the Southeast quarter of Section 32i Township 118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 1228 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South line 140 feet; thence North at right angles to said South line to the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to its intersection with a line drawn North through the point of beginning at right angles to the South line of said Southeast quarter; thence South to the point of beginning. (Also known as P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0007); and * ffHBRBAS, for discussion purposes the property has been defined as 3 separate parcels as described above and per Exhibit A attached; and ffHBRBASp the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a principal residence structure on a lot containing approximately 1.04 acres or 52% of the required 2.0 acres in area and 140 feet or 70% of the required 200 feet of lot width (Parcel 3); and to further permit the construction of a principal residence structure on a lot containing approximately 0.85 acres or 42.5% of the required 2.0 acres in area and 140 feet or 70% of the required 200 feet of lot width (Parcel 2); and requesting Council approval per Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C) to separate non-conforming, undeveloped, substandard, contiguous, unsewered lots of record under common ownership, which separation would result in individual building sites not satisfying the lot area and lot width standards of the Zoniiig Chapter of the Orono Muncipal Code; and WHBRBAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commisbion; comments of the i*aighboring property owners; and materials and comments made by the applicant and applicant's attorney. NOW, TBBRBFORB BB IT RBSOLVBD, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the requested lot area and lot width variances and denies the request to separate the common1y owned lots for the property described above based upon one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: FINDINGS 1. As of January 1, 1975, the property has been zoned RR-lB, Rural Residential Zoning District, requiring a minimum lot size of 2.0 acres in area and 200 feet minimum width. Based on the required performance standards for the RR-lB zoning district, the proposed use of the property for 2 new residential building sites in addition the one existing building site would require the following variances: Page 2 of 9 "Stub resid area. 6. F appro; 3425 \ Section 32, eginning at a L228 feet West ng said South South line to i road to its the point of aid Southeast Also known as »rty has been per Exhibit A for variances (B) to permit ire on a lot red 2.0 acres of lot width : a principal 0.85 acres or >r 70% of the jting Council :) to separate nsewered lots lid result in and lot width le; and lication; the mments of the s made by the louncil of the nd lot width Ly owned lots more of the I RR-IB, Rural :e of 2.0 acres ed performance ed use of the lition the one inces: IiOt Area Parcel 2 (vacant) a) Lot Area b) Lot Width Parcel 3 (vacant) Lot Area Parcel 1 (with existing house) Required Existing Variance 2.0 acres 1.01 acres or 50*5% 0*99 acres or 49.5% Required Existing Variance 2.0 acres 0.85 acres or 42.5% 1.15 acres or 57.5% Required Existing Variance 200 feet 140 feet or 70% 60 feet or 30% Required Existing Variance 2.0 acres 1.04 acres or 52% 0.96 acres or 48% Lot Width Required « 200 feet Existing ■ 140 feet or 70% Variance ■ 60 feet or 30% 2. The property consists of 4 separate tax parcels which are contiguous and which are owned in common by the applicant. The property in total contains approximately 2.90 acres and has a width in excess of 500 feet, in both respects meeting the area and width requirements for the single existing residence on the property 3. Prior to January 1, 1975, the property was zoned R-IC, effective since September 14, 1967, a residential zone requiring a minimum of 1 acre in area and 140 feet minimum width. 4. Prior to September 14, 1967, the property was Included within the "Stubbs Bay Zoning District", effective since July 10, 1950, a residential zone requiring a minimum building lot size of 1 acre in area. 5. The applicant purchased the property in August 1948. 6. Prior to 1958, the property was undivided and contained ly 4.19 acres and contained only the residence located at 3425 Watertown Road. Page 3 of 9 7. On Sept Mr. Ferrell The reques Commission, construct a known as 34 8. Sometime that 3425 W parcel, th< acre parce parcels (Pa 3425 Watert 9. Mr. Pei their creat. 10. On Mar variance ap At staff's zoning ap] recommenda' complete su 11. Pursu Commission on April 1 variances v and the Pl« that Planni new house. 12. The zc 1985, and t code that m vacant loti stated they two. 13. On Oct for varian Commission and tabled survey and 14. On Feb completed recommended 1 new build >0.5% 19.5% 12.5% 17.5% 2% 8% parcels which are e applicant. The and has a width in he area and width :he property. ed R-IC, effective ring a minimum of 1 Included within the July 10, 1950, a t size of 1 acre in 1948. ed and contained sidence located at • . .. T 7. on September 22, 1958, the City Council approved the request of Mr. Ferrell to construct a second residence on the undivided property. The request was granted subject to approval of the Planning Commission. Subsequently, Mr. Ferrell was issued a building permit to construct a new residence on October 13, 1958, which residence is now known as 3405 Watertown Road. 8. SOTietime during 1958-1959, Mr. Ferrell suMivided the property so that 3425 Watertown Road was contained within a separate 1.29 *cre 3425 Watertown Road. 9. Mr. Ferrell has retained ownership of Parcels 1, 2 and 3 since their creation as a result of the 1958-o9 subdivision. 10. On March 18, 1985, Mr. Ferrell requested City staff to accept a Atta?f•V'^rVc^i^en^^ "Submitted the application as a zoning appeal in order to be granted a timely recommendation by the Planning Commission without submitting the complete survey and soil testing information required. 11. Pursuant to the zoning appeal application, the Planning Conanission held a Public Hearing on this matter. Application No. ^ on April 15, 1985. The Planning Commission confirmed that many variances were necessary in order to build on either of Parcels 2 or 3 and the Planning Commission gave the applicant the general direction that Planning Commission would likely only recommend approval of one new house, and only if Parcels 2 and 3 were combined. two. 13. On October 9, 1985, Mr. Ferrell submitted a ^ for variances to build new homes on Parcels 2 and 3. The Plann^ing Commission held a public hearing on the matter on November 18, 1985, and tabled the application pending submittal survey and soil testing information for the existing house on Parcel 1. 14. On February 18, 1986, the Planning Commission again reviewed the completed application. The Planning Commission unanimously reco^ended denial of 2 new building sites but recoimended approval of 1 new building site using the combined Parcels 2 and 3. Page 4 of 9 |a T At the could wished Applic 16. T at the adopt€ Ross V compli 17. T1 such accord does 1 previc 18. 1 desigr indica reside setbac consid case < matte] housii effect ;:v : :y-■■' ifiifn'- • I**. ed the request of ^divided property, of the Planning juilding permit to 1 residence is now d the property so iparate 1.29 acre Located on a 1.01 ind 2 additional between 3405 and t 1, 2 and 3 since »n. staff to accept a ' home on Parcel 3. application as a lely review and it submitting the id. n, the Planning >lication No. 903r firmed that many of Parcels 2 or 3 general direction J approval of one 1. >uncil on May 28r ion of the zoning to build on both 1 Council members Iding site but not ormal application { 3. The Planning November 18, 1985, dditional required ng house on Parcel again reviewed the sion unanimously unended approval of d 3. .'“V,m lipr w iii; ■." ■:v=zaaci mm' n the City Council dLected staff to draft a resolution of denial based on the following findings: a) The extent of the variances requested is excessive for the RR-IB zoning district. b) Given the history of septic system problems in ^he Orono and surrounding Lake Minnetonka, a density of ^ s«P “= systems on 2.9 acres in a district where 6 acres is required for * 3 septic systems, is excessive. c) Because the property is currently used as conforming residential building site, the applicant would not be deprived of a reasonable use of the property. d) Applicant has not demonstrated sufficient hardships to justify granting of the requested variances. At the April 14, 1986 Council meeting the applicant noted could not be present at the meeting. The applicant was asked if h^e wished to have the matter tabled until his attorney was present. Applicant waived his right to have his attorney present. 16. The applicant maintains that he divided the at the request of then Mayor Herb Ross. * iQt ^Mavor adopted in 1950 allowed only one residence per f ROSS would have been legally bound to require ® completed in order to allow the new house which was permitted in 1958. 17. The applicant maintains that the property was divided in a iuch that new homes could be built on f] according to City codes at the time of division. In fact. Parcel 2 does not^and never did contain the 1 acre in area required under previous zoning of the property. 18. The applicant has provided soil testing. Proposed septic system desierns, and proposed site plans for each of Parcels 2 an indicate that technically, septic systems can ® residence on each of Parcels 2 and 3, meeting the required sanitary setbacks. However, technical feasibility is not the considered by the City in reviewing variance case and other similar cases, the City has also matter of policy, the potential adverse effect of higher density housing on^the quality of Lake Minnetonka and the potential adverse effect on the general health, safety, and welfare. Page 5 of 9 rch 10, 1986, )ril 14, 1986, E denial based ssive for the In the City of y of 3 septic i required for s conforming be deprived of hardships to id his attorney is asked if he f was present. ty in 1958-59 1 zoning code \q lot. Mayor , division be Ltted in 1958. ied in a manner reels 2 and 3 fact. Parcel 2 required under septic system 2 and 3 which ed to serve a Lred sanitary >nly criteria i, and in this jidered, as a .gher density itial adverse 0M.$ 4m- ■i mM ■^k m 19. The applicant naintains he attend^^ public hearings and h« not ^en documented by the rprUc\‘'n%Tor*c"arit - ve^r^J^^b^^t^e Whether or not t of variances, record; •«i iOO Existing tots. A lot of record existing upon Sept^ber fthe effective date of the Zoning Code) under sinaie -R” Residential ^ meet therequirementsjf^the Zo^^^ purpose !Hr^^e\Va‘'«eA%ublil“hla!^ saf\ty.“”ltngirs\^Vatrotne% shirincl^ud” joint ownership by not more than two persons. The 1967 Code did not discuss common ownership "°However^ differentiate betw-en sewered and implied ‘ that other by using the term ^ differently but did not define in wSirw:y.°""of”er fhTs“ code, the -PP^-®^^^^To^t me^*'the" st^^rdS of theTf"rol.ing"fff«fcf.""faff';i 2 would have required a lot area variance in order to be legally buildable. ^r^rty" trfe"Lnc°d Acre"“l/n"gle FamlVy tt!Sentia\?".tafeI af follows regarding existing lots of record: iVlf^N’the'tffeftifJ^'date f “th^ToninfcVdl)"under ulifze^VoV a°si:3l*e detached dwelling purpose provided met: •*1 Tn "R" districts of Greater Than One Acre. A lot ^£*tfccrtin\nt-R- District in the City in excess of one acre, which does not meet the requirements of thxs Zoning ^atrif d^ti^Lt dtel^^tg^tr^pfserrfthe“tofn^^ fttds: Page 6 of 9 ^W"T wmyn Under tl lot area again di commonly 22. Cit substand by an ac develop wide va< was deni 26, 198 sanitar; width. 23. The 10.03, S non-conf aligned road or specif i< lots sal perf ormc code. 24. At similar variance 25. Sir became a common1'm residenc 145 perm issued f to the i to creat rebuild was alr< permits lots in posed to be :tended the 5 buildable nted by the : or not it 1 would be ty in 1981f rmits for a :he granting as R-IC, 1 .ng lots of jn September ider single ,ch does not >r width may .ng purpose se does not irate owner- rsons. nor did it . However, that other t define in allowed to iO standards a lot area declared the itialr stated . January 1# ier single )t meet the dth may be 36 provided , adversely rements are ere. A lot cess of one bhis Zoning for single finds: ■f!'. m W''"'i:: 1) it is at least one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; and 2) it is either served by public sanitary sewer or meets all the septic system requirements of the City or other governmental body; and 3) it otherwise meets the requirements of this or other applicable ordinances. Under this Code, the Council, at their option, could have granted a lot area variance for a lot of single separate ownership, but the Code again did not specifically discuss any standards for the separation of commonly owned lots. 22. City policy regarding the separation of unsewered, undeveloped substandard, contiguous lots Jn common ownership was clearly defined by an action of the City Council in 1981, in which the separation of a developed 1.4 acre lot from the adjacent vacant 1.7 acre, 120.3 foot wide vacant lot in the LR-IA 2-acre, 200 foot width, unsewered zone was denied. (Application No. 635, Council action to deny on October 26, 1981, based on; a) lack of demonstrated hardship; b) no sanitary sewer available; c) insufficient area; d) insufficient width. 23. The 1984 Zoning Code amendments included the addition of Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C), which prohibited the "transfer or sale of non-conforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership" unless specifically approved by the City Council, or unless the resulting lots satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Code. No performance standards for approval of such transfers appear in the code. 24. At least 13 properties or groups of properties in a situation similar to Ferrells with a high potential for request of similar variances have been identified within the City of Orono. 25. Since January 1, 1975, when the 2 acre RR-lB zoning district became effective, no permits have been issued for new residences on commonly owned substandard lots in the RR-IB district. Of 153 new residence permits issued in the RR-IB district from 1/1/75 to 5/1/86, 145 permits have been issued for conforming lots, 7 permits have been issued for substandard lots of record in single separate ownership due to the inability of applicants to combine or acquire addiv-ional land to create conforming lots, and 1 permit was issued to aemolish and rebuild on a substandard single separate ownership lot where a house was already existing. The City of Orono has consistently denied permits for substandard lots owned in common with adjacent developed lots in the RR-IB district. Page 7 of 9 -v> 26. The City unsewered lots < exceed the requ be built upon c must be combi: requirements of 27. Thb granti sections of the of the City, minimum of two City where ther 28. In review that to establ: lots to be dev< environmental i be detrimental also looks to t in its Communit district when safety and wel; welfare are no drainage conce must provide it of density, ope 29. The granti: property to an of City service protection. 30. The grant; City water and Zoning Code and 31. In gran longstanding, « of substandard adverse precede 32. Denial of property or lo always had vali on Parcel 1. 33. The inter intent of the C Tti t■ -mmL 'V' / '^:■-- .-: .Z6r and the average iet; and c sanitary sewer or ‘ments of the City or irements of this or ;ould have granted a lershipf but the Code for the separation of eweredr undeveloped was clearly defined 1 the separation of a 1.7 acre, 120.3 foot Ldth, unsewered zone n to deny on October *d hardship; b) no ‘a; d) insufficient ! addition of Section 'transfer or sale of jblic sanitary sewer, a public or private n ownership" unless inless the resulting the Zoning Code. No isfers appear in the ties in a situation request of similar Orono. -IB zoning district or new residences on LStrict. Of 153 new com 1/1/75 to 5/1/86, 7 permits have been eparate ownership due uire addr\,ional land sued to aemolish and ip lot where a house consistently denied h adjacent developed .I*-n.. mm 49 * 26. The City Council has always required that when two or more unsewered lots are owned in common, each lot must individually meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any of the lots can be built upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in common must be combined so that the resulting combined lot meets the requirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built upon. 27. Tht granting of such a variance would require amending the many sections of the Comprehensive Plan that govern the J^ural development of the City. The City of Orono has been consistent in requiring a minimum of two acres for a buildable lot in the rural areas of the City where there is no sewer service. 28. In review of the factual findings noted above, the City finds that to establish a precedent that would allow severely substandard lots to be developed to be in complete conflict with the established environmental standards for rural development within the be detrimental to the public, health, safety and welfare. The City also looks to the broader, environmental principals and goals setfortn in its Community Management Plan and the intent of the specific zoning district when dealing with matters related to the public, health, safety and welfare. Issues involving the public health, safety and welfare are not only resolved in securing the obvious traffic and drainage concerns of surrounding property owners but the City also must provide its citizens with a designated and approved optimum level of density, open space and quality of life. 29. The granting of such a variance would require the rezoning of the property to an urban lot size in addition to requiring the extension of City services to the property to maintain a suitable level of fire protection. 30. The granting of such a variance would require the extension of City water and sewer to maintain the standards setforth in the Orono Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan for an urban sized lot. 31. In granting such a variance. Council longstanding, consistent policy in consideration of the buildability of substandard lots under common ownership and thereby establish an adverse precedent. 32. Denial of the subject variances would not constitute a takir^ of property or loss of substantial value because Parcels 2 and 3 have always had value and have been used as required area for the residence on Parcel 1. 33. The intent of the application is contrary to the letter and intent of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. Page 8 of 9 5a»j-.t:-' ■ ■. f*. .f.'l L.nawff^^8^ ^ . len two or more ^idually meet or of the lots can owned in common lot meets the I built upon. nending the many iral development : in requiring a :al areas of the the City finds rely substandard the established the City and to .fare. The City d goals setforth specific zoning public# health# ilth# safety and ous traffic and t the City also sd optimum level rezoning of the ng the extension Le level of fire the extension of irth in the Orono lot. Duld abandon a the buildability eby establish an tute a taking of Is 2 and 3 have or the residence > the letter and 34. The variances would have an adverse effect upon safety and welfare of the community for the reasons outlined herein. 35. The amount of light and air in the neighborhood would be diminished by adding a structure on the substandard lot. 36. The values of surrounding properties will be adversely affected. 37. There are no special conditions applying to the land in question which are peculiar to the land or immediately adjoining property. 38. The granting of the application is not preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property g applicant. 39 The arantina of the variances will serve mainly as a convenience ?o the ?ican’t, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 40 In order to put everyone on notice that the above referenced substandard lots in common ownership must remain 'ij'der ^ership to maintain the existing house as a conforaing “®*' h«eby directs the City staff to file such notice against the properties legally described herein. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono# Minnesota# at a regular meeting held May 27# 1986. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin# City Clerk Mary C. Butler# Mayor Page 9 of 9 ■ ,vV-r^.V' K-.. • F ' . - ■ ■ ■. *. upon the health/ outlined herein. jorhood would be lot. versely affected I land in question ling property. cessary for the rty right of the / as a convenience Late demonstrable above referenced in under common Riing use/ Council ice against the f Orono, Minnesota/ Mayor i J»' ^'_.v 4 ■:iyM % §: m \.• e-UilA "3FIF V %• A # HesoLur/o^ /ve.• « M k ?/ y ,/ ,.cJr ! . • • k\\' { I • • / / r .1 _____ ______. —:or~4 -w + .u-4;i,+- .«— I 1 I ^ I ji I* ■ ^ .. ,-A jL I___ I /r'■ 'A rr I4u*wv*ap^f. ^ l.«* _________I j***»k^- - . ■ - -•■.■5Jfc r>» ^Al'.'V-C! -1 9^i CONSTRI 7900 BEECH STREET September City of Oi Box 66 Crystal Bf Attn: Ms. Re: Dear Jeani In respons by the Pit Park Consi cubic yar« is based < a 20% weal Conversel: projects, placed at yards per Park Cons A tandem yards of i Park Cons projects. Construct traffic o of the eg if requir ' "M CONSTRUCTION CO ESTAiius»ieo tsi« ■ COMME net At AND V4__/ tNOUSTAIAt IXCAYATINO • AOAO 8UILOINQ ■ PILE omviNO ■ SEWfEA, MATE A INSTALLATION ■ BRIDGES ■ GOLF COURSES ■ SUB DIVISION AND LAND OEVELORMENT jrMENT RENTAL ING AND OESION 7900 BEECH STREET N.E. ■ MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55432 • TELEPHONE 786-9 September 29, 1988 ^ l^lc> City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth File No. 139-1310 Howard Eisinger Dear Jeanne In response to your letter of August 8, 1988, I will address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Park Construction, wi*!; a steady supply of fill, would be able to place 100,000 cubic yards of fill on the Eisinger property in approximately five weeks. This is based on placing 5,000 cubic yards each day, working five days per week, with a 20% weather delay factored in. Conversely, if fill material were available sporadically, whether from different projects, or one project with stage construction, etc., the material could be placed at a rate of 5000 cubic yards per week up to between 70,000 to 80,000 yards per week. The latter example would only occur if time were a factor and Park Construction elected to work a double shift six days per week. A tandem truck can legally carry about 9 cubic yards (bank volume). 100,000 cubic yards of material would be approximately 11,100 truck loads of material. Park Construction has an excellent safety record on all of their construction projects. When trucking to a disposal site located on a major highway Park Construction would place a series of signs which would warn both directions of traffic of the construction ahead. These signs would be placed well in advance of the egress; stating. Road Construction Ahead, Trucks Entering Highway, and, if required. Flagman Ahead and Prepare to Stop. m.- AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER - CONSTRUC 7900 BEECH STREET N.E. The Minnesoti construction State Highwa; shoulder and All major sti The shoulder break up wit! occur. Park < shoulder. I will be at 1988 to clar answer any o Sir.- -ly, PARK CONSTRU ^ohn Gannon, Project Mana JG;gp cc: Howard -4- • 7-7 (c■ COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EXCAVATINQ ■ ROAD BUILDING ■ PILE DRIVING ■ SEWER, WATER INSTALLATION ■ BRIDGES ■ GOLF COURSES ■ SUB DIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT IPMENT RENTAL LNO AND DESIGN the concerns raised le to place 100,000 y five weeks. This days per week, with ether from different aterial could be 70,000 to 80,000 were a factor and r week, lurae), 100,000 cubic of material, heir construction or highway Park both directions of iced well in advance ‘ring Highway, and, A m: .. .y.t Wm J . J •I." ^ 1^..- 7 r.*V ‘•V‘ si 7- CONSTRUCTION CO ESTAWLI91ED 1B1B ■ COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EXCAVATING • ROAD BUILDING • PILE DRIVING • SEWER, WATER IMTALLATtON ■ BRIDGES ■ GOLF COURSES ■ SUB DIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT ■ EQUIPMENT RENTAL ■ ENGINEERING AND DESIGN 7900 BEECH STREET N.E, • MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55432 ■ TELEPHONE 7BM800 ■ PAGE 2 The Minnesota Department of Transportation requires advance signing for any construction that may disrupt traffic. Temporary construction is allowed on State Highways with a permit; however, in this case TH 12 has a 10 foot paved shoulder and a bypass lane would not be required. All major state highways are designed to carry truck traffic as described above. The shoulder section at the point of entry to the Eisinger site would probably break up with the volume of turning truck traffic into the site. If this should occur, Park Construction would be responsible for any repair required on the shoulder, I will be attending the special meeting of the Planning Coimnission on October 3, 1988 to clarify any questions that awy arise on the above mentioned subject or answer any other questions you may have. Sir iy» PARK CONSTRUCTI^H^COMPANY 'Uohn Gannon, P,E, Project Manager JG:gp cc: Howard Eisinger - AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER - r to ’Kiilllfe!^i •if i?»"'*4"- ■ . tmma pxlb ho. I310 CITY OF OHOBO HOTICB OF PIAHHIH6 COMMISSIOH *CTIOH P«0* Box 66 Crystal Bay, MH 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 9/26/88 TOs Howard Elslnger COPIES TO: Pa* ^ Construction 3245 Wayzata Blvd Actn: John Gannon Long Lake, tffl 55356 7900 Beach St NE Mpls, MN 55432 mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm r mm mm mm ^ mm « mm «MI mm mm 0m mm mm mmMl » — «■» • m mm mm mm ’^m ^m ^m TYPE OF APFLICATIOH: P.anewal Conditional Use Permit DATE OF IffiETIHG: ? /19/d€ VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Plannifig Cosnd.8sion reccnnMnds the folloifiligi' Tabled for reaeons noted below NOTES AHD SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Prior to the meeting, Mr. Gannon advised that he could not attend the September 19, 1988 Planning Commission meeting but that he could attend the special meeting of the Plauning Commission scheduled for October 3rd* As many of the original questions posed by the Planning Commission ccncernirg your conditional use permit must be addressed by Mr. Gannon, it appeared appropriate to table all discussion on the application until Mr. Gannon was able to attend. X have enclosed a copy of Glenn Cook’s letter regarding his recommendations for the current review. We have also enclosed a copy for Mr. Gannon's consideration. Once again, it is important to make sure that Mr. Gannon accompanies you at the October 3rd Planning Commission meeting. We know this review has been delayed, but we hope to get eveigirthing finalized so that the Planning Commission can make their formal recommendation for action. Please call my office if you have any questions on the original notice sent to you of Planning Commission action dated August 23, 1908 or any questions related to the Engineer's letter dated August 31, 1988. ' HiMi TOi wwmt DATE: SUBJECT: - Sul LIST OF m Exhil Exhil DISCOSSIOl This allow app 10' side i conforminc Sinc< have no | However, i attorney David Eis purposes. StafJ at the Oci STAFF RBO Staf: tv . * mm: -‘ -fii^ LB HO 1310 >MMISSIOH ACnOM te of Notice: 9/26/88 onstructlon John Gannon each St NE MN 55432 le could not attend the lat he could attend the for October 3rd. \e Planning Coramiesion essed by Mr. Gannonr it i application until Mr. etter regarding his 1.0 enclosed a copy for tant to make sure that Lng Commission meeting, pe to get everything n make their formal * on the original notice August 23r 1988 or any just 31, 1988. Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Co2»«ission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning 6 Zoning Administrator September 28, 1988 rUBJSCTt #1328 Howard B. Johnson, 1635 t Review_ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Class I - Second Review Brnbrnt^A^ Planning Commission Action Notice Dated 9/21/88 Exhibit B - Memo 6 Exhibits of 9/14/88 OISCOSSOTit^m ^48 reviewed at your 9/19/88 meeting, and was tabled to allow applicant to consider Planning Commission's request to * 10' side setback to the Trainor house, so that the house would obtain a conforming side setback. Since that meeting, staff was initially ”5* have no problem with this request and '^ould su^bmit However, since that initial discussion, staff h.^s been attorney that the contract-for«deed purchaser ®J ® David Eiss. >'as not consented to granting the additional land for setback purposes staff has been advised that all the affected parties will be present at the October 3rd meeting. ®“”stSff'^^^Sdation ae noted in the September 14 memo still applies . -L. •■•V ■» K ■* CITY OF 01 P.O. Box < Crystal B4 TOs Howai 1635 wayzi TYPE OP A] DATE OP M Planning < Tabl« NOTES AHD Plan to allow obtain a • It i agreed to review by survey sh 1988. Appl If y minutes, approval If t would the ■ V ■ ,/.V f Administrator aia Street - IS I - Second Review ited 9/21/88 ig, and was tabled to equest to revise to a. house would obtain a that Mr. Johnson would lit a revised survey, in advised by Johnson’s >hnson's property, Mr. Lonal land for setback >arties will be present 14 memo still applies. ■■ I'T-y p‘d r r-',.. : ift-: ;5?.-. ^ V (I -•••■(I /I M m if tomiVG WllM wo. #1328 C3m OW OSMO R.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 HOTICB of FLABHIIKS COllMISSIOB ACTIOB 473-7357 Date of Notice: 9-21-88 tOx Howard B. Johnson 1635 Concordia Street Waysata, MN 55391 COPIBS TOx Helen K, Trainor 1675 Concordia Street Wayzata, MN 55391 type op APPLICATIOMx Subdivision mR~OT~«nii6i 9-19-«8 V0TB« 5 tot 0 Against Planniag C<*as«ioo reco—fnas tl>« followingJ Tabled for reasons noted below MOTBS AMD SPECIAL COHDITlOHS: Planning C<nani.sion requested applicant to consider to allow for a 10* side setback to the Trainor house, so that house would obtain a confornting side setback. It is our understanding as of this writing that all j’tl* agreed to such a revision, and that you will fa^’meetino ’^iLtreview by the Planning Commission at their October 3, 1988 90 sSriey should be submitted to staff no later than Wednesday September 28, 1988. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission October 3, 1988; meeting starts at 7;00p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Pl-nn^ r.^’JITiriSd Binutesj^ they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If the Planning Cosmission recommends approval on this item would then be scheduled for Council action on October 24, 1988, m • V1 r.K. •AMftY i THOMAS Mr. Chai City P. O Crys Re: Dear This oron The sapp be h his subd deno This Trai the Our 1 to a; not requ with 10-f. setb< Mrs. for thes< TRK:; cc: '.9 *1/ .1 LB BO. #1328 )ilMISSIOB ACnOH f,e of Notices 9~21 —88 , Trainor ncordla Street , MN 55391 Against ider revising proposal 5, so that house would :hat all parties have : a revised survey for 3, 1988 meeting. That Wednesday September 28« % as: ing starts at 7:00p.m. 1 Planning Commission der after review and 1 on 10-3-88, this item er 24, 1988. fai m ftii i .- :"I'K mm ^ ,4 ^ 1 m m, UkZASUS AND KjSTXKY •AI»MV CAZAKU9 Thomas a . ATTOSNEYS AT LAW TITUS BUILOINO • SUITE AOS esso YONK avenue soutn MtNNEJ^TOUIS. MINNESOTA SS43S (ei2) 920-2300 September 28, 1988 elirlti Hr. Charles Kelly Chairman, Planning C City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ission Re:Howard Johnson — Helen Trainor Proposed Subdivision Our File No. 4121-04 Dear Mr. Kelly: This office represents Helen K. Trainor, 1675 Concordia Street, Orono, Minnesota. The purpose of this letter is to advise you that Mrs. Trainor supports the proposed subdivision applied for by Howard Johnson to be heard by the Orono Planning Commission on October 3, 1988. In his application, Mr. Johnson is requesting approval of a subdivision and a transfer to Mrs. Trainor of the property denominated ac Tract B on the proposed registered land survey. This Tract b is intended to encompass the encroachment of Mrs. Trainer's house onto Mr. Johnson's property that has existed since the house was built in 1951. Our understanding is that the Planning Commission previously failed to approve this proposal because the transfer to Mrs. Trainor did not result in meeting the City's 10-foot sideyard set back requirement. Since Mrs. Trainer's house has existed for 37 years with a zero sideyard set back, she is willing to accept either the 10-foot setback requested by the Planning Commission or the 5-foot setback suggested by Mr. Johnson. Mrs. Trainer's main concern is to have the problem settled once and for all and eliminate the encroachment that has existed for all these years. Very truly yours. D KELLEY Thomas R. Kelley TRK:LLF cc: Mrs. Helen K. Trainor Mr. Neil J. Trainor Mr. William Wangensteen B to I this why 81 r«arr boundi 3L Street, . Trainer ohnson to 1988. In il of a property a survey. : of Mrs. ited since ily failed ainor did set back 37 years lither the :he 5-foot 1 once and a for all Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardscn Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning a Zoning Administrator September 14, 1988 #1328 Howard B. Johnson, 1635 a 1675 Concordia Street Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Class I - Public Hearing Application - The Trainor House at 1675 Concordia Street encroaches approximately 1* over the lot line into the Johnson property at 1635 Concordia Street. The proposed lot line rearrangement places the Trainor house within its property boundaries. Zoning District - LR-IC, Single Family 1/2 Acre Minimum, Sewered U.st of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Proposed Registered Land Survey Discussi( I Howard Johnson of 1635 Concordia Street is in the process of selling his property which consists of approximately 3.9 acres. It came to light as a result of a recent property survey, that the neighboring Trainor residence at 1675 Concordia Street encroaches approximately 1* into the Johnson property. This subdivision is merely to provide an additional parcel of 336 s.f. to the Trainor property in order that their house at 1675 Concordia Street can be within its property boundaries. Although it is not dimensioned on the survey, the proposed Tract B to be transferred to Trainor, appears to leave a 5* setback from the Trainor residence to the new property line. In our LR~1C district, normally a 10* side setback is required. Staff would suggest that Planning Commission ask applicant to consider granting additional square footage for Tract B so that the normal 10’ side setback can be accomplished. The current proposal Incraases the Trainor property to 0.434 acre in area. Staff Reo • J n I i iendati( Although it would appear that granting of additional area within Tract B to accomplish the 10* side setback standard would be a logical goal in this type of lot line rearrangement, applicant may have specific reasons why such an arrangement is not proposed. Regardless, the proposed lot line rearrangement, which places the Trainor house within its own property boundaries is a positive application and staff would recommend approval. i-% m.. = mm.. ‘‘k ’ ■’* CITT OF OROMO - I PROPBRTZ LOCATIOl Site Address Property Identifi Please check one Attach legal des APPLICANT Name \A » Address t \ (s> ONNER (if differ! Name Address: (attach TTi BZISTING LAND OSl Number of Tj Development Present Use Present Zon PROPOSAL _ _ _ _ Lumber < Proposet Minimum Propose? |?5urf5 #' 1fmm ninistrator La Street - IS I - Street encroaches Dn property at 1635 igement places the Sewered process of selling 3. It came to light leighboring Trainor imately 1' into the >vide an additional that their house at ries. proposed Tract B to tk from the Trainor ict, normally a 10* ning Commission ask ;age for Tract B so ty to 0.434 acre 1 area within Tract a logical goal in e specific reasons i proposed lot line i its own property Dinmend approval. flease check one - Property Attach legal description to application Name V( .O *• Addresst \ G ^ OmnSM (if different than applicant) Name ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /f* v>1 V' _ _ SUBDIVlSIOli APPLICATION i # • m K. abstract or torrens? Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^T ^ ^ ^ Q uFFicE oi jsv Si. J1...250.CC APPLICANT - Phone (home) JJ 7 / A r ; V OS/IS. » *ifS Phone (work) City I Zip:_£^12^ Phone (home ) Phone (work)i> * Address: ' ' (attach list if more than one) City:Zip: BSISTIB6 LAND DSN Number of Tax Parcels Development Size //Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Totals all parcels • e «Present Use (check)Residential; no. of units Other (specify) ^ ^ • • Present Zoning District W, PROPOSAL __ _ _ _ _ Division for Tax Purposes . ♦ mm ^ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) • Subdivision for New Building Sites ♦ •»* •> •» humber of Building Sites:I Existing Units New Units Total Units ' • j, »• ♦ Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) I Units per Acres - W «- /f A Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land r Residential Other (specify) Mm 0 , - m;x:M ■ 'K -- .. iil A U '"die ii__ i 2. 3. NINUfOM HA 1. Compl' Preli: Certi this 348-3 Stamp names obtai As an any o 4. 5. Certif ica^ complete• Zoning Off 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Payme Signe Title Easem Devel Certificat Zoning Off FEES Ske Pre Pre Fin *(P The appli requested Planning C further ag Applicant' Owner's Si Applicant Planning C third Mon< review mee unable to authorized Office of Wmmt mmb;m'mm:m ■i'sil«»'?<S :.-mri pn l*f * I mwn -1 Y. - ■ --Mrn:m ■-■■ iiiii m- ^ ^ ^ ..- .j: »;..v/- - ■, IP. iwftii :VUV>V^^ /- J» «W» j«4UM«*.iinM9U|!i«; > ■ Lm rantlMIW^ APPLlClkTlOil 2. 3. mVUfOII MATERIAL HECESSART P 1. Completed Application Form Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey, Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Oovt. Center 348’^327X)estamped# legal si'xed envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). .j.#. As an addendum to this application# please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 4. 5. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application Is^ Datecomplete. . . . . Zoning Official's Signature . A «». « 'mm IT Paynent of f..a (park fees, filing f«a, ..war and ^ter aaseasBants). 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. ^ 5, Title opinion. 4. Basements# Covenants# etc. 5. Developers Agreeaient and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Pinal Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature- - - - - - - - - --- -:- -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _— FEES S)cetch Plan Review (Class I# II 4 HI) Preliminary Review (Class I i II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 Preliminary Review (Class HI and all non-residential)300.00 4- 20.00/Lot Pinal Plat Review (Class HI) ♦(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 150.00* The aoDlicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance............. Applicant's Signature *7'^ W Date //XOwner's Signature ^Date \~7-9t authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building 6 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. maast ^ I.IGATIOH vey, 50* .(you must obtain ce A-603 Govt Center seed to each of the (use address labels i a separate list of ration. Plat Applicatioh is 0 • Date water assessments). >rmal plat ication is complete Date sntial) ate $150.00 250.00 300.00 + 20.00/Lot 150.00* mation required or jer. City Attorney, bhis application and jy ordinance. . .. ate -(y., 25 days before the gs are held on the t at all scheduled If an applicant is gements to have an Building & Zoning <0 10 a: o m ft ft ft £ o UI ft ft s o Ui g9«O 2 Ui < >- ft ft a Ui a ft H Q oo 5 PROP ADD OUNER NA TAXPAYER NAHE/AOsiS95 >- \ « « 5 iii a Ui a 2 § ft H 01 iiss O 2 Xsi;: sV. Ui s*Sa r -J o M o ^ < O U III Mu K o “2S5O Z Ui < >• N a *< UI CL UJ Q. r o 5 X oc 3 < 2 a. o V-• I"•V^ J mss 2 u Ikaiifs imsun 1*^ 2 wfc <!% lyt«M H> « Ui 91 in 8 8 l§g| 8 ly s ly ^SS88 1^ X H •- 2 in M ^ ft « 9! IllAsiis-’ hI 8 < < ft ft sS o r*. m N ft o ■o Uis m UI s 522 a S28 UI in ft in fi 0 I €0 o Ki UI UI S o u u in M M o ^ z 2 inin < < ^ o -> -> m ft r o o 2 ft o o 2 UJ ^ < ^ Nft < Ui 0. Ui a. o«22S E o f- V M *1 s 8^ 8 UI 81 S^S S8 I ft M N ni»•u in s;i g<oo UI •n m 8 UI «# “5i|S5g 2 ::i* O UI UI Q 8iiili ft •n in ^1 ii m CM O ^ 8 8 Ui ft in 3 in 8 O UI r** u in M •ii^ «j o < 3 ^|i M 88 -j in g 9 & O £ UI ft ^ Cl 3 ft g 2 UJ ^ >• *Nft < UI ^ X ^ TIT N ' i - tj lif'll P'- '1 ligl 'A & ,ki g; ■’ V ili. s 9% I B S ft 5 01 u» Ui uM m UI I tin IK Ui _og« |5^ inm - B 5* in CM 0* m m gg o “"R^g S53Rg !:§ g “5 in in In* 8 8 a UI •J ^ $ UI UJ ^ h s 8 S I 3 . <SI M -> m inUI o mM ft m ft I= II ft 9) s Si , BBSS H 4 >• ft OO ^ « a UJ 02 £i ftUi >- aX fta 9N g O UI ft 28i SB§^ il.JN ft 2 ^ in -i 89S 885i gg ft ft ft ft H- « =^i! tn 2 M ► ft K g I ^ ^ 0 ^ in ft ft ft ft 8*^o ^ « ft ft Z S3‘II < > ft « a UJ *: o z > ft 3 4 a o I- • O til 94 94 < yj s III til III N S S h! X -• 2 U. M K _e|i s !!8ss s 90 ^ tU m fiH>!.85Sx s*o e III III g M M O 3iiSijgMMO iss N K III M O *14 .1 «iIp -I -I lA ^ o < g ^ K O9 lU >• \ K < lU a uj a ^o£ m-’. MMi p': : S- ;: ■ F b:?'' ■ ^ If - C . iV?-' ml.-. ■■ ■ It'^ k-^-r ■■'■:- w ii *;jy WX*'-.:.... .5, . t »A M I 9 IK o m ’j m «# 8;^s^3$;ss i ft 9 IK S8S3E, - «asgi IK g Z _ «(^ III III III «n tft lA M I K* I 9i ft OO ^ ft 2 CL S ft rIII* ^li ■m .^8 O ttl 94 94 ^ ly ^ S8ii! lA X »K H X HI CA 81 ID O < ft O X Ui>- N ft < III ft yj ft og H <9 *K < ^ ^ ^ HI e ft ft «« s?; HI HI.n^SSgrsiiis, ::8SS8i IH IH g ^fl gi K In S £ HI S .iJ .1 HI >-* ft ^ ^ ft ft K ~ ~ W ^ •14 HI X X < fK lil Ul HI N ft ^ m til ft < HI III ft X O < ft O X HI < > \ ft Hi ft ft 3 <ft O K ■5&.^ afatttiii Ml* ft HI 94 M s: •I » _ ,»SS“6~sss'’5St:i fto9 aS fto X HI“9 < ft N HIm :.^- liJ ft ^ r5 r 5K < 0) u ^-8*2«a ft .J O ft ^ 9 e ^ ^ $ O 1 DC92^ ft < ft HI ft O X X£Sa 0? HI1 i;-' • '-i ■ >.l h-..? i;- - :-■ -V :■« J wmmm itw V■ i ®ti ,4c ■ ‘ ■'m: Wi -• •• ." ■» 133ais viaaoDNOO o m lA CO >1 CD JC 3 *5-2O <M O'C^XJ tnOOAiO C kiO« V •H«Op •m£C CjJJfl 2*-^4J««40JCC C lOO MW4i^t0£XSC 22^5 «*^Z2 •O J< *« « « OX * O J fM c 0 2 0> *M c o *> £ O tr. o 4-» ■4 « *0 CH <8 •• •» W X O c 8 4Jt 0 g O 0*0 C^x 3 O ^4jQopnO'<4 0 fi 0 w *i AJ at 5 X « g 4j « u X 2 2 M » >«o> ><<>J X e 4J O ^ 4j jc n 4> 10 fM ^ 01 4J C XT S5" *> 91 4J 0 c coo« M 'H 6 M « c 0) 0 M 4J -«4 « 0 CO « Q _ M j= VO X O « ^ flS 4J m 4-» ■*■> ® ^ *o O ni B X 8 "*^ ■ ®o5 5 « o 0 4J u w V4 m ^ X 0 «M O «M ^ *» ^ z • -'* - « o w •« 4j « 0 n O r»i c 0 < 0 VM 4J X — crvo •H w o CO ij rM V- m 0 0 aco •o c^ ♦ 0 -H «*”3 0«M'O>*O cx«-‘»^2 2 2J4J00 mxox ot40^0vou) to H0B<-«O »s *OS 0 C O H % U 0 O «M « *M 4j 0 £ m O W O 0 a4J0 IM 0 *M 0 X *D O C O C ^ 0| -H -H AJ 0 O *H 4J 0 M U 0 •- 0 O C 4J 0 ^ <M 0**4 0 « «M « C *J 0 o -<-• 0 X —t c 0 0 *0 r>» >» n* ^ M M 0 «0 0 > C X o 0 4J U 3 X 0*0 *J W -H O' o»0_ Qc *M C ^ *4 0 0 0■ m 0 > 4J 0 4i • • £ ox C X CO 0 u 0*-H 0»« O' B •H ^ m c o •O 14 w O w^ X - X *H 0 0 4j 5 4J *> 0 > « •» 2 *O Kj >%^ \M *0 CO t3 2 O 0^ O’ »-• T» u (1» ^ C* 0* Plann: Orono City I Jeann< Septei Subjects 11335 Condi Zoning District Pertinent Ordin Section 10 proposed a A) S B) H Section 1 structure. Allovi Fropc Varia Id St of Exhibit Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit P Exhibit G 133ais riauoDNOD 4J cc •H uoz o 4J 0) in m o> 0) X: €0 >n€0 JZ jC 4J Xi • • 4J r^W4f^ •^-2 g(/)0O4JOC0 0) ^ 'H 44 X c c ^ -U 10 4J -H O £ C ^ ^ 0) Id ^ 10 O M M ^ n 0 m 0) z -H z•O 01 0) 0^0 Cr>i G 01 0> 01 4J x: 0) r-4 4J JG 0^4J G AJ C 0) o m o» CO 44 C 4J 0) -H JZ^ JG CPVO 4J 0u4X •H •u o 00 C XX n o 10 ^ 01 10 TJ c 0) *H U rH p 10 IH Id o> 0) ^ e ^ Id % 14 4J to 0) o ij cn IQ r xxs O XX XX 10 0)Z XX 0) 0) z M >< 0) 44 *0 > *0 Id o « in XT U JC VO CO CO • r *0 = O H O 44 OS 44 O Id 0 0) „ C 4J -HI CU XfiS 44S°5 0) 9 «M C O _ O *H U' ** ‘**'^'2 u X d> 0 -t-i co •H V c j: o» « >.4J £ E • % ■ggl'gi5g|. « o xJ 0) Oc 0) Id XS rnaxx 44 0) 44 0>o c o c , -H CM -H -H ) XX Id 0) 10 XX U OS JO) o c XX 0) XX : 44 Id d) 44 « XX XX x: « XX Id M 9 0» jj c x: o o 4J J "H 4J 0> *J o c C 0) o 0) A *H s U Id C 0) in 00 « r- 0)zC XX O XX 10 r-4 C -H - 10 0) no 0) CO 2 Q g x: VO x: CO 0 in Z M XX XX 0 C 0 > -H Id M d) >1 c -H M V4 0) M 0) > « 4J *n ^ •o *H x: XX •H 0 u O XX 5 Id q 2CxSOxJlxWiVidixxx o -a - * • — o M •• (o-H^avn o! C 0) <C 9 ^ o Id* S' ® — Q r^c*wcc«wc*«*o*^ f-4 ^ 0) * in 01 XX rH54J>4Jg.P»*C « «O£C£«0 _.9 U 0) CO 0V-H 0IVO 2^ 2 g S 44 ^ -H fn C C3 :n 0 I 1 s a-g C Id •o )-i ^ m -H x; -O • 10 XX xx xx ^ 00 di Id 9 01 (N O U 44 *0 »o TJ o 0> ^ w» CO T3 0) 0) Wj x: XX U Oz w ^ 0•s>»c U 0* '4 ;f^.. ¥■ [1^ m Tos Planning Comaission Chairaian Kelley Orono Planning CoiBBiission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building x Zoning Administrator* Dates September 29# 1988 Subjects #1335 Woodhill Country Club# 200 Woodhill Road Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Public Hearing Soiling District * RR“1B Pertinent Ordinances - Section 10.20# Subdivision 3 (C) - Conditional use permit required for proposed accessory structure for country club uses A) Setbacks:Required for principal structure Required for accessory structure Proposed ■ 165* 100* 50* B) Height of Structures Allowed - 30* Proposed « 18*6® to peak of roof Section 10.03# Subdivision 9 (C) - Variance for area of accessory structure. Allowed * IfOOO s.f. Proposed ** 10#800 s.f. Variance * 9#800 s.f. or 980% List of Bzbibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Site Plan Exhibit E - Existing Topography Exhibit P - Site Plan/Grading/Drainage Plan Exhibit G - Varco Pruden Pamphlet m 11 rv. ■••II .. V .•4 ■■ *1:■f e !Zoning Septem page 2 stora comp 1< site fact block of tl setbs appro with Exhib struc wi 11 natui Unif presi the ] staf not ! the ele\ the syst main rea] barr a r€ siz< lar< she* exc4 r-<W trator aaa - ring e permit required for ture ture 100* 50* o peak of roof 3r area of accessory 14 .'.=j E • ms- -i a-; '•• ■ :IS mm i zoning File *1335 September 29, 1988 Page 2 of 3 Brnriew of ^pUcati<» The applicant ahed'wiVl ""^removed upon storage building. The ^he existing house noted on the completion of this installati . -♦.yneture will be removed and in :"e pl.« to the south «>Vnj7onV«uct!on a\"7l? access drive, will be fact should be removed „3 also necessitate the removal blocked. The adjacent “^‘Yi„\enance structure meets all required of the existing house. proposed structure was located setbacks. in earlier plans, the p F has worked closely approximately 50- Lrthw'est of the property (review with the owner of *'’'*1^°"“ j „^jor structure. As a result, therr.r sr; The building will -^;///",V*adeVuat?”w^”Vrup^^*"-nd Id^gu::: uniform Building ^“'’"• ^ , ^101 system within a few hundred feet from pressure to provide for the sprin y approved by the proposed structure. ^he same pattern. Elevations have staff. Drainage continues structure but a rendering of not been included in your pac neeting. Staff has reviewed that the project will be provide - city. The maximum height of elevation and Access will be via the existing road maintenance structure. The area variance required for the oversizedjtru^ i^^itTon real isrue for this review. ^ greenhouse could be placed on sheds spread throughout the property, exceeds the allowed area. » '» Zoning Pile #1335 September 29, 1988 Page 3 of 3 Staff Hf rnf mlwtion * 4 To approve the conditional use permit and variance application of Hoodhill Country Club that would allow the construction of a 60'xl80* maintenance storage building on the club property and would approve an area variance for the structure based on the following findingss 1. Proposed structure will have no negative Impact CA the surrounding residential properties. 2. The single, larger structure would have less of an impact than several maintenance structures with access drives and would also provide the means for a more efficient maintenance operation. 3. The location of the structure will minimize tree removal with the construction and grading. 4. The west side setback, topography and natural screening lessens the impact of the structure to the residential neighborhoods to the west. This approval is subject to tha following conditions: 1* All residential use of the house structure to the south of the proposed maintenance structure must be discontinued prior to preliminary excavation work for new construction. 2. Per Appendix E of the Uniform Building Code, the maintenance structure must be provided with a fire supression system. mm 1 : '3 mmmmm •%.• . * Zoning File #1335 September 29, 1988 Page 3 of 3 Staff Rernimi^iidati( To approve the conditional use permit and variance application of Woodhill Country Club chat would allow the construction of a 60*xl80* maintenance storage building on the club property and would approve an area variance for the structure based on the following findings: 1. Proposed structure will have no negative impact on the surrounding residential properties. 2. The single, larger structure would have less of an impact than several maintenance structures with access drives and would also provide the means for a more efficient maintenance operation. 3. The location of the structure will minimize tree removal with the construction and grading. 4. The west side setback, topography and natural screening lessens the impact of the structure to the residential neighborhoods to the west. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All residential use of the house structure to the south of the proposed maintenance structure must be discontinued prior to preliminary excavation work for new construction. 2.Per Appendix E of the Uniform Building Code, the maintenance structure must be provided with a fire supression system. ■mim KI 'a im ¥ %• >■ mm \\ I#' II I im ^ cvn OF OROFO - GSNBRAI PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address CW Property Identification Please check one - Pro^ (for Conditional U Please attach legal des on required survey. APPLICANT Name V A. ' ^ A\_.\V Address ONNBR (if different tha Name Address Date Property Acqu I (do) (do not) al FEES - CONDITIONAL USE Renewal Pee - 1/2 After-the-Pact Pee $100.00 a) * I $250.00 d) $200.00 f) 4.. Vo<e..AKj<ar PRD/PID - S OTHER APPLICATIONS ______ $150.00 ______ $250.00 ______ $150.00 ______ $ 50.00 ______ $250.00 _______ $1001.00 Co: Va Ea Ea Re Ap] Other - see ance application of ictlon of a 60'xl80* rould approve an area .ngs: ive impact on the (8 of an Impact than ves and would also s operation. ree removal with the 1 screening lessens eighborhoods to the ns: to the south of the iontinued prior to ler the maintenance system. m' KHZ-«rCIT7 OF OROHO - GBRBIUIL XAHD nss APPLl PROPBRTr LOCATIOH Site Address Q4 :) 2 •Ji tr Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^13.f Please check one - Property X abstract or torrens? (for Conditional Use Applications only) Please attach legal description to application if not included TY vF OFi^O rri.-’-.fj-r "i-rffrI uf ! iLu w wv on required survey. APPLICAHT Name Phone (hosm) Phone (work) -‘•flM f LU Address :;,VA i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ City ... «-•, i (if different than applicant) Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (home) Phone Address City Zip Date Property Acquired I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FBBS - CONDITIONAL USB PERMITS > Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee $100.00 a) Residential accessory Use Duplex Credit/Bldg Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 f) Land Alteration -L. SD*^ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading^ seawall# retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS _ _ _ _ $150.00 $250.00 $150.00 $ 50.00 $250.00 $100^00 Other - Commercial Site Plan Review (*(■ consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation Easement Vacation With Subdivision Rezoning Appeals see fee schedule PRBSBNI Pi OBSCRIl D< Certif Zoning APPLIC The a reque: unusua the i knowlc Applic ONNBR2 The oi authoi agent inves' Appli Flann third revle unabl autho Office rens?rrrv *r nzrAin'i , Lm I t Uf Wi^UHU 2T T r. / • *. Ai* * IT /*' L. c Tr* rI A ivm ILL. IJf r.lLt w wv rrs V J. Uim! « J v’v'vVv /LJ__a ri f U.L.A»«i I ?/ » WU Zip h/year) c.) gnated wetland or cu. yd. or more g walls within 75' tant fees) mm VKBSEtn 0SB OF PROPERTYPresent Zoning District a-. A > % Present Use of Property C»g\7present f (specify). 1 dbscriptiom of rbqobst ^ Describe request in detail*y*i UK.C. IIRBD SOBMXnRLS Completed Application FormCettl£i.d Property Owner* List of owners within 350' (you can obtai tSi. list £%orHeVnepin county Department of Finance A-603 Governmen Center envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the name on the above list with no return address. certificate of survey. proposed contours) if l»ndsurvey alt^^tions involve changes in elevation (grades). Son"«c??on pISn. if ap|licable (see staff for requirements). 2 A8*an"addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of ^y oth«rpersons you wish notified of this application.______________ not been included. ___ ___ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _— Certifi^tIon”brzonin9 Department that Land Use Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ — APFLICAIT'S SIGRATORB all information required or TeTnfor^:?“n 's"up"p"ned'"is”«Se and corr^’lct to the best of his/her (cnowledge. VjOccA-V-A\ Coi__ Applicant • 8 signature L —Oia£r ■' 'h'.-Date i?'.2C''S£ OWNERS signature ♦-« <*his aonlication and further The owner hereby aclcnowledges “fcity staff, consultants, _£s2L^- - -Owner's signature ;;;;u;i;7m7s;'tave'riT7uto^^^^^^^^ into the c^ty o«ices as aays before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are third Monday of each month. Applicants must P . - applicant isreview meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an app^ 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. r\--r. „ 'i k U 1-7: 7. #V^7l7? • • a > 77 - 77.f^^l7rvv^:v y:- ^ mm V. .i/;-:.• 'i •■■ ■ * i I Vi-'., ■ I it s 2^.,8 8 g 5 M «J >• U 9^B *5_ M fc >• K m f^xxoc 9H M M I .. Is, » •» ■ 1 1 ^g.^Wi’^ 150* (you can obtai ;e A~€03 Governmen to each of the name ntoars) if land [irements)« I separate list of ion. .Icatloh. Please ve information has ion is complete. Date _______ tion required or all fees and/or &nd certifies that best of his/her cation and further jtaffr consultants, for purposes of 5 days before the ; are held on the it all scheduled : an applicant is •ments to have an lilding & Zoning i it 8 ,i s3 1ss s« (M lU Ml H fl ApHiag Hi S M 8•s!*:ss.e! 3 I m M I h* m mgss M M UJ I 94 IIS 94Sgo < Z:i HI X S UJ h* fU O K K HI M M Ml 7*883 O HI ^ gE oc o I?Ml J«l J «J in•n M ni < K ft X 2 < ** S 9 S III yj in S9 ^ H Z !i oS ____ni >•m < » ft«^X < Ell ^ 59^Sly ly ill in y iy< H&ZZ UO-IH s9 ft ft Si S gS9 J' 8 8 m M s 9 s8 Ns I !=!ly m •I ly < Is u 2 3 u o ilS sSss ssiurimh •^ • *' ^ ^ 5 ssissa I I g ft: ft ly t:' [w'4 ..-.rj-; ■ •.’'••*. mm Wi ■f,'. . • ••*» . mm . . j -.V :m ..4 rW: i E s § U U S3 - ftm m m m Si g?jnU l§ III a I 8Hii 8 ft m uu § 8v^8*"sEE-^z 2 (siisi 1 I M o g 133 s “b““ ft ly||ii 8 ft § -J M 8 M M s .1 SB SI Ib s| S3 988 I mi K M s« s..I BS -i ^ u M H S3 -UU ft ni I ^>•85 I ft ii=i hd li M M .9 83 S »S X ft' ftf 83 >„8S M 8z 3* o e ly 8 K «• U M H 88 §i«i •r ji . 4 ‘ v7* i/ J 9s I I i 8 ly ♦S 83 X ft 88 3 U M ^ S*g l:i5i M V it;mly ft 3sis. ft Q ft S ft“®58gs sIHisSi I ft K ly >- aoE 9 t '■ -■sm: Plannin* Plannim City Adi Michael Septemb* SUBJECT: 11336 L - Varia: ZOHIHG DISTRICT: APPLICATIOR: R< on a ai PERTINBHT CODE S 1. Section convert, en structure o; conformity w 2. Section the case of hereinafter, lot, except that shall dwelling whj permit shal must be app Getificate removed." LIST OF EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - PERTINENT FACTS: 1. The app 3 adjacent prope question contains Shoreline Drive, based on tax rec buildings. 2. The two both cosmetic and * -♦ Oi^ihra^ :.:^S-:. •-.-' 'V^' *••:• ; h ■ . f: • .-•. k. f- % :c.-: .'■•r ■ ii\ r.j ■. f - ’ . tos Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson WKm Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATS:September 27, 1988 80BJBCT: #1336 Louis B. Oberhausar, 386S/38TS Shoreline Drive - Variance - Public Hearing ZOHIHG DISTRICT: LR-IC, Single Fimily Residential, 1/2 acre. Sewered j^pp£^jQg* Reguest for variance to allow renovation of 2 rental houses on a single lot. PBRTIMBHT CODE SBCTIOHS: . i « i1. Section 10.03, Subdivision 4. "Prohibitions. It is unlawful to convert, enlarge, reconstruct or alter any structure or use any structure or land for any purpose nor in any manor which is not in conformity with the zoning chapter." 2. Section 10.03, Subdivision 7. "One building per lot. Except in the case of planned residential developments as provided for hereinafter, no more than one principal building shall be located on a lot, except that staff may issue a permit to use a manufactured home that shall meet all required set back standards or an existing dwelling while a new principal structure is being constructed. Such permit shall be issued for a period of three months, any extentions must be approved by the City and shall expire upon issuance of a Cetificate of Occupancy for the new structure and such structure removed." LIST OF EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey With Staff Notations Exhibit E - Photos Of The 2 Buildings In Question Exhibit P ~ County Right-of-Way Improvement Plan For This Area Exhibit G - Hazardous Building Abatement Resolutions PBRTIRBHT FACTS: 1. The applicant lives at 2425 Dunwoody, and owns 4 rental houses on 3 adjacent properties, shown on the survey (Exhibit D). The question contains 2 rental dwellings, correctly numbered as 3865 ^875 Shoreline Drive. Those 2 structures were probably built in the 1920 s, based on tax records and the type and method of construction of those buildings. 2. The two structures in question are in need of renovation work, both cosmetic and structural. 4 h I •, V. U'. ft . ■ Zoning File September 2 Page 1 of 3 3. N side lot 1 line and al 4. T The smalie 3877 Shore County Road 5. affecting t comply wit resolutions DISCUSSION In Jan for hazard Resolution properties process of Howevc permits for Section 10. Council be hence this The 2 many years, houses havi property o^ adjacent to One oi enhancing Shoreline n Road 15 hav County has < within the ; Anothe; houses. Thi Note that 2- does abut D From a safe to Dunwoodi However, b€ percentage < calculation 3865/3875 ii associated i more closel ninistrdtor Drive - 2 acre^ Sewered! of 2 rental houses It is unlawful to iicture or use any or which is not in per lot. Except in I as provided for all be located on a manufactured home ds or an existing constructed. Such hs, any extentions ipon issuance of a ind such structure r This Area s 4 rental houses on , The property in id as 3865 and 3875 ilt in the 1920*s, truction of those 3f renovation work. mmrmm -V i i -r; iL F !! r t; MiirtfeiwitA Zoning File #1336 September 27, 1988 Page 1 of 3 3. Note from the survey that 3875 Shoreline is located 4.3* from the side lot line and that 3865 Shoreline is located 2.8* from the side lot line and about 6' from the County Road 15 right-of-way. 4. There were 2 detached garages previously located on the property. The smaller of the 2 has been removed. The other garage is partially on 3877 Shoreline, partially on the lot in question and partially withini County Road 15 right-of-way. 5. Please refer to Exhibit G, Haxardous Building resolutions affecting these two properties. At this time, applicant is attempting to comply with the requirements for upgrading contained within those resolutions, in order to avoid having to remove the buildings. DISCUSSION In January 1988, Building Inspector Tom Jacobs commenced the process for hazardous building action on the two structures in question. Resolutions ordering Abatement of Hazardous Building for each of the properties were adopted in January 1988, and the applicant is in the process of attempting to comply with these City requirements. However, when the applicant appeared at the City offices to obtain permits for the necessary work, he was informed by staff that a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivisions 4 and 7 would have to be granted by the City Council before staff could issue renovation permits for either house, hence this application. The 2 houses on this single lot have been located on the property for many years, and were apparently constructed prior to zoning codes. The 2 houses have been used as rentals for a number of years. Although the property owner is technically an absentee landlord, his residence i_£ adjacent to the rental units. One of the City's concerns with allowing the renovation (i.e. enhancing the permanence of the structures) is the location of 3865 Shoreline near the County Road 15 right-of-way. The improvements to County Road 15 have brought the traveled roadway near the property line, and the County has gone on record as opposing any renovation of structures that are within the right-of-way, such as the 20x24 garage. Another issue to consider is the access situation for these 4 rental houses. They are served by 2 driveways, both accessing to County Road 15. Mote that 2405 Dunwoody, which does not technically abut County Road 15 but does abut Dunwoody Avenue, does not have a driveway access to Dunwoody. From a safety standpoint, 2405 Dunwoody probably should not have an access to Dunwoody since that access would be too close to the intersection. However, because the access is a shared one, there is an extremely large percentage of gravel driveway hardcover on the 3865/3875 property. A rough calculation by staff indicates that the 75-250* hardcover percentage for 3865/3875 is about 55%. Obviously, elimination of 1 of the houses and its associated parking and driveway needs would reduce hardcover percentage to more closely conform with Orono's hardcover requirements. • • ' 't *~mr N • 4 1 -S' :■■■■ :u h V' ■■ t'.: Zoning File September 27 Page 2 of 3 The app both structu water meter, been made s€ Planni phase out ol to be agree this proper expenditure STAFF RBCOM Certaii 2 principal to adoption is not a no residential Approv make both s buiIdings. structure • removes tha the second only about option of m staff would owner to e£ "grace per: t ♦ ^ >cated 4.3* from the from the side lot ed on the property, ge is partially on partially within Iding resolutions It is attempting to Lned within those dings. nmenced the process ires in question, ig for each of the plicaiit is in the lents. offices to obtain that a variance to ranted by the City for either house. on the property for oning codes. The 2 irs. Although the his residence is renovation (i.e. location of 3865 rovements to County ■rty line, and the structures that are for these 4 rental to County Road 15. : County Road 15 but iccess to Dunwoody. not have an access the intersection, an extremely large property, A rough )ver percentage for the houses and its cover percentage to mfMm m '» ' •• • A- ■0: iL% ■ : ' ■ .limn I 'T- 4:.; ■ V?” :• ■ mi Zoning file #1336 September 27, 1988 Page 2 of 3 Th. applicant U »<^visea that should the ^vaHance ^^^^granted ^to ^al lo^ ............................................ Planning Commission may wish to phase out of 1 unit chtainly has gotten his money out of expenditure for property maintaince. ”*"ce“S^”rapplicant 2 principal structures on a ^ such*^a* situation not allowable. This r, :ft^a ‘n:n«nVo\-7nr?e Situation, since it is a residential use in a resTHehtial zoning district. 1 i-hA variance to allow renovation of both structu^res Approval of the ® .i-o result in non-hazardous make both structures more per » t^ variance to renovate the second buildings. On the “ther hand denial property owner structure could have 2 possible tesu , could request to make removes that structure, and the o b | since the property is the second structure into *" ^ reasonable to consider the only about 4/18 of an acre, non-rental guest house. Ultimately, option of making the second building a agreement with the property own“ :reffecfS"l"t ^emovfl" of t^liis second structure after some defined "grace period." . 1 4 . x : .,Vi- hi.-- liv CITf OF ... Initial ($50. "'Renewal (no c After-t Set 0th iiwi^ granted to allow I to have Its own connections have isider a gradual r 15 year period liis money out of \ little obvious rights in having ces existed prior allowable. This dential use in a I structures will in non-hazardous lovate the second he property owner 1 request to make the property is ( to consider the use. Ultimately, with the property Eter some defined « ^ mmmmm Wi iStlB 1tv! 6 CI1T OP OROliO * VARIA8CB APPLICAnON . Initial Application Fee $150.00 .. _ ($50.00 per each additional variance) 'Renewal'Variance"Fee $75V00 ' T~ (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) f . . <M « PSOFBRTX .LOC&TI<n „ _ _ _ _— - - - - - - - - - - Sit. Address 3877 Shor.lin. Driv> Orono. Minncaot. mAfXS SFflCE 1350200000 :;oi:oc!r:i5o.oo cmr- -TL——150.x : i£CEiPT-rim mu 0106400 cool aoi T13: •' ■ — ■0S‘/26/ - 1 . . . Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 2Q«117~23 22 QQQ6 Please chec)c one ~ Property abstract or _ torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICAST Phone (home) 471-8131 Name LOUIS B. OBERHAUSER Phone {work ) 473-2521 Address: 2425 Dunwoody City: Orono,Zip: 55391 OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home ) Name Phone (work ) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) '(do not)' also own the adjacent parcels of land.e . ae m ^ PRESENT USB OF PROPERTY • ' * • Present Zoning District m *• m * ^ • 4 Present Use of Property i-.l • Residential I _Other _ (spe cify)T » • *.» .* . ^ . *7- k . ~ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ - - Describe request in detail; " •m »J0 • s . • • VARIANCES REQUIRED ~Lot Area • a# • Setback Variances ( ' Lot Width Front Side * Hardcover — '' Rear) Other 3 ^ «?. r hardship Descr enfor DBSCRIPTIO: Descr Code REQUIRED S Compl Certi this 348-3 Stamf names obtai Certi Topog in ex Plat As an any c Addit The Appli remember informatic Certificat Zoning Off APPLICANT* The appH requested unusual es the infor knowledge. Applicant * A I > •i A K BRS SIC The owner authorizes agents, Cc tion and ^ Owner's Si Applicant Planning ( third Mon review me« unable to authorized Office of ■iW 9 . fg rrr of'c ’ibe ^•^FimCE SFfiCE 1350200000 ■■ ::oi:oBt: 1150.00 am" "n.-'—iso.oo .: MOiPf-nm m 0106m coci m ns: —-OS/26/ • • , «« . •• • il on ei3i 473-2521 Zip; 55391 _Zip: nth/year) . 4 • m • - S • *•) Residential St $ ^ . •* t ^ \-y:i... « ^ V « Rear) Fi . .H, .'A ■' vl ky f, ^ ' :/• mmm, • •>: ■ ■ ■ - WJ2 •/v' ‘t.-1 »!l l’‘W^ \j-fc;. • i:.,; liiiP iiii iiu, 1.1hardship . , ’ 1 ...Describe undue hardship or practical diffixity resi^tir^ enforcement of zoning reoulati^s; ^ — A jC7b ---------- •y:. OBSCRIPTIOM OF OliOSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS 44.K Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance.with zoning Code Requirements: / / '. f -f! H ‘ • V ; ♦. • ■ :>4t. •J ♦ % RBQOIRED SUBMITTALS _ ^ s-i3Si?4.~ ?s:u; ’• HBrS'ivu.’Vu f.'..": obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5*. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes ^ in existing grade are proposed. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). <n«4. ^ As an addenduB 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 «PP“ff remember that your variance application is not complete if the ab information has not been included. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Certification*by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature . *_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _-T! "“^‘IJ^Ican'f^^y agrees to provide all ' information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all unusual expenses incurred in J^evi^w^^^hiap^po^ation, an^ the information suppliedJ^--4^^^^^^^ to the best of his/her knowledge. Sian^u^^ ^ - —- - ?hr^n?r‘^i^y''trtowledg^e<nd agrees to this »fPli®®ti®n and ^ authorizes reasonable enty^nto the property by City staff, ■ agents. Commission membeS, and Council memters for purposes of investiga tion and Verif-cation of this .request. — - • « ♦ * • Owner's signature __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- AppUcIn”mus”hI7e’7lT7u^^^^ 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 Prfsent at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Counci... If ®" ePP^^°®"g unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements bo have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Bull mg Office of this change prior to the meeting. t; r..V, M III M M N 2Siiiss-»gl-g2 Jiiss “9 ». *ing from strictIting from r*Z3 '—' . f " .iance,with Zoning (you must obtain A-603 Govt Center d to each of the e address labels ns as required, is) if any changes separate list of ion. ication. Please ete if the above ion is complete, ate _____ ••V M # - tion required or all fees and/or and certifies that best of his/her /TV/.-------- ;ation and further tafff consultants, OSes of investiga- 5 days before* the are held on the it all scheduled : an applicant is iments to have an lUilding & Zoning n 8s II s* Si “ilSsS8S888S !M88hul •:|S8(rim Jllii 8 i lO 8 lit at i!.|!SS:i§imi sIllSI III %L m S Ml < in Hi X 8 *'ss|si8Siisil s 8 e •n SM M -J 88 m Ml H M i*iS|8 SS°-.S3 •n M X •n 8m Ml SMl M m iM HI Ml os _ lu M _8 sss _ Ml M I O X Xr:88iss IMl in 8 -I <58S«i28S I 0.o8 & ^ ••oo os. si:!;s3 Ul >• iM Sm i ^ B 5 Ml 5Bg||Ss ’'38S52 «J Ml X 8|.| g X m a 8 8 rfiWi ir =^- . r BGBBS39BR m in,2 88619nV :fcR'i ■mh f V-. ■■< • • lS r 4 I .! ,1 » •# I« ^ • V ? i I > • • > . • •*• • . f l i* •• • r ( V n •• ...*■< :vl' •% * d / * ■ • •* * i* •' ■ • . » ,* / ' 4 M j • i•» t . MRI : >-^y- J--- ■•. ■ ; ■ r ■ . J greawfe rSS^ \ <61% 886t9nV I iil^ki- # , • * •. i". ■ -t - ......-y •- . ..^Mk- . ..• ■■ . jii■ • '■.'•^■!- V; ^i;-ciia-i v«'>)••«• "^,^cl_ V4. 9W*| - *'a,^’/,- J ii*i 1',; i\K* ^ il!’^ r'l- rx:: ft r :r ■ —n ’ I -;\ i '^\ "i^' -A'ln i(.^*V. 5' ^ L3*»C0^^P ff fl > 4 , I-J '’ . 'ie< ^1- .\ ^ * S' I ' C-iUT; Nen/7. Co (?) 1' ' >UOf^ j \r 1"V.-.\ _ _____________' i^'*' \ * #v> 1 ^ ' —“ ^ i»n\ z » ,i4ff< V !▼ V o- T :,F vue,$M t’e fupwvisic*ll‘ 01 U..1 ..S»f-'"5 2NC CM .1|. T'x;’^ t % \' fc;.- a&iu^ 'i * * ■ ^ . •* ' ' -.1-. ,, , % .;■ •* ». ,«.• .<^i^,*i o ORC Minnesota Shoreline propc Comou West of Lc left thenc 161 i Oronc considers 463*261f 1 and conta: naisance safety am mm•• ■; ••• / • ,•'■•■ ■ *..' II ii 1*^ ; f ■ite’ «i t-i-;'.-;-' ■mmm X'r„ >-:;. *'J ilf - rr ':;:^wm i-S:® I.'- ,W,-#V. •- . rl-J*' '^Mf-'-1:^i-P' mm p- t ■■ :■■ »- m M^*:r^-1 m» Ki; •■ m iii:. - SJwm m V.,:> 'mmm I- s* VCITYOF QRONO r City of OROINOnSSOLUTlON OF THE^TY COUNCILNO. 2360 A RBSOLOnOM OUDBRIMG ABATBHEHT OF HJUCABDOOS BOILDIMG ACTIOW AT 3875 SBORSLIHB DRIVB» OROWO NHBRB&S. Louis R. Oberhauaer, 2425 DunwoodysavnvH” .v,s?, Vi.m itnu-i. wsb«4' from th« Northeast corner of Lot 2 thence wesr axon^ nwiv* '^2*r^ f .r^noBR 73 01 feet thence Southwesterly at an angle to the of Lot 1 distance 73.ox reet tneut-c »w«w j #***. ♦.« lake shore MnKiisas the City Council of the City of Orono, safety and welfare based on the following findings: INTERIOR 1. No access to interior. SCfBRIOR cracked in several places on all sides - UBC 2906 &2. Foundation: 2907. 3. Ground Slope at Foundation: slopes toward structure 4. Siding: weathered - UBC 1707 (a). Soffit & Fascia: rotten - UBC 1707 (a).5. 6 Roof Design (gable): roof rafters have dropped 4" around chimney UBC 2517 (h). ^ , 7. Roofing: deteriorating - leaks - UBC 3202 (a). 8. Chimney: mortar joints bad - falling apart - UBC 3704 (a). Page 1 of 3 m Y’ •v.. ■■-I*.- il •? . :r'v ■ ■■ IF !-m \> w h X mx- ;\ 9. Flas (b). 10. Roo (c). Bui is a safety Code/Uniform Orde Building Off! with. NON 1. That Statute structure unless c of servi< the bull estate as 2. The < findings 463.261 followin b) pail c) d) e) f) g) NONCIL corporation organlied i; and .ody Avenue, Wayzata, >erty located at 3875 ed as followss : 1 distance 163 feet »est along North line ly at an angle to the ,02 feet to lake shore : thence Northeasterly nsite of langdon Park, "the property")? and t Orono, having duly es Sections 463.15 to srty is uninhabitable ih constitute a public ;o the public health. all sides - UBC 2906 6 structure Dpped 4" around chimney (a). - UBC 3704 (a). mmmmmrnmHk i V City of ORONO CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. , 2360_ _ _ __ 9. Plashing 6 Vent Jacs: (b). bad - deteriorating in valleys * UBC 170? 10. Roof Ventilations inadequate ventilation at top only * UBC 3205 (c). Building is in a state of deterioration and dilapidation, thus it is a safety and health hazard pursuant to Minnesota State Building Code/Unifom Building Code, Section 203. Orders to remove or repair the structure were issued by the Building Official on January 21, 1988. These orders have not been complied with. ■ON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVB) as follOWSs 1. That the City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to State Statute 463.251, hereby orders the owner(s) to board*-up and secure the structure within ten (10) days. The City Council further orders that unless corrective action is taken within ten (10) days from the date of service of this order, it will result in the City properly securing the building and the cost thereof will be charged against the real estate as provided in State Statute Section 463.21. 2. The City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to the foregoing findings and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to 463.261 hereby orders the owner(s) of the property to make the following repairs in order to correct the hazardous condition: EXTERIOR a) Slope grade away from structure b) Siding: remove all rotten wood siding and replace and paint. c) Soffits: remove and replace d) Roofing: remove and replace. Remove rafters and replace. e) Chimney: remove and replace f) Flashing: remove and replace g) Ventilation: provide. Page 2 of 3 LO m (I P.l . * ** h ' i . -t-.K 25th da ATTE (^othy - UNO(UNCIL f in valleys - UBC 1707 at top only - UBC 3205 id dilapidation, thus it lesota State Building :e were Issued by the have not been complied >no, pursuant to State board-up and secure the :il further orders that (10) days from the date I City properly securing arged against the real 3.21. rsuant to the foregoing utes Sections 463.15 to property to make the rdous condition: tiding and replace und rafters and replace. mm 1 .. • •••. A- V- - > .'M •Ai IS mm ■ 'i-rr-V- It ill V City of OROIVO1I CITY I II ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2360 _________ 3. If the repairs are not completed, or unless an answer is filed within twenty (20) days from the date of service of th.ls order, the City shall move the District Court for summary enforcement of this order. 4. If an answer is filed that contests the hazardous building action, the matter shall be tried and decided by the District Court. If the order is sustained by the Court, the Court shall fix a time after which the building shall be destroyed or repaired as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 463.20. 5. If the Court's Judgment is not complied with in the time prescribed, the City may make the ordered repairs, raze or remove the hazardous condition or building, or acquire the building and real estate on which the building or hazardous condition is located by eminent domain. The necessary costs of such repairs, razing or removal, including but not limited to attorney fees, witness fees and filing fees, shall be a lien against the real estate on which the hazardous condition exists and will be levied against the property as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 463.21 and 463.22. 6. That the City Council of the City of Orono hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor, City Clerk, City Attorney, and other officers and employees of the Ci ty to take such action, prepare, sign and serve such papers as are necessary to comply with this order and to assess the cost thereof against the real estate described above for collection along with taxes. Adopted by the City Council Of the City of Orono, Minnesota, this iT .Tanuarv 1988.25th day of January 1988. ATTEl James R. Grabek, Mayor ySorOt^M^aiiiii, cit \ Page 3 of 3 mi in and exi Minneso Drive, 3865 Sh< Pri Coi th de Soi th< th th To ihi conside 463.261 and con- nuisanc safety i 2. 241 3. 4. fl] 5. ln< 6. Ari r 4C\L S8 an answer la filed ce of this order, the y enforcement of this rdous building action, strict Court. If the tail fix a time after lired as set forth in ed with in the time :s, raze or remove the he building and real idition is located by li repairs, razing or ^ees, witness fees and I estate on which the gainst the property as find 463.22. iiereby authorizes and ind other officers and )pare, sign and serve Ls order and to assess described above for Orono, Minnesota, this j~ Aayor city of ORONO CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2359_________ A WBSoumtm ordbruig mamasgr OP BRZARDOOS BOILDING RCTIOV AT 3865 CTORSLIHB DRIVB, OROIIO WHBRBJiS, the City of^ Orono is a municipal corporation organiltd and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota? and WHBRBAS, Louis R. Oberhauser, 2425 Dunwoody Avenue, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 is the fee owner of record and John Olson, 3865 Shoreline Drive, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 has an interest in the property.located at 3865 Shoreline Drive, Orono Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Property Identification Number: 20-117-23 22 0007 Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 2 thence West 163 feet along the North line of Lots 2 and 1 thence at an angle to the left of 52 degrees 56 minutes to the shore of Lake Minnetonka thence Southeasterly along lake shore to a point 50 feet Northwesterly from the most Southerly corner of Lot 2 thence Northeasterly parallel with the Southeasterly line of Lot 2 to the Northeasterly line thereof thence Northwesterly 5 feet to beginning Lots 1 and 2, Block 8, Townsite of Langdon Park, Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property")? and WBBRBAS, the City Council of the City of Orono, having duly considered the matter pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to 463.261, hereby finds that the above described property is uninhabitable and contains \insanitary and hazardous conditions which constitute a public nuisance and which makes this property hazardous to the puolic health, safety and welfare based on the following findings: INTERIOR 1. Basement: crawl space with no access. Elfigtgjgfll over current protection not enough2. Fuses (two): 240.4. 3. 60 amp service not sufficient size service- NFPA 70 Art 230-79. 4. Wiring Type: extention cords used for permanent wiring, is a fire hazard per UFC 85.107. 5. Light Fixtures : ceiling lighting fixtures not provided or inoperable - NFPA 70 Art 210-70 (a). 6. Receptacles: outlets not provided, minimum 6 feet apart - NFPA 70 Art 210-52. Page 1 of 8 ‘J! f'. * ■■M - NFPA 70 Art ►NO lUNCIL T T L corporation organized a; and 'oody Avenue# Wayzata# i Olson# 3865 Shoreline ^he property.located at escribed as follows: 007 nee West 163 feet along ngle to the left of 52 e Minnetonka thence !eet Northwesterly from leasterly parallel with easterly line thereof Dts 1 and 2# Block 8# n County# Minnesota# of Orono# having duly tes Sections 463.15 to 3erty is uninhabitable .ch constitute a public to the public health# t enough - NPPA 70 Art i- NPPA 70 Art 230-79. ermanent wiring# is a ctures not provided or \ 6 feet apart - NPPA 70 mm mm mm- m ..V. • •- m\ ■ -i,;. . mmmkm: r i r CITY OF ORONO’J City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2359_________ Plusaiind! 7. Clean out plugs not provided - NN Plumbing Code Section 4715.0220. 8. Floor Drain: provide for over flow of water heater. * 9. Water Beater: not accessible. 10. T 6 P Relief Value: must be extended within 18” of floor. 11. Shut Off Valves: could not find shut off valve for water heater. Heating_Svstem 12. Type of Unit: Gas Porced Air# Sears# undersized for dwelling unit. Wood - Ben Franklin# improperly installed. 13. Flue Vent Pipe & Connections: forced air - shut eff valves are missing - Wood Stove: improper clearances to combustible: some charring at wall; and unit is placed on combustible floor. RBAR/SIDB BHTRT 14. Floor: wood (porch area) exposed to weather - untreated wood - UBC 1707 (a). m 15. Walls: in deteriorated condition - UBC 1707 (a). 16. Ceiling: in deteriorated condition - UBC 1707 (a). KITCHEN 17. Exterior Door: blocked and not used. 18. Electrical: Light not provided - switch not provided. 19. Receptacles: outlets not provided on counter tops - NPPA 70 Art 210-52 (b). Plumbing 20. Vent: plumbing vent not provided Section 4715.0220. 21. Stove: gas shut off not provided — MN Heating# Ventilating# Air Conditioning Code Section 1345.2670. Page 2 of 8 - MN Stat# Plumbing Code JO :iL ■M B Section 4715.0220. eater. m f 18" Of floor. ve for water heater. sized for dwelling shut off valves are combustible; some e floor. ^ v-‘ V jJi ■ • .‘iWS ■m - untreated wood - (a). )7 (a). provided. r tops - NPPA 70 Art State Plumbing Code ng. Ventilating# Air BE •r "■i .."T r ■f'm m city of OROIVO CITY ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Na 2359 _________ IliL, 22. Walls & Ceiling: needs paint. 23. Windows: sills are deteriorating - not maintained - 0BC 1707 (a) - NPPA 70 Art 210-70. 24. Electrical: light with switch not provided provided within- proper distance NPPA 21-052 Art. - outlets not LIVING ROOM Ceiling: needs paint. 26. Windows: sills deteriorating - UBC 1707 (a). 27. Electrical: light with switch not provided - NPPA 70 Art 210*70. 28. Receptacles: outlets over 6' apart - NPPA 70 Art 210-52. MAIN SRTRT 29. Ceiling: damaged from leaking roof. 30. Windows: sills deteriorating from weather * no maintenance - UBC 1707 (a). 31. Electrical: light with switch not operable - NPPA 70 Art 210-70. • u*.*M «1 32. Ceiling: damaged by leaking roof. 33. Windows: sills weathered. Plumbing 34. Vent: none provided. 35. Paucet: below spill line - no protection from back flow Plumbing Code 4715.2010. 36. Trap: drum trap prohibited - MN Plumbing Code 4715.0960. 37. Toilet: Anti-Siphon Ballcock# Float Assembly# Shut Off Valve - not provided. Page 3 of 8 i'!^ .j::^;-:^■- h'. m ' ■ ■t 1 - UBC 1707 (a) • outlet* not \ 70 Art 210-70. 210-52. Intenance - UBC \ 70 Art 210-70. back flow - MN 15.0960. lut Off Valve ms t •\'i :.:• . • V •■' i mm:: ■mmrn :*. ». • . . r-'-' ■'-fi'-j ': •wr."- ri^»1 0:yibMi m i : -. r- -ivij rr^: r •!=aain‘jK •.• .a^i.« -'-a ..1 'v CITY OF ORONOJ City of ORONO r RESOLUTION OF THE ^TY COUNCIL NO. ^359 _______ Electrical 38. Receptacles nOAe pfovided. SBDROCM #1 39. Windowas fire effeis window not provided per UBC 1204. Electricals ceiling light not operable. 41. Receptacles8 outlets over 6* apart. ATTIC 40. 42. Attic: not accessible - attic access in closet unaccessible UBC 3205 (a). EXTERIOR 43. Insulation: observed from exterior - snow melting off roof very fast - sign of poor insulation. 44. Ground Slope at Foundation: slopes toward structure. 45. Siding: weathered and deteriorating - UBC 1707 (a). 46. Soffit & Fascia: deteriorating - UBC 1707 (a). 47. Roofing: leaks on west side and south side - UBC 3202 (a). 48. Chimney: mortar joints fall out - chimney in a a ate of collapse UBC 3704 (a). 49. Flashing & Vent Jacs: flashing around chimney improperly installed - UBC 1707 (b). 50. Roof Ventilation: inadequate ventilation at top only - UBC 3205 (c). 51. Entry Steps: over 8" maximum rise - UBC 3306 (c). 52. Garage: roof collapsed - rotten rafters - whole building has rotten structural members. Building is in a state of deterioration and dilapidation, thus it is a safety and health hazard pursuant to Minnesota State Building Code/Uniform Building Code, Section 203. Page 4 of 8 \ / i l CITY I """i ORONO Order Building Offic. with. Rdif, 1. That statute 4< structure unless CO of service the build estate as 2. The Ci findings a 463.261 h following a) S elect b) w c) R( the f; d) L; switcl e) C] licens f) PI water Wa h) Re valve i) Sh NO % >. ,p JNCIL :r m •J per 0fiC 1204. closet unaccessible - melting off roof very structure. I 1707 (a). ^ (a). le - UBC 3202 (a), n a s ate of collapse Id chimney improperly at top only - UBC 320S 3306 (c). i - whole building has i dilapidation, thus it lesota State Building y .1 ■Jti- w-.: '5 It i 1™-/’ % mi -ri. y . i 4 V City of OROINO CITY OF ORONOd ( RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO* ^ 2359 ^ 4«». « ^ T r B 4 1*1^ remove or repair the structure were issued by the Building Official on January 21, 1988. These orders have not been, complied mm, THEREFORE, BE XT RESOLVED as follows: 1. That the City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to State Statute 463.251, hereby orders the o*mer(s) to board<-up and secure the structure within ten (10) days. The City Council further orders that unless corrective action is taken within ten (10) days from the date of service of this order, it will result in the City properly securing the building and the cost thereof will be charged against the real estate as provided in State Statute Section 463.21. 2. The City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to the foregoing findings and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to 463.261 hereby orders the owner(s) of the property to make the following repairs in order to correct the hazardous condition: a) Service: electrician. ELECTRICAL provide 100 amp service - installed by licensed Wiring: remove all axtension cords used as permanent wiring. c) Receptacles: provide outlets on all walls so that no point on the floor line is more than 6 feet. d) Light Fixtures: provide lighting outlets controlled by a switch in each habitable room. PLDNBIH6 e) Cleanouts: provide clean outs per MN State Plumbing Code bY licensed master plumber. f) Floor Drain: provide floor drain for excess water release ofwater heater. g) Water Heater: provide access to water heater. h) Relief Valve (water heater): provide temperature release valve pipe to within 18" of floor. i) Shut Off Valve; provide shut off valve on water heater. Page 5 of 8 """Uli"" VO iCIL - were Issued by the ve not been, complied , pursuant to State &rd-up and secure the further orders that )) days from the date .ty properly securing jed against the real 1. ant to the foregoing \3 Sections 463.15 to operty to make the IS condition: stalled by licensed as permanent wiring. 3 so that no point on ets controlled by a ate Plumbing Code by ess water release of ater . lemperature release water heater. v : , I m km 1 M yy ■ A 'S-ilyv; I■ - ■ y ■ y'4mCity of ORONO CITY OF ORONO f i ^ t* D M RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2359_ _ _ _ _ Ui Sim SYSTEM j) Gas Forced Air Unit (wall hung): remove and replace with proper site furnace which provide 70 degrees temperature at 3" above floor. k) Hood Stove (Ben Franklin): provide O.L. Listing and instructions for proper installation to combustibles. SBAR/SIDB 1) Porch Floor: remove floor exposed to weather a.ii replace with treated wood. m) Porch Halls: remove all wood exposed to weather and replace with treated wood. n) Porch Ceiling: remove and replace. KITCHBH o) Provide ceiling light operable by a switch. Provide outlets on all counter tops. p) Plumbing: provide proper vent for sink and provide gas shut off for gas cooking stove within kitchen area. This shut off must be accessible. DIMIE6 ROOM q) Windows: sills must be removed if rotten - provide paint r) Lighting: provide light with switch. s) Receptacles: provide outlets maximum 6* apart. t) Walls & Ceilings: provide paint. LIVING ROOM u) Ceiling: provide paint. v) Windows: sills must be removed and replaced if rotten paint. w) Lighting: provide light with switch. x) Receptacles: provide outlets maximum 6* apart Page 6 of 8 jmrww y..; NO JNCIL move and replace with tees temperature at 3 ” ide U.L. Listing and nbuatibles• :o weather a.ii replace to weather and replace «itch. Provide outlets nk and provide gas shut 1 area. This shut off ten - provide paint. 6' apart J replaced if rotten - 6' apart. iil . i' '*iii H \ ‘-k'; pp-' m A ■ s. 1 r I ■ ORONO I r city of ORpNO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2359 klH EHTSlH yj Ceilingi remove and replace damaged area. z) Windows: check all sills replace deteriorated sills » paint, aa) Lighting: provide light with switch. BATH ROOM bb) Ceiling: remove damaged area and replace, cc) Window: replace if rotten - paint. dd) Plumbing: sink vent must be installed; tub faucet must be replaced with approved unit; remove and replace tub drum tap; toilet must be replaced with approved unit; and provide shut off valve. ee) Electrical: provide one wall receptacle outlet with GFI raOROOM ff> Install fire egress window, gg) Repair ceiling light and switch, hh) Provide outlets maximum 6'apart. ATTIC li) Attic access must be installed in hallway or walk-in closet - OBC. jj) Provide insulation in attic - minimum R 38. EXTERIOR kk) Slope grade away from structure. 11) Siding: remove all rotten wood siding and replace and paint. mm) Soffits: remove and replace, nn) Roofing: remove and replace, oo) Chimney: remove and replace. Page 7 of 8 orated sills - paint. ; tub faucet oust be eplace tub drum tap; and provide shut off e outlet with 671. my or walk-in closet iing and replace and City of ORONO CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION or i HE CiTYCOUNCIL NO. 2359_ _ _ _ _ pp) Flashing: remove and replace. qq) Ventilation: provide. rr) Entry Step: provide step with maximum 6* rise. ss) Garage: remove. 3. If the repairs are not completed# or unless an answer is filed within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order# the City shall move the District Court for summary enforcement of this order. 4. If an answer is filed that contests the hazardous building action# the matter shall be tried and decided by the District Court. If the order is sustained by the Court# the Court shall fix a time after which the building shall be destroyed or repaired as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 463.20. 5. If the Court's Judgment is not complied with in the time prescribed# the City may make the ordered repairs# raze or remove the hazardous condition or building# or acquire the building and real estate on which the building or hazardous condition is located by eminent domain. The necessary costs of such repairs# razing or removal# including but not limited to attorney fees# witness fees and filing fees# shall be a lien against the real estate on which the hazardous condition exists and will be levied against the property as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 463.21 and 463.22. 6. That the City Council of the City of Orono hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor# City Clerk# City Attorney# and other officers and employees of the City to take such action# prepare# sign and serve such papers as are necessary to comply with this order and to assess the cost thereof against the real estate described above for collection along with taxes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono# Minnesota# this 25th day of January 1988. ATTE T: APPROVED ^ i| Jame^ R 7 GwiSeKT^fiayor othy M^allin# City Clerk Page 8 of 8 1%■■if •• ■ ' ■ Appllcati in f] Zoning Dii liist of Ba Exhih Exhib Exhib Exhib Exhib Exhib Exhib Pertinent < 1. Sect! acces line i front Sectii minimc A r o a. t; ir is filed orderr the ent of this ting action r rt. If the time after it forth in 1 the time remove the ig and real located by razing or ss fees and 1 which the property as lorizes and fficers and i and serve d to assess above for lesotar this U\ •-S u- r. r Iv*, $ 'i m % Tos Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson l^dsis Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 2oning Administrator Date:September 29, 1988 Subject: #1337 Robert Paige, 3493 Crystal Place - Variance - Public Hearing Application^Revest fcr setback variances to construct detached garage SoBing District - LR-lc, Single Family, 1/2 Acre, Sewered List of Bzhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey With Applicant's Sketch With Driveway ^ Letter of Request and Hardship Statement Exhibit P - Hardcover Calculations by Staff Exhibit G - Survey With Normally Allowed Setbacks Pertinent Code Sections - 1. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) - No detached garage or other located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot except on lots which have frontage on a lake. . . 2. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) - Minimum front yard setback-30’, minimw'n side yard setoack adjacent to street-15'. 3. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 - Yards and open spaces. A) Reduction prohibited. No yard or other open space shall be reduced in area or dimensions so as to make such yard or other open space less than the minimum required by the zoning chapter an If the existing yard or other open space as existing is less than the minimum required, it shall not be further reduced. • i, ne'- -t- ■ mMl mm r aa;:.m Zoning Pile #1337 September 29, 1988 Page 2 of 4 Pertinent Facts - 1. The applicant is proposing to construct a detached garage near the corner of Navarre Avenue and Crystal Place* The garage is proposed to be 5' from the Crystal Place lot line and 10' from the Navarre Avenue lot line. Please refer to Exhibit G, which is a diagraun showing where a detached garage could legally be allowed on this property. The applicant has an existing detached garage at the south end of the lot. Applicant is suggesting that he would incur unusual expenses in excavating and removing existing amenities such as sidewalks^ a flower garden, dog kennel, and retaining wall in order to place the new garage in that location. Applicant also claims the location of major trees existing on the property, and notes that a garage of the size proposed would result in removal of trees if located anywhere other than the proposed site. Staff did suggest that the applicant consider attaching a garage, since he could probably do so without the need for setback variances. He notes that the cost of an attached garage would be prohibitive and would reduce his lawn area near the house. Note that this property is within the 500-1,000' hardcover zone where 35% hardcover is allowed. Staff has done a hardcover review of the property, finding that if the existing garage is not removed in conjunction with new garage construction, the hardcover will be right at the 35% allowed percentage. There appears to be more driveway gravel on this lot than is noraially needed for adequate service. In considering the applicant's request, note that there are no houses to the north of Crystal Place since this is railroad right-of-way. However, also note that there are no garages situated in front yards along all of Crystal Place. An additional item reviewed by staff is that Section 10.03, Subdivision 16 requires that no fences or structures or plantings more than 3' high on corner lots shall be permitted to obstruct traffic visibility within a triangular area defined as follows: "Beginning at the intersection of the projected curb lines of two intersecting streets, thence 30' along one curb line, thence dlagnally 30' from the point of beginning on the other curb line, thence to the point of beginning." m \H ft. lilHigMHmaaiiiM Zoning Pile #133 September 29, 19 Page 3 of 4 Exhibit G Navarre A obstruction a visibilit 6.City record the sewer . Place. Ap] easterly st appear to problematic Discussion - Given the t approval of a g unless this was In a case such hardships noted 1 structure will h would be unusua high costs of si certainly may fe amenities is not Also, Plann in the proposed the neighborhood, area will be visi It is not c remove the exist: garage is removed Finally the applicai hardships ii located say would be mor( ed garage near the rage is proposed to the Navarre Avenue agram showing where property. le south end of the unusual expenses In sidewalks, a flower ‘ to place the new s location of major garage of the size ted anywhere other ttachlng a garage, setback variances, be prohibitive and srdcover zone where over review of the is not removed in over will be right ) be more driveway uate service. there are no houses .road right-of-way. ated in front yards (Viewed by staff is that no fences or :ner lots shall be I a triangular area 1 curb lines of two curb line, thence tie other curb line. mm W' - "S':.; mm . ..--ririniiiiiwiaiI ■V Zoning File #1337 September 29, 1988 Page 3 of 4 Exhibit C notes the location of curb lines for Crystal Place and Navarre Avenue and the triangular space that is allowed no obstructions. It appears that the proposed garage would not not cause a visibility problem for this intersection. 6.City records do not indicate whether the sewer connection was made on the sewer stub on Lot 9 at Crystal Place or on Lot 10 at Crystal Place. Applicant should verify that the sewer connection used the easterly stub, since if the westerly stub was used, the garage would appear to be over that private sewer line, making future repairs problematic. Dimcassioa - Given the tenor of contemporary zoning codes for the LR-lC district, approval of a garage in the proposed location would be quite unusual, unless this was a lakeshore lot, in which case it would be quite normal. In a case such as this. Planning Commission must carefully weigh the hardships noted by the applicant against the potential visual effect such a structure will have on the character of the surrounding neighborhood. It would be unusual for the Planning Commission to consider the "extremely high costs of site grading” as a legitimate hardship, although applicant certainly may feel that the grading and potential need to remove existing amenities is not reasonable. Also, Planning Commission must consider whether placement of a garage in the proposed location would decrease the light, air, and open space in the neighborhood. Certainly what now appears to be a large park-like lawn area will be visually affected by a garage structure. It is not clear to staff whether applicant definitely proposes to remove the existing garage if the proposed garage is constructed. If that garage is removed, does that help justify the new proposed garage location? Finally, please consider whether the statements of hardship shown by the applicant are hardships created by the property owner rather than hardships inherent with the property. Consider whether a new garage located say 5* from the south lot line in place of the existing garage, would be more appropriate. • - —-.i •. •• •’■/mi Zoning File September 2 Page 4 of 4 staff necoai If the reasons for Planning C staff's opi findings o precedent. >1• ,1 Wm # ^ al Place and allowed no not not cause n was made on 0 at Crystal :lon used the garage would ture repairs -1C district, ite unusual, [ulte normal. Ly weigh the effect such a hborhood. It extremely gh applicant Rove existing t of a garage )pen space in irk-like lawn proposes to bed. If that ige location? (hip shown by rather than I new garage ting garage. 't. mm ■X mmi Ei * ii m 7 Wmm m 337 1988 ±. ■>%* iidatl* •tiff Xanning Co-miaalon f.al. that "f ,e r«iue.t«J variances are justified, staff would re<^.st that Bission carefully specify those reasons and hardships. 1 ton, approval of this proposal without specific and unique hardship to the property will result in setting an unusual . 4 • ^ -Vi t ^ 41^ f 4 , . . , i • ■ • -X:.:.:: Ei' tM] M £ IV :'•••• .-a ■ j • CITT OF ORQNO -Initial Appl.lca ($50.00 per e Renewal Variano (no change fr After-the-Fact PROPERTY LOCATl' Site Address <3^^ Property Identi Please check on< Attach legal d< required survey APPLICAHT Name A dPa Address MR MI8 RM MU 8M MR MR MU MR RM MU M^ MR MR « OWNBR (if diffe; Name Address: _ Date Prope: I (do) (do PRESENT USE OF 1 Present Zoi Present Us< DESCRIPTION OF 1 Describe r< VARIANCES RBQOIl Lot I Setback Vai Other hardships and 1 request that irdships. In Lc and unique ig an unusual ■ -f • CIT? OP OROHO - VARIAliCB APPLICATIOW li;Initial Application Fee $150,00 ($50,00 per each additional varianqtf^ Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) il33x f r * i J**-*' ^ ■•./V’l.A/V V « t af • • • 4 «r V • % V PROPERTY LOCATIOH - ■w:.. * 4 w i/ -• ¥ Site Address . U}/M74-T/t Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /*/** //^* ^>(3**^^^‘^*** Please chec)c one - Property ^ abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICART Phone (home) Name _ _ _ _ _ Phone 33€/ XS Address City« Zip: SS39/ OMIfBR (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Phone (worJc) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESSIT USB OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District /jg-/g Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: SSS VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) Other ?*7 I V. h#-. m a BARDSHIPDescribe ur enforcement DESCRIPTION OP I Describe ur Code Requix 2. 3. REQUIRED SUBMIT1 1. Completed P Certified 1 this list t 348-3271). Stamped, 1 names on tl obtained wj Certificate Topographic in existinc Plat Map (c As an adder any other | Additional 4. 5. 6, 7. 8. The Applicant remember that information has Certification b^ Zoning Official' APPLICANT'S SIGI The applicant requested by t] unusual expense: the informatioi knowledge. Applicant's Sigr OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereb authorizes reasc agents. Commissi tion and verific Owner’s Signatur Af^licant must ) Planning Commis: third Monday of review meetings unable to atten< authorized agent Office of this < EU^RDSfiXPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations:_ _ _ _ DESCRIPTIOII OF UMOSOAL PROPERTY COHDITIORSm * A V v/ar wsewibawamA* • a ■■■h a » Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: ^Pa_ _ _ _ _ __ _^js:^ R 1. 2. 4. 5 • 6. 7. 8. IIRED SUBMITTALS Completed Application Form Certified-.Property Owners List of owners within 150' {you must obtain this list ftom Hennepin XOlinty Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list).* As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete Zoning Official's Signature Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. ^ Applicant's Signature Date OffNSRS 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 verificatioivTJf this request. Owner 's Signature Lory^f thi h^li a Date _cant 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 r©view meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. Tf an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to hnve an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. lilting from strict liance with Zoning 2^a - - - - - - - (you must obtain A-603 Govt Center ed to each of the ie address labels >ns as required, is) if any changes I separate list of :ion. Lication. Please Lete if the above lion is complete, late ition required or ^ all fees and/or and certifies that 1 best of his/her :ation and further taff# consultants, OSes of investiga- S days before the are held on the it all scheduled an applicant is ments to have an uilding & Zoning ‘r.- I iii 4 ■ - u ?■ .A : Mi a Bil r"; Ml? I ■ 'kCrr IV ‘® «“' si •* ' S4 i)i\r ta A. u j. ■ U 1 ^4 *'4 Vf'‘'V ®^! ■ir -1 •en \v') 1 M 14 rc (,*> A‘'> ^ ♦ 1»'0 •7 s S .<t I <r ‘ r- , 1 17,18 *a. i\/IWGSTON V >4 ^14 1 «» •«(l*)^ IS-#L IS > IS 6 (v ' le fur \ » *"K '• k«*- \ 3 . r 2. i I .x^•‘ V 7 —j.- J JL 'T8'!<P®^ : r'I I ♦« s tHCSAM NO--—15 -PL.AT -,-’ea-) .•i •>r/ 'v' " 10^ lot 24 Me 01 lI37M i*c ,PS234 d Cuunty Survejior plot t»l®- 9 Vi 4-:i-‘A* ■&i Bm ■>■ ph4 u • % 'W 44 w liijE 5 8 L -.TS *i! 8 I 5-a® I _ < IM «• ••I H* M M tfl IS. I 2 S S >A (.« HI fy 4o#a l« ^ .8 ? m K -I m .M m «i ^ly 0 ^fi;i K ^-sj:M |<l □ Z 4R-*5,^k s iiSS ? 4* ^ e o «! S M m !:§»»&£ IPS M M V ii.^5585 SliilifIS O in 2 ^ y f >>i .'"(a , / RE ADO. tor vocotiOR Avo. ft tha craation «t l37Mi*c ,P®.23^ ft r plot tile. mm "ty-: MM \- ■v.vv.:: ■ ■ I >. f: Si eilis ftiin «J ife -4 • >» ly O ^ ~ 8 ? -K^5«;3y > or ^ss.ssa a ID <D 5 lU III P*>^ o O -HQ 0SS2 ‘“ ^ 8 w tti«»2»* M M >- .1 iiSg “ES-iJS<A C OL If^ N o tf) lO ^ S IK S SO 2 CK O Q X lU ^ 3 >* V K < lU& ui a. X S°S-,5* i!. Sh8^ "5“*gN»a 8S O «l III ««»»• ss *iSi-2a yi »-* «! IllM ID 3 ^ ^isMS K «J «J S in >- >•X m m o u U m X X o :Hli M M ,12:*“=-gs I Ml X _ > ^Ml M ^ M M «J K m H_8SSSasssai (O mi m H Ml ni M o • i°3 883 •5 I ^iZi% *i M 2 a z III I > M S 53-"^3 I K U _ -< O M X _ 0 ^ UJ l^ XX a o 2 X q o X ui 3 •M 0 X ra^BsS SS^-3H M ■ “35i8.9 SS58SSsiS8k O < tti o X H > -S" “S«sssis m X M M H 75338 ::SS$S2 7 H:« ^ ^ 5 S|§858sii:ns a. lu Kk iiS2 r-••SlP.^ Ori'-#!•- ■■'. «iWi •M *9..38csaals i iias •L > ^ -==|S5* lllMmi H 5*S MO 9 • < * 1^ —8B|2i^ S3 ill < M X 0 >• 88eigS rt i fy that th i r; is a of Lots 9 and 10, Bio location of a propose* ove:rients or encroachmei S!-N < 9^ |yii« "is41 5*8 im^ SI ly H *4 M ii!o5:iu Ik fO ” 8 ss'Ssi <nn iZ///S / s /Ocr CRYSTAL Jf ‘ JJ PLACE t'Y^ •y' -4 r ,4 /Ca./^ ^C^Stjrcom •Vi' 2S O I • A \ I XM. <4 y 9 ^^APC£.¥ ^06 /nr^>ve^ -/'•r \ \ \vi\WI\^V vvt^ €9 fh \ Ik. JJ.ff % S{SntJ u!" \ V \ \JJ-9 \ *, \ k \ N \ V I Z *S 44 ^4U y^<^- <i^c? /V^ r* ^:.j.. rtify that this is a true and correct representatic/: of ju or Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, Navarre Heights, and all e.\is*in" location of a proposed garage thereon. It does net c;'jrD'’r'-" overrients or encroachments. ^ /iffU ' '* 19.9 f ^ fi • • •vey of the buildings, : 0 show any 5 • SSy-yoa ■JCi ?l;::"; I I. Dl II, mmQ/K^ / At'fLKy^'^' JL -vey of ’hr i:'! .^. buildings, *.o show any H - >#7r f }‘^ QRQI^ PtANNING COMMISSION DESCRIPTION Of REQUEST A varlancf •ppllcitlon Is bting applied for to twilld a 30 foot x 28 foot oaraoc. This building win have the saw roof pitch and 3 Inch steel siding with white trie Mtching the house. Landscape tiebers and decorative rock will border the garage on three (3) sides, eatchlng the decor of the house. XI. HARDSHIP AND DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS The sole purpose of variance Is to build a larger garage. The location of ey present garage prevents ec froe building at that location be cause I ae only three (3) feet froe ay south lot line. Mature evergreen trees prevent ae froa building further to the east. I also have a circular driveway that prevents ae froa building to the west and north. The garage at Its present location Is elevated approxiaately 3 feet above a flower garden which I don’t want to loss. Considering excavation costs, loss of the flower garden, and loss of the circular driveway. It would be too costly and very lapractical for ae to build at this location. The proposed placeaent for the new 30 foot x 28 foot garage will be In the northwest corner of Lot #10. The north side of the garage (back side) would be 5 feet froa the east-west lot line and be 18 foot 4 Inches froa the bitualnous surface of Crystal Place. The west side of the garage (left side) would be 10 feet froa the north-south lot line and would be 20 feet 6 Inches froa the bitualnous surface of Navarre Avenue. The northwest corner of Lot #10 Is the aost practical and econoalcal site on which to build the new garage, as It does not obstruct the view froa the house, needs no excavation, and does not require clearing trees. Robert J. Paige 3493 Crystal Place Wayzata MN 55391 Residence 471-9329 Work 935-3381 - ext 136 t - . "•mm f; * ■ -I ,v*% 4 foot X 28 foot 3 Inch stool 9ors and , Matching tho Tho location cation bo> Bturo ovorgreen so havo a circular orth. Tho garago abovo a flowor n costs, loss of tho d bo too costly go will be In arago (back side) t 4 Inches from f the garago 0 and would be venue. economical truct the view clearing trees. ■ - : V- ii p!ii ., ■; ■ -;V B W 3 l^'r~ » /2yoo . tfi df^ zzy/S> V> 20 72^ 5:^;. '2>^L (2JD f/M N. zee. Si i> 2-syz.7 /r yyo /*V(- 23 ?< iS~ Z.)C 30 Lis' /oro Bot 40 3S.2.C-. ■7ii,Yoo ^ zs.(^'K A^l> 30^z3 Cp^as'o Ho tT7eAJ4-c H-c.^OO 2 C, ■/ So(D ~ ^UT^Q, ^ rs k Vt 5^. RYSTAL------4 H Jf‘ 3 LO Oz UJ § UJ (£ (£Iz /5-' •'tify that thi Df Lots 9 and location of a «/ement s or enc 2^ U f/s,vbt? ^ es.d^^ «iii^ V ^ • z4 f S.M • ■■a- .-t.r. fe'rt ;S«fc •=' ' ■•::.;-:.r-V,- -niK '«- - ;' ".fcajMm w-' ymP -^1 <:.yy r"ifcii -r.-^'hi 5^. ^., RYSTAU I fT^ j'-'■■ ■ 4. /y' 54^ M hC PLACE /^O.CS^ /^V(/’«rrc. fCa./n me.*Surt."^ " 19.0 29. f 4» "N r / \ \'C\\ vvv^. ^ 2/» s . > ^ > ‘ /V U— ^ 7. U___. % ^ WVVVVWklN >j.> /V*4fc^4i/*r^ • ftLi'y^i S m m ^ A ^ \ iv AS*V 8 rtify that this is a true and correct repre sen t at i on or c. su ‘vey of the pf Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, Navarre Heights, and ail existing buildiOQS, ar;d pocation of a proposed garage thereon. It does not purport :o show any Vements or encroachments. II: ■F, ii^ m R>(/'-va pmm|:p«vy' m c: :"B I To* Appli Zoning 4. t G- su ’vey of the iny buildiogs, ar:d 't :o show any Planning Cononiasion Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson ^^chael P. Ga££ronr Asst Planning a Zoning Administrator September 30, 1988 Smblects #1338 Duane a Connie Schibilla, 3235 Crystal Bay Road Variance - Public Hearing Application - Request for hardcover and accessory structure area variances to construct a lew garage. Zoning District - LR-lC, Single Pamily, 1/2 Acre, Sewered jy.St of Bnhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Application Plat Map Property Owners List a Neighbor Acknowledgements Survey Submitted by Applicant Survey Prom City Files Applicant's Hardcover Calculations Selected Garage Plans Submitted Neighborhood Survey Compilation Pertinent Pacts • 1. The applicants are requesting variances to replace a garage which was removed after damage occurred during the 1987 super storm. That garage was located in approximately same location as the proposed garage. (Note that the pre-existing garage does not show on any survey). ^ The proposed garage will consist of 2 stories due to the topography of the site. The upper story will be a garage space exiting to the south. The lower space is intended for storage. Total square footage of each floor is 624 square feet for a total of 1248 square feet, exceeding the 1,000 square foot floor area maximum for accessory structures by 248 square feet or 25%. Per the applicants hardcover calculations submitted and as revised by staff, current hardcover is 29.6% in the 75-250* zone, and construction of the new garage and its associated driveway will result in a 75—250' hardcover of 39.6%. Note that the rear driveway that serves a number of these residences (along the railroad) is actually within railroad right-of-way. c-kcu/AtvoaJs^ , The topography of the site would suggest that a 7. level garage structure is appropriate for this property. In order that the structure not exceed the 1,000 square foot maximuir floor area, the garage would have to be reduced to 500 square feet per floor (dimensions of 20x25 or 22x22). From a site planning standpoint, the garage would be appropriately located at the proposed site. Garages serving neighboring properties exist on either side, and this garage will line up with those garages. ilstrator f Road - ire area variances gements garage which was per storm. That as the proposed not show on any the topography of exiting to the il square footage M8 square feet, n for accessory ind as revised by 250* zone, and a driveway will le rear driveway he railroad) is ^CU/AT70A3S^, 2 level garage otder that the floor area, the fceet per floor e appropriately neighboring 11 line up with r-iv"mm mm '■f. ■> >1 r'.'- « •v- 1 tfe* S ' . r. . •'4' J!. i* .i-4 Zoning File #1338 September 30, 1988 Page 2 of 2 *PKavA is an existing 20'x20* gravel parking area in the 0-75* zone ISt.Lit to crystal Bay Road. Planning CoHUslssion may wish to itiltlTr v\°eth?r’th. applicants need this P-“"’re:Se:d“an"*r2ver? rtic^-ed. whether this parking area can be removed and zeve to mmV R^ge share of th« hardcover on the property is »?<>• “P of a woo'd deck area around the north and west J'J ?he?e would not appear to ‘^^»i9n“icant additional hardcover that could be removed in the 75-250 zone. et.ff is currently working with the Schibillas to determine whether the”!- easement for public highways", -°\itle‘^ :^iHt‘‘“^/"so “tt;frmu%%“reVomird"t}.irrnrprar^^^^^ rtLf Vhe“crry"‘or^‘co^'^rhkd ’'’iiy‘' cTr^^c or fu?Jre interest in use of that easement for right-of-way purposes. The proposed garage will use the existing driveway f°=*“*„\®®“^this and thire are nl sight distance problems associated with this location. 7. 8. ®‘***s?^??^J^d*“eJommend approval of the proposed garage location, ndghSIrhoSd tnd mVe\V the'lo-^%«’Vnd%ldf be in garage doors facing a street does not specifically apply. Staff would recommend approval of the hardcover variance. constructed with a half basement ? rf Piannina Commission recommends approval of the EK's:*;.” « s permit. Again, any approval would have to be conditioned on a resolution of the easement issue. Initial Appi Renewal Var After-the-Fi the 0-75* zone n may wish to ice a garage is )ved and revert erty is made up I of the house, of additional ;ermine whether } on the survey ns titlerAs / ' ing COinmis8:.o.i that nc ga £ je hich would ro a any currenv. or ly purposes. ccess locacion^ ated with this ,rage locationr garages in the tiat would be in ties access to a egal access for ice the railway 30* setback for ice. at to consider what hardships of the garage configuration, ss space below » garage can be the floor area ranted under the lever be used as t, may not have tiat the property conditional use i a resolution of ’ V- i. -O <:> Udte KeiC’C_ t* 5^ • Fee_ _ _5 • ^ ’^ceipt~1^. - Q fe|jSi=i|5F___■-- j ‘ fym OF OROMO - VARIAMCB I^PPLICATIOII * 4 4 J Initial Applicatidii*^^ $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance^^^e ^5.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPBRTT LOCATIOa Site Address ^ ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - "" “ ^ / Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) g V/ Please check one - Is the property _ _ abstract or y__ torrers? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Fhone (home) y ^ Name Jg//»^ A/^k9*>0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (work) O^;* _ _ _ _ _ Address: ^ City: f/^/^7s Zip: SS39A OHHSR (if different than applicant) Phone (home) ^yV» 9 — Name 4eg Phone (work) ' ^ Address! 3i3S- d^ kTa/ /Pj. City; Zlpt d^d.'~3 ?/ / / ^ ty Date Property Acquired T'' (month/year) ^ • I (do)('J^ not))also own the adjacent parcels • • •* • •» •• ^ •“ «■»«»«• mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm ^m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm •• PRESENT OSE OF PROPERTT ^ 3 Present Zoning District _ _ _ _ _ _ _^ Present Use of Property a _ _ _ _ _ _ other (specif __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 0IN Mi ME ME «» SM ME 4M MS ME EM ME ME Ml DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 9 Describe request in detail: - - VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area _ _ _ Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances (_ __ Front _ _ _ Side F®*^) A Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __— ■#' ■ ■-w- /. r' r V- - ■? ■■1: -tiS •■■%** . LL •-i#i '■^tm __'HARDSHIP'Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: - - - - -- - - - -—-- - DESCRIPTION OF OROSOAL PROPERTY COHDITIOHS Describe unusual property conditions preventing ccMspliance with zoning Code Requirements:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - IIRBD SUBMITTALS Completed Application Form 2.Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center -^48-3271). Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Plat Map. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the a ove information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete Zoning Official's Signature _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE ^ ^ ' ' . _, The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information requirea requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all v unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature 9. -Date ONNBRS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and. agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultan s, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this requMt. ^ , Jr Date ^ y /f J—Owner's SignatiiTe (jMiyUAf h ft.4 Date Applicant must have all tahmittals into the City offices 25 Planning Commission Meeting, Planning Commission Meetings ® , , third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheouiea review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council, and, an applicant is unable to at'-cal a scheduled meeting, to please make arrange ments to have an author is ■^cl agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Offioo of this change prior to the meeting. ■ '--t V ' 1^:- zm Siii *’ V t 4 • I* « «• r :« OUObO •i'V W-,y:^ %fa '1 ■-■■ V.'.' -^iiUiPiPW-■?^-4::^::hL::v :^:i- i ¥mv|:;..^-%« n^ OOO Adjaceift^Property Owners* AcluiowIedgeBent Formc: ... --iif/t^l^AA4 MJ^C <we) ^>4f^r// *> ^CM/J/*/ lprint/naaie(s) J of [print {^jfi/3/:\ .A,f^ jPCAt\ stress ] have reviewed the plans for the proposed inprovenent or proposed use of the property located at Auj ^ also referred to as Land Use Application Ho. . I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement# I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval Date Property Owner ?r/ ^ ^y? y Date ! If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. % w» ^'r ' .j. _ ■ - . •••'■ ^djx- r ••• ■ - i': i ; • •; _r I % 4 -■i- Wi 53-/7 Pl»t •* i for DvVo/we in Lot ), B T^wwlt^ of J1#1 Mrooopin CBUSt; r .0 w> ✓ \'' •• \ \ ..i > kk Sselo: D*1« :6 « 4' Jr«i Cor<3en R. C Land 5u Lonf La ryey» ke* I ? ? . KJ • • ••• Jl^ i i • •1 1 ■ \0 «c 4J •H \ N b M M H K M H K H H n H n n n s m I 8. 8. Oc 10 iO CO c o iH 10 -H (A CO M r-i 4i «0 CO 01 0« 0) C O T3 O 10 V4 c: >« jc iJ 10 9 JQ CO •V>t ..^ >■- 1 ¥i(Jv.- - <;v<v.j. v*g*- :> • -^ > . ^ •^ - V • > TO ' ■■‘V: ■y V - ..SI :.-i\ f i ->■ S . h ■f .:.f >v.-.^. :•: ••• .’^vj’i-.ic1“ ^ . » - ^ mi2a _.^'V-^7 ; -s;>■ . »’’i ^V4--■fe. Tot Planning Conmiasion Chairman ReXlay Orono Planning Commiasion Members City Adad.nlatrator Bernhardaon Joanne A« Mabuath# Building $ Zoning Adadniatrator Dates September 27, 1988 Snbjeetf #1339 David Lee. 2695 Casco Point Road - After-the-fact Conditional Use Perait/Varience Public Hearing Zoaitig District - LR-IC Pertinent Ordinances - Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Lakeshore hardcover and land alterations. Applicant constructed retaining walla within 75* of the lake and conducted grading and filling activities within 75* of the lake without the necessary permits and approval by the City. A Stop Work Order was issued on August 15, 1988. Citation was issued on August 26, 1988 because resident failed to abide by the Stop Work Order Issued and exceeded the directions of staff for temporary remedial land alterations until permit was approved. Since citation was issued, applicant continued to fill retaining wall areas with fill that was delivered to the property after the citation was issued. Mst of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit P Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Application Property Owners List Plat Map Landscape Architect's Addendum Site Plan oectlon/Existing Wall Planting Plan Proposed Plan Engineer's Report Staff's Sketch ev -’* ■. ;? ■ ' --rj Zoning Septern Page 2 Review M to the withoi revie appli< applic review been v and se Reviei I halt drain that lower drain prope: the e. the p sub je the s the f< ; • v.^■m mPm1' V- ♦'■ i-j" t a-' - ^ i ■d ers and the appropriate -rapping to t retaining Ing on your stabilize e existing and unsafe tructure of e distrubed fetation to e intent of ^ jr CITf OF OROaO - PBOPBRTX mcatiob Site Address 2695 Casco Pt Road Property Identification Humber (P.I.D.)‘CITY OF torrens?!'IrrAuE OFFICE 13H02COCOO "OO.- - - - 01 CB^ to application if net includ^f n iOi;) Pleaae attach legal descripti PP sECUPT-rm'K l& on required survey. On - - - - --- - - - - - - - Ifxeasv a^.u€»wa. —,— - .4. ^4 4.v hall Rtitir on required aurvey. 0" -------------------’ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p^n, (home)_421_lfi£l-- - --Wi afflicmt Same David E.F. l«ce Mdreas 2695 (if different than applicant) Phone /work) 473 5577 OronoCity Ziprili Phone (hoiae) name Address Phone City FOBS - COHDITIOHAL OSB PERMITS - $l?«*the“a;t"FL'^-"oSbirSurrent Application Pee $100.00 $150.00 $150.00 $250.00 $200.00 a) b) c) d) f) Residential accessory Ose Institutional (church, school, ate.) Duplex Credit/Bldg Commercial/lndustrial Ose Land Alteration ^ • e» • • -- - - - - - - - - - , . . ^e ■ Grading and filling - designated wetland of lakeshore :L # 4 ^ - s • ^ ^ PRD/PID - see fee schedule ^ • j„ . # vV - OTE T e t *• APPUCAMW^ commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) - - - $250I00 vacation = rsS:"oS r.~eSt v:sti:^.ith subdivision ■ $250.00 Rezoning " $100^00 Appeals ' Other “ see fee schedule t • wm mBM C:y<:A h/yyy:^:- ky:.y: wy-m m-m r^\[Iti- PRBSBIiT OSB OF PRO Present Zonin Present Ose o DBSCRXPTIOll OF RBQ Describe requ rbqoibbd sobmittai ~1. Completed Apj 3 2.V Certified Pr this list fr- Center 348-33 Stamped, legj on the above Certificate < Topographic alterations i Construction Plat Map. As an addend' any other pei 4, 5. "V^ . 8. The applicant an remember that youi not been included Certification by Zoning Officials APPLICAHT'b SIGHA* The applicant h< requested by the unusual expenses the information knowledge . Applicant's signa OMHBRS skshatorb The owner hereby authorized reason agents, commiss investigation and Owner's signature Applicant must ha Planning Commissi third Monday of < review meetings o unable to attend authorized agent Office of this ch ------CITY OF WOHO OFFICE 1350200000 . 01 CEH 200.00 ■ li. yjoo.oo LjiiS— 'Om2A 3 5577 Zip 55391 Zip h/year) m :c.) #• ^ • ' ? » . • * •> ^ • ♦ ♦ Ignated wetland or cu. yd. or more ng walls within 75* *7 'v4*■ • • • ^ • *• iltant fees) v.r- -L*. f *" ■ '. \ -V i ■■" • V- uV tv VBBSESPf OSB OF PROPBRTt Present Zoning District ...—,. .■ present_0.e of Property o-5S^ts^cgY)L____ 'det.ll. pwQnTeim SOBNITThLS - 1. • Completed Application Foot. . - owners within 350* (you can obtain »' Government 3 StM^f^leUV’’ sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. t ?o7o^“rph\c%o"/v"eT (existing and Proposed contours) if l.nd not been included. ____________________________________________ ^ertiflcatiorbrzoninrD^xr^^^^ Ose Application is -omplete. Date ■Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _—-- -- - - - - - - -- APFLTCAT'S SICTATOKB *..«..•{/?« *11 information required or S;:Tnfo*S:?nn "s"u“p"fed""is”:r:: °and corr^lct to the best of his/her knowledge. y , Date Jf'P'Applicant’s signature ______...............................................— ------r ^ T^B^ne^^reby acltnowledgos ®"**^|”|®^rty*'by City ^s^fV!" consu^^ investigation and verification of this request. . . . ___________ hate --------------Owner’s signature ______ _____________r~_________-------------------------- Applicant must have all submittals ^ald on the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning oresent at all scheduled third Monday of each month. Applicants must Vpplicant is review meetings of the Planning Commission and Co^cil. If an app ^ unable to attend a scheduled meeting, ^ s Zoning authorized agent attend in your place.and advise the Buiia-ng Office of this change prior to the meeting. . im.. >v-WWt T H AJ < ^- ui a _ > • i H lA o^ lA 09 01 C Ji «#'# ss^ss O ?l 01 IIkmH S -» ^ O M M5sg-5 OI H Ql S UJ “si - Qi SS OI H III X Ul»gs 5|-aS= H U» MM MM M •< M Ul •> M _ tSoaSS M0fnlit 2 M S-aas® iaSSSa .'^SSs°SgCCSnA a a a M ni Ul a a 2 M m M Ul Ul M U Ma M ui Ul e a5 M m a o ra s V V--'.® ' :. -M • fW_* II mWM >’• 'I. ■J ...I V ' •V •, mm F-'i- =:?{■’.' ";•• •'-•••■ ••• •/ • '. i'l fl ■1 l}- ” c ■IP* Ik X- ill t*wc !|s P"* 1 m ft s sS a aJ I? iii 8-: iCSzliig I^S88i9(j lO .4 oi yj CK ft ^ I X Ul Ul H ^ S“sSx^ A ^ X X ^a oi M ►: <a !< a e X X M X > X 1^.' mmH ■arr' *:r ^ 1 M 8m96 3 •"*7 9 c* V ^ • 94 ft ^ I K 8 aliis:S S ft 2S8SUl Ul M a I MS388§s O < - >• N 8» ss << a > u S8 nsiii^.SJsm mm o m 94 Ul <a o ^ M X / -I ^ > a a a M c z X a ft ft a a a «j 9 9 > a Ul a Ul . >. ^ < gi:a aSiSai ID cu a <a o a u oi X ft Ul ftO Z X£l S§il^ e|8« 2|ea M “SS 4. ir. ^x: • -1 f H ■ik'.ri Z-c i % M .rf ir- jii 'k "' 9S '4.. 41 M-r- / ® J 1 \NN 7 f 5 '1 . H.« 1■ jzA (j'l \\V ' V'^Vn \2'I - f;. "r " i • 40 40 .;.=u\ . ^, 1 I •.-. id the timber rour property., icountered it and :he lake shore 1 and the failure (tone wall was t south. I >n. r the proposed ition with the linnetonka, is Bision. My t relative to leighbors, the of vegetation lore permit as aits as listed proposal. i- i. . - ■ J:;- "M m •: >'a '?• .<1*” :>'• 4 MS t wmmi mm ■•P: : •. ■ • .;•• R_'M&m •iT ra3a.„ . ■ --i- .:M -^r-.->1f."- ‘4 EtV-^••:V •%, Mr. Lee P^ge Two 31 Aug S3 LAKESHORE COMSTEOCTIOH PERMIT. 1 />Arfsinlv halts continued erosion and therefore has stabilised the 2. The «U. ere .leoally unaccepteble In their current state with no planting and are not compatible with the banka on adjacent properties. walls* I MCOmraDAnON: A planting prograa as a «ans to f “*'hiSBAJmcn reco«end the raising of the bed levels at the base of the walls to visually decrease the site of the walls as viewed from the lake. 3. I a. not willing to certify the stability of the wall proposal but offer the following observations: a. The design of the walls appear to »%«««• earth anchors to capture the adjacent mss of earth. s:"strirri:o'"ac« :s“^itrtSfs‘"whuh*riu^inc"^^^^^ t“e"st:buify!““'' c. I feel there is inadequate protection of the base of the lower wall from high level wave and water action. seoarator blanket and stone I5Pr"arai^thrbaM ’of^thl “irr'-ai^s shown on the accompanying drawings. d. The backfill is reprted to be Msonry should allow drainage fro« the earth mss the RECOMMENDATION: Drain holes should be installed 1 base of each wall. a. The backfill should be compacted. -nmn-rt dav backfill to 12” fromRECOMMENDATION: Remove, reinstall and compact clay top of the walls. f. The base of the walls is 12” or less into the opportunity for froot action and eventual heaving _ „-iig ^ RECOMMENDATION: Raise the grade at the base of the 4.ThA ^tair is twice the allowable width of 48” under Orono ordinances. RECOMMENDATION: Plant materials should be allowed to grow over stair. Th. proposal does not meet the Uniform Building Code in at Uast 2 areas: fl There is no rail protection from vertical changes over 30 height. RECOMMENDATION: Raise the grade at the base of the wa ® possible; install plantings as shown, install a temporary rail at the top wall. ^^RECOMMENDATIONriSsLu a steel piperail. paint gray to match house Vy r>.'- n ■? 1 ■ oi^:-■'M ► 4 w Hr. Lee 6. The proposal i establishment of p REC0^tfENDA 7« Restoration: RECQMfENDA Following successf listed above, I fe If you have any qu Sincerely, James Robin •• ,«iiM31 Aug 88 are has stabilized the Id handle yard surface e with no planting and are r the walls; I levels at the 8 the size of the )posal but offer the >nt deadnen or fer sooe stability• e stability. lower wall blanket and stone 1 as shown on the clay fill. This 1. on center near the >ackfill to 12“ from . A :h increases the 8 walls. «ralls. no ordinances. 0 grow over the at least 2 areas: 30" height, walls where n; install a y to match house .-Jl m -X'A/i;- ''stUj! Hr. Lee Page Three 31 Aug 88 6. The proposal does not provide sufficient planting soil to allow a successful establishMnt of plantings. RECOmENDATIOfC: legrade terraces so as tp allow 12” depth of planting soil as shown In the Sections. 7.Restoration: RECOmSDATION: The proposal should be planted with evergreen shrubs as shown on the acccsipanying sketch. An organic sulch eaterial, such as shredded hardtrood bark should be installed in all plant beds. All planting operations should be conducted "in season”. I also recooaend the preparation of a watering prograa for this plant aaterial. The shrubs should be allowed to grow together to fore a continuous cover on the soil areas and in front of the walls. Following successful coepletion of the Lakeshore Permit based on the recoofiendatldns above. I feel that a Building Permit would be issued. If you have any questions regarding this report, please don’t hesitate to call. Sincerely,, James RobinII A > i ^ 4 r» J \i Mi iH * I Mi; .5' m* TW. po^ landscape architect 2 3 4 2 0 park street excelsior, minnesota 6 8 3 3 1 aia/474-3046 SW; 3:^; i,. - ■rov-;'-_ __ •/•• ^ .?•• •■.-•.*♦' 31 Aug 88 Ilow a successful th of planting rgreen shrubs as rganlc mulch c should be Lng operations > recommend the lis plant to grow :he soil areas I the recommendations ssitate to call. € t •>; I- ■ ‘1/k Ik m mw.^ -X-' ,4 • y,i ".t -.1^ m imi PCC^ landscape architect 2 3 4 2 0 park street excelsior, minnesota 8 8 3 3 1 aia/474-3046 . - r4MU«- ( *oA I x> (pPU^ tu. 12.'-^ " •»< « m C/^t*soS fM<2^I d?A|C ^ tssts Hc^9e*4— L£S^ S>f-#NW| I'AM- ■5‘5a*ll m- ■m t;. 'V 1^- Cd/Kfd^ w V ;isr #1X landscap architec 2 3 4 2 C paxkstree excelsiox minnesoti 8 8 3 3 ] 6ia/474-304l r .. i.-' t«f-. ‘'m^Wimm '.•••.•V Mi;- .."■ ■ >•: . . ■ i ■%iSJ ;^_i_. !^^?V:V r ■*5*. . . W.^iHi- 4 . N W, # i ;. •■ ,»■ >-:* * :: ^ n*wrr- f{f'f*e iia^iL • : .-v:: j -■■Ji 1,:**m !.,J :Msrl k >4 landscape architect 8 3 4 2 0 park street excelsior, mlnnesola 8 8 3 3 1 ei8/474-S»4e jSft u-^^ylyg^ ( ?32? c 0f<t / al-:■ ' ■"■•" •->'r= -~y ‘i 1* t.i##g.,.. \ t f ■H ■sM- 2^19 i*i>Mjr pc |MM ^ m- Me i^' ''■:iV m -i^Hfr 4.^ II ■ i L''> ...:..^-. .?•■ ■■V*■■j, )t » rrv4 r4. • •* pi J^»L: TTfHe :'S I • • «%' Jamesrobin landscape architect 8 3 4 2 0 park street excelsior, mlnnesota 6 8 3 3 1 618/474-3046 Kh :g>fe. ¥ -< ’ '■•''', lU- ? f'onJ^ pc- r -- ^«- :j ' -*V " -■' 4^’ ;v ^ m* »vv ‘.;-.v Jamesro1)in landscape architect 2 3 4 2 0 park street excelsior, mlnnesota 5 8 3 3 1 612/474-3046 Kf. fVS/lD f<?(Kr >^o»o :fifOJ0o ^r^hi,. .‘i,! : i.i-. -v ^■3?^-teu Jmtf'i"'"Tl r‘'iT‘^- -"~ -iiii r- '~ '//'I >J', i J* « » ..WH, -w ♦ . #ra m K---.v^-^i Mm :M ..-i! ■•■ fv'.r. M. wm mMif'MS *4t*c «w*^^'*****"*‘**^--•1 "i-I •■ I iM ■ Li ^ hi A Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & Associates DG^ a fenti@» PC Men w. Ment. PS. iMph C AndiHfc. PC ffidlM £. P€ Jwnet C. OM. Pf Qgnn i. CdPft. Pf Thamm t No^ PJ. ioPett G. PiL t. SonM> PE A. GonM. PI. Ptenard W Pmk Pf Deniid C m0§mm. Pi Jmy A touMir.i. PE mms A Minapn. Pf. 1M K PML Pf MPftffi T IfmMmtFm. Pi Miit t. mmmi Pf. C^Mf O LMon. Pf. W l^mnmK P E fUMiiit C LiindV Pf Jwtict E MME Pi 8ifin«P» P Anpma Pf - tmm A iPcNnafin. Pi. mMt • Poift Pi ■■Mt C. UMiA AiA mm ^ A MML PE UO M • % Cngififen ft Architects SoptMibeir 27, 1988 MSS' City of OrMO Box 68 Crystal Bay. Ml SS323 ftttnx Ns. Jsa&ns Mabusth Res Pile iiO• 139*1339 David Lea Dear Jeannt, The laks shoreVs inspsetsd ths David Les propsrty at 2693 Casco Point Road, has been altered by the construction of several retain ig vails. Ve do not know vhat condition the lake shore bsnk vas in prior to coftstruc- tion. We did reviev the site several years ago with the previous owner and the lake shore bank appeared stable. Th. r.tainlBt »«U con.truetlon .111 .t.blllM tb. bank and alniiaiaa tha po- tantial for futura alopa failura. Iha conatructlon, hoaaaar, la not conatat- ent with City approvals on other applications. There are three basic options for addressing the problea with many variations of each option. The first would be to leave the walls in place and camouflage them with bushes and shrubs as proposed by Janes Robin. The second would be to modify the walls leaving sections in place to stabilize the bank. The awa would then be graded and ground cover established to restore the bank. The third would be to remove the walls entirely and restore the bank to its original condition. Option one is not consistent with previous city approvals. ^e proposal is structurally sound but does not provide the lake shore continuity desired by the City. Option two would leave the lower lake shore wall exposed and the upper two walls would be buried. The wall sections would continue to provide stability for the bank but wall exposure would be reduced by 60 percent. We have in *- cated the amount of wall to be removed on the attached drawing. Page 1. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 .,n.-.(C ■'fit r mm I- •; T .v ■•■ia HI • t l;I ' - .. -f //• City of Or Orono, MN let Pile N OptiiHl th with fabri small sec steep and plantings Ve would questions, Yours very BONESTROO. Glenn R. C 6ICIli End. terson, P.C.Oijries A. irttkmn ^ P.f.Leo M. PMelAy md. Pi.Harfen M. Olson Kitfson. Pi.Susan M. merttn marm. Pi.Mark A, Seip Pi. lek, AJ.A. ^9^ Pi. wifofd. Pi. . The lake shore or to construe* revious owner and linlmlze the po rt is not consist- many variations ice and camouflage second would be le bank. The area the bank. The re the bank to its * . 4 !-y M mi • t kV" ’4--V —* t m mm City of Ordao Orooo, MN Ees FUe Ho. 139 SeptMiber 27, 1988 - !';4j option three would not have any wall exposed and the bank should be ceinforced with fabric or buried cribbing for stability. It nay be possible to leave snail sections of the upper wall in place for stability. The bank would be steep and special ground cover mats would be required to hold the new grass or plantings inplace. He would recoHMind that the City follow option two or three. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly. lifvll BOHESTtOO. ROSENS, RSCSILIK I ▲SSOCIATES, INC. Glenn 1. Cook GRCsli ^Cl ' m er;.. : NHnsr-.»' '3fiMSBK v.:y mm: ■ V w mwj The proposal is Linuity desired by 1 the upper two provide stability Ve have indl- i iiDal m I / y-:Vy;., •1* k: Sv y y" ■;ry:v: f ‘ Page 2 V * ^ , ^vv y,, r-y y'ryqm if:.y:y1 Pe -mm m . I.■ ■■■ ~ ' v*i k:‘i SeptesCb#? 27, 1988 ink should bo colnforcod bo pOSSiblO to lOOTO Lity. Tbo bonk would bo hold tho now gross or throi« If you hovo ony V,. ...jr V ’ ‘'Si Mm: il ■V j II 1 m vW s V i 4j mm.. ^• L . Vi •. • -ii .•■ ■■ ■••••;:• ; ..I•.- :ri;r::^^yvj3 A •••fc ife ^^0S4C. ^ . t Y/AIA^ ^ landscape architect 2 3 4 2 0 park street excelsior, mixinosota 6 8 3 3 1 618/474-3046 jg( Tot Dat«s Subject Pit for you; InvolVi 10»000 c at the E that thi Councl 1 until th At pending remember to be In o£ the a grading requlre< event an that the review, until tl; Exh; Exh: Dates ... ■- \ A Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusthr Building ft Zoning Administrator Septesiber 28, 1988 SubjcK^s #1305 Washington Scientific, Inc. 2805 West T*?ayzata Boulevard - Conditional Use Persd.t - Second Review Please review your previous staff memo dated July 14, 1988 prepared for your July Planning Cosuaission meeting. The conditional permit involves the temporary storage and filling and grading of approximately 10,000 cubic yards of fill from the recent excavation for the new addition at the northwest corner of the existing structure. The City was advised that the soils were poor and could not be used as replacement soils. The Council granted pensission to the applicant to stock'-pile the excess soils until the formal conditional use permit application was resolved. At your July meeting. Planning Commission tabled the application pending resolve of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit. You may remember that the City Engineer requested a 1/2 to 3/4 acre retention pond to be installed at the southeast corner of the property to account for any of the additional hardcover from the new addition and proposed filling and grading along the west and south boundaries of the property. The City required no hydraulic information dealing with facts on 100 year storm event and the need for a specific retention area on the site. It appeared that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was to ask for a more complete review. The Planning Commission delayed all action on the application until the M.C.W.D. permit review was complete. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B > Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Exhibit G - Planning Commission Action Notice Dated 7/28/88 M.C.W.D. Preliminary Memo Dated 7/15/38 Original Grading Plan M.C.W.D. Permit Hydraulic Report by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Dated 8/4/88 Vogt Corporation Letter Dated 9/16/88 Final Grading Plan, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Dated 8/4/88 iMrih . .r ; 4-^ •' ■• H-. . . Zoning File #1305 September 29, 1988 Page 2 of 4 Review of Application - Please review Exhibit a letter from Robert Sorenson, Architect of the Vogt Corporation representing the applicant advising that the stockpiled earth was re-graded by the contractor in error. The contractor was stopped as soon as it was realized but at least 85% of the work was completed. The final grading has not been realized nor has the swale along the base of the newly graded area along the west lot line been installed. Staff has inspected the site on September 21st and can confirm that nothing has been done since the original inspection of the week of September 12th. Please review Exhibits B, D, and E, as staff noted in the first review, the quality of the run-off was not going to be a major concern as a result of the new addition and proposed grading. In light of the very sensitive drainage area that the property is located within, the Watershed District did ask for an analysis of the effects of the additional hardcover based on the 100 year storm event (pre and post development). The applicant was then advised that they would then be responsible for following the guidelines and standards of the District, which was that based on the pre and post calculations, with the new improvement, run-off could not leave the property at a greater rate than prior to the new improvement• McCombs Frank Roos Associates have prepared the necessary hydrolic information and have prepared the final drainage plan for the M.C.W.D. permit review. The final approved drainage plan calls for the construction of a storage pond, constructed within along the proposed swale to the east of the re-graded area along the west side of the property, approximately 200* east of the west property line. The storage pond will be constructed by cleaning out and lowering the bottom of the existing drainage ditch in the area shown on the attached plans (Exhibit G). The retention pond shall flow along the south border to the southeast corner and outlet to the drainage ditch and finally to the railroad tracks. The drainage pattern is still the same as approved on the original plans (Exhibit C) except that we will not ask for a retention pond in the southeast corner. Approximately 90% of the drainage from the hardcover from the new addition is located in the 8+ acre watershed to the west and south of the building. mi :V j li-J Zoning File #1305 September 28, 1988 Page 2 of 4 Reviev of Application - Please review Exhibit F, a letter from Robert Sorenson, Architect of the Vogt Corporation representing the applicant advising that the stockpiled earth was re->graded by the contractor in error. The contractor was stopped as soon as it was realized but at least 85% of the work was completed. The final grading has not been realized nor has the swale along the base of the newly graded area along the west lot line been installed. Staff has inspected the site on September 21st and can confirm that nothing has been done since the original inspection of the week of September 12th. Please review Exhibits B, D, and E, as staff noted in the first review, the quality of the run>off was not going to be a major concern as a result of the new addition and proposed grading. In light of the very sensitive drainage area that the property is located within, the Watershed District did ask for an analysis of the effects of the additional hardcover based on the 100 year storm event (pre and post development). The applicant was then advised that they would then be responsible for following the guidelines and standards of the District, which was that based on the pre and post calculations, with the new improvement, run-off could not leave the property at a greater rate than prior to the new improvement. McCombs Frank Roos Associates have prepared the necessary hydrolic information and have prepared the final drainage plan for the M.C.W.D. permit review. Tbe final approved drainage plan calls for the construction of a storage pond, constructed within along the proposed swale to the east of the re-graded area along the west side of the property, approximately 200* east of the west property line. The storage pond will be constructed by cleaning out and lowering the bottom of the existing drainage ditch in the area shown on the attached plans (Exhibit G). The retention pond shall flow along the south border to the southeast corner and outlet to the drainage ditch and finally to the railroad tracks. The drainage pattern is still the same as approved on the original plans (Exhibit C) except that we will not ask for a retention pond in the southeast corner. Approximately 90% of the drainage from the hardcover from the new addition is located in the 8+ acre watershed to the west and south of the building. d-: ' .d) m »»i. - -r h Zoning File #1305 September 28, 1988 Page 3 of 4 The applicant and the appl to answer any questions yoi Staff would request a to-s Frank Roos Associates, Ir typical cioss sections of Staff Recoamendati< To approve the cond. Scientific, Inc., for the | would permit the filling a of fill to be used in the property per grading plant 6/29/88, hydrolic analysis Associates dated 8/4/88, : Roos Associates dated 8/4/1 the dike, rip-rap specifi Associates, based on the fc 1. The proposed fill: with the intent of the in which the site is the City. 2. The filling and g detrimental to the pu! injurious to property 3. The proposed com applicable conditions the required standards This approval is subje 1. The area where fil grades are approved b^ 2. All work shall be the approved plans by t Sorenson, Architect of ant advising that the .n error. The contractor ast 85% of the work was 1 nor has the swale along Lot line been Installed, can confirm that nothing week of September 12th. :aff noted In the first 0 be a major concern as a • In light of the very ed within, the Watershed the additional hardcover ost development). The ^en be responsible for Istrict, which was that new Improvement, run-off 1 than prior to the new the necessary hydrollc fe plan for the M.C.W.D. r the construction of a led swale to the east of lerty, approximately 200* will be constructed by .ng drainage ditch In the tie retention pond shall >rner and outlet to the The drainage pattern Is Exhibit C) except that we t corner. Approximately w addition Is located In building. >'■. • --y »[,V I r;,.. 7' .1:1: .S' a Zoning Pile #1305 September 28, 1988 Page 3 of 4 The applicant and the applicant's architect will be present at the meeting to answer any questions you may have concerning the revised drainage plans. Staff would request a to-scale copy of the final drainage plans by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. and for a copy of the revised plan showing typical cioss sections of the dike. rip*rap specifications and restoration. Staff Re datlon - To approve the conditional use permit application of Washington Scientific, Inc., for the property located at 2605 Wayzata Boulevard, that would permit the filling and re-gradlng of approximately 10,000 cubic yards of fill to be used In the final grading of the western elevations of the property per grading plans by the Vogt Corporation dated 5/19/88 revised 6/29/88, hydrollc analysis for 100 year storm event by McCombs Frank Roos Associates dated 8/4/88, revised grading/drainage plan by McCombs Frank Roos Associates dated 8/4/88 and revised plan of typical cross section of the dike, rip-rap specifications and restoration by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed filling and grading of the property will be In accord with the Intent of the zoning chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site Is located and the Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City. 2. The filling and grading of this property has been found to not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be materially Injurious to property or Improvements In the vacinlty. 3. The proposed conditional use permit complies with each of the applicable conditions of the zoning chapter, requiring no variances to the required standards. This approval Is subject to the following conditions: 1. The area where fill Is placed must be seeded as soon as the final grades are approved by the City. 2. All work shall be performed per the specifications set forth In the approved plans by the M.C.W.D. and the City of Orono. %... V ■ Zoning Septeo Page 4 Zoning File 11305 September 28, 1988 Page 4 of 4 3. Prior to scheduling this application before the City Council, the City staff must be in receipt of a to-scale drawing of the final grading and drainage plans showing the ponding site prepared by McCombs Prank Roos Associates, dated 8/4/88, and the revised plan showing a typical cross section of the dike, rip-rap specifications and restoration plan. *■ ‘ • ;• % ‘ * mm aj 2^- li I '“t KM m / i w » > •<* >0 i r m e the City Council# the drawing of the final ding site prepared by r and the revised plan rip-rap specifications i* ii K .I'f*' • •* IS 'J CITf OF OROeO P.o. Box 66 Crystal Bay# MH TOs Joe Pallansch Washington Scientific Inc 2605 West Wayzata Blvd. Long Lake# MH 55356 ZOHHR3 FILB W>. 1305 HOTICB OF PLIOmiWC COMIIISSIOW BCTIO* 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 7/20/88 COFIBS rOi TTFB of APPLICATIOB* Conditional Use Permit ITXWOs 7/18/88 VOTB* 6 Pur 0 Against ids the followings DATB or Planning Goasdissi Tabled for reasons noted below sons AMD SPECIAL OOMDITIOHS: TO table Washington Scientific's conditions 1 use and grading subject to the resolve of the tife eadditional run-off from the recent proposed addition to the existing Washington Scientific structure. District has tad^^^le time to review the hydraulic information i» tLir permit review process. The City will ^s acceptab^^^^^ recommendation concerning treatment of run-off. ff the WatershedVrtii Blease advise and we will await final notice from the watersnea District concerning the issuance of a permit to Washington Scienti c. u 1305 %0M (SION ACTION I Notice: 7/28/88 ■ - .i - ISt ermlt for filling ithod to treat the 1 to the existing r a specific size Lonal run-off from ent review, staff I Creek Watershed urination sought in itershed District's I is acceptable to rom the Watershed n Scientific. -f ^11. ii|(li July 15, 1988Permit Application No. 88-103 Owner: Washington Scientific Ind. 2605 W. Wayzata Blvd. Long Lake, m 55356 Project ”' Stormwater management plan for a building addition to an existing commercial site. Applicable Rules : Exhibits Reviewed: Rule B: StonWater Management Plan for Individual P^'Ojects 1. 2. 3. 4. Permit Application 88-1C3 received July 5, 1988. Site survey prepared by Advance Surveying and Engineering Co. dated May 26 1^88site plan prepared by Vogt Corporation <l»ted May 19, 1988. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Permit file 87-153. staff Review Suinnary: The runoff generated from the roof of the building addition wlU be of generally better water quality, therefore staff reconmends that water treatment not be required for this site. However, runoff rates for a 100-yeaf storm event will Increase which does not meet Districtcontrol. Runoff from this site enters subwatershed designated LLLC-14 In tha District's 509 plan. This Is the same vwtershed which was reviewed extensively by the Board and the City of Long Lake several years ago. Recommendation: Table pending receipt of: 1. K/drologlc analysis for a 100-year storm event Including pre- and post 2. Revised plan and calculations demonstrating conformance with District standards for rate control. Project Review Status by Other Governmental Units; The City of Orono Planning Commission has granted preliminary approval for this project In June 1988. .s^npnnn^rphipbn.'W ■-i ■z'. '■ •*^ -w.■■!■■■■ ■ ly IS. 1988 Ion to an existing Individual Projects ering Co. dated May . 1988. !3. uding pre- and post- ance with District Inary approval for I building located In 00 square feet of es of building and II Increase the te area Is 25 acres. on will be of s that water quality rates for a 100-year andards for rate nated LLLC-14 In the s reviewed 1 years ago. "if,kibrlU k f- to O'" MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387, Wajrzata, Minnesota 55391 IMiVMMKn! Cam«»0./Mr«.fV«. • Mbet L La»HR • Jain E. Ttams j|iwo H Spanslay • IVc^ard R Millar • Rotal D Eridrson • C WIMww Lsm Pernit Application No. 88-103 August 26, 1988 Owner: Washington Scientific Ind. 2605 W. Wayzata Blvd. Long Lake, Ml 55356 Location: City of Orono, Sec. 33AD Project: Stormwater management plan for a building addition to ahi existing comnerclal site. Gentlemen: Receipt Is acknowledged for the following which you have subnltted as part of the above permit application: 1. Revised plan sholwng typical cross section of the dike, rip rap specifications and restoration, received August 23, 1908. This plan and letter are In accordance with the action taken by the Board of Managers on August 18, 1988 In reference to the above permit. This letter Is your permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Permit approval Is based upon the following exhibits: 1. Permit Application No. 88-103 received July 5, 1988. 2. Site survey prepared by Advance Surveying and Engineering Co. dated May 26, 1988. . 3. Site Plan prepared by the Vogt Corporation dated May 19, 1988. 4. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Permit File No. 87-153. 5. Letter from the District to the applicant Informing them that permit application was tabled at the July 1988 meeting. 6. Hydrologic analysis for a 100-year storm event including pre and post development prepared by McCombs Frank Roos Assoc, received August 8, 1988. 7. Revised Site Plan showing on-site ponding area prepared by McCombs Frank Roos Assoc, received August 8, 1988. 8. Revised plan shoi>mg typical cross section of the dike, rip rap specifications and retoratlon, received August 23, 1988. This permit Is valid for one (1) year. If construction Is not complete within one (1) year, an extension must be requested. Please contact the District at 473-4224 when the project Is about to coinnence .o an Inspector may view the work In progress. EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES Engineers for the Distr. cc: Board L. Smith City of Orono bate of I^ zer, f: fi fon to an existing submitted as part of ke, rip rap 1938. ken by the Board of mlt. shed District. ering Co. dated 19, 1988. 7-153. them that permit ding pre and post- cel ved August 8, 1988; red by McCombs Frank ke, rip rap 988. s not complete within tact the District at ector may view the Orono Vm .4 Engineers Planners Surveyors August A, 1988 Joe Pallansch Washington Scientific Industries, Inc. 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard P.O. Box 340 Long Lake, MN 55356 -0340 SUBXCT: Washington Scientific Indistries, Inc. Storage Pond 100 Year Storm Run-off MFRA #8749 Dear Hr. Pallansch: Enclosed are seven copies which show the contours of a storage store run-off from a 100 year frequerxiy storm. Three copies also stow the drainaoe area in blue, from which this run-off will occur and include aoDroximately 90X of the proposed new addition to your building. Basically tWs is ths only portion of your property ttot will have to the proposed addition and therefore, we have computed the required storage volune from the changes in run-off in this area only. The total area that we are concerned with is 8.3 acres. It that the coefficient of run-off changes from 0.53 to 0.^ due to of the roof area as a result of the new const^tion. This ^-off from this drainage area from 20.7 cubic f^ per f CSF. The rate of flow allowed from this area is the construction and that was 20.7 CFS. In order to maintain ^his rate of run-off from the area, it is required to construct a storage pond which will TO constructed along an existing swale approximately 200 east of the west property line. The storage pond can be constructed by cleaning out and lowering the bottom of the drainage ditch and putting in a small dam in the ®*^®® ppp fo nofthroS^^it tlt%a“atr/Lrth^st"a^ as If. runoff f^ The ponding area that we show will hold a volume of approximately 20,500 cubic feet^at the 1,013 contour elevation. The invert of the pipe sTOuld TO at 1,010.5. We are also including with this letter mass curve calculat^ns computed by the rational method. Copies of this information sTOuld be delivered to Mr. Kevin Larson, of Eugene A. Hickock and Associates, by the end of the day on August 8, 1988. RG:aju Enclosu] u'.i.- )hone 476-6010 Engineers Ranriers Surveyors storage pond to s also show tt^ nd include ding. Basically creased run-off due le required storage It is estimated lue to the addition ► will increase the icond (CFS), to 21.9 lal run-off before ;his rate of run-off fhich will be of the west property j lowering the bottom »a shown on the area a 21 inch RCP torage pond into the *ill allow 13.5 CFS j as the run-off from 3 proposed addition. : feet is required, imately 20,500 cubic pe should be at B calculations □n should be ssociates, by the end m mm '■it: : - ■ ■ J f/ •v'i-d n S-l ■V % MB'r-VS mm mtm m- -■ ;t 4, 1988 Two If you hive any questions, please let me know Very truly yi5urs, McCQMBS FRANK RODS ASSOCIATES, INC. Rodney Gordon, P.E. RG:aju Enclosure Y-yi[ l: . t'- > .5- '■ ! 3SXIATES, INC. > •; i;* ^ y ^ S? j i.F^':::;»L ■ =v‘!i r..-:-^:2s- >v:;vA Vii:- ■>:: K.-il l!is m \^;:yy b4: ~:;A-*! # . >•. '•’•i Cl—'-' •—A-r-'Vv -i-l ■; V;^S'.Jb;'-'--.-:/ •*\. <r*>] i‘ ' • Aiil:iri 2J* w UJ Diiog 3 t Vi ^ rti b r-:'- 4. '--m >. i UTY '<lll/Kli) INFLOH (CFS) VOLUME VOLUME (CFS-HM) (CU-fTJ OUTFLOU STOmeE (OFT) (CU-fT) i.n f.ii •.M t.09 ;:Sga.;« :ce72.35 ■t> 0.2 23. cl 5. <9 23391.73 fi2ic.!)9 I3li9.75 1^33 S.1 cS.42 9.36 33764.29 16838.88 17726.29 Rii.»5 23.38 11.63 41932.88 24388.08 I 7632.(i« 1 *1.67 4.1 13. !•12.68 46173.76 32352.80 12513.76 ••.S3 3.3 16.31 13.33 48725.91 48338.88 6367.91 l.M 3.1 14.44 14.44 31996.67 48688.88 3396.67 i.3«2;3 18.72 16.87 37867.26 72988.88 8.08 2.IS l.S 6.85 l?.7f 63737.86 97288.88 •.08 2.3#1.53 7.22 18.83 64995.63 121388.88 8.88 3.M 1.35 6.29 18.67 67931.13 143688.08 8.88 4.01 1.2 5.39 22.36 88518.98 194488.88 8.08 S.M .1 4.19 28.97 73479.83 243888.88 8.88 6.M .78 3.63 21.81 78498.28 291688.88 8.88 STOMGE VOLUME f)BU1.9E0 « 17726 CUBIC FEET I ii '. lv-1 iA i.v I •Tv' M >■, ■> .vir>'¥- •■.•t • -V Ml1 MEA • tciemt of I FREQUENCY ^/SOIMGE a(MRfl mTIQN (HR) STORAGE VOLUME 2J* RCF rio D iks imtific IV 0LCULATIQNS MEA*a.32(CflES OF MJNQFF « .36 FWUECY » IM YEfa IfSCNMGE FLOUMTE • 12.S CFS fiUftTIOi (HRt 4,17 §,33 «.Si I.S7 1.33 1.09 1.39 2.99 2.39 3.99 4.39 3.99 6.99 INTENSITY (IN/K9I 11 3.2 6.1 4 n0 3.3 3.1 2.3 1.1 1.33 1.33 1.2 .1 .78 INFLOU tCFSl 1.99 31.25 23.2! 29.42 23.59 13.19 16.21 14.44 19.72 8.83 7.22 6.21 3.53 4.19 3.63 vault vauc outrjom stoikse <CF3-WH (CU-FT) (CU-FT) (QJ-FT) 9.99 4.19 i. ♦I I. 38 II. 63 12.89 13.33 14.44 16.97 17.79 18.93 18.87 22.36 29.17 21.81 9.99 14769.33 23:31.73 33764.21 41S32.89 46973.76 48723.11 5ir;G.S7 37887.26 6373*.86 64113.83 67131.13 89519.98 73471.93 78418.29 9.99 9.99 3888.^ 19872.33 826c. 99 ISU1.73 16928.99 17726.21 24299.09 17622.89 32362.90 13313.76 49326.99 8387.31 48609.99 2316.67 72399.99 9.99 17299.99 121399.99 145809.09 114499.99 243099.99 291699.90 9.99 9.99 9.99 9.09 9.99 9.99 STORflGE V=OLU?t IlflUlfe * 17725 CUBIC FEET * • -<> * 1^ I Hr-' f .4 .. ^ T;>- 's . :T\- • .•wr\ 5*. r ■r '*i * f ^ A m^' &■'* 'rpw f if ■-y:w •:v Kv •> ■r. *1 -T**-. ■ . . ■ '\"-' * *'■■ '.ty " .'4>r'’ THE VOOT CORPORATIOIM ARCHITBCTURiT^r^rMIOINKSRIIMQ September 16, 19Gd Hr. Tom Jacobs Building Inspector City of Orono 133S South Brown Road Orono, MN Dear Mr. Jacobs: Re our discussion of yesterday regarding g-^odlng at Washington Scientific Industries, you will recall that I contacted you with the Information that the contractor had begun grading the stock piled earth at the west of the site, and that this is the area subject to a pending Request for Conditional Use Permit for grading. In our discussion at the site with Joe Pallansch, I Indicated that I had stopped all grading work on site immediately when I discovered the grading In progress. I estimate that the grading was perhaps 85X completed when stopped. Apparently this work was begun because of a miscommunicatlon between architect, owner and contractor. The contractor was not aware that the work was not to be carried out Immediately. At present It Is clearly understood by all parties that no work Is to be carried out In the west area until the City's review of the permit application. I understand that the owner's position remains as before, that the stockpiled earth will be removed If the permit is not granted. Please call If you have any questions. Sincerely, IGT C^PORATWH;^ RJS/dj s Soren U Architect SUITE 260 CARLSON CENTER • ONE CARLSON PARKWAY • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55447 • (612) 475-2826 . # I. ! % m- src: : v:-: .;’ ■i-' w Date: Subject: Fertlnen Sec lar ap5 exc con dra ent The con and M.P of "ai List of Exh Exh Exh Exh Exh Exh Exh Exh Exh Exh Exh Exh 1 k. ‘♦ I'i i&:m 'll;4S^ inlstrator ta Boulevard - use permit required for 100 cubic yards. The liase will involve the e purpose of treating ,ed within tc the trench »rs that will r-ventually : over 100 cubic yards of addition to the structure :rench construction. The an to place 1 inch width tvaporate waste substance Letter to Department of L Action Plan" L-’ V nma K." i| ^ j Sv- m nil 'Vff % ■S'■V'.Vi-' -•*V>‘y ■ “Ibj ’ 111^1I ; Zoning File #1340 September 21, 1988 Page 2 of 5 Beview of J^plication - As with all industrial type operations within this State, WSI is und^^r a continual monitoring program of operations under the P.C.A. guidelineri. In May of 1987, Pace Laboratories was asked to sample soil borin<(t conducted on the WSI site for construction of a new parking lot for tHe facility. In the process of analysing those soil borings, the findin*rs indicated the potential for contamination of soil and perhaps ground wat^r with volatile organic compounds. In the summer of 1987, WSI contractsd with Delta Environmental to conduct a full scale program of sampling, analysis and investigation for the purpose of correcting the problem 2nd with a recommendation for remedial action. Review Exhibit L, Delta's Remedial Action Plan, to the rear you will find several site plans. In those site plans, note the location of various monitoring wells that hi;ve been installed on the site in addition to locating the contaminateu3 area to the south of the parking lot and on another, the proposed location of the filtering trench. The contaminate has been classified as organic solv*;nt. In discussions»with Mr. Pallansch, it would appear that the hazardous substance was found in possibly the chemicals used by the company yfjars ago, and twenty to thirty years ago, it was the misguided practice to t.irow these out into the adjacent field. There is no other explanation for it as the substances do not exist naturally in soils. WSI has worked closely under the direction of the M.P.C.A. Please review the coorespondence enclosed in your pacl’.ets (Exhibits E through K). They briefly define the many interactions between the agencies that Save taken place since 1987. The M.P.C.A. has approved Delta Environment.-.I's recommendations which involve the installation of monitoring well:; to determine the extent of the contamination on the site and through the groundwater. Note monitoring wells hav-: been placed on St. Geore<e's cemetary property to the east of the subject property. The City of Oroio's formal responsibilities entered thj* soene as a result of the 1 ind alterations involved. The trench construction will allow a slow filtering process of the groundwaters and a flushing system that will be closaly monitored by the M.WX.C. and a both letter from Mr. Cook and M.W.C.C. (Exhibits D & K) suggest, it must also be monitored by the City of Oreno before it enters the sewer system. In that same packet prepared by Delta Environmental, you will find engineering diagrams of that trench, pumping chambers, filtering systems, etc. r & \ • ■] mm Zoning File #1340 September 27# 1988 Page 3 of 5 The second phase of the current conditional use permit application involves the placement of 1" thick of contaminated soils excavated once again close to a doorway where possibly workers had dumped chemicals onto the soil. It was located within the area of the new addition. It is interesting to note that th^ preliminary investigations did not find this contaiminated area, but wic* the pattern of past disposal, the company suspected that they would find contaminated soils when the addition was excavated. Mr. Pallansch has advised that the sophisticated equipment useO to detect these substances will be brought to your meeting so that you may be able to observe and question the engineers who will also be present at the meeting. The approximate 100 cubic yards are stored to the south of the parking lot with black plastic coverage and large pieces of sheeting to keep it self contained. Materials to be excavated from the trench which also be contaminated with the same organic solvent and will be spread out over an area of the property to a 1" thick and then replacing turned over and respread. I have been advised by Mr. Pallansch that it will take approximately 2 to 3 months to rid the soils of the solvent. The process of evaporation will remove the contaminate. In Cook's letter, he recommends that small earth dikes may be desirable if there is a failure in the system. Such failure would result in contaminates going directly into Long Lake. Staff will include this in the Planning Commission recommendations. Members should question why the City has never been informed of the problems dating back to May of 1987. As Mr. Pallansch's letter dated 12/29/87 (Exhibit E) notes, WSI deals directly with the P.C.A. with all environmental Issues and is subject to a monitoring program as part of a comprehensive environmental protection program. The P.C.A. is always the first agency to be advised of any problem. It is the company's responsibility to provide the necessary data and remedial action for the P.C.A.'s review, comment and approval. Staff has not had the opportunity to contact an agent from the P.C.A. but prior to the meeting staff plans to discuss this application with the agents of the P.C.A. The purpose of my call would be to ask if it was not part of the normal process of the P.C.A. permit review to contact the local jurisdiction when there is proof presented that a property has been found to contain hazardous materials. The conditional use permit with the City is merely based on the fact that there will be excavations in excess of 100 cubic yards of fill. Cook's letter even notes the tine lag in notifying the City. ■ Jr ■ i-V.' m •'■vm isi i;-. .'4 Zoning Fil September Page 4 of In the fu explorato dealing wj that the c the twenty Mr. P present at this proje we can wit before th< delayed un treatment staff, pis Staff considerat To ap of Washincm Boulevard, purpose of process wd following 1. T Stats and i comp ] remed 2. I: and w insti ^ r conta major 186 permit application fl soils excavated once 1 dumped chemicals onto ! new addition. It is :lons did not find this disposal, the company t when the addition was stlcated equipment used meeting so that you may rill also be present at stored to the south of fe pieces of sheeting to i from the trench which vent and will be spread then replacing turned insch that it will take 3 solvent. The process 1 earth dikes may be li failure would result :f will include this in sr been informed of the .lansch's letter dated Lth the P.C.A. with all ig program as part of a •he P.C.A. is always the It is the company's remedial action for the lot had the opportunity I meeting staff plans to C.A. The purpose of my lal process of the P.C.A. n when there is proof In hazardous materials. ' based on the fact that yards of fill. Cook's :y •• w m:.m: Zoning File #1340 September 27, 1988 Page 4 of 5 In the future, WSI will be required to keep the City apprised of all exploratory work, monitoring results, and in general, all activities dealing with the hazardous condition. Once again. Cook's letter suggests that the contaminates appear to be contained in a relatively small area on the twenty-five acre site. Mr. Pallansch has advised that his architects and engineers will be present at the meeting for you to pose any questions you may have regarding this project. It is of the utmost importance that we proceed as rapidly as we can with this application so that WSI can begin the trench installation before the winter months. The second phase of this application must be delayed until the M.P.C.A. has formally responded and approved the proposed treatment of contaminate. (If members have any questions of the Orono staff, please contact my office prior to the meeting.) Staff would propose the following approval recommendation for your consideration: To approve the first phase of the conditional use permit application of Washington Scientific, Inc., for the property located at 2605 Wayzata Boulevard, that would allow the installation of a 24' deep trench for the purpose of filtering underground contaminiated noils through a flushing process with final deposition into the M.W.C.C. sewer lines, based on the following findings: 1. The applicant and its consultants have contacted all appropriate State agencies throughout the P.C.A. permit review. The City staff and its consultant confirm that it would appear that the applicant has complied with all conditions set forth by the P.C.A. and that the remedial plan of action appears to meet all of the State sta<^:; >rds. 2. In order to prevent further hazard to the public health, safety and welfare, it is Important that the approved remedial action plan be instituted as soon as possible. 3. The proposed plan of action will prevent further risk and contamination of the run-off entering Long Lake and throughout the major watershed. f; J*"!: •r'i gpBftiU f ■.H Zoning F Septembe Page 5 o Thi M.W The M.P.C.A. contami] informatd ■ m (- ;V\. he City apprised of all general, all activities n, Cook's letter suggests relatively small area on !ts and engineers will be ns you may have regarding we proceed as rapidly as n the trench installation :his application must be and approved the proposed Y questions of the Orono ing.) recommendation for your il use permit application located at 2605 Wayzata a 24' deep trench for the soils through a flushing (ewer linesr based on the contacted all appropriate ; review. The City staff sar that the applicant has r the P.C.A. and that the 1 of the State stano^.'rds. le public health, safety d remedial action plan be :event further risk and Lake and throughout the v»‘ k J m,: inSaBESIttitF% ml I: I- .t- ,v; Wm m ■■ € ■4 A Y ■ .’•‘’.it ' - :* ffii if V:%-. Zoning Pile #1340 September 27, 1988 Page 5 of 5 This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant is hereby advised that the City must be notified immediately of any changes in the present condition of the hazardous substances on the property or of any new areas found to contain hazardous substances. 2. The City is to review and approve the monitoring information on the discharge water from the filtering devices before they enter the City sewer system. This responsibility shall be shared with the M.W,C.C. 3, Earthen dikes to be constructed as deemed necessary by the City as a protection against the failure of the system to prevent contamination from getting into Long Lake, 4, This approval reconfirms all conditions set forth by the M,H,C,C, in their approval letter dated 9/28/88. 5, Contaminated soils excavated from trench installation must be contained/stored per approval by M,P.C,A. guidelines. The second phase of this application review will be tabled until the M.P.C.A. has completely approved the air stripping method for excavated contaminated soils. The Orono staff would ask for the following information and/or submittals to complete this phase of the review: A) Temporary/interlum grading plan to show area designated for filling or contaminated soils; B) Method to physically confine or treat direct surface rUn*-off from site while under the evaporation stage; C) Provide time schedule for turn-ov€:r and regrade process; D) Establish the length of time to complete the evaporation process. E) City Engineer to determine need for additional information on this phase. 3 .r*v t by must be notified .on of the hazardous s found to contain ring information on ifore they enter the be shared with the cessary by the City system to prevent ^orth by the M.W.C.C. sta nation must be es. be tabled until the sthod for excavated for the following the review: rea designated for surface run~off from e process; vaporation process information on this i?i ft - CITY or C»OHO - GBISRAL lAKD USB AmjfcAT 5 Tioi f D .Pi PSOPBRTY LOCATIOH Site Address 2605 Vest Weytata Blvd. Property Identification Number -t jt n J-///- a3/J(P.i.D.) CRM) Ti'Ayrr t^t.pjrc Please check one - Property X abstract or (for Conditional Use Applications only) on required survey. APPLICANT Name Pallansch lJtC2C(iOCO 01 Sn ,v Itwv' » V\ cm n ^55.0,- t^C£IPT-lh^ WU fiwcja cm rjAiiWl ? V . Phone (home) Phone (work) 473-1271 Address 2605 West Wayzata Flvd omiBK (if different than applicant) Name Corporation City Long Lake Phone (home) Phone Zip 55356 473-1271 Address 2605 West Wayzata Blvd_________ 1950 approx. City Long Lake Zip^ ________ (month/year) 55356 Date Property Acquired I (do)^(do not) also o%m~the adjacent parcels of land. FBBS - CONDITIONAL USB PBBNITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee $100.00 a) $150.00 b) $150.00 c) $250.00 d) $200.00 f) \ f) Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling * 101 cu. yd. or more Gradingr seawall# retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule APPLICATIONS _ _ _ $150.00 _ _ _ $250.00 _ _ _ $150.00 _ _ _ $ 50.00 _ _ _ $250.00 __ _ $100v00 Commercial Site Plan Review (t consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation Easement Vacation With Subdivision Rezoning Appeals Other - see fee schedule 16 f -L. 1 1. 2. 3* 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The a rememl not hi APPLIC The a reque unusuc the i knowlc Applic OHNBRi The o\ authoi agent invesi Owner Appli< Plann: third review unabl< autho: Office ?nF’ M^n.f\\^i "i /J '«<w f *'z____a-ns i u'w/Vfa,\/V^Wv ;orrens7 ^:V CHECK R nclud hECEIPT-lhi^K WUlea,^.,CO£li ROl Ivy- 473-1271 ke Zip 55356 271 Lake Zip 55356 >nth/year) ind. eta.) ^slgnated wetland or 01 cu. yd. or more ling walls within 75' lultant fees) flBSafV OSB OF PSOPBRTT Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential other (specify) Industrial OBSCXIPTIOli OP RBQOBST Describe request in details Coaply witk10-87-200 Remedial Action Plan RBQOISBD SPHTTRLS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you can obtai this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Governmen Center 348-3271) , ^ 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (§10) pre-addressed to each of the name on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 6. Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 7. Plat Map. 8. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list Of any other p'^rsons you wish notified of this application. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Land Use Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLZCABT*S SIGBATORB ^ ^ The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her Applicant's signature Date ONHBRS SIGBATOBB ^ The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature __________________________________ Date____________________ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. m M' < Sr-i-V-''i m f ' ■'■■■■-'ll -Jwm •V- t t i4i % m N IS -5 inm ^ lyA mi•n K a ^ o o o S_ ^ o HI Oo I" Uu M ^ HI CSJ • 40 3 ^ m ^ o u»M I HI HI gui • V.• * ? ^ Q. LU Q. OHi _ _ _ _ _ : ■r- Industrial medial Action Plan n 350* (you can obtai ance A-603 Govarnmen sd to each of the name contours) if land iqulrements). 1 a separate list of atlon• ^plication. Please ibove information has ration is c Date •JMla.lete. Riatlon required or ay all fees and/or r and certifies that lie best of his/her ite 9/^ If' ication and further staff# consultants# } for purposes of 3 25 days before the nqs are held on the It at all scheduled If an applicant is ngements to have an Building & Zoning i eeo m s K si «e ly A SSs! S2Sh -« ec U UJ K M « >• < U. U lU M ly M z Z sals- I n tri ^ ui III M di M U 8#“3 \ S St fiS o s oo lo CM I I lO S 01M □ HI K o u- 38Sz S S m S tt lU $ o o oc ^ lU gsiS9 Q. VU &. C liB I J 4. O in HI iM I V H* III i lyss 7 Kl M M iK K a o s SCM in ly C > o > > 2 «-i « 4 3 Q <9 <-11 7 m M M •« -j 3 i m m 9^ OO Q X HI o HI HI im Ml I HI I HI HI i IM M -i O HI HI M I HI HI CXo § a.os ~»-a8 3s^a O «J >-H»SaS3, Tq.SSS 3 M ^ *2S sjs3 -• o if HIo £ < 3 ^ Q 5 o IK r S HI CM I HI I HI HI 2 CH HI CM f I HI f*^ HI •M I HI HI M ^ O iU UJ C9 O *gg IM IM CM -i M H I -J 0MO H) M ^ 2 IM Ik *-• O O I acu s HI HI in i IM HI .11 o u oca9 r a ^S9 O.o£ SS O H CM O C 4 IM IM IM Z HI M O HI CM I «0«0 > > Q Z8-4 IM IM IM Z I HI HI ggaa O O HI CM I CO I HI HI CM “3 IMoc c o < 9^S:is £ lii: ft • K- . ■ ' S'K I >::s ..«• -fir T r <■ ! £ I p Ml O s § O 3 gs CM O HI CM 4 I HI HI CM o o « ^ at ^ g g2iM3 K < IM CL IU aom C.^"V ■:■ ’•.'.7^v:\ ^•’: -v'- v ^ . . • • - f ?*f o -* •*• I ^I «K^S« ^ ^ ■ ■ .',.:’'.-'"iir‘>‘:mm'mwmmmm*5i . •:»i N%*-»g I I- -V ■ r ■■ : V'f ■ AM ■ 1 V ikiv h.s-i . - ■■ :;i A, , J‘ ■■••#»' •> n.v •»•« «*4k ' . ••> * . ^T» - j :■*• *; V. . ;= ■'■ ■■ r'. S»".1. ■l V: r-•'• =■ •f?' ■a ^aflttlMafiiifaa WASHWCtON SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES RtaedUl Actios Fisa Loaf Lake, Miaaosots Delta No. 10-17-200 UL-flfraOPUCTIQf* 1.1 Faraoit ^md Scono The objective of this report is to present a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the clean up of contaminated soil and ground water at the Washington Scientific Industries (^I) facility located in OronOf Minnesota. The report also presents data obtained from three newly installed monitoring wells at the site. The new wells have allowed us to further define the vertical and horiaontal extent of conmmination. Based on site conditions which have been outline in Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Delta) reports entitled 'Organic Solvent Conmmination Investigation*. December 25, 1987 and 'Proposed Work Plan', May 24, 1988, we recommend that a recovery trench system be installed to remediate contaminated ground water identified at the site. The trench will contain a large diameter sump which will be equiped with a single total fluids submersible pumping system. Contaminated water will be routed from the sump to an aeration system for pretreatment of volatile compounds and then be discharged directly to the sanitary sewer system. 1.2 Site DescrintFon Washington Scientific Indusulc? i« located on the south side of the highway, immediately west of the city of Long Lake, Minnesota. The site is within the city limits of Orono and is located in the SW 1/4, NW 1/4, Section 33, T1I8N, R23W. The WSI facility is shown in the United States 3eological Survey topographic map in Figure 1. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Previous Work Fourteen monitoring wells have been installed at the WSI facility in Orono, Minnesota. The monitoring well locations are shown in Figure 2. The results of the initial phase of this investigation are presented and discussed in the Delta report er. tied 'Organic Solvent Contamination Investigation", December 23, 1987. After completion of the initial site report, one additional monitoring well was installed and an additional round of sampling was conducted. Results of the well installation (MW-4D) and sampling are discussed in the Delta report entitled "Proposed Work Plan", May 24, 1988. Volatile organic •* ■« ) for the clean up of ^SI) facility located in italled monitoring wells id horizontal extent of mm m .j ■..-3 Bm msultants, Inc. (Delta) 87 and "Proposed Work installed to remediate t large diameter sump ontaminated water will impounds and then be > 1 m.. iFi ■*r’ smediately west of the d is located in the SW lited States 3eological m no, Minnesota. The initial phase of this Solvent Contamination i was installed and an 4W-4D) and sampling >88. Volatile organic M fi'i ■f. ■v.< A (VCXTs) were identified in monitoring weU MW-4D. The pr«ence of VOCs in MW-4 promote installation of three additional wells proposed in the May 24 work plan. a fl AgPinONAL FBOJECT RESULTS 3.1 General Three additio f**> monitoring wells were installed during Juiw 1988 to further define the extent of VOC contamination. The locations of the new wells (MW-10, MW-II. and MW-12) are shown in Figure 2 along with the locations of previously installed wells. After installation, the new weUs were developed i sampled.hill* 3.1 Soil Borines and Moaitorina Wglll Three additional soil barings were advanced at the site and were completed as monitoring wells. The well locations are shown in Figure 2. The subsurface geology of the site consists of heterogeneous mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel The stratigraphy consists of silty clay with intermittent medium to coarse grained sand lenses which are generally less than two feet in width. The sand lenses do not appear to be laterally extensive. Complete lithologic boring logs for the three soil borings are included in Appendix A. Borings MW-10 and MW-11 were each advanced to a depth of 25 feet below the existing grade. Boring MW-12 was advanced to a depth of 55 feet below the existing grade. Each of the three bcrings were completed as monitoring wells. The wells are constructed of low carbcn steel .isers with five foot stainless steel screens. Complete well construction details are given u Appendix B. 3.3. Contaminant Conditions 3.3.1 Soil Contamliiatlon Soil contamination was previously identified in the vicinity of MW-4 and MW-4D; therefore, the upper 21 feet of soil was not sampled during the instaUation of MW-12. Low contaminant concentrations, as detected by the hNu photoionization meter, were detected in an interval between 23 and 35 feet below the ground surface during the drilling of MW-12. A summary of hNu results for borings MW-10, MW-11, and MW-12 is included in Table 1. lonizable gases were not detected in any of the samples after opening the split-spoon. Headspace checks revealed some volatiles in borings MW-11 and MW-12. However, the concentrations (Table 1) are at the lowest detection limit for the hNu which is approximately one part per million. At these concentrations, interferences with water vapors are common and the concentrations must be viewed in this context. Intervals 31 36 41 55 Concent! Sample c Headspa< clo.811 Cs in MW-4 prompte xtent of VOC Figure 2 along re developed g wells. The ! consists of ty clay with eet in width, logs for the ced to a depth »et below the meted of low >n details are bre, the upper centrations, as 36 feet below J^r-lO.MW-11, samples after 1 and MW-12. ^Nu which is ter vapors are r V iv; i m .1 1^^ r '-m upwr : . TABLE 1 HNu Photoioaizatlon Results Borings MW-10, MW-11, MW-12 Washiagtoa Scientific IndnstriM Long Lmke, Minnesota DelU No. 10-r7-200 MW-lft MW-ll Intervals ffeet)Hcadsnici 0> End of Boring End of Boring Concentration reported as parts per million (ppm). Sample concentration recorded on sample after opening split-spoon. Headspace recorded in sample jar. clo.811 'tl:. MW-lI Hiadsnact Sample Headspace 0 NS — 2.0 NS 1.0 NS — 1.0 NS 2.0 NS — 0 e 1.0 0 2.0 • 0 2.0 0 0 4m M ' ’5 ► ? •’1h ’.rk J\ ^^1 .,9 L r \ i •y-- u 3.3.2 Ground Monitoring wells W detectable concent suspect due to the contained very low concentrations of Sample analytical ^■1 HvdroneolOty The water table « ground surface. December 23, 198 Monitoring wells ^ 25 feet below the toward the north - influence of the d between monitorii very localized (Fi ground water flov site. 4.2 Extent of Sol Soil and ground w 2 and MW-4. Cc report. The aeri: The vertical extei monitoring well ^ 24 feet. It is lil objective for rent trench. Headspace 1.0 2.0 2.0 0 .•»‘Av '/<:■ smi ■:4 mm►- -- ■! mm Hi mm w. -4i-. •4.■jii MooitoriB»weUiMW-IO»ndMW-llarefreeofEPA«01/602p»niBetera. MoBiu>ri»*w*HMW-10hada coBceBtniiOB of U Biicro»«Bi per liter (u*/l) of beazeoe. This low cooeoBtratioo ij jiapect due to the ubiquitous nature of this compound in our environment. Monitonni well MW-12 contained very low cOBceniratiOBS of xylenes, l.l-dichtofoethylene, 1,1-diehloroethane. and toluene. The __of these parameters are aU below recommended allowable limio for drinkin* water. .aalytical results from MW-10. MW-II. and MW-12 an provided in Appendix C. a n mscUSSlQW t ■>■1 Hy<r«wl»g , . The water table of the unconfined aquifer at the site generelly occurs eight to ten feet below the ground surface. Flow in this surficial aquifer U toward the south-southeast as discussed in our December 23, 19S7 report. Monitoring welU MW -4D, MW-10, and MW-11 are all screened at the same approximate elevation and are 25 feet below the ground surface. Together, these wells show that flow in the 20 to 25 foot interval is toward the north-northwest. This apparent reversal in flow direction is suspected to be due to the influence of the drainage trench and buried sewer Une along the eastern edge of the WSI property line, between monitoring wells MW-10, MW-11, and monitoring well MW-4D and therefore is thought to be very localized (Figure 2). We believe that shallower wells would reflect this same pattern and that ground water flow in the 20-25 foot interval is similar to shallow ground water flow observed across the site. 4.2 Fxfgwt of Soil end Ground Water ContlBliwitiftll Soil and ground water contamination are primarily restricted to the area between monitoring weUs MW- 2 and MW-4. ConU Tunant conditions identified in this area are discussed in our December 23. 19d7 report. The aerial extent of soil and ground water contamination is outlined in Figure 3. The vertical extent of VOC contamination is restricted to the upper 25 feet of the site. Boring logs of monitoring well MW-4D (Delta ’s May 24. 1987 report) show the presence of a sand unit between 21 and 24 feet. It is likely that the contaminants are moving through sand lenses such as this one. Our objective for remediation will be to intersect as many of these sand lenses as possible with the recovery trench. mm-- mi- m-'-'A- mm |L • v4 \l Mm ,.Vr kjl i.l Ceneral Delta recommends concentrations iden trench system wouh out system at the evaluated. Modifi assessed. ^.2 Conceptual Pea The east end of the single total fluids S’ aeration system for into the sanitary se< mass balance of th< 1.3 Wacovgrv Trcnc The recovery trend The total lengt'i of 18 feet. A crcss-s« be dependent on th the bottom of the i coarse washed gravi A plastic liner wil prevent fine grainet clean soil removed < contaminant concer hNu photoionizatio The recovery sump of approximately 11 well cover. The su long slots cut at 45 11 MW-10 had a sncentration is ig well MW-12 ind toluene. The Irinking water. X C. feet below the isoissed in our devation and are I foot interval is 0 be due to the 51 property line, is thought to be pattern and that served across the oring welb MW- cember 23, 19S7 ire 3. t. Boring logs of t between 21 and 3 this one. Our vith the recovery >•••1 t- 7T' >;• y~ V-F- ..1 i.a BECOMMFNPATIQNS S.l General Delta recommends that a ground water recovery program be initiated due to the contamioant concentrations identified at this site. Based on site hydrogeologic conditions, we believe that a recovery trench system would yield the best contaminant volumes. We propose to install a recovery trench pump out system at the WSI site as shown in Figure 4. The effectiveness of die trench system will be evaluated. Modifications to the system and/or Uit need for additional recovery s>stems will be assessed. S.2 Coageatual Design The east end of the recovery trench will contain a large diameter sump which will be equipped with a single total fluids submersible pump. The pump will route water from the trench sump to a diffused aeration system for treatment of volatile organic compounds. The treated discharge water will then flew into the sanitary sewer system. The conceptual design of the recovery system and the anticipated TCE mass balance of the system are shown in Figure 5. S.2 Recovery Trench Design The recovery trench will extend from near monitoring well MW-2 toward the east to MW- 4 (Figure 4). The total lengt'i of the trench will be approximately 250 feet and it will have a depth of approximately 18 feet. A crcss-sectional sketch of the trench is provided in Figure 6. The width of the trench will be dependent oi the slope stability encountered during the excavation. Drain tile will be placed near the bottom of the trench to enhance drainage toward the sump. The trench will be backfilled with coarse washed gravel to a depth of approximately five feet below the existing ground surface (Figure 6). A plastic liner will be placed over the washed gravel to inhibit surface water infiltration and to prevent fine grained materials from entering the drainage bed. The top five feet will be backfilled with clean soil removed during the trench installation. Soil removed during the trench installation exnibiting contaminant concentrations above five parts per million (ppm) total organic vapors, as detected by the hNu photoionization iuuter, will be stockpiled and covered on-site. The recovery sump will be located at the eastern end of the recovery trenc- % ‘d vill extend to a depth of approximately 18 feet below the ground surface. The top of the sump will u- jealed with a lockable well cover. The sump will consist of a 12 inch casing slotted with 1/8 inch wide by three to six inch long slots cut at 45 degree angles. A cross section of the proposed sump is provided in Fijure 7. •4,niiKfi ll■^illl I W’•«■*^'.«*»<*-*-46 *A ih.«m,.. «ini Tf*—« We inUcipite reUtively low yield from the recowy trench, on the order of one to three t*no« P*' minute. It is likely that the pumping jyjtem will operate intermittently. The recovery sump wUI contain a Jingle MO Volt. l/Jhorsepo«erGrundfossubmeniblepump. Thepump wfll be equipped with on/off floats to compeosate for intermittent pumping. The floats wUl maintam a drawdown water level in the recovery trench of aoproaimately 17.0 feel. The pump win reum eonaminated ground waar to the surface and into an aeratioo sysam for aeatment of dissolved vototile constitYMiits. The aeration sysam will consisl of a MO Volt, three horsepower direct drive blower and two 200 gallon anks in ariei. As water enan into the top of the fiat tank, it is exposed to approximately 350 cubic feet per minua (cfm) of forced air. Water drains from the Hat tank into the second and aceives an additional 350 cfm of forced air. Discharge from the aeond diffusion ank will be diacad to the saniary rower sysam (Figure 5). Discharge approval from the MWCC will be obained prior to insallation. The recovery sump and aeation tanks will be enclosed inside a locked wood security fence. < Hmet>rtry Svafm MftBttfff*"* Smeipllwe Proper system operation win be ensured by regular site visits by Delta personnel. We anticipate that a minimum of two site visits will be made during the initial month of operation. After the initial month, site visits will be conducted every month. Recovery system inHuent and effluent will be sampled immediately after the system begins operaUon. After collection of the initial samples, the system will be shut-off until the results are returned and reviewed by Delta, the MPCA, and the MWCC. The system will be activated after approval has been granted by the MWCC to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. The influent and effluent will be sampled again 30 days after continuous operation begins. Samples will be analyaed for EPA 601/602 parameters. We anticipate that total VOCs discharged to the sanitary sewer system will be less than one part per million (ppm). After the first two rounds of sampling have been completed, we propose quarterly sampling of discharge. We also propose quarterly sampling of wells in the vicinity of the trench system (MW-1, MW-2, MW-2D, MW-6, MW-4, MW-4D. MW-10, MW-11 and MW-12) during the first year of operation. All other wells at the site will be sampled semi-annually. Reports of discharge sampling will be forwarded to the MWCC and the MPCA. Reports of monitoring well sampling will be forwarded to the MPCA for review and ir- -f' IM cornsneni. S.6 Soil Treat We propose to t thinspreading i buildings or is westerly acfOiS feet We anticipate i installation pre excavation. Sai The soil will \n will be aerated Aefition tillag< Soil samples wi we propose san year the sampli to the MPCA I 6.1 Soil Sami Soil sampling't barrel sampler inches, the nu penetration re cohesionless sc 6.2 SoilClasi As the samples in accordance laboratory for indicating the pertinent infoi f thref gallons per e pump. The pump lats will maintain a I pump will route r dissolved volatile and two 200 gallon ximately 350 cubic nd and receives an be directed to the obtained prior to ked wood security, We anticipate that a (r the initial month. 01 begins operation, ts are returned and r approval has been md effluent will be »d for EPA 601/602 will be less than one mpling of discharge. -l.MW-2,MW-2D. ion. All other wells at rarded to the MWCC PCA for review and i V f\ 4PiiiP •0-J ■ .4 l4% - k . -tt. i .* . r comiBenL < 6 Sail »«i SannnM We propose to thinspreakl contaminated soil eaavated during the trench installation. An ideal ar«i for thinspreading b along the southern edge of the proposed trench (Figure 4). There are no residential buildings or industrial buUdings within 200 feet of thb area. In addition, the prevailing winds are westerly across thb area and there are no downwind dwellings or structures for approximately 2,500 feet. We anticipate that approximately 500 to 700 yards of contaminated soil will be excavated during the installation process. The soil will be stockpUed on-site and covered with plastic immediately after excavation. Samples will be collected and forwarded to PACE Laboratories for analysb (EPA 601 /602). The sod will be spread along the southern edge of the trench approximately six inches thick. The soil will be aerated with a field dbc or comparable equipment one time each month until it becomes froien. Aeration tillage would resume again the following spring. Soil samples will be collected 30 days after thinspreading has beer completed. After the initial month, we propose sampling quarterly. Samples will be analyzed for EPA 601/602 parameters. After the first year the sampling schedule wiU be reevaluated. All analytical and operational reports will be forwarded to the MPCA for review. 6.0 METHODS ANT) PROCEDURES ^■1 Sail Samcllna SoU sampling was done in accordance with ASTM:D 1586-84. Using this procedure, a 2 inch O.D. split barrel sampler b driven into the soil by a 140 pound weight falling 30 inches. After an initial set of 6 inches, the number of blows required to drive the sampler an additional 12 inches b known as the penetration resbtance, or the "N- value. The -N" value b an index of the relaUve density of cohesionless soib and the consbtcncy of cohesive soib. 6.1 Soil aassincaUttii As the samples were obtained in the field, they were vbually and manually classified by the crew chief in accordance with ASTM:D 2488-84. Represenative portions of the samples were then returned to the laboratory for further examination and for verification of the field classification. Logs of the borings indicating the depth and identification of the various strata, the N value, water level information and pertinent information regarding the method of maintaining and advancing the drill hole were made. i ■■ Charts iUustrati boring logs wei 6.3 Water Lei! All ground wa indicates when lowering the d< measuring the recorded to the 0.04 foot. ^,4 Wmter Sai All monitorini following pron Step 1: Step 2. Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Upon complet: records includ' hazard, sampli containers, an: The chain of laboratory, the identification turned over tc '* j'"■■■.s^5^ ■*'>*•*• tallatiofi. An ideal area for . There are no residential , the prevailing winds are » for approximately 2,500 11 be excavated during the t plastic immediately after )r analysis (EPA 601/602). ' six inches thick. The soil nth until it becomes frozen. !d. After the initial month, parameters. After the first al reports will be forwarded 'ocedure, a 2 inch 0.0. split les. After an initial set of 6 12 inches is known as the of the relative density of classified by the crew chief es were then returned to the tcation. Logs of the borings water level information and ig the drill hole were made. II. rti- ■^v:v mm f - L- •• V^- •-v'-ifi f .1 PW-^'. m r f •*s ■V- ^#m- vV:.,Itr' i - i.iai*iflifrry^^Nhili^^ III Charts iUustrtting the soil classification procedure, boring logs were also made. descriptive terminology and symbols used on the a a WatT Levi Meesarementa All ground water level measurements are obtained by using an electronic m^suring device which indicates when a probe is in contact with the ground water in the well. Measurements are obtained by lowering the device into the weU until it indicates that the water surface has been encountered and by measuring the distance from die top of the inside pipe to the probe. All of the measurements are recorded to the nearest 0.01 foot; however, the manufacturer*! reported accuracy for the instruraent is 0.04 foot. 4.4 Water Samnlinn All monitoring wells were sampled from suspected cleanest to most contaminiied according to the following protocols. rieiii mtfttti Step 1: Step 2: Measure water level. A stainless steel bailer was used to develop each monitoring well. A minimum of three to five well bore water volumes 'vtre evacuated from each monitoring well prior to sampling. Step 3:Collect water samples. Water samples were collected using a stainless steel. A field blank was collected during the sampling program. Step 4:Store water samples and transport to PACE Laboratories, following all documentation and chain of custody procedures. Step 5:Qean equipment. Water level measurement equipment was cleaned with clean tap water followed by deionized water rinse. Upon complotion of a soil or ground water sampling a chain of custody was initiated. Chain of custody records include the following information: project, project number, shipped by, shipped to, suspected haard, sampUng point, location, field identificaUon number, date and time taken, sample type, number of containers, analysis required, and sampler signature. As few people as possible handle the samples. The chain of custody records were shipped with the samples to the laboratory. Upon arrival at the laboratory, the samples were checked and signed in to the appropriate laboratory personnel. Laboratory M.nrifi-.rinn numbers were noted on the chain of custody record. A copy of the chain of custody was turned over to the project manager. tv J! ir m 1 ‘ m Thei based hydn impU This Davit Hydr Revic X Danu Geolc c Midw clo.81 m :L. . .n.Fl. ly and symbols visod on the ; measuring device which isurements are obtained by I been encountered and by 1 of the measurements are aracy for the instrument is aminated according to the well. A minimum of three h monitoring well prior to g a stainless steel. A field jwing all documentation and cleaned with clean tap water 1 initiated. Chain of custody ed by, shipped to, suspected aken, sample type, number of ossible handle the samples. ratory.* Upon arrival at the atory personnel. Laboratory r of the chain of custody was &;»• m ■. v; -A . i ■-vT.JBK.,- St', ;m- mr-'^ ■■ ■ 1«jr ■. —- .. 7.fl REMARKS The contained in this report represent our profosiofial opinioos. Thoa opinioos are basea on currently available mformatioD and art arrived at in accordance with eurfeoily accepted hydrogeologic and engineering pnetices at this time and location. Other than this, no warranty is implies or iniimded. This report was prepared by DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, WC. David M. Ronnei Hydrogeologist D»te: ‘‘■//f/tl Reviewed by:: Date:<s|n[es Geological Engineer/Project Manager Date: Robert M. Karls Midwest Regional Manager clo.su •, Ei; L . These opinioos tre I eunreotiy accepted this, no warranty is t m 1 ■ft.;:: 1 • :- ■' ^ v^>'.*• ■‘h- 'r. 4 pi ’^. •%. ^ V-' -,v » .••*■- Vv .*.r ^N440i^.9Mq|tij|{^-'<MB»nr>w»w - - i ■>-r:.;-'t;^ 979^ ^yrw:\mO^ Lake ') ■:- Clafttn > *“ V ♦ f :'S^- ' cs - • * 27 V . I .» •SITE V / 1 *•_•►. :•■• • •• I J ~ 4- ) -‘^y - . j^“ [i« rMM^f\f«i -%Too{... _ V* j:TN34 - . D ) .*♦:!:*• f r '2'_ O'^ J33 , j JNOItTM£ftN iamff/Lake^: ’ (•M^l) . ^ ■% • i, e-«. X»ll ■ - ! f-tJ r:imitw>H 4ir^i: •''\jh. !• • •“• *Lu «r^'': {/r.--^ ••-isr---. ik ■ \ '. /‘i: I ;**? •! ^ t «• •h ••;: .a cu • m •.•*'••••»/• • *• > • <_•*•»* im >4 ■" ■r"jr - *ir\,-*r-» r •! • .. :\*^ ,l;i ' ^ t**T » . ■ . / . — '"^ • t rsis -5 Stubbe Bay -I • i. oMe ■ cf\ ■ . I o- 0 • •‘V ^ J :■ "fe M 'U J X,' • 3 <a • 'I "T^q "ij^* ^ - ' , ’ • ,' 1h' -'-<‘~: '• - Maxwell ■r.nt:r.T."2::;jl^I— ;T%;":'?:';'n-r| o -/ ' V \4 - o ‘ X*r'^" ^ - f— _'V > • . ■ Frtnc\y: Lake • vJ 1 D(l -© EXCELSIOR QUADRANGLE MINNESOTA 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) NE/4 LAKE MINNETONKA IS' aU/.ORANGLE FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION WASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA DELTA NO. 10-87-200 MINN. Scale Feet QUADRANGLE LOCATION 0*Ha EnvkofMie#eit8l CofiftyHMift, Inc. 't^ywm V. i t' i -e^- ■■■ •/, ••.T • iS . J' M • • H-%'4 |7*T , Ki.. ' ^ > ^1 'r’i The recQnuhi based on cur hydrogeologk iffipUes or ini This report « David M. Ro Hydrogeologt Reviewed by: ( .\ ^ Daniel L.San^ Geological Ei Robert M. K: Midwest Reg clo.811 rini^.Qu * !0»S • . - 27:U jfvJceyp ,ak<\)./< c'/4:<I . '-, AX __________ BMMD- ... 7'^ ;f ••*';:.• !i »- »- C5& .••*••• * I • H*^ • • • • la7^y j 3 • K I 0 -/• • i-- V* r^nch ie ^\-Jl I__%wB-take URE 1 OCATION lENTIFIC INDUSTRIES CE, MINNESOTA JO. 10-87-200 y. h"- In(< : ■;- * 4 77'?: x:-4 .If;*, mM:. liOTiO •’.I 7 w 4»r.: X', ‘-r-'.f.||. ««i> 7.P REMARKS TlM r^ommendations contained in this report represent ouf profosioail opbioia. Tliae optoions are based oa cnrreatly available ioformatira aad are arrived at ia accordance with enmndy accepted bydrogeolotic aad eagineering practices at this time and locatloa. Other QJi« no winanty hi implies or intended. This r*t»it wu proptrtd by DELTA ENVntONMENTAL COKSULTANTS, IMC. (T\a.^. David M. Ronnei Hydrogeologist Dote: t/n/tX Reviewed by: 4,' \Date: S 1 Daniel L.SdnvUle Geological Engineer/Project Manager OoAV Date: _6iXlA^S. Robert M. Karls Midwest Regional Manager clo.811 vy^’ k'V >•« ^■0 7." ■/d .:n =tf %— r-_ t| m ' >. • * 4''^- ediilpoun installatic 3.t Gene Three ad< contamin with the and same LlJbdL Three ad< boring a heterogei intermitti The sane three soil of 25 fee existing 1 Each of carbon s given in 3.3. Com Uj. Soil cond 21 feet 01 detected the groun and MW opening However approxinr common jkSIEMair p'.- frj These opimons are currently accepted lis, no warranty is -fl A a:SM 0 - mk ^ i L. i. . ^ L:. ^-w ■->.■ a» m •v' i -V Pa ' %■:A ■V, ti.i' ••-?l US*'.^-c-atuV^**'1» _ ,...rj,;-A> compounds (VOCs) were klentiTied in monitorinj well MW-4D. The presence of YOO in MW-4 promple 8fi«t«iiatinn of three additional wells proposed in the May 24 work plan. 3.Q ADDITIONAL PROJECT RESULTRS 3tl Cfilli Three additional monitoring wells were installed dmii« June 19M to further define the extent of VOC eoatamination. The locations of the new welb (MW-10, MW-11. and MW-12) are shown in Fif ure 2 aloni with the locations of previoosly instaUed wells. After installation, the new wells were developmt And sampled. 3.2 Sail B oHb « and Monitoring Weill Three additional soil borbgs were advanced at the site and were completed as monitoring wells. The boring well locations are shown in Figure 2. The subsurface geology of the site consisQ of heterogeneous mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. The stratigraphy consists of silty clay with intermittent medium to ccnrse grained sand lenses which are generally less than two feet in width. The lenses do not appear to be laterally extensive. Complete lithologic boring logs for the three soil borings are included in Appendix A. Borings MW-10 and MW-11 were each advanced to a depth of 25 feet below the existing grade. Boring MW-12 was advanced to a depth of 55 feet below the existing grade. Each of the three borings were completed as monitoring wells. The wells are constructed of low carbon steel risers with five foot stainless steel screens. Complete well construction details are given in Appendix B. 3.3. Contaminant Conditions 3.3.1 Soil Contamination Soil contamination was previously identified in the vicinity of MW-4 and MW-4D; therefore, the upper 21 feet of soil was not sampled during the installation of MW-1 2. Low contaminant concentrations, as detected by the hNu photoionization meter, were detected in an interval between 23 and 36 feet below the ground surface during the drilling of MW-12. A summary of hNu results for borings MW-10, MW-1 1 . and MW-12 is included in Table 1. lonizable gases were not detected in any of the samples after opening the split-spoon. Headspace checks revealed some volatiles in borings MW-11 and MW-12. However, the concentrations (Table 1) are at the lowest detection limit for the hNu which is approximately one part per million. At these concentrations, interferences with water vapors are common and the concenuations must be viewed in this context. m- A • .* .* _• •• • !. J•4 • V J ' -:v; Vf-.ila .''V: h ■ ■■M .'5r‘ . , V 4- »■ comment ^.6 SollTm We propose te thinspreading buildings or i westerly acra feet. We anticipam insmllation p excavation. S The soil will will be aerate Aeration tilla Soil samples ' we propose s: year the samt to the MPCi^ 6.1 Soil Sat Soil sampling barrel samph inches, the i penetration cohesionless 6.2 Soil Cli As the sampi in accordanc laboratory fc indicating th pertinent ini rl=- ■ ^ nation. An ideal arii for There are no residential the prevailing winds are for approximately 2,500 be excavated during the plastic immediately after analysis (EPA 601/602). iix inches thick. The soil h until it becomes froxec . After the initial month, arameters. After the fint reports will be forwarded cedure, a 2 inch O.D. split s. After an initial set of 6 12 inches is known as the f the relative density of lassified by the crew chief I were then returned to the ation. Logs of the borings rater level information and : the drill hole were made. ■ ■ f.. I. 4 5# t r M ^ • a ^ ■ ■ J 7 • -IJ ;0 lear* • • f a WECQMMENDATIQNS g.l General Delta recommends that a ground water recovery program be initiated due to the contaminant concentrations identified at this site. Based on site hydrogeologk: conditions, we believe that a recovery trench system would yield the best contaminant volumes. We propose to install a recovery trench pump out system at the WSI site as shown in Figure 4. The effectiveness of the trench system win be evaluated. Modifications to the system and/or the need for additional recovery system will be •aesed. g-1 Cancentaal Desitn The cut end of the recovery trench will contain a large diameter lump which will be equipped with a tingle total fluidt tubmenihle pump. The pump will route water from the trench lump to a diffuied aeration lyitem for treatment of volatile organic compoundi. The treated discharge water will then How into the unitary tewer avstem. The conceptual design of the recovery system and the anUcipateo TCE balance of the system are shown in Figure 5. g.3 Recovery Trench Design The recovery trench will extend from near monitoring well MW-2 toward the east to MW-4 (Figure 4). The total length of the trench will be approximately 250 feet and it will have a depth of approximately lg feet. A croa-iectional sketch of the trench is provided in Figure 6. The width of the ttench will be dependent on the slope subility encountered during the excavaUon. Drain tile will be placed near the bottom of the trench to enhance drainage toward the sump. The trench will be backfilled with coarw washed gravel to a depth of approximately five feet below the exiting ground surface (Figure 6). A plastic Uner will be placed over the washed gravel to inhibit surface water infiltration and to prevent fine grained materials from entering the drainage bed. The top five feet will be backfilled with ,1... „il removed during the trench installation. Soil removed during the trench installaUon exhibiting contaminant concentrations above five parts per million (ppm) total organic vapors, as detected by the hNu photoioniation meter, will be stockpiled and covered on-site. The recovery sump will be located at the eastern end of the recovery trench and will extend to a depth of approximately 18 feet below the ground surface. The top of the sump will be sealed with a lockable well cover. The sump will consist of a 12 inch casing slotted with 1/8 inch wide by three to six inch long slots cut at 45 degree angles. A cross section of the proposed sump is provided in Figure 7. 7:1 ^7 ■m ^:mmm liA; Mfi tu.. ‘ v<d . A; ■M- ■ -i Interv ffcct) - 4 Conce Sampl Heads clo.81 ntaminant a recoveiy nch pump m will be ss will be ped with a a diffused I then flow patea TCE (Figuie 4). iroximately trench will placed near ^filled with I (Figure 6). tion and to kfilled with 1 exhibiting icted by the 1 to a depth I a lockable to six inch Figure 7. if I SfiS mmm.U-; i-.r ■V.' 0^'■ i ft- faterrals Ositl WM HiMh TABLE ! HNu Pheteioalxatioa R«ults BoriafS MW-10, MW-11, MW-12 Washiagtoa Sdcadflc laduairiei Lent Lake, Mlaaeeota DelU No. 10-S7-200 MW-IO MW-11 HfidlBlgl 0 End of Boring End of Boring Concentration reported as parts |)er million (ppm). Sample concentration recorded on sample after opening spUt-spoon. Hea^pace recorded in sample jar. clo.su MW.12 Headspace Sample 0 NS 2,0 NS 1.0 NS 1.0 NS 2.0 NS Htadsnace - *' m % -•VC >■ Is • T.'- VV:^ - i-t 2 2 p^rc\ c V v\ 4 - [|: ill I < O' «* H* Zo .. N “I C3 o T « oo fr-M: •ii :'• 'v;\-:«■-■•'•••: mm 1 rtiwwi. ■Igf-l' ''V noWJH i!lJ ir: ^.CMom ' i i m^S£f i0f^■r-: ■>:0 W . -.••« • ’ • ..g-tUP-mm FIGURE 7 RECOVERY SUMP CROSS SECTION WASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA DELTA NO. 10-87-200 A I f *-i •I Y-V mm- I Pim mmi f ^1 ■1 MSIv,:;, Ay.-:-' » ? H ■ A’S •V .:. i ■TJ 0«H8 ^ i . - .'-V' Tgl-%.; -V •i',/y^^jjB8p^ "'4 • t-1. m V. i‘ k^W: #7V-;- ih: J ■ .a:,-. » 9 % LOO OF BORING '•**12 PROJECT SWPUCMENTAJIY nOMZTOlUllG MBU IHSTALIATIOM aja<T OU.TA OIVIM3 ITAL CONSULTANTS, ZNC. t ^ 5SS 6SS STTE MASHiHGTOfl sciniTiric ramisTMts LONG LAJlI, NIM«S0TA AACMnHrr-e«MEER Q€Scmrr>QN matei ^ SUVACi CUVATUm r- 9 ass Oarit &roM to ^ray dllty Mmi* traco roots - (OL) • topsoil Oart gray sandy silt - Mdivw dans# - (NL) Gray silty clay - soft - (CIs ^CH) Gray fin# to Aadiua sand« trace silt loose * wat * (SP)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Gray silty clay, trace gravel, seams light gray silty fine sand - stiff * fCL, seams SM) End of boring at 55 feet depth Hollow stem auger used full depth Monitoring well MW-»12 installed in borehole matemCON TENT % 10 30 30 IJ 14 11 WAfER level OBSERVAI iONS 6ME COMSUIJAMT8, INC.- - ^ • BORING STARTED 7-1-88 WL."^10* depth whLle saatplinq 80RWQ COMPLETED 7-1-98 WL.\A0.3* depth after auger lamD 21m Ammm Na RIQ CME SSO DRILLER FRL WL.removal MrwMOlM. MN 55447 <«NQ-ia4lO DRAWN OJN APPROVED MCA |Olc| 03«r'»03Sf PROJECTal379E SHEET 3 of 3 9 The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. FGtfGME-l.Si I N r U i: 'IP UNIF iil«1W□ 1 hi m ‘i {1’S fl h illH11*U 1 IP11 •a w “1 «l 1 -*l Ii J]1 J of 13 1•• e ^il m 1 11|l C s * e-111 •Sf • § t SA T a TJ T|s g i Mr 1•A z J •N f ^ □ 1 S •a ee ^0tl1 u wa a• 'S 1 % m 9* miA1£' in *jr 2*3 • j Jj 13 illX p MinPIMm■’bi-•. ■.• ’ :.V. L'::Mmkii; SYSTEM tOiof If all tradition rasuiriffsns for OW lifitsbilew‘*A** iMitfund (Oiof* MtirthM6:Ce-x--r^ bnwssilswl3 nt all gradation nQuiramini' lor 5W imittbatow'*A'* lara than 4 imita abova "A" I. graatar tfian 7 Umis ptoflinf in Haiatia d tona with b.l. batosan 4 and 7 ara borOtettm caaaa raqwiring mi of dual iyn»> bolt. plotting In' rdariina dasi« u« of dual 7^ ,0H an i MH LaidOL 40 SO €0 70 dO ^ fOO LiQuid Limit Ptaadcltv Chart li.v\ • ’* r i V 7 :j:^L .*;1^F* ••■tart.■'Jrt GENERAL NOTES NMg ORIUINC AND SAMRIINC SYMgQLS OfFINITION 1 1/4” 1.0 Hwilaw Stam Ayflf 4". h” or »0” ^metar flifdH Auiar T". 4” nr h" Hand Auaar 2 1/2 •. 4”. r or S” Stoni Or.va Siza A. 8. or N Rniarv Canmg dtp* Oriil nr Ooanout Tuba C(NUM«wn(r> Spirt larral Sampttnjt Orriltng Mud ^ma Watar T‘ 0.0. Split larr«4 Sampia 2 t/r* or 1 l/r- o 0 Sf Ltnar Sampia 2" or 3" Thm Wafiad Tub# Sam^ 3" Thm Wallad Tuba tPitehar Sampiari 2“ or 1" Thm Waiiad Tuba *0«ad»ar|i SamfJan Waab Sairtpia lap Samnia Taat Pw Sampia •Q. NQ. or PQ Wiraiina Svaiam AX, 8X. or SX Oouhla Tuba tarrai Cora Bacovarv • Parcam No Sampia 8acova»ad. cla<<ificati0n fta.*ad on acrjon of rtrilltof apuipmant aralof maJanal noiad «n dniJinji fJud Of on «amplin» ha. ^»o Maa*ufamam Xacordad. pomartiv dua ro pra*a'Ka of dflllmn or COnof fluid. ^aiar Laval SvmboJ TEST SYMBOIS CHFMinON Wsar Comam • % o» Dry Wt. . AST.M Q 221* Or* Oarmry • Pouf*<b Par Cutee Foot Uqu«d and Ptasnc bma • AST.M 0 4311 Additional Inscrtioni in Last Column Unconn««ad Comp Stranfth-pd . ASTM 0 21** Nnatromaiar taading • Tortt/Souara Foot Toryana Raadint • Tont/Squara Foot Spaciftc Cravtrv • aSTm 0 854 Sbonkaga Lmuts • ASTM 0 427 Onantc^Conrant • Combustion Matbod $i»ail Prastura - TorttiSouara Foot Parc a nt Swail Fraa S«*ail • Parcam Hydroga n Ion Contant. Mater Matbod SuNata Comam • PaftsiMiOion, tama at rngO. Cbtonda Coruant • PartvMiition. tama at mf.'L Ona Da wan ttonai Contoiidarion . a$Tm 0 24JJ Tnamial Compryttion ' Oiract Shear • ASTm Q 3060 Coamcianf « Parmaability • Cftu'tad Otpartioo Tao Ooubia Hvdfomatar • AST.m O *221 Pan<la 5«za Anaivtit • AST.m 0 •*22 laboratory Retittivirv. m ohm • cm • ASTM C 57 Pratturamatar Oatormation Modulut • TSf Praiiuramsar Tatt Raid Vana Shaar • AST.M 0 2573 In^romatar Tatt • ASTM 0 3385 toeh Quality Oat«|na()on • Parcant • Saa atrachad data ihaat or graph WATER LEVEL W«« lavait thown on tha bonn§ logs ara fha lavalt maaturad m tha borinp u tba nma and under the condiiiont indicated. In tand. the rndkatad lavait mav ba contidarad raliabia ground water levab. in clay toil, it may not ba pottibla to datarmma tha ground water lava! withm tha normal time required tor tatt bonnp. except where lansat or lavert of more parviout watarbaanng toil are pratant. Evan than, an axtandad period Of time may ba nacatiary to reach equilibrium. Tharatora. tha potition 01 the water level tymbol *or cohativa or mixed texture toili may not indicata the true level 0# tha ground water tabia. Parched water ratart to wscr above an imparviout layer, thus impeded <n reaching tha water table. Tha available water level information tt given at the bottom of tha log sheet. DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY OfNStTY TERM Very Loose Loose ■Medium Dense Dense Vary Danse “N" VAtUf 0-» 5-8 9-IS 16-30 Over 30 Standard ”N” Penetration: Blowy Per Foot of a 140 Pound Hammer Falling 30 inches on a 2 inch OD Split Barrel Sampler CONSISTENCY TERM Son Medium Rather Stitt Stiff Very Stiff REUTIVE GRAVEL PROPORTIONS CONDITION TERM RANGE Boulder Over 12” Coarse Grained Soils A tirite gravel 2 . 14%Cobble 3” - 12" With gravel IS • 49%Gravel Fine Grained Soils Coarse 3i'4” . 3” •J. 'Us” lS-29% * No. 200 A little gravel 2 . 7% rin^ Sand 9* • j/<* 15-29% • No. 200 With gravel 8 • 29%Coarse •4 . 410 30% • No. 200 A little gravel 2 • 14%Medium 4to • 440 30% - No. 200 With gravel 15 • 24%Fine 440.4200 30% • No. 200 CraveMv I* • 49%Sill iSf Clav •“ 4200. Based on Plast'Citv Lamination Layer Lens Vatved Dry Moist Wet Waterbearing Up to 1/2" thick stratum 1/2" to 6" thick stratum t/2" to 6" discontinous stratum pocket Akernating laminations of clav silt and or fine grained sand, or colors thereof Powdery, no noticeable water 8a<ow saturation Saturated, above liquid limit Pervious soil below water RELATIVE SIZES mm' W:-i 0fh: s-H B BOLS >y Wt.. aSTM 0 2216 'fff Cubtc foot • ASTM 0 4318 isr Column Hgth-Pif. ASTM 0 2166 Tom/Square Foof /Square Foot 0 854 I 0 427 bustion A4ethod luare Foot Meter Method Million, same as mg/L /Million, same as mg/t iidanon • ASTM 0 2435 3C60 ily • cm^'sec STm 0 4221 iSTm 0 42: ohm • cm • ASTm C 37 lOn Modulus • TSF t 0 2573 I 0 3383 0 • Percent n or graph ndicatcd. In sand, the indicated i water level within the normal m then, an extended period oi d texture soils may not indicate td in reaching the water table. k stratum i stratum intinous stratum, pocket nations Ot clav. silt and ..'or tine r colors thereof iticeabie water 1 f liquid limit low water E SIZES Over 12" 12‘ 3/4" . 3‘ »4.3/4- 14 . aio rto • «40 »40 . #200 »20O. Based on Plasticity •33 ■i r . ;• : \ : I’ V i Ikvitr r.- ^LS' V' liEOLOGIC TERMINOL'DGY The geologic description indicates the apparent depositional origin or stratigraphic nase. Geologic identification is interpretive and subject to error. General categories of geologic deposits, and descriptive information is as follows: ALLUVIUM COARSE ALLUVIUM:Sandy (and gravelly). Stratified. Deposited from fast «ioving waters in streams and rivers. (Includes glacial outwash.) fine: ALLUVIUM:Clayey and/or silty. Stratified. Deposited from slow moving waters in streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds. BEDROCK Wide range of characteristics: from hard, dense consolidated rock; to soft, compressible, and uncon solidated soil-like material. FILL CONTROLLED:Compact, uniform material; inorganic; no debris. UNCONTROLLED:Loose or variable density. Mixture of soil types. Often contains debris and organic material. TILL Normally contains a wide range of grain sizes, froin boulders through clay. Usually non-$tratified. Deposited directly from glaciers. LOESS Silty, Non-stratified. Upper layer. Deposited from wind. SLOPE WASH Organic and/or inorganic material washed from slopes and redeposited. SWAMP DEPOSITS Peat, muck, and marl, and organic soil. Formed through accumulation of organic material under water. TOPSOIL Contains both inorganic and organic material. Upper, black layer of soil. Formed hy weathering of inorganic soil and accumulation of organic material. TUMBLEROCK Dominantly gravel, boulders and rock slabs. Deposited from gravity flow down hills or cliffs. WEATHERED BEDROCK Bedrock which has been substantially weathered through disintegration or decomposition. Texture and composi tion grades into bedrock. WEATHERED SOIL Texture, composition, and position is intermediate between topsoil and non-weathered soil. 0«ff« InwifOiMivMtal m .sfeii m rvf- A B C o total l( length • length • stick-u| Minnesota Ui 3 f I I I I • I I I I I % i • •• B I*..w »*. I'* I** !• • i:* •# I. I*.. I I— I k- Monitoring Well Washington Scie Long Lake, Minn Delta Environment igfn or subject tion is itifled. waters Includes Itifled. waters 1 ponds. dense, uncon- irganic; Ml xture debris s, from Itifled. led froti slopes through Upper, lorganic “posited through compos1- rmedlate ■ hr.- ■ . ; -I m ia IS-.- mm ItM:^ J .v'** i=;. ■•■y-mM W:X » S.:famliJi ■: II-- *A,SSs:;:^ total length of well length of well screen length of riser pipe scick'up at surface 27.4 5.0' Minnesota Unique Well No.kWkk B MOHITORINC WELL OATS INSTALLED , ORILLEX/ltlC FR GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION WATER LEVELS 6-28-88 r not encounfcare( ra I ElEVATIQN or TOP OP RISER PIPE PROTECTOR PIPE 96.17 4* Loclcina street pipe with 3-4"x4* wooden guard posts THICKNESS AND TYPE OF SURFACE SEAL 1 * /rrmrrAl*** oiAMETEil And Type op riser pipe 2**/T.qw Carhp n type of BACKFILL AROUND RISER PIPE Nea^ Cement c;rQiit — THICKNESS AND TYPE OP SEAL 2'/Bentonite h DEPTH TO TOP OF FILTER SAND I TYPE OF FILTER AROUND SCREEN TYPE OF WELL SCREEN %• SLOT SIZES #30 Coarse Flint San( tTnhngnn Pnvi mnniAn4*;i .010** Continuous DIAMETER AND LENGTH OP SCREEN 2V5* •I DEPTH TO BOrraM OF MONITORIUr, WELL 4-^ DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF FILTER FAND 25.5* THICKNESS AND TYPE OF SE/.L None DIAMETER AND DEPTH OF BOREHOLE 8**/25.5* Monitoring Well Log Washington Scientific Ind. Long Lake. Minnesota Delta Environmentcd Co^'isultants GME CONSULTANTS, INC. 14000 21st Ave. No. MINNEAPOLIS. *A4iNNESOTA 55447 DJW WCK I 7-7-88 I1379-E % A- A s total lenqt fi • length of «i C • length of i 0 ■ stick-up at Minnesota Uniqu B r I !•* * • •! «# m •• • Lid« •*1 :i Monitoring '»>fell Log Washington Scientific Long Lake. I4innesota Delta Environmental C eel -E i h i "■■'4 ■i :'V> is- ■'n .r"1^ total length of well length of well screen length of riser pipe scick*\^^ at surface 27.8* 5.0' 22.8^ 2.8* Hinnesota Uniqxie Well No.446942 fi nOI4ITOfaNC WELL DATE INSTALLED ORILLElt/RlC MW-11 6-29-88 FRL/CHE-55Q GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION 93.<Q» WATER LEVELS Groundwater not encountere c 6-29-98 1 f ELEVATION OF TOP OP RISER PIPE PROTCCTOK PIPE 96.37 4* Locking steel pipe with 3-4” x 4* wooden guard posts THICKNESS AND TTPE OF SURFACE SEAL, Neat Cement Grout OIAMETER AND TYPE OF RISER PIPE 2"/Low Carbon Steel TYPE OF BACKFILL AROUND RISER PIPE Neat Cement Grout I — THICKNESS AND TYPE OF SEAL 2 */Bentonite DEPTH 70 TOP OF FILTER SAND TYPE OF FILTER AROUND SCREEN TYPE OF WELL SCREEN #30 Coarse Flint Sane SLOT SIZES Johnson Environmental 0.010" Continuous OIAHETER AND LENGTH OF SCREEN 2"/5* • i DEPTH TO BOrraM OF MONITORING WELL DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF FILTER SAND 26' r THICKNESS AND TYPE OF SEAL None DIARETER AND DEPTH OF BOREHOLE 8"/26» Monitoring ’t^ell Log Wsishington Scientific Industrie Long Lake, I4innesota Delta Environmental Consultants GME CONSUUANTS, INC. 14000 21st Ave. No. MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55447 DJW WCK I 7-7-88 I 1379-E 1 Vi?- -m '41 «' 4' .. I •t r’ total length of w length of well sc length of riser p scicK-up at surfa Minnesota unique Well B 7 f •# i.. — T D : >1 m • I Monitoring Well Log Washington Scientific Long Lake, Minnesota Delta EInvironmental Consull kC J i .!•’ 1.7 T • •. £• .jii. ,^‘ MrtIinnMpolit. Minnesota ’ampa. Florida ^aiviila, iowa ‘ * t t I * 4 am ;V- :V '■■■M tv..' I .»v;:ji tm i mm i •:\V M v‘ :'Ii* '■‘M i- ’Ak’■*'. ij' '^^:t m r: • ^•ipr .. I Y' '. fe, 'V :iilr:..■ ^••. * .•• .••■ - i. . •* ••>: •.•...•••• REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS QtAcis:Mimaapotia. Mnnaaoa Tan^ta. Florida ConilvMa, Iowa MasHtngton Scientific Industries. Inc 2605 Hest Hayzati 61vd. P.O. Box 340 Long Litf, Ml 5S3S6 3o1y 21. 1988 PACE Project Hui^tr: 870427202 ^ Attn: ytr. Joe PalUnlch GH Nell Sanpllng Oete Sanp1e<s) Collected: Date Sa«p1e(s) Received: 07/01/88. 07/08/88 07/01/88. 07/08/88 PACE Sanple Number: Paramatar Ifni ft m-Xylene o-Xylene p-Xylene Chioromethane Bromomethane ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L 01chlorodif1uoroowthane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride Trlchlorofluoroaw thane ug/L og/L ug/L ug/L ug/L 1.1- 01ch1oroethy1ene 1.1- 01chloroethane trans-1.2-01ch1oroethy1ene Chloroform 1.2- 01chloroethane ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L 1.1.1-Tr1ch1oroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromod1ch1oromethane 1,2-01 chioropropane c1s-1.3-0ich1oro-1-propene ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L 1.1.2- Tr1ch1oroethy1ene Benzene 01bromochloromethane 1.1.2- Tr1ch1oroethane trans-1,3-0ich1oro-1-propene ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether ug/L MOL NO Method Oetectlon Limit Not detected at or above the MOL. m 5.0 173320 MH-10 Blank ■■ 1.1 NO 173330 MM.10 NO 1710 Douolas Drive North o Mlnrieapoils. MM S5422 o Phono (612) 544-5543 173350 NO •vi m Is-'.H pom ndDorolories inc -.M m -y-m h'. : : • Mr. Joe Pallansch Page 2 PACE Sample Number: p^rawafap Bromoform 1.1.2.2- Tetrach1oro 1.1.2.2- Tetrachloro Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethyl benzene1.3- 01 chlorobenzene 1.2-01 chlorobenzene 1.4- 01 chlorobenzene Specific Conductivl pH <F1eld) Temperature (Field) MOL NO Method Oel Not deteci 4inn«apoti8. Minnesota ’ampa. Florida ^raivilla. Iowa 173350 MW-11 NO ■m wm .'>A ■■■:f :vi «1 •♦ v: _BC Tcixjncilories nc REPORT OF laboratory ANALYSIS I.-.::- * V -ifT ■f'C .-»'3 £^- '’' •■■ ■-> ¥fY' .-.s Mr. Joe Pallinsch Page 2 . pace Salv^« Nuri»er: £A£lBI±ft£iiolii Broaofora 1 1 2.2-TftrachloroethaM r,l .2,2-Tetrachloioethylene Toluene Chlorobenzene ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L Ethyl benzene1.3- 01 chlorobenzene 1,2-01 chlorobenzene 1.4- Olchlorobenzene Specific Conductivity (Field) ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L u^tos/cn2 pH (Field) Tea^)erature (Field) HDL NO Method OetiCtlon Limit Not detected at or above the MOL. m units 0.1 Degrees C O.S irticM!Minneapoiii. J^nnotoia Tampa. Flonda Cor^vitta, K}wa . * July 21. 1988 PACE Project Muaber 170427202 ^ 173320 MH-IO tiUnt- 173330 .... OH,.. NMUi 0 Mtaiwapoll^ MW ° 4 e 173350 .WsU , ' ' 'r>4» •^5 I-.. t *i\ *1 .if-**- Hi; . r “ loD6fC3lOri6S. inc iv-v 1 ■:;s! i-: I ‘3 Mr. Joe Pallansch Page 3 PACE Sample Nuii^ef: Parawwtar I m>Xylene o-Xylene p-Xylene Chloromethane Bromomethane Olchlorodifluorometha Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride Trlchlorofluoromethan 1.1- D1chloroethylene 1.1- 01chloroethane trans-1,2-01chloroeth Chloroform 1.2- D1chloroethane 1,1,l-Tr1chloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Brofflodichloromethane 1,2-01 chioropropane c1s-l,3-Olchloro-l-pr 1.1.2- Tr1chloroethyle Benzene 01bromochloromethane 1.1.2- Tr1chloroethane trans-1,3-01chloro-1- 2-Chloroethylvinyl et Bromoform 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroet 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroet Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethyl benzene MOL NO Method Detec Not detected W tf™ i*;w ^■ywm^ ..... •••• V.:- ^Li. Tampa. Florida Coralville. Iowa 127202 T 180450 MH-l? 1.4 1.7 1.7 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 0.7 6.4 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 1.6 NO NO r.,f \ f ^ mm i V /ia. *\* • mi m piWp m- ■.issa I Mmm-B Coraivin*. Iowa • # onesinc. i - *.V‘ ■ i 'iivd K.SV ^'Ir4 - i :“■>.. m yim "iK'A- . I' r. .\r-T ,.• ■mm Mr. Jo« PalUnsch Pagt ♦ July 21. 1988 PACE Project Nuwber:870427202 1 PACE SwftU NuMber p^ira —far liaUs 180440 HH>12 MDI_ fllanL, 180450 IfiLOJU ■*, HMliMar S'. 1,3-01 chlorobenzene 1 *,2-01 chlorobenzene 1*4-01chlorobenzene Specific Conductivity (Field) “ (Field) ug/L ug/L ug/L uffhos/caZ units 4.0 4.0 4.0 10 0.1 NO NO NO NO 780 7.2 Tewperaturi (Field) • ^ T' Degrees C 0.5 12.0 MOL NO lIot'^tected*»t"or above the HOL. ny direct supervision. Hnifaef H/^ruton Organic Chemlstry^anager ■aaa ggJ<><> n PKrmie 844*5543 E^’'- J •* # ■■■ . t »>vfi li • ■ . .V / V'-■ ''■■■ :.y ••: • ■ ■ rW m ?Kim. s^ WASHPiOTOM sar-Nxmc ivJ'IiKii:ll Rcmcfllil AcUcn PI as Lost Lske, MlaatsoCs Delu No. 10*rr«200 Prep«rt<l br Delta Eoriroomestal roasnlUats* Inc. ISOl Highway t, Snite 114 St. Paul, MN 55112 (6l2) 636-2427 ^ :...v.V"vM- PERTINBI 1. which t locatlc constru< princip* variano 2. located lake, the LR- 3. east a lakeshc construf is 2.35 zone is about 2 STAFF K St. finding and fir normal - ^ ^— --— '*. •• -i.’’ ' * • ■■ • i?-'/5 iUanning Coaaission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson fBdiis Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning 6 Zoning Adminiitfator mTEt September 28r 1988 SOBJBCTs #1341 Daniel R. Vaughan/Todd Ziesmer, 3440 Bayside Road • Variance - Public Hearing SOVIIIG DISTRICTS LR-IA# Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acre# Unsewered APPLICATIORS Lot width variance to construct new house. LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Survey With Site Plan Exhibit P- Applicant's Hardcover Calculations Calculations by Surveyor on Exhibit D) (See Hardcover psbmft m riot f facts s 1, This property previously contained a single family residence which the previous owner started to renovate, then demolished. The location of that structure is shown on the survey. Applicant wishs to construct a new residence on the property, and since there is currently no principal structure, the lot technically requires approval of a lot width variance. Lot width required - 200' Existing * 118' Variance - 82' or - 41% 2. The applicant is proposing to construct a residence 57' in width, located approximately 105' from the front lot line and about 225' from the lake. This proposed residence will meet the required 30' side setbacks for the LR-IA zoning district. 3. Note that this is not a lakeshore lot, nor is the property to the east a lakeshore lot, hence the structure is not subject to the average lakeshore setback requirement. Except for lot width, the proposed construction would appear to mc^*" all pertinent requirements. The lot area is 2.35 acres excluding the County Road. Hardcover proposed in the 75-250 zone is approximately 6% where 25% is allowed and in the 250-500| zone is about 22.4% where 30% is allowed, based on the surveyor's calculations. STAFF RBCOMMBNDATIOH ^ . Staff would recommend approval of the requested lot width variance, finding that there is no additional land available to make this lot wider, and finding that the proposed residence on the property will meet the normal required 30' setbacks for the LR-IA zoning district. -----* m ^ f ;5?1 V'-V:. >, :/h:' , ■" ■■ K.. '■ - i;-. . ♦ : tudy AreA, but lewers will be I proposed for nines that the rt time framer request for an srty owner to e immediately % ^ n. • #' m kk}i. wi k' 1*.*^' m ■ • « » ' i-v .Sll^ CITY OF • 1 Wf 1 0 - VARZASCB APPI.I( 50.00, variance) Initial Application Feel ($50.00 per each add! Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Pact Fees (Double application fee) f ^ f w*?^ w .* ^ r T *# A Tr r aiTr?j*V4. w# » iwi. A wVV PSpPBRTY LOCATIOB Site Address viA -■•••. • .• .:-i .v-v f t*W^-^ w v.^ • W V v.^’/; f ! i.*w Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) cS -I I 7 - ^ 7":^ Please chec)c one - Property ^ abstract or __ torrens? i &• i« n.07r5C ::oi aoi r;j: * cf/j'i?.0013 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name /<9eut Phone (home) vTVl* V Phone (worJc) ^^3" ^OC 11 Address; IC^Q S- %kt^ City; TJ^^^yrurU^ Zip; \ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name K> . \ / (\a-< a (Xv\-^ •y\^ IV'U Phone (home) HI ^ % _ _ Phone (work) Address:City; (/JoanA-rfcgL Zip; Date Property Acquired I -^flSiyfdo notl^lso own the adjace.ic parcels of land. (month/year) PRBS]OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Li^-\A 7 Residential Other (specify) r* • DBSCRIPTIOH OP RI •hi:-Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail; l^err U-?tti>r^ i/A»g.. ^rc> ootjsmM.cT' A^ewj VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances (Front Side Rear) Other 'd ' K mpi mimmmimM- U-x i f .fc. HARDSHIP Descri enforc DESCRIPTION Descri Code R _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ fUlRED SO Comple Certif mf'M Stampe names obtain* Certif: Topogr^ in exi Plat Mi As an any ot: Additi« The Applic. remember tl information Certificati< Zoning Offii APPLICANT'S The applic requested \ unusual exp< the informs knowledge. Applicant's OWNERS SIGNi The owner h authorizes : agents# Comr tion and ve: Owner's Sigr Applicant mi Planning Cor third Monda review meet: unable to a authorized i Office of tl ■i • * ••• • • • • •«•«••.. « i/A / f- vr ..•..5v4‘ rr,/Aiirr j^ccrrc I j.irnirCu Ln i ibi. 1310200000 rii A t;/t?i.n A w*V- tf VV r uu^v a a VV V r -r•?:;<LAkik^’ vmi i iilTjUX ! \JU 4107i5C 3001 301 Tl3: 13l 00/3 09/Od. I on ^'^S-OC // _ Zip; <TT'V^ 1 ,Zip:_£li2/ onth/year) d. N Residential7 y ost $ C-7^ A<>gv«0 Rear) tar >1 f ig;;:iy-:y#S ft ::^ :V- h "IWi ■ .1 V-: :.• i 'M W \k^-—- “m ..-a» , .Ar.s'-sHp' ■m>^I fi •tinii.ilB^' HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: f5~ iw^ DESCRIPTIOH OF UHOSDAL PROPBRTT COMDITIORS Describe unusual property co^itions preventing compliance witl^ Zoning Code ReauirCTcnta; uVililm/. JU oUo ^.mu^ '.-•11 flRBD SOBMITTALS C(»apleted Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain tbierTTFtxfrom Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center f m ^tam^dp legal sized envelopes (#10) pre**addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete Zoning Official's Signature Date APPLICANT'S SIGHATDRB The applicant hereby agrees to provid^^ all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supp^4^ed—and correct to the best of his/her )cnowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNERS SIGNATC7RB The owner hereby ackov^ledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this reouest. Owner's Signature ^ J/ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date ^ 50 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. Appli^cants 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. L r,: m 'm Tot Frbwt Mich Dates Sept Si0>j#ctt #134 vari Application - garage. Zoning Diatric Idat of Bzhibi Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit P Exhibit G Pertinent Fact: 1,This pro| lakeshore no antici 2.Applicant garage ov that gara southwest at the eas that prohj required topograph! room to 1 requiring m: resulting from strict l/ii»y^ compliance with Zoning t 150* (you must obtain ance A-603 Govt Center ressed to each of the s (use address labels Lations as required, ations) if any changes ich a separate list of Lication. ff. application. Please omplete if the above ication is complete. Date ormation required or pay all fees and/or .on, and certifies that the best of his/her Date plication and further ry staff, consultants, purposes of investiga- Date 5d - :es 25 days before the tings are held on the ent at all scheduled . If an applicant is rangements to have an :he Building & Zoning wm A m ... r : =v, V Yot Planning Cosmission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bemhardson Troes Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator Dates September 30, 1988 Zoning File il September 30, Page 2 of 2 3. Note that front yai in this c long dri location ^Object #1342 David 6 Valerie Peterson, 1125 North Arm Drive Variance - Public Rearing Application Request for side setback variance to construct detached garage. Zoning District * LR*1B, 1 Acre Minimum Sewered Additions Subdivisi of an ac( hardcove: the Sid variance/ List of Bzhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Application Plat Map Property Owners List Neighbor Acknowledgement Forms Applicants' Hardcover Calculations Survey Selected Garage Plans Pertinent Facts - 1.This property is approximately 0.6 acres in area, and is not a lakeshore lot. Hardcover on the property is approximately 23%, with no anticipated change (250-500* zone). 2.Applicants are proposing to construct a 22'x34' (24'x36*??) detached garage over the existing driveway. They are proposing to construct that garage approximately 1' from the side property line from the southwest corner oj: the garage and 6.33' from the side property line at the east end of the garage. There are no trees or other amenities that prohibit che proposed garage from being constructed to meet the required 10' side setbacks, in staff's opinion. There are some topographical concerns, however, staff feels that there would be ample room to locate the garage in the existing driveway area without requiring a side setback variance. Discussion - This pros construct a ga garage may be ] property and the applicant Planning Commi apron force th The neigl applicants, h< property owners Staff has them to be cor] where 30% hard 23% hardcover. Staff Recoanmeni Staff wou. garage on this to allow const front line of Commission ask request for a If the Plannir justify grantd approval would .:vr^;.S2^-'-^ * ' .> Administrator Arm Drive - 9 construct detached area, and is not a proximately 23%, with (24'x36*??) detached oposing to construct tperty line from the e side property line ts or other amenities istructed to meet the 9n. There are some there would be ample iveway area without ■ -, :XJ k:'-' 'U.■'■Jr h Zoning File #1342 September 30, 1988 Page 2 of 2 3. Note that technically this also requires a variance for a garage in a front yard (Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D)). However, in this case where the house sits far to the rear of the lot, with the long driveway, and slopes to the west of the ‘existing house, the location nearer the street than the house is certainly justified. 4.Additionally note that this is a "through" lot, and per Section 10.03, Subdivision 10, a conditional use permit is required for construction of an accessory building on this property, hence even though the hardcover standards are met and even if the garage is moved to meet the side setback requirements, this still requires a variance/conditional use permit application. Discussion • This property does not currently have a garage, and the request to construct a garage is a reasonable request. The proposed location of the garage may be related to the applicants' wish to keep the buildings on this property and the neighboring property all square to each other, and the applicants may be better positioned than staff to describe to thw Planning Commission what specific hardships with the existing driveway and! apron force the garage to be located so close to the side lot line. The neighbors have been made aware of this application by the applicants, however staff has received no comments from the neighboring property owners. Staff has reviewed the applicants' hardcover calculations and finds them to be correct. The property is in the 250-500' lakeshore setback zone where 30% hardcover is allowed, and the current proposal results only in 23% hardcover, hence no hardcover variance is necessary. Staff Recommendation - Staff would recommend approval of a conditional use permit to place a garage on this "through" lot, and would recommend approval for a variance to allow construction of that garage nearer the street lot line than the front line of the house. Further, staff would recommend that Planning Commission ask the applicants to clarify the hardships that rtisult in this request for a 1' side setback where 10' side setback is normally required. If the Planning Commission feels that the presented hardships adequately justify granting of a side setback variance, then a recommendation for approval would be in order. m mm mm A 'U- V.-:- CITY I Initio ($51 Renew, (no Af tar- PROPBI Attac^ requix DESCRI] D< VARIANC t for a garage in a i 9 (D)). However# ' the lot# with the Latlng houaer the ily justified. per Section 10.03# d for construction i even though the i is moved to meet .11 requires a ind the request to id location of the buildings on this each other# and o describe to the sting driveway and ( lot line. plication by the m the neighboring ilations and finds shore setback zone l1 results only in permit to place a ral for a variance lot line than the end that Planning hat rcJsult in this normally required, rdships adequately ecommendation for ;■ ^ -V ■' mm K: V. r ■ < mr-M.. CITY OP 0R080 - VARIANCB APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional varia Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application Aftar-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) #1342 ionl PROPBRTT LOCATION “••r* • ^ i ♦Vr'"£ w-j“.**“ li t Site Address U Z'T dr ^ u‘)5C2OC0C0 i rr~i - —. * Jl rA wV' • VV 1 «» .• • >1 . . ? •-1 i 1 »i Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Q")-.H Please check one - Property abstract or _ _ torrens? r r?i\ lb. >\£CEIPT- tOU WVvi :Xvl I 4 W *• Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) ^77 Name i i. ^ Phone (work) ^72.- PiJO\ Addres.: llZ<T L^Hy Ofil^ City: CvcO_ _ _ _ Zip: VT?^# OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^ cl kiv ^_ _ _ Address: Phone (home) Phone (work) City:_Zip: Date Property Acquired I (do) (^do^ot^also own the adjacent parcels of land. _ (month/year) PRESENT OSE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF R]Estimated Construction Cost $^ Describe request in detail: X St U^. !^<:ALolJ<. / J # th^uK 9cu.tk£*^^*0‘i^hh e # A nVy/. VARIANCES REQUIRED __ _ Lot Area h«u.5». Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) '..X. -S. L-% ■ :| ■ b. tt*-. ^ki DESCRI D< C< 8. The Ap rememb informi APPLia The ap reques unusuai the in knowlec Applies OWNERS The ow authord agents I tion ar Owner * i Applicc Plannii third I review unable authori Office % II -- ^ • 9'o \ ) /'^ \ §■ il ty resultina from strict Uiv"^ ^inncfl^/ it fAP /A'trf'Lt tM^ “pTi-ywi^r^; » CoK)eur fy, 9 compliancy ^ dr iif€UM,yt r^< re T in 150* (you must obtain inance A-603 Govt Center idressed to each of t:he sss (use address labels relations as required, ovations) if any changes :tach a separate list of >plication. itaff. s applicatioii. Please complete if the above ^plication is complete Date nformation required or to pay all fees and/or ition^ and certifies that :o the best of his/her _ Date application and further Zity staff, consultants, r purposes of investiga- Date 9*~ Pfices 25 days before the Meetings are held on the resent at all scheduled oil. If an applicant is arrangements to have an $e the Building & Zoning i'-'U : V L;.!'- ■ •1 ■M. •r— * «>cr/ T«f ei i*2 ^ *» » ID .*1 - fS^ ee•»> N* •s*L?11' ✓ T. \CPSS) ^ I Wt -J- I ^ / ”': # ^ SVw.< »"r*v T §t • I I » •e f X. I - T---I..........-I • I ^ i77^s '4 J. ^ I • J-. - I > . » I i-'i)-:r---------T X J iN.^' 4... . ?/• 1 ' 'y v:: ■^6U- i ^ ..I 4/ r----•••^ IE . m 1X3S-7 ^ %U.; * • • . . . ii* ■■4 ••r:. fescf ■‘-i-.i '. i- m' 4*' /it CD « » tsis r; -.. orm ress ] roposed use of the ed to as Land Use Igement, I (we) am e property or use am (are) aware of s project or use in the review of o the BuiIding & ing date. i\ % r ^ W: ■ f- 'A '.*T> w- mmm ■i^ m •A1: :W :l Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledg^ient Form ^ <we) _ Tvsiifias MU llO l ^ Im_ _ [print address]print name(s}J have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at /fL) >4rtw 0\T also referred to as Land Use Application No. _ 1 (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, 1 (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the p^'oposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. C- Kr,jjj)ji^Jm Property Owner Date If you hcve any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. M 1 (we) Application No. Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledg^nent Form [print have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at H 7, C ^ also referred to as Land Use I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgementf I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use res Council approval. Datd Property Owner Date 9/gUS If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Applicationr please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. .ii. mm'W- . i-jim m. r- ^orm Or Iress j proposed use of the red to as Land Use dgement# t (we) am he property or use am (are) aware of *s project or use y in the review of to the Building 6 iting date. • A ■-■.y •. . Ir- K '4 “■ "5.-1.4 ±;& n i 4 t % - %4 •m IM • m %4 • fO IM • « %4 •m %4 • • sO <s- . rl M O« c O. *H ay 10 fO to c 0 r-i 10 -H 0) 01 »4 1-1 ^•o 10 41 o* oc o> ns 0) 01 ki c >1 x: <0 9 JQ 0) in 1 c« 1 •* •1 •i V je Vi) —• w v:)on m . 3**? JC 4J•a •ri J>r V n 1o >s a K K H H M X X X X X X X X X ■-. •■. ^ :> •.■■•' iw tfdl -ll ■.■;_■ > 7 ■si 1^ V % ‘Vrf •> • 'I'M r -n •zSS-r'- ■ :mm 200.00 m m m o mm% £•“'V.V!r..(J Mot 6rod«<*5 1.85 Meas. ' .00 per ' O 4) mM •U il j- •■••V :''"•r .:■ ..>#S.,, -.1 ,=i: ’.V:.' ••...S II I '• ». -i y/ ;/ \ V \ ' \J, r V W\ .’ : I /. •1 • •• 1 •. /» .V-i i ■ ( %. ^ jj 1 i - -. -. ..n•% » W \>L-a’ '•> *n.................... ■ ■' ■ t ^ f njfa m-:ZM-i nr ^ JtJ .. A ‘‘ st-“ '• . r.' V»l;ir- «-». •■v..- r: m • • , ^ 4r» « *. '» ^ - ' ■ '■' «»■' -Mk^ 0tl‘' •. > -:v;s*>S'#>.Hv.-#:,4^. .' ■ JIP^P.:■. '■■■ - . ' ,.!%*^i :'' .'• 3»foi^jg^iSk ^l: \(t::M4*^“; Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning COTmission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator September 28, 1988 bjects #1344 Roger Roder, 1099 Willow Drive South Variance - Public Bearing ApplicetiOB - Request for accessory structure floor area variance, request also technically requires a front yard setback variance. This Zoning District - RR-IB# Single Family Rural Residential - Sewered List of Exhibits Exhibit A * Application Exhibit B > Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D ~ Building Permit Application Exhibit E - Statements Prom Neighboring Property Owners Exhibit F ~ Cross Section of Garage Structure Plan Exhibit G - Survey Pertinent Code Sections - 1. 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) - Area restrictions. In all R Districts no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 s.f. of floor area except barns, stable or greenhouse. 2. 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) - Location. No detached garage or other accessory building shall be locs.ted nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot, except on lots that have frontage on a lake. . . 3. 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) - Required front yard * 50*. 4. 10.03, Subdivision 14 - Yards and o^ .n spaces. A. Reduction prohibited. No yard or other open space shall be reduced in area or dimensions so as to make such yard or other open space less than the minimum required by the Zoning Chapter, and if the existing yard or other open space as existing is less than the minimum required, it shall not be further reduced. Zoni Sept Page dnistrmtor rea variance. »ack variance. This . - Sewered rners In all R Districts floor area except hed garage or other ront or street lot }t on lots that have ces. A. Reduction I reduced in area or space less than the tie existing yard or nimum required, it J i- '! . ■ < m • V>- < m ■V ■;■ -■ v-,• ;r._'• iv:. f.-- ^h . ’: r ..J ^ ..vv. Zoning File #1344 September 28, 1988 Fage 2 of 3 ^letiaeiit pacts » 1. Front Setback Proposed 35.3* Required 50* Variance 14.7* or 29.4% Acc. Structure Total Floor Area 1,490 s.f.t 1,000 s.f. max. allowed 490 s.f. or 49% 2.This property is approximately 1.75 acres in area, and is connected to municipal sewer. The existing house is located 32* from the street lot line. 3.Applicant proposes to construct a 30*x33* detached garage, to be located 35.3* from the street lot line and 13.8* from the side lot line. This garage is proposed to have a storage/office space above it, comprising approximately 500 s.f. Coupled with the 990 s.f. footprint, this structure will have approximately 1,490 s.f, of floor area where only 1,000 s.f. of floor area is normally allowed in an accessory structure. 4.Although the garage structure is proposed to be located behind the front line of the house, the house extends 18* into the required front yard setback and the proposed garage will extend approximately 15* into the required 50* front yard area. ]>iscas8i< Remember that because this is a not lakeshore lot, a garage is not allowed within a front (or street) yard. The property drops away from the street as you go farther from the street, and the applicant has noted that to move the garage back further would require additional amounts of fill. The need for this additional fill and changing of grades on the property might be considered a reasonable hardship to locate the garage as proposed. P|^,r Mu Zoning Fi September Page 3 of Hare oversize applicant floor anc the prop garage w: the uppei The most aff aware of writing The there ar< Pla actual n not be a accessoi Planning creatine ot..er th Staff Re If requests that tha unit, ca and the criteria m. RV- ; .i' -: •’ 7in|v,;-.-Tr . 4 w*U.t : T. r .• • 4kW '• ft iu ; M • » • • »m »\\ •*»/ f W fc V .4. ^ ? i . \W Jl 4 -ft -T • • • •> «M ' • w ' f ■ V V.- / V I /^ i i Ur f i. .'•■r'fC- mt ^ • m •• m m ~ • •• •? • ** it t fa.W»/4-W V VVV •i- : i’*i AXj ' J u = r,- A»/V '» - • - •• - r-‘Af V. ?r;.v_'w<.w’ WkV.4. .ti/x ♦ W ' f ■ 00l<t torrens? ncluded on ►me) ► (work) ZiP:_£l532/ ►me) ► (work) Zip: (month/year) ( of land. Residential 5cify) iction Cost $ Hardcover ( Rear) 4:-;" 'I . t I I i L-mm Iv-^ .'4*1 t**. •v" '-vV": -jp, I ■'.• i »;>5 1 i Al is: ““®“Lribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations ■ - - - s—HIM mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm nw<#^TPTT01I OF UHOSUAIt PROPERTY CONDITIONS DBSCRIe^c°"be unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Requirements; NaaJ * ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ * RZQOIBED sobmirals 2! certified Property CJwners List of owners within ^5°'^°“ Center this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 3. StampldV "legal sized envelopes (110) ^ names on the above list with no return address (use address labels 4 C^^^‘mcat1 tf ^/u°^e?\nXd\%“Aove^a 1 riiyUons as reguired. 5* jijpogriphl _■ .......T and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6 Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). «f 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 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The" Applicant and Property Owner must sign this *PP_^^bove remember that your variance application is not comple e information has not been included. CertificItiorbrzoninrDepIrtillent that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature___________________________________________________= S?,^Itanf^I^by agrees to provide -11 information r-^uired or reouested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees ana/o unusual expenses incurr-1 u- review of this »PPli=-^l°"/ “"1 °"^J “hVs/her ?Se information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant * s Signature PTSa. £ y^AA Date -\'Z- - ^ "The^n?^1>^^y aOcowledges and agrees to this authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by -taff. 5°n»"lb«bs^ agentsf Commission members# and Council members p P tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature 71^^ ^ __ __ __ _ _ Applicant must have all ^bmittals into the City ^ the third Monday of each -onth. Applicants must be P^ff review meetings of the Planning Commission and * „gnts^to have an unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please s%oning authorized agent attend in your place and to advise Office of this change prior to the meeting. L.- I tiS t . --i: •.•^4^ S.. . (JU- >- I _ _ _ _^.^94 *Si yv' - a y] 1 i •s» 1 1 X ;"'P 1 L- ' . -i 4 XKr :.-X& .-'■i liS-i'P Ul liJ _ 3 tiM lU lii iEg u. Z X z M Ml X H 10 Ml ^ Ml ^ ^ M K O O ^jT r,.f, .... .m mm 4m: ^ •••■ :': ■'■ ■■: ' ’i" ;■•■•: i .ml . X Iv*.- r • i' ■ >;• :■ I i ' '. •«m Total Feel $ CITY OF OROHO - BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATTON « Date Received; j? , Date Approved;a J fir?a^inn ReouxTHfine Permit#:Project#: rmit application R^u^Sfi^ts: uilding permit application^ to be filled out completely and signed 2. 2 sets of construction plans to include the following: a) Floor plans; b) Footing and foundation plan; c) Elevations (of all sides); d) Wall sections and cross sections; e) Details - stairs and any special connections. 3. Certificate of survey with location of existing and proposed structures including hardcover calculations and grading and drainage plans as required. 4. Energy calculations - form provided. 5. Septic report and design if required. ABOVE IRFORffATIOM MOST BE SUBMITTED IN FULL BEFORE PLAN REVIEW WILL BE STARTED THE APPLICANT IS: (circle one) 6wNE^or CONTRACTOR JOB SITE ADDRESS: j(J99 \J.'([ niAJ $0,ZIPs > ciT* A/H.K •• j.7b PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO.: fti ' jlH \ I- a P7 u W NAME OF OWNER: ^LaI^TA (worJc) m CITY *fS2i MAILING ADDRESS:^ ICONTRACTORir^^j^^ p% j^/y jf \ILING ADDRESS; CITY; af Q^awp PHONE: (home) ; ZIPs PHONE: ZIP: CHITECT: I/O PHONE; ^7^ - 9^ MAILING ADDRESS; 2c Ai,f_ _ _ _ CITY; _ _ _ _ _ _ ZIP; ■^^‘".^9/ TYPE OF WORK: Demo (^iA^emoui Addition .Iteration Accessory Structure \/^ Renovate Land Alteration Move PROPOSED USE (describe in detail): uJtU \ of\ STORIES: SQ. F??ET OF EACH FLOORr ^ ^ ff. V ^HO. OF BEDROOMS:garage STALLS: ATT. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION VALUATION (excludincr land): $ / ^ drta I hereby apply for a building permit and I acknowledge that the informatio: above is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with th* ordinances and codes of the City and with the State Building Code; that understand this is not a permit and work is not to stary withg^/P p^mit; an that the work will be in accordance with the approved (Please rill^out the reverse '^0011 c/ *se side DATE: y ~ 4D - of thils form) :.V %: ■ . mm-j f nI-' if'1 I. mXl ‘ i I ( 4 . ’r ft::..,... mi:^ ^i;'■ CITY«f ORONO Po.1 OIBo* Bo» U»Cry^ B«y. MiaiMWU 56323•Mankipal Officii On Uut North Short of Lake Minnepinka SSSi ; *pviafiM In accordance vith request * or'a*pet«it or licensewould like to inform you ^hat your request * P ^^0 you to You are notified that* 1 The information you furnish will be used to determine your ^sllfication for the'permit or license requested. 2. YOU may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 1 The information may be shared ’’Sd.t or?;dera* agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit . license. . - - • 4 If your requested permit or license retires Council action to approve, some inforsition may become public. . 5. YOU have certain rights under M.S. 15.165 to revieu private data on yourself. 6. Your full name, and date of birth are required to process this application or permit. • s«................ City . J^Li tetf,iianm r irt w Phone I understand my rights as stated above. •k- ■ * *» • - C - - •* / A’ftil •ff Ci'v>S \^M ; : iUiLDING A ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473-7358 rUSLIC WORKS - 473-73SS 'E- ■ . .'; 'EE. V ■:=r--S^ ■ m iilK'i . '4 n Yof ORONO my, Minn«wU 66323* Mrniidprf Ottkm * nka I0cts of wo jernll^ or llconso ay require you to I to determine your ited. il may require that : local# state or cess the permit or ires Council action c«. \ 5 to review private required to process . e4 U ,im igftltttMiiMi _i inr‘i “ PUBLIC WORKS - 473*7389 m '.vi. * i 5# iv- ‘ Md' i 1 -^1=ff n )X ♦V- •\:? Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form I (we)^q/ <^A. Vsi:2L------o' [pClCt ^ "[print nanelsTT ress j have reviewed the plane for the proposed inproveaent or proposed use of the property located at ___ also referred to as Land QS« Application Ho. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, X (we> ■» (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval j/s/3& Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City this Land Use Application, please submit your Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 'jigsaw. * *■ ■ W--hi ^4 ' r"i ment or proposed use of the lo referred to as Land Use acknowledgement# I (we) am val of the property or use at I (we) am (are) aware of neighbor's project or use the City in the review of omments to the Building & uled meeting date. 'll . - y:‘4^ pa /ii • V • j -mm. ..m •■-t ‘ a" *#J| ■ mm'-.3^&U- C=r .X. •:m —ST^Hcrxe^jg U//7/0U/rivt. / \\ f •• • • •m 5^f» —jf ••••'f-»“‘ •jw*}* -!•'------1 JvV I ‘ / a?. « •m V r^/. / /. >i ^ Ih ,: . a m: : ai rn-rn^ • ri/=^: mi h ■ >a i: '-:■ jv; - a. , »«*aa:v= * h: : i I Prop< Prop) this Zoni J m£4f’ 6r foA \ lU. A j tf )C'•nI m /Iff/ •'i >: i-T i:«ai V.. :* iii Si i^i •V -; -., ■■ -:: ^ / » i li iti>= ;^*i'..i: mm ^ 'j ifmmm / / // /. m'mm iK. ; ■ "i ^:^-VXA.;V . g u» t i^rv: f 0 f Adjacent Property Omere* Ackno«fledg«ent Form of //ys^ bI (we) ^'^c/c/ [print namm{s))[print addre**7 revi«w«d the plan, for the proposed iii®rove»ent or proposed use of the erty located at /eff ,^.//c~^----- also referred to as Land 0«e ication No. I (we) understand that in exeeutln, this acknowledgement, 1 («) «• ) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use merely to confirm for the City Council that 1 (we) an (are) aware of improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use ire# Council approval. j/ >erty Owner Date .'1 >arty Owner Date ^-1 WM 5- " V ni t ■ ■ M oi u/4 h--i IJ v'sj Mr. Pal page 2 Septembi The app: dischar< aware tj dischar< If the i please i letter. Industr: letter. Respectj Mark Pic Staff Ei IndustrJ cc;Lee Lyf Jos “I UNDEF SET FOF t Form address 1 r proposed use of the arred to ss Lend Use rledgementr I I the property or use (ire) ero (are) aware of bor's project or use :ity in the review of ts to the Building 6 meeting date. ■■"■•V." V.';m Mr. pallansch: Page 2 September 28, 1983 The applicability of Service Availability Charges (SAC) to long term discharges of this type has not been finalised. However, please be aware that this discharge will be subject to SAC in the future if the discharge duration exceeds three years. If the approval conditions contained in this letter are acceptable, please sign the signatory statement below oa both copies of this letter. One signed copy of this letter shall be returned to the HWCC Industrial Waste Division within 15 calendar days of receipt of this letter, if questions arise, please contact me at 229-2077. Respectfully, / ■ ^ Mar)c Pierson Staff Engineer Industrial Waste Division Leo Hermes, MWCC Lynn Holly, MWCC Joseph Julik, MPCA Jeane MacBush, City of ■1 UNDERSTAND AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE APPROVAL CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH BY THE HWCC FOR THE SUBJECT DISCHARGE." Signature Date Name (type or print)Title ^ V’M4 -Sr.:' t S •• • ‘-■a my mm- M -■m mm" m 1^1. iM ■_____:_______‘.jaM Mr. Pa Page 2 Septem 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. The MW tamlna to adv ■■r:::-->-im-->ir.:. Mr. Pallansch: Page 2 September 28, 1988 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. During the first month of operations, representative samples shall be collected at 1 day, 10 days, and 30 days. Thereafter, representative samples of the discharge shall be taken on a monthly basis and analyzed for the following parameters: Dichlorodiflourcmethane, Methylene Chloride, 1,l-Dichloroethy« lene, i,i-Dichloroethane, Trans~l,2~Dicnloroethylene,1,1,1-— Trichloroethane, and iyl,2-Trichloroethylen^~^ Analytical and sapling methods snail meet EPA protocol (Code of Federal Regulations Part 136). The discharge shall be regulated so no single toxic organic in the discharge is present in a concentration greater than 5 mg/1 and no combination of toxic organics shall exceed a concentration of 15 mg/1. These limits are subject to review. If the limits are exceeded by more than 10%, or by 0-10% on two successive reportings, the discharge shall cease until such a time when concentrations can be made acceptable. Reports shall be prepared and submitted to tne MWCC on a quarterly basis. Report sheets are Included with this letter and shall be filled out thoroughly. Laboratory data sheets shall be submitted along with the report sheets. The MWCC shall be notified 40 hours in advance of discharge commencement. Notification must also be made if substantial changes to the proposed plan occur, or if the system is tem porarily or permanently shut down during the approval period This discharge is subject to all applicable provisions of MWCC Waste Discharge Rules (5900.1600 - 5900.7500) and the MWCC Strength Charge System. If this discharge continues after the one year approval period, it will be necessary to determine the feasibility of rerouting the discharge to the storm sewer or surface waters via a NPDES Permit. If the sanitary sewer is the only feasible alternative, an extension must be applied for and granted prior to the expiration date. This discharge approval is not exclusive. The approval does not release you from conditions of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Department of Natural Resources, and the City of Long The MWCC reserves the right to Inspect the pumpout/disposal of con taminated groundwater at any time, and to revoke this approval due to adverse MDS effects or non-compliance with approval conditions. m. .•v- *■.Qr 1%■*M ative samples ys. Thereafter, e taken on a rameters: 1-Dlchloroethv- vlene, protocol (Code oxic organic in ater than 5 mg/1 ed a concentration . If the limits wo successive h a time when MWCC on a th this letter r data sheets I. of discharge f substantial ystem is tem- proval period. 3visions of the 500) and the MWCC approval period, Lty of rerouting :ers via a NPDES sible alternative, cior to the approval does ba Pollution , Minnesota of beng take. isposal of con 5 approval due al conditions. m m ‘H"-'i/.T-:;' • - mm •». -1^. m. ESSil = V-;;- -b- Mr. JM Mlmeh fh* S 1.Iha NK* Alt OoOlty lUM ^11 htT« t> w*.*? *?* S£S*.s: SUTTSS,*^ a•nninaail iritli this ffapows# lettsf. Roiuisl alse taelaate® os teat—her !• Xfii» that WII kt ablt to bltoi tkt eonti«inato4 into thrlr diteh.r|. ■tr.M to tbo HfC ty^o If this altirnatlft !• oolectod t copy of tht HfCG opproyal for this dlootorgo Muit be eubeittod to our officii the KfCA otelf roqoiit that you rooolye the above ioncQgw; final plana and apaoiflcttlonf ^ altomativo within 30 daya of the date of thla lattar. If you have any quaationa rtfar<>^nf .ieontaec Joao^Julik dl2/afl-7733 or Crafua •iilov «Xa/297-l7W Of ly itaff al your oarlitat aaavanienca> 3. Sinearalyf Baiardoua Waato Diviaion a M/JIUtiai ■nelooiit* aai David tonaai^ Delta Invlromintal Conaultanta* Zne Si ^ . Mr. Joe P< Washingtoi 2605 West Long Lake Re: Disci deal Dear Mr. 1 The Metro] discharge System (m: 1. The NoV' 2. The eas 3. The the The qua Bil %,m •ifi'■?i •fi4 Approvt, if i }»%m prepAAAd for I to bo oittroeto4 froa InforMtioB fora io i olio In4iooto4 on •4 tho eonttainoto4 0 MVOC fonitory oovor Y of tho MfCG opprovol iieo. »ovo ooBctmi ond lobalt lid) roaodiol lotion I lottor. id eoaaonti plooio ^297-1712 of ay itoff at * r • rr-;“^T»iif,v ^ Metrupolitaii Wiste Control Comiiiissioii Meats Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street. St. Pk«l. Minnesota 55K)I m 222-8423 September 28# 1988 Mr. Joe Pallansch Washington Scientific Industries, Inc. 2605 West Wayzata Blvd. Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: Discharge Approval for contaminated Groundwater Generated During Cleanup Operations at 2605 West Wayzata Blvd., Long Lake, MN Dear Mr. Pallansch: The Metropolitan waste control Conmlssion (MWCC) hereby approves the discharge of contaminated groundwater to the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS). The approval is conditional based on the following: 1.The approval commences as of November 1, 1988 and expires on November 1, 1989. 2. The discharge location shall be the manhole located along tho east property line. 3. The proposed discharge location and pumping rate of 5 GPM to the MDS shall be approved by the City of rimnn t nliw. 4.The discharge volume shall be measured and reported on a^ quarterly basis to both MWCC and the City of Long DaJro^rka Billing for sewer ^se shall be arranged through the City. 5.The contaminated groundwater shall pass through the proposed air stripping system prior to disposal to the MDS. This system shall be designed to ensure that no slug of contaminants may be discharged directly to the MDS without adequate pretreat ment. 6.The system shall be run long enough to obtain a representative sample, then shut down. The sample shall be analyzed for the parameters listed in item #7. The results of this analysis shall be sent to the MWCC for approval. Discharge shall not continue at this site until further approval has been obtained. Results may be reported verbally to hasten approval, with a copy of the lab results to follow as soon as they are received. i-* vou'.s I ^ .s I ; y V-.- . V*.' m " ^ nerated During g Lake, MN approves the an Disposal following: expires on ' ed along the of 5 GPM to ;ed on a ^ Dake^Orgxo ;he City. :he proposed ;. This )f contaminants equate pretreat representative .yzed for the Ls analysis ;e shall not been obtained, ^al, with a f are received. 1 #--'40 4DeltaEnvironmental Consultants* Inc. 1801 Highway 8. Suite 123 St. Paul. MN 55112 612 638-2427 Sepiembtr 1. 1988 Mionesota Pollutioa Control Agency S20 Lafayette Road St Paul. Minnesota 551S5 Attentkm: Subject: Mr. Joseph Julik. Hazardous Waste Secti Washington Scientific Industriesi Remedial Action Plan Long Lake. Minnesota Delta No. 10-87-200 Dear Mr. Julik: Enclosed please find one copy of our proposed HRemedial Action Plan" for the subject site. The plan includes a discussion of recently obtain data and presents our proposed remedial activities. Washington Scientific Industries (WSI) would like to proceed with the proposed Remedial Action Plan (RAP) as soon as possible. Therefore, we are asking the MPCA to review this plan at the earliest convenient lime. Our current work plan schedules work to begin during the last week of September. Our schedule '.ill be dependent upon authorization from the MPCA. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and local government. If you have any questions, please call me at 612-636-2427. Sincerely. DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. David M. Ronnei Project Hydrogeologist DMRiklw Enclosure CG Larry Christensen MPCA Grague Biglow MPCA Joe Pallansch WSI Practical Solutions to Environmental Concerns • . ■< ■vi g$/29.'ee SeptiRibor Hr. Jo« Phil Viahinfton I 2605 Vfit Vi P.O. lex 34( Lonf t Dttr Nr* Pi^ Ml lexedii Peelli' Tht MlnnefO referenced « behelf by Di the findingi rexedietien The NPCA it foUevinf e 1.Af ee tr fe te De if th fe Ht or in to LCtion Plan ” for the n data and presents with the proposed , we are asking the r current wonc plan )ur schedule 'vill be itan Waste Control '^HP^09/29/00 01:£>y rrvH Minnesola Pollution Control Agency kJ^^ Septiinber lit 1968 20OS Vtft 0ijrtmte ieulerew “ 0. 100 340 I^Rf Leke» Mliuiewti 5535# DMf Hr. rallurebiummm nm• •-------- M, ««^ui »cti« Fw.r jisreeiUty Locate# in Leaf LakCf Miantaota twai iw»r/ The Minnaaota yo«if blSirbJ'*DjltrEilJSneeBtIl jjj;; iSd^ilkia MJoS2n#ttiwi*fn TO »0 .»H l»« TOn.«.< <l»» .1 «» «K W •- I-" >“ {allo«in« OAMMitfi 1.Af flndlmt *« th* ^y*J“** rtJ'pMjMrj'lStwiptiJr *"‘sv^Ls^Siiut»^v. LrS“;nn.i o* fact Mt. IUmn.i .1.* .Ut.A th.t If *h. ^ PU« ?"• ordtt t« aUo* tha .{ th« trwch will not bt loitalladir. TO.i:i;.irr~ra ‘.!Si;TO 2 Airs^mw ground vntor ahould be propoaed* Phene! 020 Lafeyetta Rond, 8t. Paul, MInneaota 661S0 Renlonal Ottleti • Dululh/Bralnerd/Dttroh Lake e/Mar ah al l/Roc heater Equal Opportunity Employer ti. v; ■- : A I i- - V- mhi d m* ii k-; I. ?:'. ' f /.iM A. Bon Rosf mna Anc l\l|Ass. Engineers A > Saptenber 27 City of Oron Box 66 Crystal Bay. Attm Ms. Je Ee: File No. Dear Jeanae, Ve have rc property. 1 progressing. The informi talned in a a recovery would then I The City sh< as soon ai should cont] protection of the syst4 Ve have madi desires a hazard I vi If you have Yours very BONESTROO, Glenn R. Co GRC Xli 2335 West H ol Agency ri«>, Xn<9. (VU) I ebovt lttf4 en your II KAP dttftili Nndttlont for ity. hove tht I ground *fAttr Intoreoption iut» not IS I, 1908, )ayid lonnti of k ai coving, 9nnoi fold that A depth of 24 nocAAftry in , the eoftf not bo Inatollod ing centAminoted ifttor W’ to r^-< ■M Jyi V: .-I V . R... Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates cxn a iiiiHOTa PI. mbm w. aanwg. pe. Jiliffpn C. Anocrlib* PC. iSMIM A LeiiMff. PC. AiMPg C. Vfitr. PC jmfm% C OiAon. PC Giefm t. Cook. PC ThoMi C Noyoi. PC. IMort a SchunicfiC PC. Mifvin L SonuM. Pi. A Qonden. PC. iHchord w. fmm, PI. OonaiO C Ourga*^ Jerry A. Coufion. PR MAfk A HMori. PC M k r«M. PE. IfiasiV T CMMomn. Pi. gQOcvt C. PPtPPftlt, PX QiMC O LoAkota PC- W ^WflOfU PC MKMf« C. lyrKtX PE. JAM! C. Maiond. PR Wifine th P AnOATAon, PC. KilOi A. lAc hmiwo. PR Mart ff Hotel, pc MMn C. RUMtk. AJA. Thomat i Angya PR Howard A. Saitford. PR Charlii A. CnctfooLeo ML #owfHky Hanan M. Otsoo Suian M. CbartM Mart A. Sat^ Engineers A Architects Sepcei^er 27, 1988 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Boy, MM 5SS23 Attns Ms. Jsonixo Mobusth to: File Mo. 139-1341 Uoshington Scientific Dear Jeonne, Ue have reviewed the inforaation subaitted for the Washington Scientific ?h. co.pu.7 li« b..n .otking «ith the PCh «d the cle«iup «tk 1. progressing The InforiMtKm provided indictee thet the conteainent. eppeer to be con- •ould then be discherged into the City tenitery fewer syeten. The City ehould request thet ell new infonction co»e to the City I. eoc et poeeible. The ti-e leg he. been eignifient In th. P«t. CUy V. hew. leade . wary general review of the treataent propoeel. If ‘^e City dee^ee e more epclfic review of the chemical «ialyela end the potential hazard 1 will have to involve out environmental engineers a« discueeed. If you have any questions, please contact this office Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC Glenn R. Cook GRC:li 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 ’ i' . . yr toy ■S'V.. Wi 1 A\:.- M r 4 ■ . • ei r* mr 1 b/' k ; aI Dec Dej :■ -:^y 2605v;r i;f'i;^^^vd. • uno Uke. Mlnnesot. 55356 • Phon« 612/473-1271 h- ] i: % >r, jHSiiia g•■T " ::/f ’v:" : ■#'^i||g|^jpj|||^i^;«i.f'It'ii»»:i?g*‘ ' Iiiii Mr. Jot Ptllansch Page 3.The proposal for an Interceptor trench Is appropriate In this type of hydrooMloolcal reglne. However, the proposed depth to! rxr. •"“* If you have questions regarding the »bo»« "»)?'Joseph Julik (612/296-7753) or Crague Biglow (612/296-9626) of my sUff at your tarlitst convenience. "* ^— Sincerely, /•y- rVW^^CCr#<«0^ x<jn /7f-^ uVrry Cfi/lstensen Chief, Hazardous Waste Section Hazardous Waste Division LC/JKJ:njd tir *. 1 a ff ■; »( *4f-t m •■p-'- ...M4 « K' ■■>.* M i- .,. • .9 m BV- \ f4 •• 'KlvIH 'X ; H*: . ■=•■•.•" mm iiH'v June ] Hr. Jo Vashin 260S V P.O. B Long L Dear M RE: The Mi report HPCA'8 The HP be acc cased approv reques If you Joseph earlie Sincer Mrry Chief, Hazard LC: jcj cc: m. :■ ■ . V " -iaii : 2 i'.' . "r ■■fe., ■:> iH mmm Agency ' ■ i. 'V , ■ ♦ f Inc. (VSI) referenced use to the estigation nd find it to ed is a doublf of Health PCA staff VSI Work Plan. please contact staff at your Mm.‘•M MMm Ml fm teipfl h;^' Aa ii'i kvU mm pmms: ' W - 1 •>^v: A-^m,V- .»'Defla Environmental Consultants, Inc.Q 1801 Highway 8. Suite 123 SL Paul. MN 55112 612 636-2427 June 15. 1988 MinnesoU Department of HcaUh Water Supply and Enginceri.i| Depr*»mcnt 717 Delaware Street SE Minneapolis, MN 55440 Attentioii! Subject: Mr. Roman K.o:h Monitoring ' . '^'.1 liistallation Washington Scientific Industries, Inc, Long Lake, Minnesota Delta No. 10-87-200 Dear Mr. Koch: Ai Dart of our investigation of the subject site, we are proposing department to install this well. Details of our proposal are discussed m the enclosed report entitled "Proposed Work Plan . 5s=asss=~'= As summarizedized in the enclosed report, MW-10 (the 50 foot well) will be constructed II - “S .,,4 -i... I/. .«■. .1-™ »■ "v bentonite drilling fluid. interval. For your information, a boring (MW-7> was drilled “ ** proimscd well. The log of this boring is included in Attachment . mm m: vv'g>' • .‘LV ’rrl.4 i^v*^V • «a * ^ *. V* .;0 ,*e I*:* li'-' ■w’"' w» 1% ;ti gallii:. ? ^ ta "'1 ■ f T ;•• •• 1 •• k, - ■ ISTEREE> LAND SURVEY NO. 843 f-/«: S ^ loio^' *; fv Kj 'A-J lO/^^' 2 Nr fi ,i- ..-.•:4:';4 . . ■■'J:: MM am at/ai/oa OATCH Ml nXM MNM OHNn HUC TAXPAVM HWC/MO* M H-ll7-tl It Nil NtW MOREIS UNMUaCO STATE OF HUM STATE OF HUM UNTT FOOFEOTT mFOmATlOH STSTEH FOOFERTT OMCRS LIST M Sf-ll7-tS 13 ESSE tStlB TONKA AVE mCKT OLSCAOD mCKET OISSAM P 0 lOK ISIS HFLS m SMM HEFOOT NO. PlSSBSSl PAM I M EB-117-El 11 MSI SNIS AOOMSS lEIAStltMEO FUMIAN J STEMEa ETAL FLOOIAH J STEWEI ■AES AUMICH AVE SO HPU m SSSIS IS SS-117-tl 11 SMS POOP AOOR SSSIS ASOSEM UHAMI6NEO OHNEB NINE 0 L SUBTAFSOH ETAL TAXPATES SEOALa L SUSTAFSON NAME/AOO* EM BEOtOHOaO Ml LONB LAKE IM SSIM IS SS-I17-E1 11 ttlt SMES OATSIOt M BAH AMtEBSON BOBEBT F E HEMIT B MSIEBSIM MAS BATSIBE M UMB LAKE m SBIM M M-II7-E1 II SSIS SMSS BATSIM BO BANXEL K VAUENAH TOOB H 1 NABIE T nESHOI ItSS SHOHELIM BB HATEATA HH HISI FBOP AMM MMEB NAHE TAXPATEB HAHE/AOOB IS SS-llT-tl II SSIS SMTS BATSIBE BB OABTL B CABLSOH DABTL B CABLSOH 1S7S BATSIBE BO UMB LAKE m HISS SB SS-I17-ES 11 Mil SSttS TOMCA AWE B 0 lAFAVOB t B A UFAVOB BOBEBT 0 1 BEBGCCA A LAFAVBB EES T«S(A AVE LONB LAKE Ml SSISS M SB-117-tl 11 MIS SMIS ABBBEM IMASSIBHEB E B TALBEBT ETAL TAXPATM TO LET FOBFECT PBOP AOOB ONHEB NAHE TAXPATEB NANE/AOOB M SB-117-tl II MtS SSSIS ABOBEH IMAMISNEB E B TALBEBT ETAL TAXPATEB TO UT FOBFEIT M N-II7-E1 n NES SStSB TONKA AVE ESTNEB H AHIIMM ESTHEB H AOOISON list BATSIDE NO LONB LAKE IM BS3M IB SB-I17-E1 II NE7 SSESS TOMIA AVE ESTHEB H AOOISON ESTHEB H ABBISON SIM BATSIOE BO LONB LAKE IM SBIM FBOP ABOB OHNEB NAHE TAXPATEB NAHE/AOOB IS SB-117-E3 11 SSEB SSESS TOMU AVE H I B SOMm HENBT A BOSXE SOMITE ESS TONKA AVE LONB LAKE IM BSIM SB SS-1I7-ES 11 SStS SttM AOOBEM UHASSISNEO ESTHEB H AOOISON ESTHEB H ADOISOH list BATSIOE BO LONB LAKE NH SSISS IS SS-II7-ES IS MSS SMSS BATSIOE NO OSS ESTEBS OANIEL t SAMMA ESTEBS MSS BATSIOE BO LONB LAKE HH SSISS PBOP AOOB OHNEB NAHE TAXPATEB NANE/AOOB M SS-II7-E1 II SSSt SMSS EASTLAKE ST H S N WMSLET HANK A HUNSLET MSS E LAKE ST LONB LAKE HH SSISS IS SS-II7-E1 II BBSS SMM AOOBESS UNASSIBNEO DABTL B CABLSOH ET AL DABTL B CABLSOH MTS BATSIOE BOAO LONB LAKE IM SSISS M SS-II7-E1 II BBSS BOOM AOOBESS UHASSISNEO D A HONBE AHA HONBE DEAN A A HANCT A HONBE MSS E LAKE ST S LONB LAKE IM SSISS RIM D«n RVtl/M BATCH Ml HRMinH COUHTT MORERTT XHTOnUTlCN RTSTtN MOKRTT OMCRt UfT RCNRT MB. miMU PMR t mP ADM CRMn NAM TAXPAVtR HAM/AOM M H-117-M M MAP MSM TOMU AVI ITATI DP nnM BTATI OP HUM !.ss:.ss OP THf HBOdPlH COUHTT OIPAOTMHT OP PROPOin TAXATION, T»TM BIST DP NT KNOHUDM A» BILICP. OfPARTNINT OP PROP^ TAXATION, ^THI I lOlO D. w umeovBit w-gntA^oii «—iakt A. A. Rxisting Final —— — -W- - - - - -- Setback Zona Lot Area In Zona Bardeovar IB Zona Bardoovar Faroantaga (R/A)xl00 Bardeovar Xn Zona mMPOCOVSV Fareantaga <D/A)xl00 0-75 ♦^ sf .sf t 75-250*3.0af sf (Zf .t. 250-500*Sl.d\ \S.o) t 500-1000*sf (S t 0 Sf • HAROCOVBR LIMITATXOMS BMSCOVBR ZMCLOOBSi AlXOMd Rardcovar Pareanta^a -4 - Straetoras with roofa • Oaeka, avan if alattad • SidawaUa - Drlvaaaya (paaad or Rraval) - Oaeoratlva landscaplnR araas UBdarlaln by plastic ahaating > Tops of ratalnlog walls> rock walls - Any othar surfaca that doas not allow diract absorption of rainfall into tba ground B. OTHBR tAREBHOBB RBCOtATlOBR SRC. 10.22, RMOLAnORS FOR ■LR-IA*. ’XJI-lA'l*, *LR-1B*, •UI>1C~ ARD ■lR-lC-1* ORB FARIXLT LARBSRORB RBRXDBRFXAL DXSTRXCT. Within any 'LR-IA*, LR-lA-1*, ■LR>1B<>, •LR-IC*. or ‘LRolC-l* Ona Paaily Lakaahora Raaidantial District tha following ragulations shall applyi Subd. 1. Lakaahora Sat Back Ragulations. Tha sat back froai tha shoralina for lakaahora lots shall ba at laast 75 fast and no building aay ba locatad oloaar to tha shoralina than tha avaraga dlstanca frow tha shoralina of oxlstlng rasldanca buildings on adjacant and naarby lots. Subd. 2. Lakeshora Bard Covar Ragulations. Within 75 fast of shoralina thera shall ba no ascavating, filling, hard covar, tamporary or parwanant strncturas. Within 75 to 250 fsat of tha shoralina thara shall ba no graatar than 25t hard covar. Within 250 to 500 faat of tha shoralina thara shall ba no graatar than 30t hard covar. Within 500 to 1,000 faat of tha shoralina thara shall ba no greater than 35t hard cover. Subd. 3. Tree Removal Ragulations. Mo trees within 75 feet of the shoreline with the dlaneter of six (6) inches or nore shall be removed without first obtaining a permit from the Council. A. BADCOVMI OAffffaga - Xa lialtlB, tha parcMtaf* of let area that can be eoearad with laparwious aurfacaa (■hardeovar*) anch aa reefs, drlwawaya, aidawalka. ate. on prepartlaa leeatad within 1,000 feat ef a lake, atndiaa have shewn that sadlsMnts, ells, and debris carried Inte tha lake frea hlohly arbanlaad areas have a datrlMntal Ijqiaet en tha qnallty ef water la tha laktt, Thm iat«Bt ef Oreao*e ordlaaaee ia to easaro that rainfall rua-off will be laka"**^ ^ Mltarln* through praasad er waoatatad yard areas before entering tha B- BAKOCOVW wwa.^ «pya - yiCMBAia AALOIBP I. 0-7S'« la tha area within 73* of tha lakashora. He Rardeewar !■ (Ot). — *-------- ^*”**®*» la tha portion of tha lot located between 75' and 250* fron tha lake, Jgt ef that portion of tha lot nay be hardeewarad. ***• h50“500*t la tha portion of tha lot located between 250* and 500* fast frea tha lake JJl ef that portion of tha lot nay be hardcovarad. XV. S00~l,000't la tha portion of tha lot leeatad between 500' and 1,000* feat fro* the lake ajj ef that portion of tha lot nay be hardeewarad. NOTBt These ragnlatieas apply awaa If yon have a let that does not abnt tha lake but Is within a lakashora sonlng district. yw TO Pmnmw lot aha wtot «ach wtback lom (to be nssd as danoadnator In all hardeewar pareantaga ealcnlatlons) I. 0-75» looa Area - 75* a /Average width of lot la 0-73* tena\ \ naasora parallel to shoreline J 75' (Avg width) 73-250* Iona .ft. - Area ef 0-73* loaa _s.f. (1) Area - (175*or avg lot depth la sene) */Avg width of lot In 73-250* iena\ \ Bsasnra parallel to ahorallna ) 173* n ft. - (Avg width) Area ef 73-230* sona XXX. 230-300* looa Area - (250* or avg lot dapth In sene) a/Avg width of lot la 230-300* sona\ V naasora parallel to shorallna / 230* n ft. ■ CvS~jig a.t. (3) (Avg width)Area of 230-500* sene XV. 500-1.000* %tmm Area ■ (300* or avg lot dapth in tona) >/Avg width of lot In 300-1000* sona\ pnrnllsl to shorallna ) im* X ft. - s.f. (4) ^ (Avg width) Area of 500-1,000* sona HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET Satback toMi (circla ona) 0-75’ 7S>2S0 * 250-S00* SOO-IOOO* BMlatlna Bardcovat In loaa lanqth b. Garaga c. Drlvaway d. Sidaaalk _(\ a. Patio/ back f. Landacapa araaa uhdatlaln _ by piaatlc~ abaatlng £. 0 TOTAL EXISTING MARDCOV ■a^? R.f a.f a.( a.f a.f \OoO 23^ SCfO Exlatlng Hardcover t - Total Existing Hardcover x 100 Lot Araa Within tana Additional Hardcover to be added in xonei _Lanatii_Width - TOTAL a.f. - a.f. (kcttlU*AaXa|M. ____ .,|-A l.'^OO a.f.oo}.0>^ a.f.| •(2t[]^ TOTAL S.F. TO BE ABDED v5^glfep I Exiating Hardcover to be Rai»ov ad, if anyi ■ 1^^— -»—■Width ■ TOTAL 0 TOTAL S.P. TO BE RENOVED Pinal Hardcover Propoaali (Lina (1) * Lina (2) -Line (311 - a.f. _ a.f. _ a.f. _ a.f. _ a.f. . - «3» ^ ♦ <r/^ - To be.Added To be Removed' Existing Propoaed Hardcover t > I - StJSHs.t. (4> Final ! Line (41 x 100 - Line (1)jp a.f. HARDCOVER CALCOLRTIOM WORKSHEET Satback lonai (eirel* OMi 0-7S* 7S-2S0* 2S0-S00 Exiatlnq Hardcover In Iona a. Bout# _ _ _ _ _ length b. Garage e. Driveway d. Sidewalk e. Patio/ Deck (. tandicape areaa underlain _ by plastic sheeting _ :> width TOTAL EXISTING HASDCOVER IN tONE Existing Hardcover t - Total Existing Hardcover x 100 Lot Area Within Son# X 100 Additional Hardcover to be added in sonot 0 TOTAL S.P. TO BE ADDED Existing Hardcover to be Heawved. if anyi TOTAL a.f. _ _ _ _ a.f. _ _ _ _ _ a.f. _ _ _ _ _ _a.f. _ _ _ _ _ _a.f. _ _ _ _ _ (2) jasatis. 0 TOTAL S.P. TO BE BEHOVED Pinal Hardcovar Propoaalt (Une (1) ♦ Lino (2) -Lino 0)| - r I _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ - total a.f. __!_ _ _ _ a.f. _ _ _ _ _ _ a.f. _ _ _ _ _ _a.f. _ _ _ _ _ _a.f. _ _ _ _ (3) Existing To be Added To be Renoved Proposed Hardcover t - I -a.f. (4) Line (4> x 100 - Line (1)‘p X 100 - 1 ido - r •MW-10 -PROPMTY LMtl MW-4D PARKING LOT MW-» .MW-S BACKGROUND BORING FIGURE 2 SITE MAP WASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES LONG LAKE , MINNESOTA DELTA NO. 10-87-200 Scan real •MW-10 FIGURE 3 EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION WASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES LONG LAKE . MINNESOTA DELTA NO. 10-87-200 Seal* Faai FIGURE 5CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF RECOVERY AND DISCHARGE TREATMEMT SYSTEM WASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES LONG LAKE, MINNESOTA DELTA PROJECT W. 10-87-200 RECCVERT TRENCH SUMP IlFLOl rrmrn LEGEND I* SAMPLE VALVE CONTROL VALVE O FT-OW lyETER ■O-----!*•- DIFFUSED. AERATOR #1 DIFFUSED AERATOR #2 VENT A ▼ FLUID IML iiiiif iimmiiimi A FUllO LEVB. IIII111II1111111IJ 11 BTLUENr DISCHARGE TO SANITARY SEWER n(nnnnlnnJlnJ!(nntnlln^nnn ni STSIQI IMS BOCE AKTICIPAIED POROmil aNTAHIIMNr IMS MliNCE ASUIIN5 99> REMOVAL GF TCE FPOU GROUfirATER PUP FLOAT GONIROLS -- saigas* AIR imiENT EFFLUENT 600 CFU lATER (PPlO air (^#)iater (f™)AIR OJS#) lATER TCE 36 0 TCE 0J6 0JB9 IIFUOr SGFVp) NoiE: nrueir oonceniratios are tie HIQCT VMiES DETECe IN lONITIRINS DRAWING NOT TO SCALE FtP •..;:.;;--,r:^ . . ■ : .•.;x. . V..-... ■ .■■■:-■• /. .' .•• -V; - ; • - ■• ;•;• ;.v-r . s^\/*?v - cot^^tr^ ftctiPoS^e^ X-^ ■'■'« \% \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ W\> yx/ax/dJjpM /tKHi>\ QoW J •f. 4<<h« /irfa^Tsii, sUhot^ S^ttU 3ooa-i* <*a>ia.'^*4.->'l»xt»^t^i4 /4 ■' < 6l^a./^ Aloa^*' t z ^ y^y^c^^)l« /tail 4 <t»‘*<* ^ta<i.y y»^ jL <*a«.x« A y^xx‘^A,or g4».ac ^s^Tja^oy-l \ \ j /o/^- 5r*r fo/* L*' 4«/ous/«d I V- ■som.T*/ eU^ -fe ” •S’c^/e i .ddtt am H*nrn euy 2.0X3'?'^ ■Z.S^r-Z.'Z-^ f^==^ ft 77^;t>*“*’* :'S^“ —■ ■',\ 1 1 I 1 I I I I I r I I r -J I I I I I I I . I . ! . I ‘II I 111,1 I II ■!—I----1 —1-~mz^n^ Tn i I -I I T I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 /i _i_LJ___\i X1^: i.. 1 y" IDfl-M C»JT' 1 1 H '5i1 h / V7 \■ g 1-HI ;•• ' 1 ,1 1 1 . r-n-,._IKi- to** 'tnuJr 3doa-^ r"—h ^Tcat? .nf .«-r -nV‘ 8" e«o/ e*--^ • -j:y /<•/'''' «(""1" ;'o;2. .»•* S"*/4" VefOie- x>^"Op. ^"^xa yv.-’-'-? pevisioMs oz OT 5ooc 111 ID ■ 111 a X h-< (0 m CD O 0. ^i P i iI 8 s y ^ 9 X?g sa r^-To- 9750-2 :l£>U\VJOlMga PLu^m - >41* ^ \ V< IlLrtM. ------ 0 P»M«>e*J ttoitJdi«M| -n» UK*^ u<*T- ^ -n> Ikc, XA* PKCriMlVUcO WfTM U XM&uL*.'*Tia«J. »J R«oP- «yvTK|^ -tto M. 24- Wi-m W PKems> TwvuUAmoU. ^ -TJ» Pl*^ «iV^ ?T *kU_ *»i^ot>.TWfc WAXCV ACtMjofr OMUf. .UJHtAcTtO. STCKL STRUCTUIWS. INC. • Zt NINTH AVENUl S. E. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS414 RBVIBIOMB W<=cC3UlU_ ^looto'nz-'^ <CLU& r^&iKjTtMAM<:€. n\c-(UTY DATS 3 JO« NO.CNOOIIBP BV ONAWN BV DRAWINO NO. / 1-54 Pc^e /Q/ C?3/^^ STEEL STRUCTURES. INC. • 21 NINTH AVENUE S. E. MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA S5414 r \Ato»DmO-. 4H_ui3, r^Ai rA.illLlT'^ mvMiSHS DAT*JOB NO.CMBCNBO BY hi5MAWINS NO. 2. *r2_ KxisnwG iJgM- pesqgPTiai That part of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 3, Tounshlp 117 North, Range 23 Nest of the 5th Prlnlcpal Herldlan. which lies Northerly of a line 43 feet northerly of. neasured at right angles to and parallel with a line descrihed as beginning at a point on the East line of said Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter distant 457.5 feet South of the Northeast comer of said Section 3; thence running South 67'10' Ndst a distance of 570.5 feet: thence running Southwesterly on a tangential curve to the right with a re..us of 5729.65 feet a distance of B33.45 feet to a point In the Nest line of said Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter distant 368 feet North of the Soiitheest comer of said Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter, and there ending, ALSO that part of -Subdivision" No. 1 S.E.% of S.E.6. "Subdivision No.1 S.N.6 of S.E.6" and "Subdivision No. 1 of Lot No. 3. Section 34. Township 118 Range 23", described as follows; Beginning at a point In the East line of said Section 34. which point Is 340 feet South of the Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section; thence running Southwesterly, eaklng an angle to the right, of 36*45' froe said East line of said Section a pittance of 220 feet to the centerline of the creek which flows froe Long Lake In Town of Orono Southwesterly Into Hud Lake near Lake Minnetonka: thence following the centerline of the bed of said creek In a Westerly and Southwesterly direction to a point In the centerline of said creek distant 180 feet Northeasterly from the Southwest corner of said Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter; thence In a straight line Southwesterly to said Southwest corner; thence East to the Southeast comer of said Section; thence North a distance of 374 feet; thence West a distance of 24 feet; thence North a distance of 337.82 feet: thence East a distance of 24 feet to a point 711.82 feet North of the Southeast comer of said Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter; thence North to the point of beginning. PROPOSED PROPERTY DIVISION FOR EDMUND W. F. RYDELL IN SECTIONS 34 a 35-118-23 AND SECTION 3-117-23 H- % k> to fUKXl^ r^rSe2rt“;ia^e?W^Northeast quarter of Section 3. th Prlnlcpal Merl «asured at right angli paraliel'witn a line described as beginning at a point on the East line of . quarter of the Northeast quarter of : township 117 North. Range 23 West of the 5th Prlnlcpal Meridian, which lies nortterly of a line 43 feet northerly of, masured at right angles to and said Northeast quarteuf the Northeast quarter distant 457.5 feet South of r flCsald Section 3; thence running South 67*I0’ Wdst ning Southwesterly on a tangential curve to the right with a r^us of 5729.65 feet a distance of 833.45 feet to a point in the West llfie of said Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter distant 368 feet NortlTtif the Southwest corner of said Northeast quart* of the Northeast quarter, and there ending, ALSO that part of "Sutflvlslon" Mo. I S.E.t of S.E.6, "Subdivision No. S.W.H of S.E.S" and "iMlv'slon No. i of Lot No. 3. Section 34. Townsl 116 Range 23", descrBM as follows: Beginning at a point In the Ees of said Section 34. Wlci point is 340 feet South of the Northeast co( the Southeast quart^Wgf the Southeast quarter of said Section; thenci running Southwesterly.’eaklng an angle to the right, of 36’45' from s East line of said Section a distance of 220 feet to the centerline of creek which flows from Long Lake In Town of Orono Southwesterly Into Hud Lake near Lake Mlnnetonfca; thence following the centerline of the bed of said creek In a westarly and Southwesterly direction to a point In the centerline of said creek distent 160 feet Northeasterly from the Southwest corner of said Southeket quarter of the Southeast quarter; thence In a straight line Southwejterly to said Southwest corner; thence East to the Southeast corner of S4ld Section; thence North a distance of 374 feet; thence West a distance of 24 feet; thence North a distance of 337.82 feet; thence East a distance of 24 feet to a point 711.82 feet North of tlie Southeast corner of said Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter; thence North to the point of beginning. which lies Soi'h jf a line drawn parallel with and 180 feet North of. measured at right angles to, the South line of said Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter, and Westerly of the following described line: Coamenclng at the Southeast corner of said Section 34; thence on an assumed bearing of North along the East line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 34 a distance of 762,43 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence South 76"45‘ West a distance of 10.60 feet; thence along a tangential curve concave to the Southeast with a radius of 31B.00 feet and central angle of 19"30' a distance of 108.23 feet; thence South 57"15' West tangent to last-said curve a distance of 7.17 feet; thence alongfeet: t tangential curve concave to the Northwest with a radius of 30S.OO feet and central angle of 19"50' a distance of 105.58 feet; tlmnce South 77"05' t tangent to last-sold curve a distance of 218.36 feet; tt«nce along angentlal curve concave to the Southeast with a radius of 69.39 feet ; jlral angle of 76 ”33' a distanceof 92.71 feet; thence South 0"32' West tangent to last-said curve a distance of 70.07 feet; thence al li _- .. ------------------- — West tangent to last-s«ld curve a distance of 216.36 feet; tftence along ingentlal curve concave to the Southeast with a radius of 69.39 feet gential curve concave to Ihe-East with a radius of 348.35 feet ano i angle of 2i“C7’ a distance of 128.39 feet; thence South 20"35’ East oe’nt to last-sa.o cur., a distance of ».12 ;-t;^th|nc.^..o;g .^tangent- lan- centrel tan- gen ial1 ratry* rmrsve to Ih* West wlth a rddtu* of 216.8Z feet ano cenirai aaigle of 7B*37'30** a distance of 300.28 feel; thence South feel, and said line there ending. PHCpqs8D PA°rv!i. » All that part of the Northeast quarter of the Hortheest quarter nf Section 3, Township 117 North. Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Harldlan. lying North of a line 43 feet northerly, measured at right angles to and parallel with, the following described llneiand Its extensions; Beginning at a point on the East line of said Northeast quarter of the North east quarter distant 457.5 feet South of the Northeast comer of said Sec tion 3; thence running South 67°IO' West a distance of 570.6 feet; thence running Southwesterly on a tangential right curve with a radius of 5729.65 feet a distance of 833.45 feet to a point on the West line of said Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter distant 368 feet North of the Southwest corner of scld Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter, and there ending, ALSO that part of "Subdivision" No. 1 SE* of SEV, "Subdivision No. I SWk of 5EV and "Subdivision Mo. 1 of Lot No. 3 Section 34, Township tie Range 23“ described as follows: Reginnlng at a point In the East line of said Section 34. which point Is 340 feet South of the Northeast comer of the Southeast quar ter of the Southeast quarter of said Section; thence running Southwesterly, making an angle to the right, of 36*45' from said East line of said Section, a distance of 220 feet to the centerline of the creek which flows from Long lake in Town of Orono Southwesterly Into Mud Lake near Lake Minnetonka: thence following the centerline of the bed of said creek in a Westerly and Southwest erly direction to a point In the centerline of said creek distant 180 feetMsrtheasterly fro* the Southwest corner of said Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter; thence in a straight line Southwesterly to said Southwest corner; thence East to the Southeast corner of said Section; thence North a distance of 374 feet: thence West a distance of 24 feet; thence North a distance of 337.82 feet; thence East a distance of 24 feet to a point 711.62 feet Nrrth of the Southeast corner of salO Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter, thence North to the point of beginning; ALSO that part of the West 250 feet of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest larter of Section 35, Township 118 North.Range 23 West of the 5th Principal - - "1 Southerly of thequar . Meridian, lying North of the South 711.82 feet thereof and centerline of Orono Orchard Road; EXCEPT that part of the above described property which lies South of a line drawn parallel with and 110 feer North of. measured at right angles to. the South line of said Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter, and Westerly of the following described line; Coamenclng at the Southeast comer of said Section 34; thence on an assuied bearing of North along the East line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 34 a distance of 762.43 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence South 76*45' west a distance of 10.60 feet; thence along a tangential curve concave to the So itneast with a radius of 318.00 feet and central angle of 19*30' a distance of 108.23 feet: thence Souch 57*15' West tangent to last-said curve a distance of 7.17 feet; thence along a tangential curve concave to the Northwest with a radius of 305.00 feet and central angle of 19*50' a distance of 105.58 feet; thence South 77*05' fUh^S!!"a! 5SrUn;jn3e'?S''?h^ ?i55S"e'a1t°ll?i"i^raJt'urori?!l9*l°.S! and central angle of 76®33‘ a distance of 92.71 feet; thence South 0'»32' west tangent to last-said curve a distance of 70.07 feet; thence along a tan-i^"gUnf'2r*S7^°rsiiti?cr'of^?2i.3i ‘^ur?iiSJur4rio rs^ Kvi*u;nt “e rt'neVeirx rr!?ii! Ct t'to®I«t “".l5 ?!,“rl%fstrce'Sf'rai:6rfeet; thmc’.*^uth 3I-57130" Ersf a^^stlSUlf 30% feSt; thence South 23-15' East a distance of 650.00 feet, and said line there ending. w**^ "-y SCALE 1 I INCH-100 FEET DATE ' AUGUST 25,1988 DATUM MEAN SEA LEVEL GORDON R. COFFIN LAND SURVEYORS S CIVIL ENGINEERS LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA eEMCHUAimi L 5 COAST S OEOOCtlC SLAVEY UAMWtu NO U IIT ELEV , 972 580 7R-S3 )T\-ee.KA<j 9e>T)U^ ^1 Fdf j lo/oi/''^ P 2400 Q 2000 ^ 1600 ^ •pfl ;.A.\7 ■:■ ........ISMfciS'P’i 'I-'.- '•r’r laMm m^m m. m i; vlt:. */gSl:Pi!ilv r lOjo^l^ •.■*-:• ^'!||li feir-Av. {•.¥<y.! ■ *• .r. / yf . Si ;K 118 IRI iiir^lUPl P; i liSB _ i^ili ■V‘C^K:"=s.W*Tf i;- r'- .iN-;v-J»C> ■jf&ms. •ii.; fel' pc-P / 0/0^1^'^ felpi IlfifT •“iS-'-Ifi, 1^19 ■ii-- y.V. '.i -^i- : mmwmmmsaw vt «.;-•:.<>;.:^i:u.;^.;. -^P V-‘SHEET5^2ij4?f,= :