Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-1988 Planning PacketPUBLIC ATTENDANCE ClTlf OF ORONO MEETING DATE PXiEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) 3./^r 'UlC-f iPY rvf H / 5. ilAiit 4! jf) 9.l''/^cKln ~‘Sloui\, 2..J^' i3X\cf)^\e_ IS.SU^V/*- _________ 16 mJ3c^ iW jw>'X niJiviA’n I_____ It .i^'VtV.w i-_________ UlOO KELLV A\/ <jrO \ A ^<-0 t <"^0; t^iOci.iT <^-^4? f^£lA}4C(iAlteScJ> HHsfdfir'-ir, lx IaJac, WCA- fcf<K4-!cU WV£/f)Ai<s> Z4r iY*c /jr~ Silf j *:tv^ jt It / ■i't' J ta/ I UUp khLOHi'C^7 7/y/^, 7 y^ • 7ru.>r3^^ j 1bf ml \j - (> jfY^ </oil C)r. F<rig:4 Lx ^ ' < Vi'- ’ f Ttf V y^/ iUt.n L pl it/^^oC *SWv^</ tiv4 f/owurtB A.r 20. ///J > -'ey S ^ V / /^ 51c?<3 ^ I ^M7 . i -c y /^''f A =*iy-i'i /?/(T j ■y / iy 3 /.3V/ .1 f3-/sr 4my >X1 ■r■\ ■> ■■fi j • DATE :iTY RECORDS. i£ OR NUMBER MT FOR (frc»n agenda) MiCHACU.iil.Sim2£i±bics « Mi nn j<// 19S Ty/ •i& t/f ‘f K *3 zM.f iX f 'H'i i ■pin •jt-. ■4i' k^. i %d^.a li a M ^ ■. ^ I» a # 41» ♦ ? f [|vv';m ii'i' . ••i J*,y* rW PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OP ORONO MEETI NG DATE /V //// ^ f PLEASE FILL OUT %HE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print) / ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) t1. 2. Rolt>by.v\ Iv. S^Pvl-UVl l^yf ihe 3. K\djC\.p , 4. ■Q^-<c>v.cv>C'naPi uv ., TVlf; Ji r'lark C> r ar /> mir.-IJ 10. tnfc uf^ ^/q Um. 11 A 12. T3(,9 t)jdkgj *77<o lunf 1 ^tC^^Luv^ 40 iU 1 6mtv. t/t /^,. */y* > 7y/Myj-j»i' K ytn 9Q ^y 7Fj/d )I g 0 ^ •^7// /?■ 131 14. 16. ■ll- /^J g 44= -■■i’ •t. lilf - e • V,' e DATE rO//f /ttCT¥ imCQRDS.Z OR HUMBER r FOR (from agenda}>wm. •. i. -I> ■' '-'A ■i-pvfm 330 1^ wn •'V ■ r • ' 1 .t --; ■■ .i^t',■ ^i-A ;*' ■ *1.k:. '-■ ..'^v- ■Ay.U.'I ^ *• f P ^?r - , X"I- ’/?Frenchto Rcq» r-j 4480 Forest Lab Lar Jlnq Orono, Mn. 553f.4 Ml•i I:)lM^<yA L3yu^' y - f. /^A2y MC£'Ar/A In’ I'/I' yAu. j ■y'Y cua A^ y\ U.iL' ____ / i yUC40 lAdA .* i/yd ydy<i- A- A: 4- 11 ^ i I ^; 11'% I I I- :f ■fT.- ■J y Ird .Ait # .s V , It V # 'J/U r i i :psi I '}0 t s-r P-'' - ■•*:?i;^i'y;-^'v5ii HAM a..#syMiL^‘li ,i;'/ •'«N»*-■' ' »•:;’ .'•• ;:.^« •' K'^ '-■•« ^^•' •. ••:^mmm-mm w®*”'^...........iiril « 4» . . • 4Siim-yW" *h-' •i ''^44 isaKs.-■;v,v.:m..-.Frenchie Rogc •>4480 Forest Lake LandingOrono, Mn, 55364 • J ^, ‘CZ«^~zC^C myc:• ;/ /■ ■9Mo */ / C-' y /0'€'-- Y-''^-^*'/ A'/t ‘h-y /)'-' a-v =•• : ry o\ ■■:: ; V -4 y- '7.^ - ■■ '.: i :.i:-xv:4- ■’ • : EViik'•i'• fM My f A,t y' / C-^.) v^' ,y ; yT>^'A /1 my i!- ' ■.’■ ■’■■'•* * :p H r 'M‘yf/ / yT'' M//l^f { J i.i7XyyMM(y' ■ / ■l;-, 3 •yef jk. u- A:M#f'l ' >lm'i y’it ■*■ A•: a -‘'yyy k. . ■■;■ 't m-v<rv4^•k^'":»r::’'rfrjf> /n/,.; • . . ;. . ^ .. .. ... ... ../U4l ¥ '/ /?/ / ^/l4- . ■ ,.,.^.»i,f!i,:^4v<i..;:;. t ‘> - •;\ 'IPl:• V f-^ 5'. ::. % • 1 f «■■ <*• *^1 ^ tA' ;,: 9 4 ...tfc' ••' ^■Frenchie Rogers ^1480 Fores! Lob Landing Orono, Mn. 55364-t//€'%'W /L^ /. , ¥cl / V^-. To:From:Date:SubjectsZoning Die Total Area Applicatio Pertinent Chapt Secti* area lot 1 1 I I Lot W. width I Idat of Bxh Exhibi Exhibi Exhibi Exhibi Exhibi Exhibi Exhibi Exhibi Exhibi Exhibi Exhibi M-h JrW:..-I "'•^mm-.■4^1*^^:-: urfiK;; '•"■;A-.>^--,fef‘•■'■■IIP <wrii»*» I Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth^ Building & Zoning Administrator October 12, 1988 #1348 0. Larry Lee, 1050 Garden Lane - Preliminary Subdivision Class III - Public Heating Zoning Districts - LR-lB & RR-IB Total Area - 36.7 acres Application - Subdivision - plat - 30 lots (2 developed). Pertinent Ordinances - Chapter 11 - Subdivision Regulations. Section 10.24 — LR*~1B District Standards. Lot ll# Block 1 reguires an area variance (lot is developed and included in the plat as part of a lot line rearrangement). Required « 43,560 s.f. or 1 acre Current • 43,560+ s.f. Proposed * 40,150 s.f. or .92 acres Variance - 3,410 s.f. or .08% Lot Width Variances Required for Lots 5, 6, and 10, Blk 1 (required width measured at the rear of the front yard setback line at 35')s Required « 140' Lot 5 measures at 95+' Lot 6 measures at 70+' Lot 10 measures at 75* List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - •Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K - Application Property Owners List Plat Map - Designation of Ownership List of Owners Involved With Plat Public Road Areas to be Vacated With Plat Wetlands Map - Locating Recommended Storm Sewer Path to Forest Lake Planning Commission Notice of Action per Sketch Plan Review Sections of Storm Sewer Plan (1-A & 1-B) Alternative for Road Re-alignment to North Engineer's Report - Received After The Writing of This Memo Preliminary Plat •V ‘3 , \1 1^1 ■■-.j m m Zoning Fi3 October 12 Page 2 of Review of The : the north only chan for your i dedicated by surrou: served vi to be ser' to the no: Urban Ser is locate of minimu served b; sewers w: original Road 19. north/soi Hawkinson conferenc for the < should b portions City will Tonkaviev the addit shown on new divi* Lot Confi Wid' located diviAioni 10,Bloc) lot with that poi question to appro ’ by the ii based on that pro locatioi the fact the inte building I I or * ck 1 requires an lat as part of a Blk 1 (requiiredi ine at 35*): r «v#r Path to etch Plan nt to Horth icq of This fc.; #1 ......W Zoning File #1348 October 12, 1988 Page 2 of 6 Review of Application - The preliminary plat application now includes the rural property to the north owned by Mr. Hawkinson, refer to Exhibits C & D. This is the only change in property ownership from the original sketch plan presented for your review. All proposed lots are to be served by the plat road to be dedicated as a public roadway. Four of the proposed 30 lots will be served by surrounding public roadway. Lot 1, Block 3 (formerly Lot 58) is to be served via Wildhurst Trail. Developed Lot 9 and 11 and undeveloped Lot 10 to be served via Tonkaview Lane. Except for the 5+ acre Hawkinson property to the north, all of the other parcels are located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. It should also be noted that the 5+ acre to the north is located in the RR-IB Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 2 acres of minimum dry contiguous area. The newly proposed one acre lots will be served by sewer to be installed and paid for by the developer. Storm sewers will also be installed and paid for by the developer. In the original sketch plan, the City asked for an east/west connection to County Road 19. The applicant has returned with a proposal that shows a north/south connection, connecting to a 50* outlot proposed between the Hawkinson property and the West Branch Acres Plat. At a preliminary review conference with the City Engineer, it was agreed that the original request for the connectijig east/west was no longer necessary and consideration should be made for the total vacation of Highview Lane. Appropriate portions of Highview Lane may be retained for future sewer expansion. The City will ask for an additional 17*i' dedication for road right-of-way along Tonkaview Lane. The surveyor should confirm that areas are exclusive of the additional dedicated road area. The existing house on Lot 9 should be shown on the plat in order to confirm that the setbacks are met from the new division lines. Lot Configurations - Width variances are required for Lots 5 and 6, Block 1 as they are located on the curve of the road. This would be consistent in previous divisions where we have granted variances on curves or cul-de-sacs. Lot 10, Block 1 that achieves access via Tonkaview Lane, is platted as a flag let with a 75' wide corridor platted to the roadway. Sighting distance at that point creates no problem for the location of a new curb cut. The question for the Planning Commission - would it be consistent for the City to approve a newly created lot to be served with a new curb cut instead of by the interior plat road? Staff would recommend approval of this proposal based on the configuration of the property that is to be platted, the fact that proposed roads within the interior plat are to be public roads, the location of the wetlands along the north and east boundary of Lot 10, and the fact that the lot lines could be geri-mandered to provide a corridor to the interior road but the realignment would have a negative impact on the building sites of Lots 5, 8, and 7, Block 1. K 1 ■Vi i>v; \p A ZoningFile October 12, Page 3 of 6 Devel between Lo Lot 11.Aj area.one designated lot lines, wetlands si towards th< fact that 1 and 3,Blc applicant h 4,Block 5, portion of Branch Roae front of th a recent dii 4 and 8 rec Plan and a : further adv Sanitary Sev All 2 newer.As of extendi] not availa for sewer a and 11,Bl< within the capacity wi City will i Trail.Pie (Exhibit H sanitary s< packets.T to the nort infiltratio Historical1 carried by run-off to 1 the proposef property to This is the an presented It road to be 11 be served 58)is to be ‘loped Lot 10 ison property Metropolitan to the north iring 2 acres lots will be oper.Storm Der.In the Lon to County hat shows a between the Binary review linal request onsideration Appropriate ^nsion.The -of-way along exclusive of :9 should be met from the as they are in previous ie-sacs.Lot :ed as a flag 9 distance at rb cut.The for the City ut instead of this proposal ted,the fact ic roads,the f Lot 10,and a corridor to Is^ct on the i <• !^V .T.‘^^ Zoning Pile #i:i48 October 12, 1988 Page 3 of 6 Developed Lot 11 has been reduced to 40,150 s.f. The lot lines between Lots 10 and 11 should be adjusted to provide one acre in area for Lot 11. Applicant must provide hardships if he seeks a variance tc lot area. Once again we must ask that the existing house on Lot 9 be designated on the preliminary plat to confirm setbacks from newly proposed the division is in a sewered area, the area designated as wetlands shown as drainage easements between Lots 6, 7 and 10 is credited towards the lot areas. During the sketch plan review, we discussed the *®ct that there is no need to address the width variances for Lots 1, 2, j ' Block 3, based on Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (A)(1). The applicant has been asked to refrain from doing any septic testing for Lot 4, Block 5, and Lot 8, Block 3, because of the need to realign the northern portion of the road as it intersects with the existing outlet entering West Branch Road. The impact of car lights as they turn into the roadway in front of the existing house must be addressed. It is my understanding from a recent discussion with the City Engineer that he will recommend that Lots an 8 receive sewer. This may require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and a realignment of the MUSA line approved by the MWCC. Cook is to further advise on this matter. Sanitary Sewer - All 25 newly developed 1 acre lots are to be served with municipal sewer. As noted above, the applicant is to install and pay for all costs of extending the municipal services to the property. Municipal water is not available to the property. Lot 1, Block 3 has already been assessed sewer and will not be included within this improvement project. Lots 9 ' Block 1 are already served with sewer and would not be included within the sewer project. The Engineer has advised that there is adequate capacity within the lines to receive the discharge from the new units. The City will ask for the improvement of an existing lift station on Wildhurst P^®ase refer to your sanitary sewer sketches included in your plan (Exhibit H). Unfortunately, staff does not have enough copies of the sanitary sewer plans nor of the storm sewer plans to include in your packets. The City will ask that the lift station on Wildhurst Trail just Forest Lake Landing, be raised at least 1' to negate the infiltration from the increased surface run-off from the new development. Historically, in heavy rains this lift station is affected by heavy run-off carried by the adjacent drainage ditch that carries the majority of the run-off to the lake in this area. The Engineer has preliminarily approved the proposed sanitary sewer plans of the applicant. It • Zoning File October 12, Page 4 of 6 Storm Sewer Please to the nort drains to ' wetlands in ditching dr along the s to the ravl discussions note that t properties, from the wes within the £ The dri Lane,note c Hennesey p constructed ownership of owner . In the to the non Currently, t into the dra The develops Wildhurst T; drain into t drain into F< be able to r P). This pro require a se The app. 100 year stc increase dra: necessary t* earthen dikej to have the owner and woi outside pro] application grading and information c no final rec( f.The lot lines e acre in area for a variance tc lot ouse on Lot 9 be from newly proposed irea designated as and 10is credited r we discussed the ces for Lots 1,2, 3n 6 (A)(1).The ic testing for Lot align the northern Itlot entering West to the roadway in understanding from ecommend that Lots the Comprehensive 1 MWCC.Cook is to ed with municipal pay for all costs unicipal water is ady been assessed nt project.Lots 9 d not be included there is adequate he new units.The ation on Wildhurst luded in your plan igh copies of the include in your Idhurst Trail jusr :1*to negate the i new development, d by heavyrun-off e majority of the minarlly approved ^1-1- i IS Zoning File #1348 October 12, 1988 Page 4 of 6 Storm Sewer - Please review Exhibit H, sections of the storm sewer plan, properties to the north of the loop of Garden Lane are served by a storm sewer that drains to the wetlands at the northeast corner of the property. The wetlands in the southwest corner will no longer drain along the informal ditching draining west to the ravine area, but will now be re-directed along the shared lot line of Lots 6 and 7 to the roadway and then carried to the ravine north to the Soskin property. In relation co some of the discussions that we had regarding Lots 1 and 2 of the Soskin subdivision, note that there is no longer a drainageway from the west through those properties. The ravine in this section will no longer receive drainage from the west. The road will carry drainage up to the major drainage ditch within the Soskin property. The drainage from the northeast (south of the north loop of Garden Lane, note division of drainage) will drain to the drainage ditch in the Hennesey property Lot 63.Note the drainage ditch that is to be constructed within Lot 63 of Tonkaview Gardens is currently not under the ownership of the subdividers and will require a separate agreement with the owner. In the sketch plan review, we discussed the need to re-direct drainage to the northeast through a designated wetlands (review Exhibit F). Currently, the ravine run-off in a heavy rain flows over Wildhurst Trail into the drainage ditch that floods the lift station referred to above. The developer will be asked to install a storm sewer along the west side of Wildhurst Trail to the intersection of the Cronstrom's driveway then to drain into the wetlands within the Cronstrom property and to eventually drain into Forest. Lake. Hopefully, the wetlands map when copied will still be able to reflect the arrows that show the proposed drainage path (Exhibit F). This property is not under the ownership of the subdivider and will require a separate agreement with the Cronstroms. The applicant must submit the necessary hydraulic information based on 100 year storm data. This becomes very important as we channelize and increase drainage through the ravine. In cases of severe storms it may be necessary to slow up the run-off with earthen dikes. Once again, if earthen dikes are required, the areas of the ravine that would be required to have the earthen dikes would not be under the control of this property owner and would once again require an agreement and understanding with the outside property owners. The applicant has been advised to file an application with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to review all grading and storm sewer improvements. Untix we have the necessary information on increased run-off at fully developed stage, staff can make no final recommendation on the storm sewer plan. Zoning Octobe] Page 5 T1 Lane tl public by the the De^ I-l, th the out impact a futu] (Exhibd properl munieij via pla and tre City En north I closer soils I locatir sites, sewer t change : has alr< within review applic review meeting it rel utiliti plat re vacate The 10* be tota Park Dedi John in park 1 lands in to the ea iiir properties rm sewer that roperty.The the informal 8 re-directed then carried o some of the subdivision, through those sive drainage Irainage ditch oop of Garden ditch in the hat is to be not under the ;ment with the Lrect drainage Exhibit P). Idhurst Trail red to above. I west side of ^eway than to o eventually 8d will still path (Exhibit der and will ition based on annalize and rms It may be ce again,if d be required this property ding with the !to file an a review all he necessary taff can mate -a -n- ‘tl m m *rI I? Zoning Pile #1348 October 12, 1988 Page 5 of 6 Access - Lane ?h«"bStta^ "To dedication of 17V along Tonkaview public road and dedicated forThe proposed interior road will be a the outlet at West Branch Po»/i rpK«gnment or the road as it connects to impact on the existing residence to th^wesT’"®The^citTTiTl a future access corridor be olatt.d u (Exhibit l-B), such roadway To be deveTot^^^^^to the east property. The road corridor can also developer of that municipal services if necessarv tr. ° extension of via platted Highview Lane will a PJ^operty. The existing corridor and tree removaiy Thirwould be tru.because of steep grades TiTTTrof?irb^i"E3l£”^ hT^“Xe^TraT^ToveTThe^TcT/ioTTfTh^^fora""fuTuTe"“rd%Se! Vacation of Unimproved Roads/Allevs - withiTThe subdivis* oT^" ApollcanT wT"vacated review, that vaya^loS* of TubHT riahts-Tf^tav*applications staff wi i i °t-way do require separate revieTTTTn„T*5 sPPlicant prior to the meetina to riU^ToVd at^T sT. "wiTth^Ta£HI%oT - tTTT?. tiLTflTy-thTt" tT- -®n pTaTTeTTneTbe totally vacated « southwest section of the plat is toy8 it appears to serve no public purpose. Park Dedication - S:;-:■ 4 % 1?. Zoning File October 12, Page 6 of 6 Staff Recoa To ta providing a 1.Re 4.Pi meetin 5.Cc instal i fc City instal 1 of S 6.Sa of For 7.Bo re-di: proper 8.If s.f.r listin 9.Co writin< 17*j*along Tonka view i^ior road will be a will be maintained int to be defined in Lease review Exhibit ad as it connects to >osed will create an will also ask that roperty to the east developer of that the extension of i existingcorridor luse of steep grades :hern corridor.The to the east further opes but is placed alternatives.The icern for staff in lites and building jestion to provide e not suggestinga Highway Department iture road entrance. ireas to be vacated r the sketch plan require separate to the meeting to for your November >f Righview Lane as »sed exrension of h the proposed new >re appropriate to hen plat new ones, n of the plat is to 3se. >is not interested es in lieu of park ch woodland trails 1 i ^ % m j Zoning File #1348 October 12, 1988 Page 6 of 6 Staff Recosnsendation - To table the Yorkton Hills Estate preliminary plat application providing applicant adequate time to provide the following Information: 1.Revised preliminary plat showing the following: A)Existing structures on Lot 9? B)Confirm area (Lots 9, 10, and 11) affected by road dedication of 17%'; C)Re-aligned road at north end of plat per approved plans presented by City staff; D)Include park land within adjacent residential lots; E)Show future access corridor to east within existing X^ot 8, Block 3; F)Provide run-off calculations based on 100 year storm factor at total developed state; 2.Provide City will information submitted for MCWD permit review, 3.File MOH) for grading/storm sewer improvements. 4, File vacation application for November 21st Planning Commission meeting. 5. Contact owner of Lot 63, Tonkaview Gardens, for approval to install drainage pipes/ditch - submit written confirmation. The City i« umpire of Mr, Lee's business arrangements with Mr. Soskin, but the City should be in receipt of Soskin's written approval for installation of drainage pipes/ditch to be located within proposed Lot 1 of Soskin's 7 lot plat. 6.Sanitary sewer plans to include improvement of lift station north of Forest Lake Landing intersection at wildhurst Trail. 7.Both City and developer to contact A. Cronstrom for permission to re-direct run-off from a ravine to retention wetlands on his property that eventually drains to Forest Lake. 8.If applicant wishes to proceed with Lot 11, Block 3, at 40,150 s.f. requiring an area variance, then applicant should provide a listing of the hardships for ee^king this variance. 9.Conditions set fovcr. in Engineer's report not received as of this writing. ■ i.j-’ --•.LiSimrt •. .:c ■Fl CITY OF PROPERT Site Ad( Property Please < Attach ' Nan BXISTIHG Pre Pre PROPOSAL ». y plat application ring information: r id by road dedication per approved plans itial lots; thin existing Lot 8» 00 year storm factor CHD permit review. I. flanning Commission IS,for approval to ifimation.The City I Mr.Soskin,but the tten approval for d vithin proposed X<ot >f lift station north frail. roB for permission to >n met lands on his »Block 3,at 40,150 It should provide a s. racaivi^as of this mm I -• '•*1 -i a,^".Ji S.wm:m m1.:'■V.-:IMB .■m‘t O A CITY OF ORONO - SOBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address________&afdb.fl (^diiu \ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^£0 ZhTAC/-^/) 1 Z^/#/C/C A'f/) Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application. rrry rr Lf^ i i w/ riZriZkin u*l\ V/MU r>f,^ t\ti w t aMr?Mi.L. I nrrrrc Lfl 1 A WJ» a w*u/v.'i.vv wv r>i rzrj \.'JL vn.fT c*:a a;-uuv • w rucrk n IV. •jirA ,V Ltij\y m STu* zrrrn:,T^'yL vmif uu a4^i.y^^r^ r/‘Af tj»Af 7?')*/ A V • AiU/OT. APPLICANT Name Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City;Zip: ONMBR (if different than applicant) Name /?. I A/LH /4^^_ _ _ _ _ Phone (home) Phone (work) ^0^ Address: [LHIX City; <T7~: A^/ 0i/J zXx>i (attach list if more than one) ^ EXISTING LAND USB Number of Tax Parcels Development Size n ic± L_i Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres'Total, all parcels Present Use (check) kl. Residential; no. of units Z- Other (specify) f/rJnpso 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:2 M Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) 10 Units P«r Acres j ^LlC Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) m j ,A 4. 5. Cer com] Zon; Cerl Zoni FBB2 Appl OWne Appl Plan thiz revi unab auth Offi JLf*•a/jf)KaJV!j T^f(.ABA10/L ^n,:>/jU dl.££K£>>i^■ ' ji*.. ^ ^/3‘/V (Kf L.' 4 ! I i. /r.VfiAicr^rr-rre L'f 1 1 irL. {,^V;..j,V A VVV 01 ®#v U*U‘V • V cm z W»V\.^ m w 's:.-:pT-).h vnn• vu iiioTio ecu rjAi i A V • ■■•V .' «.».’ _Jip: arc«ls f tmits ttilding sites) nits iC/JKctmm f Suildsbie Land ‘'fi %] >! •‘f-I'j i I 3t-.. i • 'i;'. ‘t •f:.. MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1.Completed Application Form 2.Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. 3.Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 4. 5. 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 & III) Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-resldential) $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 Date Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the Cil 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 ag-int attend in your place and to advi# > the Building 6 Zoning Office oi this change ''vior to the meeting. m ■ * -v>] I t ;1MINARY APPLICATION .cate of Survey. rs within 350’(you must obtain mt of Finance A-603 Govt Center I pre^addressed to each of the :n address (use address labels ease attach a separate list of this application. eliminary Plat Application is _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date ft mm mm mm mmmm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mmn sewer and water assessments). ;opies of formal plat. It. 1 Plat Application is complete. Date ) ivision■ $150.00 250.00 non^residential)300.00 't' 20.00/Lot 150.00* es) all information required or lity Engineer,City Attorney, process this application and itablished by ordinance. Date Date Cit offices 25 days before the Lssion Meetings are held on the St be present at all scheduled fid Council.It an applicant is le make arrangeaients to have an o advise the Building ft Zoning m ■\ mt X CM So O Ui CM ceo tn CM !:Sz2f^ o CO lu 1 1?X :S •13 < o s* S iif «s ^s :hm ce COolu ftu p ck X oc or X tf) CM K Ui UI io If)ims T 2 ^ _ o ^O O O ^ 10 sa0 01100BRIANBRIAN1100 1 HOUNDsseiSi k « ^ Nt n '^•V'.-'TM.-:^ fefc^ o ^ ^2 “pg S CM CM < -J mi Xsoon «®555 K ^ «* ** "• 7 -i -I ») 2 O S £ pH !^88^o tt ft e III S CM sn <vi H ft ■1 f? ly ^|u X M 3 ft K s io Ift o «0 lAsirii s •a §3. 2 CK«ii 2 o ucucSS Si $Mp < e o ^>l:Ml !•! >“ V III r» ■;1 fteSiKj iffia W y IN. tarr:pi*rir s«2M flL •mss I lAi ft rly in >-m 2*“cn S'J i mMft ft ly I Si: ES 2:^ X M CL Ily X s iy ►- mo -5si O ty o ftf M if S?| liJ < J: Mcn fM M ft m toi «0 •W ft ( O O lu ft ^ 9 O ly ly 2 ^D -<>oT7 X M ft i5-i^ 5 ly« -obSSS' ssboSs: I K -9*S==•a*5fsl S S iw o :5 S « S(>| :y- «» - * • ' ‘*N s^i ^ fcj CVI C0 lo X •■ CM 2 Ul >o ifff Li Ul Ui >- K CO Moe UJ> o M CO 10 lO S'* in^ o o ^ o UJ o .u5 H a C^ M ^ 3 K ^ CO CO 111 0! < ' : v■■.. !•: {fU'M *I4 Min CO n CO o !-» CM CO CO CO m lU «• 2!2«^§8 m > < Ul Ui H COo; min I Ko S o ly o Z> o rM CO5-"Ul3 ^3 1- ^ CO CO aI o ^ ^Ul > €>i $n to _ 40 K) Ul «• M Q;• o oZ K o I K s O A M CO Ul CK Ui Ui -i > o g§- Ss “ m in O Ul o K M 3s K 40 i 90 SP ♦CO CM “ 90 CM •_g •• «• T !« iM ^I H K M K < Z Xo-ja2* •«• n -> lo ^ o K K M io CO m sJ ^I"" I:se ! 32Ui ^CM ^ ^ J ’k'’S>-"O •• o 40 n-^ > Ul S-^85oeS^*^ 0^ MOsrs"2? ;cSsi gj« CM CO s*s 8.51“’ Ui 10 5 ■i.-': I K P -M Ui »s»sgi I ^ mII Ul >- CK ^|M a ^ X 1:1 >- \ mmi ■*-i.:r.:■•:•■•.- te;./ .'S f .m Mo is 90 in a • Uiss UJoc s C; S3 X COM X >- H Oe:ao £ X a, s iUC IM •< P ino i I g »s^112jc§i is::-,T 2 z cI mm2 N. mm: e ^ an 0> M M M » ^M a a ►ssss; O Ui X Ul X CM Kl u,*' >o n a >»* < =*•3 I in PO K •O'O Ul X Ui I- X «o- U eg M PO S3 Ui UJ >n M CM I i! §2l s M li > HI fifle a HI M O CM «J <M4 2s::3}i 1:1 ^ \ lis^ - ■■"■ ■ ■ IIIin E m s» m ni is* i 9» m M I 55s*o •< £ 2 ** M, o K s *31 ^ ^ in «jt III -2*ss Ami llam V { lU ^ •-« 2 IM lu P A 55|E o ^ cr> cn p M M ^ ssSSi r / Z' CM O O Ul CKOg^^o ««ssss SiESSSli! s ^ Ui III N w o n -> 4* ID O M M «-4 in O Q: SC Kl |f:l illl \ ‘ iMt O lu M *c O O IK •» Ih ^ 10 K O < 10 «• O 2 <5 COS{ ^ tt O K> m 10 lu Vg3S32 ui 10 10 < ►— ‘SSSoS H§iss / >• /I i-:.;<ir' O 0 SM tn 40 CM 40 i CM m 10 CO Kl Ui CM q: ^9T ^ ^ o* W CO e CD M M «g55a CD O LU lUm o o o ^ S3 d;o S3o CM Ul #0 M, 5 S> cr ^ 3 Pi m iniiilCM ie*=3 o io M 9 o«555 s|Slgs;lS 99 I3SSO J DC QC °a<<3 (Nt Ui ^ M M Ti a ^ ^ ^ Ui K*s S •• *• t* a 1:2332 T 3Sb5J; ^ o o H 0000&o o ^ 5 o o 102 2 ^ ^ m o ^ 199 M H H tfl CO CO ^ ^ 9> o Oo ^ ft a o CM ^"R-'-’a* K> Ul «9 «9 M 10 ::9332 Ul Ul X I ^ O N 10oo g K 3 UiJ I g g CMm ft ^ fi X ui S X ^ 5- >• >* R 10 » 1 ; Ul K M H •< K I i ; I •♦■A ZONING PILE NO. 1236 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 12/29/87 “• *" Me M»4M mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm ^ mm mm ^ Me mm^ . COPIES TO* Jim Kriutkremer _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 55104 Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 “’PMCATIOH: XX Sketch Plan Review'-’subdlvislon date of MBEnNG: 12/21/87 V^: For Agllnst Planning Commission reconuends the following: No action required by the Planning Commission. notes and special CONDITIONS: of a formf?“pp^?la?ron?®"®’'®^ guidelines to applicant to facilitate filing Development does not own all properties included within division - current owners must sign the application. If Morgart subdivision must also include a rezoning^and filing of the application on 5 ^ the regular meeting of the Planning Commission heldon the third Monday of each month. proposes the vacation of public alleys or roads, this ^ the application must be filed 30 days before the regular month '^*'® Planning Commission held on the third Monday of each on Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (A) 1, already platted Lots L.t'^sof*' s variances to current LR-IB standards andmeet 80% of the required lot width. or thlt .®^^her already defined as public roads ?or"publina?nten«"l. ml^A *^7^® designated wetland, located within boundaries of Lots 6 within the newly defined Valek homestead lot, must be designated as drainage easements. Storm sewer must also be shown as drainage easements within a minimum width of 15*. contours of all property Included within widSf.^ application. New road right-of-way to be shown at 50^ Engineer and Orono staff recommend that wo arrange to earliest convenience to discuss and resolve prior to formal plat application the following issues: 'resolve .M •4^ Zoning 1 Notice c Decembei Page 2 c 8. list SUBDIVISI Prelimi (Clas Pinal P Piling ] PUBLIC PR( 1236 Oil ACTIOH otices 12/29/87 er Creek Drive / MN 55445 cilitate filing included within n. If Morgart i a rezoning and the application Commission held ( or roads, this re the regular Monday of each iy platted Lota I standards and &s public roads iblic roads and iries of Lots 6 lot, must be so be shown as Included within e shoffn at 50* ve arrange to s and resolve Zoning File No. 1236 Notice of Planning Commission Action December 29, 1987 Page 2 of 3 A Future Connection From Garden Lane to Wildhurst Trail. Highview Lane would be vacated and a realignment of the lots required per Engineer's sketch. Applicant would now include public road within the formal application. If the 10 alley along the Palmer and Valek property is planned, include all vacations under one application. If Morgart property is included, a through road can be realigned and, if not, an extension road can be platted to west boundary of Morgart property and a through road constructed with final develoument of Morgart property. B. Access Corridor to County Road 19 (originally planned via Highview Lane Extension). Once again the topography and existing improvements may suggest a more southern location for future through corridor. Staff will work with you to define best location for through road in relation to planned road realignment to north* C. Sanitary Sewer - Need for Upgrading and Cost to Applicant. Sanitary sewer capacity to be determined within one month by the engineering staff. it would appear that there is adequate capacity in three of the four lift stations. Formal application must include a petition for extension of sanitary sewer to serve lots within plat. A trunk sewer charge will be determined for the property. D. Storm Sewer. Staff to work with applicant to define best location for discharge of dra-’nage to Forest Lake. It is staff's intent to reroute drainage away from current drainageway to southeast and redirect to northeast if easements are available. If this cannot be realized, the current drainageway will have to be upgraded to handle additional flow. 1 pertinent fees from the Orono Fee Schedule are listed below. Please contact staff if you have any questions. SUBDIVISION Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential)$300.00 +$20/lot 11.10,Subd 10( ($360/3 lots; $380/4 lots) Final Plat Review (Class III)$150.00 ^Special Legal/Engineerin Charges 11.10, Subd 17(A)( Piling Pees: a) Plat only $ 75.00 b) Plat + Easements fi Covenants $150!00 11.10, Subd 17(A)( PUBLIC PROPERTY VACATTOW $ 50.00 per Section 10.11 benefitting property ($250.00 minimum per application) m •nr ; ■.-■i V l.\ . < . .S % W :---- ^ 1 ^ « 1 Zoning Fil Notice of December 2 Page 3 of easement V APPLICAT ZONING ame: request to SPECIAL IM] Non-refunc design dra’ are propos Preliminary Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed (exclud PARK DEDICA Dwelling Un (The greate density or density) acres/d.u. 1.00 to 1.9 Key A Sing] buil if V the ( B Sing for < C Dupl subdi'^ is dei art exi Shall permit D Multil subdiv multif E Existi reside Please all interest) ^urst Trail, of the lots now include ion. If the ined, include property is if not, an of Korgart velopment of planned via and existing i for future define best realignment ) Applicant, rionth by the is adequate application i»er to serve ermined for define best t is staff's Inageway to I available. Ill have to :hedule are ons. 11.10,Subdl 10( 5380/4 lots) l«ga1/Engineerin .10, Subd 17(A)< .10, Subd 17(A)( tction 10.11 operty per V:.; .L r^. • a. •! .♦ V. 5 i wm Zoning Pile No. 1236 Notice of Planning Commission Action December 29, 1987 Page 3 of 3 easement VACATIONS WITH SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS ZONING AMENDMENTS INCLUDING REZONING $ 50.00 $250.00 Section 10.11 Section 10.11 REQUEST TO AMEND .COMPREHENSIVE PLAN $250.00 Section 10.11 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENTS n lo e , Non-refundable charges for City Engineer's review of applications'and design drawing, including construction inspection fees. If improvements ProDoa^rt 5600.00 plus 500/llneal foot Pronoa!^ „ . $900.00 plus 500/Uneal foot llUTslt S?S™“LeTlystr mill (excluding culverts) Section 11.62, Subd 1PARK DEDICATION FEES — Based on 1 acre density Dwelling Unit Density (The greater of proposed A b c d e permitted Single Single Duplex Mult. Existing gensity),. —_ __ Existing New , Per Bldg Per Onit Res. acres/d.u. 1.00 to 1.99 d.u./acre 1.00 to .51 350 400 1000 600 A Single Family Residence, Existing Vacant Lot; Fee to be paid with building permit for new residence on previously platted property or; if vacant land is subdivided, fee to be paid with subdivision for the one "existing" residential lot. ® lor^ea*ch""nti« rlsfd^entll'/rot.''°''' subdivision liiiliiiaMMli ^ rMi^VntLl“unit^.‘^“^required for existing principal all i«e"st.T^*rtle?.*'’"* “ranged with ■ :- yi Octobc City c Box 6t Crysta Attn: Re: FI Dear J Ve hav aevera I. ST 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. II. SI 1. 2. 3. 4. 233S m ‘«‘r' Section 10.11 Section 10.11 Section 10.11 ction 11.12, Subd 4 applications and If improvements are payable with as 500/llneal foot as 500/lineal foot as $5.00 per stub tion 11.62, Subd 1 D Cult. ?er Unit 600 Existing Res. a to be paid with itted property or; i subdivision for with subdivision g permit or with : building (duplex 1 units). Should » duplex, the fee th the building ng permit or with ential unit in a sting principal be arranged with '■ .. V:-.I *r r.n 4 ii ;4s h 'I u\-^yy f "4 m 19^ M Bones troo Rosene Anderlik & Associates 060 G. Bones&oa P.E. Aodfft W. Rosene. P.6. Joseph C Anderflk. PE. Bradford A. LemOerg. PE. Richard E. lUmer. PE. Jarrtes C Olsof>. PE. Glenn R. CooR. PE. Thomas E. Noyes, PE. ioOert G. Schunlcht PE. Mtfvin L SonML PE iCddi A. Gordon. PE. Richard \i' fom. PE Donald C. Burgardt. PE Jerry A. Bourdon. PE. Marie A. htonson. P E M K Field. PE Michael T. Rauemann. PE. Robert R. Pfefferle. PE. David Q Lodcoca. PE. Thomas w. Apterwi, PE Mfchaet C Lynch, PE. J*mes R. Maland, PE. Rennem P Andemon. PE. Keith A. Bachmana PE Mane R. Rolfs. PE Robert C. Russefc. A.I.A. Thomas E HowardA. Engineers A Architects October 11, 1988 OanM J. Edgtnon. Rf Mark A. Sc<A nwip i Casvi««. PE. Mark O VMNBs, PE Oiartei A. EDckton LaoM. PavMliky Harlan M. Olson iLCA ocr/ases City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Re: File No. 139 - 13A8 Yorkton Hills Estates Dear Jeanne, We have reviev“H the plans submitted for Yorkton Hills Estates. There are several modifications to the layout ve would recommend. I. STREETS 1. The street alignment near County Road 151 should be changed to elimi­ nate the tee intersection. Some additional right-of-way may be re­ quired. 2. The curves shown on the plat should be modified slightly to provide for a minimum 20 MPH speed limit. The City standard is 30 MPH. 3. The upgrading of Tonka View Lane out to County Road 19 and westerly to the plat edge should be required. 4. Right-of-way should be provided to allow connection of the Morgarts Addition in the future. 5. Preliminary street grades should be provided on the final preliminary plat. II. STORM SEVER 1. Easements will be required for the drainagevay between Garden Lane and Wildhurst Trail. Easements will also be required for the ponding area east of Wildhurst Trail south cf Highview Lane. 2. Storm sever calculations will be required* 3. Minnehaha Creek Watershed approval will be required. 4. The construction of a holding pond in the drainageway between Wildhurst Trail and Garden Lane is recommended. Page 1. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MIrmesota 55113 • 612*636-4600 r\ E KtmM W. Om«< i idgwion. M. L (jfnch. mr. Mtik A. S«a KC. mmm ft. map ji CMwM. n. > AnamSK MM Q \Mrilh. P.E n ChartM A iriclaon DM- ^E. iMO M. AnwtMky ftm*. A.IA MMn M. Ohan ^ I 3SBB ates. There are changed to ellai- -vaj aay be re­ light I7 to provide B 30 MPH. and eesterly to on of the HorgirtB final rr*iiAina^7 en Carden Lane and the ponding area Biaagevay betveesi f -ms -h -r City of Orono r . Orono. MN Re: File No. 139 October 11. 1988 III. SANITARY SEVER 1. Additional manholes should be provided to more closely follow the street alignment. 2. The sanitary sever grades should be modified to provide adequate depth. 3. Manhole 4 should not be located in the back yards. 4. The lots on the north end of the plat should be provided with sanitary sewer. 5. Provisions should be made to eliminate the lift station at such time as the Morgarts Addition is subdivided. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIR & ASSOCIATES. INC. Glenn R. Cook GRCIli Page 2. 24 mm ■ I ^ t£ U. 198S follov the Liate depth ith senlter^r •uch tiae • ^'1 , \ - V' ■ ■ i : :| J p:Sx '■(■••v-r-,i ril Mm’ h mmp5.;<S8&vssi **^Wi •*> •« >16 * t «• ■ « ^ \ ' ' OWNER Yorkton 1M0 ill SI. Pan '■■ .Jii.1 »n.v;,T'<S nnyirr -//-x **' i '.\'"'i.'" K^y/ :\ A’< \ • » » S.'xV'i N^:!-^ *•’ <'t,' .'•>o '. ■- ' • •/ m.i.\/u fUjumiS- »!■ *' '■ \V,i'p ■% at) .•)•/.' -5\/A vVi. .It. — , j/f//'/ //.t '" r'u'''"'y/>‘ ---:. ■ ' / ' Jr'-^' .. ;•— ^.■j ' (;' . . ; / • ' 'n'v*. \—'•ii' ' ^t ,\.--^^Vv '-------'■ : * / t / '> V'i .’//-'/.I / ’ - ' ' //Si/' i ^ *'!•'••:''t! *•''''------• • J j JL l^___/////; h " > t. ^ ■ . -ilk* to: ;//;>;: i' To: Subject: #13 Con 9:00 P.M. Rev List of Bxhib: Exhibit I Exhibit 1 Exhibit C Exhibit I Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit 1 Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M Exhibit N Review of Appl Staff sp Crystal Bay R< would be to f approved of t response regai the closing oJ have to respe formal review damaged roadw Mr. Schup was response of regarding said plan for how (review Exhibi ^ \ \ ' ,4 -• V”^ * I J '-T skC')!^^' •/ .,A - • • • y' yy/' / /// _ _ N M»ry' >/ ' * - \ % • •" , • 4 I I • •*/"'** j . i ^*»{ #» *»^V« # / /j r •» List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator October 10, 1988 Subject: #1302 City of Orono, Crystal Bay Road - Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Second Review 9:00 P.M. Review - Glenn Cook and John Gerhardson will be present. Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M Exhibit N - - Property Owners List - Letter to Residents Staff Letter to City Attorney 7/22/88 “ Legal Response/Opinion 7/28/88 " Design Specifications (From PlanningCommission Packets of 7/18/88 Meeting) -nning Planning Commission Minutes of 7/18/88 Gerhardson's Letter to Minretonka Beach 7/28/88 - Bernhardson•s Memo to Council 10/5/88 ' Criteria for Closing Public Road Council Packet on crystal Bay Road Repair/Closing - Council Meeting of 5/22/88 ^ " Council Minutes of 9/28/88 “ Bernhardson's Memo to Council 9/20/88 3285^^°^^ Closing Roat at West End - 3205 Through Map of Crystal Bay Road Neighborhood Review of Application Since Planning Commission’s Review on July 18, 1988 - response of 100% of eh» ,/f \ P*^esented to the City with aluui Of the sffected land owners stating thei'- onininn plan for hoi'^t-h.®'* closing. In addition, the residents should provide a freview Exhibit H)/°® P'-°P°*>ed to be closed off as a through road tm. Zonin Octob Page that recei Beach not a The C their sent . regar have Gerha; the C the O closi one c neigh) the mi not c wou Id achie inters 1 direc re vie propel Commi wheth€ and t secti concei the 81 have 1 cuts guard publ i banks removf ent. From Planning 98 3)lic Road sing - 3205 Through y 18, 1988 - idighbors of an of action etonka Beach d a written : approve of Orono would led with the spair of the oaing, then City with a lir opinion d provide a hrough road • ■‘’u.r m■.-fki ^ y. •■«: Zoning File #1302 October 12, 1988 Page 2 of 4 Review Exhibit G, Gerhardson's letter to Minnetonka Beach requesting that the Council respond to the recent request to close Crystal Bay Road received by the City of Orono. The subject was reviewed at the Minnetonka Beach Council meeting in September, and they stated that the Council did not approve of the proposed closing of Crystal Bay Road as a through road. The City has yet to receive a written response. Gerhardson confirms that their motion was unanimous. On October 5, 1988, the City Administrator sent a letter to the City of Minnetonka Beach requesting a written response regarding their action at their September meeting. As of this writing we have no formal response. In consideration of the original directives to Mr. Schup, Mr. Gerhardson presented another update memo on the closing of the road before the Council at the September 28th meeting. The residents appeared before the Council with a petition of certain property owners approving the road closing. This petition is not available for enclosure in your packets as one of the residents asked for it back in order to complete the neighborhood survey. Per Exhibit M, they recommended a physical barrier at the municipal boundary intersection at the west end of the road, but it is not clear as to what type of barrier is being recommended. The roadway would remain in place providing access to the remaining property owners achieving access via the original west entrance at the Shadywood Road intersection (County Road 19). Please review the Council minutes of September 28, 1988. Council has directed that the application for the repair of the road be immediately reviewed by the Planning Commission and requested that staff advise all property owners served by Crystal Bay Road of the October 17, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. Council advised that the road was to be repaired whether there would be a road closing or not approved for Crystal Bay Road and that it appeared that the road repair would have no bearing since sections of the road would be retained for use. Once again, the major concern of the residents was the proposed use of the guardrails because of the steep bank along the sides of the road, the adjacent lakeshore yards have not been restored and the areas remain unattended with sheer steep cuts into the bank and roadbed. remain in a disturbed state. The guardrails are necessary to meet the safety standards for the users of a public roadway. Guardrails are only a temporary condition as once the banks of the lakeshore properties are restored, the guardrails can be removed. A Meu ft. Zoning File October 12, Page 3 of 4 The P] considerat; make a reco residents \ 1987, will use applies single app individual cautioned t the propose the desire November i present to members may did re vie’ specificat: not a final Gerhardson discussions raised at t^ 1. Du< 2. Dri 3. Su{ 4. Hoi 5. Tn 6. Vi; retain aesthet Cook hi agreed with restore laJ restoration John G€ neighbors' j additional < the proposed Bay Road - seasonal cat Review road. This H ka Be^ch requesting te Crystal Bay Road d at the Minnetonka lat the Council did 3 as a through road, rdson confirms that City Administrator f a written response of this writing we :o Mr. Schup, Mr. of the road before nts appeared before approving the road in your packets as to complete the physical barrier at the road, but it is inded. The roadway ng property owners the Shadywood Road 1988. Council has oad be immediately t staff advise all r 17, 1988 Planning uras to be repaired or Crystal Bay Road s no bearing since e again, the major ardrails because of nt lakeshore yards [3 with sheer- steep urbed state. The for the users of a dition as once the guardrails can be |> mm #■ i'^ ! i Zoning File #1302 October 12, 1988 Page 3 of 4 The Planning Commission’s responsibility for this review shall be consideration of a conditional use permit for the repair of the road and to make a recommendation regarding the repair of that road. In addition, the residents who sustained bank erosion during the storm of the summer of 1987, will be present and may ask questions regarding the filing of land use applications for the repair of their yards. It is staff’s hope that a single application can be filed by a group of residents rather than individual applications having to be reviewed by the City. Staff has been cautioned that the City’s application for road repair cannot be delayed by the proposed filing of the land use applications by the residents. It is the desire of the City to begin the road repairs possibly sometime in November if the weather permits. As noted above, Glenn Cook will be present to respond to any questions the residents or Planning Commission members may have regarding the design specifications for the road. Staff did review the comments of the residents regarding the design specifications for the proposed road repair. Cock advised that this was not a final working plan, but merely a preliminary sketch provided Mr. Gerhardson for approximate costs of road repair and for preliminary discussions with the Council. Staff has advised Cook of specific questions raised at the July meeting of the Planning Commission, as follows: 1. Duckbills - galvanized wire vs stainless. 2. Drainage provisions for wall. 3. Support beams - how far do they extend into the ground? 4. More duckbills - 4 proposed as opposed to 2. 5. Treated 4'xl2’, rather than 2'xl2’, 6. Visual appearance - owners have option of filling lakeward of retaining wall or leaving bottom 5’ of wall exposed to make more aesthetically pleasing. Cook had no real concern for the issues raised by the applicants and agreed with most of them. Cook will be prepared to discuss methods to restore lakeshore banks by individual residents and how the proposed restoration of the roadbed will affect those restorations. John Gerhardson will respond to any of the questions pertaining to the neighbors' plan for the closing of Crystal Bay Road and to receive any additional comments from the neighbors in attendance who have opinions on the proposed road closing. There are 29 property owners served by Crystal Bay Road - of those, 28 have year-round homes on them, and 1 has a seasonal cabin. All fee owners have been notified. Review Exhibits C & D that confirms the legal basis to repair the road. This information was missing from the original review packets. iL.'_________t,,: this review shall be pair of the road and to road.In addition,the itorm of the summer of ing the filing of land is staff's hope that a residents rather than a City.Staff has been ,r cannot be delayed by ’the residents.It is possibly sometime in i,Glenn Cook will be >r Planning Commission s for the road.Staff egarding the design advised that this was :y sketch provided Mr. and for preliminary k:of specific questions as follows? the ground? f filling lakeward of exposed to make more by the applicants and to discuss methods to and how the proposed tions. tions pertaining to the ad and to receive any e who have opinions on ners served by Crystal on them,and 1 has a 1 basis to repair the i review packets. r **1 V.; 'V':■ 'eP/''■ .'P; Zoning Pile #1302 October 12, 1988 Page 4 of 4 Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and viriar application of the City of Orono that would allow approximately 200*f line feet of the roadbed of Crystal Bay Road to be restored to a safe ccnditi for use by the public, subject to the following conditions; 1.The City shall provide appropriate erosion control throucf^iolit t entire project. 2.All work shall be performed within the public road ea&iment Crystal Bay Road. 3.If the City finds it necessary to close off this sectio ^ of ro during repair, the City must provide adequate warning and aLterna access when necessary, 4.The guardrails installed as a part of the restorati*\ of t roadbed shall be removed as soon as the adjacent lakeshore anks a restored. lii property Owners List for Crystal Bay Road 17-117-23 43 0123 City of Orono 1335 Brown Road South Crystal Bay, MN 55323 17-117-23 43 0122 George C. Swanbeck 11021 Abbott Lane Minnetonka, MN 55343 17-117-23 43. 0121 Gloria McDonald 3445 Crystal Bay Road Route 1 Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 43-0120 Robert W. Mielenz 3435 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 43 0119 City of Orono 1335 Brown Road South Crystal Bay, MN 55323 17-117-23 43 0118 Robert Zimmerman 3415 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 43 0117 City of Orono 1335 Brown Road South Wayzata, MN 55 391 17-117-23 43 0116 Robert & Eunice Nichols 3407 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 43 0115 City of Orono 1335 Brown Road South Crystal Bay, MN 55323 17-117-23 44 0022 Joe Darling 3405-. Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 44 0021 Sandra K. George 3399 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 44 0020 Jeffrey M. Hair*ner 3393 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 44 0019 Stephen & Regina Davis 3385 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 44 0018 Jay B. Reiser 3375 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, fiN 55391 17-117-23 44 0017 Jon W. Papas 3369 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 44 0016 J. R. Lo Frano 3365 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 41 0025 Greaory W. Long 3359 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 552'. \ 17-117-23 41 0024 John Kust 3355 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 41 0023 Warren L. Paschhe 3349 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, Id 55391 17-117-23 41 0022 Aline L. Ogland 3345 Crystal Bc.y Road Wayzata, MN 53391 17-117-23 41 0021 Patrick D. O'Flanagan 3339 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 41 0020 Georae A. Moss 3335 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 41 0019 Dixie Lee Weeks 3329 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, 55391 17-117-23 41 0018 Richard J. Siakel " 3325 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 41 0017 Susan & Ronald Burger \ 3315 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 41 0016 Robert Hegerman 3309 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 41 0015 Thomas E, McCue 3285 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 41 0014 Leroy J. Erger 3265 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 ^ 17-117-23 41 0013 ^ Mark C. Zagaria 1526 21st Ave. N.E. Rochester, MN 55904 17-117-23 41 0012 C. William Wolfe 3255 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 41 0011 Richard Andersen 3205 Crystal Bay Road Box 135 Minnetonka Beach, ifJ 5536 17-117-23 41 0010 Timothy & Jeanette Schijqpp 3215 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 17-117-23 41 0009 DuWayne Schibilla 3235 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 m IS Im ; .IT •;-\= m IIm m To All Th the Ci (#1302 repair the ra gradin shorel respon< and sp discus£ As signin as a tl Orono, to ter regardl as sucl Council and vai is a re their t restora At discuss the iss Cov nci1 devel Of one v#a^ directi^ 1. 2. 3. ■cilcmm; a /r^HPiC - 17-23 41 0017 n & Ronald Burger v Crystal Bay Road ata, MN 55391 17-23 41 0016 rt Hegerman Crystal Bay Road ata, MN 55391 17-23 41 0015 as E. McCue Crystal Bay Road ata, MN 55391 17-23 41 0014 y J. Erger Crystal Bay Road ata, MN 55391 v 17-23 41 0013 ^ C.agaria 21st Ave. N.E. ester, MN 55904 .7-23 41 0012 Llliam Wolfe Crystal Bay Road ita, MN 55391 .17-23 41 0011 lard Andersen ► Crystal Bay Road 135 letonka Beach, MN 5536 117-23 41 0010 >thy k Jeanette Schi^ i Crystal Bay Road sata, MN 55391 23 41 0009 Schibilla yatal Bay Road , MN 55391 mk iM V- W.r iSPpmmurn■¥^• ''1 m "".I*'...7r.: -t.. v-i: . ■ ; cirvf OF ORONOiJ CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66 •Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka October 1, 1988 To All Crystal Bay Road Residents: ♦.u Planning Commission will continue their review of ® permit/variance application r« /k Public Works Department to undertake repairs to the roadbed of Crystal Bay Road which was damaged in the rain storm of July 1987. The application involves filling, grading and the placement of hardcover within 75 feet of the shoreline of the lake. The City Engineer, Glenn Cook, will respond to any questions you may have concerning design standards 3iscuV’s®‘thl''islue."^' also be present to s i g n i n/o f t’'"tTon" t^e t°wo^l d% sk cYty as a through road connecting Minnetonka Beach with the City of Orono. As they have not indicated specifically where they desire r^aa^rrii V toad, the proposed repair may be needed regardless of whether it remains a through road or is terminated as such. The Planning Commission's responsibility is to give Council a recommendation on the proposed conditional use permit and variance application for repairs to the road. Road vacation Council. Persons desiring to restore ~ appl icationF~f ^sUFh At the Council meeting of September 28, 1988, following discussion of the issue by interested residents on both sides of develop a criteria in order to make a decision by year’s end - one way or the other. In order to fulfill the Council's directive, sta*.f would suggest the following outline: 1. Determination of property owners' opinions 2.Submission by residents and review by the City of the residents' plan for providing access upon closing the road of 3. Review of land use application procedures for individuals who plan to restore lakeshore yards It'lLDiNG a ZONING - 473-7 JJ? ASSESSING administration a finance - 473 73S8 Pt’BLIC WORKS - 473.7359 mm mm mm mmw% mm Mi f*- : ym V . All Cr Octobe Page 2 St 17, 1 neighb any qu Mark I Jeanne Si J e < Bu: JA! 'M r*siiSW- *•iia*-■I All Crystal Bay Road Residents October 7, 1988 Page 2 Staff has scheduled this item for 9:00 P.M. on the October 17, 1988 Planning Commission agenda. Please contact your neighbor to assure their attendance at the meeting. If you have any questions concerning the matters noted above, please contact Mark Bernhardson at 473-7358, John Gerhardson at 473-7359 or Jeanne Mabusth at 473-7357. Sincerely ne A. Mabu Gi ^ I i (LiuyUlzJi Jeann'6 A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator JAM/dh Tom Barrett Popham, Haik & 3300 Piper Jaff 222 Ninth Stree Minneapolis, MN Right of Perscripti Dear Tom: In the pr application to raised by both specifically I questions are a; 1. The C years. Th has been v a) D< portic b) Do washec retain c) Do sides a haza d) Do< total repres sectio: again, that t review I have end road under discu convenience. PI. concerning the m. ■t IlDING A ZfWlNC - 47M J5 ASSf^SSlNG October ict your you have * contact -7359 or a. 1 '<».i ■ ♦ I : -I ■jV.\ „v . :^ m: ;'o ?,vi-. •■f ■ri:. . '*. ‘: .* ■ UhK. a. *> * .* •’•V . : •' CITY of ORONO ' .. < «. • ^iw* *W - *• , m . . •* •*S *;Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay. Minnesota 553i'l*Municipal Offices ‘.i V * •' ;.AC^ : • w.• > / r • •. *♦• ) .•; - • ♦ « •• ••• •*>. .•’. On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 22, 1988 Tom Barrett Poph2Tn, Haik & Associates 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 Ninth Street South Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re:Right of City to Repair Crystal Bay Road (Public Road Defined Through Perscriptive Easement) ^ Dear Tom: 1. The City has publicly maintained Crystal Bay Road for over 30 pars. The road is not a dedicated roadway. Public right of access has been via prescriptive easement: a) Does the City have the right to repair the roadway? What portions are within the legal right of the City to repair? b) Does the City have the right to fill portions of the roadway washed away via the storm of July 23, 1987? Can it construct a retaining wall to hold and support the road bed. c) Does the City have a right to install a guardrail along the sides of the roadway that drop immediately to the lake presenting a hazard to the public who use the road? d) Does the fact of the partial repair of the road mean that the total road design is subject to State safety standards? Attorney representing one of the property owners claims that a curve section of the road does not meet current State standards. Once again, does the partial repair of a section of the road mean that the whole road is subject to current safety standards and review? ^ ^ A ^ ®nclosed a copy of a plat map that locates the section of the road under discussion. I would appreciate your response at your earliest concerning^the^matter^°”^^^^ office if you have any additional questions P pmiy f ■ « • . 'cid L: .1 •F Sincerely, SUILOING A ZONING - 47J-7357 ASSESSING Jeanne A. Mabusth, r. nr. / J7f r' /♦ . .V' , 'V, / / f r < >0 ^ ' I "' '' - I '*' "7 ^ I , IT m «t» lit U leI I MV t W MI 1 r I I I «. * I 11 i-to »i tt n t« 7*+* »• , «• • ORONO « 5532.) • Manicipal Offices ermit/variance questions were of the public, oadway. Those sad for over 30 right of access roadway? What repair? of the roadway it construct a rail along the lake presenting d mean that the irds? Attorney \ that a curve tandards. Once the road mean standards and section of the ; your earliest Lonal questions .3 Defined Through ^ i' < illi t.i J 3&. y-'-' ■■ . Sicvoau -47)-7]if r?- 't‘‘ ' ■- _5: ; ; . ■ f • ';• iy:^:n■ *- '■ ' J9I JIIV •• ClTt Cf c,TC.*<0 al If.-'Sf • <.h \ V V'\t %n\i. v*' vO.k '"‘ij, V'' X “A' / >» sV ' •/ / ? / / l*y ^ ^ y / ;> .’'V- j e* ' 3 ^ *1 » i -i r ‘‘1 -:y; »t • * !<~r 3; ,!.A ‘ '.*"7 ' * « I •«, IT m i» »it It.U'U 14i» » V ^ I 4^, ** <■*••• ••j JIVING STOW », • I ♦ r« • I « « ; 1 i'f;A ^ rf MS• (Vi4 4* • I Wj • fm tt 'tt fi>!j -*» v^-j' / uxl t.|'i f ' * •«. Ui.^______j hV r 1 1 ••1 ^ '*j(% I»1 • I [:■••; (41 N 5~ mr ^,. ’l#.v I'H;, tf-t ' -n'l t ■Jl .; If r.U )r‘: • ‘ »• 1 IF IS » ee -Pil'*.MI'? •• I •» 1 tl' H * IS i rt'^tt ■ n 'll ,;\vCi 'u« "V 'Wf •r^A' . **• - •/ V* ^ •• O - * ^ VWJ 4#»»*** ! ly ^ \ •• / -:>':!^J\ < ~ ----------------------------Cof*-f*9*^ ',R 23 *!«■* .a.-at Barrett d authority involve i restorati comes fr( raa intaine acquires unmolestc N.W.2d 7S the road dedicatic dedicatic owner th combined manifest: 31 N.W.2( whereby \ encourag; N.W.2d 2; Minnesotc where a i public hi the cente definitic City strt necessary justify a easement essentia public statutor public s autho r i t ded icat i< embraced mmm-k" ■•■ H-i’h} . :£s ’L. •uimM) lj0/k ■ ‘*r«>Jir-‘, MEMORANDQM ^ r. TO: FROM : RE: DATE : Jeanne Mabusth II: Benson K. Whitney * • Repairs to Crystal Bay Road July 28, 1988 This memorandum will resDond tn vr»nr i. Barrett dated July 22, 1988 conlern?ng ?hrscopl orcitv maintained the ro=.d for many years. In Minnesota o k. • unmoiesLd SsTfor'morl tL^ns^yeLs"""^ vi^ibirand the road has not‘been 4icated^thp?B for dedication has taKen owner that°rn?fL'L‘^tntent'tn '^°"duct of a land combined with acts of public use reoarr^'^a'’']'^^^ Public use manifests acceptance of the'dedication31 N.W.2d 40 (Minn 19481 ?f ^ Mueller v. Drohny. whereby the landowner cannot deny thi dedicatio^afteJ ^W?2d^215^(M4*‘'l949"*'°"|tatutof^d'^y""^ 38 ?he"‘en?^rnj:; 1^1 wldtror2^rols from necessary to determine if fh« h‘ 1. ^*^'^®®^^9stion would be justify a claim of history of Crystal Bay Road wouldjusLity a Claim of statutory or common law dedication. easement,'*co4n law^dedicat4®™or^statutory%ed®*‘'t''’“''^ ^t^i4^rfu?So?ny‘f 4-"-- ^r^fn-so%^r-?^ Ill Impress dedir^biirs "oc limited to streets created by express embraced within^the City^s^aene^aTr° repair streets is““ tne v-ity s general police power. t. yi it 1 li lP‘ .-41 iii 506 Mjs i :• to Tom City repairs Is, and nstorm. access has le public visible and Fuller. 220 5erty for 5ility that ■y a land public use jment that _v^_probny, (1 in pais ir eland, 38 from tes that as a 2 rods from ). Some statute to would be Road would iptive ion is not for a ^as express i etaintain That I Ls is i m 15. S'\' ■'.Vv * • .trr ^ : .Mfr' A general police power right to repair public streets is consistent with property law concerning easeraencs. The owner of an easement is said to have all rights incident and necessary to its enjoyment. See 25 Am. Jur. 2d Easements and License § 72 (1966). Certainly repair is necessary to enjoy the benefits of a road access. in fact, some authorities find an easement owner possesses a duty to keep it in repair and thus holds a "secondary easement" to enter and make necessary repairs id at § 85-86. -r t- • _H- There are, however, limits to any right to repair. An easement is not of unlimited size. Any repair could not be used as a way to expand the size of the public access. Such action would require the condemnation of new property. Thus, in answer to your question 1(a), the City has the legal right to repair Crystal Bay Road. Such authority arises from statute and property law principles. As to questions 1(b) and 1(c), both repairs seem necessary as a matter of public safety and to protect the public access easement. As long as these repairs do not expand the access, such repairs should be within the City’s authority. I would consult the City Engineer about question 1(d) regarding state safety standards. As a matter of law, it seems unlikely that a partial repair would trigger some otherwise inapplicable road design standards. The road either complies with current standards or not. It may be important whether the road was constructed with State financial aid. I have tried unsuccessfully to call you several times on this issue. If you want further research, please advise me. 5066j •tee-’ ••T¥ / . Att Re; Dea Desi, Desij the anch( Ve es sectj linea coapl If yo' Yours bones: Glenn CRCtli c*-~ ^ t .«*li { .’j IS: ;jr»y-:s;"".■!|»:a«a*i««i --.• »^r. » T ' -^' ^ I Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & |\J| Associates Engineers & Architects Otto G*Bcnestroa PE Robert W. Rosene. PE. Joseph C. Anoerlik. PE. Bradford A. Lemberg. PE. Richard E. Turner. PE James C Olson, PE. Glenn R Cook. PE. Thomas E Noyes, PE. Robert G. Schunicht, PE, Marvin L Sorvjia. PE. Keith A. Gordon. PE. Richard W. Fester. PE, Donald C. Burgardt. PE. Jerry A. Bourdon. PE. Mark A. Hanson. PE. Ted K. f ield, Pfc Michael T. Rautmann. PE. Robert R. Pfefferie, PE. David O. loskota. PE. Thomas W Peterson. PE. Michael C. Lynch, PE James R. A4aland. PE Kenneth P Anderson. P£. Keith A. Bachmann. PE. Mark R Rolfs, PE. Robert C. Russek. a l A Thomas E. Angus. PC. Howard A. Sanford. PE. Charles A Enck:on Leo M. Fa>A/el$ky Harlsn M Olson Susan M. Eberlin Mark A Seip June 21, 1988 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Mr, JTohn Garhardson 7r < ^ fi irssjq. ' / '■ to jL.!< >'■ ■ Re* File No. 139 Crystal Bay Road Dear John, We have reviewed the reconstruction of Crystal Bay Bo.h koccurred last suismer. The oronns.H ‘^yetal Bay Road where storm damage minimal disruption Outside erLtZ -=°"Pl«®d »ith that the work c\n be completed with cuj forcer streer in“pUce “°c«e^wUrhav^trbe ‘exLci«^ "’’®Utilities in the street. ° exercised to prevent damage to existing Design one would require excavation of a trench s a t shoulder. Placement of 8" x fl- no«^c ^ ^ ^ the north be required. The posts would then be tied hart 2" planking would each post. two duckbill anchors at llliTn 2‘::uirrequir: tL":'i.\lL°sterga*?yani:ed^^^ the roadbed. Excavation of thr rL T ? “"^er anchor would be necessary on the south sldrof ?iyst"!’’BafRoaS!"”" “ «c:"i"“%'he''“ate'riil““ostr\:r :Jtr'"*lineal foot for a total of S5 600 oo Th*^**^ option would be about $25.00 per completed by a contractor would be $19.60^ to have the work trp«:ide°deJ!grto't.u':'for'the"»ork'.''‘"* If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BOHES^OO. rosene. ANDEHtIK 4 ASSOCIATES. INC. Glenn R. Cook CRCili Em4 'ittii m m m4 i:- .;.,. v.ii* W:U^. _fciJ I <“■ fciw to aatoa I*_ .■■■■. ■■ rs-f.h*.*L:1^vf 'i '*■ The DUCKBILL * Con« Tested under corlilied OSHA Field Tests Nc DUCKBILL Earth Anchors are the new. itm> state-of-the-art in the anchoring business a; speciliod by the United States military — th the world. Wherever you can drive or drill into the groi use a DUCKBILL DUCKBILL comes in four varying from 250 lbs to 5.000 lbs. holding c S The Federal government, stales, cities, pub departments parks departments, contractor landscapers, and (io-it-yourselters Ifuougho are using DUCKBILL to hold and secure Ire fences, portable buildings. shoHors. boats, l construction equipment, signs, airplanes, re and countless oilier objects And DUCKBILI reduces Itietl. vandahsm. and wind damage private properly. How DUCKBILL Works A new concept. DUCKBILL Anctiofs are driven into lire ground vertically with a minimum of penelralion resistance which compacts and does not disturb ttie soil It pulls against: once driven to the required depth, an upward jxill on the cable planes (rotates) l.he DUCKBILL into a load took position at afjproximateiy 1.5 ' frem horizontal Further upward tension causes Hie anchor to plane sideways through the earth, against uixtisturbed soil, resisting pullout and increasing bolding power. .lii-kAl^vVAiL^ I aTf W i ^M7'y:Ti^m-W}^ L> > f’', v'• 70%‘ . wm Advantages of DUCK BILL DUCKBILL IS safer than convenlicnaf anc It leaves no rigid lods, slakes, pipes or sic groucHj to mjiire people and animals or da equipment. DUCKBILL has a buiti m 2 1 si Chsrm A fnct;oa LfO M Aawvisity Kjfijn M Oison Susan M Eberfm Mam A Seip storm damage ipleted with tsign xs such holding the to existing the north anking would anchors at tie tiebacks. riven under or concrete along this : $2S.OO per f the work we would be m h:.m H h % • . ■■•! .n.jF \; = I The DUCKBILL * Concept Tested under corltfied OSHA Field Tests No. 10257-A 1-2, DUCKBILL Earth Anchors are the new, inexpensive State-of-the-art In tlic anchoring txjsiness and are now specified by the United States military — throughout the world. Wherever you can drive or drill into the ground, you can use a DUCKBILL DUCKBILL comes in four (4) sizes, varying from 250 lbs. to 5,000 lbs. holding capacity. The Federal governmenl. slates, cities, public works departments ()arks depnrimenis. contractors, landscapers, and do-il-yourselfors thioughoui Ihe world are using DUCKBILL lo hold and secure trees, sheds, fences, portable buildings, shollors, boats, lowers, construction oquipmenl. signs, airplanes. relamiiKj walls, and countless other obiecis And DUCKBILL greally reduces thelt, vandalism, and wind damage ol public and private properly. How DUCKBILL Works A new concept. DUCKBILL Anchors are driven into tfio ground verlicaily with a minimum ol penetration resistance which compacts and does not disturb ttie soil it pulls against: once driven to Ihe required depth, an upward pull on Ihe cable planes (rotates) the DUCKBILL into a load lock position at approximatfily 15" frem horizontal Further upward tension causes the anchor lo plane sideways through the earih, ogaiMSI undisturbed soil, resisting pullout and Increasing holding power. \>L'lih3b I la^Jt * * I . nV 0!'fiSiS-'- H.I .» t* '•-S' I L V W'’ f .1 . r-, •, j X I A y § -L*’ UndiftlurbDd bd II Advantagos of DUCKBILL DUCKBILL i.s safer Itian conventional anchors because SI leaves rio rigid lods, stakes, pipes or stems aliov** ground lo infuie people and animals or damage mdbile equipment. DUCKBILL has a built in 2;1 safely factor .1 DUCKBILL is easy to install and is a labor and time­ saving device. One man can drive DUCKBILL with manual or hand held power tools. No digging, no extra manpower, no sophislicated machinery. Light ano medium duty DUCKBILLS can be driven by hand in virtually any soil Heavier duty models can be driven by hand in loose soil, and in harder soils are easily driven by various types of power tools. Compared wilti concrete anchoring, DUCKBILL can save up to 60% of material costs alone, not including labor and concrelo scl-lime. DUCKBILLS patented "Star Drive Poiiil" drives straight into ttie giound at any angle and will r ot wander from its drive path. frufvlcw Unlike most anchors which disturb the soil when Installed, DUCKBILL compacts Ihe soil when driven, and in load lock position, continually planes into undisturbed soil. When DUCKBILL is driven Into the ground, it stays in the ground. DUCKBILLS are light in weight for Iheir slrcnglfc They are 10% llio weiyhl and only 12% the volume in shipping, handling anrl storage ol most convor.lional anchors Your lioighi, handling and slurage savings are substantial. DUCKBILL will nol corrode or rust, and the cable is higti strength galvanized steel. Made of high impact and shock resistant Tenzaloy aluminum alloy. A typical corrosion lest resull: no loss in mechanical properties after immersion for 90 days in aeraletJ 3% sail water solution Outdoor exposure lesis by the ASTM at urban, suburban and sea coast locations tor a period of ten years have domonsiraled Ihe corrosion resistance of Tenzaloy as have hundreds of industrial applications. DUCKBILLS have been proven in use world wide, and Iheir porlormance is subslanhated by independent engineering tests arul analyses. Technical data is available on lerjuesl. I- • ; -■mm■■ ■<. ■ ■Iff* DUCKBILl Model 40 OR-2 rod '* «mii<itH l.tftii jift.-MMiiii t MmI wiH i l.lrifi! 'Jfikfftfl fliMfl Model 6f DR-1 rod ' / HM iImI J llMM| lil ffHl <%»|h Model 88 DR-3 rod *4 ruiilMl 4 llMH) iMiiti lir rotf wilh Mnjt* sfiikinij fwad OR«1 firtvef fud. \ 4* st»«inli. 5*f lonq PR-1 !*■ h#** H sli.ink S* / Model 138 on.2 rkiver ffxl. '§ 4*4 Sh^iik. 5»i ififHi PR-2 ftyiirRulif^ fdifHjfn.itic Ml. I’t I 0 Ml.UlL 5* ' Fofosighi infliislrics Inc fcvjs and powoi oquipmo machines. C.ill for pricio; 40 68 88 Sales onir:eH itvntMiftrt and Euruf«4. CiinarWi / roie9M)ld lndi«sln«*s Side lilZ Clt^ywem, V ,im DZy a ·orm da11age .t d with i n 1.·s such olding he o x i _ t g • north o uld r b c r c e r The DUCKBILL'''· Concept Te~led under ccrt1hed O3HA Field Tests No. 10257-A 1·2. DUCKBILL Earth Anchors are the new, inexpensive state-of-the -art in the r1nchoring business and arc now speciliod by the United States m,lttary -throughout the world. Wherever you can drive or drill into th~ ground. you can use a DUCKBILL . DUCKBILL comes in four (4) sizes , varying from 250 lbs . lo 5,000 lbs . holding capacity. The Federal 9overnn1enl. states, cilies, public works departments pnrks departrnenls, contractors, landscapers. and do·il·','Ourselfers throughout the world are using DUCKBILL to hold <1nd secure trees. sheds, fonces. portable built.Jtngs , sheltor:i;, boa fs. lowers , construe.hon equ1pmen . ,gns, airplanes, rela111i11~J walls. and countless o1her objects . And DUCKBILL 9really reduces theft. vanda 1s,n, and wind darnagc of pulilic and private property. How DUCKBILL Works A new concepl. Dt.JCKBI L Anchors are drivon into the ground vertically w,1 h a 1nin1mu1n of ponetralion ,esistance which .compacts and does not disturb the soil it pull s against : once dri ve n to lhe requtrod d pth , an upward pul on th cabt plane& ( rolales) I e DUCKBILL i nto loaa k>ck po ,lion t pproxunatoly 1!l'' fr o hOfllOnlnl Fu, th , upw rn ten 1011 cau • s tt n,;hor to p t no Std w s through rho rth , -ga1nsl undt t urbed 011, re isllng pullout nd i r a t g to 1ng OUCKBll.l ts al r th n ti t-~~1 ~ n t I " t . , • Uncllalurb•d aoU onv ntion I nch r b cus k , pi • or ,t m • h nam I. or it built -in : 1 ly f Cf r. DUCKBILL is easy to ins ,tall and 1s a labor and time• saving device. One n,an can drive DUCKBILL with manuaf or hand held power tools . No digging, no extra ma power. no sophisticated machinery. Light ano me lum duty DUCKB~LLS can be driven by hand in vir t ally any soil . ~leavier duly models can be driven by hand 1n loose soil, and in t-iarder soils are easily driven by various types of power tools . Compared wit~, concrete anchorng, D CKBILL can save up to 60% of rnaterial c osts alone, not including labor and concrete sot-time. DUCKBILL 'S patented "Star Dr ve Po111I" drives slra tg ht into the g1ound at any angle and will ol w8nder from its drive path . Endvt•w Unlike most Anchors wh ich disturb the soil when installed . DUCKBILL compacts the soil when dnven, and 1n load lock position, continually planes into undisturbed soil. When DUCKBILL s driven into the ground , i i stays in tho ground. DUCKBILLS a re light 1n wo•aht tor their s trength . Th y are 10% tt1e wo1gh l arid only 12~'i> tho volurne in sh1ppu1 , h a ndling ancl storag of most conv nlional anchors . Yi ur hr 1ght , hancJhnu and st0,·1 o sttvinus ;uo sul>sta nt,al. DUCKBILL will not co rr odo r r st, and the cablo is ht{!h str ngth galv n,1 _ d steel. Made of hlgh impac t and shoc k r s,. t n l Tenzatoy lurn1num alloy. A !yp,cal corr os ion te s result : no los in m han,cal prop rties after imm . rsion for 90 days ,in aerated 3% san w I r solul1on . Outdoor exp sure l ests by t he ASTM a t urhan, suburban and coast locahon for p riod o f t n y rs h ve d m nslr ted th e corro ion r 1s anc • of l nzaloy s hav hundred of industrt f appl ti ns. DUCKBILLS hAv b th tr p rformonc rin I I on qu n p o n 1n us w Id wi de. n ub t ntI t b ind p nd _ n I s .li ,hn · ldl,t ..... J ·oucKBILI Model40 OR-2 rod '• 111un,t 1H 1,,, -, ,tt·Hf 11,\1 11 lo1J w1lh l,1,,1i, ·,111 ,1111 lh •,tr l Model68 DR-1 rod ' I IOo,ltlf J lt,oq -.t,•;•1 l1,,11d ti lfMI llllotlh l,IHI" "'"""I 11 !,Ut Model88 OR-3 rod 14 I UUfkf •i lt)UlJ h i •I h ,ll\11 Jr re•• "'""' tau , '"'""'' httac1 O scllN .. ''" .., 1ol1 . • h tt•. 4' .... , •. s• '. ""'9 PR-1 hy1ll1tuhop1 • ,m..tt,1. 1lt,v1•1 1,,cJ I'■ h HI 6 -.11 ,111 ',•, ltt llt Model 138 1 "''~ ,tuv , •o<J . • h., -. ,t 1 ◄ stttt, . s•' l(NllJ PR-2 hynr auh4., f1n "'• 11, • •••l . I • , I '• h,11 ', lot~ Fou1s1ght I nch, In Inc ro-1!'1 s:.nd pow f oqu1pn ma cfunes . C. II for r,ric,n ■: mi ind is a labor and lime- clrive DUCKBILL wilh ools. No digging, no extra nachinory. Light ano n be driven by hand in y models can be driven by der soils are easily driven )ls. loring. DUCKBILL can save tone, not including labor slurb the soil when s the soil when driven, andi ■My planes into ‘BILL iS driven into the rl for their strength. They I2*!« tho v(^rme in e d iT>ost conventional } oiwl storage s«ivhkjs .tio rust, and tlm cablr) is fright lie ot hj^ m^^act and nnum afloy A typtcal fi mechanical propcrti^ I aerated 3% salt water sts by the ASTM at urban, one ior a period ot ten corrosKjn r^stance o< ' mdUSinal applications. n m use world wide, and ta!»} by mdepenctenl • lecivMcei dM it i m** <■ \r DUCKBILL" Standard Drive Rods Model 40 OR«2 rod •a tfnifuMH Itinit >lrH ti.lflil ttiivo Mh I wilfi L|ri|i* •.Ifiktiw) hi'.irl .*3^ ^^ ,1 -/ Model 68 DRof rod ' t fCNilMl J U nh | M**f| h.inil ilnvH IfHl Wiith I.IH|«‘ Slliluliil III!,Ilf Model 88 OR«3 rod •a HM iIMM lOIMf SfiriM iMtlil ittivrf fO«l fatf|o h!itiiiiii| head OR«1 y«iso4iiie fIfivHf ftKl '• h«i. 4»a- HtMnli.5*» loiHj FR-1 fiyflfaiiiir/|»iiintmatM. ilnvitt nj<|. I’s h#ii f> sfi.mK S'/ k'lhi i4.acs BEE 52^^* *e Model 138 QR-2 gtistififie rliivRf rod. hr}f. I»4 ' StianJi, 5* # PR-2 kytlfaulil^ filtt*UiM.lliC f|Kl I's hrf« h SlMflk 5* ’ Ik ;,r ^ Foresight Indnslnos Inc can supply non-slandard liand drivo rods and powui oqui|>monl «lnvo rods for your spocilic mactiines. Call for pricirg and availability. Specifications 40 68 “li Model Number Holding Power In Normal Soil SAFETY FACTOR Minimum Cable Breaking Strength ^Galvanixed Steel Cable Cable Length Anchor Weight Standard Pak And Weight 40 DDl 250 lbs.480 lbs Vh .” 7x7 16"1 07 50/box 3.5 lbs 68-DO 1 1.100 lbs 1.700 lbs 'll" 7x7 2V2 It.4.5 0/24/t)o* 7 lbs •88 001 3.000 lbs 7.000 lbs W’ 7x19 3* 7 It.14 0/12/box It lbs ■138 DBl .5.000 lbs 9.800 lbs 1 Vifc' 7x19 5M.2 5 lbs 12/box 32 lt)s. Uli & I.Mf .1 ,arf*.tr rtvdst.ifil ttfiifit)k* fyu m b^t ifM^i Sales Oflir os lhrn*K»lioul the United Stales. United Kii-qclom and rufirfXf, Canada. Australia and Japan Dm0cI all in<|uinos to r«vo*.K}iii indusines wsnk! Ircarlquaftofs, 160.1 Catnial Avenuo. Suite 10^ Qwwww. Wyoming 02003 Ptione (.10/) H J5 41G3 Ictel aiU 079 'F<HM5Hri»i liiUinlii«»s. liH, c«in oisitKo cntiU) imy of ma anchurklu# yciS' Specif If.4il ions s»iiiJ|iNi tfiifiafK|fi witmiui humco i^FOReSIGHT rV/M il\JOUBTf::ilEB ir^JC.iMOUBTf::||£8 ITNJC. us Pal«‘ol iMiitVH»rs 4 044 «>t1 anrt 4 nor, n/1 .tivttui.ftf OittHbulod byi 9 'S i ' V- _ ^/re-VA ■■:#*•••-3?5v '\-r %.... . . 1.Vr b/ZD/ef fo 1^ cdri ^ ^iwiOU.flfef V #-el\ ■^7^ , |;i h. m. ^ :Sl 1 ^ r:,^ ,j.. ^'3 • *. - i' M. •• ^ • -T >,flwwr 1 • •. :‘-= ^p» •■■.•:' ' \. •• •■*V-/-Kiisa?;; ? • -V f•n-'/v;-. ^yrf.i, ; :;.r'::, '■■■ ■:> / HIHUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JOLT 18. 1988 n CITY OF ORONO CRYSTAL BAY ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. ^-Alr^ °f rief a%Ve^iVtlre^red*’^^^^^^^^^ ^r^^:fvl^d%^c£^^i £u|de“r” Vou?d%^xt^^"d ^r"igft “Sp^^7he “°p"ost^ ^^nel “ Vdrari would be installed for safety approximately 3-1/2 feet high. The coinencn/?* road IS not dedicated and never hao been. residents do not want the City to maintain the remove the Road. Kelley suggested this the reasoning for the City not allowing the Road to be AnHertr!!f^ access for residents of Minnetonka Beach. Leesa Orono her property is in both Minnetonka Beach and because of the condition of the Road nobody uses it S?nr,J; there have been no complaints by citizens of regarding the inaccessability of Crystal Bay Road. Kelley orasst/*^««^w®» concept of the residents wishing to turn asphalt back into alt«rnA<-^* t/ City's comprehensive plan and felt an re^if^>n^o found. Mr. Lee Erger stated that the City told theresidents that Minnetonka Beach did not want the road closed. ■Q Stainless wire would be better than galvanized. Drainage provisions behind the wall should be provided. Support beams should extend into the ground More Duckbills, 4 per post as opposed to 2 per post. Treated 4' x 12', rather than 2' x 12' Leaving bjttorc 5' of wall exposed and make aesthetically pltasing /I r*«r»rtriB-i K4 that it would be the property owners' lakeiihor^ 7^^ frll in the area between the retaining wail and the *^o^nson said that any further discussion was academic since the -K entirely needed further exploration. >,*l asth re^olvfS aver. jes had already been explored and the «uatrer been . that is why the conditional use permit had In he.. cp..nion, there is great urgency to get this resolved. ■Itttfiir Pf* , ; ..T MINUTE CRYSTAL BAY R Kelley state his attention Hanson alternative . existed to ta there is none that he had rr finally wrot< the Planning Commission to her. Mr. Kcl the City is p] It was m< the residents in front of tl #1303 ALLAN RI 1989 EAGERNESS VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARINC The Affic Mr. Rezat Zoning Ac survey for th< agreed with tt to determine ' location of t; being located torrens action line. Judicia In so doing, . Fisher proper^ explained the torn down rest the fence stil Mr. Kelli approve or den portion that % line. Mr. Rez^ not inform him Ordinance stat< Lake. In ligh install approx that does not ! Mr. Kells that the hards »■ I t-Y 18, 1988 ing were noted. tional Use Permit approximately 200 .t of the July 23, eceived a copy of lation, others had was considering, be no fill, no 5 and a cuardrail rh. Tr.*.\v 1 never ha» been. to maintain the y suggested this 'ity to work this to work this out iccess. Mabusth } the Road to be nka Beach. Leesa etonka Beach and id nobody uses it by citizens of iay Road. Kelley isphalt back into >lan and felt an he City told the so. f unacceptable tc when it came tc rided. It. ically pit as ing. Dperty owners' ng wall and the adeaic since the ration. ^al^sth and the matter L use permit had i this resolved. i " •: 'ii - .iS" t fa-VM MIMOTBS OP THE PJANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 18, 1988 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD IMPROVEMENT-CONTINUED Kelley stated that this was the first time since this matter has come to his attention, even though it has been a live issue for a year. Hanson asked whether the group of neighbors had a plan for an alternative access to their properties, and if a homeowner's association existed to take responsibility for the road. Hanson noted that apparently there is none, as the City has been plowing the road. Mr. Schupp stated that he had met several times with Public Works Director Gerhardson and finally wrote a letter to the Mayor which is why this matter was now before the Planning Commission. He asked for direction from the Planning Commission to gc t this matter resolved. Mabusth told Mr. Schupp to contact her. Mr. Kelley asked Mabusth who would fund this. Mabusth stated that the City is proceeding with this as a City 'oject. It was moved by Cohen, seconded oy Kelley, to table the matter until the residents could work with the City to work up a proposal to bring back in front of the Planning Commission. Motion, Ayes*7, Nay«0, Motion passed. #1303 ALLAN REZABEK 1989 EAGERNESS POINT RuAO VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. Rezabex and Mr. Fisher were both present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that she was using Mr. Fisher'& survey for the presentation of this matter. Kelley asked if Mr. Rezabek agreed with the use of this survey. Mabusth visited the site in question to determine where the designated lot line was in conjunction with the location of the fence. It was established that the reason for the fence being located 1/2 foot to a foot on the Fisher property was due to a recent torrens action where the Courts determined the location of the shared lot line. Judicial markers have been placed, indicating the actual lot line. In so doing, it was determined that the Rezabek fence encroached on the Fisher property 12" on the west side and 6" on the east side. Mr. Rezabek explained the situation and stated that he would like the fence that was torn down restored on his property and would like to move that portion of the fence still on the Fisher property to his property. Mr. Kelley explained that the job of the Planning Commission is tc approve or deny the variance to relocate the existing fence and allow that portion that was torn down to be installed on Rezabek's side of the lot line. Mr. Rezabek expressed his displeasure with the City in that they did not inform him of the need of a variance to move the fence. The existing Ordinance states that there cannot be a fence of any kind within 75' of the Lake. In light of the Ordinance, Mr. Rezabek would only be permitted tc install approximately 20* of the fence since that is the amount of property that does not lie within the protected lakeshore setback area. Mr. Kelley asked for the hardship in this case. Mr. Rezabek stated that the hardship was that the fence existed at the time he purchased the ■ ^ V^ -' I ■M VI .Mm s' ■ • *•. ::II. ^ Mayor Bria City of Mi 2945 WestW( Minnetonka Dear Mayor During thi extensive < City and t] to researcl wherein th« Several al the early Minnetonka would cbje Minnetonka and the con The resp Superinter closing t alternati developed submitted design and requested Therefore ‘ review thii their deci; are request I will als If you cou: notify the If there are attention to Sincerely, ^ / ^ < John R, Gerhj JRG/ls Messrs. ■ 4.A U' :m HELD JOLY 18, 1988 nee this matter has come tc Issue for a year. ghbors had a plan for an f a homeowner's association Hanson noted that apparently he road. Mr. Schupp stated rks Director Gerhardson and y this matter was now before rection from the Planning h told Mr. Schupp to contact this. Mabusth stated that ject. , to table the matter until up a proposal to bring back es«7, Nay*0, Motion passed. ite of Mailing were noted, nt for this matter. . she was using Mr. Fisher's Kelley asked if Mr. Rezabek risited the site in question as in conjunction with the at the reason for the fence property was due to a recent location of the shared lot eating the actual lot line. >ek fence encroached on the the east side. Mr. Rezabek uld like the fence that was Lke to move that portion of roperty. Planning Commission is tc Listing fence and allow that I Resabek’s side of the lot :h the City in that they did ^e the fence. The existing f any kind within 75* of the would only be permitted tc it is the amount of property t setback area. I case. Nr. Rezabek stated i the time he purchased the -M CITY of or to Post Office Box 66*Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Municip On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 28, 1988 Mayor Brian Bedell and Councilmembers City of Minnetonka Beach 2945 Westwood Road Minnetonka Beach, MN 55361 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: During the July, 1987 "Super Storm", the City of Orono axoerl Citv"and*tht*"a?f Vi Crystal Bay Road. After a review of the <*/.roage h ^ the abutting property owners, it was the property owners' re unsatisfactory res'Its. Crne early Fall of 1987, I contacted Lois Johnson who »a la Mav wo^l^■objtct'’to‘’ if the City of Min -stonkaV Closing of the Road. It was my imt»r ession Tn? -each would probably have to address the issue of ublic s and .he construction of a cul de sac, as would the City of OzT' mo. c.^Jf response from Lois, through Mr. Lowell Day, 7?.blic V-i perintencent, was that the City of Minnetonka Beach was not ' nterest closing the Road. With that information and the f"t «,t Hi develoned'^T ®**’®“sted, the Orono Public Worft. Dopar Orono IS requesting the Minnetonka Be‘,1 Counc "r^a7fe“c"t^d-0^^:n"o^ p^%-o attention*to thJ ,'’v*“** 4:*;-7357attention to the matter will be appreciated. Sincerely, ^ 7 y <A--e f I. John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director JRG/ls CC, Messrs. Schupp, Schlbilla, Wolfe, McCue, Erger, Zagarln, X ger»n Bl tLDINGS ZnMML - 473-7157 • Anm^iKTB aTifiv a t ivas.# tr It.-:''; V;. Offices inced y the quest area jrlng r of seach that iafety orks |ed in l)ther Bent %fa8 |f the ligain .1 to it to [<^ers ends, ono. vilX Your * . j ik. 'V w jC:.: 10588.4 Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardsonr City Administrator DATS:October 5, 1988 SOBJBCT: Crystal Bay Road Attachments:A. Notification to Residents - 10/17/88 Planning Commission Meeting B. Letter to City of Minnetonka Beach Dated 10/5/88 C. Traffic Criteria for Closure ISSUE - Provision of information to Council regarding progress on repair of Crystal Bay Road together with framework for determination of closure. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's September 28, 1988 meeting following discussion by residents and the Council the staff was directed to continue the application for repair at the Planning Commission, informing abutting residents of the proposed repair, request from Minnetonka Boach a written statement of thir position regarding closure and work to develop the criteria for a decision framework. DICUSSION - As noted in Attachment A the residents have been notified of the meeting indicating that because of the fact that no specific plan has come forward from the residents as to where the road is to be terminated that the road road repair proposed by the staff should be processed through the Planning Commission so the Council can make a decision regarding the road repair and the closure in timely fashion in order to take the necessary steps this year to complete the work. The staff is looking on alternatives to the repair and the snowfence to provide for adequate safety yet this fall. AS for the draft criteria for closure the staff is circulating that to the attorney and engineer together with further consideration by itself and would appreciate any input from the Council or the neighborhood. ALTERNATIVES Accept 2* Comment on process or criteria 3» Table for futher discussion 4 take no action 'r'H ■ 4 -"4 RECOM info r I procej 1988 a PROPOS direct 1988 C r>\I Planning ted 10/5/98 3 on repair nination of 88 meeting » staff was le Planning sed repair, It of thir teria for a have been I fact that as to where r proposed Coanission repair and necessary looking on rovide for irculating h further It fron the ¥-1t.. -x;- c- .-M m X "i if.* .♦••I ^ . J*- : ■i’'■etnaK t-«MikK .V RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council •. w and following any discussion thermay havrin lit PROPOSED MOTIOO - Moved by , seconded bv i-k t tiircoTJl ^t.!LT for^discussioTT'on tbt ^O^cto^b^i! i\ -Ik 1 • -^l '•'r^a Pub] Leve 1. S 2. t: I I I 4. Ot . -'o-::- ■:"■ . '■■■■ : :\:.i '-.r _ ■■:'■■■. ■ •/.; ■ ■ r •''.1m-. .J> /■TWOMWfcWT- C- sections bed number tenance) Rsl me-•• , . r- V-y ■= : :'%-; .;eie.- - . •^v' - ■- • ■ •■'••=»v^v;---::- -,/ :v:>-'mmmm-r- ' •mm »-..i‘ 't'‘ r*'!v 5. 6« 7. 8. - v-r .'3«iK£aiill - Access to service in emergency - Concurrence of all utilities Land Use - Road type/size/length/cul-de-sac - Hardcover - Types of use - Frontage on public/private streets - width Property access to developed/neighboring property - Lake impact - Planning Commission input Legal - Road Rights/Easements - Disposition of vacated land - Ability to vacate - Process to vacate Financial - Agreement to bear aaministratlon and legal costs Agreement to pay all physical alteration costs Responsibility - Who bears burden to carry through all non-City work 'ua > £ jffur developable ■i' '■> .0. . ..,;;; :Cv -V ^evelopabl " t-% work I- W \xAy\-%^yy:. ;• •■> V'*\- iliafc» . • • -.^Kd T ”*>-.4. ' : c.ri‘> l> . L ,Hi1; iijTllir''^v,..„. =,.. V':;:,;-':?;‘r5;;'V.: Mark Bernhardson, Cicy Administrator John R, Gerhardson, Public Works Director May 18, 1988 Crystal Bay Road Letter - May 16, 1988 On May 16, 1988, the City of Orono received a letter from Mr, Tim Schupp, 3215 Crystal Bay Road. Mr. Schupp's property is one of the properties severely affected by the July 1987 super storm. Following the storm, I met with the affected residents to discuss the restoration as the damage also included the driven portion of Crystal Bay Road. It should be noted that Crystal Bay Road is not a platted street, the City claims ownership due to use and maintenance. We have iilso been advised that only that part that is maintained by the City belongs to the City. During discussions and correspondence, it was the residents desire to either close the road to through traffic or possibly relocate the road. The impact of the alternatives were reviewed and it was determined that the road would have to stay in its present location and be kept open. Once that was determined, it was suggested that the City and residents enter into an agreement for one contractor to perform restoration, each property owner and the City would pay their fair share of the costs. Apparently, the property owners have decided not to do this as there was no response to the suggestion. I did talk to two of the residents after the offer was made and it was their decision to proceed on their own. In regards to Mr. Schupp's letter, it is my opinion that we did try to cooperate as much as possible, but unfortunately all options led to one stumbling block or another. It is my intent to begin the necessary steps to repair Crystal Bay Road. Mayor and City Council Mark Bernhardson, City Administratoi^^^^'^ Attachments; A. Mr. Schupp Letter Dated 5/13/88 B. Crystal Bay Memo Dated 9/15/87 f f ^ Schupp and work to resolve the i I mm U &ls :.r}j $ ' ■■■! ^ > r. :■tv"' . A .V.' I’ £'v ?3 »s r ■ •. V 1 ; '■.-V'J-•: .. J hbofs but Jtaff will aroage from iy Council he repair ii 2300 MULTirOOOS TOWER 33 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS402 -360^ May 13, 1988 Mr. John Gerhardson Public Works Director City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 He: Crystal Bay Road Dear Mr. Gerhardson: purpose of this letter is to suirunarize our various discussions regarding remedial efforts to correc the damage to Crystal Bay Road and my property in the August, 1987 storm. eside the issue of whether the damage was caused by the design and maintenance of the road by the City of Orono, the residents of Crystal Bay Road express a willingness and desire to work with the City to find a common solution to the problem. In addition to the shoi term solution of fixing the damage to our shore front ar the road, we were interested in a solution to the long-t problems of the location and design of Crystal Bay Road. As you will recall, we had discussed a number of op to eliminate the problem caused by the road being too na traffic on the road and the location of the road on the edge of a high bank. The options were: 1) making Cryst Bay Road a one-way road to reduce use; 2) making it a dead-end road; or 3) moving the road behind t.he homes. Those solutions would have solv^ed both the immediate pro of the damage to the road and the long-term problems of design and location of Crystal Bay Road. Each of these Ideas was rejected by the City. ■fi ^ V/v K-.' ■ ■ m rize our rts to correct rty in the damage was road by the Road expressed Lty to find a 1 to the short- lore front and :o the long-term Uil Bay Road, number of options being too narrow, road on the making Crystal iking it a the homes, .maediate problem problems of the ich o f the se ■ V.di^:" 1•aiirL: Mr. John Gerhardson May 13, 1988 Page Two "3^ then dfscu:sed%:::edSrenra""io?„f """""" -affected property owners oavino -f-hci Project, with the for their property aS^thrci^v repairs the road, to solve the inunediaL^o^nh? portion for progress has been made brthe cftv ?n^<=tivity or ever. It has been nine montL direction whatso- apparent that the City in^endl to tL» ® «the problems. take no action to correct affec“d"prSp:r?r“neL'''shon,^"‘^'" ^hat the own. If necessary I intend to*^ commence repairs on their do not intend to do so i^f fasWo^^^S''! repairs, but Which affecL Sl w^rk tLrfn^?'^ thereafter? destruction of private propertv^^T^^h' viewed as the and Watershed District and^wil^"ohJ I'^ve contacted the dnr necessary to fix our sho?e ?ront? «hatever permits are have e5<Pr2ssldVwilliAgnels“^and'^dei® Crystal Bay Road response the City has dom= common problem. in Bay Road has exposed the gas^main^^nn'^h^ damage to Crystal consider to be a dangerous ^ created what 1 by the City are also an eyesore and^in^^^1 barricades erected and enjoyment of the lake^ ^ interfere with our use we may lose thi opportunity^to^arr^ Very truly yours, Timothy R. Schupp cc: Orono City Council Mayor James Grabek mmwm 'Hy::: 'i m;- 1 if fmt - m-\ lii 1 fm- :■ ■■ . • ; • ..> -%* I. ■•4 ey would have to close ;oet per foot and with #ever# the question of at this time.■‘'■■/a fmum 11: I. I., 4 ■« - ■■ ■■■•-:.--I- MINUTES OP regular ORONO COUNCIL MEETING ^-^^r»\1988 APPOINTMENT - PARK COMMISSION CHAIR* Connn^'^i C o u n c i 1 mem be r Callahan, seconded by Comm/^aVon rt appoint Mr. Phil Bradley as Park Na^io? SCtion'pasfed!^’^^''® ^8, 1988. Motion, Ayes=3, CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: CRYSTAL BAY ROAD 10A7 Bernhardson explained that the July i-o r- Storm , damaged the shoreline for a length of 300' to 400 on Crystal Bay Road. The City of Orono does not have a the tra^veJyTed^no^i-^'^^^^i Road, only an easement that covers the travelled portion of the road. Originally, the Puhlio Wo»-v« Department was trying to seek a solution whereby they ecu brought forward recommendations for either brthe'’a7e o/crTbbi’na^®^^"^ ^"'^tting, restoring the bLkOf cribbing, or moving the road back 12' and reducino was Lt'’fl determined that moving the roal was not feasible because of limited front yard areas which the a lack or.® unwilling to give up. There was a problen, dL*^to a lack of easement control as to gettinc coordinator. acceptance for payment of one of the other two solutions. One of foot Dyyyna%l?-°°/“"%®^ “’® S120.00/irnerftoot. During this time frame. Public Works Dirprhor toK« Gerhardson, was in contact with residents on the road. There was in Aoril^w^hYoh^ made so an alternate solution was proposed Clhv^nmnH^ 1 placing sheathing within the area the rist(^^^ation^^T t finance the^ on of anything but public property. For safety purposes, a temporary guardrail would be placed along the portion of the road where the bank needed restoring. Portion At thlt^tlSr^’^h®^ was taken to the Planning Commission in July. tL Voad^ M? residents indicated that they wanted to close December 1987 i^^urmally indicated back incember, 1987 that they would not agree to close the road. One fact that the street is currently a through street and public safety access would be a concern ^If the road is closed in the front, there may be a need for ac’cess Bt'the*jSlv'’l8'*'Y9“sB°"Df'’® ''®“ requestedat the July 18, 1988 Planning Commission .Meeting that the Citv of rirn * '’® reapproached on the issue of closlnc%he 12 1988 Council®‘^rscussed this matter at their September in'favor of croslng®\he"’roa''d '=‘'at they were still not Administrator Bernhardson stated that the Citv would It this ongoing problem by proceeding with ?h. sheathing. This would restore the road now and allow th! residents to deal with the dead-end/cul-de-sac issue at a later «T 5;- m a/' m 1 sy ' ■ ■r.r "id a- CR • I».r-.. i . .- ■ ^. f-r-i M988 ystal Bay it. The access or hat there dded that ance for Irs. Moss eet. She the road .dua 1 who that the ad-end or fpair the L did not irs. Moss 5r way to elt that y owners, residents meant to eet. ka Beach in favor Bsed his listed as :. Duane intended id was a ' out the t>y local rhibilla I intent :and the property rably if has been inetonka favor of ft# Bany >slng or being. dsofi for Led that iffic on Bd to 15 rt road /v U %-W.. MNOTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 28,1988 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD c:nc“r°Vwitn\;rs :n"d right-of-way. Mr. Schupp public easen,Lt from thf rf 11 road® ‘’r? obtain aright-of-way could be obta^ntn Schupp felt that if a emergency access. Northview^cnnsolve the problem of an crossing could be installed whioh^^ be extended and a railroad their access. Mr. Sc^udo Minnetonka Beach cost of the acquisition^of^the^m!hVi willing to pay the stated that the Minnetonka Beanh ®^®®®^®nt. Schupp also issue was really of no co^ncern to th'JTm 4.^^^ indicated that this Orono. concern to them, it was more a problem for access would need ^to^be^ a^vailable oranother street. Mayor Grabek stated thaV certain parts of the is to be closed or repaired? Grab^^^^ whether the road would still need to reoair also asked whether the City Works Director, GerLrdson stated the road was closed if it- w#>r - i depend upon where City could vacate that damage, the the land to the abuttina omnor-*- ^ Public roadway and dedicate the repairs themselves^ ^The could make utility easements Lcause the^e ire under the road, it would be diffiL^ to make the road into a cul-de-sac. ^ ^ obtain enough property before th^ wiifte^r to^fix t h e Vi a d1» enough time left Nould be Close, but thl“o^u!/°g®ef the^ob dt°e? process. A11 the^relidents*^were*^aikino*li ® drawn outproperty fixed up, while 8-10 pieces of consideration as well nt. Orono into be passed by 4 or 5 people who tere ret"l\v'’®*' matter wouldmatter. He cautioned th/roM«^?i^ really negative about this from all aspects! Council to carefully examine this matter the Peririorf®rt°h^rt\\®1,e\mln"®sho‘?V‘%" ‘U® «»i9natures onShe said there were Deuolfa ^n h stand for something. out Of their warjusrso the V*” willing to go that the value of ?heir orooer.vclosed. She stated safety. The residents all h ** *" issue as proposal and had to move"their e.tl P^*P®rs theg«t through. their cars so that a dump truck could hand dld^not"nMd*to®be dMi!?!^^ stated that the issues at the conditional use permit for evening. The proposal for Planning Commis.Ton *^0^ th- 17^h® “P«V» “iH be before thei___J__^ ^^ ^ ^___________________________X 7 t H___OjF___QotoJhuOjr_______________9% ^_____t_____ ...n ■ -S':•/f • If: J h C ■ • ■ -..f .. ‘V-;VW m: ■' JBTING SEPTBMBl r*V Crystal Baj A Public Wo] bank. it wa ling done with the case, wh icing in front damaged beyoni 2gally repair the cost would there was a gas 3 a difficult Juncil was not The Mayor's me B > # lould be repair ose the road considered, innetonka Beach r. Schupp clar isked for thei ver, they did r ir concern, it on stated tha -ng the read vi lated that in t the homeowne d. She had bee at because the at would not be Wolf if he had 1 this topic VI Sion recommend leach and that 1 tter resolved. 1 the Zoning Oe . .thout talking \ |*n stated that t eceived several ka Beach that wi so added that th t the City wants in the meantime, d residents do if tha road is h;-. JL W % % mtel te' imm m-:''-r\'-: 4i:/.t \P- ~ i) ui4 mm V ^ a MINUI'ES OP REGULAR OROHO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 28,1988 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CONTINUED that they would not like to look st the^ guardrail!^®"*'® indicated permanent "4*oVd°crosed''^sign "at^ilch* e^’nd*^o^’’th :ifT7oWir“^„^"‘^Schrcould leaallVola« /^“”''J**'“^^ *’® "°»= think the CitySchupp stated that in 3^<3raii where they are intending. Mr. with the City to bring hTs ^ ink ^ would either work would give the City a lift'#* ^ safe level; or he could be installed 'n i 4- °^ extra room so a shoulder Gerhardson explained that the auardr^ri* ^orks Director such time as Mr. Schupo temporary until guardrail would then be Lt iff f ^he proposed another plan where?,, thl ? the purpose of wterkinro? the ^o/ertv ?n?f easement for ’'etaining wall is biH if 'ph« ‘ perty until such time as a .lather than brLging the blackt????t “°fte‘^ ?®" ''“®®ted.Why not comply with^tho nrT^r^^= i the edge of the cliff, dirt and create a more gentT^s??? The^th. “bring their banks ud to n»r tV Lu • residents could Mr. Erger is afraid ® ^O' retaining wa 11, work out those details a?a ?aL?t?m? °PP°>^t«''ity to this matter wa?t?re?urn?othi"pf*^'*”^?*^®^o “"“^erstanding thatinn-^ Cdsi i-K to the Planning Commission to get their t:?e-the?io"?eac?T?e?oi??meeting. ^fore the Planning Commission be n,a?e?nt?"f" i"v?trr"oad"'’rf?t *•" ? "''® thfdrr??oa? ®>® -terron-rstrd a?oTt ?^e^ r/e?pl?'wi\? peop?e.’^" Pe?eho?st:ted°t"h*’® *^°®® -- roads, the dirt road ani Crysta??arRoa? Th ^ differentwith the dirt road -ess-k Road. The property owners have 7 accesses a? tMs point” ?°®® ^®°P^®would just have a back -o^«ao road were closed they their right-of-way frL n^r’f* the residents did not obtaiJ l«gl accLs. ^ Dakota Rail then they would not have a 9 teissi?4: %r4 i.*. - ■ C i.M I u wm' f' . ; - .-V CR impo] th>5 1 a spi PARK! invoJ had 1 Adain matte park! Orono were tmm ii? •■•’::• t. \* ’ -a € ■I ^ii ■ af-"*'!<•:-. -j MIHUTBS OP REGOIAR OHONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBBK 28,1988 \ CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CONTINUED Mayor Grabek asked whether <-k« t.« • determined what the bank requirement'^wrs7^ Gerhardson stated that thev had mad** » u Public Works Director Grabek questioned the finanriai ay ^ termination. Mayor residents to build up th^blnl °I with the indicated that it would not ^cost anv Gerhardson manner. Bernhardson stated that th« r°f proceed in that additional easements from the residents road nra^rr^1er;^nTt\\ns^^%"o%"'^"'^ -ggestlon of fixing the He did not feel 1 hat fixlno hh. ° the road for later, because of the safety aspect^. would be a waste of money road now, the'^Usue of clo^ina *t1f ®^raid that by fixing the issue. Mayor Grabek stated th^t become a dead aspects of this issle needed to 1- *=° thenot vote on whether to open or addressed. He couldmeeting. °P®" °t dose the road at the present Callafan:%%Tc^„plLhTreso?vt"lo IrTt^ro^^ ir in%"otr„g-w^in\1^‘= molt^°ex^t^dil^lurmlnl"el Planning Con^ission The te heard by the build up thTbank at the%‘^“'' «ith the homeowners tl and possibly the ci-f-v a4-4- the road is repaired. Staff would need to be addressed tcf closa°th determine what criteria alternate access, public he.llh ,*’t '''tis would Include neighboring Cities and nei„hK / welfare, as well as brought back to the City Council^no*lashould all be Councilmember Callahan LLd the^ Citv aH-' ‘^®'’“«ry 1, 1989. would need to be taken and whether^the ®*=®P®Motion, Ayes»4, Nays*0. City could close the road. important to noriVy^ every °i^:oDe^^ added that it would be the Planning Commission Crystal Bay Road of a npocific ^imHorthe refitw! """ establish PARKING COUNTY ROAD 51 Mr. David Singer was present for this matter involved^the issue explained this matter had written a letter^to ^1. Mr. Singer Administrator setting forth hf« ^fty Council and City matter stems back to Iqss when respect. This O^ono”prrvlde‘'m% was de\%7m\nVd b^the'^M^D^that.... “U”. VKr„i:,s-„‘rsj 2a •2, m mmni TOs Mayor C Mark E. Dates Septemb Subjects Crystal .1 ATTACHMENTS - A. Crystal Crystal Crystal Applicat Crystal 1 ISSUE - 1. Update tl old Crystal E 2. Determin matter. INTRODUCTION - As about 300-400' or July 23, 1987. B< have a designated period to work satisfactory siti neighborhood feel; of the City's in< various options, 1 that would not en claim for right-ol Application for i at their July 22i neighbors, the P Beach regarding t taken to the Minn and it was their : • ••i&.V: k fl988 taff had Director n. Mayor with the erhardson in that o obtain ixing the >r later, of money Xing the e a dead 1 of the Be could present . Imember move the I add*“ess by the wners to . Staff rriteria include well as I al 1 be L, 1989. il steps he road. >uld be Hoad of itablisb natter Singer d City This IBS and CD that landing of the mwm»■ "S» ■i. ' ).• ■ ^ ■ ’M S::; mn It-y :mr .#^ m .►vv'i <sft iSxA To:Mayor Grabek s orono Council Members 92688.3HD J Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate Date: September 20, 1988 Subject: Crystal Bay Road Repair rs^f^iL ^iSETlNG ^'“^28,9,33 OTf OF ir ATTACHMENTS - A. Crystal Bay Road Repair Memo Dated 9/25/87 B. Crystal Bay Road Repair Memo Dated 2/17/88 C. Crystal Bay Road Repair Memo Dated 5/18/88 D. Application #1302 - City of Orono Memo Dated 7/13/88 E. Crystal Bay Road Map ISSUE - 1. Update the Council regarding information as status of repair on old Crystal Bay Road. repaxr on matter*“'"'^““‘'^°" Council to further pursue the ib^^^'Too" Attachments, the shoreline for a length of neiohbo'rh 7/ has not been reached and the of rit - r handled properly. Because ty s indication from the residents as to the feasibility of arious options, the City undertook an application for the one alternative a^thfr^ r, « presented to the Planning Commission n!i hh I ' "eeting. Based on the concerns expressed by the B«Jh Commission directed staff to contact Minnetonka tiken t^thf m! PO«ibllity of closing off Crystal Bay Road. This was and It Minnetonka Beach Council on their September 12th, 1988 meeting «Pd it was their position not to have the road be closed. e -A . - ■ • V • I • T.--1 • -»-:a It ' 'mu * \ Crystal Bay September 2 Page 2 of 5 DISCUSSION • the road an< 1. Sh< (Attaci presen as fol] 2. Mov allow f bank to $120.00 3. Dead neighbo area. T e|i ■w:.. . ■ -r- ■ -:4.. • ■ ■■ ■ V '■. * f.’"....l(iH.ii-v;^».--V - '. ■■; f ■■■■A-jg^Ji. h.v i^ I the aesthetic concern be used for safety nk apart from the road iroposed to have the be temporary until the :y alternativesr the the length of time it the situation and the .dered their desire to th the concurrence of vate easement for their willingnesi to i and move to Council > ! y^i..JRi 1 PM|| W9'-: ilil ■r •■•: ■•■• •■ ■: • ■ . .' m-m.i«pl U: I »*• 'r n k iii 0 ► '•V -4m Crystal Bay Road Repair September 20, 1988 Page 5 of 5 recommendation - It is recommended that Council direct staff to oon♦.^ -omn, .h. ».n», op.l ".bH U"^ ready to go when the Council has had the appropriate ronlng consideration and if appropriate can be undertaken; or sxoerations L^h\^oirwtg,'“''“ -^--ents A) Cul-de-sac of the road: 2. ltnd™tnel^°" i" concurrence of the Determination of private street location to serve properties not to be served by Crystal Bay Road, from^nv?!, T?w “7 preliminary indication of an easement ^ from Dakota Rail/private property owners. property owners and/or concurrence of the property owners for a cooperative project to restore the bank which ny fo7\hrest"r".° d ^"<^/°r #4, and concurrence toP y for the estimated costs over and above the sheeting costs. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by seconded by staff to complete consideration of this with the' P^lMnlng Commissit!i*^for wi:h;p“To^\°he^°diff r«U.ti" ;os\mn\7es":'\^':s"_^: “^‘^"-tives cc:Richard Anderson, 3205 Crystal Bay Road Tim Schoop, 3215 Crystal Bay Road Wm Wolfe, 3255 Crystal Bay Road LeRoy Ergor, 3265 Crystal Bay Road DuWayne Schibllla, 3235 Crystal Bay Road Thomas McCue, 3285 Crystal Bay Road Mark Zagarla, 3295 Crystal Bay Road Robert Hagerman, 3309 Crystal Bay Road Jeanne Mabusth, Building fi Zoning Administrator Orono Planning Commission Members City of Minnetonka Beach to continue B available to be ng considerations IS and agreements ncurrence of the serve properties I of an easement mrrence of the t the bank which 3 concurrence to g costs. Council direct Commission for >8sible together irnatives to be he alternatives Mm - V* V V>- . ' H'-. m r^: ■ •■ n •.d 13 'r n .■dSM:V .. •• •. * .* V "i! September 27, 1988 HOMl SEP28IS88 J. Diann Goetten Barbara A. Peterson 1385 Fox Street 1261 Arbor Street Wayzata, MN 55391 p.o. Box 164 Crystal Bay, MN 55323Edward Callahan 2545 North Shore Drive P.O. Box 72 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Crystal Bay Road Dear Council Members: The Orono City staff has a proposal scheduled to be presented to the Council at the September 28, 1988 meeting, regarding Crystal Bay Road. This same proposal was previously presented to the Orono Planning Commission. At the presentation several residents requested that the Planning Commission consider closing the Crystal Bay Road, rather than repairing it. The Planning Commission directed the staff to work with the residents regarding such a proposal. The staff considered the matter and opposed closing the road, primarily because of the lack of room for a cul—de—sac. Nevertheless, the affected property owners believe such a proposal is workable and would benefit all residents of Crystal Bay Road. Enclosed for your consideration is a copy of the proposal prepared by the affected property owners to close Crystal Bay Road. matter.Thank you for your consideration and attention to this Sincerely,• Mr and Mrs.Anderson 3205 Crystal Bay RoadMrandMrs.Schupp 3215 Crystal Bay RoadMrandMrs.Schibilla 3235 Crystal Bay RoadMrandMrs.Wolfe 3255 Crystal Bay RoadMrandMrs.Erger 3265 Crystal Bay RoadMrandMrs.McCue 3285 Crystal Bay Road cc 3633F Mayor James R. Grabek John R. Cerhardson % fJ ■ iii b', • . • 1. f. I mm- m* lyf ?'fc’’ i' m'- ii W.,: l-:’V ■ tr i il •/> iri *1 ■a: ■;vr.. y.: ' '• r- w m »‘;d V n>. * '"tSSi ±h.“V* .-■ ■ ■*i*^-d ii ‘ fii..-mm.mi mmm residents also request that Crystal Bay Road be vacated and made a private road for those residents who are in agreement. Presently the residents from 3205 Crystal Bay Hoad (Anderson) to 3285 Crystal Bay Road (HcCue) request that the road be vacated and made a private road. b) The affected property owners further propose that a utilities easement be maintained to permit the City of Orono and Minnegasco to have access for repair and maintenance of the sewer line and gas line, to permit pedestrian and bicycle access, and to permit access by the property owners c) Finally, the affected property owners propose that the property owners and the City work together to repair the bank to protect the City's utilities and to restore the residents' lakeshore. ■and Rationale Crystal Bay Road is posted for local traffic only. However, it is often utilized as a shortcut between highway 19 and highway 15. Further, the posted speed limit.of 15 m.p.h. is often exceeded and rarely enforced. Dead-ending the road would restrict use of the road to what was originally intended, i.e.. local traffic only. The proposal would reduce traffic for all residents of Crystal Bay Road. Crystal Bay Road has two 90 degree turns where the road connects with Northview Avenue in the City of Minnetonka Beach. Dead-ending the road would eliminate this road condition. c> The proposal would reduce maintenance costs for the City, both in terms of the repair presently needed and ongoing maintenance. 0* L'- m ?■■ ■ "a il^ mM Bj W.: - *: /i = -' . ■v’l. ''*^1#^ fc ^ ■ '.rA S'. . V n m \tl I 0 0 benefit tl Crystal Be 4. Respor cul-de-sac the public in additio public, un the road. road, will driveways i past year » Fi located beh hydrants is There is no a truck would is done wit the front ai fire trucks no cul-de-s« restricted t ated and inade ment. (Anderson) to be vacated se that a of Orono and i of the sewer access, and se that the the bank to dents c only, highway 19 L5 m.p.h. is road would uSed, i.e,. c for all re the mad nki Beach. ion. for the i ongoing mm W'f mm mm- /•• : r'^- f i=v % h'- '■■■>■', K'KrfI •••V p-.i ^ mm > 'V ' ■t w “ C'^-L ..^- v' •; •"■t-*i' Affected property owners would work with the City to reduce hardcover within 75 feet of the lakeshore. e) Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this would benefit the affected property owners and other residents of Crystal Bay Road with no detriment to the public. Anticipated Lack of a cul-de-sac at the end of the road: A cul-de-sac is claimed to be necessary to permit turn around for the public and fire trucks. The road will he posted "dead-end in addition to "local traffic only." Thus, members of the public, unless visiting residents along the road, will not use the road. Visitors, and the occasional lookers who travel the road, will have multiple opportunities to turn around in the driveways along the road. This has worked adequately during the past year when the road has been closed. Fire hydrants for the affected property owners are located behind the homes, not in front. Thus access for these hydrants is through Minnetonka Beach not along Crystal Bay Road There is no turnaround behind the homes presently and a fire truck would have to back up following a fire regardless of what is done with Crystal Bay Road. Further, if' a fire truck comes in the front and cannot turn around in a driveway following a fire fire trucks are now equipped with reverse gears and can back up. It is the residents' position that a dead-end road with no cul-de-sac is preferable to an open read that is not restricted to local traffic as intended. - 3 - -r 7SESss:mM "‘■f- h- int€ chil 3968S I ■■ % ■wI% It the mts with I f- :-t. 4- if * '’i ; MMmMHMPWN V -^Tqmyi2 \'^ tn ^38 V)lN013r _ JO' AIIO ONOdO ~A110 • • K-^ fc~~77Jr~7T •§• % . * • -; • • • U '‘‘- ’ ■ c\ :■•••• ■ 99 s*'. wt • 'tf /".10 ^ w' S-- - . . . .OS 9 . • w •.*•>•* • • A •N \ IT >» . lO * *' V • *—' •§ <C • * • , • • . • •o V, /••.toU# *"*or . OS 0 « u .: •:. JB ^ « *'• -< i'z <i^ o ■5T • • T; , k/'>>>N . . fex'i H Z ^ rineim % • . in. #» • 4 ■ *y f ^ <T. V'v ■t;'^ >(>•1 To: Pr( Date Subject Additional Exhib; Exhib; Exhibj As r the site property. 7/5/88 (B: driveway that rece; at the me observed ( again, th« yard throu drain to t that when grassed y« the elevat signs of < function v» north side Please oi the Plani improvements the followin • % 1. To i pond to bank pr' ^ • • • , % ” • •• ^ Vf^ - ' • • S •• • • • m % • • * A '^ ^ .w’ ^ #- P, 1 * ' • • ■ • • • C\ :'v " ?? • \ »• 1- . .. X « • • • .•• • . s > ••• • • * . 10 • . CZ-/ • ^ * * • « / • . * • •I o ■ • 1 • : cn ^ .V- .1 ij l.V• • f. • ■ - . ■ > H Z 5 -fl I -) - wTi ^v -rl» il# 5“ i tv « Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:October 12, 1988 Subject: #1309 Gerald Nelson, 1629 Bohn's Point Road - After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Second Additional List of Kxhibits Exhibit 0 - Planning Commission Notice of Action 8/23/8 Exhibit P - Staff Sketch Exhibit Q - Cook's Report eview from me mth y ' rd confirmed .age was ea. Once ^ grassed the “quested, staff and the City Engi. -er met with the ap. * leant at the site to discuss the drainage problems within the lakeshore . rd of the 7%%8 [Exhibitelevations confirmed by Coffin s • ;onberg on driv IS approximately a S" drop in elevati driveway of the property owner to the south and the applicanf« that receives the drainage from the east and the south. As stai the meeting, on several inspections of this property, d aaair^^/ P°'“^ *’»* “"str . vLrthrou*oh°fh^^"^ •’ grassed IrlL Tn T ‘''t line and thei i -entually t^at When the wa"; “ applican . lonfirmed T" """ of the west side of the pon.. is 931 Int *1^1^/ °"^ '/“"°“"'^ Staff observed no further function "tthln the lakeshore yard. Drainage woult appear to nor h negative Impact on the surrounding prope. les. The north side yard continues to function as originally approvL. Cl the^Pllnnlnl^c* <^tty Engineer's report. In conideration imorovelnts w directive that war to insure all ommended th^ folTowi^gr "" " -.commend. Zoning File #1309 October 12, 1988 Page 2 of 2 2. To allow the crushed rock with underlying fabric remain in place to prevent further erosion as the drainage path is channeled within this area. 3. Plantings within the lakeshore yard may remain as long as the underlying geotechnic or filter fabric is removed. Hood pulp/chips or crushed rock may remain as long as they are installed on top of existing or natural grade. 4. The fill that was placed on the south side of the pond has been matched with the excavation of the pond so there is a equalization and as a result has no negative impact upon the flood plain area. It is hoped that staff can bring this application to the Council meeting of October 24th so that the applicant can complete all necessary alterations by November 15th of this year. ^ *i': r ^ f f* CITY OP OROVO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay# MI TOs Mr. 6 Mrs. 1629 Bohn* Wayzata, ^ TYPE OF APPLICI DATS OF MBBTIliC Planning Coanifl Tabled for ROfBS AMD SPBCl The Plann you and the Cii plan to reliev the effects of Please co will be out o returning on S€ to make the Sep scheduled an c sometime during amendment of th Once agair re-emphasize th -5l e Crushe City. 2. The PI pond as op 3. In an) form of iffl ric remain in place I channeled within lin as long as the Wood pulp/chips or stalled on top of the pond has been a equalization and Lain area. on to the Council Lete all necessary pr. 0 r ZONING PILE NO. 1309 CITH OF ONONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 8/23/88 TO*Mr. 6 Mrs. Gerald Nelson 1629 Bohn's Point Road Wayzatar MN 55391 COPIES TOf TYPE OP APPLICATIONS Variance/Conditional Use Permit DATE OP MEETINGS 8/15/88 VOTES 6 For 0 Against Planning CoBBlssion recn—wnds the follofwings Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS s The Planning Commission directed staff to arrange a meeting between you and the City Engineer at the site in order to discuss an appropriate plan to relieve the drainage problems along the south property line> and the effects of the collection of the drainage within the lakeshore yard. Please contact my office as soon as you return from your trip as I will be out of the office from September 2nd through September 16th, returning on September 19th. It will appear that we will not be prepared to make the September 19th, 1988 Planning Commission meeting, but staff has scheduled an optional meeting on October 3rd, 1988. Please contact me sometime during the week of August 29th so that we can begin discussing the amendment of the drainage plans for your property. Once again, for your information, the Planning Commission wished to re*emphasize the following: 1. Crushed rock with filtered fabric is considered hardcover by the City. 2. The Planning Commission would prefer the grassed swale with the pond as opposed to the crushed rock with filter fabric or plastic. 3. In any event, the City Engineer will be asked to confirm which form of improvement will provide less of an impact on the lake. f 4 I mm I' 1^1 '"Hi" I Engfi Octc City Box Crys Attn Ret Dear Ve I pleti quant The beloa drain 9 inc of t aitua low rathe flow The ] 1 consii areas be rei If yoL Toura BONES! ✓ Glenn GlCtli 2J3S Wt 0 1 1309 SSIOR ACTION f Notices 8/23/88 Alt I a neeting between U88 an appropriate property line, and lakeshore yard. ron your trip aa I fh September 16th, .11 not be prepared ting, but ataff has Pleaae contact me egin diacuaaing the laaion wlahed to id hardcover by the laed awale with the ric or plaatic. d to confirm which on the lake. ^4^:'. : F f m -fe 4 N;< irrasCa F-^v urn Bonestroo ROsene Anderllk & ivjl Associates Engincere A Architects Obo O. iorwgwxv RE W. Rounc RE Jomr** C. Andtrlft. RE •r«MuiU A. ee RlthWJ E Ibmtr. RE J»n« C Otaon. EE Glenn E Cook. EE T»*omM E Noyn. EE ■obtft O. Scftunfchc EE Mifvtn L lorveu. EE Renn A Goidon. E6. McfurdW. E(iMr,EE OoruU C. SmgMt, EE Jtny A ■owtdon, EE Malt A Hanwn, RE M K EMd. EE **o»«l T. Raumann, EE Robart R. Pltntrtt. EE OavM a Loana, EE. Thoma, W. EManon. EE C. lynch, EE. Jmm* E Maund, EE «»nn*th E Andanon. EE NMh A. MancE RoRanC Thomat E HoMafd Gknlaf E fidQafCon, EE Mark A. SaRk EE RnMpi CaanME EE MarkavkMNiEE October 11. 1988 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN S5323 Attnt Ms. Jeanne Mabustb Re I File No. 139-1309 Nelson Property Dear Jeanne, quantity of eater being discharged directly to the lake. property owner created a ponding area with the overflow being six inches -»■¥ »" -r “ -“-•"■•5 "'.‘..sation by stopping the fabric below the overflow elevation. This will al- rainfall events to percolate into the ground flow ^*''*®*' rainfall events will over­flow onto the yard area before entering the lake. The property owner has used a pemeable fabric for underlining much of the consirt^nE completed. The placement of f.Lic Is not consistent with adopted city policy. The fabric placed under the plantinx areas should be removed. The fabric placed in the rock spillway area should be retained to prevent erosion of the underlying soil. you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. Clenn R. Cook CRC:Ii 233S West HlghM^ay 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612*636-4600 f M. Subject: Note - App Commi who c subse has 1 reconu List of Ex! Exhib Exhib. Exhib; Exhib; Exhib; Exhib: Exhib: Exhib: Pertinent ] The ri was a encroc strict The a< long c Based the fc i sdorain. d. The work com- •Qd reduce the being sis inches provide proper : to in elevation ir ares hecauae ^e the hard cover This will al« I into the ground mts vill over* Aing mch of the fabric ii not tder the planting aj area should Tot i..i r IPlanniny Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Frcais Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator October 10r 1988 Subject: #1311 John & Susan Purdy, 1975 Eagerness Point Road - Variance - Revised Proposal - Referral From Council Mote - Applicants' original 1988 proposal, reviewed by the Planning Commission at your August 15th meeting, was reviewed by the Council who directed staff to draft a denial resolution. The applicants subsequently requested Council to consider a revised proposal, which has been referred back to Planning Commission for review and recommendation . List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applicants' Letter of Request Submitted 10/7/88 Exhibit B - Proposed Site Plan Exhibit C - Proposed Floor Plan Exhibit D - West Elevation View Exhibit E - Council Action Notice 9/29/88 Exhibit F - Staff Memo 9/21/88 Exhibit G - Council Action Notice 9/21/88 Exhibit H - Memo & Exhibits of 9/8/88 Pertinent Facts -* 1.The revised proposal reverts back to the five-year concept plan that was approved by the City in 1985. This plan results in no encroachment towards the lake from the existing house, and is located strictly to the south side of the house. The addition would be one story in height, being 16' wide, and 42.5' long or 680 s.f. in total floor area additional. Based on this proposal, the hardcover on the property would result in the following: 0-75 . ) « (Area - 7,900 s.f.) Lakeshore Deck & Stairs Shed (could be removed. « Deck Slab Trampoline (rock over fabric) House Edging (rock over fabric) House (existing) House (portion of proposed addition) 418 s.f. 52 s.f. 160 s.f. 17 s.f. 360 s.f. 135 s.f. 566 s.f. 96 s.f. * * M i 1,804 s.f. - 22.81 (1st proposal resulted in approxlmateXy 24,5% in 0-75') 1 mm Si-;":.! P,, iili mmm v: : wm Zoning Fi October 1 Page 2 of 75-2 App: was ares fabi Base har< woui Staff Re< Stal includes setback < that the 20'. Th< width, wt Stal 1. S>«ri 2. add: 3. hav< 4. s.f. fab coni MOTE: T: the gara current ’ on the < current Commissii 1 trator oad « 1 the Planning by the Council rhe applicants >roposal, which DT review and 7/88 \: 22.ii icept plan that esults in no and is located ride, and 42.5* ould result In Zoning Pile #1311 October 10, 1988 Page 2 of 2 75-250'* (Area - 8,850 s.f.) House (existing) Walks Garage Deck/Tub Rock/Fabric (15+394+345+50)-108-50 House (proposed portion of addition) 869 s.f. 227 s.f. 441 s.f. 152 s.f. 646 s.f. 584 s.f. 2,919 s.f.33.0% * Applicants removed plastic and replaced with permeable fabric which was allowed in 1985. Technically, the Council now considers these areas as hardcover. Applicants would prefer not to have to remove the fabric, but could if necessary. 3. Based on the above, the proposed addition will be in keeping with the hardcover approvals granted in 1985. Removal of the 52 s.f. shed would be a benefit in the 0-75* zone. Staff recommends approval of the revised proposal, which technically includes a variance to average lakeshore setback, a variance to setback of 7', and hardcover variance in the 0-75' and 75-25()' zones. Note that the applicants' sketch suggests a width for the new addition of 16 to 20'. The hardcover calculations noted in this memo were based on a 16 width, which is consistent with the 1985 proposal. Staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. 52 s.f. shed shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Any additional landscape areas that are constructed around the new addition shall have no fabric or plastic placed under them. 3. The existing landscape areas underlain by fabric may continue to have the fabric in place. 4. The maximum allowable hardcover on the property shall be 3,663 s.f. total, in addition to 1,141 s.f. of rock beds underlaid by porous fabric and the 160 s.f. deck underlaid by sand only, which were not considered hardcover in the 1985 hardcover approval resolution. HOTB: The applicants should be advised that the 1985 variance approval for the garage side setback has not been a subject of the discussions for the current variance request, and if applicants expect to commence construction on the garage prior to the one year variance expiration current request is approved, applicants should advise the Planning Commission to address the subject at this time. e 33.0% ble fabric which considers these ive to remove the keeping with the the 52 s.f. shed which technically riance to the 75* -250* zones. Note addition of 16 to re based on a 16* ce of a building :ed around the ne# r them. c may continue to ty shall be 3*663 iderlaid by porous y, which were not resolution. lance af^roval for scussions for the mence construction ion date* if the Lse the Planning (0^ "7^ / Hih:^ <^cL ffhrTnri / Onryu: rdTUj^^ :^k.eJ-cAc s cl. Ci^C/ZS^cL p^rifp t^jL CtL*Socc^<iL<ryi rt/^ C^yi^ryt ^ hLcu^('y\j^ dA^cL iiLt da^f^CJi . ih ura^ ^jor-c^^d a^cLt cvisk^yC its h d^vi ib pyzrpoStUi ^ bUr 5 “ ptcui\y TTui^ re.pr^s*>yX^ ^ ^ py-cpos^Ji^ d^d uh6y dJ~-6 C^ourr’e^h^tCt^ dr^c^ofZ/r^^ lyii^cil yt-TKcli ^tiJD^y7n.utCccf khr ^tt.5' fVUL^Ce.t bJL-cLirsiyyr^ 5ouiXC cLs Un 3irLce . PfCcls^ ^i^-^ d- rL4d.Lr\M) hnruMcL h puLr’^.oL aph'<TY) TI^^L'3 ftUd ““ cL-S d^ir io^AA.X^Cz.r' S # d^i^CLT^cX Lls th4Jt hi urff-tcLd io^ cUbU. it> (UryrvpOX^ ut^ ftUd 6L'i: cX. Cost tl'^<juf\y /x.^jL-h t5pxnr\f^. pe^pH 4o /P^^Ui^C'rh.yZf pCcf^S d^CTTchia^Ce. CL^ ds^ Odd. /7^« Xf tyuA.sr' Wcihr uuxJtU A try. 'fhr Pia./Ly^\cj dlpp^av^j OXjLr p4-c^^db unM n^ir clMc h Ct^Kl • CLri. r€u.njut<iti'/\^ pLd^ ihut^ tU7l5 _OLfp\^f'ircJL 6H (X'T^ Uhe. a.n€. lUldL A' cL/^ tllA. At d-dt - iV^ hd,^' h X^cL Awu,c^ OippjLSL X ^ Crvyx^yyt t'%%f^ Urit^ S^Ji. ^ • lra^uX,7\^^ f • LC5* ms cph'ary JL 5 E. /o ryuLSt' 'tb 4^. l>;rT^AT 4 ^jj^CtjL <CnitZy1\JSl.Z\\ ^frzdXLi^U> 7?u<t--rL^ 5^. , .At^ ^ 1 M3*/^ J'-* r^LppO"/^ i l^e< “S '■ „ • .i 0^ r PW: w • * 1. i: I 1' 9 *4 I I i t • t u > l»"^' r>ss •• w 0 bi- 1 T I 4 *±. L. V *'37 - O OF, Atita-tpO^S l!v: . ------------ jOiV ------- 1 * --------------------------------------------------------- 1 • • • • • t % • i IP-:.'-'”SS 4 I fc,- mmi Kv-'';.. w«S«^' I I ; y ' 'F r r«^; r -fc:. f a a /\ / L N '<.4 \ CITY OF P.O. Box Crystal Joh 197 Way TYPE OF DATE OF EOTES AE Ref reconunen Add schedule informat If are ava approval I 5: CITY OP OROMO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONI!^ PILB 80. 1311NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTIONDate of Notice: 9/29/88 TOs John & Susan Purdy 1975 Fagerness Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETINGS 9/28/88 notes and special CONDITIONS: VOlBs 3 For 0 Against Referred revised proposal to Planning Commission for review and recommendation• Additional information (revised plan) must be submitted in order to schedule this before the Planning Commission, Deadline for submittal of information for the October 17th meeting is October 7th. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder or City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. M0CFROM: DATES M S< « V. At you draft a re: bathroom an< lakeshore s of that re Although th recommend t revisions b< Proposed Mo John 6 Sus2 Planning Coe I 1311[. ACTIOaNotice: 9/29/88 n for r«viev and itted in order to for submittal of cil minntei# they after review and I" IS 4 •1 mi P:- • •ife'*'* '■^''' •r.-W-'-’ TO:Mayor GrabekOrono Council MembersCity Administrator Bernhardson ¥ FROM: DATS: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & zoning Administrator September 21r 1988 SUBJBCT: #1311 John & Susan Purdy, 1975 Fagerness Point Road - Variance - Request For Consideration of Revised Proposal At your September 12th meeting. Council voted 5-0 to direct staff to draft a resolution for denial of the variances for construction of a bathroom and enclosed porch addition which would encroach further into the lakeshore setback. Subsequently, the applicants have requested a deferral of that resolution and they request consideration of a revised plan. Although that plan has not been submitted as of this writing, staff would recommend that the resolution for denial be deferred and the proposed revisions be referred to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Proposed Motion: Moved Seconded _ _, To refer the revised proposal of John & Susan Purdy for additions at 1975 Fagerness Point Road, to the Planning Commission for further recommendation. _ _^Ayes, _ _^Nays. ■. ."jp mF CITI OF C P.O. Box Crystal I Johr 197! Ways TTFB OF 1 DATE OF I COUNCIL 1 Coui requester per your recommen« review o days pri Deadline Deadline If are ava: approval '■-7:= ■ 'v:istrator '4 ' id - roposai direct staff to istruction of a further into the tsted a deferral I revised plan, ng, staff would id the proposed mnendation. Lsed proposal of t Roadr to the _^Nays. CITY OF OROflO P.O. Box 66 crystal Bay» MN 55323 473-7357 IkBPLICATIOH HO. 1311 MOTICB OP COOHCIL ACTXOH Date of Notice: 9-21-83TO* John & Susan Purdy 1975 Paqorness I'oint Road Wayzata.' MN 55391 COPIES* type of APPLICATIOH: Variance DATE OF MEETIHG* 9-12-88 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against COOHCIL ACTIOH - MOTIOH* Council voted to direct staff to draft a resolution for denial of the reauested variances per the Planning Commission recommendation. However, llTlolr subU^ent request, staff will defer drafting that resolution and 'rv!rw*"o! Deadline for the October 17th Planning Commission meeting is October ^0. If vou desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, are available from the City Recorder ol City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. To*Pr< Date: Subject: Applicat cons setb List of B Exhi Exhi Exhi Exhi Discussic Pie app licani their hor existing invo 1 vei zones, additions The deny th< allowing the exia Planning The present! Staff wo 1988, St as the a conditio approval . 1311HCIL ACTIQWQ#: 9-21-88 for denial of the idation. Howeverf ftat resolution and Lng Commission for bmitted at least 7 ou wish to appear 9 is September 26. is October 10. icil minutes, they after review and Tos Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator BernhardsonFtomtMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Dates September 8, 1988 subject: #1311 John * Susan Purdy, 1975 Fagerness Point Road - Variance Application - Renewal and revisions of variances 9ranted construct additions to residence. Variances require . setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover. in 1995 t' lakeshor Exhibit C - Planning Commission Minutes of 8/15/88 Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 8/11/88 Discussioii * Please review the memo and exhibits of August 11, 1988. Th applicants are proposing to construct an their home which will reduce their west a es proposal ali; existing house is already only 55- from shoreline setba.( involves an increase in hardcover in both the 0 5 1 zones Further, the proposed addition will encroach approximately additionally past the average lakeshore setback line. The Planning Commission, at their August * deny the application due to the V°7thl existing house, whr allowing construction closer to the Please review tt the existing house already has a substandard se Planning Commission Action Notice dated 8/18/88. The applicants have provided a memo stating ^arantitg”"a J^rianc presents their claimed of August 1 Qi-aff would note for the record that basea on x:ne ouStart wouAu note A .rcllcation nor recommended approva 1988, staff has not approved this PP recommended some proposi as the applicants state i.n their Commission recommenc conditions to the Planning Commission if the Planning Commission approval. Zoning File #1311 September 8, 1988 Page 2 of 2 The applicants are suggesting that with removal of the 52 “-f* hnlldlna and the fenced kennel area southwest of the house, that the Proposed addition will increase the hardcover in the 0-75' ^ presJing that areas of permeable fabric under rock are considered as non- Lrdcover, staff would view the 0-75- hardcover increase as 153 J ; removal of the 52 s.f. storage shed would leave a net 0-75 Increase of 101 s.f. In the scheme of things, the V' ♦ n between their calculation and staff calculation amounts to about 0.2%. Staff RecoBiBendatioii - The Planning Commission recommendation of denial was due mainly to the fact Ih!t irconLporary times the City has held fast to the concept that Vi”.‘r. hardcover proposed does not place a sxgn viAwg that the average setback encroachment has little impac on n g of the lakes staff reco^nends that Council Members view this the memos and exhibits provided. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution reflecting Council's final action on this matter will be drafted for formal adoption at your next meeting. FROMs SUB3ECT: 8.f. Storage ler that the iback zone by August llthf lered as non* 3 s.f. Then, 5' hardcover , difference mt 0.2% uiinly to th# concept that >re setbacks, orhood. The would set a substandard f Cosmtission le additional property, and ghbors' view® ty and review the Planning Mittet will be ri"; « 1 rf X ■•i TO: FROM SUBJECT: Mayor James Grabek Members of the Orono City Council f cr-r: v:::? ;u ^ 11 ISff-8iS88 Susan and John Purdy 1973 Fagerness Point Road REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE LAKE SHORE SETBACK GUIDELINES TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-SEASON PORCH AND BATHROOM ADDITION Summary of Action To Date: • Approved by the City Staff with conditional actions recommended. Denied by the Planning Commission due to "desire that no additional structural encroachment should be allowed closer to the lake shore than the existing house". (Notice of Planning Commission Action Date 8/18/88.) Position of Applicants: We feel that a variance is warranted. The property is unique and the configuration of the house and it’s position on the lot create hardships that necessitate construction of the addition as proposed. Hardships Location of the house on the lot — The house was built in the early 1900's in the logical position ^or any structure but well within what was to become the 0-75' setback zone. Orientation and topography of the lot —The slope of the lot is eastward with the house oriented westward toward the lake views. Expansion of the house in any other direction would require significant excavation and would not maximize the view of the lake. Also, the western side of the house has substantial natural vegetation that affords both shading and privacy Internal configuration of the house — Given the external design and internal arrangements of the rooms and utilities, expansion in any other direction than the one proposed would be costly and disruptive. ProDosal If a setback variance is granted, we would remove two permanent structures that are closer to the lake than the proposed addition: 1) A storage shed, and; 2) A fenced kennel that is being used for storage, both of which were standing when we purchased the house in 1973. Rationale for Granting a Variance The proposed addition is the only reasonable and affordable design to accomplish our purposes. Lv , vv:.v \mi IS; mi Mi Esfti m -vi! IP •V-i\'mm — I \ I . V *LC. LiS ‘ ‘SEP-8S88 ^CK GUIDELINES TO ^DDITION Lmended. ) additional structural >re than the existingm.) and the configuration ips that necessitate lit in the early 1900's I what was to become f the lot is eastward svs. Expansion of the pxcavation and would side of the house has I and privacy. external design and mansion in any other ruptive. ave two permarient osed addition: 1) A ted for storage, both 1973. ffordabie design to ^ i. \ ^m The elimination of the two structures would enhance the neighbors' view of the lake and the lake users' view of the property. . The proposed addition would not be visible to the two adjacent neighbors. • Because of the natural vegetation, the proposed addition would not be clearly visible from the lake. The only structures on the property clearly visible from the lake are the Storage house and the fenced kennel. The proposed addition would also require the wooden deck and a small concrete slab that ''®P‘'®?®'’L.jicover in the 0-75' of the lake. Thus, the addition would increase the hardcover in the zone by only S3 sq. ft. The proposed addition is consistent with j‘''® ^®®^„ >?!f significantly less hardcover than the proposed addition in that 5 year pi submitted with our variance application in 195:>. Adjacent home has a free-standing structure which s^ves as y>’®« ®®^g norch which is closer to the lake than the proposed addition. The struct j k ir 1975 It reofesenis the easternmost structure on the lot :n"'shr;i5'''bTusl7-in ‘deTe7“ning the average setback of adjacent residences. , - ClTt OF P.O. Bo Crystal Jo 19 Wa TYPE OF DATE OF Plannin De BOXES A De no addJ lakesho lot siz have be conjunc propert precede Ap If minutes approve 1 e neighbors ’ view Of the two adjacent dition would not be om the lake are the nation of a spaced lard cover within 75* rdcover in the 0-75* plan and represents i in that 5-year plan ^/es as a three season lit ion. The structure structure on the lot «tback of adjacent ZONING FILE NO.1311 CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay# MN NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 8-18-88 John & Susan Purdy 1975 Eagerness Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TOs TYPE OF APPLICATIONS Variance DATE OF MEETINGS 8-15-88 VOTES 6 For 0 Against Planning Coanlssion recoaniienda the followings Denial for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS s Denial reconunendation was based on Planning Commission's desire that no additional structural encroachment should be allowed closer to the lakeshore than the existing house. It appeared that while the hardships of lot size# existing house location and the limited building envelope might have been persuasive as far as hardcover percentages were concerned# (in conjunction with the potential for removal of small buildings on the property)# Planning Commission was unanimous in not wanting to set a precedent with the requested additional lakeshore setback variance. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Cit^ Council September 12# 1988; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. Any additional information you wish to present for City Council review should be in this office by 9-2-88. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes# they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. -■Vi?'- %•-> -h. - ipjsi^^'My mL'. • / ;MINUTES ZONING access Schoo1 it wher of the it wouJ plattec the pu applic inform Applies to the II denial reques Commis subdiv: met re Ayes*5 approv« transf< «1311 . 1975 Fi VARIANT PUBLIC encroa The Pu revise 15.4% rockbe 17.3%. is 19. r If •111 m Acnw 9tice: 8-18-88 >n's desire that I closer to the :he hardships of envelope might I concerned, (in ildings on the nting to set a ariance. t 7s00 p.m. Any r City Council ling Commission ter review and IM 4^ 1 'u- i* • • • • t I f* *HIMUTBS OF THB PLiVNNING COMMISSION £TIN6 HELD AUGUST 15, )9S8 ZONING PILE #1321 CONTINUED ^ access to all new residential development. Johnson said that the School District could vacate the road if they do not need to use it when the four parcls are acquired by the School District. Kelley stated that he would like to see a topographical map of the area, along with other planning criteria. Moos asked if it would not be most beneficial to the owners to have the parcel platted in case the School District did not follow through with the purchase of the entire parcel. Kelley asked whether the applicant wanted the Planning Commission to vote on the information as presented and forward it to the City Council. Applicant stated that he wanted them to vote and send the matter to the City Council. ’ There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Cohen, to recommend denial of the request for a variance on the grounds that the request does not meet the required standards. The Planning Commission recommended that the parcel in question be properly subdivided to ensure that future planning needs of the City are met reoardless of the disposition of the property. Motion, Ayes«5, Johnson»Nay. Johnson suggested that the Commission approve this matter conditioned upon restrictive covenants as to transfefahce ofthe'remining^parcels B, C, and D. 11311 JOHN a SUSAN PURDY 1975 FAGERHESS POINT ROAD VARIAHCBS PUBLIC HEARING 8:05 P.M. - 8:20 P.M. N The Affidavit^of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Purdy were present for this matter Gaffron explained that the applicants were seeking variances for the purpose of adding a screen porch to their home on the lakeshore side. The Purdys were granted a variance back in 1985 to put an addition on the street side of their home. Applicants are in need of a hardcover variance as well as a variance to encroach in the average lakeshore setback and lakeshore setback. The Purdys had a 5 year plan at one point that has since been revised. The existing hardcover calculation in the 0-75* zone is 15.4% and does not include the permeable fabric underneath the rockbeds. Applicants are requesting an increase in hardcover to 17.3%. In the 75-250* zone, the requested increase in hardcover is 19.9% from 19.1%. Kelley asked the applicants if they would like to present .fj MINUTESZONING 1 their m proposa] that th< flowed € to any < the ne: configu necessa logical additloi neighbo: virtual improve bathroom average the sout inconsis Bel addition room wer plan, bu limit ac access w< light ii Bellows Mr. Purd bathroon porch wc possible house. 1 to view 1 living oi request 1 that the porch. Be 1 applicani ambitiou stated tf requests Kelley at 3-season them the really n< a half an 3ro«< origins 1 origins 1 Purdy St. r ...Hi'1989 tiat the to use t. cal map sked if parcel gh with ler the on the 3uncil. matter mattet commend lat the Lannlng roperly ity are Notion* mission s as to Lng were riances on the M 1985 Licants nee to etback. ;e been tone is ith the >ver to rdcover present V. ♦.'t ¥ L";.; mm ^4 % ... J 1 VtMIMUTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15* 1988ZONING FILE #1311 CONTINUED their matter. Mr. Purdy stated that they had revised their proposal from what they had submitted in 1985. He did not think that the addition would interfere with drainage because runoff flowed east from the addition. The addition would not be visible to any of their neighbors* and would not interfere with any o^ the neighbor's view of the lake. Due to the internal configuration of their home* the addition* as proposed* is necessary. Their house is 80 years old and there is no other logical location for the addition. Mr. Purdy felt that the addition would not be detrimental to the lake* ncr to the neighborhood. Mrs. Purdy added that the screen porch would be virtually invisible from the lake* and would aesthetically improve the house. She stated that they needed the added bathroom because they have a teenager. Mr. Purdy stated that the average lakeshore setback is skewed somewhat because the house to the south of them is built on the road. This made their property inconsistent with any of the neighboring properties. asked applicants if they had considered building the addition along the side of the house where the kitchen and family room were located. Mr. Purdy said that they had considered the plan* but there is a large counter area in the kitchen that would limit access to the porch and bathroom. The only other possible access would be through the family room* but that would limit the light in the kitchen and not be as aesthetically pleasing. Bellows stated that she did not see a hardship in this matter. Mr. Purdy said that the proposed plan would allow access to the bathroom from the living room and dining room and access to the porch would be through an existing door. This would not be possible if they built the addition on the kitchen side of the house. Mrs. Purdy added that the proposed plan would allow them to view the lake from their porch* which is a rightful benefit of living on Lake Minnetonka. Kelley asked if applicants would then request to add a deck to their proposed porch. Mr. Purdy stated that they had no future plans to add a deck to their 3~season porch. Bellows stated that she did not like the fact that applicants were back before the Planning Commission with a more ambitious plan than the one they proposed in 1985. Mr. Purdy stated that the plan they now proposed was less ambitious. Their requests in 1985 included an extension to the garage and house. Kelley asked applicants why they could not turn their deck into a 3-*season porch. Mr. Purdy stated that such a plan would not give them the required space they need. Mrs. Purdy added that they really need the bathroom. They currently have only one bath and a half and have no bath on the main level. Brown asked applicants how this plan varied from the original plan submitted in 1985. Mr. Purdy stated that the original plan had all of the additions on the south side. Mrs. stated that after they had added the family room* they 8 ^ - .. . MINUTES 01ZONING PII discovere bathroom* Bell< real prob^ look at t stated ths only confj approve t Bellows r< structure addition She added screened p with the d the house. Kell was purch addition t Cohen stai he felt th setting a year plar structure they are ; until the were befoi reverse p matter whe individual if the Pu; existing I All othei years hav Bellows s were othei the lake y area* now remove. There was closet It Wi denial of for encro that he fc she could that the h exceeded : them as mi m 1988 !d their ot think B runoff visible h any of nterna 1 sedr is lo other hat the to the rould be tically e added that the house to property iing the 1 family ered the it would >ossible Lmit the .easing, matter, s to the 9 to the not be i of the Low them ief it of lid then r stated “season :t that a more Purdy . Their I house. t into a lOt give at they >ath and roa the tiat the I. Hrs. a« they S r ■n.'. VI r ?• ... frM MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988ZONING FILS #1311 CONTINUED discovered there was a greater need for the 3“season porch and bathroom, rather than enhancing the master bedroom. Bellows stated that the Planning Commission members ha';e a real problem dealing with the concept of a 3-season porch. They look at them as being an addition to the house. Mrs. Purdy stated that they agreed with that. Cohen added that the bathroom only confirms that. Bellows stated that it was more difficult to approve that than a screened porch. Mrs. Purdy asked why. Bellows replied that the 3-season porch was adding to the floor structure and mass of the house, and they are asking to do the addition in an area where they should not be building at*all. She added that if the applicants were requesting approval of a screened porch, the Planning Commission would have an easier time with the deliberation; a 3-season porch is in fact an addition to the house. Kelley inquired as to the original size of the house when it was purchased by the Purdys. Mrs. Purdy stated that the only addition to the house in 15 years was the addition to the front. Cohen stated that he empathized with applicants' situation, but he felt that there was no demonstrated hardship and was afraid of setting a precedent. Mr. Purdy stated that in their proposed 5 year plan they intended to add two larger, very permanent structures to the house than what they were now seeking. What they are requesting should carry them through the next 6 years until their children are grown. Mrs. Purdy added that when they were before the Planning Commission in 1985, they were given the reverse precedent-setting argument and were told it did not matter what had previously been done, each case was looked upon individually. Gaffron interpreted Cohen's comments to mean that if the Purdys were allowed to build further lakeward from the existing house, that would be unusual for Fagerness Point Road. All other additions done in that area over the last 10 to 15 years have been done behind the line of the existing house. Bellows stated that that was the problem, especially since there were other alternatives. Mr. Purdy stated that if hardcover near the lake was a concern they had a storage structure and a kennel area, now classified as hardcover, that they would be willing to remove. There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Brown, seconded by Kelley, to recommend denial of the variances for #1311, based upon setting a precedent for encroaching into the lakeshore setback area. Kelley added that he felt there were other alternatives. Bellows stated that she could not find a hardship in this matter. Applicant added that the hardship is that the house is 80 years old and they have exceeded its capacity. There is no other plan that would allow them as much useful space as the plan they now proposed. Gaffron V r 4 e. •• j / !-• t:: ■ .> . "V ' •• ■ a * : k ■ _____TV* ■ ■ TV MINUTES CZONING FI asked app could pr wanted th proposed. #1312 fill 3165 NORT VARIANCE PUBLIC HI The . noted. Appl Zoni seeking a will not lakeshori hardcover not requi: Bell sketch si survey a applicatJ acceptinc aware tha noted for applicatj suggested item #4 X "current i Mr. ] and felt applican calculati< based up< percentag percentage There and the pi: It w approval regarding percentag zone. Mai by removii asked app with, an a 1988 rch and have a . They Purdy athroom cult to sd why, B floor do the It* al 1. b1 of a er time tion to fhen it e only front. >n , but raid of >oaed 5 manent What f years in they /en the id not sd upon in that rom the t Road. I to 15 house, e there sr near kennel ling to hearing commend! recedent ty added :ed that it added ley have d allow Gaffron I;; A 1 !L '■ .V --" • £■* MINUTBS OF THB PLANNING CONHISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988• • a 'ZONING PILE #1311 CONTINUEDasked applicants if they would prefer tabling this matter so they could present a revised plan at a later meeting? Applicants wanted the Planning Commission to vote on the matter as currently proposed. Motion, Ayes«6, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1312 WILLIAM J. LAUER 3165 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:25 P.M. - 8:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted . Applicant was present for this matter.’ Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the applicant was seeking approval for a hardcover variance for an addition that will not encroach in the average lakeshore setback or 75' lakeshore setback areas. The variance would allow a 1.89% hardcover increase in the 75-250' setback area. The project will not require major excavation or land alterations. e Bellows asked for readable plans. Mabusth stated that the sketch showing the proposal was staff's sketch. An updated survey showing the driveway was not submitted with the application. Bellows admonished the Zoning Department for accepting incomplete plans. Applicant stated that he was not aware that the City required any further information. Mabusth noted for both applicant and Commission members that the land use application clearly states that a survey is required. Kelley suggested revising the variance application. Ee wanted to change item #4 under "Required Submittals" to include the language "current and proposed". Mr. Lauer stated that he had reviewed the staff's drawings and felt that they were correct. Mabusth stated that the applicant showed 245 s.f. more hardcover than staff's calculations. Johnson asked if tha 1.89% hardcover Increase was based upon staff's calculations? ’ Mabusth stated that the percentage was based upon applicant's calculations, staff's percentage was less. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of #1312, per staff's recommendations and option B regarding conditions of approval. Cohen asked Mabusth what percentage of hardcover needed to be removed from the 250-500' 2one. Mabusth stated that applicant could remove 1.89% hardcover by removing accessory structures in the 250-500' zone. Mabusth asked applicant if he was familiar with the language preceded with, an asterik that stated that the hardcover variance was • • I } . •'1 TO:FPC FROM: DATE: SUBJ: J APPLICATIOl t VARIANCES 1 I ZONING DISt LIST OF EX] A B C D S P G B I A] p: P]m A’ Pi N< Pi Pi PERTINENT 1. I 75' and 75 encroached the applic the addit: their prof from the w approximat 2. t: existing i inspection fabric del Current hi them, are r hey\ts tly FROMt SOBJs A mmPlanning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members City Administrator BernhardsonMichael Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATS: August 11, 1988 #1311 John 6 Susan Purdy; 1975 Fagerness Point Road Variance - Public Hearing APPLICATIONS Renewal and revisions of variances granted in 1985, to construct additions to residence. VARIAMCBS RBQOIRBDs Lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover. ZONING DISTRICT: LR-IC, singe family, 1/2 acre, sewered LIST OF EXHIBITS A B C D B P G H I Application and hardcover position paper Plat Map Property Owners List Updated Survey with Hardcover Calculations Aver-ge Lakeshore Setback Diagram Proposed Addition Plans Net Hardcover Revision Plan at Addition Location Previous Variance Approval Resolution #1814 Previous Hardcover Review, 1985 PERTINENT FACTS: ^ Tn 1QS5 the Council approved variances for hardcover in the 0 ~ -5^ ani 75-250? iones an^gr^tld approval for additions which partially ;Lroathed into the 0-75' and average lakeshore setback zones. Because of the applicants* phased plan of additions, the variance IroJ^ the^.t‘lakeshor^^ whereas the closest point of the existing house is approximately 55' from the shoreline. 2. The applicants have ren. .ved plastic from ’'i>^tua“j all the pre- Current hardcover percentages, excluding the rocKoeas witn t- them, are as follows: 0* - 75*: 15.4% (1213 sq. ft.) 75* -250*: 19.1% (1689 sq. ft.) — - a > \ --J .1.mm I E’ % m Zoning Pile #13 August 11, 1988 Paage 2 of 3 If the Counci hardcover, the 3. The p: distance past topography and property owner 4. The ap their request t that floor layc substantial na suggested by th 5. The c hardcover maxim house, proposed larger square f approved for th used, and which hits the existj directed to flo DISCUSSION: As of thii reached for dif review of thii included a let position regard To date, t the 1985 variai that landscape will meet the maintained. Tl* taken a conser landscape areas because it is maintenance of i Working unc fabric are not hardcover in Notwithstanding encroachment ni City has general ;t • : •s--...- ; r -^4 •'•■■■ ■■■ ! !••. .■ ■ tVV\S •J ^1 M: Zoning File #1311 August 11, 1988 Paage 2 of 3If the Council continues to treat such rockbeds/permeable fabric as hardcoverr the percentages are as follows: ^ ^ r Z ^ . O' - 7'i': 21.6% (1708 sq. ft.)----->' 75' -250': 28.2% (2493 sq. ft.) ----'^ ___ 3. The proposed addition encroaches approximately 10* additional distance past the average laJceshore setback line. However, due to topography and site layout, no lake views enjoyed by either adjacent property owner will be decreased due to the proposed addition. 4. The applicants have given no written justification or hardship for their request to expand the house toward the lake. Staff would anticipate that floor layout of the house, topography generally sloping eastward, and substantial natural screening along the west lakeshore, might all be suggested by the applicants as justification for the request. 5. The current proposal would require a revision to the 0'-75* hardcover maximum previously approved for this property, since the existing house, proposed addition and lakeshore deck and stairs in total comprise a larger square footage of permanent structural hardcover than was previously approved for the 0'-75' zone. Again, the justification that was previously used, and which may still be valid, is that the bulk of the rainfall that hits the existing house and proposed addition generally flows or can be directed to flow eastward through the front yard area. DISCUSSIONS As of this writing, applicants were out of town and could not be reached for discussion of the project. The previous hardcover variance review of this property was quite rigorous, and the applicants have included a letter from that previous application which states their position regarding hardcover. To date, the applicants have complied with the letter and intent of the 1985 variance approval. City Staff continue to support the concept that landscape beds underlain by permeable, geotechnical fabric certainly will meet the intent of the hardcover ordinance if properly used and maintained. The applicant is advised that the current City Council has taken a conservative position on the use of permeable fabric under landscape areas, and generally continues to treat such areas as hardcover, because it is virtually impossible for City Staff to enforce the maintenance of those areas as non-hardcover. Working under the assumption that the applicants' landscape areas with fabric are not hardcover, the current proposal results in an increase in hardcover in the 0'-75* zone over what was previously approved. Notwithstanding the hardcover issue, the proposal does ask for additional encroachment near the lake on the west side, within the 0*-75* zone. The City has generally encouraged property owners in similar situations to m r m Zoning File #1311 August 11# 1988 Page 3 of 3 construct new additions lake than the existing ; unique circumstances c certainly typical of o* both ends of the lot. properties "up and down structure closer to tli precedent since adopt!* search would likely re^ since 1975, but it woulc STAFF RBCONNBNDATION From the standpoin proposed additions can directed eastward, and « under decorative rockbe this addition can be cc intent of Resolution # approved . From the standpoint structure in the average have an insignificant ei the standpoint that tt structure closer to the be an unprecedented ap Commission must determir the lakeshore setback v recommends approval, S limiting the height of ^ this time, and that all property . Planning Commissior the various sheds on th lakeshore east of Fagei still "no-man's-land". 49 C*. — A- m. fabric as additional »r, due to ir adjacent lardship for anticipate stward, and ght all be the 0*-75* he existing comprise a previously previously infall that s or can be uld not be tr variance cants have ates their d Intent of ‘he concept c certainly y used and louncil has brie under hardcoverr iforce the areas with Increase in approved, additional sone. The ;uatioas to r-- :a. u Vi c Zoning File #1311 August Ilf 1988 Page 3 of 3 construct new additions either outside the O'-75* zone or no closer to the lake than the existing house. There is no question that this property has unique circumstances compared to most other lakeshore in OronOf but is certainly typical of other Fagerness Point properties that have lake on both ends of the lot. Looking at the other variances granted for properties "up and down the line" from Purdy'sf the addition of above-grade structure closer to the west lakeshore than the existing house has no precedent since adoption of the 75* setback in 1975. Certainly^ a file search would likely reveal a few such approvals in other areas of the City since 1975# but it would be unusual in this immediate neighborhood. STAFF RBCOMMEIIDATION From the standpoint of hardcover and runoff# it would seem that the proposed additions can be constructed such that roof drainage can be directed eastward# and with the use of permeable fabric rather than plastic under decorative rockbeds# rainfall infiltration can be maximized# hence this addition can be completed in a manner that will meet the hardcover intent of Resolution #1814# if not the actual percentages previously approved• From the standpoint of view encroachment due to additional above-grade structure in the average lakeshore setback zone# the proposed addition will have an insignificant effect on views currently enjoyed by neighbors. From the standpoint that this addition will create additional above-grade structure closer to the west lakeshore than the existing house# this would be an unprecedented approval in the immediate neighborhood. Planning Commission must determine whether a reasonable hardship exists and whether the lakeshore setback variance is justified. If the Planning Commission recommends approval# Staff would suggest conditioning that approval on limiting the height of the structure to just the single story proposed at this time# and that all roof drainage be directed to the east side of the property. Planning Commission may also wish to consider structural trade-offs of the various sheds on the property# not only west of the house# but at the lakeshore east of Fagerness Point Road, which according to plat maps# is still "no-man's-land". C. . ■ • i *it -1. i- J 1 , -» r *■* •' e fr u A- .-ir: -i H- i ^■4 'y-: rm ■I CITY OF ORONO -Initial Applica ($50.00 per e Renewal Varianc (no change fr After-the-Fact PROPERTY LOCATI Site Address Property Identi Please check on Attach legal d< required survey APPLICAHT Ncune Address: OWNER (if diffe Name Address: Date Prope: I (do) (do ww w 1 PRESENT USE OF ! Present Zoi Present Us< DESCRIPTION OF ] Describe r< VARIANCES RBQOIl Lot I Setback Vai Other no closer to the his property has n Orono, but is tat have lake on es granted for n of above-grade nq house has no rtainiy, a file ireas of the City iborhood. Ld seen that the drainage can be :her than plastic naximized, hence it the hardcover ages previously onal above-grade ed addition will neighbors. From nal above-grade ouse# this would hood. Planning :ist8 and whether nning Cosoiission :hat approval on tory proposed at east side of the ral trade-offs of ouse» but at the to plat mapSr is o APPLICAHT Ncuiie CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATIONInitial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional va Renewal Variance Pee $75.00(no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) •- ' j • •»**fl t "73tr- PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address r rjv nc nn.-niinui ( I L'f wnviliJ PhfcLJl rrkrAkjrr nccjpcI urnnuu Ls t xLkm 1 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) _ _ _ * Please check one - Property *-^'^^bstract or .11 r:va Vki,V fS'i'l Ai iuv torrens? 1432117433 01 CEH Attach legal description to application if not included required survey. ■ri ,v ftrr» /\r JLu'V* VV db i Sg (?c Phone (home ) 7~jHAtt'K YOU Hi ii'y.hi) ! ihil : T*i i 9 0 mlm 9 f I f U 9 T 9 9^1 T # -rr± VIwVV u.*wa i\ML£i jlxJ • Phone (work) 3^7^ ! 3^ V - Address: /^-/^(clAcity t (JJa rTT Zip: / 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. PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Use of Property _ _ _Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: InA ^ rOls-rT:J^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) yf- ^ •• %■ HARDdDxrDesc enf <dbscript:Des< Cod' required 1. Com 4. 5. 6. 7. Cer thi 348 Sta nan obt Cer Toi in Pla As an^ Ad( The Api; rememb€ informa Certifi Zoning APPLICA The ap reques' unusuaJ the in knowlec Applica OWNERS The ow author: agents tion ai Owner* Applic Planni third review unable author Office CITY OF omo Fmact OFFICE • i T* Vf J, V* V* VV \/ M # • 4 4^' A A f rrv i A.- A • VV ^7^trf ,V' A%/A »VV.wr#fC-,* A," JL k.‘ V'' « V'V ^ACU 9AIu^T-rHm YOU n A J-' 4 W ».• V U V'V^ i \M xX f AxJ • V— Zip: / Zip: th/year) Residential t $ 3:? 4?JD Rear) enforcemei required submittals 1. 2. 4. 5. 6 • 7. Se^cribe undue hardship or P-^^ctical difficuiy„«---^ oesori -,ning regulations ^ JUlyix^c7 *CidCode Requirements:'/ •• V-.mm'-MU Completed Application Form owners within 150' (you must obtain i^rH^^UT^cou^n^y ItlmpldV‘legal sized envelopes ‘‘J®’ P^^^rttrfuse ad°dress labels names on the above listjjith nonreturn obtained with property ovmers iisu^ calculations as required. lr%"e7^fex\"s\\"nrand proposed elevations, if any changes narMl“?lb?”nld“^th’'p°r^^ty ow^ ^ separate list of information has not been included._____________________________________ zoning Official's Signature iJ apPLICABT'S SIGHATOHB all information required or Applicant's Signature OMHBRS SIGHATURB to this application and furth^er JJ^^ner hereby ackowledges p^rty by City staff, consultants, authorizes >^?asonable entry ont P „^embers for purposes of investiga aaents, Commission members, ana v-oun ?ion and verification of this req^st. ----------- owner’s oxyuauui.^----------------------------------------------------------------------------- . 4-he ;;;uc;;;';;;;-;;vV;vi'VuVmTt^ Planning Commission Meeting. Pla ^ must be present at all third Monday of each month. gi®n and Council. If an applicant is review meetings of the Planning Coi^ olease make arrangements to unable to attend a scheduled ^^e Building * Zoning authorized agent attend in your place an Office of this change prior to the meeting. . ' .• ''‘ T: ’ ir -'1 •K f rAa.Mj To: Hiyc Rt: City Wt conctmii itfuing t many rtf distrtfsi major inc building opportiti can bf af tftKing 1 Wff continuf protfct t ovtrbuilc tint par If) landtcapi ■a% ■7 JL,with Zoning it" must obtain Govt Center each of the Iress labels required, any changes rate list of ion. Please if the above .s complete. equired or ees and/or tifies that of his/her 7*^^ — >n and further j consultants » of investiga- before the ©Id on the scheduled iplleant is to have an g i Zoning h. ^}fr: .•V?- % f •y V-!<J r-jf ■ i *. ,4 To: Mayor Mary C. Builtr and Mambtri of the Orono City Council Re: City Hardcover Definitions We have been asKed by the City Zoning Administrator to write this note concerning the definition of what constitutes hardcover for the purpose of issuing building permits. We feel strongly that the current definition is> in many respects* inconsistent with the presumed intent of the ordinance. We are distressed that the vagueness of the current definition of hardcover has caused a major inconvenience for us and will add significantly to the cost of securing a building permit. We would sincerely mi oe that the Council will take this opportunity to examine and clarify the ;e^esent definition of hardcover so that it can be applied fairly and uniformly to other residen .s of our area who are seeking to improve their homes. we believe that the purpose of the hardcover restrictions is* and should continue to be* to: <i) prevent excessive rurv’off into the Lake and thereby protect the quality of this recreational resource; and (2) to control overbuilding in the City and protect its aesthetic qualities. To accomplish thi first part of this purpose* the operative definition of hardcover should be: Any artificial surface that causes rainwater to run*off that surface into the Lake* or tributaries of the Lake* rather than to be absorbed into the soil and filtered or to be retained and evaporated. If you accept this definition of hardcover* then there are certain landscaping features which should not constitute hardcover: 0 Spaced* porous wood decking which has an absorbant* porous natural surface beneath it* i.e. no plastic sheathing. 0 Landscaping rocks with either no plastic beneath or with plastic that forms a basin in which the rain­ water is captured and evaporated. 0 Stairs and retaining walls on steep slopes (Greats'* than a 35 degree incline directly to the Lake ) that do not increase the amoixit of run-off which would normally reach the Lake. .'.A thank you ♦or your atttntion to thli rtqufit< a.„«cn in d.i.;« point. :Bvtr Umii* "^.Pofin* • ^»„if« «ootiot ihouW bf ton.ldtr4ilon in «*»'•;« 7 hT." point, hardcovtr. Wt v*«l#n.«‘t.Pli; At tiiittnii w» City of Oronoin«, hop# ihii ihi Council will ,^!^vl^.ir «>P ton.iti.ni in ih.ir wUctiion. fK'Wfi 4 . ^ << 3 I > a\ ‘ *. 0 - i vt*' 'J* *. '■ . .. •# • • -. -tdH » i 5T c ■IT" ^ . .jmL HARDSHIPDescril enf orci DESCRIPTION Descri; Code R REQUIRED SU 1. Comple 2. Certif this 1 348-32 3. Stamp€ names obtain Certif Topogr in exi Plat M As an any ot Additi The Applic remember t information Certificati Zoning Offi APPLICANT'S The applic requested unusual exp the inform knowledge. Applicant's 0NNER5 SIGH The owner 1 authorizes agentsp Con tion and vc Owner's Sig Applicant a Planning Cc third Mond review meet unable to • authorized Office of t HAIU)SBIPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: of' - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _r y J^u 4,^'.J, ~ DESCRIPTION OP ONUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditi^ons preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; p£>6j <!t-p /wk X ^ cy RBQOIRBD SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form 2. 3. 4. 5. 6, 7. 8. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). ^ ^ ^Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each ot tne 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 remember that your variance application is information has not been included. this application. PJ.ease not complete if the above Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature lent that Var 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 certif^s the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's SignatU)^#Date OflNERS SIGNATUREThe owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga­ tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date - - - 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 s unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent: attend in your place and to advise the Building 4 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. i * r vj-/ iif I . To: Mayor Mary C. Builtr Rt: City Hardcovtr Dtfini Wt havt bttn asked I concerning the definition < issuing building permits, many respects, inconsiste distressed that the vague major inconvenience for u! building permit. We woulc opportunity to examine an can be applied fairly and i seeking to improve their h We believe that the | continue to be, to: (1) pre\ protect the quality of this overbuilding in the City ai first part of this purpose) Any artificial s run-off that su of the Lake, ral soil and filters If ycKj accept this di landscaping features whic o Spaced, porous porous natural sheathing. o Landscaping rc with plastic tha water is captun 0 Stairs and ret^ than a 8S degre< do not increase normally r^ach • Lilting from strict H ___ liance with Zoning ' (you must obtain A-603 Govt Center ed to each of the se address labels >ns as required, ns) if any changes i separate list of tion. Lication. Please Lete it the above :ion is complete. ,ate tion required or all fees and/or and certifies that best of his/her cation and further itaff# consultants# loses of investiga- KS days before the ■ are held on the at all scheduled f an applicant is ements to have an Building ft Zoning f ft-:.- -: Pi-• - -V.I *3 V r-* / fr V/—J 5f t , r 4 /L To: Miyor Mary C. Builer and Membtrs of tht Orono City Council Rt: City Hardcovir Dtfinitiont jiT Wt havt bttn atktd by tht City Zoning Administrator to writs this nott conctming tht dtfinition of what constitutts hardcovtr for tht purpost of issuing building ptrmits. Wt fttl strongly that tht currtnt dtfinition is» in many rtsptcts» inconsisttnt with tht prtsumtd inttnt of tht ordinanct. Wt art distrtsstd that tht vagutntss of tht currtnt dtfinition of hardcovtr has caustd a major inconvtnitnct for us and will add significantly to tht cost of stcuring a building ptrmit. Wt would sinctrtly hopt that tht Council will takt this opportunity to txamint and clarify tht prtstnt dtfinition of hardcovtr so that it can bt applitd fairly and uniformly to othtr rtsidtnts of our arta who art sttKing to improvt thtir homts. Wt btlitvt that tht purpost of tht hardcovtr rtstrictions isi and should continut to bt» to: (1) prtvtnt txcessivt run~off into tht LaKt and thtrtby prottct tht quality of this rtcrtational rtsourc*; and (2) to control ovtrbuilding in tht City and prottct its atsthttic qualitits. To accomplish thsr first part of this purpost* tht optrativt dtfinition of hardcovtr should bt: Any artificial surfact that causts rainwattr to rm-off that surfact into tht Lakt* or tributarits of tht Laktt rathtr than to bt absorbtd into tht soil and filttrtd or to bt rttaintd and tvaporattd. If you accipt this dtfinition of hardcovtr* thtn thtrt art ctrtain landscaping ftaturts which should not c onst i t ut t hardcovtr: 0 Spactd* porous wood dtcKing which has an absorbant* porous natural surfact btntath it* i.t* no plastic shtathing. 0 Landscaping rocks with tithtr no plastic btntath or with plastic that forms a basin in which tht rain­ wattr is capturtd and tvaporattd. 0 Stairs and retaining walls on stttp slopts < Ortattr than a 35 dtgrtt inclint dirtctly to tht Lakt) that do not incrtast tht amount of run-off which would normally rtach tht Lakt. f Wt also fttl tl concidtration in df hardcovtr limits an of a lot art within' calculattd from tht In ordtr to av Council to clarify t hardcovtr. Wt wholthtar City of Orono in pr havt worktd hard 1 takt this opportit^ tfftctivt and fair Thank you for your y)T •»» ;t 'f ja-J If- :-^’4 yh.3 N • ■ ■ -ik. ?T C4lcul4ttil <ro"> th* 'fW#* “™' *“ '*’• in ord.r to 4void futur# ">i*uni»r.t4nd_ln9_V_H_v^® htrdcovtp. w. Wh0l.h.4r<.dly .upport th. irt.nt ot.th._h.rdc^.r »diMnc« ThtnK you for your tUfntion to thii PtQutit. m. tf8- T d o o ^ . < * z z lA ^ X X > s;sMs3 7 ,‘f1 . »<• \ Tf J 'T • 14 it • \ f Vi M O 2 I s H 5 CL Kl 10 to 10 10 |g^ ^ M ly lo S Sfj ui O u. 10 10 ly 1:T SSSj -R»2„;3 0^ 01 B ^ iC e 4 ^ $ ss *8 S M IM Z M H lA (A lA m ==iM: CO ly H r* ^ 1^ >•ssnisa |is 111 j ¥• 3kI^ a w ^ ESs ly M < UI H Ui M < •QS H CL U. TT < yj UI CO S O M M UI u X UI *^528 UI X 10 UI m888 7 *TJ15-1 (7 '■-r;: =••• /'/V- ■■■■■;■ V ' ’ :■ "; .. V. • 1 O ... * >N ^ ^ <5s \ rnmv^ ^ ■1 : '^ 'dr-:'’." i=^:v: -: d <sk I? <5\ ...... 1^ ■';-. y ■■’ yi*y : '.v: •■, >.- •• - ;a..v:.::- v-;Ay ,'':i \N ? 'i-vSMr A •'^:- 1^: . .. ..t .1 ’- <"v..I^.;;43 'ii :m^:p:/ i t*- ■\ . *W^'- n.^ -J , •• !•v*« „ & m :'m '\ ^ - ^^■ A ^■y i *- •. -' ' »r’ ** • ' <' \>i. I,■W^.i •f'. A' ■ 1' ^ i ^ i N ■■'Hi'V ‘>%iK 'imwd f ^ <■ r \ .1 '^11^ S* \ ^ ^ ^ N \ I 5: I' I tcN N V N I m» • A !i ( i »■ -•« ::ai: = ;^te' ' > U, wm ••. ■ . CITYOFORONO 5030516City of ORONORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILNO. 181^_________SEP lOMS. HENNtPIN CXWNT'f MINN. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 t 2 AND SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) PILE ^9^ HBEREAS, John & Susan Purdy (hereinafter "the applicant") are ovmers ot the property located at 1975 Fasernesa Point Read within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 5, Fagcrness "property"); and Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1*2 and 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of additions to the existing house and garage which will increase hardcover in the 75-250 la)ceshore setbac)c une so that the total amount of hardcover on the lot would exceed the amount of hardcover allowed by the Municipal Zoning Code; and which additions will increase the amount of structure in the 0-75* setbac): zone where no structure is allowed; and which additions will encroach into the average la)<eshore setback zone where no encroachment is allowed; and which garage addition will be located 8.5 feet from the side property line where a 10 foot setback is normally required. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #94’. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshcre Residential Zo.ring District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 15, 1905, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) The hardships to the property are the slopes and con­ figuration of the lot, the location of the existing struc­ tures, and the fact that there is lakephore on two sides ot the property. page 1 of f» • . •• • * m m m :m 4 1!^ . t f i j-v \4 City of ORONO i 'll I CITY I o’^ ■ ORONO ■eSOtUTION OI> THE CITY COONCIt 1814NO. relatively minor etrcc the property- --the property. certain concurrent C) The variances. ®P^*‘be'*tpp^oximately ^*o^the north. "north. ^Hjit it is located ?Sr\o“cr".?t.. . h“?dshil in r.loc.tin, thi. 9.r.g forming location. . , —“““r:: ‘.rr^rses approximately feet i» '""th^TS- aetbeck strSc^et; “f . •T£s\%rrbrfS- IT: r rTlgr^ ;.oc.tion. .airt"le« of tbe edlecent croachment will have no « property owners. -------—w —-<nritv of the proposed a. From the more t*hVn l«{v'4:id"h.Ve’'V«r.«AttS? ......................................^^^‘to?.l exl.tin, hardcov« 1921 a.f. or V.'W.g »!.. or 16.99. Alter all overall tetbaek *°"*J^* _-val of hardcover. !**• " . "with final 0-75and concurrent removal **«>“Sr„il 75-750• hardcover of |;rr3«v't o? 109%^.f" 2568 s.f. or 29.0%. colWBunity. Pago 2 of 6 K e I .tJ } m n. % 'a.' grants ' divisior of addi< hardcov< amount c allowed 1 structui average which ga line wh< followin t; .kjJa&i-A. • ia ‘ ■ t'- W;v?:V= ;. ■ ♦ ‘1 ■■• .•;. ^1 r^"\. • >«/\I \ t I CITY I I JIORONO i City of ORONORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. - - 1814 9. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions* light* air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant* but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the appli­ cant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS* ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings* the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to the Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22* Sub­ division 1 S 2 and 10.25* Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of additions to the existing house and garage which will increase hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone so that the total amount of hardcover on the lot would exceed the amount of hardcover allowed by the Municipal Zoning Code; and which additions will in­ crease the amount of structure in the 0-75* setback zone where no structure is allowed; and which additions will encroach into the average lakeshore setback zone where no encroachment is allowed; and which garage addition will be located 8.5 feet from the side property line where a 10 foot setback is normally required* subject to the following conditions: 1. Variances are granted so thnt the maximum allowable hardcover on this property shall be 3663 square feet total* based on the additions and removals of hardcov>'* as described below: a) East side of house - additional hardcover - 10x24* addition; net " <fl46 s.f. - Deck with hot tub* east side; net ■ 4'117 s.f. :ep minus existing walk; net “ 4>14 s.f. )uth side of house - additional hardcover *x42.5' addition; net ■ 4>575 s.f. c) Garage addition - 12'x24.1* addition; net • ^289 s.f. Total new hardcover addition before concurrent removals ■ <fll41 s.f. d) Concurrent removals of existing hardcover - Remove patio block and any plastic or other hardcover from kennel area ■ -213 s.f. Page 3 of 6 .r *•< -it ^ Jri Y, CITY Tot 34: of whicl in the j staged j project cover sh at any g 2. A Vi structur being 8. mally r< 3. A Vi the aver 75* zone 4. The granted addition this tim 5 Auth n.<t wit! exercisei the date that dat that if ' not coma renewal variance rights t future < variance: 6. Viol conditior zoning c< herein* a 3NOCOUNCIL ns sxisting on this generally to other iting the variance >ns, light* air nor ing property; %rould ipplicant* but is p or difficulty; is right of the appli- t and intent of the :ity Co'jncil hereby ctions 10.22* ?ub- Lt the construction ich will increase so that the total ■ount of hardcover dditions will in- ack tone where no encroach into the nt is allowed; and I the side property d* subject to the Llovable hardcover Its It based on the d below: ver s.f. over «r hardcover froe • • %I ^ m ’M r 13* \rv \1 CITY OF ORONv^ City of ORONORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. imove plastic from under rock from trampoline area ■ -360 s.f. ^Remove plastic from under 10*xl6* deck; (staff to confirm sjL deck spacing and ground conditions) » - 160 s.f. - Remove plastic from under NW and NE house rock edging - - 165 s.f. Total concurrent removal of existing hardcover ■ -098 s.f. Total net increase in hardcover after additions and removals - 1141-898 - 243 s.f. 3420 s.f. existing •*•243 s.f. additional » 3663 s.f. of which 1095 s.f. is in the 0-75' setback zone and 2568 s.f. is in the 75-250* setback zone. The removals of hardcover shall be staged in such a manner so that when each portion of the entire project is constructed the appropriate equivalent amount of hard­ cover shall be removed concurrently# so that the total hardcover at any given time ntver exceeds 3663 square feet. 2. A variance is granted to allow the non-conforming garage structure to continue* with an addition to the rear of the garage being 8.5 feet from the side lot line rather than the 10* nor­ mally required. 3. A variance is granted for the addditional encroachment into the average lakeshorc setback and additional structure in the 0- 75* zone for the addition south of the house. 4. The applicant is place on notice that no other variances are granted with this application# and that future requests for additional hardcover variances above and beyond that granted at this time may not be approved. 5 Authorities granted by thin variance run with the property Tkjt with the applicant* but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval* or this variance will expire on that date (July 22* 1986). The applicant is placed on notice that if one or more of the 3 specifically allowed projects are not commenced within the 1 year variance approval period* a renewal variance must be applied for. The granting of the variances under the current application does not grant any vested rights to the property owner after the expiration date* and a future City Council is not legally bound to grant the same variances in the case of a renewal variance. 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance aha 11 constitute a violation of the zoning co'le# shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein# and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 4 of 6 •• •• '■ {■ -360 s.f. ) confirm Iging 98 s.f. removals i s.f. is shall be e entire of hard- ardcover 9 garage le garage 10* nor­ ent into n the C— nces are »sts for anted at property must be \ year of spire on fi notice sets are iriod, a of the y vested if and a :he ires and s of the granted I \ 'i « »'2 ►A t CITY OF ORONO r^t prop«t,. PV cono CU. councu on -r •* sg ........ i$M'’Mary c Pan^ 5 of 0 h®r®by ►half of hiwaalf* to tht racording proparty. I2th day of July# •w LU.... . / - ,.4-j # *4. * •-A I 4 .1. ..•' 0 '7S,ti^rrraqc 1. *.i_ 1975 Faqerncss Point Foad Hardcover Calculations l9/» r q _ _ _ _44-Hir lot boundaries. - - - - - --lot boundaries. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Approximate and calculated y Total Area - ®5,qo0 sf Total Area . .8,950 sf Total Area > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - -- . . ^-.c^ = *14,04(' i Total Area Drainxnq _ 2,710 sf _ _4t=..ia1Total Area Drainina West. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .'drtVo'nVr'HVrdcovcr Calculation Hethod Tra< A) Existinct Hardcover 0-75* Lake-:hore decks and stairs 100 + ^ Kennel Pad 90CX over rlastie ' ^ f ■•'X.U"Se?r“ ’ ('oncrete Slab House Bock odeinq around house averaqes J.2' width as 9 s mm s 9 8 410 sC ^ ^0 9* ei^srrc^ 160 sf 17 sf f>^Jrsn c. . u.....>r«*r' r*rcroacHwents ) Total (excludim Johnson .. l,?^:! » 24.3* 7,900 .1-^194-5f-_' l2rli ^ \ B) Existing Ha'rdcover 75-250’ House AfibiTTO^* —Rock Edging "I « Front Step and Walk^SrAt/®' ^ ^ ^45 -S4- CO*^^- -' ^z7 i. ti i i B Garage •p ^ ^ (excluding Johnson's enc/oachmer.ts) Total --------fcgo yf a *441 sf 1,499 sf UO t TV ^’ l®o^ ;<!9a siwX'ief’ 1,499 16.9* 8,850 c) proposed Additional 75-250- Hardcover Step minus existing walk 146 sf 117 sf 14 sf tv.V i [.?• Total Net Proposed Additional Hardcover [_'277 sf 2^03 C3kW3 / L4'. . *•' ^HHHF *. ■I H ' 1?- C^i ^ Hardcover Porcontaqe Final proposed H 1,499 ♦ 277 8.860 I- -m '' ~,r- - • ^'TdliUo"Hou»« Additx 1^11 75’ - 250’>• 12 X 24.1 (allHou»« (nil 75' 250’> Pin.I 0-Ve.r f 1^//' Percentage _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0,860 #% n c n b76 sf 289 s£. . . . (-<^Z(■2^ 7:r.i 4 -r •• / _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ^ K*«ed on drainage__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , ralculation basea- - Hardcover CaicuA A) Existing Hardcover Drainirg s s 62 sf 418 sf l^Keshore occM . Stairs ^ Total West-Drainxnq Hnrdco I---" Kennel ,.tic (trampoline area) rocK over Plastvc House Deck pock Around House Sidewalk ♦ Stoop Stairs Garage 213 sf 360 sf 1,187 sf 160 sf 17 sf 380 sf 172 sf ♦ 20 sf *441 sf 2,950 sf 2 iT6% Garaq« . w ..«n'«5 encroachments I ,Ot.I . ,,„0 Total Eaat-Draininq «ar co additional East Dralnlnq Hardcover ^ ♦ 277 proposed Net Hardcover Percentage ■ .. . . . . . proposed Total East-Orain-n, Hardc '■ i • iTi y- ', 'I H'rii;K H- 5 I-: . ^u aA'-..: y* ■i. t. ijirj .<11 s. c) 5-year Plan Additions. 1 .. nxistinq rock bed 42.3 x 16House Additic'A le!*' x 24.1Garaqc Addition 12 103 " 575 sf * 289 sf864 sf —H Hardcover, Drainnqe Brcni. 14,040 ____________________________ .................................. .no-cd -ithin rrororty X4,U4U _ _ _ _- - - - - - - . . . . . . . .. . . . .r"T""TT"‘ iiowcd within******** MArdeever technically *Total Maximum Harlccvc . 2,212^5.?/ boundaries • 8,B50 ai ._ . ^ a-in Total Existing I j’s,? sf ' • • •- -' ' .?:ui n?rrirrpcrcn;n.-i^^^ - —«•A • * '' _ ^ \ lA I •is 5: ■i gr V .. *>? '"m Ml mm i^i- li.fei To:Planning Coi Orono Plann: City AdminijFrom:Michael P. (Date: Subject:October 10,#1323 Jon % After-the-Pc Application - An aft side of house. Zoning District - LR-J List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notic Exhibit B - Planr Exhibit C - Lette of 9/ Exhibit D - Surv€ Exhibit E - Memo Discussion - This item was tat a Certificate of Surv now been submitted, an the surveyor. Note that the d€ surveyor has not omit calculation, however figures omitting Cryst Presuming that a original 0-75' hardcov the deck, 0-75' hardco Staff would note (Exhibit K) shows the setback line. The del about 11*. The edge roadway. The hardcover o: opinion is not unusual east on Crystal Bay R< one. Staff RecosBDendation - If the Planning C adequate to support th recommendation for app: A • *^ .•I, ■■M I?' u •l^ Tot Planning Coromission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron^ Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator October 10, 1988 Subject: #1323 Jon W. Papas, 3369 Crystal Bay Road - After-the-Fact Variance - Second Review Application - An after-the-fact variance request for 10'x20' deck on lake side of house. Zoning District - LR-IC List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/23/88 Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes 9/19/88 Exhibit C - Letter Submitted by Applicant's Representative at Meeting of 9/19/88 Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Memo & Exhibits of 9/14/88 Discussion - This item was tabled at your September 19th meeting pending receipt of a Certificate of Survey for the property. The Certificate of Survey has now been submitted, and includes hardcover calculation results compiled by the surveyor. Note that the deck is totally within the 0-75' setback zone. The surveyor has not omitted the paved portion of Crystal Bay Road from his calculation, however on the survey, staff has indicated the hardcover figures omitting Crystal Bay Road from both sides of the calculation. Presuming that a 50 s.f. front step structure pre-existed the deck, original 0-75' hardcover was about 550 s.f. or 20.7%. With the addition of the deck, 0-75' hardcover is about 696 s.f. or 26.3%. Staff would note that the staff sketch from the September 14th memo (Exhibit K) shows the relationship of this deck to the average lakeshore setback line. The defined encroachment past that average setback line is about 11'. The edge of the deck is approximately 21' from the paved roadway. The hardcover on this 6,900 s.f. property (0.16 acre) in staff's opinion is not unusual for a lot of this size. Note that as you go further east on Crystal Bay Road, there are lots that are even smaller than this one. Staff Reccnuieiidation - If the Planning Commission finds that the applicant's hardships are adequate to support the hardcover and setback variances requested, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. CITY p.o. : Cryst TO: TYPE DATE Plann NOTES propc owner addit Septe I requ€ appli conta minul appro • ! * nistrator 'x2Q* deck on lake 3/88 tative at Meeting pending receipt of ate of Survey has Ksults compiled by stback zone. The Bay Road from his :ed the hardcover calculation. existed the deck, :h the addition of ptember 14th memo iverage lakeshore e setback line is from the paved acre) in staff's as you go further smaller than this It's hardships are requested, then a nfi-.fe:" m-w>.v * m • :• ■ . f -.■ •■■w ;.! f-f.' m V,., CITY OF OROHO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 TO: Jon W. Papas 3369 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 ZONING FILE NO. 1323 notice of planning commission action 473-7357 Date of Notice: 9/23/88 COPIES TO: TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance _ _ W CM flv Mi MN MB MN MB BM MB NM MN MN 4 MCT~0P MBBTISG s 9/19/88 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning Comsisaion reconniends the following; Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: owners list, please submit that also. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of In all cases, the application must be continued with the submittal of requested information within 90 days or the City will consider e application as formally withdrawn. If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional informatioftr please contact the Zoning Department (473-7357). If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. .•n. .» i\ "4! 4 Wo mm:, mmi- MIN ZONIN the a priva filed vacat have road the E deeds for t Leung the < Devs indew the S Mabus Agree by P] #132: the C Staf j agree Counc lots The index road be an Motic #1323 3369 AFTES POBL3 noted K .ise a le ChaiJ recor exp li bull* comp 3 f 1323 m hcncm Qtices 9/23/88 ing existing and tified property on receipt of g is Wednesday, .988 meeting. :he submittal of 1 consider the sraationr please ning Commission fter review and 'm 1 MINUTES OF TBB PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 the™p?i?ation^ “o^^ed^that^tlot A be an easment eith^^ vacation of the easnent. He added that the School District would have no problem adhering to the conditions for road as set forth in the Developer's Agreement. ”°"^^/the the Developer’s Agreement to also expire upon the filing of the doods a liability Attorney dedicated that the District Robert Floyd, an interested party, for the easement should an accident occur . Leung stated that it would depend upon whether the City the easement to be private or public. C°h®^ School Developer's Agreement would indicate that the School indemnify the City. Chairman Kelley asked what would happen veari? Mabultrstated that would Led to be addressed in the Developer's Agreement. It was moved by Planning Commission member Jchnson, seconded by PlanniL CommisLon member Cohen, to recommend approval of subiect to the preparation of a Developer s Agreement by the City Attorney and the School 'that theStaff input. Zoning Administrator M®busth added aoreement should be drafted in time for the October 10, 1988 City cluncil Meeting. Kelley clarified that the ii'Lars lots with the outlet being an easement for * -j The Developer's Agreement would address the p indemnification and development. Attorney J®^^^ ® . ^ ^^^2.d road would be vacated upon the showing of a deed so ~ bran autonitirp Chairman Kelley responded "absolutely". Motion, Ayes*5, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1323 JON PAPAS 3369 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD after -the-fact variance m PUBIsIC HEARING 7:25 P.M. - 7:35 P.M» a. wore The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing noted• Applicant could not be present for this “*“? d’l.tributed nelohbor of the applicant's was present and distributed a "Ler wr^^ttL by Mr. "^lapas to the Con^issior,. Chairman Kelley read the letter for the benefit of the Publi record,. Assistant Planning and Zoning explained that the applicant was seek.i.ng an building permit and is in need of a number of ®. . * w-Jrhin complete the construction of a deck. The entire dec K a imm r>'.' ■>. .. :'-■'WMINU^ZONING the 0-' varian< the pr< has a I the av< 0-75* I road, \ approx The haj not cha drivewa P] survey cost ne set sh' suggesi submit Plannir this td app lic« require preseni fiivishe PI Mr. Kei showed the lak PI explana variant have tc that it an exis owners Assistai the 112 could V address veritie indicat: Jol applies Papas a] infoznr.ee Thi and the 1988, either District .gger the ct would ping the lid like g o£ the Liability Attorney iedicated that the District Id should 1 years? ^eloper's seconded roval of eiaent by ith City :hat the .988 City ved four LI years, .fics of that the it would alutely*. ling were Mr. Jay stributed Bsission*' le Public Gaffron •rhe-fact nances to is within MIKO^ OP THE PLANHING O SSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 1988ZONING FILE #1323-PAPAS CONTINUEDthe 0-75' lakeshore setback area. An average lakeshore setback variance is also required. There is a garage on the east side of the property with a deck above it and the property to the west has a second story deck. Mr. Papas's deck will extend 10* beyond the average setback line. The existing house is located in the 0-75* setback zone. Without the deck and excluding the paved road, hardcover is approximately 20%; with the deck it increases approximately 200 s.f. and would increase hardcover to 27.4%. The hardcover existing within the 75-250' zone is 39.6% and will not change. All existing hardcover is legitimate (house, garage, driveway) and there are no reasonable feasible removals. Planning Commission member Cohen expressed the need for a survey. He was sympathetic to the fact that the survey would cost nearly as much as the project, but felt a precedent would be set should an exception to this requirement be made. Cohen suggested tabling this matter to allow the applicant time to submit a survey and avoid having to resubmit the $150.00 fee. Planning Commission member Hanson explained to Mr. Reiser that at this time, the Planning Commission was not denying Mr. Papas's application, they were merely requesting compliance with the required application documents. Mr. Reiser stated that at the present time,, the deck was an eyesore and had remained half finished all summer. Planning Commission member Johnson questioned the pictures Mr. Reiser submitted. Mr. Reiser explained that the pictures showed neighboring properties with decks extending more toward the lake than Mr. Papas's deck. Planning Commission member Bellows reiterated Hanson's explanation of documents required with the submittal of a variance application. Mr. Reiser asked if Mr. Papas would then have to spend $600.00 to have a survey dene? Bellows replied that it would not be necessary to do another survey if there was an existing survey. Relley stated that the certified property owners list was also not included with the application. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the list must have been misplaced by the owner. City personnel could verify that envelopes and labels with neighboring property addresses had been received with the application. Gaffron verified that the notices were legally sent, but the list indicating those persona was missing. Johnson stated that ho could understand the confusion on applicant's behalf regarding the variances. However, had Mr. Papas applied for a permit to build the deck he would have been informed of all the requireme.-tts. There were no comments frem the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. V .■' \¥.: : V r- . ■' -t.'... ■ ■' i' *.■* ■; V :•' V ■ MINUTEZONING F It by Plann to allov Motion, #1324 MR 1099 TAM CONDITIO PUBLIC B The noted. The represe] Dredging Asa that th< excavatd designa would o create width, of the i applica Watershe subject areas. Ch< about s( was sti. time thi Pl2mnin< around wetland and Icia^ Mr 15" dee Present project maintai] change : Th« and the It by Plan applica a wetli f 1^, 19883re setback ast side of bo the west 10* beyond &ted in the the paved t increases c to 27.4%. ;% and will se, garage, 3. need for a rvey would It would be de. Cohen nt time to L50.00 fee. ler that at Ir. Papas's e with the :hat at the Ined half le pictures e pictures lore toward i Hanson's ttal of a tfculd then ITS replied ; there was d property lication. tated that personnel ig property Gaffron the list nfusion on ir, had ifr. have been this matter *1 STING SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 Motion, Ayes»5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1324 MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM GREGORY 1099 TAMARACK DRIVE CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT - o m ^'"“^hfSdavl^o^PubliUJLn'aAd Certificate of Mailing were noted. Dredging. Aesiatant Planning s that the applicants to create a pond. The excavation within ^elv 6 of an acre. Excavation designated wetland is and willwould occur at the northwesterly end of the wetl create a fond along ?he east and south side width. The spoils would pr*o®“^/g has reviewed this “p%\ica\fon" «"a"rtco::jnded £y.-cr.;‘x?A'orc.-.t ’.°c .«. areas. Chairman Kelley stated that at ^‘eYlhVth^^^^ about soil removal from P^^^ Gaf fron ^lied that at this was still concern in ^ ® were equal. Mr. Keep confirmed this, time the cuts and the as to water existing Planning Commission -- resuonded that it was presently IS- Presently 2* to the "depth of the pond to Sfi“n\*ain 1^%:! o?'5a«r in th^t area. There should not be any Change in the storage capacity. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. 1 v^.s piannina Commissioi' member Johnson, seconded by PlinhYngcVr^isaion t f. » ORONC ^ Ip P.O. box 66 CRYSTAL BAY, REs VARIANCE DEAR MEMBERS PLEASE ACCEPT BEING INSTALL TO ATTEND THI I AM ABLE TO I WOULD ALSO FOR ME AT THI WHO WILL BE COURSE. AS N MY BUILDING C THIS PROJECT I WOULD LIKE BUILDING OF T MV FATHER SUF EXTRODINARY, I VISITED MV DIDN^T SEEM T WELL (HE WASiN FIVE SECONDS CHANNEL AGAIN HAVE HIM APPL FOR THE FRONT FRIENDS. I WA ATTENTION AND HE WAS NOW RE -SUPPLIES WHIG BUILD THE DEC -DVISED US TH Dili NOT KNO illMEDIATELY. SAME INSFECTO ^OOKED THROUG ^AD NOT. HOW jURVEY COULD SHOWING WHERE COVER EXPOSUR ffk t ded323 ere ble SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 3ern here this :his ting itly sper CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 RE8 VARIANCE APPLICATION DEAR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGY FOR NOT BEING PRESENT AT THIS MEETING, BUT AS I AM BEING INSTALLED AS THE MASTER OF MY MASONIC LODGE TONIGHT, I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING UNTIL WELL AFTER YOUR 7:00 P.M. START TIME. I HOPE THAT I AM ABLE TO BE PRESENT AT THIS MEETING BEFORE IT ENDS. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK JAY KEISER, MV NEXT STORE NEIGHBOR, FOR SITTING IN FOR ME AT THIS MEETING UNTIL I CAN GET DOWN THERE. MR. KEISER IS THE PERSON WHO WILL BE MOST EFFECTED BY THE BUILDING OF THIS DECK, OTHER THAN MYSELF OF COURSE. AS NEITHER HE, NOR ANY OF MY OTHER NEIGHBORS, HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO MY BUILDING OF THIS DECK, I HOPE THAT WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELAYS. 1 WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND FIRST. THE ORIGINAL IDEA FOR THE BUILDING OF THIS DECK CAME THROUGH SLME AD HOC THERAPY BY ME FOR MV FATHER. MY FATHER SUFFERED A STROKE LAST VEAR. ALTHOUGH HIS RECOVERY HAS BEEN EXTRODINARY, LIKE MOST STROKE VICTIMS, HE STILL HAS BOTH GOOD AND BAD DAYS. I VISITF.D MY PARENT’S HOME ON ONE OF HIS BAD DAYS EARLIER THIS SPRING. HE DIDN=’T SEEM TO BE ABLE TO CONCENTRATE ON WHAT WAS HAPPENING AROUND HIM VERY WELL (HE WASrrT GETTING INVOLVED IN ANY CONVERSATIONS, HE WOULD WATCH ABOUT FIVE SECONDS OF ONE T.V. SHOW AND THEN CHAr^GE THE CHANNEL AND THEN CHANGE THE CHANNEL AGAIN AND S$0 ON). AS HE ALWAYS HAS BEEN QUITE A HANDyMmN, 1 TRIED TO HAVE HIM APPLY HIMSELF BY GIVING HIM A KNOX AE AND I TOLD HIM TO DESIGN A DECK FOR THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE. AS HE HAS DESIGNED AND BUILT 10 OR MORE DECKS FOR FRIENDS. I WAS SURE THAT HE COULD HANDLE THIS TASK AND IT DID SEEM TO FOCUS HI 5 ATTENTION AND CLEAR UP THE FOE:. THAT HE WAS IN. HE WAS NOW READY TO BUILD THE DECK. rOGETHEP WE WENT OUT TO PURCHASE THE SUPPLIES WHICH WE NEEDED AND WITH THE HELP OF MV YOUNGER BROTHER, WE STARTED TC BUILD THE DECK ON GOOD FRIDAY. THAT NEXT MONDAY A CITY INSPECTOR CAME BY AND ^DVISED US THAT WE WOULD NEED A BUILDING PERMIT AND POSTED A STOP WORK ORDER. I DI6 NOT KNOW THAT WE WOULD NEED SUCH A PERMIT AND NATURALLY STOPPED WORKED IMMEDIATELY. I THEN WENT DOWN 70 THE CITY HALL AND BY CHANCE MET WITH THE ^ SAME INSFECTQR IN THAT OFFICE. THEIRE HE GAVC ME A PERMIT APPLICATION AND ^■1 C.OOKED THROUGH MY FILE TO SEE IF A PRIOR-LAND SURVEY HAD BEEN COMPLETED. IT JCH A SMALL SCALE PROJECT, THE ACCURATE DIAGRAM ^AD NOT. HOWEVEB,--HE'DID ADVISE ME THAT 01 jURVEY could AND^vF;ROBLABLY WOULD BE WAIVED IF I SENT IN AN SHOWING WHERE THE FROppSED DECK WOULD BE_BUILT AND LAYING OUT ANY OTHER HARD COVER EXPOSURES. T- - - .r ^ ^ k r ^ 4* * > * ftA > ^ r 4 .« • '^ ' • • • « I ______*1 - > »'« d «’■.■♦•* •*• ■ 'i ' ^ • ♦ . f.». /.7 *I PAGE «2»• V■ ^ . I «j ••7*»Ti • .-•» ^ • ♦-I*, v,»^ W‘*W4*V#. - n'V"’,.* ^ . ... ' • V^'’ . v'-i'fcV-’'** '* ' ' ' ' '•'' ;.:■ - ••I . u -I'*V ^*#5?Vi ■' • r. -f «•. < ^ ■ ■ ^ .•>-7 .4 :•• .^4 . MTh“sIDE8 of i?rPROreRTY^^^^^ E^R^l^^A^rLs^SS *^RD FROM ANYONE REGARDING THIS MATTER WAS THE JULY 22nd LETTER FROM LYLE OMAN. needless TO SAY I WAS MORL T'*'>N UPSET. I CALLED THE CITY AND THEY ADVISED ME TMAT THEY NEVER HAD RECEIVED MY ORBINAL SUBMISSION AND THAT I WOULD HAVE TO AGAIN FILE ALL OF THE NEEDED FORMS. WHAT HAPPENED TO MY ORIGNAL FILING STILL STUMPS ME AS I NEVER RECEIVED TT BACK AND COULD ONLY ASSUME THAT IF I SENT IT TO THE WRONG ADDRESS IT WOULD BE RETURNED. AFTER AGAIN COMPLINQ ALL OF THE INFORAMTION WHICH YOU NEED, I HAND DELIVERED THIS INFORMATION. IN MY EARLIER TELEPHONE CONVERSATION, I WAS ALSO INFORMED OF the 4150,00 FILING CHARGE. THIG W-^S NOT INCLUDED IN MY FIRST SUBMISSION and I BELIEVE THAT IS WHERE THE PROBLEM ACTUALLY AROSE REGARDING THE "LOST" FIRST SUBMISSION. TO THE COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT. CERTAINLY, A DECK FACILG THF LAKE DOES NOT INTERFER WITH ANY AETHETIC DESIGN WHICH THE CITY FATHERS MAY HAVE FDR THE LAKE FRONT IN FACT THERE ARE VERY FEW LAKE FRONT PROPERTIES IN THIS AREA WHICH DO SUCH A SIMPLE PROJECT AND THAT YOU WILL WAIVE THIS REQUIREMENT. LASTLY, I WOULD THINK THAT YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME, A SLOTTED WOODEN DECK DOES NOT HAVE MUCH OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL INPACT. IN FACT, I FAIL TO SEE WHERE THERE IS ANY MEASURABLE CHANGE ON THE RUNOFF PATTE'CNS OF MY PROPERTY DUE TO THIS NEW EXPOSURE. Is Jo COmSiTE t5V s PECJECT os soon 1 CON ONO SS OBLE 10 BNJOV THE LIESSTYLE WHICH THE LAKE PROVIDES THE RESIDENCE OF OUR AREA. NCERELY, /JON W. PAPAS 3369 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD ORONO, Mr: 55391 M v?5 A"* To:PL Or< Ci- From Mi Date:Se] Subject: #1 Va Application setback Zoning Distr List of Bxhi: Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Pertinent Pa 1. Ofi Apri front s Oraer apparel letter applies varianc i ' •i*.. ^ ^ • *'♦ JL 9 ■ -,.■ ■*..' .. PAGE «2• •..■mv -V «» V EST HEXGHBORS ON ATEHENT SAYING THAT TED UP A NEW BUSINESS 00 P.M. PLUS THE LLS rOR A WHILE, XT HER. AS SOON AS I ER THE 0R6INAL STOP E NEXT TIME THAT I ETTER FROM LYLE ND iHEY ADVISED ME I WOULD HAVE TO IGNAL FILING STILL I THAT IF I SENT IT I HAND DELIVERED WAS ALSO INFORMED FIRST SUBMISSION kRDING THE •'LOST" HOURS OF WORK LEFT AD HAVE NO OBJECTIONS S THE LAKE DOES NOT y HAVE FOR THE LAKE THIS AREA WHICH DO E EXCEPTION OF A RED FORMS. I WOULD FOR A LAND SURVEY OUS PRICE TO PAY FOR [ENT. LASTLY, I DECK DOES NOT HAVE lERE THERE IS ANY : TO THIS NEW KNC3WI THAT THERE MY SIMPLE DESIRE UOY THE LIFESTYLE Date: Zoning District « LR-IC ^// planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator September 14, 1988 Subject: #1323 John W. Papas, 3369 Crystal Bay Road - Variances - Public Hearing Application - This is an after-the-fact variance for hardcover, lakeshore setback, and average lakeshore setback. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Exhibit K - Stop Work Order Dated 4/4/88 Letter to Property Owner Regarding Deck Application Plat Map Provided by Staff Signatures of Neighboring Property Owners (no certified property owners list was submitted) Applicant's Letter of Application Photographs Submitted by Applicant Hardcover Calculations Submitted by Applicant Site Plan and Deck Plan Submitted by Applicant Site Plan Sketch by Staff, 9/14/88 Note: No survey has been submitted by applicant Staff Diagram Indicating Average Lakeshore Setback Encroachment Pertinent Facts - u a u* On April 4, 1988, applicant was found to be constructing a deck in his front yard without the necessary permits or approvals. A Stop Work Oraer was posted on the property on that day. The applicant apparently did stop work, however, the deck was not removed and a letter of notification was sent on July 22, 1988. This resulted in applicant's letter of July 25, 1988, which was included with a partial variance application received on July 26, 1988. Zoning Septemb Page 2 Th ce va su Pe re nistrator rdcover, lakesho?© rs (no certified Licant Dlicant pplicant ore Setback ting a deck in his als. A Stop Work The applicant iot removed and a This resulted in ied with a partial t ■ ■ I- i ii-'-' ■==--:'y^'v i t- Zoning File #1323 September 14, 1988 Page 2 of 3 2.The applicant has failed to provide the required survey, plat map, and certified property owners list, which are requirements noted on the variance application form. Envelopes with address labels were submitted and the neighbors have been notified of the Public Hearing. Per the site plan sketched by staff, the following variances are required in order for this deck construction to continue: A) Construction in the 0-75' setback zone where no construction is normally allowed. The proposed deck is approximately 58' from the normal shoreline. B) Hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone, excluding the paved road from the calculation is 20.0%, and with the deck would increase to 27.4%. C) Per the average lakeshore setback diagram, the applicant's deck encroaches approximately 10' lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line, as defined by structure on the neighboring properties. Discussion - The applicant's only legitimate hardship in staff's opinion is that the existing house is located in the 0-75' setback zone, and was constructed prior to the 75' setback requirement. The actual house structure extends towards the lakeshore in such a manner that any deck on that side of the house will require an average setback variance. From a hardcover perspective, the property has excessive hardcover percentages based on code standards, but d'^es not contain excessive unnecessary hard surface areas that could be removed to mitigate the hardcover addition. Staff Reconmendation Given the lack of a survey which is normally required for every variance of this type, staff finds it difficult to recommend approval of the requested variances although the applicant may have legitimate hardships for requesting variances. \ i iL Zoning Septern Page 3 plat map, and ents noted on the ress labels were s Public Hearing. ng variances are Lnue: •e no construction oximately 58* from Lng the paved road ck would increase , the applicant's of the average tructure on the s opinion is that k zone, and was rhe actual house that any deck on variance. From a :over percentages unnecessary hard over addition. quired for every imend approval of have legitimate Zoning Pile #1323 September 14, 1988 Page 3 of 3 r:: 21^ Planning Commission would appear to have a number of options; Table the request until the required survey has been submitted. Take action to recommend either approval or denial based on the Information available, subject to providing the required information prior to Council review. 3* Take action to recommend denial or approval without requiring additional information. *£> . ..V-• t t optionssn submitted. nlal based on the squired information without requiring r- r :-w- DATE TIMECITY OF ORONO INSPECTION NOTICE PERMIT NO._ ADDRESS OWNER CALLED IN SCHEDULED _____________ COMPLETEDr^usTA<- BAu ftoAC _____________________CONTR. TELEPHONE NO. s 1 £ §8 Cc § 2 ocg Ui {2 2 S5 3o ki (C Uj □ FOOTING □ FRAMING □ INSULATION a WALL BO. □ FINAL □ PROGRESS □ OEMOL □ FIREPREV. □ PLUMBING Rl 3 PLUMBING FINAL □ MECHANICAL □ WATER HOOKUP □ METER SET/TURN ON □ SEWER HOOKUP □ SEPTIC INSTALL □ SEPTIC MAINT. □ WELL TEST PUMP Wf□ SITEINSPEI-------- □ exCAV./GRAOINO/FILLING □ lakeshore /wetlanos □ LICENSING □ COMPLAINT □ FOLLOW-UP □ SEPTIC FINAl □ FIREPLACE/WOOO BURNER □ --------------------- COMMENTS: TSs \ /) A-t< rifZ:o f.Lr iV-WiiA;' O —------------------- ------------------------ O PHOTO taken^ □ WORK SATISFACTORY: PROCEED 8 n CORRECT WORItCAL°FOR°REINSPECTlON BEFORE COVERING e*,,ow 3 CORRECT UNSAFE C0N0n:O>. WITHIN HOURS INSPECTOR WILL RETURN. STOP ORDER POSTED CALL INSPECTOR /□Inspection required , call to arrange access . call for the next Inspection 24 hours in advance. Owner/Contr. on.si Inspectoi 473-7357 White /fntptcior't Filt CmKf /Site Notice Jon Wi 3369 i Wayza' Re: 1 Dear I being the pi permli not a addit: You h< origii from t must 1 issue meetii LO/tlr Encloi DATE TIME CONTR. □□ a□ a□□□□ WfICWON •SITE INSP6L EXCAV7G»UOINO/FILLINO LAKESHOAC/WCTLANOS LICENSINQ COMPLAINT FOLLOW-UP SEPTIC FINAl FIREPLACE/WOOO BURNER ,-L <m*^. a PHOTO taken )VERWQ iRCCTOR WILL RETURN- incs. 473-7357 C ko 9I««N om* •• 1: :L ^ r- A i\ 1 ‘/t^ ^ 'tl*- ■ ^ K: • A. •--V </i. 6k .. •*.«■ i <7^4* 4* VfM . CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minntaota 55323• Municipal Offices I :13P iiit3 ZA*:;On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 22r 1988 Jon Walter Papas 3369 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Ret Deck Construction Without a Permit Dear Mr. Papas: On April A, 1988, a Stop Work Order was posted on a deck being constructed at the above subject property. As of this date the partially completed deck still remains on the property and a permit has not been issued. This letter is to notify you that Orono Municipal Code does not allow any construction within 75' of the lake and the addition of the deck may exceed the amount of hardcover allowed. You have 2 options: 1) remove the deck and restore the yard to original, or 2) apply for a variance to the required 75' setback from the lake and possibly a variance for excessive hardcover. Enclosed are variance and building permit applications. You must take corrective action before August 1, 1988 or the City may issue citations. If you have any questions or have a problem meeting this deadline feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyie Oman, Field Inspector LO/tln Enclosure - Variance & Building Permit Applications CCS Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Thomas J. Jacobs, Senior Building Inspector BUILDING a ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION k FINANCE - 473-735S i'. m FOBLIC WORKS - 473-7554 CITY OFInitial ($50.0 Renewal (no ch After-th FROPER'n • • Site Add Property Please c Attach ; requirec APPLICAl Max Ad< OWNER ( Ma: Ad' Da «• • I PRESENT Pr Pr dbscrii D< VARIANC S< 01 &H ■ eORONO 55323 •Municipal Officist a deck fiis date by and a 3de does and the allowed, yard to setback over. ns. You City may problem e. a ter afCWOKKi - 47j.nsf CIW OF OROHO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ^ ^ ^Initial Application Fee $15C.OO R i^50.00 per each additional varia|(^) _ Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 ?nc change from original application) . j^fter-the-Pact Fees (Double application fee^_ _ _ PROPERTY LOCATIOH . • Site Address crv«tai Bay Road, Otonp, M property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ___ Please check one - Property abstract or -r‘V /ir* n tZ ‘"1 l^X I * ^ T j. < A ill,* tr I • ^ 2 CliI U'i t iWi- V- ■T-V;*;-')') ul CE^isr.'i -Vt X w* V • VV -w-rr t. :7L JL W I* ViTi/ torrens??ivi'.S'TV uvvi ''Vi , *•• v/ / .attach legal description to application if not included required survey. ___________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------- (home) 471-8690 applicant H3ID0 Jon Phone (work) 553-7759 Address. 9.69 grvstal_^Y_R^_d___ _ City« , - - ^;;^"irdiKere7r7hIn‘Ireii«nt) Phone (heme)- - - - -^- - ^ _ Phone (work) __ _ __ City:__ _ _ _ _Address: Zip: Date Property Acquired I (do) (do not) also own the_adjacent_parcels_of_land __ mm wa mm mm t* ■ MR *• *** present osb of property Present ZoijjHl^*District Present Ose of Property (month/year) r Residential Other'(specify) ;;;i;:;ited construction cost S_58LOO_ Describe request in detail:, a slotted »ooden deciqn my front vard. variances required Lot Area Setback Variances ( X m other Lot Width Front _ _ Hardcover Side > i * V . ^ ^ ^ :V -v i"'m-'-y.■ • • *s*‘ • . .* •' ‘ \ V • I CITY OP ORO Initial App ($50.00 p Renewal Var (no Chang After-the-F PROPERTY LO Site Addres Property Id' Please chec! Attach lega required su APPLICANT Name ^ Addresi ^mmm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm m OWNER (if dd Name _ Address Date Pi I (do) PRESENT OSB Present: Present DESCRIPTION Describ VARIANCES RE L Setback other r# :i’7 if ''fVrrr - 1/ -.•.o,*p/i f ’t 1 t*]Tv —^t • TJ-iiA iu *«•-' ,;CvC^-/.“! vpv\,'sa-: ... JL V4to WWVV ^ . J * i V'-' a W » • j *.%*» f **‘l • VV B690 553-7759 Zip:55391 Zip: th/year) • • Residential St S 587.00 _ ■ ^r\ t!!v front yagd±^ r • ' • Rtarl T>' : .. ■ :• ■.? ' • • -1 1 f • wm it:■■; &(U . CCITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION * « ^,, . , . JJLInitial Application Fee $150.00 Tj ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ♦ * O cT^ ‘3 O PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3369 Crystal Bav Road/ Orono# MN -r:. v ,:rvx ; ? wi w t«uiz\j mm m* • • ^ ^ —• u . i- ^ u. a. . : » ; i -wl- Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Please check one - Property _ _ abstract or ^ , T . • .;; :"i /1 J. ;-u’WVV •rj rTn/ Vat •r/. J, w » w C:iEK t \m • m • ■ - * • j j. A w V M V f ZL ZJ^t" i ^ ;‘v>- - i '-'i- w V u- i-’v 1 VI.- u. I.'.' Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Neune Jon W. ?aca Phone (home) 471-8690 _ Phone (work) 553-7759 Address: 3369 Crystal Bay Road OWNER (if different than applicant) N2une Same City: Wayzaba Phone (home) Zip: 55391 Phone (work) Address:City:_Zip: Date Property Acquired 6/84 (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present ZoijA«^""District Present Use of Property Residentai1 Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF RBQ1 • I :<Estimated Construction Cost $ 587.00 Describe request in detail: Building a slotted wooden deck in my front yard. VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) V- mm ■ *. I. • . ■ W*- . . *- • « -V , • ^ > <4.- X ■ WE, THE UNDERSie NOT OBJECT TO TH FOR THE BUILDING ipn 13. -S,w— 4:1 5 it ^ a *^9:^ * X ^* J5S«s 1]1iM. • m • r •» *»* . ■ ■ . •! . * •M ■ -Si ' . ^ !% • H iw^—• \5 ' ■ 1 2^'. . -------------8 ----------- ^ ■r sH :-2)WE, THE UNDERSIGNED HOMEOWNERS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED ON CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, DO NOT OBJECT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 3369 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, JON W. PAPAS, PLANS FOR THE BUILDING OF A 10 BY EO FOOT WOODEN DECK IN FRONT OF HIS DWELLINGS A ______ _J?f f Cinf liL < WMK -y •^-3>ST C,J Jc>^ d ' 3-213_a54J>.-'i-lW-.___ Cuysr/^L CITY CF ORONC P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, RE: BUILDING VARIANCE TO WHOM IT Mf ENCLOSED THEF PLANS, A VAR] NEIGHBORS REG THE MAJOR REP MINNETONKA Pr BUREAUCRATIC IS REPUGNANT THE HARDSHIP HAVE ENCLOSE! IMMEADIATE BL DISTANCES. 1 EXCEPTIONS HP INTENT IS ShC OF STANDARD P OWNERSHIP ANE OF THE i_AND" WITH THAT MIN PLANS. AS YC NOT AN ARCHIE HAVE I WILL I THERE ARE TWC PROJECT IS CC CONSTRUCTION THE VISABLE C REDWOOD LUMBS THE FOUNDATIC axiExia coNCP BOLTED WITH N HEADER IS ALE CF FIVE 4X4 P RUNNINGS BETU HEADERS ON BC CENTERS. THE TWO 4X4 AND C THE REMAINDEp THERE IS ON c DWELLING. ON FEET FROM £IT UN THE FRONT CF THESE SIX PORTION OF Tl- STftL BPY ROOD, DO JON M. PPPAS, PLANS HIS DHELLINGi -------------------------TTZZZZ-- d. ' im___ l~ __ % % 'L Y:- : ...■-'v . M • : '-1 -■t p. - ■' J : =?'■■■.■"-'i .v ’4! :'V ■ .r •.. > #1 |r ^fl: ' ^4' JULY £5, 1963CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN i:-S3-'LI RE: BUILDING PERMIT VARIANCE APPLICATION ae-'.i’xria i. u f.‘ • •V' k ^ ) TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: ENCLOSED THERE IS A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, TWO COPIES OF MY CONSTRUCTION PLANS A VARIANCE APPLICATION AND A SIGNED NON-OBJECTION LETTER FROM MY NEARES NEIGHBORS REGARDING THE PROPOSED WOODEN DECK ON THE FRONT OF MY PROPERTY. THE MAJOR REASON I LIVE WHERE I DO IS THE ENJOYMENT WHICH THE VIEW OF LAKE MINNETONKA PROVIDES ME. THE IDEA THAT I HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH ALL OF THEoE BUREAUCRATIC H.UQPS SIMPLY TO PUT AN UNOBTRUSIVE DECK ON THE FRONT OF MY PREMISES IS REPUGNANT TO ME. PER THE INFORMATIONAL PAGE ON YOUR VARIANCE APPLICATION, THE HARDSHIP WHICH I MUST ENDURE IS ONE OF LACK OF SIMPLE COMMON SENSE. I HAVE ENCLOSED SEVERAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF OTHER DECKS BUILT ON STRUCTURES ON MY IMMEADIATE BLOCK WHICH DO NOT MEET YOUR ZONING REQUIREMENTS AS TO SETBACK DISTANCES. I AM NOT INCLUDING THESE PHOTOGRAPHS SIMPLY TO SHOW YOU THAT OTHER EXCEPTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE OR HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERED INTO PLACE; RATHER, MY INTENT IS SHOW YOU THAT DECK ON THE FRONT OF ONE’S PROPERTY IS MORE OF A MATTER OF STANDARD AND ACCEPTED PRACTICE IN OUR LOCALITY. I WOULD COMPARE IT TO THE^ OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENCE OF DOCK. IT EFFECTS THE "ORDERLY DEVELOPEMENT AND USc. OF THE eAND" and EFFECTS ABOUT AS MUCH "HARDCOVER" AS A DOCK. WITH THAT MINI-TIRADE OUT OF THE WAY, I WILL ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN MY CONSTRUCTION PLANS. AS YOU WILL READILY SEE WHEtJ YOU LOOK OVER THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS, I AM NOT AN ARCHIECT BY TRADE. IN AN EFFORT TO CLEAR UP ANY QUESTIONS WHICH YOU MAY HAVE I WILL INCLUDE A BRIEF NARATIVE REGARDING MY CONSTRUCTION PLANS. THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF LUMBER WHICH WILL BE USED IN THIS PROJECT. WHEN THIS PROJECT IS COMPLETED, THE NONVISABLE, SUPPORT, FRAMING MATERIAL WILL BE CONSTRUCTION GRADE TREATED PONDEROSA PINE (HEREAFTER REFERED TO AS TREATED). THE VISABLE OUTSIDE CASING AND THE DECKING ITSELF WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OUT OF REDWOOD LUMBER (HEREAFTER REFERED TO AS REDWOOD). THE FOUNDATION Or THIS DECK BUILT NEAREST THE EXSISTING DWELLING IS BUILT ON aXlEXia CONCRETE BLOCKS. THERE ARE TWO 2X8X10 TREATED RUNNERS ^CUT TO LENGTH), BOLTED WITH METAL BOLTS AND ANCHORS, WHICH FORM THE REAR HEADER. THE FRONT HEADER IS ALSO CONSTRUCTED OUT OF TWO 2X8X10 TREATED RUNNERS, TIED TO A SERIES OF FIVE 4X4 REDWOOD SUPPORT POSTS. THERE ARE IS, 10 FOOT, TREATED, 2X3 oOISTS RUNNINGS BETWEEN THESE TWO HEADERS. EACH OF THESc. JOISTS ARE CONECTED TO THE HEADERS ON BOTH ENDS BY JOIST HANGERS. THESE JOISTS ARE SEPERAf£D BY 16 INCH CLNT'ERS. THE TWO OUTSIDE TREATED JOISTS ARE EACH FURTHER CONECTED ATTACHED TO TWO 4X4 AND ONE 2X4 REDWOOD SUPPORT POSTS. THP REMAINDER OF THE DECK IS VISABLE AND IS CONSTRUCTED WITH REDWOOD LUMBER. THERE IS ON 2X4 SUPPORT POST ON EITHER SIDE OF THE DECK LOCATED NEXT TO THE DWELLING. ON EACH OF THE 10 FQQT LENGTHS, THERE IS A 4X4 POST SITUATED HIVE FEET FROM EITHER END AND ANOTHER 4X4 POST ON THE PORTION OF THE DECK LQCATtD QN THE FRONT CORNER OF DECK, AWAY FROM THE DWELLING. CONECTED TO THE OUTSIDE CF THESF. SIX REDWOOD POSTS ARE TWO 2X6X10 REDWOOD BOARDS WHICH FORM THE OUTSIDE PORTION Or THE TWO 10 FOOT SIDES. 3 ) 1 It h 1 BUILDING PE THE FRONT, 4X4 REDWOOD OF THE 10 F 4X4 REDWOOD TO THE DECK WHICH WILL WILL FIND A END OF THE ^ 2X6 REDWOOD THE POST an; WHEREVER THI WILL BE ONE THE DECKING FEET OF THE THERE WILL I THE PER I METE PICKETS, HUP THESE WILL i AGAIN, I HOF APPROVAL OF OTHER QUEST] WORK-353-775 SXfICERELY, llv' UrON W. PAPAS 3369 CRYSTAL ORONO, MN OF MY C0N2TRUCTIQN TER FROM MY NEAREST MY PROPERTY. E VIEW OF LAKE 4 Ai-L OF THESE -RGNT OF MY PREMISED hNCE APPLICATION, MMON SENSE. I RLCTURES ON MY TO SETBACK HOW YOU THAT OTHER C|CE; RATHER, MY IS MORE OF A MATTER COMPARE IT TO THE YELQPEMENT AND USE ^IN my CONSTRUCTION RUCTION PLANS, I AM TIONS WHICH YOU MAY DN PLANS. JECT. WHEN THIS lAL WILL BE TO AS TREATED). siSTRUCTED OUT OF .ING IS BUILT ON IS iCUT TO LENGTH), >ER. THE FRONT TIED TO A SERIES SEATED, EXa JOISTS : CONECTED TO THE [RATED BY IS INCH «e:i:ted attached to REDWOOD LUMBER. ^ED NEXT TO THE >T SITUATED FIVE rh£ DECK LOCATED ID TV THE WJT3ILE :h FORM THE OUTSIDE •T' ■ ^ .V" : , •V. ■MH..p ■ '■ '■ m 1 .> . •vj ^ ■'i I- ■ V‘:, It ■ ■:»(./ -.V <s BUILDING PERMIT PAGE #£■ THE FRONT, SECTION OF THIS DECK IS CONSTRUCTED AS FOLLOWS: THERE ARE FIVE 4X4 REDWOOD SUPPORT POSTS. TWO WERE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED AS THE CORNER POSTS OF THE 10 FOOT SIDES. ONE FOOT FROM THE WESTERN SIDE CORNER POST IS ANOTHER 4X4 REDWOOD POST. THIS WILL SUPPORT THE RIGHT HAND RAIL AND STEP/ENTRANCE TO THE DECK. THREE FEET EAST OF THAT YOU WILL FIND ANOTHER 4X4 REDWOOD POST WHICH WILL SUPPORT THE LEFT HAND RAIL AND STEP. FIVE FEET FROM THAT POST YOU WILL FIND ANOTHER 4X4 SUPPORT POST. THE LAST 4X4 SUPPORT POST FORMS THE EASTERK END OF THE FRONT OF THE DECK. ATTACHED TO THESE SUPPORT POSTS WILL BE ANOTHER EX6 REDWOOD BEAM WHICH WILL FORM THE FRONT OF THE DECK. THE POST AND HEADERS WILL BE CONECTED WITH 5/8 INCH, FOUR INCH LAG SCREWS WHEREVER THEY MEET. THIS DECK WILL BE 15 INCHES ABOVE GRADE, THEREFORE, THERE WILL BE ONE STEP BUILT AT THE FRONT ENTRACE OF THE DECK. THE DECKING ITSELF WILL BE 2X6 RE WOOD DECKING. THE DECKING WILL RUN THE 13+ FEET OF THE DECK. THESE WILL BE TIED TO THE JOISTS BY 16 PENNY GALVANISED NAILS. THERE WILL BE A TOP RAIL SITUATED 36 INCHES ABOVE THE DECKING RUNNING ACROSS THE PERIMETER CF THE DECK. THIS WILL FUTHER ADORNED BY A SERIES OF £X£ REDWOOD PICKETS, HUNG VERTICALLY, RUNNING COMPLETELY AROUND THE OUTSIDE OF THE DECK. THESE WILL BE SEPERATED BY 6 INCH CENTERS. AGAIN, I HOPE THAT THIS IS ALL THE INFORMATION WHICH YOU WILL NEED FOR THE RAPID APPROVAL OF A BUILDING (?) VARIANCE AND CONSTRUCTION PERMIT. IF YCU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, PLEASE DON’T HESITATE TO GIVE ME A CALL—HOME-471-8630; WORK-553-7753. S^CERELY, ' ^ C li/ JON W. PAPAS 3363 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD ORONO, MN mk- ■ N ^4 V L-r • • i ,;-V'V,.-- -.'..V'V ^ * •^1 i T- i:. PAGE #2 ARE FIVE :ORNER POSTS IS ANOTHER ^ENTRANCE EDWOOD POST ^AT POST YOU ?M3 THE EASTERN .L BE ANOTHER I SCREUS ■REFORE. THERE RUN THE 13+ .VANISED NAILS IIN6 ACROSS )F 2X2 REDWOOD ■ THE DECK. ) FOR THE RAPID ;U HAVE ANY -8690; Mi 77< - 'ISE--: ££ ' m 1 wmr' ?... ■ ■ ■f ' ■^m ■ ^ «■ ■■ft'4-)ki V t. ■*» , - ' i.' ■ ^ ;:4L^V,vK's-4!Mm. W.y:, \ -V^'r-^ I • iw * v L-f" • • ^ *- ' ^ • r* •• m » ,-ljt i^:}* ^ K • •—■ ___ / "Hk** i ^ % • ^ . ♦ .*' d' • V ' * ' • . * *“*• . '* • * / • ,, ^‘'1 • ■' .‘ . ■ ..^'i i. G> O IM nt ua >050C 0 0eo <0 c X Xo44c•H •94 44 (0 IQ •94 0) H u W < iM 44 05 44 0 1Hoo1•1 Uo >oo•o kl <9 0» C 4i 10 Xu ooo Jo mc: O M ^1 m M Um Ji O'c Mm %« « tM (0 1 4 «■ O » I JCu•ol» 4J c 3 O «9 ♦ r* »>' ri • ' X •^ li•0 ■ ■.A ■ . ...* 1! L^v' M: uus:cn oouo ou•o «Q tnc •94 4J •#< M (U r-4 10 4.^ 01co N %4i4 < %4%01 %401 IMa IM01 tM IMt(A IMCO IM(0 IM 44 •94 « 01 kl < 44 5 O O •H kl 0> >ou•o k4 0 01c •M 44 CO M M IM n IM (0 o Ot’ O' 0 1 Oocn oo %4 m 01 «i 3 O;c •o•a 0 44 M 0» >o 0 *o M 01 S iH IQ Co •H 44 •H •O*o < JZ 44 •D •M X 44 01c J fi 01 44 H 01 «-r--r-1» I 1 1 1 i ••■ 1 ■m m m r w ■ D A O O c 01 IM «M •0 Width■ I. 1 • ♦ 1 ■ H U K M < M A 01 > 0e 0)M !1 M 1 M 1 M •8 • CM A 0»a £ *»IM • A a 0 44 M Oc2 1 V > 0o0 tin g HareItem• 4% 4 « •M ^ imI ' 1 *IM0)7^I rH <0 C•Mu» o §J § &1o: M A (k« cn £ 8 m <0 8. O M % M O >ou OO M IQ X IQ C Ac •M i4 I r 01c •H IJ •a 01 > g 01o; o ja Ih •o 01 T> •O < 014a c •H *4 Oi fi •M 44 (0 •M Mca IM IM t %4 m IM 01 tM IM t IM • CO 01 IM m f IM • CO IM IM IM • • IM IM IM n-i s • •f r rs U\ (N •'I §% k li % or» 1 •• r 1 •1 1 1 1 1 1 B 1 1 1 i I . 1 Q •widthX« M M M 6^ M M M H M 1 K H M K M ^1 H H engtha 1 rJ 1 •c o r ^•*4 • 1 01 OI IQ M 0» > -M Ma a ! •M A O •M M 44 U 22 Ok *M 44 01 IQ 01 M GU m fl 10 M iM M 01 # a i) C 01 03 O 01 M fi a « O 43 10 M 0» 0^5 "O f »- IM r^f^ne C s?• ♦ 1 »•y HARDCOVER ORPmANCT - In 1975, ^€Ke Orono City Council adopted an ordinance Uniting the percentage of lot area that can be covered with impervious surfaces Chardcover-) such as roofs, driveways, sidewalks, etc. on properties located within 1,000 feet of a lake. Studies have shown that sediments, oils, and debris carried into the lake from highly urbanised areas have a detrimental impact on the quality of water in the lake. The Intent of Orono's ordinance is to ensure that rainfall run-off will be cleansed by filtering through grassed or vegetated yard areas before entering the lake. ^ •• ♦ - lake. HARDCOVER SETBACK ZONES - PERCENTAGE ALLOWED I. 0-75'* in the area within 75* of the lakeshore. No Hardcover ie allowed (0%). ----------—------------------ II. 75-250's in the portion of the lot located between 75* and 250* from the lake, 25% of that portion of the lot may be hardcovered. 111. 250-500's in the portion of the lot located between 250* and 500* feet from the lake 30% of that portion of the lot may be hardcovered. IV. 500-1,000's in the portion of the lot located between 500* and 1,000* feet from the lake 35% of that portion of the lot may be hardcovered. NOTES These regulations apply even if you have a lot that does not abut the lake but is within a lakeshore zoning district. ^ DBTERMINB lot area WITHIN EACH SETBACK ZONE (To be used as denominator in all hardcover percentage calculations) I. 0-75* Zone Area • 75* x /Average width of lot in 0-75* zoneN \ measure parallel to shoreline / 1,1 To75* X ft. - (Avg width) II. 75-250* Zone s.f. (1) Area of 0—75* zone Area • (175*or avg lot depth in zone) x/Avg width of lot in 75-250* zone\ \ measure parallel to shoreline / ft. - (Avg width) III. 250-500* Zone _ _ _ _ _^s.f. (2) Area of 75-250* zone Area - (250* or avg lot depth in zone) x/Avg width of lot in 250-500* zone\ \ measure parallel to shoreline / 250* X ft. - (Avg width) IV. 500-1.000* Zone S.f. (3) Area of 250-500* zone Area ■ (500* or avg lot depth in zone) x^Avg width of lot in 500-1000* zone measure parallel to shoreline 500* X ft. - (Avg width) I s.f. (4) Area of 500-1,000* zone ‘X. bi. llnancc limiting :ea ("hardcovar”) in 1,000 faat of id into tha lake of water in the run-off will be re entering the ver ia allowed id 250* from the )* and 500* feet and 1,000* feet the lake but ia ominator in all 250' sone Dreline )-500* zone loreline KIOOO' zone loreline himm •jL »v ' - Alloirad Hardcover Percentage sf 1 •30 % sf %35 % HARDCOVER LIMITATIONS BARDCOVira INCLUDES! - Structurea with roofs - Decka, even if alatted - Sidewalks, . - Driveways (paved or gravel) - Decorative landscaping areas underlain by plastic sheeting - Tops of retaining walls, rock walls - Any other surface that does not allow direct absorption of rainfall into the ground 9 • ♦ % • -t *• B. OTHER LAKBSHORE REGULATIONS , ^ sici^IO-ii; ■ nioOIJlMOW WB •M-1A-. -tB-lA-l-. Shoreline,than the average distance from the shoreline o g buildings *6n adjacent and nearby lots. Sobd. 2. takeshot. Hard Cover Pagolatlono. within 7S fa«t ahall ba no .xeavatin,, filling, hard eovar, tanporary or wit^hin 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25 • Sithin 250 Hot of th. ahoralln. th.r. ahall b. no gr.at.r than 30% hard co«r. Within 500 to 1.000 faat of th. ahoralln. th.r. ahall b. no greater than 35% hard cover. sobd. 3. Tree H.noval Rigulation.; Wo tree, within 75 feet with th. diameter of aix (6) Inchea or more ahall be removed without firat obtaining a permit from the Council. v% Allowed Hardcover Porcantaga . • • raas ttodarlain by Bk valla . ss not allow direct the. ground C* AHD •LR-lC-1" OHB , •LR-IB", •LR-IC", or ilations shall apply t m- the shoreline for* ocated closer to the existing residence t of shoreline there rmanent structures, than 25% hard cover, ••ter than 30% hard I no greater than 35% • • —• tet of the shoreline :hout first obtaining w n r*". iill wm .V i ^4^;Lv 1 j-i.-Y* ■'■-■ ■■:■ 1 ■ i •.'■ ■" ^ '{ ■ • ■’ . r.i m-.. t 1 . i -1- •'■ '--..S « f I 1 '' 3^ b m *1 ..M iii^ "l^i- ^ll V - ~ - ^ — • t • i>o ‘iptAt® .V OS* AA4>I^ - 50 <»A^r2jVro'r/crt> s 2-*700 __<^iceA-oF o-*>5' * d-->^' UrC s Pu«Wr22>7 S2 6/><^Zo - 12-C Oec*. r ^ =20.0*/, 3^ «Z7.‘/*/. .' - V • 5 30 Ar “ 5^ ' ^710 “^*3-t xro' rl *'fetsos 2.100 s^. = ^-''‘/i P**^r3S7 ‘/^g S2 ^;‘Zo -- I'ac Pos.(^OeC^ * 2AC ^ ^20.0*/. *Z7,‘/*/. 90 »-Sr rnmm.jW y/ft/6. . /^ArHebMXP^ S«7T«Arefel vW*K jSn^fpp' •i- .- -’^4.4. ^ I ^ ^ T“' ta K" 4: te:;. ::^ fifin' i-jj-ya & ‘ ;; . ■V',:„.j m :v. ‘.'^J ■■•c' ii: H >:i A ■fmm fvMm t T* t ■ .1 \f- k r* liii .?. • \ 2. To: ?roa: Date Subject: Applical of * Zoning D: Hote - T1 app wer< was List of 1 Exhi Exhi Exhi Discussio Plea The more stee not cause The holds, ex appropria List of Exhibits : ■ ■ =•>> •;.i; i :\ Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator October 10, 1988 Subject: #1326 Wayzata Country Club/Ronaid D. Lauer, North Perndale Road - Class II Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing 0 Application - Split off a 2.8 acre building site from the northeast corner of the Wayzata Country Club property. Zoning District - RR-lB, Single Family, 2 Acre, Unsewered Hote - This item was tabled at your September 19th meeting because ®ppli®^^^ not present. A number of neighboring property owners were present and their comments were not heard, but the application was re-scheduled for this October 17th meeting. Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Topographic Survey Submitted 9/26/88 Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/21/88 Memo & Exhibits of 9/14/88 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of September 14, 1988. topographic survey provided for the property indicates that in the more steeply sloped areas, drainage is generally to the south, and should not cause any unusual drainage concerns for neighboring property owners. The staff recommendation for approval in the September 14th memo still holds, except that applicant has satisfied Condition #3 by providino the appropriate topographic map. ^ oviumg rne m -1- 1'1 M ; ' \ ■ if* cm OF ORO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Ba^ Ronald 80 Gid Tonka TYPE OP APP DATE OP MEB Planning Ca Tabled HOTES AHD S] Applic were preseni to the abse review at t That meetin you or your Applicc P] If you minutes, tl approval by We are property. F *. ■■■ ^-- •• V.: :■■.* inistrator North Ferndale Road ion of Public Hearing ie northeast corner 1 meeting because ng property owners at the application 21/88 r 1988. licates that in the south, and should property owners. >er 14th memo still 3 by providing the ;-A J ZONING FILE NO. #1326 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box €6 Crystal Bay, MN NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 9-21-88 TO: Ronald D. Lauer 80 Gideons Point Road Tonka Bay, MN 55331 COPIES TO: Wayzata Country Club P.O. Box 151 Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF ITING: 9-19-88 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning CoBBdsslon recoanends the following Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant was not present. A number of neighboring property owners were present to comment on the proposal. Their comments were not heard due to the absence of the applicant, however, this item was rescheduled for review at the Planning Commission meeting on Monday, October 17, 1988. That meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. Please advise City staff at 473-7357 if you or your representative cannot attend that meeting. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission October 17, 1988; meeting starts at 7:00p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. We are still awaiting receipt of the topographic survey for this property. Please submit same no later than October 7, 1988. : ■ r: i ^326 « ACTION >tice: 9-21-88 ^ Club 391 •roperty owners e not heard due escheduled for :ober 17, 1988. at 473-7357 if :ts at 7:00p.m. ing Commission er review and irvey for this - - yim::•'.■■.i-y':. #/ Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator September 14, 1988 Subject: #1326 Wayzata Country Club/Ronald D. Lauer, North Perndale Road - Class II Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Application - Split off a 2.8 acre building site from the northeast corner of the Wayzata Country Club property. Zoning District - RR-IB, Single Family, 2 Acre, Unsewered List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Application Plat Map Property Owners List Letter Prom City Engineer Glenn Cook Survey of Proposed Subdivision Air Photo Lot Diagram Indicating Required Setbacks Septic Site Diagrcun NOTE: The most feasible access for viewing this proposed lot is from the private road going from North Ferndale Road westward along the north edge of the golf course property (please refer to the plat map). Pertinent Facts - Proposed lot size is 2.8 acres, all of which would appear to be dry buildable from City wetland maps. The property has a general downward slope from the north to the south, and it appears the probable building site will be located along that main drainageway, hence careful site planning will be needed. City staff has requested a topographic survey of this property due to drainage concerns, however, that topographic survey has not been submitted as of this writing. Applicant notes that such a survey should be completed by the end of this week. '.f fm^ mm I k-;' ■ m : 'v. ■ ;f ; Zoning File September 1 Page 2 of 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The ap primar centra Both t slopes accept The g€ would neith€ shoul< the ea Care \ drainf design sever* site £ o ver 1 develc Note 1 corrii This 1 prope: also 1 actua narrov As yoi of th resid' Staff would the ei parce width oppor purpo devel long purpos presu corri| quest plat the e road owner Lstrator rth Ferndale Road Lng northeast corner lot is from the along the north plat map). appear to be dry rth to the south. Gated along that needed. property due to ey has not been t such a survey , ^-V ^ - .* K'f* \T- Rm n Mr. i'-..mm' m:pm :<-vm um^.mm■ T'. -- • •nyr.\L-.4?^:•[Tfiriidiiiinpiiiiiir £■m^:m ' ,'l-i .' 4 f J f ^ y V- f?:-■ f;-Vv- <1 Zoning File #1326 September 14, 1988 Page 2 of 3 The appJicants' site evaluator has indicated feasible sites for both primary and alternate drainfield systems. Those «it“ loc t centrally on the lot along the east boundary line. (See Exhibit H) Both the primary and alternate sites require mound systems, and the slopes at the proposed sites range from 2% to 4%, well within t acceptable range for mound systems. The oeneral drainage direction within the area of the mound sites wollHlplar visually to be parallel to the east lot 1^"®' hence leither the proposed house development nor proposed septic sysf®™® llolll havl Ly runoff effect on the neighboring Hauser property to the east. care will have to be taken to direct surface run-off ^he llLnfield sites, and given the Pfh?““design plan, the location of the drainfield sites places a relatively severe restriction on the proposed house location. A^ain, site planning will be necessary to insure that ^he natural flo overland drainage in addition to the run-off from the house development does not affect the septic system. Mni-o that the proposed division creates a "flag" type lot, with a corridor 60' in width running about 230' bdtore the Thirrequires a lot width variance, since the defined "ifth of this property ii 11 be 60- where a 200' width is normally 5®<J “i*^®^' also that the lot is 320' in east/west width at its widest Point and actually con lins more than 2 acres in just the area south of the narrow corridor. AS you can see from the plat map, staff has sketched in ^b® of the private easement road which currently width and comprises approxim=>->=^j ^033opportunity to initiate an appropriate aedi«^^^ lorr*lor 16.5- south and north of the north l°t,li"®^°^.“e parcel in question. Also note that the plat of P®irw®y Vi®w to the west has a plat road outlot width of 50- on the "°rth/south portion but 30 on the east/west portion. That plat was completed in 1977. The outiot ^Sld plrc^l on the plat of lairway View is currently owned by the owner of Lot 5. liMI4 • Zoning Fil September Page 3 of Discussi( On tt approximat residence \ proposed 1< This ] subdivisioi lot confic Exhibit G." Staff Recos Staff the follow! 1. The #36-lJ of th« purpos situat Road" 2. Va 3. Pr: a topo patter proper* 4. Th€ colled 5. Th€ plat di ble sites for both sites are located k. (See Exhibit H) d systems, and the well within the >f the mound sites t lot line, hence sed septic systems 9auser property to an-off around the tion on the septic laces a relatively i. Again, careful le natural flow of : from the house type lot, with a le lot widens out* Lned width of this Ly required* Note B widest point and area south of the »d in the location irves eight total rved by that road* of that road, and MOO* in length to ilso note that the roximately 930* in his is the City*s 1 for private road ecommend that the a 25' wide by 930* for private road ite easements exist properties, in a le of the parcel in i to the west has a aortion, but 30* on ! 1977* The outlet sntly owned by the tiA -:r wmm ■grnmm Zoning Pile #1326 September 14, 1988 Page 3 of 3 Discussii On the photo, attached as Exhibit P, i have drawn in the approximate boundaries of the proposed parcel* You can see the Hauser narrow portion of theproposed lot (these air photos were taken about 1970)* proposed lot would appear to meet the minimum requirements for subdivision, the only variance being the lot width variance due to the flag E^iibi^^'G normal setbacks would be required as shown in Staff Recomendation - ^Staff would recommend approval of the proposed subdivision subject to the following conditions: Of that parcel as Outlet A, to be dedicated for private roadway purposes* This is consistent with previous plat approvals in similar approvals on -Lydiard 2* Variance to be granted for lot width. Prior to Council preliminary plat review, applicants shall provide a topographic map for site planning purposes and to verify drainage patterns that affect or will be affected by the development of this property* 4* The standard Park Fee of $200 per the current fee schedule will be collected as part of the final subdivision fees* 5. The standard Drainage & Utility Easements shall be shown on the plat drawings* Property Id Please chec Attach lega Name I Addres OHB CM flHR flHR W ISM OWNER (if d: N£une Addresi (atta« EXISTING LA] Number Develo] Pre Mir Pre S" ■ ‘t•» I -: r -; • # ■ I:f,-gi -H have drawn in the 1 can see the Hauser larrow portion of the num requirements for Lance due to the flag equired as shown in bdivision subject to reel listed as P.I.D. along the north line for private roadway ipprovals in similar provals on "Lydiard Lcants shall provide to verify drainage levelopment of this ee schedule will be all be shown on the •; < yt; . mm U: m ••■rJ 'sm t-i«ai!ili«lm'‘.V • -iM ;• -'V”;7^ ** lilK ti *■- V'■imyfeiii :1?-yyym k' ,-Jt 13^1^ ■t-i r CITY OF OROHO ~ SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LCXATION %Site Address_ _ _Wayzata Country Club Sul i 's I t ;/•«L*J. ? I V.* L.‘nuru zr.t./ir/rr nccrruI jLjrrr.ML!-. v/ i mltU i :^%\’:*Annnri ^ tJu* V::- V V V Oi rr*i I V?l.t1 •?CA AA ClvVi' a W Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) _ _ Please check one - Property _X abstract or t. t ILll\ TOi* .V: i. U U .t V v» iJL : 2TTDT-. I torrens?UiAA70n rnni Ti-T•^iVTv^/V WW.t !\V1 .iW*. t :Cf /V I fZ VU/ X ^ / L Attach legal description to application. JV. APPLICANT Phone (home) 541-4949 ♦ Name Ronald D. Lauer Phone (work) 47^-n^iA Address: 80 Gideons Pt. Rd.City: Tonka Bay Zip: 55331 OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (work)• Address:City:Zip: (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE A Number of Tax Parcels w 'i Development Size Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Totals 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:Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) Units per Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) L S;.. F-i • :V: ixx- * M* -mm wm . - w ' % mm 'm f :■ i f*- MINIMUM MAf 5. Complc Prelir CertiJ this i 348-3: Stamp names obtaiz As an any o1 Certificat complete.. Zoning Offi Paymer Signed Title Easemc Develc Certificati Zoning Offi FEES Fina *(P1 The applic requested Planning Cc further agr Applicant's Owner's Sig: Applicant m Planning Co third Monde review meet unable to a authorized . Office of t T#- „ ■ •' ^ mm m» mt m .• mm I ' t i r i * •’- trn i L jfc f f W? U* I r.w.-ir./rr //rrrrrI ^frrr/TLU vi t ±\m‘U i rtvv*.vv**>AA^d fcJu'V:;. W^VVV' /> ? rrAi VX L?l.lf ,V| wlvv » VV' f'Lrri-t. f .*i.vn TC/' ,*1^ iml. 1. .t \f\f \JU : CTCT-. / lmit\*iK f^Lmlm'trnXt ! f WU iMTiji* v-*’n *"i*T**rrav'Tu/v wwj. -'U'l a r :•> .* V I / CV'O/ i. .1/ ■Q314 • Ip: 55331 ling sites) 3 Acres [lildable LaDd /S»m- .m^ P'i L'V iiw '■X S^.T'6 iA = vv • rV :r:- \ ■ "T t M'K-: Nt ■f» .i r ' a# b:'V-': ' V- . . V : t^-.' NINIMOM NATBRIAL HBCESSARY FOR CONPLETB PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form 2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. 3. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Stampedr 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 applicationr 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 complete.. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ _" Payment of fees (park feesr filing fee, sewer and water assessments). Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. Title opinion. EasementsCovenantsr 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 & 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 addj^tional fees established by ordinance. Applicamt's Signature Date 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 to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. \ m mM yym m. ni SA .'■v Ir ^ h* m ^ s, P- ^ V \ 15 L‘a?t) I S, is complete. $150.00 250.00 300.00 + 20.00/Lot 150.00* required or ty Attorney, plication and lance. ys before the s held on the 11 scheduled applicant is :s to have an ling 6 Zoning ’**■*./ ■ ’A' r '■ ‘ -i ' .m. '• ■:••• •• .: ' ^ i h;- > '-V. ' i Bi siii. 2 S S tt m M Im I ssSS SSxxsi m IIIin :s^|_s SS&Sa' SSSuSi s*Ms S3 * s >- uf in -I in ^ISxXift^ SSi-nSS « III «« K X= -| gs 18 lA X S S ^_ s_ lA « Q lA > IIIu% Q Z UJ < ilM '■i mmmm £ MZ s 5 yj Mu >IS K> in in « ly 8) S < zs=•*• U. T S _ lA a S u! < Soi^s^ 7M 8*Ez0 0 M H 0 B Z H 3s NZ e 0 OB . S S z0ss CO S3-1 0 S“5 ^ Ul u c1 “?; Ul in ^ Ul »2Sh lA m Q iy s: mi in m Q lA O lA B lA (A lU I « lU Z J ^ 0 B lU M < Z "i!CO _ ly _ -ly ly H m 5 z in >• m _ 0^ ^e a a 10 =*5O O M o a M M oM oe ^ 4* ly B M m -i ly yj ing B m :i>§i-« Ik < X lu 2 Ik 93iC lA O O S ^!CSS« O O !Ae iS lu ui K in e >i s 9 ly < >• X &o E I k>8 B BO. Ul eg eg 0 Ul *• d ^0 Ul < M i 00^ B << 00 e W H B ^< Ul B ^0 « 0 !u S Ul S (A lA **5|58a 7 in ^ Ul ui<n'Esss S£SS3 1 Ul uj M U _ cn ni 1 25**s-5 eo I Ul < ^ H H Z in in B B U m ui Ul S88"”" Si M O ni o ly m B CO to Ul in ~ CO in in >. K uj <S“l=^5,•»2uj^ j2Sj«^ T S * iu < iC m lu 2 Sin s _ m 0 K* V 2S<iSS 8.3 S ^ Ul < n ^ H M in < Ul H Ul in~s<i< ^S3‘Sz•84 U. M U B SHul < K -1*5m u -i m >• 2SzSP;^ 2ia SS 8 9 B Ul >• N Ul o.IH Ul < Ul Ul X KJsii,^ S8SSS3 in o z M eg M CO O Ul CO O CO 75 I Ul 25 m in CO in -^5 Q Ul in z s! iC » S) B 5 ^B U < S(»j|C»S SSb SSS M O Ul -I M << 5i"8s Ul in CO CO CO inm ^ M M < M > Ul ly g sS88>.ioo£ iC r> B B 5 ^m Ul Ul S *■* CD CQ ^ ^ 8 >- N < Ul E3g S Ul CO h ^8 8 2 s 9 eg Ul 08 |H N.2gf:|2 2 O 10 U B ^ ^ Ul O Ul -I O CO -i 75 8g _ Ul in z CO in m ^ bJ S < eg > -J z I Ul m -y O S.S35S si^iSi s 8 '“E?gs§ SS|8 I ^ B s Ul 2 m ly s iO o H M 5 ^ in e CO u B ^ Nu B Ul Bm I V.: : X i m »> mmy :m:mrn4 •X m mm W0 BSfiJ ilSii; if •a a -, • Ulg o g I sB g CD 0 •uJl 8 E Ul < >• N Ul 2* :5ss s O iri U CL ^ i°|•as ss VlrV-'W'' I j V . •#^ I Dear Mike: - ,v-;0f5;liBSSIPi IBonestroo Rosene Anderllk & Associates Otto G. ’Booestfoa PE.Keith A. Gordon. PE Thomas W. Peterson. PE •Charles A. Elckson i J? ■ Robert V(/. Roser>e, PE.Richard W. Foster. PE.Michael C. Lynch. PE Leo M. Pawelsky Joseph C. Anderllk, P.E.Donald C. Burgardt PE.James R. Maland, PE.Harlan M. Olson t Bradford A. Lemberg. PE.Jerry A. Bourdon. PE Kenneth P Anderson. PE.Susan M. Eberlfn f Richard E. Ibrner, PE Mark A. Hanson. PE.KWth A. Bachmann. PE.Mark A. Setp ■V 'fe r<V- Ted K. Fiefdl Glenn R. Cook. P.E. Thomas E. Noyes, P.S. Robert G. Schunicht PE. Marvin L Sorvala, PE Mlchac4 r. Robert R. P|4i David O. L( I Engineers & Architects _|i»i^;A) ' Eu^na^^ »V 7^ wuwjr?nk!!T3wwRor"^Er SS'I3IS88 September 9, 1988 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Mike Gaffron Re: 139-1326 Ronald Lauer 200 Vayzata Boulevard Ve have made a preliminary review of the proposed Vayzata Country Club subdivision. In walking the site we observed no serious site problems that would prohibit development. The site generally drops from the north to the south with modest slopes. (1-lOZ) The site drainage generally follows the same pattern with a slight concentration to the west central part of the site. Ve would recommend that topography be provided for the site as the proposed home would be located along the main drainage way. It appears that some protection of the on-site system would be necessary. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:ci 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. Minnesota 55113 • 612*636^600 1 4{| V : ’'-H r I 'r J - -i-t. . ' ir. ; ^ i . , jit m ■m - ■. '■-;a "#t LiSiiiV' RiMRPiiB V- ... 'll Kl ym wm: PMSi^fe»s^pwi mm: ^ \ •'1^ 1^1^"Kr;^' *. irz-.:r:f #• !g«-:|'4T •ft :’-W I-r/J M V'I / *•mm ' vr -irn !i5S^^ ^ « r« 1 #-^V4 y<j '* w^, : -- '-^f ^ -V ‘■m m'm .>•.-. .F % ■■'-'TiiC*’ ^ •' A -* *4v^ >-_ »' -■'^'l Z*' _____ # ^ #3^ '«*j /*»2>: ■#^ r^# >; ■K ,^', ’{*> :-..r‘i:vin|f:my ■vl yv ??? :v U • T.. t. Uf- yymn IL * *% iflPT* i«l ^«cu« ic: 225P. —X—JLS212UiSlL tiooo |Z£SUl f scrrt^ •./ loer or K ?s ► « 3« II ss >* Sr o i;s E :fo • t? m jw :|iS !si «•!8 i 8 fM 4 ; tM tr ta^ «r ^ «tt« •# ««C aCM •» KC »ft.ta«.«f«—* * : '.’li Am** • • •- •*• Vi AI r ,'VT.' ■» 'iV h?--2£„.V- - • -3 mf‘: ^ ■'< IrsVS «- .. - ’ ^ / *i •ww: i<- >^vi EV:. •.•C.-j-'-'i^*'• r',;.- ^ =# l^ v ^’-* i-* H • V^' *. . ,* /v ^«P*0%iAT fASfl0C^r^«^ ooQ m joom; % /'• ,r *.^ " /*-• ", ^ VP TS4I Kr fei 1/2 iiii S«v tfis* ♦JC lini «fio kr Mr riKUZ %JLUl iv:i: Acecr • •♦•••• am: MAS r ;jkK2 :m r:s?.: t-,J V , .-?-vv..- - lii;^v >4!%'-:^'~, J'-:5r';S? V?v vl r..i| t ■ ■M f vmm ••■.T'5 71 • : : * :.•:'* f K. •< * U . : j <r. 5* maj. i I- t .' . cz*ymm ■' *”' .. i :•. •'<' * i •• • I • -’A*. S i 9 fi: * M* ♦ <1 •.« •! - I : • .*■ I *i '* ■, *.• ’ * -r $ I I . < .1 • ■ 4 .> . ’•• -i* •: •f« .' 'I • *« ; . * •' i • ;'V rIv|?l-4( H' ■ * •■• ; '. ■ 't 4.‘. * . .M ili’. I • • . 1* 1/ , ✓ I* AmcAtc, c mm1 i •••i‘ E'*!| .• I*,‘ r: ■ «r'i A , is - ..^^2 iy : Anv!^ y. ■**i« Planning Orono Pla City Admi Michael P October 1 #1329 Th Variance List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Re PI PI Me: Discussion - The applican configurations and slightly further sc setback at the sou' front lot line rath requires no work in Staff Reccmniendatio] If Planning C applicant are valid revised variance re approve1: Any additional must be approvi Absolutely no Conservation ai Appropriate ei phases of consi enter the wetlj Staff would no crossing of tl system was app] the only gradir A la: - « ■' fUA f [ ;-^V. n ■. ,iik, i11 r/' Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator October 10, 1988 Subject: #1329 Thomas McNellis, 355 Woodhill Road Variance - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Revised Site Plan Planning Commission Action Notice of 9/21/88 Planning Commission Minutes of 9/19/88 Memo & Exhibits of 9/14/88 Discussion - The applicants have revised their request by revising deck configurations and the garage orientation, and have moved the house slightly further south, so that the only variance needed is for the front setback at the southeast corner of the house which will be 37' from the front lot line rather than the required 50' setback. The current proposal requires no work in the 26' wetland setback area. Staff Recomiiiendation ~ If Planning Commisson feels that the hardships suggested by the applicant are valid, and if Planning Commission recommends approval of the revised variance request, staff would suggest the following conditions of approval: 1.Any additional encroachments or changes to the footprint and site plan must be approved by the City. Absolutely no grading work is allowed within 26' of the Drainage and Conservation and Flowage Easements. 3.Appropriate erosion control measures shall be in place during all phases of construction of this residence, to insure that no sediments enter the wetland. Staff would note for the record that necessary grading to accomplish crossing of the drainage easement for construction of the septic system was approved when the lot was subdivided, hence that would be the only grading work anticipated within the drainage easement area. m I/S: V, —pprar”A- ■ .•R * CITY OF OROHO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, 1 TO Thomas Me 5201 Ridg Edina, MN TYPE OF APPLIC DATE OP NEETIM Planning Tabled fo: HOTBS AND SPEC! Planning variances for t denial, Planni: additional time Please ad revised propos^ Applicant' additional inj September 26, ] If you des minutes, they approval by the f revising deck moved the house is for the front L be 37' from the current proposal suggested by the s approval of the ing conditions of int and site plan the Drainage and place during all that no sediments Lng to accomplish 3n of the septic nee that would be \ easement area. * -'i: ■ _■ i_ Z0NIH6 FILE NO. #1329 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONCITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 _55323 473-7357 Date of Notice; 9-21-88 TO:«‘=NelUs COPIES TOs Arthur Dickey ArchitectsMl... s* SI. ss.s?n,*si"“ sr TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance DATE OP MEETING: 9-19-88 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning C(»i8sion recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: ^ Planning Commission expressed reservations regarding granting setback * ^2^ that was so recently created. Rather than recommending Planning Commission tabled this request in order to give applicants tiin© to considor possxbl© r©visions to th© proposal* revised^pixjos^l^*^ staff assoon as possible whether you plan to submit a ,, scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additj^nal information. Deadline for the October 3, 1988 meetina is September 26, 1988 or October 10, 1988 for the October 17, 1988 meeting. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission approv\^' bf^LVlan^Ing Cot^Ls'on” Recorder after review end ZONING PIL Nays*0, Mo #1325 LAKE 405 NORTH CONDITIONA PUBLIC HEl The A noted• The a Assis the Planni small pon property, an area ad course. T of the cou should als wet areas, from neigh box appro property deposited drainage. District hi There and the pu! Mr. W. water prob. should rec cars. It wa Commissioz #1325 for a tee box. whether it road traff. the preser the tee bo costly to passed. #1329 THOMi 355 HOODBI] VARIANCE PUBLIC HBA The AJ noted. 10. #1329 [SSION ACTIOH >f Noti-!e: 9-21-88 :ey Architects i Avenue South (, MN 5f>410 nst ng granting setback r than recommending to give applicants oposal. 3u plan to submit a : upon receipt of , 1988 meeting is 17, 1988 meeting. anning Commission after review and ^ f IfXNUTES OP THE PLAMHING COMMISSIOH MEETING SEPTEMBER 19» 1988 ZONING FILE #1324-GREGORT CONTIN Nays*0, Motion passed. IK41 #1325 LAKEVIEN GOLF OF ORONO, INC 405 NORTH ARM DRIVE CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 7s40 P.M. - 7:42 P.M. ^ The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted• The applicant was present for this matter. of the course, but also the challenge of the game itself. They should also aid in eliminating on-going maintenance problems in wet areas. The tee box is being relocated because of complaints from neighboring properties. The new location will place the tee box approximately 100' further away from the neighboring property. There will be some fill removed and the spoils will be deposited in a location where there will drainage. The City Engineer and tne Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has reviewed and approved the proposal. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Wenkstern explained that he was hoping to eliminate some water problems by installing the ponds and relocating the tee box should redirect the golf balls away from the road and passing cars. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Cohen, to recommend approval of #1325 for a conditional use permit for excavating pond areas and a tee box. Planning Commission member Bellows inquired as to whether it would be beneficial to relocate the green road traffic. Planning Commission member Cohen interjected that the present location of the green should not be a problem once the tee box is relocated. Kelley added that it would costly to relocate a green. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1329 THOMAS MCNELLIS 355 WOODHILL ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 7:52 P.M. -8:12 P.M. ^ The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. PS :M - •. • h mm hit!:- J wm U- f rp-m fev. 4'lJ m ■Bi MIN ZONIN exp la setab from Road. exist setba app 1 j Kellc Gaf f 1 Coimni: prope The S] depth house retail the w fill withi Flowa* house appli< whethc the Si I and w Gaf f r« about 90*. b depend at ad: the Ic McNei; Pillsi that t utilit unusu2 suitab P Carper Road". Russel stated develo f.'. , ;-> .r ::i ’ 1 -A 'j . ,\±:- 9, 1988 t to the vel spot m slopes ip, there proposed Lckey was te their .ar shape ving the blend In 3 of the into the ! hill at >n of the on for a There is Lllsbury easement setback, plan was :he plan. )ut style ed house Lllside. is if all McNellis pies are Prudden e could ire been of land cquired sd in a Prudden ,r side, it. Mr. if erring come in another Mabusth tiat the ir and a ried to : houses cNellis :h would .anning L_ m wr.-■ J. ^ ^V... .i. .'■ - vv4^ki»»/! MIHUTBS op the PLAHNIMG commission meeting SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 ZONING PILED #1329-MCNELLIS CONTINUED Commission member Bellows interjected that there could be other ways to design an adequately-sized house as a one story house. Planning Commission member Cohen stated that if Mr. McNeil is were to buy the strip of property from Prudden, he would conform to to that setback. Planning Commission member Hanson stated that is somewhat compelling that the "oddball chunk of Prudden property" could rationalize beyond the 50*. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. McNellis if he now owned the property. Mr. McNellis answered affirmatively. Kelley explained that there is no hardship. Mr. McNellis stated that the trees would be a hardship. Bellows pointed out that the present proposal would kill 19 trees. She also corrected Cohen and Hanson with regard to the Prudden easement. It would apply only to the southern end of the property, not the 28* at the top. Zoning Administrator Mabusth confirmed Bellow’s observation and indicated that a lot line rearrangement would be necessary for applicant to obtain a portion of Prudden*s property. Chairman Kelley addressed the issue as to where the front of ■the lot was located. Bellows stated that the definition of "front" as being that frontage which faces, is on or parallel to the road. Mr. McNellis argued that the road was actually a driveway. Bellows responded that it was Mr. McNellis* access and there was no question as to the location of the front of the lot. Bellows said that she agreed that the site was not easily buildable, but there were no hardships presented. She would have a difficult time granting the number of variances requested. Planning Commission member Hanson asked about the septic system. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron replied that the septic system would be placed across on the high ground, west of the drainage easement. Hanson asked if applicant would need to pump uphill. Gaffron responded in the affirmative. Cohen asked if that was a feasible project. Hanson responded that it was feasible, but undesireable. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Mr. McNellis expressed his desire to address the 26* rear setback. He exp lained that a portion of the lot was shaped like a deep dish, that would decline and then incline. The proposal is to have a portion of the deck that would be 20* above the runoff area. It seemed to him that the 26* setback would apply to different topography, as there would be no restriction of ^^■^^0]^ running upstream or downstream. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that the retaining wall was the problem, not the deck footing. Mr. Dickey, the applicants' architect explained that there was a necessity to retain the earth. Bellows acknowledged that fact, but added that it should be retained outside of the 26’ setback. Mr. Dickey said that the narrow MINUT ZONING : width overlo< propose applies buying undersi easemen fact tl explair was ho% true tl however Th matter approac It by P la Motion, #1332 » 980 FEI APTER-1 PUBLIC Ti duly n< Tl applies p: should varian< the re< applic- the a] ridicu type c specif: Tl and th< I- by Pla #1332, the ha safety necess Ayes=®4 IIR 19, 1988 3uld be other story house. McNeills were conform to to bated that is Iden property" .ey asked Mr. 11s answered lardshlp. Mr. Ip. Bellows 9 trees. She the Prudden 1 end of the ator Mabusth t a lot line to obtain a 1 the front of eflnltlon of r Is on or the road was Mr. McNeills' of the front site was not isented. She of variances It the septic rator Gaffron icross on the ison asked If ponded In the jject. Hanson ig this matter the 26' rear shaped like he proposal ' above the »irould apply triction of sslon member .em, not the t explained . Bellows be retained the narrow .4. wm ^ ;• I wii II » 19, 1988 ZOHIHG the Planning Commission width of ^ - 2.ot of space in which to build the overlooked. pxanning Commission member Cohen stated that theproposed house. Plading of the restrictions prior to applicant should have “^^^3 agreed, but said he did not buying the 1°*. «=• “ dances. The 26* setback from the 10 understand all turarise to him. Mr. McNellis reiterated the easement came as a surprise v^rtuallv invisible. Bellows fact to^Mr^^McNellis that the Planning Commission's concern approach the variance problems. It was »oved by .Planning ^ bv Planning Commission member Bellows, Motion, Ayes»5, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1332 MARCELO GOMDCIO 980 PERNDALE ROAD WEST apter -the-pact variances PUBLIC HEARING - lls27 P.M. \ - 11:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant's architect was present in lieu of the applicant. ^ “,“sr.p'Ab".'vi.r.hV;5“.“c s“ iscrt“S“i!.?ss the requirements was i^ed for the unprofessionalism of applicant/owner should be P stated that he thought it the architect. The ?fpnn^ila«%l^arp^fpo?int“ "iS^gu^idelines were not specific as to those items. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter euld the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member by Planning Commission member Hanson.^o reco^ nd pp S'tKAJril'ASr .i" -rf-V;^yes*4, Kelley-Nay due to a lack of hardship. m b"’: ' : .A-'' : : V -V* ■ Wi Pr<• m Date Subject Applicat to < Zoning Dj List of E Exhi Exhi Exhi Exhi Exhi Exhi Exhi; Exhi] Exhi) Pertinent 1.This the 1 easti width 2.The I setb. apprc revis in or and a r.r' :4:i;m R 19, 1988 ing Coinniissioxi ch to build the stated that the ctions prior to aid he did not ick from the 10* s reiterated the jible. Bellows ttission's concern >use. It may be visual impactf mtal impact. ssion table this study of how to Cohen, seconded able this item. mm iW fi? Ji Sw, ■ m > m ^”ii .’' iiSSl^F - ■rsiasKv-:. To Date: Mfei C •. K«A-%.f Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator September 14, 1988 Subject: #1329 Thomas McHellis, 355 Woodhill Road - Variances - Public Hearing Application - Request for 50' front yard and 26- wetland setback variance to construct a new residence. Zoning District - RR-IB List of Exhibits e of Mailing were in lieu of the Lt the architect ith the City's setting forth think that the fessionalism of he thought it ission for the .ines were not • )M>M irding this matter Johnson, seconded unend approval of Ley inquired as to :t indicated that the pillars were veway. Motion, P-’-' J m r5:7vi Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit P Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Application Plat Map Property Owners List Letter of Request Site Plan Showing Required Setbacks Topographic Survey Showing Originally Approved Building Envelope Proposed Site Plan With Staff Notations Full Sized Copy of Proposed Site Plan Relationship to Private Road and Area Development Pertinent Pacts - 1. This lot was platted recently as Lot 3, Block 1 of Woodhill Ridge. At subdivision, the building envelope approved was iri the easterly half of the lot, about 65* in depth and just over 20fD* in width (see Exhibit P). 2. The property owner and his architect initially requested ?ront setback variance to allow construction of a new residence approximately 20* from the front lot line. They have additionally revised that request to ask for a variance to the 26' wetland seti:)ack in order to construct the house slightly further west on the propAirty and apparently decrease the required* front yard setback. Zoning File #1329 September 14, 1988 Page 2 of 3 3. Encroachments proposed into the 26' wetland setback are as follows: A) Southerly and northerly decks, encroaching 1* and 10' respectively into the 26' setback. B) Encroachment of one corner of: the house, no more than 5' into the 26' setback. C) Proposed retaining wall for approximately a 50' length is encroaching 8' into the 26' setback, to a northerly point that encroaches 20' into the 26' setback (see Exhibit G). D) Pill is proposed east of and at both ends of the retaining wall. 4.Per Exhibit G, the applicant is requesting a front yard setback of 28' where a 50' front setback is normally required. No side setback variance is required. Discussion ~ Please review the letter from applicant's architect. Staff would concur with the statement that this property has a relatively small building envelope compared to the total lot area. The lot also would seem to lend itself to a particularly linear design framework. The proposed footprint does not strictly stay in keeping with the linear concept that the normal building envelope would allow. You may recall from the subdivision review that the wetland on this property is essentially a bowl shaped area, with a relatively small watershed draining into it. This wetland was designated and a Conservation and Flowage Easement granted over it and its outlet area during the subdivision. The nature of the drainageway south of the wetland would indicate that this wetland rarely rises to a height that would result in overflow. This wetland is relatively high in tLe watershed, and the proposed encroachment into the 26' setback, but not into the wetland itself, would seem to pose no threat to the storage capability of che wetland, nor will it have a significant effect on water quality. I would also note that the proposed basement floor elevation is approximately 12' above the outlet elevation, hence flooding of the house is not a concern. tv .-v- Vi. mm mm m miv 'll Zoning F; September Page 3 oj Als< the hous setback, wetland < Regc house co: being 73 road. Tl area . Staff Rec Staf to fit tf: and func- proposed signific ultimate] may wish private r to the ea off Woodh If I architect requeste< approval: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Any must Abso the Appr phas ente Remo setb prop- Appl will Jt as follows: g 1' and 10* e than 5' into 50* length is ly point that the retaining setback of 28* side setback Staff would tively small .so would seem The proposed concept that tland on this bively small i Conservation a during the retland would lid result in the proposed itselfr would and, nor will note that the ve the outlet i •'i >■?* mm i'V'vS ! -V SV ill i Ill 0 Vij ''mm ' ■ ■ t A: ‘ ^ Zoning File #1329 September 14, 1988 Page 3 of 3 Also in regards to the wetland setback, note that at the north end of the house there will be a minor amount of filling within the 26* wetland setback, but no fill is proposed in a location less than 4* above the wetland outlet elevation. Regarding the front yard setback, note that the proposed encroaching house corners are 37' and 28' respectively from the front lot line while being 73' and 55' respectively from the actual pavement of the private road. The proposed driveway and apron will cover much of the front yard area. Staff Recommendation - Staff's initial reaction is that a house could certainly be designed to fit the limited building envelope normally required, however, aesthetic and functional concerns have led the applicant and his architect to the proposed design. Staff feels the requested variances will have no significant impact on the wetland nor on the quality of run-off that ultimately may enter Lake Minnetonka from this sight. Planning Commission may wish to review Exhibit I, which shows the layout of the existing private road which serves this residence and the former Pillsbury residence to the east. All other lots of the Woodhill Ridge subdivision will access off Woodhill Avenue. If Planning Commission feels that the hardships suggested by the architect are valid, and if Planning Commission recommends approval of the requested variances, staff would suggest the following conditions of approval: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Any additional encroachments or changes to the footprint and site plan must be approved by the City. Absolutely no grading work will be allowed within the boundaries of the Drainage and Conservation and Flowage Easements. Appropriate erosion control measures shall be in place during all phases of construction of this residence, to insure that no sediments enter the wetland. Removal of fallen trees and debris within the drainage easement setback area will be allowed, but no grade changes other than those proposed on the approved site plan will be allowed. Applicant is advised to contact the M.C.W.D. to determine whether they will require a permit for this work. m ' :i k- In % CITY OP ORONC Initial Appli ($50.00 per Renewal Varia (no change After-the-Fac PROPERTY LOCA Site Address Property Iden Please check Attach legal required surv APPLICANT Ncune Address: m •• •• •• mm mm mm w mm mm mm mm « OWNER (if dif; Name Address: Date Proj I xmxxu PRESENT USE 01 Present 2 Present I DESCRIPTION Of Describe setback f» VARIANCES RBQU Lot ^ ; -'ll Setback V Other IL I • TWSTT • II Hggr::,.,;.,Iii^i north end of I 26' wetland 4* above the I encroaching t line while the private e front yard ' be designed sr, aesthetic itect to the .11 have no run-off that ig Commission :he existing iry residence [Will access ssted by the roval of the >nditions of ind site plan >oundaries of s during all no sediments ige easement r than those whether they N- ' 4 i ■'m /i CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATIOlj"/^ Initial Application Fee $150.00 "" ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) • V tC f f •« • r % . ■( >s-X r‘*\ y i • PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 355 Woodhill Road, Wavzata. MN 55391______________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 0211723240010 Please check one - Property ____ abstract or X torrens? : r y *ri. f* 1 t I i.’f t,.':Umnu t j.:rn:tL‘U ut t j,wu > 11 V VO. i;uT - —. f«I lu*V # VV r vrris* t.*/ ;ubf\: I 14.‘ f • f *f ; ^wV » irV Attach legal description to application if not Included oxf fjlm . « ! u* r M------- .........• • • ►/n vn// 7 • . ^ • if / 'fii*? *•;* T* f * required survey. i. V ••• V i. \ i' \ • i w* . w/ - iJ.‘ i. APPLICANT Name Phone (home ) Arthur Dickey Architects, Inc.______ Phone (work) 920-3993 Address; ^^^0 France Avenue South city; Minneapolis OWNER (if different than applicant) Zip; 55410 mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm ^m mm mm mm mm ^m mm ^m mm mm mam ^m mm m Phone (home) 936-0072 Name Thomas McNeil is Phone (work) 921-8666 Address; 5201 RidQe Road City; Edina, MN Zip.:-“55436.-.-. Date Property Acquired January, 1988 «' i \ I X)00(XX(do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/yeaT^ JL iJiJXfC, V' VVVV 01 LTLIT cr> /Vi » VV ** vT/^Tjutn* • Tt*" •• •• • 7v?PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District r.rrcrr.‘T^TuyM' vnnt\ut.ujLt t / nmn\ t\ju Residential ^in0’:s:ri r,Vif ".'■if tao»^ rr j. vuwu'V UWJL nO /"iD /C Present Use of Property Single Family Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 525,000 Describe request in detail; Reduce front setback from 50* to 20' to accommodate setback from drainage easempnt anH hin'IHing onwalnpo VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances (V Front Side Rear) Other lin 'Mi 'S’. ■mm ■ ■fii ■H . i5; ' ffi, ■^T * SB ■-t « HARDSHIP Describe un enforcement account the dra DESCRIPTION OP U Describe um Code Require 26' setback from REQUIRED SUBMITT- 1. Completed A] 2. Certified P this list f; 348-3271). 3. Stamped, 1< names on th obtained wil Certificate Topographic in existing Plat Map (oh As an addenc any other p^ Additional i 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The Applicant a remember that y< information has r Certification by Zoning Official's APPLICANT'S SIGNA The applicant h requested by the unusual expenses the information knowledge. Applicant's Signat OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner herebj authorizes reasoi agents, Commissic ticn and verifice Owner's Signature Applicant must h, Planning Commiss third Monday of review meetings < unable to attend authorized agent Office of this cl * See attached skel nrr; •t. f *tii:t::; i> * t;. t r i. 1. t.< < ^w*i. k Al:un iI-L mLV * f * T •* » ^wV « W ./i-v-in* vn;; /} i • A ? T ? - • V - : \ ' • • A W* • *r . - T .* •«'W. * W . k 36-....,,, .’iTL^U r r,/ fk. k. 4 1 k L. Wi i JLLi. UiT L»V^ 1*u'V a VV rjA;/f,* ynnfj;rr?Ti\ fvu W vAf T:“iO*r n»/4 f ; I / ;“lU / *» D /CV// V / / w» ial 000 ccommodate ■I -:>V- ;■■•'•>;*■. ■• i>* . 4- ■': '^:m •*i,.:J|| M ’/'..'vl •‘’Jf HA1U)SBIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resultincx from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; Only 11.6% of the lot remaiffs a?te^r taking in ____^Q£^nt the drainage setback & front setback severely limiting options for"Hevelopment. DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS _26'^etback from that UnrST^wUh the front bO ' setback further^ 2. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form sk;:ss L'rffnV?,rcUir„°.s.s::j ss Obtained with property owners list). Aaoexs Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 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 n any other persons you wish notified of this application.^ o. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 4. 5. 6. 7. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign remember that your variance application is information has not been included. this application. Please not complete if the above Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature________________________ Date APPLICANT•S SIGNATURE ^"^rees to provide all information required or requesteu by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurr^n review of this application,^and certflies that kLwledgt!"^^'^'' sup^H^is true and^ cor^'ect to the best of hYs/^lr Applicant's Signaturi Date Ff OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further aaentfi^^ro entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, mvestiga^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date // lux. PlliiinS offices 25 days before the m!,./ . Planning Commission Meetings are held on the review APPUcants must be present at all scheduled unable to an-^na* Commission and Council. If an applicant is authri.i..a . ^ scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an Office of your place and to advise the Building & Zoningoriice Of this change prior to the meeting. wm. See attached sketch mm . a/ • - Mm wmm mi mm ‘ v;/- ) Q • ^9 strj.ctins arter taRing int s fordevelopment. ce with Zoning sects the lot; the Its development. * >u must obtain )3 Govt Center 0 each of the Idress labels s requir?5d. f any changes arate list of ion. Please if the above s complete. required or fees and/or ertifies that : of his/her pf \ and further consultants, >f investiga­ tes before the held on the LI scheduled applicant is s to have an ing & Zoning mmm mm’m^ 1.' E S KlU M < r- HgMP iiwnilfff^-"^--^ll1lMM 9 September CITY OF OHQ P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay Attn: Mr. M Ass is BE: VP^Blm: TH^^AS 355 Vfoo Dear Mr. Ga The Owner application The purpo possible The inten into the saving as wildlife wi In order required addition ocxiditi^is 1.Portic setbac the Ic suppoi columr drainac 2.A pori setbac bey one beyond ; I • » . .( i » * rf 'H # 9 September 1988 t'.•3 ...L. ARTHUR DICKEY ARCHITECTS, INC VRTIU K H. DICKF.V. .U.A. \VWNK A.JF.SKF..C.C-.S. | MARY B. Ill STAD. A.I.A. Haa CITY OP OFCNO P.O. Bax 66 Cryst2Q. Bay, Ml 55323 Attn: Mr. Mike Gaffrcxi ^ . Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator RE: VARIANCE APPUCKTION NO. 1329 TE1>^AS M31ELL1S RESIDENCE 355 Wbodhill Road, Wayzata, WN 55391 Dear Mr. Gaffron: The owner of the above referenced property wishes to amend the variance {plication as follows (please refer also to enclosed site plan): saving as many trees as possible. In so doing, the natural habitat wildlife will be preserved. Required 26addition to the 30 foot front setback variance originally requested. The oonditicxis of this variance will be as follows: drainage ditch. » portion of the house will extend beyond the draina^ ease^t setback. At no point shall the foundation extend more thm Sfert beyond this setback, and no nore than 1% of the floor area diall extend beyond the setback. 4 a I ■> 4- it i • ' \ i V. > O » r U \| I N N i. \ I * M I ^ ^ : 5 4 I 0 - i 7 I 4 «o i iPt : i» - *» •» \ i?-.v "Ml IT m . ; -• ■.. $\ k CITY Mr. K 9 Sep Page 3. R s e a 4. T d a A se^ setbc prope] Grant flow will saved inqpac Prude object Vfe api Thank Sincex fni Mary E ^CH/tg encl. he variance b land use ling land, the house nd therday abitat for tee from the equested, in ested. The e eas^nent feet above MO oolunEis ese of idle int of the ige e^lselnent than 5 feet shall extend ■vf ^ mim MM : ■ 5S j. • r ■A. • :*o.«CITY CP Mr. Mike Graffron 9 September 1988 Page 2 of 2 3. Retaining walls will be located within the 26 foot drainage easement setback. These retaining walls shall be utilized to prevent soil erosion, save nature trees, and evenly disperse water into the drainage area. 4. The drainage easement setback area diedl be cleared of fallen trees and debris by the Owner, therd:^ isproving the free flow of water i4iich currently exists. A severe hardship exists for developing this property with current setbacks. The drainage easement bisects the property; only 11.6% of the property remains for development with the required setbacks. Granting a variance for the drainage easemmit setback would ^d.low a free flow of water in the drainage area during the heaviest rainfed.1. The house will better blend into its natureLL site, and mEmy mature trees will be saved over alternate siting possibilities. *nie variance will have no inqpact on the neighbors. The owner has reviewed the site plan with John Prudden, who has indicated that he is pleased with tiie plan and has no objection to a 30 foot front yard variance. Ws appreciate your consideration in this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, t). Mary B.^Hustad, A.I.A. ^/tgl encl. ' r\. V. > Xvi ' - I A * } .IS -.'i />:mm^ «Sfca rainage easement to prevent soil ito the drainage Eallen trees and i of v«iter vliich rty with currait ily 11.6% of tile lid allow a free ^1. The house :e trees will be ice will have no I plan with John plan and has no (A>€1 B : li :;-vr y' *• -; ;■; -i /^cms si^ OP liri li; 'ii!ii ill :i-‘ ' ir- 'Ti a'V.m ' > '- M'. \\ \ 8 I- — I -1 il uWig .•t .vS M ■Hi rA .:*^^j^-,.; . P p -' ^:.i m'm S: :V »•! ■ >’. L.*'-i- .*'•If4 1 #c / •' • • *:' ?7<- V- ■//; T6:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron^ Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator Dates October 14, 1988 Subjects #1330 Fullerton Properties, Inc., 880 Townline Road - Class III Preliminary Subdivision - Second Review Mote - This item was tabled at your 9/19/88 meetinr subject to applicant providing additional information regarding soil types and potential building sites on each lot. Idst of Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Commission Action Notice 9/22/88 Exhibit B - Memo & Exhibits of 9/13/88 Exhibit C - Soils Information Prom Applicant's Engineer Exhibit D - Revised Site Plan Exhibit E - Road Name Request Discussion - At your September 19th meeting. Planning Commission requested additional information for this project to verify that each lot would contain suitable building sites and septic system sites. The applicant has provided the requested information. Please review the attached revised site plan. The locations of possible drainfleld areas are shown for each lot and locations of soil borings have been noted where the soils make-up was somewhat questionable. As was expected, soil borings indicated that the extent of the wetter H2unel type soils was not as great as shown on the soil survey, and those Hamel soils occur mostly in the drainage swales. Each lot would appear to have any number of feasible house sites, and there appears to be ample area on each lot that would be suitable for primary and multiple alternate drain- field sites. Having reviewed the soils data and having walked the site with the applicant's engineer, staff finds that the subdivision as proposed will provide excellent building lots. Note that the dividing line between Lots 3 and 4 has been revised slightly so that Lot 3 contains the required 5.00 acres of dry buildable land. ,i9V I' m TO 4- 'M m h 1 lL^ Zoning File #133 October 14, 198^ Page 2 of 3 Staff has r 3 and 4. Staff creek crossings approval. In discuss: site grading no does wish to re( of this private stipulate if th« island could b< maintenance ran Director. Three road would note that Road, Painter D streets less th( Since both locat Painter in the n additional choic Applicant h< 28' paved road, i addition, ditch g will be required. Staff Rec • J n 11 ndati Staff would following conditloi 1. Lot width 2. Private r< maintenance cc 3. Access foi points, subjec _ _ _fskjou^_ _.-ij. A r ■ te-: ,., .... ttinistrator le Road - riew ubject to applicant :ypes and potential '88 neer mission requested ,at eact. lot woald The applicant has The locations of locations of soil ewhat questionable. >f the wetter Hamel y, and t .hoae Bame 1 uld appear to have :o be ample area on e alternate drain- tlg walked the site .vision as proposed has been revised a of dry bui ldable Zoning File 11330 October 14, 1981!' Page 2 of 3 • Staff has revised its recommendation regarding access driveway to Lots 3 and 4. Staff recommends approva 1 of separate driveways and separate ··~ creek crossings for each of Lots 3 and 4 per the Watershed District approval. In discussions with the applicant, there is no plan to do any unusual site grading nor to create any berms along Townline Road. The applicant does wish to request approval for the center island within the entry area of this private road, and notes that it would be acceptable for the City to stipulate if the City ever takes over maintenance of this road, the center island could be removed. Staff has asked that applicant discuss the maintenance ramifications of this center island with the Public Works Director. Three road name options have been presented by the applicant. Staff would note that in the 1985 Hudson Map Directory, street names Painter Road, Painter Drive and Painter Circle are already used, and refer t ,J streets less than 3 miles from the Fullerton property, ir Minnetrista. Since both locations are served by Maple Plain Fire Department, the use of Painter in the new road name is not advisable. Applicant should submit addi tiona 1 ch.oices. Applicant has been advised that the City will definitely require the 28' paved road, urban section, per the City Engineer's recommendation. In addition, ditch grading along Townline Road, as noted by the City Engineer, will be required. • Staff would recommend preliminary plat approval subject t~ the following conditions: 1. Lot width variances are granted for Lots 2, 4, and 5. 2. Private road will be subject to the normal private ownership and maintenance covenants, and underlying road and utilities easements. 3. Access for Lots 3 and 4 shall be al lowed separate creek crossing points, subject to any permits which may be required by the Watershed f tmm. Zoning File #1330 October 14, 1988 Page 3 of 3 4, Dedication on the plat of Conservation & Flowage Easements on the plat for Lots 2 and 3, and a Drainage Easement of yet to be determined width along the length of Painter's Creek in Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5. (Staff will ask City Engineer to recommend an easement width.) 5. Dedication on the plat of standard drainage and utility easements 10' along perimeter and roadway lot lines and 5' either side of interior lot lines. 6. Dedication on the plat of 33' of City right-of-way for Townline Road. 7. Payment of Park Fees of $100 per lot per the current fee schedule. 8. Subject to additional requirements regarding drainage easements or structures as may be required by the City Engineer and M.C.W.D. 9. Prior to Council preliminary plat review, applicant shall provide specifications for any signage, monuments, or unusual grading that may be proposed. mm.¥ 1 CITY OP OR P.O. Box 6 Crystal Ba TO:Fulle; 608 2] Minnej Attn: type op API DATE OP Planning Cc Tabled NOTES AND S Planning Co 1. Dej interp of one 2. Bas are av« 3. Pr. actual meetinc don't IT more si your so 4. Att 13, 19 meeting A) th (a; bu. B) Se] el Ro{ 5. Plei proposed Zoning File 11330 October 14, 1988 Page 3 of 3 4. Dedication on the plat of Conservation & Flowage Easements on the plat for Lots 2 and 3, and a Drainage Easement of yet to be determined width along the length of Painter's Creek in Lots 2, 3, 4, ands. (Staff will ask City Engineer to recommend an easement width.) 5. Dedication on the plat of standard drainage and utility easements 10' along perimeter and roadway lot lines and 5' either side of interior lot lines. 6. Dedication on the plat of 33' of City right-of-way for Townline Road. 7. Payment of Park Fees of $100 per lot per the current fee schedule. 8. Subject to additional requirements regarding drainage easements or structures as may be required by the City Engineer and M.C.W.D. 9~ Prior to Council preliminary plat review, applicant shall provide specifications for any signage, monuments, or unusual grading that may be proposed. • 3 CITY OP ORt P.O. Box 6 Crystal Ba ----------· 'l'O: Pulle: 608 21 Minne, Attn: ------------ TYPB OP APJ ------------DATB OP MB1 Planning Cc Tabled ROTES ARDS Planning Co 1. Oej interp. of one 2. Ba~ are av, 3. Pr• actual meetinc don't ii more st your so 4. Att 13, 19 , meeting A) th (a : bu . B) Se J el Ro 5. P 1 e. proposec m::' I;.. ' li?l L■^ ■ -,:;i* 3 - t- v '' : ' ■ ' «'« WM •I ri 'r* "'■'^:V,; i; tf'v'v-T.-:-! 5 • ■lym m WA Ktimmm-si1- mm lit wn :y ::;yy4i^ mmmM:::' ;*M I Si iT m. vvv.r--f‘i“:r*•.•?• ■:(r-; • •■ •V v : A';, . - C•/^■iy^:.;•> :;W^'.■yv-'-v- .mm-f\Z-^kts ZONING PILE NO. 1330 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Notice; 9/22/88 TO; Fullerton Properties, Inc. CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN fiop Inc. COPIES TO; Mark Gronberg 608 2nd Avenue South, #1100 coffin s Gronberg, Inc.Minneapolis, MN 55402 Attn: Joseph W. Franks 482 A T2unarack Avenue Long Lake, MN 55S56 type op APPLICATION; Subdivision DATE OP :l:^:TING;9/19/38 VOTE; 5 For 0 Against Planning Conmission recomiends the following; Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS; Planning Commission requested additional information as follows; a proposed suitable building envelope for each alt® ot-.ff nterprets this as meaning you should show on the survev the loea4-ion Of one or more potential and feasible house locations for each «e *hat feasible soil types and slopesare available on each property to support septic systems. -lopes meeting ®°^t fP‘ 1 °"hat in “dis^sVion's It the“"stpt^er® itih Son-r^itch -"“P® thf^oUphJ mo?e suitabJ. t ™“y i“ fact be other 13 addendum to the staff memo of September the issSr^Lt*'! ahon?a"b ‘^“"“fssion did not specifically address fanrt »i f' ^ should be expanded by 0.1 acres in order that it b:??dabVe ra'n^d!" ® = o/‘dry slptembe?*/‘°\%a\*’® ^““'"ents in his letter of1988, including 28' reouired paved road width Road. entry island, and ditch grading along Townline proposed.^® monuments or terming that may be i^-v-V Zoning File #1 Planning Commi September 23, Page 2 of 2 6. Stafj driveway approval. Applicant additional inf September 28th If the ap contact the Z< If you d€ minutes, thej approval by tt i V 4 li tf’t ■ • ZONING PILE BO. 1330 C.Iff OP ORORO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 NO'l'ICB OP PLARRDG COMMI.SSIOR AC'l'IOR 473-7357 Date of Notice: 9/22/88 ---------~-----------------------------------------------------------------'l'O: Fullerton Properties, Inc. COPIES 'l'O: 608 2nd. Avenue South, 11100 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Attn: Joseph w. Franks Mark Gro.nberg Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. 48 .2 A Tamarack Avenue Long Lake, MN 55~56 -------------------·-----------------------------------------·---------------·l'tPS OP APPLICATION: Subdivision 9/19/38 VO'l'B: 5 For O Against Planning Co+u-:1 ssion reccwends the following: Tabled for· reasons noted below ROT.BS ARD SPBC:IAL CORDITIOHS: Planning Commission requested addi tio.nal information as follows: 1. Define a proposed suitable building envelope for each site. Staff interprets this as meaning you should show on the survey the location of one or more potential and feasible house locations for each lot. 2. Based on the above, then show that feasible soil types and ~lopes are available on each property to support septic systems. 3. Provide soil borings on at least Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 to verify actual soil types. Recall that in discussions at the September 19th meeting, staff suggested that the soil survey maps and the topography don't match, and areas shown as wet Hamel loam may in fact be other more suitable soil types for septic system developm~nt. Please have your soils consultant contact Mike Gaffron at 473-7357. 4. Attached, please find the addendum to the st,aff memo of September 13, 1988 that was transmitted to the Planning Commission at the meeting. Please note the following: A) Although the Planning ·Commission did not specifically add.ress the issue, Lot 3 should be expanded by 0.1 acres in order that it (and all other lots) contain a minimum of 5.0 acres of dry buildable land. B) Please note the City Engineer' comments in his letter of September 9, 1988, including 28' ~eauired paved road width, elimination of entry island, a. ~· ~h grading along Townline Road. 5. Please show plans for any entry monuments or berming that may be proposed. • r mmm L 1330 SION ACTION ' Notice: 9/22/88 rg onberg, Inc. ack Avenue MN 55C56 allows: each site. Staff rvey the location I for each lot. types and lopes ems. and 5 to verify le September 19th nd the topography in fact be other mt. Please have 7. nemo of September mmission at the lifically address in order that it .0 acres of dry n his letter of ved road width, f along Townline ming that may be fi 'mm I • •. mr ...L ^ / :.x •'ll! W •/! :‘a mmmMfm-. ■ m- n- "■rnmmx'.- - ■ _ ■ ■:_______________________________i-m 1^, •■' --.Ikm Zoning File #1330 Planning Commission Notice of Action September 23, 1988 Page 2 of 2 6 Staff will recommend approval of separate creek crossings for driveways to serve each of Lots 3 and 4, per your Watershed District approval. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the October 3rd meeting is Wednesday, September 28th or Monday, October 10th for the October 17th, 1988 meeting. If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please contact the Zoning Department (473-7357). If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. f * ' *♦ ■‘- In ■■. i ... r c V. ‘•r a Subject: Applicat: Zoning Di List of 1 Exhd Exhd Exhj Exhj Exhd Exhj Exhj Exhj Exhj Exhj Pertinent Subd rossings for led District receipt of Ls Wednesdayr 988 meeting. tionr please g Commission review and . *?♦if -• VrV‘‘ .»>- •' ‘^.r■■V. - To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:September 13# 1988 Subject: #1330 Fullerton Properties, Inc., 880 Townline Road Class III Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Application - A 7 lot residential subdivision with private road. Zoning District - RR-IA, Rural Residential, Unsewered, 5-Acre Minimum List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Preliminary Plat Survey Air Photo Soil Survey Map Overlay Soil Association Diagram Portions of Proposed Road Plan Code Section 11.33, Subdivision 4, Regarding Required Road Width Staff Diagram Indicating Slopes Exceeding 6% Pertinent Facts - Subdivision Specifications; 1. Seven lots are proposed; each contains 5.0 acres or more in area. 2. Each lot has 2.0 acres or more of contiguous dry buildable land. 3. Lots requiring width variance (300 feet required): Lot # Defined Width at Setback Line Variance 2 4 5 285' 175' 150' 15' 125' 150' mm » a::; Wmm mm ■'v - - ■V^V! 4 m- .■ ;1 K* ■h’ >1 ii .•:rl mm . 4} J •* i jT ;ir • •• J I k Zoning File #1 September 13, Page 2 of 5 4. Road 1 100' cul- rather t. Section ] than" se\ not defir 5. The r< private i and has b 6. This 1 maintenan 7. Acces staff rec cul-de-sa 8. As of whether s leaves th noted thi District Buildabili 1. Each flatter, systems wl to high w< 2. Soil extensive lesser ar are norma! with the ! [inimum tequired >re in area [able land. * ’■iTT Vfl95»'.■••.•*»*■*=*•lA'.►j; .V ‘•(.f- Zoning File #1330 September 13, 1988 Page 2 of 5 4. Road length proposed is 1,000'; proposal is for a 50* outlot with 100* cul-de*'Sac; paved road section is proposed as urban (with curbs rather than shoulders), 24' paved width is proposed (note: Code Section 11.33, Subdivision 4 (F) requires 24' paved width for "more than" seven lots being served, 24* for "3 through 6" lots, but does not define for seven lots. . .) 5. The road access point onto Town line Road is directly across from a private road in Independence; sight distance appears to be adequate and has been approved by the Public Works Director. 6. This will be a private road, subject to the normal ownership and maintenance covenants. 7. Access for Lots 3 and 4 will require crossing Painter's Creek; staff recommends a single shared creek crossing point adjacent to the cul-de-sac, at the shared lot line. 8. As of this writing, the City Engineer has not commented regarding whether special outlet structures will be required where run-off leaves the cul-de-sac area near the creek. Applicant's surveyor has noted that they are working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding specifics of this application. B) Buildability: 1. Each lot contains at least 1.5 to 2.0 acres with slopes at 6% or flatter. This should allow for development of mound-type septic systems which are anticipated to be necessary on most of the lots, due to high water table soils. 2. Soil types on the property, according to the soil survey, include extensive areas mapped as Hamel loam, Kilkenny loam and clay loam, and lesser areas of Lester, Lerdal, and LeSeur soils. All but the Hamel are normally considered to be suitable for mound type septic systems, with the Lester often being suitable for trenches. Zoning Pile #1330 September 13, 1988 Page 3 of 5 The areas ma given that depressions 1 the topograph very likely Survey). 3. Orono C< subdivision f conditions ar< difficult to property, and a very high 1: For this cur: soil borings 6, both of wh mapped as Ham request this feasible on consultant re< Future Road Ext Staff and th< surrounding proper the east or south, neighboring propei density for this a connections would 1: Easements Reouii The City wil] Flowage Easements Easement of a widt Creek in Lots 2, 3, roadway drainage ant easements 5' in widt I \ , ■'^ * -'CJ!r.t^.. -0, a 50* outlet with urban (with curbs osed {note: Code ad width for "more 6” lotSr but does sctly across from a ars to be adequate rmal ownership and g Painter's Creek; nt adjacent to the rommented regarding red where run-off lant's surveyor has I Creek Watershed th slopes at 6% or mound-type septic jt of the lots, due il survey, include and clay lo2un, and All but the Hamel ^pe septic systems. my- i^r: r. ■' I -'•is tA:' . 2/P e'-'tW IM A ■ : 1-^ W * S*:>. - i■• I- ■ ^ ’ t; ;••::^ V'- ‘A"' ■Swii 4> 1tf ■ ‘‘. V 'mmmmmWWitOW^' * Zoning Pile #1330 September 13, 1988 Page 3 of 5 The areas mapped by the Soil Survey as Hamel are likely incorrect, given that by definition Hamel soil normally occurs in flatter depressions between steeper hills, and the soil survey overlay onto the topographical survey shows Hamel in areas of 6% to 18% slopes, not very likely (see Exhibit G, Soil Association Diagram from Soil Survey). 3. Orono Codes do not require septic testing at the time of subdivision for lots exceeding five acres in area unless unusual site conditions are anticipated. This code requirement presumes that it is difficult to determine where houses will be located on a five-acre property, and that most lots containing five dry buildable acres have a very high likelyhood that suitable sites exist on the property. For this currently proposed subdivision, staff would recommend that soil borings be completed by the applicant's consultant for Lots 2 and 6, both of which indicate that the flatter areas of the property are mapped as Hamel soils. Staff feels it is appropriate at this time to request this information to determine whether suitable mound sites are feasible on those two lots. Staff will work with applicant's consultant regarding the locavion and number of borings required. C) Future Road Extensions; Staff and the City Engineer have reviewed the development in the surrounding properties in relation to the need for future road access to t e east or south. Staff and the City Engineer concur that, since the neighboring properties are generally developed to the maximum five acre density for this area, under the current zoning standards no future road connections would be anticipated. D) Easements Required: The City will require dedication on the plat of Conservation and lowage Easements over the wetlands occurring in Lots 2 and 3, and an Easement of a width yet to be determined along the length of Painter's Creek in Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5. Additionally, the standard 10' perimeter and roadway drainage and utility easements will be required, as well as similar easements 5' in width each .side of interior lot lines. mm 'm Li ■ ■ r l4 : ' • -i* 1^:» I 'r- Zoning File September 1 Page 4 of 5 E) Roadway The pr the City fo: F) Park Fe< The Pa; 5+ acre lot Discussion - This pr each lot ap] family resic 1* Doe the ent 2. Are not sho^ Two quef the City Engj 1. With a public road ent 2. Does at the c hence vi at the C The Publ a need for an’ %- ^ ..-A.. ..,-/-A -i- - Y-l'« ‘ ^rm »4.Tr Zoning Pile #1330 September 13, 1988 Page 4 of 5 ** r-4 '''^ •■ iM‘ ’ E) Roadway Dedication; the city fTTru^„rHol"/trrJ-U^ ri,ht-of.way „ilX he ae^icatea to F) Park Fees: The Park Deaicatlon Pee per the current City Fee Scheaule of $100 per b+ acre lot shall be paia with the final subaivislon application. Discussion - This proposea subaivislon appears to have been well thought out, with eac ot appearing to contain suitable areas for construction of single family resiaences. Items for further aiscusslon at^this time may Incluaes 1. Does the aeveloper propose any permanent signage or monuments at the entry to the subdivision? 2. Are there any specific grading proposals for berms, etc. that are not shown on the preliminary plat drawings? the cTty Seer! discussions with 1. With the minimal likelyhood that the City would take this over as a public road in the foreseeable future, is the island in the private road entry a cause for concern? \ Engineer have any concerns regarding run-off control at the cul-de-sac area, given that the road is intended to be curbed, ence virtually all run-off will be transported directly to an outlet at the Creek? - indicated this proposal will not create a need for any upgrading of Townline Road. P' ■‘f'Mi ;; ;.y^v ■-f-v.i :K ^ p-lil ;>:iT ■■■■ m-M rf-j- A ? m v^::v '*^1^ W • ■ . ^. I-.7/ , • V ' . Zoning File #1330 September 13, 1988 Page 5 of 5 Staff Recomiiendatl Staff would r y1. Lot width ^ 2. Private r maintenance c* 3. Access fox subject to an; and the DNR. v^4. Prior to consultant sh. the property. y 5. Dedicatioi the wetland i determined wi and 5. y 6. Dedicatior 10' along pei interior lot ! y7. Dedicatio Road. 0 y 8. Payment of y 9. Subject to structures as y 10. Prior to C specifications etc.) that may 1 be dedicated to ledule of. $100 per Lcation. thought out, with uction of single time may include; s or monuments at ns, etc, that are discussions with :ake this over as id in the private r run-off control led to be curbed, :tly to an outlet will not create r-----r'.j• •. ■ ■ - v" I ^A- 1. -A- 4 m .4 • .'v J W -is?? I„ i mi Mil-*n f‘y- -»i iV--5:V ^ H a If MPIm m V ,J H 71».-iv ^ "3*;^:taife“-'"-3 :';.v . •■.. ■.■:•’■>;-:3 ■-.3-;ri'v j ■ / Zoning File #1330 September 13, 1988 Page 5 of 5 Staff Recomiiendatii Staff would recommend preliminary approval subject to the following: y1. Lot width variances granted for Lots 2, 4 and 5, ^ 2. Private road will be subject to the normal private ownership and maintenance covenants, and underlying road and utility easements. 3. Access for Lots 3 and 4 shall share a single creek crossing point, subject to any permits which may be required by the Watershed District and the DNR. \/4. Prior to preliminary plat review by the Council, applicant's consultant shall provide borings confirming acceptable soil types on the property. y 5. Dedication on the plat of Conservation and Flowage Easements for the wetland in Lots 2 and 3, and a Drainage Easement of yet-to-be- determined width along the length of Painter's Creek in Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5. y 6. Dedication on the plat of standard Drainage and Utility Easements 10' along perimeter and roadway lot lines and 5' either side of interior lot lines. y 7. Dedication on the plat of 33' of City right-of-way for Towpline Road. $y S, Payment of Park Fees of $100 per lot per the current fee schedule. y 9. Subject to additional requirements regarding drainage easements or structures as may be required by the City Engineer and M.C.W.D. y 10, Prior to Council preliminary plat review, applicant shall provide specifications for any signage, monuments, or unusual grading (berms, etc.) that may be proposed. wmw S?3 i-j3v^S7;; V.'.: I- 1^ IHUjBppr^ ' . mi: m • • » •• CITY OF O] PROPERTY ] Site Addrc • • Property ] Please che Attach''lecm APPLICANT V Ncune• • • • Addre OWNER (if . Name Addre i (att« EXISTING Li Numbei Develc • .. Presen • « Presen PROPOSAL Nux Prc Mir Prc I :o Ve Lt ie. Wi 1C lb f/a er ie -V IE ar :a a] • Mala *^^iala1 r*nai altfa t v:;i-vY. ■ ■ F! .oil »:=0*V ■ mm lii.' pim^'?yrn m :. ■ - mjT'trr^ cr iilli ilw’’'* '1 P''0-0;0' .;*a ^iO F : MM •'Stdt.p»£;.-:V-‘V^■ «tw-.. • naL • ^ ..Ar-i m ::'. =: ■■• ■ • ' ■.. :•■• r-'-M'f.i..: ilM"te,JSifa ¥m•■'t b,m-: •.^»ifi-ii rT^ CITT OP ORONO -. SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPBRT7 LOCATICW • » Site Address ~ ' -T / •i ^ ■• — - * .>:J .. Property Identification Number (P. I. p J) ~ ^<^jhn Please check one - Property >< abstract or • • • « ^ Attach’legal description to application." APPLICANT - - -.. torrens? .« . « - - :. m •• i CITY. OF C'W . FINAIKE DFFIS . I'lOOZOOm ■■■ 01 CBi 300.00 00000 ■ . -■'01 'ecu IZS^.OO CHECK TL - ■■ 1590.00 ..HFCEIFT-Timuai. 0105000 cooi m-TOf: Phone - (home) *4 3-1 b ■''- l‘‘—-^'''24.-' •*““« F»AiU<ja-»K/ Pft.«^</CTit4. ■4jfc Phone (work) •=>,•>, S >*^(.11 ' Addres sifeO^- X>fT) city; Vi/ Zip;' CS''^bZK OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ’ ’ Phone (home) Phone (work)'• *w •*• ^ ‘ mm Address: ' ' *. (attach list if more than one) City:Zip: EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size i.. SP.Cf /- 7 ^a. / Present Use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total r all parcels Residential; no. of units ^ Other (specif y ^ •••••• »A . # • \ *v .V r-k Present Zoning District /P/f «/^ PROPOSAL __________ Division for Tax Purposes _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ’ • - - \ • '' • ' ____________ Lot'Lxne Rearrangement Only (no*new building sites) '’C Subdivision for New Building Sites o . .V*« V. . .. . ■» t * 4d • n • X «• •« Number of Building Sites: ^ — V *. Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimiun Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) Units per Yc. / Acres 2 ^3^ t Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land • .« Residential _ Other (specify) ‘t ■ ■ •.■■ mfi- -pOi * ••'■ ■•.•■>■#■ jl; •* I ■W I- #:• dr'.. » kr ./C M minimum 4. Certific complete. Zoning Of Payin Sign Titl Ease Deve Certifica Zoning Of FEES The applj requested Planning < further ag Applicant' Owner's Si Applican PJ anning third Me review m( unable t authoriz( Office 03 V. . ..-'’5SS'jstsr ■"-" cm. JF arm -FlNAiia OFFICE .mooooo ;" 0i £E» 300.00 ^300000' ■ ' - "01-CEH 12^.00 eO( 71 1590.00 HECEIPT-Tim.JUI. ossoo cdoi -itn" ^ ^ 'W •sites).. « « ► ible Land : ( ■ * ■ 1 ; i 'yft*■ ■ : • V . 4fih.. k-t^a^sasss Il»t .pJ! .. ; ■ . '. ■•k '•7? •=*, ■;<W .ZlL,w' =4nSm^W: MNIMm MATERIAL HBCBSSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form apflicatioh information on Certificate of Survey this^'lilt fro^HeL^?^^? owners within 350' (you must obtain348-3271K* Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center Stamped# le^al sized envelopes (#10) pre~addressed to »»nh ot ra\U“ no^return^ddrefr(re^ a\°dr\%t fibe^Jl complete?“““ Department that Preliminary Plat Application is Zoning Official's Signature_____________________________ 2* fee, sewerinrCaterissessmentsIT’ 3! Title^opinion!^°^^* survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 4. Easements# Covenants# etc. . . ' 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. zlnin“Smc?a^-s'l?gSi[tSrl “"”®"’^ Sketch Plan Review (Class I# li & iii) Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) 7 cars 700 +IH0 r y AO40 SSOO f //oo 'C^o) ? f /T^O r-^n/t Final Plat Review (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) $150.00 250.00 300.00 + 20.C0/Lot 150.00* reaii^s?^d^^^v provide all information required orrequested by the Zoning Administrator# City Engineer. Citv Attorn^^v lanning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay a^ addi^onal feesSstablish^ brord^ce ° Applicant’s Signature P n.,-« Owner's Signature _ Date Date Applicant must hav^^arll submittals into the City offices 25 davs hefor#* <-h.» th?^!5^M^ Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are^ held on the review meetinot of*tL“^ Applicants must be present®at ril sched"u!el aS?Sor\z\°d aclITt P"®”® ™a°)^ a«ang”me“ts“'’fi\'a“ve InOffici al tS?rL •" the Building fi Zoningor rice of this change prior to the meeting. m- M-:'- 9^ ’■■■ ■ "i ^ ■«,F^ 'l-rr : J [v . 1 o CO CO tH rtC ' ^ lyH r r J ? ■ ■ ^Vi;; Ifl ^ lA -I in O lA a CM 0 Ui « ^ M lA < cy ^030^1:lA 0 ft ri o Ui ft UiCM I4l O j____ ft r 0 0 ^ ft 0 __21 <:3 : CVi O 1 1 z: 00 1 r-<Ui I-H c •oc VO ccnoC GO Com . ^L : • ■: i-: I 7 • —4 &^;„''V' stopp: and s stopp: (2) Pi banks creati shall conne< deemed inters herein tion) . to be'( Private UnitJ 3-6 Over Public Units 3-10 Over Max imi Max imi Public i ♦ Rigb ** Mini ORONO CC I—- - S 11.33 ^ Intersections shall be designed with a flat a ^ residential a^eaand sixty (60) feet in a commercial or industrial area Th^ (2?^percent*^ designed to provide a maximum grade of two . , Where any street intersection will involve earth create°a traf inside any lot corner that would chf?!® ®hazard by limiting visibility, the subdivider and/or vegetation (including trees) in connection with the grading of the right-of-way to the extent deemed necessary by the City to provide an adequate sight distanlS. . The crown of all streets, intersections, shall be three percent (3%) or less.including to “S^ I2ter^\";ed%rthrcity^ Private Street - Residential Units 3-6 Over 7 R.O.W.* 50* M.P.W.** 24* Section 8** Class 5 100% crushed 3** 2341 Bituminous Surface 8** Class 5 100% crushed 3** 2341 Bituminous Surface Public Street - Residential Units 3-10 Over 10 R.O.W.* 50* M.P.W.** 28* Maximum cul-de-sac length - 1,000* Maximum number of units on cul-de-sac Section 8** Class 5 100% crushed 3" 2341 Bituminous Surface 8** Class 5 100% crushed 3" 2341 Bituminous Surface - 10 Public Street - Commercial or Industrial R.O.W.-^ 70* M.P.W.** 32*Section 8** Class 4 8** Class 5 100% crushed 4" 2341 Bituminous surface * Right-Of-Way Width ** Minimum Paved Width ORONO CC 462 (4-1-84) S 11.33 ned with a flat residential area rial area. The mum grade of two Lll involve earth rner that would the subdivider tiding trees) in y to the extent i sight distance. :s, including ection indicated Soil Classifica- may be required 100% crushed tuminous Surface 100% crushed tuminous Surface 100% crushed luminous Surface 100% crushed tuminous Surface 100% crushed uminous surface mmm COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. SURVEYING, ENQINEBRINQ AND LAND PLANNING 482*A TAMARACK AVENUE LONG LAKE. MINN. 55356 473*4141 10-12-88 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 in existing swales or drainageways. In the borings taken nearby out of the swales better soils were encountered. Thus, the soils map IS correct in showing Hamel soils but it ia resLiicLed to the .vays and is not as extensive as shown on the soils map. Although it is very likely that mound c;v/<5h<=.m<= wi ^ i dequate soils and slopes for these mound svstems on each of <-’ne lots. . - - Sincerely, COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC Mark S. Gronberg y. % mm ■ ■-mm ■ K. \'|i :||p IV L M i'SI ^ VA mmm Locncion or Project Borings made by _ _ Classification Systctri: Auger used (check two) . Depth, In feet Boring number Surface elevai 2 — 4 — jV/f ' : 8 End of boring at Standing water table Present at hours ai Not present in boring Mottled soil: Observed Pt ^ fee' Not present in boring he Observations and cor.meii* w^mV^-iiliilsMmMin^KiiiiUiiiii»;i^'. <>£4.mm ■ .-'*.r ■'^S;'it :y-y^ Location or Project Borings made by Lo^_of^_^So^JBorin^ B-27 Classification Syatctn; AASHO Date \ USDA-SCS ; Unified /o-/- // .; ocher Auger used (checV. two): Hand J^j;. or Power _, Fllghe_ _or Bucket xTIi;;;; 7 End of boring at J". O feet. Standing water table: Present at . feet of depth, _ _ _ _ _ _ hours after boring. Not present in boring hole ^ Mottled soil: Ohs Arvo/I pt 5* Not present in boring hole Observations and commei>ts: End of boring at /. feec. Standing water table: Present at _ _ _ _ feet of depth. . hours after boring. Not present In boring hole jX* Mottled soil: OK #i« .4 >« •« «W^ • • c ^ ^ ^ C utipuH* Not present in boring hole X Observations and coiments: ♦••••. !<• ••. a-i. ^'octlad noil: Uoserved ac Not present in borin Obccv'.'ations and cor: B-27 :et X ; other feet. \ depth, (oring. . X 'I m ^V4. 1|W ?i- .••nv :V^f': ■M !p ■'1 M. ":l :i ■^.; jji.'»-' v4v_-.:- :*^iiiii Mil -^s! uo^s o£ Soil Borings uoudcfoii 01* ProjeCt B-27 y/^'T" _ _C*-y^C'y^S . Horincs r.ac!c by .. .!).: f.^J! J1.i« i I* 1 cic:', S y •; •;■.'> •« : t. /.»; iin A’:r-;r v.r-'-d (cheeV. •,•.."•''• ;r-..wi sX . /6-' '■‘•r?A- '• •* ;<• « • • I ::vo;I • « i I.• I Boring nur/oer ‘^':rfece elaveticr. i o^/L\ CiAf 7 > • •T V* #4 o • V» rs •W**v W a. w ^f v:u i;. Scending water cabie: Present at feet of deonh. •!«» «*4» M»V.. yoctlcd noil: uaserved at _ to.cC of ciopt''. Hoc nresanc in boring holo X Obccr'.'acions and cor;nent:s: D.ipch, in feet ooring nu:::b.>r y Surface elevation 0 - 1 ^ ffy.A<:K Co/t^ yur c<^40^ 8 j ivnd of borin.-: at _ 7. ^ ■ icanuing watet Lciulu. ^resent fit ^ont- r> f I ................................. i.*Ui:> • • .... ; ■'■'•• r ■••;•• •' ’■ ' • b :r- ; •• ••,,•.• x i Oh n r» i* •.*f! f5 • • S“* ,*« t j Hot prcCuUw in borinj; hole Observations and coiiuncnts: f«N. -* mm t^ElKr. m • V- • fel d:&d¥- 41 m d;i .::. ;/7'yv ? •i .; y» V v-^ ‘:- /.i: ■■»i s?*myJz i.'Jm m ■fc.J fi^ Location o Borings ma Classlfica Auger used Depth,B in C feet s 0 i1 rnimmmm«• 2 — 8 End of borin Standing wat Present at Hoc present Mottled sol Observed at Noe present Obser'/acior V B-27 ,i •• > • • « ■ ^y Lcvation Oyt/^ 7.0 • ,“• •. •• • -• • 4 X i; hole Ticnco: a...: Ill' 6l=i.’ Kl'- ?ia siA'fr'ya . *.i W . ; -&0W- ■ ' •■'■^ ^*liJ mm r -iiS ! /I *. : -j SM Wfm y"::' Date I ! Classification System: AASHO Auger used (check two): Hand ; USDA-SCS ; Unified i:' :v5f ; other I or Power- -; Flight_ _, or Bucket _ _; other . Depth, in feet Boring number Surface elevation ^ <’*•' < C/f /^~ 7 8 Z ^ -V V.V, . • . feet.End of boring at 3, O Standing water table; Present at _______ feet of depth, hours after boring. Hot present in boring hole X Mottled soil: Observed at 7 feet of depth. Hoc present in boring hole Observations and comments: Depth, in feet ioring number Surface -elevation 1 ~ — £jAfy 8 End of boring at 3. O feet. Standing water tabic: Present at __ _ _ _ feet of depth. hours after boring. Mot present in boring hole >cT Mottled soil: • • Observed at ?73‘ feet of depth. Not present in boring hole X Observations and comments: mm ^ 1, -■ i-vjit■ '•. ■ T.'-r.^ m, . y-v*., iisyi H’*' I'-:®:: - mm ji 'r h k If [■k,* >■'1V4-> t - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - Not I ■j-f m j n-27 ; ocher BuckeC ; other vation feet. iC of depth, :er boring. ^ola _2< ct of depth. nts: ' V;l .. A>-: W:- :' ■■ ■ r.; m im r 'Hi KmjM i ”3 I Location or Project Borings made by _ _ Classtficacion System: AASHO Auger used (check two): Hand Depth, in feet Boring number Surface elevation feet.End of boring at • O Standing water table: Present at __ _ _ _ feet of depth, hours after boring. Not present in boring hole Mottled soil: Observed at V feet of depth. Not present in boring hole Cbservucions and comments: End o£ boring at feet. Standing water table: Present at __ _ _ _ feet of depth, hours after boring. Not present in boring hole X* Mottled soil: • • Observed at O feet of depth. Not present in boring hole • • Observations and comments: Location Borings i Classifi. Auaer usi . Depth, in feet End of box Standing w Present at Not oresen ^fri f f 1 n c r>m mm ^ ^ Observed a Not presen CuiiCL'VtiC ic B-27 ther _______ t ; other n _ feet. depch, orlng. X f depth. V--r^ ■I Wv : t;: r* ■'.* * •-- ’ =:'t ■" .if' ■ i . ; ':>tZ^' • .Hp .- -- /7s. ■ V-- li Atl Si • ■ -V£. ■ • %■> Logs of Soli Borings Location or Project Borings made by B-27 ,txy/ir\ K Classificacicr. Systfen: MSHO Auger used (check two): Hand Date ; U3DA-SCS .; Unified ; ocher * or Po ’.s’cr ; Flight _ _, or Bucket ; other /r/^x Date / ' ' Date Date L will iS or :ed to Lling L the I hereby m. r*s \ ice of 311 to approved Bcifically 'i ■» *•. '-m kmmmmwm -1 :# ^ /M >. 1 ■■ WM:^. :i.,. v:>,s 1 • :V ■ VW y?:-.: ■ • r,:X : ’■ •JtJVmm Planning Coipmission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator October 13r 1988 Subject: #1334 Sidney ReberSf 715 North Brown Road - Condition Use Permit/PRD, Preliminary Subdivision Class III SScond Review Zoning District - RR-lA - Approved by the City Council on October 10, 1988 - Minimum area required is 1 acre. Pertinent Sections of the Code - Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (H) PRD development. - Conditional use permit required for Section 10.20 - R-IA Standards. Section 10.32 - PRD Code. Chapter 11 - Subdivision regulations. Total. Area - 32.6 acres Area — exclusive of road outlot - (2.47 acres) and future access corridor (.53 acres) » 29.6 Acres Section 10.31, Subdivision 2 one acre is required for one residential unit. Proposed unit density based on 29.6 acres * 1 unit per 1.18 acres. Average lot/Pad Area - 38,000 s.f. List of Exhibits - Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Rezoning Memo to Council 10/7/88 Letter to Kost 10/5/88 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions 6 Easements for Meyer's Woods Comprehensive Plan Sections - Area 4 Amended or Revised Preliminary Plan The rezoning portion Council at the October 10, immediate rezoning subject for extension of municipal memo for members to review, standards as noted above, currently in effect. of the Rebers' application was acted on by the 1988 meeting. Approval was conditioned on the to the applicant agreeing to pay without appeal sewer to the property. Staff has enclosed the Note this review memo is based on current code The review will deal solely with ordinances mf .V. j 5?^ri V /■ .sP Zoning File #1334 October 13, 1988 Page 2 of 7 As discussed at 3rd, members were a October 4th with th members regarding the review Exhibit B, the by those in attendanc Sara Moos, Glenn Co< revised plan, it wo requests of those in with Mr. Kost, he ad complete survey of a building site, and promised that by you building pads and a i for each pad. Staff that meeting. If yo Block 1, Lots 2 and because of special gr< coverage. The following re plans: 1. No grading/wc 30 to 50' setbac) 2. The cul-de-si at the meeting, t for vertical co 3. Access rema adequate sightinc with the applies need to change advised to eithe] or further south because it woul property owners c on the north. 4. The open spa Lane. The City through the defir would not be con developed under benefits." The o PRD is that thej development. Th under the current SL -I r: Class III - ctober 10, 1988 it required for iccess corridor >ne residential r 1.18 acres. lotions 6 cted on by the itioned on the without appeal s enclosed the »n current code .th ordinances tm mm f m ' v'l i^aiiliis ■ v^l • ■ ..<ai Zoning File #1334 October 13, 1988 Page 2 of 7 As discussed at our most recent Planning Commission meeting on October 3rd, members were advised that an informal meeting was scheduled for October 4th with the developer to discuss the many concerns noted by members regarding the layout of the subdivision and the PRD format. Please review Exhibit B, the letter to Bob Kost that reviewed the issues discussed by those in attendance at that meeting (Chairman Kelley, Co-chair Bellows, Sara Moos, Glenn Cook, Bob Kost and Jeanne Mabusth). In reviewing the revised plan, it would appear that Mr. Kost has fulfilled all of the requests of those in attendance at the meeting. In a recent discussion with Mr. Kost, he advised that it would be impossible to complete his complete survey of all 8" or greater diameter trees within each pad, each building site, and a recommendation for floor area ratio. Kost has promised that by your meeting night that he will have an analysis of 3 building pads and a recommendation concerning the floor area ratio limits for each pad. Staff selected 3 pads or lots for special conideration by that meeting. If you review your original plan, staff selected Lot 8, Block 1, Lots 2 and 6, Block 3. These lots were specifically selected because of special grade considerations and appeared to have extensive tree coverage. The following requested changes have been included within the revised plans: 1. No grading/woodland preservation areas have been extended into the 30 to 50* setback zones of the lots. 2. The cul-de-sac road has been replaced with a loop road. As noted at the meeting, this plan satisfies the maximum grade allowance of 12% for vertical control. 3. Access remains in the original approved location providing adequate sighting distance for the 30 MPH speed limit. Staff had met with the applicant prior to the preliminary hearing to discuss the need to change the original access location. The applicant was advised to either move it further to tha r.nrth to the top of the hill or further south. The applicant suggested moving it further south because it would provide less impact for the neighboring rural property owners on the east side and the property owner most impacted on the north. 4. The open space outlet for the trail connects new to Pine Ridge Lane. The City is not interested in acquiring public trail rights through the defined path trails of the residential subdivision. This would not be consistent: with other Planned Residential Developments developed under the current standards that provide no "performance benefits." The only benefit provided an applicant under our current PRD is that they do not have to follow the conventional mode of development. There are no density benefits given to any developer under the current PRD code. J r Zoning File #1334 October 13, 1988 Page 3 of 7 5. Per the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as part of the recommended alternative, review Exhibit D Page 52, an east/west corridor had to be defined within the commercial portion of this property if the residential through road was not to be realized via the Pine Ridge Lane corridor. A 60* wide corridor below the residential development along the northern border of the commercial corridor has been provided. The outlot is 60* wide. At that same meeting, the applicant was advised that the City did not feel it appropriate to have a bike trail system along the Highway 12 corridor and asked that it be placed along the north side of the future east/west frontage road. The outlot has been designated at a 60* width to contain both road bed and bike trail. 6. The information on the fencing along the north side will be submitted at your meeting. Planning Commission may wish to address other means to screen or lessen the impact of the residential development upon the rural residential property to the immediate north• PRD/R-lA Standards - R-IA: Front Street Setback Rear Setback » 30* Side Setback » lO' Applicant*s Proposal; Front Street Setback Rear Setback * 50* Side Setback 30* Section 10.32 - PRD Planned Residential Development. Subdivision-1 - Purpose. The purpose of a PRD . . ."to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods, to encourage the preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare in general of the City*s residents." The current PRD proposal preserves open spaces with the trail system in the surrounding outlot and in addition, has built in additional open space areas within each lot defined by the required setbacks. The restrictive setbacks will also lessen impact of congestion. Clearly, a 1 acre minimum lot size is not high density development. The surrounding open space and woodlands trailways and a future connecting bike/hike trail system to the western and northern portions of the community will offer greater recreational opportunities. Subdivision 2 - Total number of building lots or dwelling units. "Shall not exceed the number of such lots or units permissible under the minimum lot size requirements of the zoning district or districts in which land is situated." Required Density Proposed Denisty 1 acre per unit 1.18 acres per unit A as part of the !, an east/west ;>ortion of this be realized via Ldor below the the coimnercia 1 . At that same id not feel it bway 12 corridor of the future gnated at a 60* h side will be wish to address he residential > the immediate 1:r: "to enhance the ition of natural congestion and hood design, to lid in improving rhe current PRD system in the ional open space setbacks. The stion. Clearly, relopment. The uture connecting portions of the s. Iwelling units, srmissible under Let or districts r»*‘. • mM Zoning File #1334 October 13, 1988 Page 4 of 7 i # Subdivision 3 - Council discretion. "Dwelling units may be detached, attached, or multiple family dwelling structures; subject to the limitations provided for in each zoning district." Section 10.20 - R- lA - Permitted uses of a R-IA district allows only 1 family detached dwellings, in addition. Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 - Conditional uses with PRD is limited to detached single family dwellings. The current proposal calls for detached dwellings. Subdivision 4 - Open space, etc. - The open space areas or controlled non-development, non-grading, no development areas shall be limited to a trail. Trees cannot be removed, and there shall be no grading or land alteration. This control shall be outlined in the final resolution approving the plat, final development plan, and subdivider's agreement. Subdivision 5 - Dedication of open space. The homeowners* association shall own all open space areas and shall be responsible of maintenance of open space area. Review Exhibit C, special conditions and covenants restricting this development. Subdivision 6 - Site plan. Asks for greater detail in the locating of the proposed building sites, street and parking plans, etc. This would be consistent with the request to locate house locations within each pad. Subdivision 7 - Hearings. The appropriate hearings have been called for both the subdivision and the PRD at your September 19th meeting. Subdivision 8 - Pinal approval. All conditions of preliminary subdivision and conditional use permit for the PRD must be fulfilled before final subdivision approval can be granted. All improvements shall be covered by a developer's agreement and posted with appropriate and acceptable security to the City to assure that these improvements are completed prior to residential construction. I mm K->' ■■ fell V;"mm mm : m' 11 Zoning File October 13, Page 5 of 7 Subdivi subdivd Review prelimi conside: separat separat within will be require! on the subdivi drainagi in the < and utii souther agreeme propert resident The app review all p: this subdivi retention p< principal fc from the ful the undevel hydraulic ii grading plan The Par> land dedicati commercial cc system. Appl the southern will accept ] per lot). Review I meeting. If noted at this a separate va approves entx 7 may be detachedr subject to the action 10.20 - R- famlly detached 3 - Conditional dwellings. The IS or controlled 11 be limited to 3e no grading or d in the final tent plan, and lers' association e of maintenance conditions and the locating of ansr etc. This locations within lave been called r 19th meeting. of preliminary ist fulfilled Lll improvements nd posted with ssure that these ruction. - . T'- / * ■ TV'” bI r i VV; y 1. ’ V « T Zoning File #1334 October 13, 1988 Page 5 of 7 Subdivision 9 - Subdivision requirements. All provisions of the subdivision regulations have been followed under the PRD format. Review your previous plan that showed the actual survey for preliminary subdivision. Outlots define the commercial corridors not considered under this current plan. The road will be designated as a separate out lot as will the open space area surrounding it. A separate outlet will now define the future road corridor located within the southern portion of the property. Each residential unit will be defined as a lot. The actual building pad defined by the required setbacks cannot be shown on the final plat, but will be shown on the final development plan. All of the other conditions of subdivision approvals will be required - open space easements, drainage and utility easements, drainage easements over retention pond in the commercial corridor at the southeast corner, underlying road and utility easements over road outlot and future road corridor within southern portion of the property, and in this case, a subdivider's agreement to be filed against the chain of title of each of the properties outlining all restrictions on the use of the individual residential lots and the shared open space. The applicant has filed for the required permit from the M.C.W.D. to review all proposed lot gradings and storm sewer Improvements. Approval of this subdivision and PRD will be conditioned on the installation of a retention pond in the southeast corner of the property. The guiding principal for the permit review by the M.W.C.C. is that surface run-off from the fully developed site must exit the property at the S2une rate from the undeveloped property. The applicant must provide the necessary hydraulic information based on the 100 year storm standard. The site grading plan should include plans for the pond. The Park Commission at an earlier review, determined no need for park land dedication but asked that a bike/hike trail be designated through the commercial corridor of the property as part of the comprehensive bike trail system. Applicant has provided adequate width with the 60* outlot shown in the southern portion of the property for both road and trail. The City will accept park fee payments in lieu of the park land dedication ($400.00 per lot). Review Exhibit C, enclosed in your original packets for the September meeting. If entrance monuments are to exceed a 3%' height, this should be noted at this review and approved so that the applicant need not return for a separate variance application. In PRD/Subdivision applications, th^ City approves entrance monuments when proposed by the subdividers. V-/.. * wmm ’mik N rLitl LNiS IF.-", .y'■ 4' Zoning File October 13, Page 6 of 7 The api concerned th or greater d site will p] owner. It i than a perso far more The City aff Once again, restrictive building li except for t areas which individual Planning Co building on be included that may be existing tre< 1. Est2 limits i 2. Coni floor a: 3. Pla at a ce establii Applies greater tree remove one o: the Homeownei is to be the the subdivld Other Planni that could fc which is to i Staff Re Staff r< Class III pr property loc« of the subdj ordinances, preliminary following con »vislons of the :he PRD format, al survey for il corridors not designated as a oundlng It. A rrldor located tsldentlal unit defined by the t will be shown conditions of ace easements, r retention pond inderlylng road corridor within a subdivider's of each of the the Individual the M.C.W.D. to :s. Approval of tallatlon of a The guiding lurface run~off i same rate from the necessary dard. The site lo need for park ited through the islve bike trail outlet shown In rail. The City Lcatlon ($400.00 )r the September this should be ! not return for It Ions, th3 City 3. IT >1 ■> ■ ' 4 tS: • ■ -' v.<: .1:‘‘ty.-’T. li- ■ M’1 -kl mm ' 5.' K::’- !"S?' ¥ 11 ? »>-» * • Zoning File #1334 October 13, 1988 Page 6 of 7 The applicant's representative has made staff aware that they are concerned that the requirement of the Planning Commission to locate all 8" or greater diameter trees within each building pad and locating a specific site will place severe limits on the future planning abilities of each new owner. It Is the developer's concern that no one understands a site better than a person who wishes to put a house on a given property and who becomes far more familiar with the physical characteristics of their property. The City affectively assumes the role of a site planner for each homeslte. Once again, staff would ask the Planning Commission to review the restrictive covenants. Exhibit C In your packets. Note there are no building limitations set forth In any of the sections of the covenants except for the setbacks and the controls on the woodlands or no-grading areas which have now been expanded Into the required yard areas within the Individual lots. Section 10.32, Subdivision 6, certainly gives the Planning Commission the right to ask for the location of the proposed building on each lot. Planning Commission may consider other controls to be Included within the restrictive covenants and the subdivider's agreement that may be In keeping with the Intent of the PRD which Is to preserve existing trees and other physical attributes of the property, as follows: 1. Establish limits on accessory structures limits on accessory structures. The covenants place no 2. Consider percentage of structural coverage for pads similar to the floor area ratio to be designed for the principal structure. 3. Place a limit on grading within each pad requlrlitj City approval at a certain level - 40 to 50 cubic yards. The City Engineer may establish a reasonable level. Applicant has asked that If a plan Is presented locating all 8" or greater trees within each pad and at a future time a home owner has to remove one of these specimens, who Is to give him permission? Shall It be the Homeowners' Association? The City? A joint approval situation? If it is to be the City Is has to be spelled out In a special restriction within the subdivider's agreement as it Is not specified within your ordinances. Other Planning Commission members may have other Ideas on other measures that could be taken that would protect the original Intent of this PRD which is to preserve the natural woodlands that Involves the entire site. Staff RecoBmendation - Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for PRD and Class III preliminary subdivision application of Sidney Rebers for the property located at 715 North Brown Road finding all appropriate standards of the subdivision regulations, the Planned Residential Development ordinances, and R-IA Zoning District Standards have been met per amended preliminary plans dated 10/12/88 by BRW. Approval Is subject to the following conditions: m Zoning Flic October 13« Page 7 of " 1. P $400), 2. 6: outlot corrld 4. SI In so Inf on size o 5. La approi stands 6. Su for tb before define hat they are Locate all 8” ng a specific 8 of each new a site better a who becomes iir property, lach homesite. I review the bhere are no he covenants r no-grading as within the y gives the the proposed : controls to tr*8 agreement to preserve as follows: ints place no imilar to the ire. :ity approval Engineer may .ng all 8" or owner has to Shall it be ation? If it iction within r ordinances, her measures of this PRD intire site. t for PRD and bers for the ate standards Development : per amended bject to the 4 * Zoning File #1334 October 13, 1988 Page 7 of 7 'f "‘I* • 1. Payment of a $10,000.00 park fee ($400.00 per each lot, $400).25 X 2. Granting of underlying Road & Utility Easements for the road outlot and the future access corridor to also be defined as an access corridor within the southern portion of the property. Dedication of 33' of right-of-way for Brown Road. 4. Site grading/storm sewer plans to Include plans for retention pond in southeast corner of property - submit necessary hydraulic information based on 100 year storm factor to determine appropriate size of pond. 5. Landscape islands at main entrance and cul—de—saced areas are approved for a privately maintained road and do not meet City standards for public roads. 6. Submittal of a final development plan and subdivider's agreement for the Planning Commission's review and approval prior to scheduling before the Council for final action. Such plan and agreement to define the following: A) House locations on each pad. B) Woodland/preservation no-grading areas. C) Floor/area ratio for principal structure on each pad (area of each pad to be defined on the plan). May be expanded to include structural construction limitations on each pad - total structure/area ratio or place limits on accessory structures for each pad - pools, tennis courts, sheds, barns - require the private covenants to be amended. D) Limit grading activities to a specific level and require City approval if it is to be exceeded or require City approval for the removal of all 8" or greater diameter trees within each pad and define penalty if removed without approval. All such trees to be defined within each pad if this is considered appropriate for the approval of the PRD. E) Fencing and/or other screening (plantings, berms, etc.) along north boundary of property. [" • p‘;■ '/ly.[ •1..■ :V ' : ' *.......ii!.. L_ / - •• ..V- .• • • • ...'./v- \ : mm i mm. :: ■ I r ■ U . [. 7j, To:Ml C: From: Date: Subject J< 0< #: R( List of Exh: Exhibil Exhibil Exhibil Exhibil Exhibil Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit ApplicatioE (Sewerc remain: another Total area Brief Review On Augr for the comp the develop hearings fc developmen application was tabled Please revd hearing, spe to the rezon Planning Cc amendment r< Amendment, applicable J deal predom: application Staff's based on th pertinent sei ij ■ each lotr 25 x ts for the road led as an access r retention pond lary hydraulic ine appropriate saced areas are not meet City ider's agreement >r to scheduling id agreement to eich pad (area of [ided to include h pad - total r structures for - require the find require City pproval for the in each pad and such trees to be ropriate for the rmsr etc.) along *3 I ' 'v, To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Date: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator October 7, 1988 Subject: #1333 Sidney Rebers^ 715 North Brovn Road Rezoning - Resolution List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Application Plat Map Public Hearing Notice Legal Description for Area to be Rezoned Letter From Platteters at 809 North Brown Road Shardlow Memo Intent R-IA Code Section PRD Code Map of Zoning Boundaries Map of Zoning Boundary Lines Sections of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Residential Development Plan of Property Application - Rezoning From RR-IB (Rural, Non-sewered, 2 Acre Lots) to R-lA (Sewered, 1-Acre Lots). Review Exhibit I, note that 55' of RR-IB remains for future rezoning to either existing B-1 commercial or another zoning classification at some future date. Total area to be rezoned » 3 2.6 acres. Brief Review of Application - On August 15, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan for the comprehensive proposal of Sidney Rebers and conceptually approved the development plans. The Planning Commission held the formal public hearings for the required rezoning and the subdivision/PRD for the development phase of the application. The rezoning phase of the application was approved by the Planning Commission and the subdivision/PRD was tabled pending resolve of the concerns of the Planning Commission. Please review Exhibit F, John Shardlow's review memo for the public hearing, specifically Pages 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 as they pertain specifically to the re zoning request. As Shardlow's memo notes on Page 2, although the Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the zoning ordinance amendment required as a result of the passage of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the standards of the proposed ordinance amendment are not applicable in the review of this application. Shardlow's review comments deal predominantly with the relation of the application to the rezoning application to the proposed ordinance amendment. Staff's report will deal solely with the review of the application based on the recently approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the pertinent sections of the current zoning code that are applicable. iiii m »sl Pi mm m '#1 iulil Zoning Fi October 7 Page 2 of Pleai that deal where it i change anc find two 52, the re the 55' c commercia developed residentia code. In property ib applicant the Compre Review PRE "Subm. for a for e lots, units zonin< In on acre or 1 eunended to The p; based on th Comprehen conver tion format with lessening t Pleas< enclosed in the rezonii 1. Topog: V t' Mj ii 2. Th requir amendme r tor n Road Acre Lots) to R-IA that 55 ’ of RR-IB S-1 commercial or d the sketch plan eptually approved :he formal public jion/PRD for the ng phase of the le subdivision/PRD nning Commission. > for the public tain specifically e 2, although the zoning ordinance mprehensive Plan mendment are not s review comments n to the rezoning f the application mendment and the plicable. A . :1imy ■■Wr ■ 'V‘ f^fr tk. mi rr- ’: : , .i Zoning File #1333 October 7, 1988 Page 2 of 3 4.U ^ Please review Exhibit K, sections of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that deal with proposed changes for the subject property. Note on Page 37 where it specifically references areas slated for change or considered for change and designates the property as Area 4. On Pages 50 and 51 you will find two alternative plans for future development of the property. Page f?' alternative by the City, approves future rezoning of the 55 corridor north of the existing commercial line be rezoned to commercial and the remaining residential was to receive sewer and to be developed at 1 and 2 acre single family densities. Sewer was to serve all residential development. Please review Exhibit G, the intent of the R-lA code. In order for the applicant's rezoning request to be approved, the property must be sewered. Review Exhibit H, the PRD Code, in order for the applicant to satisfy the current PRD Code of the City and the directives of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2, the rezoning to R-lA is necessary. Review PRD Section 10.32, Subdivision 2 that reads as follows: "Submission of plans. Land owners may submit land subdivision plans R District without adhsroncs to minimuin lot size requirements for each building lot^ provided that the total number of building lots, or dwelling units, shall not exceed the number of such lots or permissible under the minimum lot size requirements of the zoning district or districts which such land is situated." In order for this developer to receive approval of a mixed 1 and 2 acre or 1 acre density PRD, the underlying zoning district has to be amended to fulfill the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The present PRD subdivision application seeks approval of 25 units based on the R-lA zoning density allowance. Alternative 3, as shown on the Comprehensive Plan Sections, Exhibit K, Page 51, shows a formal convei'tional plat format. The current plan under consideration is a PRD format with an open space outlet surrounding the PRD providing a buffer and lessening the impact on the surrounding rural residential properties. Please review the Planning Commission minutes of September 19, 1988 enclosed in your Council packets. Some of the reasons noted for approving the rezoning to the 1 acre zone were as follows: Topographical and physical characteristics of the site: Variations in topography ranging from 1,044' at its highest point to 994 at its lowest, resulting in over 50' of grade separation. Mature maple and other deciduous trees. Heavy clay and clay loam soils and associated problems with installation and maintenance of on-site sewage disposal system. 2. The proposed division satisfies all of the special minimum requirements for rezoning under the proposed zoning ordinance amendment for the Highway 12 corridor. • A. jsau. yu:.: V-Zoning FiJ October 7, Page 3 of 4. The i Engineer a property i serviced I pay for anj Planning Cc 3, Engl] Long intez 5. T alone m excel 6. T MUSA ' 7. T1 the 1 Mu The PJ of this pr< noted abov based on tl the surrour surroundin Comprehensi newly aligi without se] City would enclosed re the applies ment for fa of sewer to Plan Amendment Note on Page 37 considered for md 51 you will property. Page ire rezoning of be rezoned to ewer and to be 18 to serve all mt of the R-IA approved, the a order for the i directives of A is necessary, s: division plans se requirements sr of building f such lots or ements of the 1." mixed 1 and 2 let has to be [1 Amendment. n al of 25 units LS shown on the ows a formal ation is a PRD ig a buffer and }perties. ember 19, 1988 for approving highest point e separation. problems with 3sal system. cial minimum ng ordinance Zoning Pile #1333 October 7, 1988 Page 3 of 3 3. Sanitary sewer will be provided as confirmed by the City Engineer's preliminary review. Sewer to be provided either through Long Lake by the Joint Powers Agreement or by constructing a new interceptor along the Highway 12 corridor. 4. The rezoning will allow single family residential development. 5. The property is immediately adjacent to a commercial corridor along Highway 12 and the proposed 1 acre zoning would provide an excellent buffer to the surrounding rural residential districts. 6. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment included this property within the MUSA district and approved Municipal services for the area. 7. The current code will require rezoning to R-lA in order to allow the 1 acre densities recommended in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The issue of sewer remains unresolved at this point, but the City Engineer confirms that there are available alternatives for servicing the property with sewer. The question remains how the property will be sewer either via the Long Lake system or the extension of Orono's Municipal sewer lines. The owner is aware of his obligation to pay for any extension of Municipal sewer to the property. Planning Comnission Recommendation - The Planning Commission approved the rezoning of the northern portion this property from RR—lB to R—lA based on one or more of the findings noted above in the staff memo. The minority opinion denied the rezoning based on the precedent setting aspect stating that they were fearful that the surrounding rural areas would request the saune kind of rezoning. The surrounding rural residential properties were not included within this Comprehensive Plan Amendment and as a result were not included within the newly aligned MUSA district. There can be no rezoning from RR-IB to R-IA without sewer. In order to allow the rezoning to a greater density, the City would have to initiate a new Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The enclosed resolution has been drafted approving the rezoning as requested by the applicant authorizing staff to prepare the necessary ordinance amend~ ment for formal action by the Council upon final resolve of the extension of sewer to the property. CITY Bob Kost Bennett, Rin< 700 3rd Stre€ Minneapolis, Dear Bob: As pron representati summarize the 1. No 30 to 50 3. Make structur 4. Cul depictin« 3 a Item for vert; 5. Acc open spa City is 1 defined t 6. Ro< residenti property ask for proposed that the commercia 7. Inf realizin the impac 8. Loca each buili BUILDfNG a ZONING - 473*7 ASSESSING the City sr through ring a new .opment. corridor rovlde an cts. within the : to allow nendment• the City ricing the ^ will be ension of gation to :n portion findings rezoning rful that ling. The bhin this ithin the B to R-IA sity, the »nt. The [uested by ce amend- extension 1/1 k 'nlHi 'mk ■^3 - t '*1 .f-’ \CITY OF QRaNa CITY of ORONOPost Ofnce Box 66*Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323*Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka October 5, 1988 Bob Kost Bennett, Ringrose, Wolsfeld 700 3rd Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Dear Bob: As promised at our Informal meeting with Planning Commission representatives and the City Engineer, this letter will attempt to summerize the issues addressed at that meeting as follows: 1. No grading zones/woodland preservation to be extended into the 30 to 50* setback zones of the lots. 2. Select house sites for each individual lot. 3. Make a recommendation for floor/area/ratio setting limits for structural development on each of the 25 building pads. 4. ^ Cul—de—sac road to be replaced with one of the alternate plans depicting a loop road providing the least impact on tree removal - all 3 alternate plans satisfy the City's maximum grade allowance of 12% for vertical control. 5. Access is to remain as shown on original preliminary plan. The open space outlot to show trail connection to Pine Ridge Lane. The Ci'ty is not interested in acquiring public trail rights through the defined trail paths of the residential subdivision. 6. Road outlot to be defined along the south side of the residential subdivision adjacent to the rear/north of the William Wear property and north of outlot A to west boundary line. The City will ask for a 60* outlot providing room for the trail system that is proposed along the north side of the future road. The City will ask that the east-west road outlot through a limited area of the commercial corrider be defined now. 7. Information on fence to be installed along the north side realizing that this is the single property owner to receive most of the impact by the proposed residential PRD. 8. Locate all 8" diameter specimen maples/deciduous trees within each building envelope on final development plan. BUILDING a ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMCMISniATION & FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 v.-Tf mm m Mi.'S'iMm i •i ' Please coni above. As agree noted above and approval prior Council. It would b< October 17th Inc pads and your r< for a future eaa fencing along t plans must be su JAM/jib Steve Pflai 1500, Minne< Maureen Beli Charlie Kel^ Sara Moos f ORONOsota 55323 •Municipal Officca ling Commission trill attempt to xtended into the :ting limits for I. alternate plans ee removal - all illowance of 12% iiinary plan. The Ridge Lane. The ^hts through the bh side of the the William Wear . The City will system that is le City will ask ed area of the the north side receive most of us trees within Lie WORKS-473-7359 ^;»£cair^ l- Please contact my office if you have any questions on the items noted above. As agreed the final development plan will include all of the items noted above and will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to scheduling the Rebers Plat for final action by the Council. It would be most helpful if the plans presented for the meeting on October 17th include the realigned road, building sites on each of the 25 pads and your recommendation for a floor area ratio control, road out lot Ifor a future east~west road within commercial corridor and the proposed fencing along the north side of the residential property. The amended plans must be submitted to my office by noon, October 12th. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Steve Pflaum, Leonard, Street & Dienard, 100 South 5th Street, Suite 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402 Maureen Bellows Charlie Kelley . ^ Sara Moos ^ li 1 ■* \ r0^ REBEI refei the legal tain benef prope; to th ments i desire bindir said ] assigr S Woods” ation. S owner7 title Lot is tract vendor S< properl -V the items noted ill of the Items n for review and L action by the ' the meeting on i each of the 25 olr road outlet nd the proposed y. The amended • i h Streetf Suite w- -J- $ i .TO. <■. 't.. ::.; ^ ■i'-.' .r : k- .. ^ ■: >;* w-.. =•••. •, V.' -:-> v>. 5r \-i- i f f ■-. -i it % J i^. : :- 'i •»i-.A7F^ 1 r\i. ■• '1 ^ isx/zss,'!^DECLAR^ON OPCOVENANTSf CONDITIONSr RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTSFORMEYERS WOODS mM.THIS DECLARATION^ made on the date hereinafter set forth hv WITNESSETH: 1^® ^Minnesota?legally described as follows: mnnesoca. Lots 1 through 25, and Outlets A and B, t^YERS WOODS [*♦* This is a tentative num­ bering of the lots based upon the preliminary development plan. It will be replaced with lots and blocks from the final plat. *<►*]; WHEREAS, Declarant desires to subject said property to cer- benSfU o*fTa\d ploper^ restrictions and easements for the NOW THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that all of the p‘ir3—Cm ^ assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each owner thereof. ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS nrnp"fi\° cTrUl- "Owner” shall mean and refer to the record persons or entities, of fee simple iCi"! ’ • •./ — A-'■ij - ^ ^ i&iS ■ a-i -’• • ■ V- V ... ... . .. •■-.■■■.... . mm ill: • •*«« P ' ' " Bmrc,:,.. 'F:. L r-y< i 1: I . 'Fi Sec (includi the comn be owner first Lc por road and is prepa conform Sec shown up4 for the i Seel Construci assigns one unde^ opment. Sect Lot in It Sect Orono, a Sect shall hav Common Ar the title admission situated i tights an Owner for remains ui infractior fer all o authority tions as n y onATS it forth by lereinafter roperty in Minnesota, ty to cer- s for the LI of the Bd subject and ease- value and ty and be iterest in issors and lereof• to Meyers .t corpor- le record ee simple t, if the the con- I contract that real "Common Area shall mean all real property (including any improvements thereon) owned by the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the Owners. The Common Area toiT Association at the time of the conveyance of the first Lot is ISQsiiy dsscribed ss follows: SSify? M?nn«ota®' [•** For the purpose of this Declaration, Outlot A is the orivate IsIrfplr^S^^tLIe^Ua! SrT/ti^/nV;7;havrt"o Teconform to the final plat. ***] ^ revisea co SSSXOnS iF Qlioh _ _n n _ _ *— - -its successors ana one^u^eveloped L^t'fVom°'the°Delur"lnf f«°“the purpose of'^de^e?" opment• .Section 7. "Member" shall mean and refer to the Owner of a Lot in its capacity as a member of the Association. Orono^r^sota”muXipa^^'corp«^ ARTICLE II PROPERTY RIGHTS S^ection—1. <^ners* Easements of Enjoyment. Every Owner shall have an equal rignt and easement of enjoyment in and to the Situated upon the Common Area; ^ • J?® right of the Association to suspend the voting rights and right to use of the recreational facilities by an wner for any period during which any assessment against his Lot .'Sf “,ur:ns.,“ _ the right of the Association to dedicate or trans— L'?ho “rYty°L7iir/yMf ^h fub^-c^t ^rA'chiln"!?: tions as may be agreed to by the Members. No such dedication or ■'* ^ •<tn * mEm&m wm■xMP'f'Wr y m r-i •: r-M m I i S transfei dedicat; each cl<Sec in acco enjoymer family. Lot. Sec shall ha from the this leg be perpe sale of Sec drainage the peri Owner an MEYERS W ments se Sect private : CRIPTION satisfact forth in City. T maintenan plowing c leaves ai repairing Associati their fa means, in or a guar Sect served by [***VERIF easement lines sha: byand i V.' eal property lociation for imon Area to (yance of the)in i the private e final plat e revised to plot of land ties, except to Rebers lessors and e more than se of devel- i Owner of a :he City of very Owner and to the pass with lions: ) reasonable lal facility the voting ties by an nst his Lot lys for any e or trans- Lic agency, such condi- dication or dediLtio^ oV tranf fsTgne^d ®by 6^7%each class of Members has been recorded.enjo^ent to the Common Area and facilities to the members of hisramiiy, his tenants, or contract purchasers who reside on the Lot • . - j>on_3. Right of Ingress and Eiress. Each Lot Owner s all have an unrestricted right of ingress and egress to his Lot from the private road on Outlet A, MEYERS WOODS. [*** Conform this legal description to the final plat. ***] Such right shall be perpetual and shall pass to a new Lot Owner upon transfer or sale of the Lot. Section 4. Utility Easements. Easements for utility and drainage purposes are dedicated in the plat of MEYERS WOODS along the perimeter of each Lot. The Declarant hereby grants to each MEYERq^wnnnq®rf?LpD%^^^ Utility purposes in Outlet A, MEYras WOODS [ **VERIFY***J, subject to the maintenance require­ ments set forth in Article III, Section 2. ^ ARTICLE III COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE . faction 1- Private Road. The Declarant shall construct a private road on Outlot A, MEYERS WOODS [*** CONFORM LEGAL DES- CRIPTION TO FINAL PLAT. ***] pursuant to plans and specifications according to the time table set maintenance shall include without limitation the following: plowing and removing snow from the road surface; clearing dirts leaves and debris from the road surface; repairing the road; repairing the curbs; and replacing the road and the curbs. The Association may limit access to the private road to the Owners, their families, tenants, guests and invitees by appropriate means, including without limitation the following: signs; a gate, or a guard house. ^ a gate. potion 2. U^tility Lines. Lots in the Properties will be (a) Telephone lines will be owned and maintained oy- - - - - - -- I*** name of company***], its successorsand assigns. - 3 - hrV ■- ■■■ - ■’•v:",. ’ *-■; ! i- ■■■ 4 V •. • .s ,.. tain withir improv TO Fit limlca bushes and u: debris vegeta scapin timing the b( mental simila S one o; VERIFY road 1 Road ] entran withou and re ply wi S instal those r to such (67%) oflelegate, right of s of his i on the >t Owner his Lot Conform ht shall nsfer or ity and DS along to each itlot A, require- truct a AL DES- .cations ble set and the Road lowing: g dirt, e road; s. The Owners, opriate a gate. ^ill be S WOODS rainage utility ntained cessors mm (b) Natural gas lines will be owned and maintained by Minnesota Gas Company, its successors or assigns.(c) Electricity lines will be owned and maintained by __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _[***♦ name of company***), its succes­sors or assigns.(d) Cable television tained by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ lines will be owned and main- (*** name of company ***], its successors or assigns. (e) Water mains and laterals will be owned by the City and maintained by the City. Water service lines from laterals to homes will be owned by the respective Lot Owners and shall be maintained by them separately. (f) Sanitary sewer mains and laterals will be owned by the City and maintained by the City. Sanitary sewer service lines from homes to the laterals will be owned by the respective Lot Owners and shall be maintained by them separately. (g) Storm sewer facilities will be owned by the Asso­ ciation and shall be maintained by the Association. Section Woodland Preserve. The Association shall main­ tain the woo'dlan3 preserve within Outlot B, MEYERS WOODS and within those portions of Outlot A, MEYERS WOODS that are not improved with the private road. [*** CONFORM LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS TO PINAL PLAT *** ). Woodland maintenance shall include without limitation the following: trimming and pruning of trees and bushes;'V:hinning of trees and bushes;nremoval of dead, diseased and unsightly trees and bushes; removal of brush, leaves and debris; planting of trees, bushes and other vegetation; watering vegetation; treating diseased vegetation; installation of land­ scaping structures; and control of erosion. The need for and timing of woodland maintenance shall be in the sole discretion of the board of directors of the Association, subject to govern­ mental regulations concerning weed control, diseased trees and similar matters. Section 4. Entrance Monument. The Declarant shall erect one or two entrance monuments on Outlot B, MEYERS WOODS [*** VERIFY ***) on either side of the intersection of the private _ _ _, . L ^. . _ _ _ J _ 1-1 , _ _ _ _ _ _a _ _ _ --though the Properties and the public road known as **Brown Road North".The Association shall operate and maintain the entrance monument(s). Operation and maintenance shall include without limitation the following: lighting, painting, repairing and replacing the monument(s). Each entrance monument shall com­ ply with municipal sign ordinances. Section 5. Private Pedestrian Trail. The Declarant shall install i pedestrian trail within Outlot B, MEYERS WOODS and those portions of Outlot A, MEYERS WOODS that are not occupied by - 4 - the private road [*** VERIFY DESCRIPTION ***] for the private use and enjoyment of the Owners and their respective families, tenants, guests and invitees. The Association shall maintain the trail. Trail maintenance shall include without limitation the following: clearing the surface of ice and debris; repairing the trail surface and the slopes; and controlling erosion. Bicycles, tricycles and household pets, such as dogs and cats, are allowed on the trail, but motor vehicles and horses are prohibited. Section 6. Other Common Facilities. The Association, acting through its board ot directors, shall have the right to install additional facilities in the Common Areas for the use and enjoyment of all the Owners; but no other group of Owners and no individual Owner shall have the right to install any facilities in the Common Areas, whether for the private use of one or more Owners or for the common use of all Owners. The Association shall maintain all facilities owned by the Association on the Common Areas. Section 7. Costs. The Association shall operate and main­ tain the Common Areas and the Association's improvements thereon, at the cost of all the Owners. Such costs are Common Expenses included in the Common Assessments made by the Association. How­ ever, if the need for maintenance or repair of any part of the Common Area or. the improvements thereon is caused through the willful or negligent acts of an Owner, or through the willful or n^ligent acts of the family, guests or invitees of an Owner, tnkn the cost of such maintenance or repair shall be added to and become part of the assessment to which the Owner's Lot is sub­ ject. ARTICLE IV INSURANCE Section 1. Casualty Insurance on Insurable Common Area. The Association shall keep all insurable improvements and fixtures of the Common Area insured against loss or damage by fire or other casualty and may obtain insurance against such other hazards that are normally covered by the standard extended coverage endorsement; and all other perils customarily covered for similar types of projects, including those covered by the standard "All Risk" endorsement. Such insurance shall cover 100% of the current replacement cost of the property covered. The Association may also insure any other property whether real or personal, owned by the Association, against loss or damage by fire and such other hazards as the Association may deem desir­ able, with the Association as the Owner and beneficiary of such insurance. The insurance coverage with respect to the Common Area shall be written in the name of, and the proceeds thereof shall be payable to the Association. Insurance proceeds shall be used by the Association for the repair or replacement of the property for which the insurance was carried. Premiums for all - 5 - Wmu m:: Mil;!,mmi wmi ..-M M, mm m-: mm -I I:-'' . I •v.i I ■! IHIJHMIII1HI1-.V*';: I r 3LW: t" i insurance caz in the Commor Section maintain lial against claiir about the Cc dollars ($lrC Board deems a Section blanket fidel agents who 1 Association, in the posses less than t Association r Section of damage to the Associati ranee proceed ficient to c property dama struction Ass tional cost o: proceeds, in against the L< Section provisions of in conformity Section ( Association st by the FNMA oz insurance pol Board of Dir< whether the c make any nece have been dama Section Association. Association, separated fron ment. te use lilies, in the on the ng the lycles, 1lowed ation, ght to se and and no lities r more iation 3n the main- ereon, penses How- 3f the jh the ful or Owner, to and s sub- 6insurance carried by the Association are Common Expenses included in the Common Assessments made by the Association. Section 2. Liability Insurance. The Association shall maintain liability insurance for the protection of all Members against claims arising out of injuries or damages sustained on or about the Common Areas in an amount of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence or such higher amount as the Board deems appropriate. Section 3. Fidelity Bond. The Association shall maintain blanket fidelity bonds for all Association officers, employees or agents who handle or are responsible for the funds of the Association. The bonds shall be in an amount equal to all funds in the possession of the Association at any time and in no event less than three months assessments for all Lots plus the Association reserve funds. Section 4. Replacement or Repair of Property. In the event of damage to or destruction of any property of the Association, the Association shall repair or replace the same from the insu- rance proceeds available. If such insurance proceeds are insuf­ ficient to cover the costs of repair or replacement of the property damaged or destroyed, the Association may make a Recon­ struction Assessment against all Lot Owners to cover the addi­ tional cost of repair or replacement not covered by the insurance proceeds, in addition to any other Common Assessments made against the Lot Owners. Section 5. Coverage, Loss Adjustment. The coverage and provisions ofall insurance obtained by the Association shall be in conformity with FNMA requirements. Section 6. Other Insurance; Annual Review of Policies. The Association shall maintain any other insurance required by law or by the FNMA or that it determines desirable and appropriate. All insurance policies shall be reviewed at least annually by the Board of Directors of the Association in order to ascertain whether the coverage contained in the policies is sufficient to make any necessary repairs or replacement of property which may have been damaged or destroyed. ARTICLE V MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING RIGHTS Section 1. Every Lot is subject to assessment by the Association. Every Owner of a Lot shall be a member of the Association. Membership shall be appurtenant to and may not be separated from ownership of any Lot which is subject to assess­ ment . - 6 - mm mm Sect j membership excep vote Owner shall son's which owned to C] folio Sectic levy asses: safety, an< the improvi reasonable ment. Sectio Assessments pertxes, h€ tance of a in such de Association (. (1 Article U Articli and included >n shall Members ned on or > million \t as the maintain Loyees or of the 111 funds no event >lus the :he event )ciationr ;he insu- e insuf- of the a Recon- he addi- .nsurance Its made rage and shall be es• The >y law or ite. All r by the iscertain cient to hich may by the of the Y not be assess- m m :• i- W-" Sffl Hip- * mnft-illm y.- mmy\ m-By-: fy.-'r*; *' • iii Vi ym - ‘Nii ^yyij t' mMMEm im mu ilvv H r * Li* 1*' ■ ' •■ Section 2.membership:The Association shall have two classes of voting Clas£A. Class A members shall be all Ownersr with the exception of the Declarantr and shall be entitled to one vote for each Lot owned. When more than one person is the Owner of a Lot, all such persons may be members and each Shall be entitled to a fraction of a vote egual to the per­ son's fractional ownership of the Lot. Class B. The Class B member shall be the Declarant, which shall be entitled to three (3) votes for each Lot owned. The Class B membership shall cease and be converted to Class A membership on the happening of either of the following events, whichever occurs earlier: (a) when 75% of the Lots have been conveyed of record to Owners other than the Declarant; or (b) seven years after the first Lot is conveyed of record to an Owner other than the Declarant. ARTICLE VI COVENANT FOR ASSESSMENTS Sanction_1. Purpose of Assessments. The Association may levy assessments exclusively to promote the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of the residents in the Properties and for the improvement and maintenance of the Common Area, including reasonable reserves for future repairs, maintenance and replace- R16 n w • _ _ Section 2^ Creation of the Lien and Personal Obligation for Assessments. The Declarant, for each Lot owned within the Pro- hereby covenants, and each Owner of any Lot by accep­ tance of a deed therefor, whether or not it shall be so expressed in such deed, js deemed to covenant and agree to pay to the Association: (a) Annual Assessments per Section 3 of this Article; (b) Emergency Fund Assessments per Section 4 of this Article; (c) Sinking Fund Assessments per Section 5 of this Article; and (d) Capital Assessments per Section 6 of this Article; (e) Special Assessments per Section 7 of this Article. - 7 - -y:i'V •’"mm '.i 'm.: >. ' * mm 1^1 !> t i'i Wy , m 7A- A fmy, ili y-'m.yV ■m3 i» lit ''3 W -m. Such asse and reaso: the forec Lots and each such together attorneys person wh< ment fell ments sha! assumed b charge the Secti defray the frequently bonds, ope the Annua] Annual Ass January be Lot. Thei each year percentage the incre« Metropolit Statistics ship. The rate only voting in purpose. the first Lot by tl Assessment remaining Directors : each Lot < year. Wri every Ownei Directors i frequently Sectic ( meet unfon The Emerger estimated I V" i es of voting rsr with the Ltled to one erson is the trs and each to the per- i Declarantr 3r each Lot )e converted bher of the conveyed of >r is conveyed int. :iation may on, health, Les and for r including nd replace- iqation for Ln the Pro- : by accep- o expressed pay to the s Article; 4 of tbis 5 of this Ls Article; Is Article. '.'v-:i 1.^- m w ks. . r ‘-'iM ► ' y- mm •-V. k,.- :>:44 Such assessments, together with late penalties, interest, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for the collection thereof and for the foreclosure of the lien thereof, shall be a charge on the Lots and shall be a continuing lien upon the Lots against which each such assessment is made. Each assessment against a Lot, together with late penalties, interest, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, shall also be the personal obligation of the person who was the Owner of the Lot at the time when the assess­ ment fell due. The personal obligation for delinquent assess­ ments shall not pass to his successors in title unless expressly assumed by them. The sale of a Lot shall not operate to dis­ charge the seller's personal liability. Section 3. Annual Assessments. (a) The Association shall levy "Annual Assessments" to defray those costs of the Association that occur annually or more frequently, including without limitation: taxes, insurance, bonds, operations, maintenance and minor repairs. (b) The Board of Directors of the Association may fix the Annual Assessment m an amount not in excess of the Maximum Annual Assessment determined pursuant to this subsection. Until January 1, 1990, the Maximum Annual Assessment shall Dollars ($_^ ) per Lot. Thereafter the Maximum Annual Assessment may be increased each year not more than 5% above the Maximum Annual Assessment percentage for the previous year or by a percentage not more than the increase in the consumer price index for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, whichever is greater, without a vote of the member­ ship. The Maximum Annual Assessment may be increased above this rate only by a majority vote of each class of members who are voting in person or by proxy, at a meeting duly called for this purpose. (c) Annual Assessments shall be due as to all Lots on th® first day of the month following the conveyance of the first Lot by the Declarant to any purchaser. The first Annual Assessment may be adjusted according to the number of months remaining in the Association's fiscal year. The Board of Directors shall fix the amount of the Annual Assessment against each Lot at least thirty (30) days in advance of each fiscal year. Written notice of the Annual Assessment shall be sent to every Owner. The due dates shall be established by the Board of Directors and may be no more frequently than monthly and no less frequently than semi-annually. Section 4. Emergency Fund Assessment. (a) The Association shall establish a separate fund to meet unforeseen expenses or emergencies (the "Emergency Fund"). The Emergency Fund shall at all times be equal to two (2) months estimated Annual Assessment for each Lot, but the amounts paid - 8 - r.':' - mm 'i ♦ #■ into t of Ann "Emerg Fund s of the after pay e. Associ funds the sa level replen. Assess! fund ( replace after < improve sewer 1 determi schedu] Sinkir increas is exp Sinkinc quate t may le\ the ext Fund ij wheneve improve "Capita in such but no semiann expecte f :estr costs eof and for rge on the linst which nst a Lotr reasonable ion of the bhe assess- ^nt assess- s expressly te to dis- isments'* to Lly or more insurance. on may fix he Maximum on. Until mt shall ) per increased Assessment more than tirin Cities of Labor he member- above this :s who are d for this 11 Lots on the first st Annual of months Board of nt against ich fiscal >e sent to B Board of nd no less te fund to :y Fund"). (2) months >unts paid m it' .4:.: mm •» * '-*3 I .. .. -..'.i- ., :-v. • t ' -ir:-- ■' ■■V t'W- -vV-. - V': % m X- wmmJ^ X into the Emergency Fund shall not be considered advancB payments of Annual Assessments.(b) The Emergency Fund shall be established by "Emergency Fund Assessments." Each Lot's share of the Emergency Fund shall be collected from the Owner at the closing of the sale of the Lot from the Declarant to the Owner. Within one year after the closing of the sale of the first Lot, Declarant shall pay each unsold Lot's share of the Emergency Fund to the Association. Declarant shall be reimbursed for this payment from funds collected from the various Lot Owners at the closings of the sale of the Lots from the Declarant to the Owners. (c) Whenever the Emergency Fund is depleted below the level set forth in Subsection (a), the Association shall replenish the Emergency Fund by levying additional Emergency Fund Assessments against all the Lots and their respective Owners. Section 5. Sinking Fund Assessments. (a) The Association shall establish a separate reserve fund ("Sinking Fund") to provide cash for major repairs and replacement of those improvements in the Common Area that will, after a number of years, need major repairs or replacement. Such improvements include, without limitation, the road, the storm sewer facilities, the entrance monument and the pedestrian trail. (b) The Board of Directors i:hali, in good faith, determine the useful life of such improvements and an appropriate schedule of Sinking Fund Assessments such that each year the 'Sinking Fund Assessments are appropriately equal or gradually increasing and such that, when each major repair or replacement is expected to occur, there will be sufficient cash in the Sinking Fund. (c) If for any reason the Sinking Fund is ever inade­ quate to fund a major repair or replacement, then the Association may levy a Capital Assessment (pursuant to Section 6) to defray the extra cost. Section 6. Capital Assessments. (a) Whenever the Board determines that the Sinking Fund is inadequate to fund a major repair or replacement and whenever the Members decide to install additional capital improvements to the Common Area, the Association may levy a "Capital Assessment." (b) Each Capital Assessment shall be due and payable in such installments as the Board of Directors shall determine, but^ no more frequently than monthly and no less frequently than semiannually, and in any event shall be fully paid within the expected useful life of the improvement. - 9 - ::: f kM W- K-:/. ^rmt -.v; Vi: ••r^i ' V' v. V'V. ./V;-' ' :> ■ ' mi vX r c* L'V.yl V- im ■■sr- ktl W:m Sec sible fc the Assc Lot and in such frequent and in a Sec Under Se the pui of this days, r first s entitle members not prc notice meeting precedi than 60 Sec shall be Assessme whom th opportun Sec and drai of all 1 no house fere wit: structio: side 30 City Cou backs art .tions (a conducted of each are measi yard set Outlet B mon hour standing 4 payments(bed by nergency the sale »ne year It shall to the ent from (ings of ilow the 1 shall icy Fund srs. reserve irs and It will, :. Such e storm i trail. faith, ropriate ear the radually Lacement in the ■ inade- )ciation I defray Sinking ent and capital levy a payable :ermine, ly than hin the mm Wii^ wSection 7. Special Assessments.(a) Whenever a Lot and its Owner is separately respon­ sible for maintenance or repair of any part of the Common Area, the Association shall levy a “Special Assessment" against that Lot and its Owner. (b) Each Special Assessment shall be due and payable in such installments as the Board shall determine, but no more frequently than monthly and no less frequently than semi-annually and in any event shall be fully paid within one year. Section 8. Notice and Quorum for Any Action Authorized Under~Sections 3 and 5. Written notice of any meeting called for the purpose of taking any action authorized under Section 3 or 5 of this Article shall be sent to all members not less than 30 days, nor more than 60 days, in advance of the meeting. At the first such meeting called, the presence of members or of proxies entitled to cast a majority of all the votes of each class of membership shall constitute a quorum. If the required quorum is not present, another meeting may be called subject to the same notice requirement, and the required quorum at the subsequent meeting shall be one-half (1/2) of the required quorum at the preceding meeting. No juch subsequent meeting shall be held more than 60 days following the preceding meeting. Section 9. Uniform Rate of Assessment. All Assessments shall be fixed at an equal rate for all Lots, except that Special Assessments shall be levied against only those Lots and Owners whom the Board determines (after notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard) to be responsible. Section 10. Setbacks. (a) The recorded plat of MEYERS WOODS pi:blic utility and drainage easements have been dedicated along the perimeters of all lots [*** certain lots? *♦*]. Within said easement areas no houses or other improvements shall be built that would inter­ fere with utilities or drainage. (b) ^^iiaiii3l»^^e^*the City of Orono prohibit con­ struction of buildings within the front 50 feet, rear 50 feet and side 30 feet of each Lot. Said ordinances may be changed by the City Council. For this purpose, front, rear and side yard set­ backs are measured pursuant to municipal ordinances. In addition to the setbacks described in subsec­ tions (a) and (b), no clearing, grading or construction shall be conducted within the front 25 feet, rear 25.feet and side 10 feet of each Lot. For this purpose, for each L^^t front yard setbacks are measured from the Lot's common boundaries with Outlot A, rear yard setbacks are measured from the Lot's common boundaries with Outlot B and side yard setbacks are measured from the Lot's com­ mon boundaries with other Lots. [*** VERIFY ***) Notwith­ standing the foregoing prohibition, each Lot may have one drive- - 10 - %■ ¥m a i .■ mi '’Si/ -- ^ :r M t?-v m m way lead the deal in width. Seel of the A within t: from the legal ra bring an pay the < and inte both, ant action s^ also be waive or for herei Sect or befon shall be under Sec under the The purpc expense < rowing tc butable 1 all late or elimii the same rules and of such ^ Sect lien of 1 to the 1 recorded transfer ever, the closure c guish the due prioi relieve s becoming spon-Area,that yable more ually d tor or 5 an 30 t the oxies ss of urn is same quent b the more ments ecial wners nable ility eters areas nter- con- t and y the set- bsec- 11 be feet backs rear with com- with- rive- way leading from the private road to the garage^ provided that the cleared right-of-way of the driveway shall not exceed 20 feet in width. Section 10. Effect of Nonpayment of Assessments: Remedies of the Association.Any Assessment or portion thereof not paid within thirty (30) days after the due date shall bear interest from the due date at the rate of eight percent (8%) or such other legal rate set by the Board of Directors. The Association may bring an action at law against the Owner personally obligated to pay the entire unpaid portion including costs of attorneys' fees and interest, or foreclose the lien against the property, or both, and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees of any such action shall be added to the amount of such assessments and shall also be secured by the lien of the assessment. No Owner may waive or otherwise escape liability for the assessments provided for herein by the sale or abandonment of his Lot. S^ection 11. Late Payment. If an Assessment is not paid on or before ten (10) days after the date when due, the Lot Owner shall be obligated to pay, in addition to the interest required under Section 9 of this Article, a late Assessment service charge under the following schedule: 11th to 30th day after 30th day $25.00 $50.00 The purpose of this fee is to compensate the Association for the expense and inconvenience of collecting late Assessments, bor­ rowing to cover Association expenses and any other costs attri­ butable to late payment. The Board shall collect these fees on all late payments. The Board may increase, but may not decrease or eliminate, the service charges set forth in this section in the same fashion as is established for the adoptio^l of other rules and regulations. This penalty shall be added to the amount of such Assessments and be secured by the lien of the Assessment. Section 12. Subordination of the Lien to Mortgages. The lien or the Assessments provided for herein shall be subordinate to the lien of any first mortgage, provided the mortgage was recorded before the delinquent assessment was due. Sale or transfer of any Lot shall not affect the assessment lien. How­ ever, the sale or transfer of any Lot pursuant to mortgage fore­ closure or any proceeding or deed in lieu thereof, shall extin­ guish the lien of such assessments as to payments which became due prior to such sale or transfer. No sale or transfer shall relieve such Lot from liability for any assessments thereafter becoming due or from the lien thereof. - 11 - ’ •• • J !• 1'/:^ . . 1 ty Kla ' • . 'll.. iit ■ .y mm 'i 4 mm No k menced, e exterior shall anj other Ian fications location < writing a: to surrou architect! tives app designate! further i (30) days to it, ai deemed to Sectj and condit lease shai more than written a] for less t the Associ the person assessment: d that !0 feet(medies t paid iterest i other on may ted to fees ty, or y such 1 shall er may ovided laid on Owner squired charge or the r bor- attri- ees on icrease ion in other amount isment. (. The 'dinate ge was ale or How- f fore- extin- became shall reafter ji 1 ARTICLE VII ARCHITECTURAL CONTROLNo buildingr fence, wall or other structure shall be com­ menced, erected or maintained upon the Properties, nor shall any exterior addition to or change or alteration therein be made, nor shall any change or addition in the lawns, shrubs, trees and other landscaping on any Lot be made, until the plans and speci­ fications showing the nature, kind, shape, height, materials and location of the same shall have been submitted to and approved in writing as to harmony of external design and location in relation to surrounding structures and topography by the Board, or by an architectural committee composed of three (3) or more representa­ tives appointed by the Board. In the event said Board, or its designated committee, fails to approve, disapprove or request further information on such design and location within thirty (30) days after said plans and specifications have been submitted to it, approval will not be required, and this Article will be deemed to have been fully complied with. ARTICLE VIII RENTAL OP LOTS Section 1. Any Owner may rent his Lot subject to the terms and conditions contained herein: (a) Any rental of a Lot shall be by written lease. No lease shall be for less than thirty (30) days. Any lease for more than an initial term of six (6) months shall have the prior written approval of the Board of Directors. No lease shall be for less than the entirety of a Lot. (b) Each lease shall contain the following provision: The undersigned tenant(s) has (have) received a copy of the Articles cf Incorporation and the Bylaws of Meyers Woods Homeowners Association, Inc., the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Ease­ ments for Meyers Woods and the Rules adopted by the Association Board of Directors governing this property. I (We) agree to be bound by the requirements and conditions of those documents, including any other Rules adopted by the Board of Directors from time to time. (c) A lease may provide that the lessee(s) shall pay the Association assessments, but no such provision shall affect the personal liability of the Owner to the Association for such assessments, nor the lien of such assessments as provided herein. - 12 - smsm a:* m • •; .. • •• ■;•:;••• ,-ay.:4:v:;a.SV-/a:.a.V' - - -e m W i-: i ■ 1^-r-;• '1 >v \r^ X V.. t. . * v< (Cability of « cessors and or other an for less tha Section for resident to maintain the Lots dur Section obstruction the Common A Directors of Section the Rules of Section this Article pation. A secondary tc poses and d< not limited such other i dwelling, shall be dis a special ma termination effect on th cease and te Section laundryof exposed in ai Section to the publi on each Lot (5) square Declarant ma as it deems Declarant owi Section visible from or U.S. Hight be com- lall any ide, nor ees and I sped- Lais and roved in relation ir by an resenta- or its request thirty ibmitted will be e terms ise. No ase for e prior hall be isioh: all pay affect or such herein. (d) Nothing in subparagraph (a) shall limit the ability of a first mortgagee in possession of a Lotr or its suc­cessors and assigns, following a foreclosure, a default or a deed or other arrangement in lieu of foreclosure from leasing the Lot for less than six months. ARTICLE IX ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS Section 1. Residential Use. No Lot shall be used except for residential purposes, except that Declarant shall be entitled to maintain a business and sales office and have model units upon the Lots during the construction and sales period. Section 2. Obstruction of Common Area. There shall be no obstruction of the Common Area nor shall anything be stored in the Common Area without the prior written consent of the Board of Directors of the Association. Section 3. Pets. Pets shall be allowed in conformity with ules o£ the Association.^^ Tt # Ajh A hf Section 4. Home Occupations. Notwithstanding Section 1 of this Article to the contrary, an Owner may engage in a home occu­ pation. A "home occupation" is a use which is incidental and secondary to the principal use of the Lot for residential pur­ poses and does not change the character thereof including, but not limited to, office and studio uses, weaving, dressmaking and such other uses which by custom are considered accessory to a dwelling. However, that no sign advertising such occupation shall be displayed on the Lot or elsewhere on the Properties, at a special meeting called for this purpose, votes to require the termination of a home occupation because of its objectionable effect on the Properties, the Owner shall immediately thereafter cease and terminate such occupation. Section 5. Clotheslines. No clothes, sheets, blankets laundry ol any kind or other articles shall be hung out or or exposed in any part of the Common Area or on any Lot Section 6. Signs. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any Lot or on the Common Area; except that on each Lot the Owner may display one sign of not more than five (5) square feet advertising the Lot for sale, except that Declarant may erect and maintain upon the Properties such signs as it deems appropriate to advertise the Properties until the Declarant owns no Lots within the Properties. Section 7. Antennas. No television or other antennas visible from the privateroad within the Properties, Brown Road or U.S. Highway 12 shall be erected or maintained on any Lot - 13 - except with tural commi Sectioi shall Ee ul trash, garb Common Area doned autom and trash s( tary contai Lot. Sectior Nothing shaJ on any par insurance or or the Assoc prior writte in violatior or other va! No damage tc ated thereof any Owner ai the Associat resulting fr invitees. N< allowed on t done thereon may become a other person Section (aand drainage of all lots no houses oi fere with ut (b struction of side 30 feet City Council backs are me< tions (a) an conducted wil of each Lot. are measured yard setbackj Outlot B and mon boundari standing the imit the its suc- or a deed g the Lot »d except entitled nits upon ill be no stored in Board of mity with ion 1 of ome occu- >ntal and tial pur­ ling f but aking and ory to a ccupation rtiesr at ]uire the ctionable hereafter inkets or 3 out or displayed cept that than five ept that ich signs tntil the antennas rown Road Lot ii r « ..- r ( 'mM r: ■iv m ir i, i except with the approval of the Board of Directors or architec­tural committee in accordance with Article X. ^ Se£tion_8. Trash. Neither the Common Area nor any Lot shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground for rubbish trash, prbage or other waste. No part of any Lot or of the Common Area shall be used at any time for the storage of’ aban- '4. other equipment. Garbage, rubbish ?arv conte^nVr^. Clean anS san!-Lotif garage of the townhome located on such uf• ^.gaisance; illegal Activities; Variation.Nothing-Shall be doHTor kept on thi ConunSrAreroron on any part thereof which would (i) increase the rat^ Sf insurance on any other I^t over what the Owner of such other Lot or the Association, but for such activity, would pay, without the prior written consent of the Association, or (ii) which would bl in violation of any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, permit No dlmfo.imposed requirement of any gowernmental*^body? No damage to, or waste of the Properties or the buildings situ- anv^Owner^and^o^^h co™roitted by any Owner or any invitee ofeach Owner agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Association and the other Owners from and against all loss such damage or waste caused by him or by his invitees. No noxious, destructive or offensive activity shall be allowed on the Common Area or on any Lot# nor shall anvthina ho ^ne thereon, either willfully or neglig'er.?fy, which may or may become an annoyance or nuisance to any other Owner or to anv other person at any time lawfully residing on the Properties. ^ Section 10. Setbacks. recorded plat of MEYERS WOODS public utilitv 9^dinances of the City of Orono prohibit con- buildings within the front 50 feet, rear 50 feet and ?Uv cLncfJ ordinances may'be lhangef by ?Se backspurpose, front, rear and side yard set­backs are measured pursuant to municipal ordinances. coSSucted !4L‘Fthe"?ctnstructlon"shaU®S; vard Lot’s common boundaries with Outlot A, rear Outlet B^and fitdo the Lot’s common boundaries withoutlot B and side yard setbacks are measured from the Lot’s com- mon boundaries with other Lots. [*** VERIFY ***] Notwith­ standing the foregoing prohibition, each Lot may have one drive- - 14 - ••1 si fr. V'/ k, * m Hi mm mi- < mm- wmm Wm- Cli;- iiilP mmiy k-mm: II way leadii the cleare in width. Secti foregoing use of the "Rules”), may be pro Directors tions shal occupant. Sect! shall have equity, a] liens and this Decla the Associ restrictioi of the rigl Sectio covenants o way affect and effect. Sectii this Decla twenty (2( after whic sive perio by an inst members ai requested ^ which requ mortgage h< recorded tc Section provisions c requirements "FNMA"), the to the Assoc (a bonds, may bi (10) days pr gage service r architec-r any Lot r rubbish, or of the B of aban- e, rubbish 1 and sani- id on such Variation, any Lot or i rate of other Lot ithout the h would be on, permit ital body. Lngs situ- .nvitee of 1 harmless all loss or by his f shall be iything be may be or or to any rties. c utility perimeters lent areas Id inter- Lbit con- feet and ed by the yard set- ti subsec- shall be e 10 feet setbacks t A, rear ries with 3t's com- Notwith- le drive- e?ceed'*20 leet Kuies ), not in conflict therewith and suDolemAntarv from time to tfme by the Bolrl lf IwSpant!^^ ■’y Association to each Lot ^ne? Ld ARTICLE X ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS 1 • j ^©strictions# conditions# covsnants# covenlHfi^;stl!lHiiH^ ordLTha?f and elfict. provisions which shall remain in full fSrce .. . • Amendment. The covenants and restrictione oF this Declaration shill run with and bind tL land fo/^ ^ sZ‘~ “rt V“‘ to following additional FNMA provisions are applicableto the Association, Lot Owners and the Properties! appricahle insurance on the Properties, includino fidelitv 5isi - 15 - • ■■■ *•■■••- - •»• writteninsurantreceive affects on the (SO) da] its morl of a spc shall gj rights c the mort shall ha Associat IN herein, 1 of ovided that ;eed 20 feetLon to the cerning the ons (herein ry thereto, he Board of and regula- t Owner and any Owner, law or in servations, •visions of Failure by Dvenant or •d a waiver e of these hall in no full force LCtions of a term of recorded, or succes- be amended I class of who have sed action P eligible It must be ous other meet the >n (herein ipplicable I fidelity living ten any mort- ees, upon shall also receive notice of the laose of anu insurance policy maintained by the Association. ^ ^ «•' ~;sr, 'llof a specified percentage of the first mortgagees. ^ consent rilhis ’o^'fls"'? '*persVn^“p?io7ity'’lve/'?hl thi mortgage to irScTor' conliLiriSr;?L%e°d"s.*"®'''"®' 1988. the Declarant _ _ _ _ _ __ day REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO. By Its President STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss • COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) this !!|l_l°?ay°i"/ instrument ^ wa^s ^acknowledged before me «:nf^a\fif"t"^f^;^r^°" ^°-~ ”-nesota corporal Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: LEONARD, STREET 6 DEINARD (HMM) 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612/337-1500 - 16 - ■i'-.- ■ * i- ^ M ■ SI .;v.Qvmmm . . ■•' ■ ' V- ; -V ■ ' ■ • . , : • » . -V.-r" ■ ■; ■■■■■ ^ '•s 7' ' RETULEON.100 Minni 612/ )se of anyLng, shall loss that i townhome of sixty : securing le consent he Bylaws over the ns, under assigns. Is of the RETURN RECORDED ORIGINAL TO:LEONARD STREET & DEINARD (HMM)100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612/337-1500 •"V. A - 17 - 'JiM mm •• • ' • >L| 3.1 In* Th.down in1• . • i V i - V 1 ^ . J-Ci* • I • • • • • • • V® * • ‘ * ^ -'"r ' .■ 55^. '.I - 1 • » ; / -• /•• 1 / 0 1 •C € / • • •1 1 • • a.mmt■m ,.-.r *»,v^-.,' >i' -'I S:.V li'#^ ,.> : , >;: ,.- ■-= ^ A ■ ^ ■ isw-a S&r.- l<-» • pi -■mi- C:iS- ^'s'' ■ ^ 'v'- .: ^ ^^"-‘t;/v :•- ■■■ . ' * ':i\ f- --■■0'^'y- : H ms:^:':.'r'r;2 ....>■;. t The areas in which changes are anticipated has been brokendown into 5 areasr as shown on Figure 21CNf Of• • • •CNf Of 0»#^^ I SS^S /. if H '*:i;:V..;-T:^ i' '• '.•"' ■ %^ • / / 0r^ ^ • I • I • • • Ifl■el'i fe •PM •f!*r — The following discussion will City of Orono HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR SfUOY V/estem Portion AREAS FOR CHANGE Fig. 20 highlight each area's significant features, the alternatives that were considered and the recommended alternative. Area 1 Fig. 21 }- ;i»mr;--. ..y V.;. V:-:/:<ip#liiij^S251^. written request, shall also receive notice of the lapse of any insurance ^policy maintained by the Association. ^ receive «« tSi® ® material portion of the project or the townhome securing its mortgage, (ii) any delinquency of sixty (60) days or more in payments of assessments on the Lot securing of%%%\\Xd°peicenLge^rX -h.n • P^o'^ision of this Declaration or the Bylaws *“ Owner or any other person, priority over the ights of first mortgagees, their successors on assigns, under the mortgage to insurance or condemnation proceeds. eik»ii k ^2v mortgagees, their successors or assigns,shall have the right to inspect the books and records of the Association during normal business hours. , WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being herein, has hereunto set its hand and seal this _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 1988. —of the Declarant _ _ _ _ _ _day REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO. By_ _ _ _ __ Its President STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss • COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before this day of_ _ _ _ _, 1988, by —«-nesota corporal Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY; LEONARD, STREET & DEINARD (HMM) 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612/337-1500 - 16 - kV 4*i •.V >se of any Lng, shall loss that i townhome ' of sixty : securing te consent he Bylaws over the nsr under assignsr is of the Declarant _ _ _ day fore me corpora- - ‘‘fi RETURN RECORDED ORIGINAL TO: LEONARD STREET & DEINARD (HMM) 100 South Fifth Street^ Suite 1500 Minneapolis.. Minnesota 55402 612/337-1500 -1 17 - ‘^5:% K I#:-;'?.*' -.-/vlt lilt- 3.5 property, Tntroduct ownerships wit family. Apprc 2oned B-1 resi acres of this this property t:>gether with Highway 12 in Discussion of Alternative N If this and zoned# it along Highwe restricted f frontage road served by a represent an would only b< i1 A4i■ .'Tto' .• ■M• -v-t. 3,5 Property No« 4 Tnhroduction - This 45 acre grouping is currently under two ownerships with the majority of it soned rural residential single family. Approximately 10 acres abutting Highway 12 are currently soned B-1 residential business district. All but approximately 3 acres of this are under a single owner. Typical concerns for this property include access to Highway 12 and North Brown Road together with the concern for safety at the North Brown Road and Highway 12 intersection. Discussion Qt Alternatives - Alternative No, 1 ■“ Present Zoning If this property were to develop as it is currently guided and zoned, it would result in a narrow strip of commercial uses along Highway 12. However, since these businesses will be restricted from direct access off Highway 12, some form of frontage road will need to be provided. If this area were to be served by a frontage road adjacent to Highway 12, it would represent an expensive solution to this problem would only be developed on one side.:|||jg Pil iipwm ....i-mm mm Alternative Nc Alternat: Highway 12 to eventually ex would provide I site develope< of the single eliminated fi between North '5 ; ymmrnij--*-..--'*T.''- T-;-'-WOle ly 3 or lad md led ses be of f be uld road see»»^0m% MM mmmm_*. fC • t o V - - V Umm.,rnmmi■■Ml •-• f •■'H Hi mm V »,. •--. : :.*■r A/.. R:«i Alternative No. 2 ~ Alternative 2 would allow for business/commercial abutting Highway 12 to be served by a remote frontage road that would eventually extend over to Willow Drive. The north side of this would provide for multi-residential with the bulk of the northern I site developed at the unsewered 2-acre residential. Connection of the single family to Pine Ridge Lane is optional, and would be eliminated from consideration in exchange for frontage road between North Brown Road and Willow Drive. So f At the scheme for emended by in Figure 3; Alternative No, 3 - Property Owners Proposal -At the beginning of the process, the owner submitted ascheme for development of the property, which was subsequently amended by the owner during the process which provides as shown in Figure 32 fori A) A combination of land 2 acre single family lots on the north portion utilizing municipal services. The two acre single family are used to buffer the 2 acre unsewered lots to the north and west# B) The southern portion does provide for a remote frontage from Brown Road west to the western edge of the property. ”\» / (iyi" .__./ r r —r i N‘,i —■'< W • H H M111114# M 4 (iMtijfluru';r"r'v^m • Tji ia /• T ;i I Property Owner Proposal Area 4 Fig. 32 The re extension o: from Highwa o£ this di developmen ^ I existing i improved sc and future Highway 12 and/or on I Drive and planned £o the proper family de maximum al be served connectior tted a juently I shown •• ^D'Recommended Alternative - , .The recommended alternative, which is includes a furtherextension of the limited/office commercial business district back.,9 __ from Highway 12. with a remote frontage road on the back portion of this district similar to figures 31 and 32. Prior to the development of the commercial portion of this property, the existing intersection at Brown Road and Highway 12 shall be improved so that safety concerns associated with the current use and future increased use of this intersection are addressed, configuration of the frontage road and North Brown Road would be determined at the time of. development. Frontage road access to Highway 12 could either be opposite Brimhall Avenue in Bong Lake, ahd/or on Willow Drive opposite the frontage road between Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road. The property north of the commercial area would be single family with sewer and water planned for the area. With sewer and water services available to the property, the owner could submit a 1 and 2 acre mixed single family density alternatives for Council consideration. The maximum allowed density acceptable would not exceed that outline in the alvernative 3, subject to utility availability, appropriate density, buffering, etc. The residential area would be served by a cul-de-sac or circular road off Brown Road with no connection to the west if the frontage road is installed. •• \ Oct Tht «p- *a further trict back ck portion or to the >ertyr the shall be surrent use addressed d would be Long Laker leen Willow rth of the and water vailable to ixed single ition. hat outline ilabilityr area would Road with no October 13, 1988 Thursday Planning Commission Members, We the undersigned are concerned residents that live in Ringerswood. We Do Not want an access road from Sid Reber's Property (715 N. Brown Rd.) to our area. We feel very strongly it would only add more traffic to our quiet residential area. There are many residents that walk on our road everyday and young children that ride their bikes on our road. As parents we feel we can allow our children to ride here safety but, if you would suggest that Mr. Rebers have to access a road to connect up to Pine Ridge Lane we feel you would not have the best interest of the residents that live in Ringerswood. Please consider the people who live here and pay taxes. We are also concerned with where the sewer is coming from and who is going to have to pay for it. We would like some assurance that it would not effect us in anyway, now or in the future. With the amount of footage that each resident has on Dickey Lake Dr. we could never afford to be assessed for sewer if it would come down Dickey Lake Dr, Thank you for your time. Sincerely, The Residents from Ringerswood: rn/v. e TY^no. Roclii^juJc* pPti/hiA / ^ ^ ^ * 'isV 2^7 rA-r^ % ^ ^^OOCj '/lix.ay. 7-^0 /3j3 r / Aw 0 ;A- ve in Id Reber'^s very ec alk on our Ikes on Idren to Rebers Lane we esidents pie who ng from 1 i ke some ow or in resident 9 assessed hank you - Date: Discnssit Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning '& Zoning Administrator October 13r 1988 Subject: #1344 Roger Roder, 1099 Willow Drive South - Variance Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Commission Action Notice 10/6/88 Exhibit B - Memo & Exhibits of 9/28/88 This item was tabled at your last meeting to allow applicant to consider alternatives for potential attachment of the proposed garage to the existing house. Applicant has not contacted staff regarding this matter. Applicant did not provide a work phone number and staff has had no luck in reaching applicant at home during the day. This item placed on your agenda with the anticipation that applicant may be in attendance at the October 17th meeting with one or more potential alternatives. Staff Recommendatioii ~ If applicant is in attendance and presents alter^iatives, it wc^lc* be appropriate to review those alternatives. Note that your Planning Commission meeting is five weeks away, hence a tabling would postpone final action until at least the December 12th Council meeting. ri mm hi :>•■/’•'Vi-.,« I mh. . I Z0NIH6 PILE MO. 1344 CITT OF OPA»^ HOTICB OP PLAmUHG COMMISSIOH ACTION MN 55323 473-7357_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date of Notice: 10/6/88_ TO: Roger Roder COPIES TO: 1099 Willow Drive South Wayzata, MN 55391 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ type op APPLICATIOM: Variance _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ AM Mi M»MM •■• •• *"* ** ** ** naTOOF MBBTINGt 10/3/88 VOTES 6 For 0 Against Planning CoiBission recoBnends the following: ■ •. Tabled for reasons noted below MOTES AMD SPECIAL COMDITIOMS: This item was tabled to allow applicant the opportunity to coMider attacSilent'orgrrage and storage space to house, aS an accessorv Structure floor area variance (if all portio attlohed wage met the 50- front/30' side setbacks, no further variances would be needed). Planning Commission expressed reservations regarding the accessory structure floor area variance. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed ass Planning Commission Monday, October 17, 1988; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. Please contact Mike Gaffron at 473-7357 if you wish to meet to discuss your various options. Tf vou desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes,’' thtrart available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. 'r # fee - -V V ii A I -I »4| K:' H Pros: « V Applicatio reques Zoning Dist List of Exh. Exhibi Exhibi- Exhibi' Exhibii Exhibii Exhibii Exhibii Pertinent C< 1. 10. no acci barns, 2. 10. access! line th frontag 3. 10. 4. 10. prohibi dlmensj minimun other o shall n . 1344 5I0H ACTION Notice: 10/6/88 St unity to consider uld eliminate the ill portions of an further variances Lons regarding the sd as: Planning :00 p.m. to meet to disonss .anning Commission after review and t:i y c'li >1 fl ■W'H* ■•‘Mil Itc '<1 m ■, ;. ' r ^ I m i . f%; r j. i ^ M . * / ■ ' ' .••J* • ■,. i [T r ■nwir'ftiii To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson FroB Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:September 28, 1988 Subject: #1344 Roger Roder, 1099 Willow Drive South - Variance - Public Hearing Application - Request for accessory structure floor area variance. This request also technically requires a front yard setbaclc variance* District ■" RR—lB, 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 From 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 exccipt barns, stable or greenhouse* 2* 10*03, Subdivision 9 (D) - Location* No detached garage or other accessory building shall be located 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 4* 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, and if the existing yard or other open space as existing is less than the minimum required, it shall not be further reduced* ■-y. Zoning Fi September Page 2 of 1* Front Set Acc* Stru Total Flo This mund lot App: loc< lin< it, foot arei acce Alt] fror yar< intc Rem< allowed ' street as to move * The need might be I ■'? e itor :? * t ■A iance. This ‘lance . red R Districts area exc^^pt ige or other street lot ts that have . Reduction i in area or tss than the ;ing yard or equiredr it '■A- k- ii !«> :V .';v . , • .-Jr- i ^ ■ ■k* ; Zoning File #1344 September 28, 1988 Page 2 of 3 Pertinent Pacts - 1. Front Setback Proposed 35.3' Required 50' Variance 14.7' or 29.4% Acc. Structure Total Floor Area 1,490 s.f.+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. Discussion - 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 bac)c 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. m ^ t': 4' m i\ fV-,. mm -I m it m ■ jr- iJ- >1 Zoning File # September 28, Page 3 of 3 Hardshi oversized gi applicants h< floor and ab< the property garage will the upper le'i The neig most affectec aware of the writing. The propi there are no : Planninc actual needs not be acc7omt accessory sti Planning Com creating this other than sti Staff Rec • tui .r If the I requested, sue that the gara< unit, cannot 1: and the appli criteria for c Variance 7* or 29.4% 10 s.f. or 49% is connected to from the street sd garager to be rom the side lot ifice space above ith the 990 s.f. ,490 s.f. of floor ly allowed In an cated behind the lie required front pproximately 15* , a garage is not ops away from the mt has noted that 2unounts of fill, s on the property irage as proposed. • ••• tm Zoning File #1344 September 28r 1988 Page 3 of 3 it/ Hardships to justify the additional requested variance for an oversized garage in this case are not as well defined. However, the applicants house is not extremely large, being about 1,200 s.f. on the main floor and about 1,000 s.f. in the basement. There is no existing garage on the property. Applicant's building permit application noted that the garage will be used for cars on the lower level and storage or office on the upper level. Lower level will have a work bench. The neighboring property owners to the east, the Gabrielsons, who are most affected by this garage structure, have acknowledged that they are aware of the application but have made no comments to staff as of this writing. The proposed garage will use the existing driveway access location and there are no sight distance problems associated with this location. Planning Commission may wish to ask the applicant to address his actual needs for the extra storage space and reasons why that space could not be accomplished with an attached addition which would not need the accessory structure floor area variance. It may be reasonable for the Planning Commission to ask the applicant to explore alternatives to creating this oversized accessory structure that has potential for uses other than strictly residential. Staff Recomiiendation - If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variances requested, such approval would appropriately be granted under the condition that the garage and attached space above it may never be used as a dwelling unit, cannot be rented as a dwelling unit, may not have plumbing installed, and the applic.’^nt should be advised that the property does not meet the criteria for granting of a guest house conditional use permit. m CITY OF OF Initial Ap ($50.00 Renewal Va (no char After-the- PROPERTY I Site Addre Property I Please ch€ Attach le« required s Ncuone OWNER (if Name Addre I (dc variance for an led. However, the 00 s.f. on the main existing garage on .on noted that the orage or office on Lbrie Isons, who are dged that they are 0 staff as of this access location and 3 location. int to address his y that space could fould not need the reasonable for the 3 alternatives to }otential for uses of the variances under the condition used as a dwelling ilumbing installed, does not meet the srmit. O k Mm- APPLICANT Ncune 13'H * V yCITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATI t-sia CFFIi^ Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) f ^ ^ ^ m m • • r • •• f *• ff r .• -.uM>u.v'VV VV -• I *:t L-iiih PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address | j/j [[ ■Ux.-C.. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) //7 00l((^ abstract or torrens?Please check one - Property Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Phone (home ) Phone (work) Address; /h9<i L^A/Iy,Lj fk". -Ca. City; _ _ OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address:City: Date Property Acquired I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY ^ Present Zoning District ^ . 1 5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Use of Property _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area « w. Setback Variances ( Lot Width Front _ _ Hardcover Side Rear) ^ Other^ (> S'\(y/--j B 7^ k7j\ r m'mm HARDSHIPDescri enfore DESCRIPTION Descri Code R REQUIRED SU 1.Comple 2.Certi'f this 1 348-32 3.Stampe names obtain« 4.Certifj 5.JL 1 in exi: 6.Plat M« 7.As an < any otl 8.Additic The Applicc remember tl: information Certificatic Zoni^ Offic APPLICANT'S The applicc requested b unusual exp€ the informa knowledge. Applicant's OWNERS SI6NA The owner h< authorizes r agents. Comm tion and ver Owner's Sign. Applicant mu Planning Com third Monday review meeti: unable to at authorized a< Office of th: •f r;v.-.vrr cf^hf m . •* if .« ft .f I -•t.*u.W'W vv VA .'iiV :y • m ^ m » mm • • •• •• ••*•* iui.JLai I tuU m • • m * • •• • f- ‘i. . i I T *1 • » } • I . ^ 1 LVV'-. iU.'^ I i T • HARDSHIPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations;A. DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning .gCode Requirements; Mjp.6.i P-. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. 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). 4. Certificate of survey including -j required. 5. •Topographic ^.survey—^existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoni^ 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 2- ONNERS SIGNATURE ( The owner hereby ackow^edges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable eTitry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga­ tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date K - Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning 'Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning 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. ng from strict ce with Zoning ou must obtain 03 Govt Center o each of the idress labels IS required. Lf any changes karate list of :ion. Please if the above Ls complete. required or . fees and/or certifies that t of his/her ■ > flg n and further consultants, of investiga- - >2^-gg lys before the e held on the 11 scheduled i applicant is ts to have an ding & Zoning Si THAT PART CORRESPOf4D!N<»l4lJ TO lot 10,3LK.S, MTKA. I > VIEW PLUS VACATED —^jo2>) STREET AMO ALLEY , 5 ^ Cl aud; 5 “or ser^r or br ]. 4* S (Of ^ X K ft X I O Hi SAJ O ?d88jjMftftgj w 'ssss:; Ip ft4 «J ^ O « ro o CD CD : UJ lAJ - ~x“’5ft!llo 8 -> u o CM -J ho M Z2*85 o D ^ S f.4 e 10 10 « o o *> S a Total Fee s $. Buildln 2. 2 SI a) 3. b) c) d) e) Cer stri pla: 4 • Ene: 5 • Sepi ABOVE INFORM THE APPLICANT JOB SITE ADD! PROPERTY IDE] NAME OF OWNEI MAILING ADDR] contracto ^jC! MLIN6 ADDR] CHITECT; ^ MAILING ADDR] TYPE OF WORK: Demo PROPOSED USE STORIES: NO. OF BEDk^ ESTIMATED COB I hereby app above is com] ordinances a understand tl that the work APPLICANT'S S i tol K 1 "f ' ' f f > <>r '4.*^ ; < i "4» tAKV kt N* <5 C» '*’ i;XTX UF ORONO - BUXWING F:m:<:pmm. iM -.^M l^- i "•.m V%,..: , ..:- \4 ■T- •rt i* II mi Total Fees $,•f O ✓ *\ Ermit Application Re^^lS^tss T AFFXiiUAXAWnDate Received s ^Date Approved s Permit#;_______ Project#;______ 3. 4. 5. uilding"permit application^ to be filled out completely and signed 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. Certificate of survey with location of existing and proposed structures including hardcover calculations and grading and drainage plans as required. Energy calculations - form provided. Septic report and design if required. ABOVE lEFORMATIOM MUST BE SUBMITTED IH FULL BEFORE PLAN REVIEW WILL BE STARTED THE APPLICANT IS: (circle one) 6wneSor CONTRACTOR JOB SITE ADDRESS: j0^^ \J:£0> PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO.: NAME OP OWNER: A K ZIP: i LiT • i.7fe CA. { U CaA> /*r A PT iti Lma if tf (work) maimug address8f^;LUy.j .m Sa CITT _ PHONE: (home) ZIPS 5rs:^/ ‘1*5 21# \ILING ADDRESS; JLf. CHITECT: Auf. MAILING ADDRESS; 2cHO >^5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PHONE: CITY; yT ZIP:^«7/ TIPS OP KORK: Addition_ _ Accessory Structure Demo KSfiiocel^^lteration_ _ Renovate_ _ Land Alteration ____________ PHONE: ^7^ - 9^ CITY; __________ ZIP; / Move PROPOSED USE (describe in detail): ujA\ Ve.. ULS<?Xg.av'S of\ Uu. : ^ so. FEET OF EACH ^OOR^^ ^ ^ yt! L STORIES GARAGE STALLS: ATT.(d^ I ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION VALUATION (excluding land): $ dnn 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 withgut^^ permit; an that the work will be in accordance with the approved APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE:/7l^ ^ hu a ^ (Please rill*(crut ‘the reverse side J^2AJ ite Building Code // DATE: /- of thils foznn) •••'• :. V*% : /MV'-; X * ‘■''s r ■■• p>- » «»y - 'Tf^«' 4 y .^8 '» J*'city; -j » • 3-6)^: ' ORON( \ .4 .> 1 In ac would lik from the ( furnish ce You a 1. T quali 2. y the C 3. 1 feder licen 4. 3 to ap 5. Y data 6. Y this It s1» •tl ..\69. Addre \v(jlIlaii fWCiVM City ...........^ Phone I und 77 Signa t ?" T ^ % r. \V • » . fc-.. BUILDING a ZONING > 1 r - 8 ASSESSING ..V - •i % M ti mm 1^i‘1^ " J' • ••! ■ X" ved; —ved:Project#: pletely and signed ing: iting and proposed trading and drainage lEtr WILL BB STARTED <rcy^ I iT Acras *• i.7fe /rr A P7 iti \J Lma if 4 (work f HB: (home) _ _ ZIP; B: ZIP:2%£ Bs - ?r.r»r' ZIP; Move Alteration X. g/SV'S flA 46»>- ut^ll A 9^^ ktJAck t :hat the informatioi conformance with th ilding Code; that mit; an< BATH; y - /-3 - yg crm) IK mi ■ .'. :x. .VVI": , iiil Un . . :. : 'i1 J ft /’r CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66*CrystaI Bay, Minncaota 56323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka 0MTR.Jgl8Ig»gt-«agSQRT ;i-l WM ^ : In accordance with K.S. 15.165» "Rights of subjects of data"# we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential informationo You are notified that: ■ ;--:r 1. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification 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. •i.j 3. The information may be shared with other local# state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve# some information may become public. .... 5. You have certain rights under M.S. 15.165 to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name# and date of birth are required to process this application or permit. ■ L_________ifcats.4f*jyBriibin iitm m' in Middle i '=R o^er. . - T--. .. A-____________ Last • ^ d^^s- • -tffiTuntniTi .ii 4UA U MaiiB :E • ti ... i* ■' Addrei : ............. City ^ . : . RT. jrii lirif 1 •• r laiii IState 1 __Zip Xim • «»• Phone I understand my rights as stated above* ‘ ^ 4X ^ j k. w>»•s. i • *• • ♦ • ^... 22Hr>,Signature A/Ivs... BUILDING A ZONING - 473*7357 ASSESSING PM nmm-^ ■ ■mmm f^v-. • mw' L'-v- i- pyp ’-- • ■-.iV -mMm ■ •V ; - :->x ^ ■ ■ •• 0 iiiWi l^Vv- ai|g mila®' wm *t» ;• [>f ORONOncMta 56323•Municipal Offioca s o£ data”, we lit or license require you to letermine your y require that cal, state or ( the permit or Council action e view' private red to process isasttf rUBLlC WORKS - I73-73S9 z.■i.:; •••mi ■/r' >1 41 ■nm Wmi I •a2 s8 k H li? '4 jt- Ivi^- 1if-•-•'-e < •» ■ .«<# ' a>jaP4MMt. * » «• - r u VJK.^ ,f c- . '*> •A iT.» •r ■• I ' • r”' ■i wmM,m:^'.p 'K X iV X •H 1-. .> V .1. \ ': ‘ k *• .-• . •■ .:• •; ^;l X:inX 'v>- pp^ira \X:'y 'X mx: ■ ■:X I (w have revi property Applicatx I (W( (are) not but merel the impr requires ( X <^>r^ Property C Property C If yc this Land Zoning Off m ^ i* ‘ : -»* • ' '*u * •^^ * .•*^.'^*5 . ♦ •' • ' » ... , • .. • * .•. I (we) Application No. Property Owner it •• f*,T.S-'; J >ri>J ^Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form "^^c/c/ ______ of //VS^ Lu //()^ ^ ^ [print name(s)J [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at /^T/ also referred to as Land Use I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, X (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 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. a. s« .'V,mm 'mm* W'S •T . ' : i la:;Wil IS t . 1m -.jS mm f ■r t' l; % . ^ ■ a : Form hji address] : proposed use of the »rred to as Land Use Ledgementr I (we) am the property or use e) am (are) aware of or's project or use Applicati( P3Oi Cl Mi Oc Subject: #1 Va 75 Ac< StJ POJ Zoning Distrd List of Bxhi2 Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Pertinent Fac 1. Th< property he is aw setback. 2. Ex: applicar proposed increase will be • 3. Top« have to 1 of Counti somewhat 4. The apron is maintains would be Ftfi.//Tot Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proa: Date: Michael P. Gaffron/ Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator October 13, 1988 Subject: #1345 John Theobald, 4017 North Shore Drive - Variance - Public Hearing -25™®hardrovir". requires the following variances;Applicatioi !• 75-250' hardcover, 2. Accessory structure floor area in excess of 1000 s.f. 3. Structure to structure setback less than 10'. 4. Possible street setback variance. District — LR—IB, 1 Acre Minimum — Sewered Ust of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Betters From Neighboring Property Owners Survey With Site Plan Staff Review of Hardcover Calcillations Garage Floor Plan Various Optional Plans By Staff Pertinent Facts 1. The applicant wishes to construct a 3 -stall garaae on the property. He would prefer to also keep the existing garage, although City's concerns regarding hardcover .^structural setback, and accessory structure size* 75-250' zone is 30.3%. If the oroDosed^ square foot garage located as iJc^^ase Vo 34 existing garage, hardcover will will bl 33% existing garage is removed, final hardcover have property is such that any new garage would have to be located in the area within 50' to 60' of the ?laht-of-wav Lm^wh^t ^limits ^fhe serving the propertjsomewhat limits the westward movement of the proposed garage. ^ ^ ^ doors are proposed to face to the side, and a backup provided, hence if the 10' setback can be would be teqSlred. right-of-way no variance for that setback * Vj.- m -V*: ■■“ V. af': Zoning File # 1345 October 13# 1988 Page 2 of 2 5. The proposed garage is intended by the applicant to be set back approximately 2* from the existing garage. This does not meet the minimum 10* separation requirement for accessory structures. From a fire safety standpoint, any separation distance less tLciU 10* will require specific fire wall treatments in both structures. A separation distance less than 5* should not be considered. €. The applicant has not attempted to present hardships for the accessory structure size variance, since he apparently wasn't aware of the need for that variance at the time the application was made. He notes that he would like to maintain the existing garage for use as a shop and or storage space. 7. Note that a portion of the proposed garage is over an axii-ting parking area. There seems to be an abundance of paved parking area on the property, and from a hardcover standpoint it might be more appropriate to merely construct an addition to the existing garage *Ehis would result in less hardcover increase and eliminate the need for structural setback variances, and would hopefully be of a size so that no accessory structure floor area variance is needed. Discussion - The applicant has noted that he is somewhat flexible in his request, and he would remove the existing garage if absolutely necessary. In Exhibit H, staff has presented a few optional layouts for the applicant and Planning Commission to cor^sider, each option noting the variances that would be needed. Staff would not recommend approval of the proposed structure to structure setback variance to allow a 2* separation. Likewise, unless applicant can present hardships that justify the square footage, staff would not recommend approval of the garage floor area variance. From a hardcover standpoint, it would seem reasonable to expect that the existing garage be removed and revert back to grassed area, in exchange for approval of the hardcover for the new garage. Staff Reconnendation ^ Please reviev the various options and Exhibit H. Staff would recommend approval of Option A, which moves the proposed garage eastward to result in no net increase in hardcover, cuts down the size of the garage to under 1000 square feet so no variance is necessary, and includes removal of the existing garage upon completion of the new garage. I’ He.' ad ml ■ V;, -M m Wm CITY OF "a- Initial ($50.0 Renewal (no ch After-th Site Add f Property Please c. Attach 1 required APPLICANT Nam< Add] OWNER (ii Name Addi Dat€ I (c PRESENT t Pres Pres DESCRIPTI Desc 5^ VARIANCES Setb< Othe; to be set back not meet the ures* From a than 10* will ructures. A ed. ships for the asn't aware of xras made. He i for use as a r an -existing irking area on .ght re more isting garage. Lnate the need i of a size so d. 1 his requestr icessary. In applicant and iriances that structure to twise, unless 30tage# staff ance. From a : the existing for approval Staff would ,e eastward to the garage to es removal of *A. virasw. j mm CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATI Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee_) 0 «.J.. : I : r t lu i i i U • im f ilm J t Jm 1J. v'Vi:. .. x-'v w PROPERTY LOCATION • ' • • • Site Address S_ _ _ _ _ _ Property Iden Ification Number (P.I.D.) //7 Please check one ~ Property abstract or torrens? rr>; »m - • iV \f 1 JUit Ti 200.00 200. OC f ... : r'itii nuLTLii I i i_'w* :? J. JL V.:. V w !-• w.. «T V ^ i v u Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name ^oln/iO '774sc>hf^ !c/ Address; ^P/7 A/, S^/t /TZP Phone (home) _ _ _ Phone (work)_^2S^li^^22^ zip;^5344^ 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. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Present Use of Property S\\ifJcjS t|Residential Other -(specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^0(DO.^^ Describe request in detail: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback Variances (Front Hardcover Side Rear) Other I. 'v;. "3 i n ' - m. ■;.4: n> ■.if HARDSHIP Desc enfc dbscript: Des< Cod« required 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Com; Cer thi 348 Sta nam obt Cer Top in Pla As an^ Add The App remembe informat Certifi< Zoning < APPLICAl The api reques c unusual the inf knowled' Applica OWNERS The owr authori agents, tion an Owner's Applica Plannir third f review unable authori Office t t t r i tim ; i . U - .' : 1. * 1^ M i.1 i ,M i i-'{!V* Il-^'VWV rr>;.• .•"V*.* ,n-<.'V « i v it "•>.•■ ’if i-VV a VV * • 7j^ • .* • .J ***:.^ r t *i f u-t il I ; •’-iJfM I fW ••• : v*v -*-,r • W U*VV- »\V^ ( vu. ~£>OOS^‘C /v ^ i 553^4^ rear) .dential ar) K: ■ •’ ■ 1 :i^. jUrr-A.-' ' >. ii ■i »r-- ■ > t I i^^.^ • V-', Pt-: *““S2=rib, ubd.. h..d.Mp "“■ •“*"enforcement of zoning regulations:-"JO/)0<^rf^fUC^- - - - -—- - - - ^ description op ONDSDAL property COroiTIONS Code P*>q»ir^menTis; fC-o ^ y ■r-ii required submittals . _ 1. Completed Application ^ owners within 150' (you must obtain Certified Property Owners .List of ° , Finance A-603 Govt Center ♦•v^-ic TH'5-h from Hennepin County Department o2. 3. 348-3271). '* , rinn^ nre-addressed to each of the ^:::ro^n 4raiol^/lls\":i^tS^n7 (use address labels 4. C iLCIAlIwO w** , o4- ^ Obtained with property calculations as required, in existing grade are proposed. 6. 7. 8.asbn%™vr~? ~____ information has not been Ce7tifioatlo7by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. zoning official's Signature,Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE or-ovide all information required orThe applicant hereby agrees to provide all inror and/or requested by the Zoning and certifies thatrbri*n‘,"s:ro'n “»p'r/.dnrsr. t. .i.. b..t...«./»« knowledge. ^ ^ Applicant's Signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE _ Faroes to this applicati'^-. and further The owner hereby orooerty by City staff, consultants, authorizes reasonable entry purposes of investiga- agents. Commission members, and Council members ror p tion and verif ic^’^»^ ^ this reou^»« Date Owner's Signature r_^r=;^_ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _* Applicant must have are' held on the Planning Commission Meeting. be present at all scheduledthird Monday of each month. Applicants must oe f applicant is review meetings of the Planning make arrangements to have anunable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make^^^ ^ authorized agent attend in your place and to advise - Office of this change prior to the meeting. ’the c7ty . ffioes 25 days bef^ore the I ■ ; v ,!• fS:/: -I sy. m i I h<M ft, ^ 4 3->: •a*. A -r - 2 > ( -j.«. • »'■ • .-•I la ,» -. ■^23 22; 21” 20 la- -J y v^- ■?i ^ .(•' -S';*, I • •: >400 *e,; ' I » • r— ^ W-I-117-a; k v- V. ing from strict mce with Zoning ^you must obtain •603 Govt Center to each of the address labels as required, if any changes separate list of >n. nation. Please te if the above on required or 11 fees and/or 1 certifies that est of his/her and further consultants, } of i.nvestiga- days before the ire held on the all scheduled »n applicant is juts to have an .Iding & Zoning m r > - .1 f’’ ^ , r**7 (l7-as 53 • rV) 3S 'n'' 50 •,7'; •■ j.' •Vvi^. #v ' 32 33 5erf Vv ;3a ,V i/C, t \ yr \ / -t t 50'73 * H -TT— .a; ------- , < > /________2 — i Vv 'J9f / . ^ ’ - •V Z 4 S «•* * / ' «4. O •4-. .'3^') ^7 M '^L •*i <a ■> • 400 •4120 - • I.... . ? • * ^ m \^r/] U'i 3 •'0 a* ■ • < -i ’J V r\ i4 • 15 •.•' * ?% ...:?,- • • i7* c j V* ^ r • • V ~* ♦« •ii //.» • • » K 1 t , *^V ^■n ‘0,9.-j >1' ^ — . • * ^OS '2. • % U . 1 '• N* •»? ' >0 ' .:V’' 1 iJ • * r 1 4*,'.ii «ri ir^i^rr. I * « • t r • • *‘. i' 1 rm w Hi ' i- ‘4 I . o Ul< QC O K H 5 J; X *** ui ^ JSgggjjj M|gg^S !:sg|iE N^y.u.5 N slM§ S“ O lU « «*i5Sig «l ^ Uj iS S M_W __ 2 -» 5 7 SoSi &O.S5*o X»^ o -) O o XSi^S Kt ^ Ui M <cr O 1^ !:SS2§ M S 2 »!. **s* ‘855« fiiSSI to g 9*S?g aSS|ps X: f ^\ %> 8* o ly ;!8 HI x CVI P Si): *18 ^ (0 2 ^ ys-• lU SS2ES e lu ®g Kl XM P 111 sr Si8 5“* 2^ ^ m 2 Elyr* MJI iwe o iu Si • ISs5 K.g ssg lU ii**9g tfl III ?J||5 2E«j^ < K S e tti X»g o ** .8S "^SSSS ij5s! g| ttJ «« cn lyM IS o QC t ^ u<& HI X ly lu2*g« K M S3 O Mri O «« III 9 M X o «• uj in I8S 9 M !“» 5 •« a •4>UisJgKKIU^ SP “"g«3 3 X lA • «22*“* 7 ®2gg t _ o o 2 SS 9 3 £ “9UI >• \ X < UJ 2 I QC HI HI |32 “| •^pISssUI Ui IL CL 7 &!:si« .. « K 2e o 9 Sf ifi (0 (0 o ^ M K X in Xa 299 V s xS£l^ ?IH3 :i CO ttJ, fiUI X UJ Ie^ lu 5 W I- M isl 9Ev X CO X UJ UI Q 98;£ 8 >- 3 SSiUI M < X K Q. U2 UI UPi“2 P O >- UJS2g‘ w’^is^ !t U 4 5t3^“ 2 UI M U IL aX M UJ UIP z ^^3M X H CO UI s|ff£ UI u. u. CV^ If,av “^ jy V '.■mm v\ .i; ' - A--f-f-, : mm MMm Kl mim^m ^Mim mm ['L "m fmim.. .;--^3PP| ' •c=TrS,4^ 'A smy K: 4m ;:• ■ i-ujpBfc;l fm Wiff:: iiSI® m ■ - ■i;- iiif u. % c^Lc^ c~^CC^ fa^. 'Ml— ■ • *»■<' •» \ /f^ p'^ 7^ w3^'^I>‘7r2. \jJ^ T/Icjuo CiO-yUtSyC^ ^‘".V ,.-■ (iC Wit /c^ U6dtt/0/ r 6MJ U ^ iot dty^ujt JiCivc cutij hy iJi^i'iL ^LuliliJ^ci CL. 'ikjilt- ~ QJiX^ Q ijttiL. '^Ju}-pM^<'j > m- -1 ItdliUHi U^ l®“l■ 'llw. M £lg ':■■?<:■■ ■ 'mewey jPccX- ■ ^py:..'•«.^0\r\ I W (:£ t3 ic^k.¥c/7' A^oi^'M. S^umjz. # n s O^A^O <^<r 35L^ 3^l 3SL ------------------ I I ? 1 3^iP\ ul* i « t « i • ’SiST'-' •• • pC3&'^ h £>oO<' f—f lOC/'*' / -- /v^/!»7^- $IX^ ^/S>ha/-A /0"x8 jPcc4.^. i I » I > ! . '. ’ I ' i : ‘ ! . I I I » I ! - • I I ( I • ; . = ’ aJ ai, ' ^OiA tCx^) ' \/if ^ dTS3(> I ; I ‘j-------- .. i '■ I— »-' {j t I I t ... j W.W'c^ lo Jl,u LOi hy i,. ii it'' ik,. ^ \) 1 . n..!...iclt O-l^ j/diuu t /? j P t ^ ii^ ^ i) 0% ^ j . # ji hy Vuhl Jiulduui CL iktit - (Ul' Cj cUnY^ <c/L ijtuL. •^juyjX Qmi AC ■/ 1 & uJ: JiCivi aiU! cJ)jitk^'^A! . M' W ' > -, ■ '♦ f L / 1^-, :,V>. ;y:.;-==;iv.,:v;:P3ic : . i'L . r-^ ^ /<^ -.T! . ■•••■'- --v- ^ .V- ;r ‘ :^:^ z % - ■>• -•; • J^\ nV •-.r5mm. •s•. :•'m-% n '.S*; •“•i?- *‘z/ 1 w:^9m .^tr! MS? %'i. hy. .•: -A: iivs f'A! a-* ’"M -m P':'. . !/•' ■ 5S-- . > '•:■ i f’Ai ..I?' J; >j •*i >,'Ai ':*'£v=-. i4-;. Li(_!^- 4»’V wr ■'M / Vt * ' I rpfnoo Airfi€>m e^AfifiC*^ AS---------------------- - ^ ^4pyMkciO«5 tf AAArU^j -L*&Mt^S /N» A»0 AJ€^ )t^C4*CKi0 VAI^'s >eg?3t>.' >^A^^OCOl«>^ ’>r'>ro' ( Wo /(ooiecAfeN •r.^ . >c 1^*0 /. /'A2Lcove>e 7X'iJT) C ± /OO s,-?, (,S J^o 'A>=(i«-*-se-^ / d pi t i '. P AuL» ^J. /eefi>c:> iVfTUe^ •:; ( T'1'“f :♦ i. •4* V •» I V 4 h i i /. f^MbcoieA:- 75 -2.rt5' Cir IO\Lj s.C. /Ajc.izci*e» 5^.Hi:it;: pR'!^ Pr70AJArUScPO^ArtS i2.'s AitbcD\re<i~ •>r'>ro' Mo //oMBSAreN * ♦ .’s ; T'2^rO* loo s,-?. ;A>tiAfeAS^ £ f8L«fa^ ; « el>coyei^ S'2^ro* S.^. /AJC|2«AC»^ ^ /AJcy«t«4^4p^ V " V C.^ \ CJJ» ^ r.-T' »:• *.-, . -.,■ ' t .*.■■• «..t^'*.'■ '^J W:- : •■;*.:■■■. *V'j Lt’ 'Pj ¥c/*7 £>^Oa>^0 3S2-X 35^- 3SL J • 1 I ! : i i I i i ! ! yJv*^ Scrrv^i<LSL pcC*^ il iboO<"loov / I I ! I ' I « i I I fTfy :-^.f:, i- , , ... , , . i . j :.. ; ■■ i _ i _ ! I ‘ •■ i . I ' ! • ^ ‘ .' ■ i • j j ! ! ' ' ' » ; i- • r-’i __ i _; I !i I ccJ- 7S7-^s~7a <9 Ij '-i .* • ;7-.--;:.-:ur ■■-r .■* r. ^ **■•■,■*:*! ■•‘‘J' ' ; ' V •<• m i ■11^ 'A ' ' ^ IV 32gj« mm wmm. V*.: ,'• cr gMgUJ lA. _ M lU h» CO ly QC UJ X V UIU. Ik m’■1■.-»'*■ JVV.pt iiiiiis iv :vi; ..: ■ .:' ;.^ 2 9 :.v -a;T V i.-®'; i I m ^ ' % *V r / V la ' :Wm 'm i/:*f • • \ Tos PI Or. Ci PT(Mi 4 Date Ocl Subject #1- Vai Application - Zoning Distri I*lst of Bxhib Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit ■ Exhibit ; Exhibit : Pertinent Fad 1.Applicani of the pi merely f to have a 2.Existing Existing include i graveled property, lines whi The { zone, that 30% t 0-75* 75-250* 250-500 3.There are property, non-hardco garage. stairway. 4.Note that considered it. i .i \ cr Mm * : ■ -1 ■ >f» • »•■* V. .pi V ir* ' ■ >-:'-c* '» '■" « r-;-i; ’ '^V i'*' ■x’^'' < \ '-i'-r \ ■ r':.PiS0-m.♦w'. ■ I -.jfeJl.- vl r-v: ,:■■■’•> - ,v;.^ ;'v.r;v:;:^'Jf :^iii*i»ii - ■ ,r ••‘1 j’4\ r i®' To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson yy- From: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning s Zoning Administrator October 13, 1988 ssrM^;o?“"s-s. a.i.ch«i „„„, „„„. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D — Survey Exhibit E - Staff Hardcover Calculations Pertinent Facts - 1. d d d 2. ofthrproplrty?°?hls g«a°ge®''oT 5 7^6 f f 9“»9« "ear the west e merely for storage of lawn ‘J' intend to have an apron or a driveway lla UnV to“lV. intend ^r:ie“!ld: ^/r“o7lVe^s ‘’/o^7srto “t^%^5“Ve trVsT ?rnrs^:Xich“\^e“^d?re^c^^^^^^^Ijl/ zone, tL proposed garage adds s f o¥ ha d hf 75-25i;that to 3516%. In the I^n^nn. ° s.f. of hardcover, which Increase 30% to 33,2%. 250-500' zone, hardcover would Increase frS, 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 3. Hardcover Survey . Proposed ^’5 ’ Change 900^8 ^35.6%)900 s.f. (30%) 996 g,f^ (33.2%) property, which are potentialTv harden plastic sheeting on the non-hardcover as a trade-off for^the could be made garage. These areas occur^besurface with the stairway. between the house and the lakeshore 4. considered as\ non-conformino strif^^- constructed in 1960 and isit. nforming structure, as is the small shed next to V. ... .-/.v:.*ii w'amitafiiaiim Zoning File #1346 October 13» 1988 Page 2 of 2 Discussion - The applicant notes that this storage garage is intended for storage of his lawn care equipment and other miscellaneous items for which he has no other storage room. Although the gravel driveway leading to the lake is only partially graveled, and is only driven on perhaps half a dozen times a year, it is still technically considered hardcover for this review. Staff has not discussed specific hardcover removals with the owner, however, it appears there is enough rock over plastic on the property that removals of the plastic could equal the additional hardcover proposed with the garage, hence there is potential for a result of no increase in hardcover on the property. The garage is located lower than the road, and some drainage is directed toward it. For many years the applicant has had a tile line which outlets next to the gravel drive, perhaps 100* back from the lakeshore. Although the garage is intended to be over this tile line, there would appear to be no great concern with possible future clogging of that line and if it did clog, water would naturally flow around the back side of the garage and generally follow the property line on down. « Staff Recomnendation - Given that this garage meets the required 10' side and rear setbacks for a lakeshore lot, staff would recommend approval subject to the condition that as much hardcover be removed as is being added with the new garage, by removing plastic from below 576 s.f. of the existing rock beds. CITY OP < Initial I ($50.0( Renewal \ (no che After-th€ PROPERTY Site Add] 0 Property Please ci Attach 1 required Oats I -4* DESCRIPT] VARIANCES ided for storage for which he has 9 to the lake is ' a dozen times a review. with the owner, he property that er proposed with no increase in )me drainage is tile line which the lakeshore. ne, there would Lng of that line back side of the id rear setbacks subject to the ded with the new ting rock beds. CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION .. . .. Site Address 7 ^ ^ ^Cc^riy. • • Property Identification Number (P.I.D. )C(fe COQ^ Please check one - Property _ _ abstract or _torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. J: Phone (home) ~ 3 X, ^ Phone (work) Address: CUCity: Phone (home)OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (work) Address:City; Date Property Acquired iZu^ , ^ I ^ ^ Cw (month/year) I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property / "r Residential/ Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $'?./<^r. -STcra^ Describe request in detail ; •>/ _ _ _____ __,» MB mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm ^m mm mm - VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) m-- W- m hardshipDescrib< enforce! description ' Describ Code Re required sub 1 W^l. Complet ^2. -^Certifi ^ this li 348-327 3. *C^tamp^ names c - H 5. Topogra in exis iffa6.*r^lat Ma 7. As an i any otl 8. Additic The Applici remember tl information Certificati< Zoning Offi< ii APPLICANT•S The applic requested 1 unusual exp the inform, knowledge . Applicant’s OWNERS SIGN The owner 1 authorizes agents. Com tion and ve Owner's Sig Applicant n Planning Cc third Mond review meet unable to . authorized Office of t r ‘•N /I f'''^I j^‘ ' %r* J 7L-. V- i >t U'*VU ‘!tl,* r /"rrrrriiVrrjiwu ui ? ^ww JL ww\/w WV^WV /'f rr-ij “Lrrrif U‘l .*1»LM “s-‘ »w fCT.^^ ,V vv iC * fV A wf V' » vv I* *7w IT.*T*I-Aftjn ‘ n^ui-ti / luu^ rrXavviv uv^x Avx lav t/// i-ii con^ Tens? uded on v7i -3i.n rork) • • Zip:_£^2iijl rork) Zip: _ {month/year) f land. Residential Jy) Lon Cost rdcover Rear) 4 icii : 1 -7^6 A/““®SeLribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: lower'll TPTI ON OP U n USUAI i PROPERTY CONDITIONS i r\n“““‘Sn^ibfu^ual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements- --- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- m» •« rbqoired submittals ✓i. Completed Application owners within 150’ (you must obtain . *■ frKLe°pTn cVnly D;i,a;tme^ of Finance A-603 Govt Center y."» names on the above list with no return ^Pfratltf ^su^!y\nclni!ng''^^rdcove^ calculations as required, ‘^poglaphic survey (Existing and proposed elevations) if any changes 1 in existing grade are proposed. “ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ":L;s:FErjLjL'r:K(:L°;Ku:”.?^ information has not been included. __ _ _ __ _ _ _ CertificatlorbrzoninrDepartme^ that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature Date APPLICAMT-S SIGMA^^ provide all information required or The applicant hereby agrees no pro aarees to pay all fees and/or requested by the Zoning Administr '. acolicaticw. and certifies that unusual expenses incurred in review °fjhis application. his/her the inforLtion supplied is true and correct to the knowledge. ^ _ _Date-j OWNERS SIGNATURE ^ a-u-s « annl ication and furtherThe owner hereby acKowledge_s and agrees to this “,„3„i^ants. Applicant's Signature Tne uwiicA. ---------hv Citv srarc# consuxtciiiuo# tion and verification of this request. ^ o™„..;;;rro;;v;v.;T.v.';vrVamVtu\tTm.7t^ Planning Commission ai’p^icants must be present at all scheduled third Monday of each month. *PP^^®.®" council. If an applicant is review meetings of the Planning Conmi , make arranqemen*-s to have an unable to attend a scheduled meeting, P^®”® s Zoning authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building Office of this change prior to the meeting. 1* V ■ . A1».: - mm V Sfipl * V : ‘ ■ /) 'i ss’t an 9 ^ :>a3 • .d<evie.v Jef-f 35 ~ ^ T ■. w ting from strict ance with Zoning (you must obtain k-603 Govt Center to each of the address labels s as required. () if any changes separate list of on. Lcation. Please »te if the above on is complete, te _ _ _ __ ion required or all fees and/or nd certifies that best of his/her tion and further ff, consultants, es of investiga- ays before the e held on the ill scheduled 1 applrc^^^ is its to have an ding & Zoning m.,,V ' \V >4?'^Va4 \N A \ :c? • • / -T; ’■■w *¥ SSETJ*-:’!.^ .*•1 wmi m3K- '■ r-.- m :I- r- r . S by-,.v^ x v v: ■; :Mi; M ^ fcs;:.:: ■»'•’ ■ • ■; Viri-r iff; i'- ‘4 & i mm m.r :■ -m . : V*' - :' B ' 1#: Ciiu •' v'i-i'■ AaSt?i>: '’vv; • S /• ■■\:.* i;-'; fe HrI VTO! lyrnm. Ri 4" So s 8| I 10 sM K 10 3 Ss hES & £ Sa r•» •• Oo T ^fry^ s si ge <r5 « •^XW w JC I $9 3iE9||S 3Sssp I tOo r^ m III eifisssg s r ssaa^i^88| t %Dto 10 lO T k^Sr.l*P M M UlS in > > KO fcU lAJlU IMm s O 2 $9 tM iR «IS ^1 gSSS e e H <0 Z in -i jjjoMmezxr^ lO K H to z ID •J P K^Ipl ’t s;*8ooSS |S (D CD e ^ O lAJ UJ to g £s H Ul ?|§i “® I ®®5g S ;c . a Ul UJ - -> -> z a o A tli UJ Z Ul tE Z < • 5- : •li/.. r‘^' '■ •■■: -■ ■Wi tMii-'::i m O- & 8. SsulK.g iSiS o o I zz Z £ o o >■ >• z z h»CO o m o ifc ifc ^ 33r ss^ o < to Z Uf lO oS"i-8'' X t ^ iC M^PrKMiS’ll.Sig* E3* I%o }2 < M in z X zo 9 Ul >• Z iu Z “a 11^ *' *♦ * ^ % -■^4 z ZZ X M ui Z H 10 Ul ^ X Ul Z ^z z P £ u z &H Z O O t? ;} * u a O' . a M 111 P ^!gM K M I S K 5g0{ N|^^5 §g 1^ E \ V Sh & «S»m _S III M < • Cj OC K ft. ^ < ui yj IT) £ O M H* ttU O ^ ftl"MS H 9 X tt- U ^P O !:S&g irssiM lU X H *0 UJ ^ SSSEu M a o eocrT; Howu-J? 'E>ecK PArto ........ Iaj A vKS-S /^/t^coyje^ ^/sy^.........._. ->t/o OnS'* //j/OO ZiJ ^ ^2.. / /2- yvr' 20-7 0 f /^j/OO ^ 2.SC*’ (_AiteA-^Z[pOO >fr./ ei^irtt>(s. : . HtAJts^ -^.s. / * t/o*/ 2VtO X z-K*? _ /./ ys',3 Cethit-.^,5 “ x-a.C. ® /^) X//^ /X2^ CD ^ D c, .., c7 (0?/y am-"- f:r7M6 4- A^-er: toiujs./OJ>c.g, SX 2-$^ ®(D -V — ~*f>1 <5(twifu'C4fy^... ^iruiM-. 'D/mv ^ im ' — - %» 4 '7/^S» 5. nii^-T^ \pCrO * */o -?r-2-so' «?<^s7?wG f(wf»set> /^t^vTToo; >i/e)C? ^X, 57<» ^ AA««k. » ^OCX^ s X. t/fsn*^c> V f?4«f,T»r^ -23.^A ^<^Y2jeo ~ ^<30 ti- ~ A&>fnp*JJrW 7^ * .«■ - To:p; 0: C; Frc Date Subject: «e M 0 # 2 AppXicatio purpof struct Zoning Dist List of Ext Exhibi Exhibi Exhibi Exhibi Exhibi Pertinent < A) S< acces line • front build sub je< 5 (B) stree aroun lakes B) S 30'. other of tl C) S type The 1 each 3^I ? j Vf I i i • -4-#- ! • I -4** 4• • -- - -n # * - • * ♦ t. ♦ • f' 2.^ (i • • ^ • • • • 57d- s . 6M-. r.4>l ~ 30 FroB: Planning Commission Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: October 12, 1988 Z/X3 skii.aa«w ---------- ptrpo?es‘. “ts’e'tUf ^«°iance thif ir“on"s?ae"re"d fn"accessor^ Structure.) Zoning District - LR-IB List of Exhibits , . ^.Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map . Exhibit C - Property Owners List IxSibit E : pSaH Elevation Views of Proposed Structure Pertinent Code Sections A) Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) ” ®ont*or^street lot accessory building shall be located nearer f have line than the principal ^diacent to a l?reet, accessoryfrontage on a lake and a re^r yard adjacent to buildings located wxthin bhe street o 10.24, Subdivisionsubject to the setback jequir^ents. . .of Section 5 (B). . . except that detached garages may^be^i^ ^ street or rear lot line 1^^°°“ ^ section shall not apply to lakeshore lots divided by roadways or corner lots. B) Section 10.24, ® ^ ”que^t^^ buildingsj;;;, s,r,r;:s s/raj;.,v .<i.. u~ of the property.) Pertinent Pacts - Ir .Sf^, m The applicants are that the 3h' maximum height is notsecurity purposes and they feel that tne^« require. The entire sufficient to provide the annroximately 40' in width,structure. Including the gate, is approximately .u The proposed gateway is about 4- in height with monument roof peak on each side of about 7%'. Zoning File #1 October 12, 19 Page 2 of 3 2.The gatew from Kel^ at 2710 2 3.The 16 ’ s minimum 3 hence tt However, require likewise 4.Althougt existing will be 5.The plai proposed Discussion - These ei from the sta decorative fd Staff wc more than 30 accessory st applicants about 14* fro Staff w monument is the property would not no easement. He no structure potential f property, proposed, woi and other ut so that thej structure wi The app that the max provide the the 3V fenc security th legitimate t hand, one c< persons and wall around ator for security an accessory ige or other :street lot ;s which have accessory jch lots are Subdivision 10'from the b and a turn- lot apply to a setback of ry buildings rth lot line jht of a fence- X 'I gate for ight is not The entire th. nt roof peak on WW -A Zoning File #1347 October 12» 1988 Page 2 of 3 2. 3. 4. fromTetT/ AveVue*!"hore^ at 2710 and 2715 Pence Lane. The 16* span between °t^uck^wi^^ side^mirrors to pass, minimum 10- width f the residences served, hence the gateway is j - third lot, the City would However, if a future private road and the gateway Although none of the P^®"° Vjl^p®sts^on either*side°^<f/the drivewayexisting wooden planter and sign posts on eitne will be removed, decorative fixture. staff would note for the ^they**would**be^considered as an rcces^o?" s«u=t°ure\^"d e w|uld he no need^for a variance.^^Since t_^e :L"u“?4'i%%o:^t Vef?nef r^a^" lot ?ine, the variance is necessary. 5. staff would drliLge and®utnity'ea\*'e®menYal°^9 monument is psrtla^^y considered as a fence ®hructure, the City the property border. If th..s 1 with a fence on a drainage and utility would not normally A ^°*^onsidered an accessory structure, easement. However, if jli-inaae and utility easements, and there ino structures are allowed in drainage ana ur utilities to the potential for interference with^existing^^^ structure is “ Structure within the 10* easement.•cure wj.uiia.1* ^ . The applicant has suggested that 3^°^is^not^suf f icient to that the maximum the°property owner. Itnrovide the security required by P intended to provide the type of thriV fence height ordinance was "®J®*L^"^ho^ver? it may very well be llgiUm\\e*‘to\rect a^CpoVing ” barrier^ t^^^traffic o°"uni®nviM5 Sa “l around the entire property. 'M mi mm X Zoning File #13 October 12,198 Page 3 of 3 The a Item structure be 1 requirements might request property bounds not be obtrusi measures requi additional fenc Staff Reo Staff wou condition that City and other e private driveway jst the two houses •uctures meets the le mirrors to pass# esidences served. Dt, the City would ad and the gateway :icipated that the de of the driveway y light fixture is uite popularf both as well as being a posts were located considered as an riance. Since the side lot line and s necessary. ^^ey, the westerly ity easement along structure, the City ainage and utility structure, normally nents, and there is utilities to the lire is allowed as in favor of the City :o use the easement, :hat they do to the Lis application is not sufficient to t would seem that Dvide the type of may very well be fic. On the other nted or uninvited -10* high fence or - •. V; •f MM ^7- 1: P \M Zoning File #1347 October 12, 1988 Page 3 of 3 Vrtv\°ae.the security required, the^propertj^owner^then might ^ stafV'^ould suggest that the proposed gateway will fSfnelghitrhobo ’d. ^^-^eed* measures required by the property owner without the need for extensiv additional fences or walls. Staff Reconnendation - staff would recommend approval of the project as proposed, with the tTat aoD^ sign a Hold Harmless Agreement in favor of the C?ty and° otheV p^t^e^Ua? -utility and drainage easement- users. v-v m»K- ii'" iJ-'-- ■ :■ - ^ =. fill Mi ■‘••M ■R/ -Ha ■ -'U ‘ V ■ -< ■ mM m^m imrtm r 'Y HAROSBllDesf DBSCRIP' Dei Co< require ; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Co; Ce th 34 St na ob Ce To in PI As ar Ac The Ap rememb informc Certif: Zoning APPLIC The ai reques unusua the ir knowle Applic OHllERS The ov author agents tion a Owner* Applit Plann: third revi*e^ unabl< authoi Office ire that the ear setback f owner then Lght to the gateway wi 11 he security r extensive ledf with the favor of the 4. 5. 6. 7. ““®n«oribe undue hardship or practica^d^^fic^Y compliance with Zoning Describe Code Requirements; required submittals 1. Completed Application . - owners within 150' (you must obtain l^rn^^e^^n cou^n^^^^ ^^-nce A-603 Oovt Center 348-3271). , rinn^ ore-addressed to each of the na^^fon thTaUe" list with - return address (use address labels obtained with h^ calculations as required, ^ofo^rirhll lr%“e77ex\"lting and proposed elevations, if any changes Plarnlp^lobtlinld Vth p£o^^^^^^ a separate list of any other persons you wish s^ff. Additional items as may be _ _^- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - information has not been _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _junI. UJLmci uA- - —- - c;;;iiIci;i;r;;'z;ni;rDe;«;;;in;"hat variance Application is complete. Date Zoning Official's Signature.^___________________________------------ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE orovide all information required or The applicant hereby agree •-a.JLa-or aarees to pay ail fees and/or requested by the Zoning /_• _ ?oolicati<^» and certifies thatllls“lal expeLes incurred in revxew o/J^rs applxcatxon^^ the information supplx^ xs true ana <- knowledge. ^ M^ Applicant's Signature 7Z^i ate tion and verificationj of this request. '!> 4f<h ,h Date ‘MZiM Owner's Signature (/f.ufCruM^—mm--------------------------------------^----------- Applicant must have all submittals ^^iggi^n°^eetilg” a1re^herd°on the Planning Commission Meeting. „nst be present at all scheduled third Monday of each .^P?Q^ission and Council. If an applicant xs revi'ew meetings of the Pxan.ixng riif»ase make arrangements to have an unable to attend a scheduled meetxng, Pi®®/® & Zoning authorised agent attend in your place and to advxse -he B Office of this change prior to .the meeting. Pi•• V "k\ - . '{ ,v..v I* ^ . -y ••• Mm ,T- « - W^- v: • - :■ ' \>k :'v Im ■■ a .•.SV"Wr^j 4';vr^sg« %5.--( CITY OF ORONO -Initial Applicat ($50.00 per e£ Renewal Variance (no change fr< After-the-Fact 1 PROPERTY LOCATIi Site Address, Property Identi Please check on Attach legal d required survey applicant Name Address OWNER (if diff< P&Name Address; . Date Prop I (do) PRESENT USE OF Present Z Present t description 01 Describe/^'Te VARIANCES RBQl Lo Setback ' Other ♦ i ng fro ce wit ^ou mu; ;03 Go^ bo eac iddres as rec if an' iparati L. ation. e if i is Ci on re ii te d cert est o :ion a ef, cc es of 5 days are I It a 11 f an a iments lui Idi k;.- i. -.Mr-.-, ■I i- m Ki M iii ;•? V . ;.il =v'• V V il f ....................................... CIM OF OROHO - VARIANCE APPHCATION g^JA initial Application Fee nSO^OO ^^ T ($50.00 per each addxtional varxana.^ m ,^ .,, Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 fno chanae from original application) Aft-fir-the-lact Fees (Double applicatxon fee)________________ cnY Cf OROHO --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- ------ . FliiA^HS CFFICO property LOCATION . U5V20000S IZ^/S' fi&iCSUtH0_________-___ 01 SH ISO.00 Site Address ^ 7/7 3.??! Property identification Number (P.I.D.)- - - - - - - - - - - ->1^ Please checK one - Property jT abstract or __ torrensF Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- Phone (home ) ----------------------- kfaM^r /HC pnone (work). Addiess //^>r ^■(ird^iereiirthln applicant) Phone (home)__ffcZL_2 ------ Name ^ ^ Address: f^eHce^ . ___ (month/year) Date Property Acquired - -- - - - - - -—- - - -- I (do) -(d. no4>» also_own_the_adjacent_par^ - - - - - - --- - PRESENT OSE OP PROPERTY jesnxNr?^----- P„.„t ». O, eWMS FmlliL----- * other (specify)____________________ - - - - - - - -Estimated Construction Cost description OP REQOEST __ _ __ _ in detail- ^ 1^- - VARIANCES REQUIRED T«4- Hardcover_ _ _ Lot Area_ _ _wiatn - - - Setback Variances {_ _ _ Front - - - Side oa.r Itmem-\MiijAHce. M... V ' - mi 9- ■_■■ .f-) \ / V / K ■/ ; / y / / / // / / \ /pt^ -A 3 .sN35i^V*?>,, t4)h Ti-.\ • • »?s / \ fe : ■■-'A an' OF of<0H0 fU^ArlE iff JOE rr,nn<’ifjt W' V vv V JL OU) ^ TJ II. * m W 150.00 CEIH-ihM YOU 450 cool 5(0* JOS'-- 09/25/i i/year) “sidential S /gy ■«* Rear) K #«!': f *■ ■> J t;: :i yy :Vi: 'r .: ; ■: '.:-=-'v 1^-v: • ;-'v ;> ;;v:;. Kl Kl lA H O tfl III H OS -•oiR S-5-^ 2 J ^ I CJ ga*rfsse • J «J CM oi CM lA UJ mm III III CM I N 2 2 S 2 2 III III III^ 2 III III ^ g I lU M ^ ly Ul 2 CA ^ 2 2 2 O iii M III lU ^e o o CM UJs CM lA 2 2 2 CM »A S «l ^ iy III gs :lNi CM S 2 2 _ ^ fA M M O CA O ^ lA '■M« e ^ S in & ^ e UJ ly ^ 2 o 2 2 o a 2 9*UI >» §o 2 I3sSH s ui s si •J m M e in Ui Ui cQ in Si8 MJ m UJ UJ UI 7S^K ui < < M ata X X M >14 M < I .J .J > K «4 UI UI CM in«( < in _R55SS C^ M M M •-« Q •M UI 2 ss 2 mi lA ? 8 “* . UI fA CA CM < UI UJ I UI CM lA _ §5 s^ilSs E“ “SjJouI rA e 2 2 CM UI UI 2 2 2 Oa < 2 Q u ? 2o £ 2 < ly Q !.t ■r'-'-M o oj ^2 2^ UI H 4-; «*• ♦# V WM A lUa ag g I i Il\-I ^ tug 2.:a- Ul lAl Ui ® 3 tJ > ly o ^ lO IS Ui Ui $5( I i---:x 1 M^C fl w i'n±nft ADDENDU Properties Includ Owners and P 0. Larry Lee, 1690 University Ave. S 07-117-23-24-0031, 00j3, 0034, 07-117-23-23-0020, 0021, 0022, Stephen Valek, 4720 Tonka View Lane, 07-117-23-23-0001, COOS, 0009, Ralph Winton Palmer, 4750 Tonka View 07-117-23-23-0011, 0012 Karl Sollner, 3714 Manor Rd., 07-117-23-23-0019 07-117-23-22-0007, 0008 Richard B. Hawkinson, 1575 Copel Maple Plain, MN 55359 07-117-23-22-0011 it- mm 'W^ ;:pi kh■■ij ! ?4x'i ■ mt- iV': ' v-v ./J . '3 ; V i 1 m mm itn mam mWM • 0, DiAtm OMttm t 17« 1»M 7tM 9,m. 0. liArry Lm, lOSO Garden Lana - Class III PraliBlnary Subdivision (Ravlaw of Action ItoM to Bagla at 7t00 P.M.) City of Orooo* Crystal Bay Boad - il Oaa PansltABrlanea - Second Beviov Second Review for Purtber Review 1 •1330 Pullerten Properties* lnc«* ISO Townline Road “ Class III Preliainary Subdivision - Second Review blie Bearing gberg, 7 Variance - Public Hearing Halley Homs* lnc.« 371S Pence Lane - I • Public Hearing I representative to attend the Noveober AOJOOMMBHT .. . .. . , ?fcy C)uie>al«‘ R. Pu^er K'; 3©(l n«r a Lm^ Ice :;'ir:^-;.Vif;%*^;;V*, ■.k:^:^j,C^-^£,:,s.- \ "■ *. •• *.: ..... :. ; /: ... .. .■ ,^.^3:;rr i- m wm:- »»» msmmmmm glii^fcK'S?^mm ^®i«iiwliliiw 't 1 ■‘■•i','r . \. ■- pgBliiia t0i' ///1- v/'/'! ■ //;i'': I 'Ac: V ' ?ec- \ \/ ^--—'■■y:-'!. \v'. \ I- - - s -----' / \i '’jj -I § \ '■> Z' > ■' " / // 1^7% ^ji—^S4.</ y \ rs J^' I / ' I '/ f i ;• I w. , I ■ I I / . . / . i ■ I , M s:- \. N y ■1. I I ' I ,/•/<;..'• 1 ■' 1 > / ! I;//;/;://-';'//.;;, : -I- I t J / , I I . c 00*O2‘S4* E SB4^ I I' ■' ■ ' aW'fi'-iV»' 11. j \ ,-.r ??'s%!t vV'.Wkf mm^v^ >]'■■'■■'fey?' /.J7^ /6-^cp ■m 'll/ ®KW/ V'/o ■ ^ ^ 'o " - - ^ . .. /.//^/// llA i\ \X4Ti:i4y!\;/I h : (\. / 0ii : :^r yx<' pjss ' n' - ~ ^ ^>0- ?:^;V/7p'//,f7:^ - -life' '/.i'lV/fl.i ' ,■• 1 K/*;' *X' X /\ / (Oa' $ flD S*C2' n -------- \ \\)i >X s r % ‘ i'y'N ■ i '4^^qJ / . .8 ■>»?«/ •’ y 8 _____^y, I a* SA/VC ® N^Xi ■ S»>.S3. . i!«Ce5 - ■ ■ i nri_ |l|-^ ;,,l ^,.L. / 1 /;/.... ' ')' 5 / , ' /' / /y"-\ V V ' vA--' / ,' / / / /y \-;:v>, \ ' '■ ' 'V- / /><. \fA\ \ V ' ',|c^' '/ / / y.y-;// v.<A/' \ s i !:;ife' - /-XAi / ■/ :T'\ U ,i ;;V;;;1 ' ''.'W \\'\/'A ^+.-~. \ -''------ I ' ' '■ /'■ t)iy; ..----- A:5?.............'/✓ -Ol \ F''-- N I ! ' .3 » :.';C''^^'iNV\\'<^'^\ 17^Sy^,^^ ''N! ft* V V \ \ )yyyy) ^r \>/'> 111 11 ,t ‘'■f'••< i, \ :'. ,!yvl£ -'■■'<T,yW * I. I / / * /-' rf ~7~^y _______ % .——li ^-■^:£---yA. > \ e. ■f.:- :“-'T; :i^C- /o//n/^^ ••-•■•ji Iouk ! "'it' " 0«IVt—W |-II !11 o « ;|i ,§ I S f ,.f I / / '//;■'/'//! I 'll ' - 11 1 ’ 1 1 ''' ' ' ' I ^ * I I, f ■'// /•' 'h '' ' ' ‘ « C-'- • rivWf r/ / < j4 ' / / V4 ^ I ^ A - • y.;: > S V » . ~ :r 1^a u \ - V >< ys»\-^'iA - WmV- TM-bp; ( V \ \'CW1,1T JP y, ^ 'i mI V' I ,7 -4 ., t i iV; *11 ~^?^-:::: Ip. ^ ' W’^ WZV/M-: x.y/ mt^J.: !^;i ;■: '^\:^:^<"i:'i:);!f!]^s • i>s:3, ^'- \.i, ,'; %.^CJllJt}::>:^.:i>-^0//7/g’g' M'0-. /■ .... ■-...• ••■.•' • ■ •'• ' ' ■ - . . ;.;l:.... 5"II r\ fefiry /Zaj^ r^!2S'± •' '%4fc;s '^"\ '4. iy Mm... Topographic Survey for Gerald R*. Nelson in Tract A, R.L.S. No. 565 Hennepin County, Minnesota ^ !3o<=, :^.- ■ ■■-f ; ■ ■ t -5’5»a |V pm F-(^ . V-:; , .■• ■ r-y'-'-p.-. kj i- ' X. F \ t ''•r i: iO f r> 8* V.r -c I I «N >c•ar (* •I ; /0l‘ ■ vnuoM f>pF 1^1 /oi/nll’i Pdf r ■ .>":••• ^■=’‘-- i>: w-:«r t*--mit r^m ;>■' tfriWii bi .\mm: ■mM ?!: 0 o h X OB v» B 55 *1 N 5kr X f II r 0 'i^ t? I" ^ Vf'* 8 I lA» 1 3 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Bb