The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-21-1986 Planning PacketPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 1986 7:30 P.M. 1275 BROUN ROAD SOOTH - OOUNCIL CHAMBERS INCIL REPRESENTATIVE ~ James Grabek ATTBHDAMCB SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.7:30 P.M, #1015 Ervin P, Kamm Jr., Preliminary Subdivision 755/763 North Ferndale Road 2* 7:45 P.M. #1019 Ralph D. Martinson, 2525 Woodhaven Drive Preliminary Subdivision 3a. 10:00 P.M. #1018 William J. Ulrich, 1535 Bohn*s Point Road After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing b.#991 William J. Ulrich, 1535 Bohn's Point Road After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit - Second Review c.#10p4 William J. Ulrich, 1535 & 1595 Bohn's Point Road Class I Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement — Second Review ACTION ITEMS 4.#999 Evan Meline/Benn Belden, 3598 North Shore Drive Variance - Continuation of Public Hearing 5.#1011 Excelsior Bay Yacht Club, Deering Island Conditional Use Permit & Variance - Second Review 6.#1014 Big Island Veteran's Camp, Record Lot #7 Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing 7.#1016 Martha J. Haeny, 1978 Shadywood Road Variance - Public bearing 8.#1017 Morris & Jackie Nelson, 1900 Shoreline Drive Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing 9.#1020 Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, 2865 North Shore Dr. Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing 10.#1021 Jan & Nora Akerberg, 4075 Highwood Road Variances - Public Hearing 11.#1022 Charles A. Schall, 605 Park Lane Variance - Public Hearing ADDITIONAL ITEMS 12.Planning Commission approval of March 17, 1986 Minutes. 13.Planning Commission to select a representative to attend the May 12, 1986 Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT ■ r# # V C 1 PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE 4 PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) /A 7 >A. 'Z/iLPU V. A •7 ^/2S ft/ ^ Pf S'A'^ T/9 y*Xy^J ^ ^ ?£'<r7*^roe ) r:r42 ^ A1^ 11 0^ 3s^7c^ D)^ N/^. f^A UfO.A'Ofm 4y?S W « QO^ ^oii£ujooi> rtoct— QW=\U- r^OrPinogjui B2. l/ctA7i£A.t' ^/w /v/. -^iCrp/C/::: CUef-C^__ JY7.^ A .idiZ \jU!^ 2()JU)/Jm/. bA HHO l/lAJe Jl6. 1* V L»y/ ^/k/<Z^f//zrfi<'ZM£tL / AA /V’^P <Y> ATOT^ Jf tC^^I (Oh 0 (J /iil /6 ‘/7 • idn /o/f 'll *fnza>C f y ^ o~L-KIJ. g; J I fW/ / ■4 PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) 3. ________ A, Nie i A/ii2S &/-IAiPLC C r )^ » jyifS Jfl/\ 4. j\i ()/4^>i^-— V7^(oit^tn w (i 2rl ^V (1 ^1"/ I >sLU^i'>v v(. S<>A /a}/f/(Jet AlJ U.'D£>U k\^u V4. hift'i il) k^ftLoopil- U.il-A VLRiefl {. C^n iSrziu^i^ iiT. —)ol\K yr 20. jvWfh^reT^ /c:>0^ PA/Oi^ L 3-t)<yo “^ocS^tyyu. Dr~ iife-H- Cic A iiL l'/2o/3,hn^ T^. y<L //W '^'pf • ^"O. /Lio / /Nrgi^7^.7^p i/j r/^K. rtAN<; \icmxx-ejr^t^^'^K^Ss y C^oa ^ S. <j^ S\- /Y^'f L.C AV? - i^ / 0/8 ' ^0/ ' /oo^y /o>)^ ^i\l)U/LLorJ /^>g ^ J/is K ^7 ISHo Pl, (?<l. /’Tfip n\’< ,*191 <i-lMi- \o\j'. ^s\ ^ 11 »y // / • t j Q^O Pn/nl^J/n ^'K/cc i - ‘ ^ H. ( // fO / ** J // ///'C/ To: From: Date: Subject: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator April lit 1986 #1015r Ervin Kamm/Lewis Mithun, 755-763 North Ferndale Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing ZOmilG DISTRICT - RR - IB APPLICATION - Replat of 2 existIrg lots totaling 6.22 acres into 3 lots of 2.003r 2.005r and 2.216 acres i* sjpectively. LIST OF EXHIBITS A- Application B- Plat Map C- Property Owners List D- Survey E- Survey v/ith Staff Notations F- Memo to Public Works Director re: Private Road Mr. Kamm is currently completing his new home on his 3.724 acre lot. Mr. Mithun is currently completing his new home on his 2.50 acre lot. Mr Kamm is proposing to split off the northerly portion of his lot and is purchasing 0.284 acres from Mr. Mithun to gain enough acreage to meet requirements and to be able to access directly onto North Ferndale. Both proposed lots with existing homes have suitable alternate drainfield sites. Testing for the proposed new building lot has been submitted and indicates ample areas of suitable soils exist for standard trench drainfield systems at primary and alternate sites. The designation of setback areas on this plat is somewhat perplexing. If you go by the locations of the various roadways, both Kamm and Mithun have corner lots, which would then designate the line between the backsides of the two existing houses as defining side yards rather than the rear yard designation if house orientation was the determining factor. This discussion is academic except that Mr. Shanedling directly west of the new building lot, has concerns about a house being located so close to his property. I feel there is justification based on the orientation of the houses to go with a 50' rear setback along the Shanedling/Kamm line, by designating that line as being "opposite the front lot line" (which is the 75* stretch along N. Ferndale Road), and then allowing a 30* side setback . . — . . _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ mt- • _ _ _ _ _1 J .-W-.for the south line of the new house, discussion if there are objections. This could be the subject of some The Public Works Director has been asked to review the proposed access onto North Ferndale Road. There appears to be ample site distance at the location if the driveway entrance is kept as far north as possible. Suoject to a final designation on the setback requirements, staff would recommend approval of the proposed division, finding that adequate setbacks are maintained to the existing homes, that each new or existing • ft> of #1015 April 17, 1986 Page 2 of 2 building site has ample area for all septic needs, that suitable access is maintained to all properties, that each lot is of a size and configuration to allow construction of a single family residence without the need for variances, subject to the following conditions: 1- Appropriate standard drainage and utilities easements be granted at all lot lines. 2- That 33* of right-of-way for North Ferndale Road be dedicated on the plat. 3- Driveway entrance location to be approved by Public Works Director. 4- Park Fee of $200 for new building lot. The one additional concern staff has on this plat is the use of the private road at the south end of the property. This gravel road serves p existing residences with a potential of 3 additional future homes to be served. ^ I have asked the Public Works Coordinator to address this, but no response as of this writing. Please see the memo and attachments^ exhioit CITY OF ORONO SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM Date _Fee Rec'd 3q . OO id APPLICANT Name Br’\^ir} f. ^omm Jr".Telephone ^'^3-8S4'^ Mailing Address f74-o V. Wi^.shn jLarre. '^/yfitauT^ PROPERTY Name OWNER /isT^Telephone Mailing Address _ _ _ (Attach list if more tha PROPERTY LOCATION Street Address S<se. riois Property Identification No. (P.I.D.) Complete Legal Description to be attached to application mmm mm mm rnmm mm mm mm mam amm mm mm mma mmm mm mm mam mm mmm mm mm mm mm mm mm • mm aam mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm amm amm mm mm mm mam mm am ^m mm mm mm mm amm mm ^m am ama ^m mm mm mm am mm ■ EXISTING LAND USE Jcno^es no-^ !fidudtn^ road Number of Tax Parcels Development Size ^.ZZ i>.2z Present Use (check)v/ Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District !B PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size; Proposed Use; (check) / S7JZO j Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per 4>.zz Acres Square Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (OVER) / VA^ V'f »*«•*i:MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLME PRELIMINARY APP^,|CATION ..cIJL1. Application Completed ^^72. Preliminary Plat information o i/XrtifiiiiLte W*^ur^^ 3. Certified Property Owner's list of owners within 350' (this list can be obtained from the Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 4. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature Date MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments) 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and acceptable form of security. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date - - - - - - - - FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III)$150.00 Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivisions) $250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) Final Plat Review (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) $300.00 plus 20.00/lot $150.00* Applicant has read the above and hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature^^ Owner's Signature _ te Applicant must halve a LI Planning Commission Meefing the third Monday of each month iLl^ubmittals 4.nto tne Cxtry feting. Planning Commission late / offices 25 days before the Meetings are usually held on «^7 -r te .s PROPERTY OWNERS INVOLVED T)wner Lewis Mithun 166 Babcock Lane Wayzata, Minnesota 5G391 Legal description: The East 198 feet of the North 660 feet of Government Lot 3, Section 36, Township 118, Range 23, as measured along the North and East lines thereof respectively, according to the Government Lot Survey thereof. • • PID 36-118-23-11-0001 Address: 755 North Ferndale Road Owner Ervin F. Kamm Jr. 1740 N. Weston Lane Plymouth, Minnesota * Legal description: 55447 Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. Titles, County of Hennepin. PID 36-118-23-11-0015 1031, Files of Registrar of Address: 763 North Ferndale Road rv>Xf ,O '1:s0" r j %0 kM - -<t ■ hr>fy f>* ^4 1 ••1 * f '•■ 1 • ■ « i V T;RO>1 1 ^ 4 Tl 1.1 E r- r-C4 E -a c/))>* ch pn rn 0>>-< E EN MM N _ m> 09 CO (/)(/4 > OJ oH >HOEX9 2 3 O 1 > X >»^CI > m o Q 04 *sss 1 »ii« *css H O O > Id ui c» 1 • w fVJ MVMl ov n o sii§ -4 H M M o » m f\> •>« 1 •• i H -TJ _ /. ' '!• I- ■Ir.' r.:.» ■ r f •/ LYDIARD HILLS Proposed subdivision for Ervin i Jenny Kamm #101 in the NE Vi of Section 36-1 18-23, and o Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 1031 Hennepin County, Minnesota ■ \ Mi 11k oUGoti t-erx^ec-x-na-ti I TohJarts noiincluding rood jfjd/ line cf Osi'f Ids. ^cc-3L-i:s-Z3 EXISTING PROPERTY .DESCRIPTIONS Lewis Mithun property The East 198 feet of the North 660 feet of Government Lot 3, Section 36, Township 118, Range 23, as measured along the North and East lines thereof respectively, ac cording to the Government Lot Survey thereof. Ervin Kamm property Tract E, Registered LanxJ Survey No. 1031, files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct sdpervlsion, and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. COFFIN & GRONOERG, INC. Scale Date 0 1 inch a 100 feet March 25, 1986 Iron marker Mark S. Gronberg MN. Lie. No. 12755 Gordon R. Coffin MN. Lie. No. 6064 Enginaers, Land Surveyors, Planners_ _ _ _ _ Long Lake, Minnesota ■ r ~ * . • I • * li MAft 27)906 Vy- ,\ .> TO:John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Coordinator PROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator DATE: SOBJ: April 4, 1986 #1015, Subdivision on North Ferndale Road John, I need your comments on the access for the new lot to bt created by this subdivision, and also on the issue of the private roadway known as "Lydiard Lane”. The new lot is proposed to access directly onto N. Ferndale Road somewhere in the 75' corridor shown. Any problems with that location? "Lydiard Lane" is a can of worms as you probably know. The various portions of road and driveway serve 13 existing houses plus there are 3 vacant lots of 2 acres or more which could be readily built on. The ownership of the road is also a jumble: As you go in from N. Ferndale Road, the right half (15') of the private way is owned by Steve Dayton who lives at the far end. The left half (17') for the first 298 feet is owned by a Donald Love of Malibu, California, who incidentally does not own any other land in the subdivision. The first branch to the right is owned by Mrs. Wood but serves Kamm and Shanedling also. About 800 feet in, the main road splits, and the branch to the right serves Parker, Lyman, Dayton, Macleod, and 3 vacant lots. The branch to the left serves Strand, Lawson, and Danielson but is owned by Johnson as part of Outlot A of the recent Laurent Subdivision in 1981. Obviously, 16 existing/potential residences exceeds our normal limit for a private road. Are we to a point where the City should actively pursue acquisition of roadway and make it a public road? Is any part of the Kamm or Mithun property helpful to us as right-of-way given the steep slopes on the north side of the road? Is there a potential for this to become a "through" road to the south? Or loop back^Horth Ferndale through Searles' old place? We should discuss this prior to the Planning Commission meeting of 4/21/86. I 1 1 i & /JtOjgJ3Lr^J.t4 tfjkLe - . PftivAffe /t»Ab ti&ifev^ » A I-. r mi ;T F*. ♦ ,■’■•♦• •• -l-’-.W. - *•< • f- • »: • •^--. » » HHlW f ,ii'i , T • TO; FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator April 17, 1986 #1019 Ralph D. Martinson, 2525 Woodhaven Drive - Preliminary Subdivision Zoning District - RR-lB 2-Acre unsewered Application - Divide 4.27 acre lot into 2 lots of 2.14 and 2.13 acres respectively List of Exhibits - A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Topographical Survey with staff notes Background The plat of Woodhaven was created in 1377-78, just prior to the passage of Ordinance 210 which subsequently required septic system soil testing for all newly created building lots. Only a few of the lots on Woodhaven were tested, at the developer's initiative. However, the City did request soils information from the Hennepin County Soil Conservation District, who subsequently submitted a "soils detail" of the 22,5 acre site. This detail map indicated that proposed lots 6 & 7 were mostly Hamel loam soils, generally not suitable for drainfield systems, which resulted in Lots 6 & 7 being combined as one lot subject to possible future subdivision under unspecified conditions. Soils Information Review The soils detail provided by Hennepin County Soils Office in 1977 does not match with what is shown on the Hennepin County Soil Survey, and subsequent soil borings by at least 3 independent sources indicate that the area shown and relied upon as Hamel loam soil in 1977 really is something different. The soil has not changed, but realize that the 1977 report was admittedly prepared without the benefit of soil borings in the field and remained to be verified. The Hennepin County Soil Survey shows areas of Dundas, LeSeur, and Hamel soils on the property, all soils with relatively high water tables. Again, borings in the field have shown this map to be somewhat inaccurate on a lot-by-lot basis. The soil survey does not purport to be extremely accurate on this small a scale and it is always recommended that actual field verification should be relied upon more heavily in evaluating the suitability for septic systems. Zoning File #1019 April 17, 1986 Page 2 of 2 Based on the above, and based on actual soil testing submitted for the two lots, the soils on the site would appear to be suitable for mound systems. Surface drainage is a concern since the lots are relatively flat, and the groundwater table is high during wet seasons such that shallow basements with proper draintiling would be in order, and I would suggest a curtain drain be installed around the i^ystems to remove excess water that could affect them, h-r, I am convinced that the lots are buildable if proper precautions are taken. Proposed Subdivision Each lot exceeds the 2-acre minimum lot area requirement, and the 200 foot width requirement. There are no designated wetlands on the property. Primary and alternate drainfield sites have been testeO and are suitable for mound systems. Woodhaven Drive is a private road hence the inherent variance to the "frontage on a public 'Street” technicality is appropriate. Finding that each proposed lot is of a size and configuration that will allow the construction of a single family residence without further variances, staff would recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedication of the standard drainage and utility easements along all property lines. 2. Payment of Park Fee of $200 for Lot 2. (Park Fee for one lot was paid with the original Woodhaven Plat) 0R01 ' ^3'II?-Z2) mi -<?c»Hooa^ SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM '^O.Od SO <JQ 330» 00 D^ate Rec’d 3 30. By WU-__________ e (r ^}o)^ Fgg >Rgc d ^ ^ cA ^ ^ Cn APPLICANT Name 'Rjiyy- D. KA/iJ^X t Telephone Mailing Address ii'boC UJ> 'PCS\CkL ji^T'kiA . Mil PROPERTY Name ^LPt4'D.lMAg.T<it^S>/::>0 Jkssoc^. |oc, , Telephone OWNER Nailing Address l\J.'PA{ZkL'^tocae>^ iAnc/i ^ KAk) SIT (Attach list if more than one) PROPERTY LOCATION Street Address i //t Property Identification No. (P.I.D.) Complete Legal Description to be attached to application /./.,_ EXISTING LAND USE Number .of Tax Parcels Development Size Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels ; Present Use (check)Residential; no. of units Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District f€/e- PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) I i Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per Acres Square Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) (OVER) material necessary for c%1. Application Completed 7^ PRELXM^im2. Preliminary Plat information“on C%ARPfilCATlON#I/ •krficatr^j of" Survey-.I\ . 3, Certified Property Owner's list of owners within 350' (this list can be obtained from the Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 4. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature Date MINIMDM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments) 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and acceptable form of security. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ^5 4 \ FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) Final Plat Review (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) $150.00 Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivisions) $250.00 $300.00 plus 20.00/lot $150.00* M._.*2S1'2c_ _ Applicant has read the above and hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature^ Owner' s Signature I' C- _ _ _ Date . Date ^ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are usually held on the third Monday of each month. M /* ^ m |>> ff'/v fA ^ Mfc^' O M §9 c^M t> .S^ro ■'0 u*^ r»N<9S • •• TJ H o -0 9 3»z > s 50O> X 2 o ^ X 2 oT33 TJ ni -U 3 *0 m *0m > »m > aj>\ -< >V, -< >O > m z o > rn Z aaa ;d > o O XI > u;o O 3 XI o 5 :o:a m ;o m Proposed Subdivision for Ralph D. Martinson Associates, Inc. in Lot 6, Block 1, LEVERING'S WOODHAVEN Hennepin County, Minnesota CP 7 “ 1 ?7, 7J? £ ZVS.OO £aj / 4 2Vf.OO z ?S^298 t zrx.oo */9o. ao \ I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 6, Block 1, LEVERING'S WOODHAVEN and a proposed dividing line. It does not purport to show any improvements or encroachments . isM COFFIN 8 GRONBERG, INC. Date : 3-28-86 Scale: 1" = 100' o : Iron marker ■’I _ _ _ - — » - - - - - ■ - - - - - -- - II ' ■ ■ ' Mark S. Gronberg Lic.Nm.12755 Engineers 8 Land Surveyors Long Lake, Minnesota s» ;; 1(1 ...«'■ ....1 j:uj>• r- 1 ¥ ^ »n 1' 9 i 4, I • V t * UM . Location or Pro ject U^gJCp>*n (Y"lo^rUAA\Oc^o c^ok '] ./) J,-J. tl______ Borings made by ____________________ Date /yV-gT" //ZS'/ Classification System: AASHO _ _ _; USDA-SCS X_ _; Unified _ _ _; other 0-4/ V/ . Auger used (check two): Hand or Power _ _; Flight _ _» or Bucket _; other Surface elevation ^5^ O i c^'// k- Boring number . / TTNoSjj^^ 5oiu tSo^^iU CATe T7/r [■ 1 . 8 Depth, in feet 0 — Boring number c>^ Surface elevation ^ S^> G a-o> s^-s' C> LjO^^ *^o /Vot' X>ef>7H /O A End of boring at g>^ ^ /X Standing water table: Present at _______ feet of depth. ____________ hours after boring. Not present in boring hole Mottled Observei^at o? fee^f depth. Not preseJlt' iin-burJSSg^h^e Observations and comments: 8 End of boring at feet. Standing water table: Present at _ _ _ _ feet of depth. hours after boring. Not present in boring hole Mottled^611: Observed at —^ Not pres^ f«t of depth fg hole _ _ _ _ Observations and comments: • ••• V • t Location or Projec^t j(^al^ 7 UJcnrriP /UP. Borings made by(_X. kfc^J^_____________________________ Date y/ /t/ 7^ Classification System: AASHO USDA-SCS Unified Auger used (check two): Hand K_» or Power ; other Flight Boring number Surface elevation ^ o2^ 2'C"y o? 'C " 8 End of boring at 3.‘C feat. Standing water table: Present at _ _ feet of depth. hours after boring. Not present in boring hole Mottled soil ^ Observed at« ^ ^depth. Not present in boring hole Observations and comments: k‘* or Bucket pC : other ^3 8 Boring number Surface elevation ^ rncjtfc!!»<5 ^t| End of boring at feet. Standing water table: Present at _ _ _ _ feet of depth. hours after boring. Not present in boring hole Mottled 8 Observed^t Not present feeV of depth ng hole Observations and conanents: TO: PROM: DATE: SUBJ: Orono Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator April 14, 1986 William J. Ulrich a) #991 & #1018 - After-the-fact Conditional Use Permits 1535 Bohn's Point Road b) #1004 - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement 1535 & 1595 Bohn's Point Road Applications #991 £ #1018 - After-the-fact Conditional Use Permits List A B C D • E • F • G > H • I • J • K ■ L ■ M • N • 0 • P ■ Q - R • of Exhibits - Planning Commission Minutes 11/18/85 Mabusth Memo 11/20/85 Bernhardson Memo 2/2/85 Application #1018 Certificate of Mailing Property Owners List Affidavit of Publication Plat Map Noble Letter 4/2/86 Noble Letter 4/11/86 Staff Sketch Watershed to Pond - sketch Drainage Calculations Cooks letter Elevation exhibits Site Plan Landscape Plan - Part 1 Landscape Plan - Part 2 At your November 18th meeting, you tabled all action on Application #991 pending receipt of final plans for grading and landscaping and the filing of additional applications to cover the after-the-fact activities of the applicant. In addition, you asked that all work cease (grading and construction) on the property until all plans were approved by the City. Please review Exhibits A,B & C that reviews the procedural steps taken by staff at the direction of the Planning Commission and Council's final directive to staff. The applicant has been allowed to continue with building construction and all grading was limited to the following: 1 - Removal of excess fill within right-of-way of Bohn's Point Rd. 2 - Foundation drain - referred to as drainage relief system in Noble letter of 4/11/86 (Exhibit J), to be constructed up to 75 feet lakeshore setback line. 3 “ Closing up or filling in of sewer line extending from pond. 4 - Back filling around structure. The applicant does plan to continue the sea wall along the lagoon area and install a geothermal heating and cooling system but final plans and supportive data for such are not complete for this review. Applicant understands that separate conditional use permit reviews will be required for each proposal. ' Zoning File #991/#1018/#1004 April 14, 1986 Page 2 of 5 This packet will be sent out on Wednesday, April 16th in order to provide additional review time for members. Staff would appreciate any requests for additional information on Thursday, April 17th so rhat an addendum can be prepared for final packets sent out on Friday. Glenn Cook will be preparing special exhibits to assist in your review (Exhibits N & 0). I have asked Glenn to be present at the meeting. We have scheduled a special time slot at 10:00 PM for the review because Glenn must attend an earlier meeting that same evening. B) Review of Conditional Ose Permit Applications - Refer to staff sketch Exhibit K. Area (1) Alteration of lagoon area located within 75 feet of lakeshore. The area had been filled with 3 to 6 inches of top soil in preparation for sodding or seeding. Erosion control was provided as needed. No major grade changes. Obvious attempt to ’’smooth out" shoreline. This type of filling is typical when developing lakeshore properties where ground cover is to be installed. Staff has never required conditional use permit reviews for this type of land alteration when a building permit has been issued on the property. In review of the plans submitted with the building permit, this specific land alteration within the lagoon was not noted and does require separate review. Area (2) The applicant has been allowed to construct a trench 2 feet deep filled with gravel and filter fabric that extends from the foundation of the structure to the 75 feet lakeshore setback line. Applicant seeks permission to extend the foundation drain to the lake. The elevation of the drainage line must be at the 932 elevation, the outlet would have to exit direct to the lake. The quality of such underground drainage would be excellent - passing through 12 feet of soils area then at the end through some 200+ feet of gravel and filter fabric. Planning Commission Recommendation ~ Alternative of Action a) not to approve foundation drain b) extend foundation drain to lake with direct outlet into lake Area (3) The berm area as proposed in Exhibits Q & R have been trimmed back to 6 feet maximum height. Note bank slope ratios are now at a 2:5 maximum. Retaining walls will not be necessary along roadway as would have been required in earlier plans. Applicant cannot use road right-of-way to install berms. All berming must begin out of Bohn’s Point Road right-of- way. As currently proposed, the berming creates no sighting hazards for uses of private driveway or Bohn’s Point Road. Staff recommends approval of berming as proposed on plans dated 4/8/86 by James Robin. Area (4) Major filling between Ulrich and former Blohorn properties - refer to exhibits. Clearly the filling within the Ulrich property 30 feet north of the original dividing line was not approved with the building permit. The original showed the lower elevations of 938 - 940 (remains of the old bowl area) that would funnel drainage down to the lake. I Zoning File #991/#1018/#1004 April 14, 1986 Page 3 of 5 The plans approved with the building permit and current proposal show a decrease in drainage towards the lake and a shift in approximately 1.24 acres of drainage area to the ponding area to the south (see Exhibit L). Per Exhibit M, the applicant's engineer in his summary (page 3) notes the increase in runoff to the pond would raise the pond level 0.4 feet in a 100 year storm and finds no appreciable effects on retention pond. Cook should advise if a compensatory excavation to increase pond storage capacity is required. The M.C.W.D. does not require permit review for the proposed shift in drainage. The applicant's consultant claims little effect on the pond and local watershed. The plans approved with the building permit provide for grassed slopes ranging from 946' to 938' elevations within 51 feet along the southern yard area (15% grade). Drainage from both the former Blohorn and Ulrich properties would drain down to the 938 elevation and out directly to the lake. The banks along the north side of the Blohorn property will be much steeper than those proposed on the Ulrich side of what would have become a ravine area. I have asked Cook to comment on the current plans proposed by the applicant. He contends the uniform or flatter grades and gentle grassed slopes to lagoon provides a more suitable treatment area for surface drainage. We both agree the original bowl area was ideal - providing retention and flat grassed areas for surface water treatment but the house now resides in the bowl area. Planning Commission Recommendation - Alternative of Action a) restore slopes to original contours. Ulrich side as proposed on building plans - Blohorn side per elevations reconstructed by engineer. b) approve current proposal c) create a grassed bowl area between both properties - eleva tions to be determined by City Engineer. Brief review of excavations - changes in elevations Per Exhibit I, the applicant's representative claims they have no knowledge of existing elevations prior to 11/84. Cook and I have attempted to recon struct elevations as we remember them at the time of our two visits to the site in October and November of 1983. Exhibits N & O attempt to show the depth of excavations, changes in elevations and drainage shifts. The original bowl area (majority of area now occupied by principal structure) we determined to have been at approximately the 938 elevation. The finished grade around the house is at the 946 elevation. The original ground elevation of the previous residence is at the 946 elevation but the garage elevation was at approximately 944 elevation. The foundation required excavations of 5 feet at the southern end ranging to 15 feet cuts to the north side. The majority of the fill and mounds of earth found on the site remain from the removal of all native soil from the foundation excavation in order to make room for the sand base under the foundation block and footings. The basement floor elevation is at 933.3 - code would require a 932.5 elevation (1 foot above the flood plain eleva tion of Lake Minnetonka), 4 ♦ Zoning File #991/#1018/#1004 April 14f 1986 Page 4 of 5 Hardcover Facts - A) Facts per Building Permit review Total land area 165,200 s.f. 0-75' - 27,500 s.f. - no hardcover 75 - 250' - 87,800 s.f. - 21,600 s.f. or 24.6% 250 - 500'- 49,900 s*f. - 7,900 s.f. or 15.8% B) Facts per lot line rearrangement and additional improvements Total land area 213,000 s.f. 0 - 75' - 44,000 s.f. - none allowed - 200 s.f.* or .4% 75 - 250' - 114,000 s.f.- 25,100 s.f. or 21.8% 250 - 500'- 54,200 s.f. - 7,900 s.f. or 14.6% *path to lake - recommend type of construction that will not be considered hardcover. Planning ComBission Recommendation — To make recommendations concerning the 4 areas covered under the after-the- fact conditional use permits. a) lagoon b) foundation drain c) berms d) major filling between properties Conditions to be considered: 1) No hardcover within 0-75' 2) Geothermal heating/cooling system and proposed seawall will require separate conditional use permits 3) Remove the existing house once road restrictions are removed. The applicant no longer requires the use of the structure as a temporary residence. Application #1004 - Lot Line Rearrangement List of Exhibits - S - Planning Commission Minutes 2/18/86 T - Memo to Blatz U - City Attorney's Opinion V - Lot Line Rearrangement The lot line rearrangement as proposed will provide Parcel A 4.97 acres of total area and Parcel B 2.67 acres (.48 acres of wetlands). Each parcel satisfies LR-IB lot standards. The existing structures meet required setbacks from the proposed dividing line. As noted in my memo 1/16/86, a hardcover excess of 1.7% or 207 s.f. exists within the 75 - 250' setback area. Applicant will remove the 207 s.f. of excess hardcover upon approval of the division. Review Exhibits T & U. The conditional use permit for the guest house is still valid. In order to maintain the integrity and intent of the original conditional use permit issued for the guest house in 1981 this current division must be approved with controls on future use of Parcel B as follows: Zoning File #991/#1018/#1004 April 14, 1986 Page 5 of 5 1) If Parcel B is divided in the future, the conditional use permit for guest house will no longer be valid. 2) If Parcel B is divided in the future, only 1 parcel would satisfy riparian lot standards. 3) If Parcel B is divided in the future, both lots must satisfy current zoning standards and hardcover standards. Staff Recommendation - To approve the lot line rearrangement subdivision application of William J. Ulrich finding all standards of the LR-IB Zoning District have been satisfied subject to the following conditions: 1. Grant conservation and flowage easement over pond area. 2. Removal of 207 s.f. of hardcover within the 75 - 250* setback area within Parcel B. 3. Future owner of Parcel B is placed on notice that if the subject property is divided in the future, the following directives shall apply: a) The conditional use permit for guest house use is no longer valid. b) Only 1 lot can qualify as riparian to Lake Minnetonka. c) Both lots must satisfy LR-IB lot standards and hardcover standards. A MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 18, 1985. PAGE 5 nit 5fy rea ger ver #990 FERRELL continued Chairman Callahan noted that the application was incomplete absent a survey of property containing the existing house and septic site information necessary for assurance of an alternate septic site if needed. Mr. & Mrs. Ward Ferrell were present for this matter. Mr. Ferrell stated that there should be no problem with an auxilliary system being the lot is 3/4 acre, therefore not necessary. Mr. Ferrell felt that a survey of the property with existing house was also not necessary. Chairman Callahan stated that this information was necessary and was requested from him last May and they would not act until this information was provided. Mr. Ferrell stated he had a survey dated 1958 and would submit it. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaf fron stated he would look at the survey and determine if it would be adequate. $ There were no persons present regarding this matter at this time. It was moved by Chairman Callahan, seconded by Kelley, to table this request pending a complete application. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Chairman Callahan advised applicant that they would give him their general opinions regarding his request although submission of the survey and septic site inf ormation may make a difference. Goetten stated she was personnally opposed to three lots. Kelley, referring to his statement in the Planning Commission minutes dated 4/15/85, felt that Lots 7 & 8 should be combined into one lot to allow the existing home and one other lot. Taylor and McDonald agreed with Kelley's opinion. Rovegno and Callahan felt that two lots with dwellings would probably be reasonable with the proper septic site testing, _ three lots would be setting precedent. #991 WILLIAM ULRICH 1535 BOHN'S POINT ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 9:40-10:37 Chairman Callahan explained the after-the-fact application for a conditional use permit and variance to do grading and filling within 75' of lakeshore. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 18, 1985. PAGE 6 sary act 3mit 3uld ite. this I him Dugh make DtS. ning ould one ould ing. tion f and 1991 ULRICH continuedAssistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the| background construction to date and further proposed gradin' plans. He noted that the City Engineer has reviewed th( current revision of a series of plans within the 0-75', whicl has been minimal, and finds no problem with it and ha determined that applicant has done an adequate job ofj protecting the lakeshore. William Ulrich was present for this matter, as was hi project representative, John L. Noble. John Noble stated that they are stock piling soil until th< amount of backfill needed is determined. There was some discrepancy between applicant and staf regarding attainment of required permits for the wor! already done. Virginia Sweatt, 3225 Bohn's Point Lane, was present statin' that the construction was destroying the character of th< neighborhood and was concerned by the size and height of th home being built. Lisa Dayton, 1655 Bohn's Point Road, stated that the Plannin* Commission should really analyze the situation and she fel that a commercial venture is being done in a residentia area. Kathy Sweatt, 3225 Bohn's Point Lane, stated that there is problem with dump trucks excessively speeding. She als noted the removal of several mature trees from the site. MargeneFox, 1645 Bohn's *^oint Road, stated that the road is aj mess and breaking up badly due to this construction and suggested that applicant be responsible for repairing and maintaining the road on a weekly basis. She also noted that this construction has created unsafe conditions for children| on the road. Ginny Wagener, 1420 Bohn's Point Road, stated that for the past two years they have endured dirt and dust mess from this project along with the seemingly constant seven day per week construction. There were no other comments from the public at this time. Due to the obvious problems involved, it was moved by Chairman Callahan, seconded by McDonald, to recommend a stop work order being placed upon this project until all issues have been resolved between applicant and staff. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. To: From: Date: Mark E, Bernhardson, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth# Zoning Administrator November 20, 1985 Subject: #991 William Ulrich, 1535 Bohn*s Point Road - Conditional Use Permit This is to advise you that the Planning Commission called for a stop work order for all building and grading activities at the Ulrich site. They demanded immediate action because of the filling and grading viola tions within the 0-75* setback area and major filling and grading performed by the applicant out of the scope of the original building permit and the original grading plans. The Bohn's Point neighbors reported that filling has been going on for the past year and that now they were excavating the wetlands on the Blohorn property. Staff had worked with Ulrich after a straight line wind storm had knocked down over 100 mature trees on the site and allowed him to do grading and filling where trees were removed and repairs to a drainage system that had been damaged. Ulrich has admitted that he did bring in approximately 4000 cubic yards of fill later that year to prepare the building site. This all appears mute in consideration of the building site now. The huge stock piles of earth cover everything. The neighbors claim the house has been raised above existing grade. The filling within the 0-75' setback area does not involve major changes in elevation but does involve filling of about 3 to 6 inches top soil for planting of grass. Staff has requested silt fencing along the entire disturbed area adjacent to the lagoon. It is my understanding from staff that this wall was done sometime around the third week of October. The applicant was advised to file an after-the-fact conditional use permit. The additional filling and grading completed within the original Blohorn property and the Ulrich property is not covered by this land use application and staff will ask that a separate after-the-fact application be filed. From reports of the neighbors and bujIding contractor's staff on site, this work was completed on November 0th & 10th, a week before the November 18th Planning Commission meeting. This involves major filling and grade changes never reviewed with staff. Staff has been advised by the Public Works Department that the re ported excavation of the wetlands involved the sewer connection and a clean out pipe installed at the edge of the wetlands. The elevation of the basement floor is at 933, the flood plain elevation of 931.5 requires that the floor be at a minimum elevation of 932.5; most City codes would ask for a 933.5 elevation. The first floor or ceiling of the basement is 12 feet high. The west portion or one third of the foundation will require 2 feet cuts into the upper slopes. There is nothing in our code that limits the height of a basement. The height of a structure is determined per diagram enclosed for your review. The house does not exceed 30 feet from proposed finished grade. Zoning File #991 November 20, 1985 Page 2 of 2 After the Planning Commission meeting, staff called for a meeting with the architect, project manager and builder. They advised that Ulrich hired an outside contractor to come in and perform the job and that they, the architect, project manager or builder had no knowledge of his intention to move this fast. Staff has advised both those in attendance at this meeting and the supervisor at the site that all grading and filling will cease until the City reviews and acts on the final grading and landscape plan for the site. Staff has allowed the following activities: 1. Complete filling of sewer trench from Bohn's Point Road. 2. Complete back filling around house to save frost footings/foundation - this involves filling of crushed rock and top soil from stock pile from foundation excavation. Unfortunately, the crushed rock will be transported by approximately 70 dump trucks. 3. Removal of stockpiled dirt from City right-of-way. Once again, staff can find no problem with the proposed structure. We are dealing with a house of some 33,000 s.f. The foundation excavation and stock piling of earth is not unusual for a house of this size. The original grading and drainage plans showed nothing unusal with a house of this size. Staff recommends that we do not stop work on the house but stop all grading and filling as outlined above. Please advise me if you want staff to issue citations or limit other activities on the site. s' TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhacdson, City Administrate DATE: December 2, 1985 SUBJECT: Ulrich Property, 1535 Bohn's Point Road Jeanne Mabusth and Toro Jacobs met with the project manager and contractor for the subject property on Wednesday, November 27th. At that meeting they discussed their intended landscape plans and conditional use permit. In addition to outlining the permit fees and work that needs to be done prior to the next consideration by the Planning Commission on this matter, it was indicated to these individuals that should any further landscaping work be done which has not been expressly approved by the staff in advance of the work being done will result in a citation to the parties involved. HEIGHT OF j3UILDING - Having reviewed the applicable ordinances together with the site it is our opinion that the height of the building as constructed is legal and under our codes had the house had a different design that conformed to the original contours they could have resulted in a structure that was 4 to 6 feet higher than the one being constructed. The facts of the situation as it relates to this house are as follows; - Basement - Constructed at 933. total 12 foot height. ” Grade and Original Building Envelope - Presently investigating the amount of fill that was possibly done on the site prior to issuance of the original foundation permits back in July of 1985. Based on the estimates this filling would have possibly raised the site a maximum of 2 feet. Although not possessing original contours for the site we are av;are that the site originally had a ridge that ran through part of it, and in fact, the original topography in one area where the house is going in was at least 6 feet above what will be the finished grade for the house. On the other hand there was extensive moving of soils from one area to fill-in in the other area to flatten out the site. Within the purview of the code this is considered normal and usual grading of the site under the exception allowed in section 10.03 subdivision 21. This site modification is within the bounds of site modifications done in several other areas including: 1145 VJyndmere Road - 11C5 Wyndmere Road - 1180 Wyndmere Road - 3229 Casco Circle B Jackson Hong Kim - Swanson - Height of Building - Both our zoning code and the Uniform Building Code address determination of building height. Our ordinance in all the residential zones allov/s for 2 1/2 stories or 30 feet. The height of the structure is determined by measuring the mean (or average height as defined in the Building Code,) of the highest gable, which in standard practice is the distance half way between the eaves and the peak of the roof. (See attachment) Within that definition this building does conform to the height limitation within the definition as stated and applied in Orono. The appropriate measurement for height of building under the zoning code is 5 feet out from the foundation of the highest point to the highest gable on a hip roof on the front yard side of a structure. Under our definitions lakeshore lots do not have a front yard and in this case since the front yard is normally the street side in non- lakeshore lots we would use the street side in this case. From the finish grade to the top peak of the structure at the highest gable, however, the height in total will be 38 feet. As a side note the height of this building is in concert with the heights found in other developments including the development at the Pink Palace, the development south of 15 on 19, and the Stielow Addition (Oxford Road). NEIGHBOR*S VIEW - VJhile the Sweatts, as non-lakeshore owners, will lose a portion of their view by this construction they will gain a portion upon removal of the existing structure on .the site. The new structure does sit back substantially from the average setback and does not impact the lake view of abutting lakeshore owners. The problem with our current ordinances is that they addressed ground height as being that from finished grade, not original grade, together with having the maximum height measured as the mean distance rather than total distance to the top. Staff has been reviewing other ways of handling extensive site alteration in conjunction with buildings together with ways of dealing with maximum height, however, they would not be applicable in this case and if drawn too tightly would require everyone who builds in Orono to come in for a conditional use permit if it significantly limits site grading. Should you have further comments or questions, please feel free to contact us. cci Mr. and Mrs. Sweatt PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that the City Council accept the information from staff regarding the Ulrich property. Ayes , Nays \l .s U'J ^ ^ * <ilTY OP ORONb ' t-v .<■• V\ •1‘ 1) GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION /O ~rr' ■ • ■ / D i - s./.- <Hi> Site Address 1595 Bohn's Point Road, Wayzata, MN 55391 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 08-117-23-44-00-12 Please check one - Is the property __3^ (for Conditional Use Applications only) abstract or torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name .T, l^r^ph Phone 612-471-8103 Mailing Address 1595 Bohn's Point Road, Wayzata, MN 55391 OWNER Name William J. Ulrich Phone 612-471-8103 Mailing Address 1595 Bohn's Point Road, Wayzata, MN 55391 Date Property Acquired 11/85 (month/year) I (do) (idaxnot) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS $100.00 a) Residential accessory Use $150.00 b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 c) Duplex Ciedit/Bldg $250.00 d) Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 f) Land Alteration Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore DDn/Dxn — cQo schedule TlfOMAS B. IllJMPIIRKY, .Jr. ATTORNEY AT LAW orricc (012) a3S<3eoo l.A mi IN, HOrFMAN, nAl.V «r I.INnoiillK. 1/ru. 1500 HORTHWCSTC.RN riNANClAL CCNTfP 7900 ACRXCS AVtNUC SOuTH MINNCAPOLIS, HINNCSOTA 554JI al Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation Vacation With Subdivision r OTHER APPLICATIONS - CONT. _ _ _ _ $250.00 Rezoning $200.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District lr-IB Present Use of Property XX Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Application for after-the-fact land filling on adjacent property between 1535 and 1595 Bohn’s Point Road._______________ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you can obtaii this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Governmeni Cernter 348-3271) 3.Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. • - -on the above list with no return address. % 4. Certificate of survey. 5. Construction plan, if applicable. 6. Plat Map. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. 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 Date V* The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further J authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, 1 agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of i investigation and yerifio6t:>^n this request. • Owner's signature Dc9tc \Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 davs ^4 * i- L' k * • S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO ) ss. Ir Pati Peterson, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County# Minnesota# do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of # 1018, has been mailed to the attached property owners list on the 4th day of April# 1986. In Witness Whereof# I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 4th day of April# 1986. H O 2 > S> X 23 -o n > o rn ;gou go XI I I oo ) -4 O rc u m m > XI a :v >o 3 XI m 3 Ou a XI § ? ^ o 3§:O •- -< fv» H H O N gi . nSc.ss'"? M MII a o O Q Cl ui M m m ui z ^ ^ iH H m o ►- o ^ H «»» XI o f 5°o o gw ) -4 Z > > X 3 XJ m > \ •<> m o XIo XI s m XI •V XIo•o im go XI o a o w mm*-© ggso oH f| ^ ll — ^ i|i'"I a s ss Ui m m r f- 01 o o w ► w m _ ^ o)ui X o oc°§ 5i:i 22 z m w •-Sgg-l^ UI z M ► 5 w W H H r- O 04 5§ XI vja _ H O XI Z > >• Xj> X 2 o 3 :p M n fn > XI \ -<> m zn XI > o o 3 XI XI m g > U1 M M ^ -< 04 f- r* UI M UI r- r* 04 > M M ui o c. o w ffW S ui Q Q S 5 ^ -< M 3®S: 1 pi %9 b» ®i rvj► _ r r o o © S © © 'f H g > fi UI o S S $ 5 * m m vi |8S s S ))) H O 3 3 XI m XI m > XI \ -< > > ni 2 O a XI > a a 3 XI XI m £ 04 ni m o 04 > a 04 ©-< © Cl c, fs> N © > _ ©> 9 2 UI O H 09 O ©> g © _ I 35811? 3SS55 si:aS§^3.A m 0__ 3S Hr IM“1535 g04 m r-o o WII 5E oo Z 01 S > fo m M UI B _ fu >_•<<© oi 04 © a3iS5S04 M M © ^ X 1H M M z r9 O 9 XI © 04 © M n Q© Z X X 31 04 04 H Z Z 0 04 C Z X 1 10 © m z f>9 0 0 XI © ©©Mm © S3'"83S © z z 31 ©© H m 0 © 9B © © 3IS.3S ^0 rn in ^ X XI XI z 0 0 -H 0 Hr ^r*- 5 z 0 0 HO M exgg-m 0 H XI © © 0 n g » S ^■r S UI m m > z > > X 3 -O m > N -<> m O XIa XI iim *n XI go XI m C 04 XI XI O 04 > f\> M 04 © •< rs> n © M ^ O X M H © XI © > O O > I X 04 © © O M > r» ni OI 9 3 ^ g © R m M B w H MIS5^3£ % ©> X o o a > -Im o o2 © © 3 :om § Ssm • •oM 04 ^ O Ut © o I I.'^llTV or ONOMO'■'■wL Th« Haarino* South ■fOVMI on I rsfesrs Nown fiiiv Mondi wiM ho(d PubOe Qwnbm at 1276 Monday, Apm 21,1666 pticadona: ' . a’- 1.-^1014 TUd ioifd of OoMmora «l Mg on 6w Mml tar a MMd portad«f ttma in ardor of eoMMniod buldbiga <A . .•<' ." 2.—#1016 Martlt# ’a. Hiony. !;1676 6i-#1017 MOfili 1600 V 4.-«1016 WMMiTuiigli. 1666 and 1606 Bohn's Poltd noad-MMNho^ OondWonai UasPsnw6fafiaaior ,1Mno»rtgBBdOi6on6is ^Mtatf'o Mwahors propatflas. / 8.-#ioaoBMia6MMwgiiJi^^ fitiwH6ao|l •.•Mdiotl Mietiwoi > Mow—Otsi ____toBialrisrtdan ndanasiisa gy 7.~«1022 ChartW A. MnI. Lm-VartMoa to hawMoOM Mi l'^4076 Pall k . lion of a r Mpan ---------------. ^______tar rai4aa> H fta Chy Oftleaa. . • . t •• y- • C6y of Orono * Ita. 'HbnattB Oowmlaalen I •' • Joanna A. Mahueth \ . ‘ BuikHno 6 Xonino AdRomatraior f (Publahad In ThaLator 6 Pionoar 46116,1966) Affidavit of Publication state of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER. Mound, Min nesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A. ) The nev/spaper has complied with all the re quirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B. ) The printed - which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for _ f successive weeks: It v/ds first published Tuesday, f7 ^the ^ day of 9/UL.. 19. and was thereafter printed and published every Tuesday, to and including Tuesday, the day of ___19 Authorized Agent Subscribed and sworn to me on this B£hd£|j NOTARY 7U8U&MINK|9Blari PubliC CARVER COUNTY Commnston Expires Aut. 3,1988 Rat9 Infonnatlon (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users lor comparable space: $7.64 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $4.54 per Inch. P) Rato actually charged for above matter: $4.54 per IrKh Each additional successive week: $3 03 per inch April 11, 1986 ^ I Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55322 Dear Jeanne: I am writing this letter in response to your request for additional informa tion regarding *.he construction of a geothermal heating and cooling system, the completion of construction of the seawall around the existing lagoon and the drainage relief system which was previously installed on the property. Regarding the geothermal proposal, I have included a brochure that explains the general principles of the system. Basically, a geothermal system pumps water from a well, circulates it through a heat exchanger and discharges the water into the lake. Our system is in the design stages and will not be completed for approximately 60 days. We are aware that a conditional use permit will be necessary for Installation of underground pipes. At this point, it is premature to make an application to the City for work that may be necessitated within 75 feet of the laxeshore. Your second request was for more information regarding the seawall. You may recall that at an earlier Planning Commission meeting Mr. Ulrich and I presented pictures showing the existing lagoon and seawall. I believe we indicated that Mr. Ulrich had a desire to extend the existing seawall around the balance of the lagoon. At present, because of other priorities, we have not obtained the necessary engineering drawings nor had the opportunity to obtain Installation bids. Those two steps are necessary before we can finalize plans for this particular project. Again, we understand that a conditional use permit from the City v;ill be necessary. As you are aware, we will also need approvals from the Department of Natural Resources. Quite frankly, this has not been a priority project because of the immediacy and significance of the other requests currently pending before the City. With regard to the drainage relief system, you may recall that we had a meeting with various City Staff, including yourself, Bruce Schmitt and me. During that meeting the City Staff authorized backfilling, removal of stock piles from the right-of-way and the completion of the drainage relief system. That system consists of a two foot deep sewer rock with filter fabric buried entirely below grade. The system was inspected and approved by Tom Jacobs. The function of the system is to relieve hydrostatic pressure by diverting water away from the foundation walls of the project. We would like the Planning Commission members and City Council members to understand the full scope of this construction project. As a result, we have shared this additional information with you so that you may include it with your staff reports. However, we do feel it is premature for us t > submit conditional use permits for the geothermal system and for the construction of To: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth April 11, 1986 page two I t' of the seawall. Both these aspects of the project involve approvals by the Department of Natural Resources as well as the City. Additionally, there is certain engineering work that needs to be completed. These two aspects of the project are not of the same significance as the necessity of obtaining the lot split and dealing with the issue of fill previously placed on the property. In L event, I hope this provides sufficient information for you and the Planning Commission and City Council members so that there is a full and complete understanding of the scope of this project. As you well know, it is vital to our interest that the lot split issue be resolved immediately in order that we can deal with our financing options. If you have any questions, please call me at your convenience. Sincerely, John Noble Project Coordinator work phone: 541-9344 x560 JN/cy Enclosure y « • . . V Supply Duct ^ •■^» <» ♦•-r w.• ^-». Aw^t .V* -J •-, ■**. 7"^i * »”‘-' -.* ; *^ • * .» ..T. - .ir -•••-«t - - • •• •!•• V Water Return Pond Stream Plenum Cooling Coils Heating Coi I Heated Refrig( Line i. T ihiS Blower Unit vir* r f-* ' Return to Heat Exchanger Refrigerant Compressor Water-to-Refrigerant Heat Exchanger -<il^ 3-. • * •■:;- -1 ’’'rV-^..- r-^ Water Supply Well Water Pressure Tank i YOU AND YOUR HEATING & COOLING NEEDS GENERATED FROM WATER TETCO*^ absorbs heat from water and changes this literally free energy source into usable high temperature heat for domestic heating purposes. Step 1—Water, supplied by a well or other suitable source, flows through tubes located inside a water-to> refrigerant heat exchanger. Surrounding the water tubes is a second container filled with extremely cold refrigerant. This cold refrigerant absorbs heat from the water, lowering the water temperature to the needed level. s nowStep 2—^The refrigerant, which ha acquired a considerable amount of heat from the water, enters the compressor where it is pressurized, increasing its temperature to approximately 180'F. Step 3—^The hot refrigerant circulates through a refrigerant-to-air heat exchanger. Air, circulated by a blower unit is heated as it flows past the refrigerant-to-air heat exchanger and is then distributed throughout the home. As the hot refrigerant flows through the refrigerant-to-air heat exchanger, it cools and condenses to a liquid state. Step 4—^The expansion device acts as a refrigerant flow restrictor. As the liquid refrigerant leaves, its temperature and pressure are reducec to approximately 32 “F. The cold refrigerant now enters the water-to-refrigerant heat exchanger, and the process repeats itself in a continuous cycle. OPERATION OF THE TETCO' WATER-SOURCE AIR CONDITIONING COIL TETCO- directly air conditions by circulating cold water through a large finned coil. Warm air passing across the fins is cooled as it transfers its heat to tne colder water. No compressor is used in the TETCO* process (as in ordinary heat pumps). The only electricity consumed is for the operation of a blower unit and a pump. The large savings are obvious. i # V OPERATION OF THE TETCO ' HEAT EXTRACTOR The TETCO Heat Extractor absorbs low-grade energy in the form of heat from well wait?* mo cnanges tn.* Ic w- jia.jr energy into usable high temperature heat for domestic heating purposes Step 1 — Water, supplied by a well or other suitable source, flows through tubes located inside a water to refrigerant heat exchanger. Surrounding the water tubes is a second container, filled with extremely cold refrigerant This cold refrigerant absorbs heat from the water, lowering the water temperature to within several degrees of the freezing point. Step 2—The refrigerant, which has now acquiree! a considerable amount of heat from the water, enters the compressor where is it pressurized to approximately 245 pounds per square inch, increasing its temperature to approximately 18t' degrees Fahrenheit. Step 3—The hot refrigerant circulates through a refrigerant to air heat exchanger. Air. circulated by a blower unit. ij> heated as it flows past the refrigerant to air heat exchanger and is then distributed throughout the home As the hot refrigerant flows through the refrigerant to air heat exchanger, it cools and condenses to a liquid state. Step 4 —The expansion device (capillary tube) acts as a refrigerant flow restrictor. As the liquid refrigerant leaves the capillary tube, its temperature and pressure arc reduced to approxin.^'tly 32 degrees Fahrenheit and 57 pounds per square inch. The cold refrigerant now enters the water to refrigerant heat exchanger and the process repeats itself in a continuous cycle. ■«. •>. PTION LYDIARO'S PARK", Lake, Minnetonka PTIONS that part of Lot 1,"LY0IARD'S PARK". Lake Minnetonka, lying Northerly of the following ine and its 5f;utliwesterly extension: Beginning at the point of intersection of the South North 83 feet of said Lot 1 with the East line of said Lot 1; Ifience Westerly along said of the North 03 feet a distance of 305 feet; thence deflecting left 23 degrees to the shore e Minnetonka, and said line there ending f Lot 1, "I.YDIARD'S PARK", Lake Minnetonka, lying Southerly of the following described ^ y-'-tliwester!e/tensionr IJeqjnninq at the point of intersection of the South line of ; » K ♦ I » I ^ ^ • /*4 f ft ^ ^ I \ WILLIAM ULRICH DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS Drainage Area of pond before constructiont 6>62 acres Drainage Area of pond after constructions 7.86 acres ■ 342,382 sq. ft. m I. Original Runoff 100 year storm Tc - 5 minutes Cbefore ■ 0.35 Qbefore - CiA - (0.35)(9.3)(6.62) - 21.5 CFS II. New Runcff Factor into Pond: Additional Driveway: 2680 sq. ft. x 0.90 - 2412 Additional House Roof: 4284 sq. ft. x 1.00 “ 4284 Additional Concrete Apron & Sidewalk: 185 sq. ft. x 1.00 « 185 Remaining Area: 335,233 x 0.35 ■ 117,332 342,382 X 0.36 - 124,213 III. New Runoff: • (0.36)(9.3)(7.86) ■ 26.3 CFS IV. Stage - Storage Table: ELEV 930.0 931.0 932.0 933.0 WATER LEVEL (FT) AREA (FT2) INC. VOL (FT3) ACCUM VOL (FT3) 23,288 30,048 36.420 46,228 26,668 33,234 41,324 0 26,668 59,902 101,226 V. Stage - Discharge Table: Existing 12" C.M.P. with inlet control ELEV WATER LEVEL (FT)HW/D Q (CFS) 930.0 931.0 932.0 933.0 ■1- VI. t/tp 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 tiJL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 AJL_ Inflow hydrograph is a step function approximation to the dimensionless hydrograph given in bureau of reclamation "Design of Small Dams." tp ■ 5 min, Qp » 26.3 CFS Q/QP t(Min)Q(CFS)t/tp Q/Qp 0 .024 .095 .21 .35 .50 .65 .79 .90 .98 1.00 0.98 0.90 0.85 0.74 0.64 0.55 0.48 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 0 0.63 2.50 5.52 9.21 13.15 17.10 20.78 23.67 25.77 26.30 25.77 23.67 22.36 19.46 16.83 14.47 12.62 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 0.42 0.36 0.31 0.27 0.24 0.20 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 VII. Routing TableAsij - (Ij - 0j)(.5)(60 sec/Min) Time (Min.)Inflow (CFS)Storage (Ft3) 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 1'‘.5 14.0 14.5 JLS_0_ 0 0.63 2.50 5.52 9.21 13.15 17.10 20.78 23.67 25.77 26.30 25.77 23.67 22.36 19.46 16.83 14.47 12.62 11.05 9.47 8.15 7.10 6.31 5.26 4.73 3.95 3.42 3.17 2.63 2.37 Pin 0 A 0/0 A18.9/18.9 ^ 74.7/93.6 A 165/258.6 A275.4/534 A 393.3/927.3 A 511.5/1438.8 A 620.4/2059.2 A 705.9/2765.1 A 767.0/3532.2 A 780.9/4313.1 A 764.4/5077.5 A 700.8/5778.3 A 6f0.3/6438.6 A 573/7011.6 A 493.2/7504.8 A 420.9/7925.7 A 363.6/8289.3 A 315.0/8604.3 A 267.3/8871.6 A 227.4/9099 A 195.3/9294.3 A 171.6/9465.9 A 140.1/9606 A 124.2/9730.2 A 100.8/9831 A 84.9/9915.9 A 77.4/9993.3 A 60.9/10,054.2 ^1 /in ir>7 1 t(Min)Q(CFS) 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 1'».0 1^.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 11.05 9.47 8.15 7.10 6.31 5.26 4.73 3.95 3.42 3.17 2.63 2.37 2.10 1.84 1.58 1.32 1.05 1.05 Outflow (CFS) 0 0 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 0.10 0.14 0.20 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.35 0.36 0.39 0.44 0.50 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.60 jtvAn \ • t I I ^ 3 iZi 32 33 34 35 Time (Min.)Inflow (CFS) 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 1.84 1.58 1.32 1.05 Storage (Ft3) A 45/10,152.3 A 37.2/10,189.5 A 29.1/10,218.6 ^ 21.3/10,239.9 Outflow (CFS) 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.61 PEAK B.Approximate Area of Lot 2 ■ 4.0 acres ■ 174,240 Area Draining to Lake Minnetonka before construction Area Draining to Lake Minnetonka after construction 163,964 ft.2 3.8 acres 136,720 ft.2 3.1 acres I. Original Runoff to Lake from Lot Cbefore ■ 0.35 Qbefore - (0.35)(9.3)(3.8) - 12.4 CFS II. New Runoff Factor: 8200 ft2 12,660 ft2 1657 ft2 Driveway: House roof: Brick Areas (patio & Planting wall) Concrete Sidewalk: 761 ft2 Remaining Ar«a: 113,442 ft2 X X X 0.9 1.0 1.0 7390 12660 1657 1.0 0.35 136,720 ft2 X X x“0.45 761 39705 62,163 III. New Runoff - (0.45)(9.3)(3.1) - 13 CFS C. Summary The Ulrich property (Lot 2, Lydiards Park) drains in two directions, one to the west directly to Lake Minnetonka, one to the south to an crristing pond. The increase in runoff to the pond from added rooftop and blacktop would result in the pond rising a small amount (0.4 feet) in a 100 year storm. The runoff directly to the lake to the west increases 5% from 12.4 CFS to 13.0 CFS due to additional rooftop and blacktop in that drainage area. r \w i ! i yj O < J u) sS a. jv\ I iJ I u.‘ n9<1 c:o V) f o •W.7.y m w^M ■r»v«iL>2V| IMV. •aoxij.? *4 u u:o d: my 0 3 o \n coc c v:» < u> r4 •V o" d . ^ BonesUoo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. mo 2335 IV. Trunk Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 6126364600 Engineers & Architects Otto a. tUmeMruo, P.E KolH'rt W. Hownr, t*.E J C. AmJerhk, H.L. Bfuftjont A. i enitHrrg, P.E. h .harriL. Turner, P.E. Jurnes C. Oisun, P.E. April 16, 1986 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Re; File No. 139-1018 William Ulrich Olrnn P. Cook. P E. kt ilh A. Uurdun. f i hoinu% L. A)U>r>. P E. Pnhurd footer, P.E. Pobrri C. Si.hunHht. P.E. Aturvin L. Sor\aiu, P.E. Donatd C. Bursar dr, P.E. Jerry A. Bourdotr, P.E. Murk A. Heruort, P.E. Ted A' Fietd, P E Mnhuet T Pautmann, P.E. PotH-n P pjejjerir. P L. iJuvid O. Luikoiu, P E. Thomas Ptierujn, P.E. Michael C. Lynch, P.t. kuren L. Wilhs, P.E. James P. Muland. P.E. Kenneth P. Artderum, P.E, Keith .4. Baihmann, P.E. Mark R. Roifi. P.E. Robert C. Pussek, A.LA. Thomas E. Angus, P.E. Si. at I t. Young, P-L. Charles A. trtekson Leo M. Pawebky Harlan M. Olson Sasun M. Eberhn Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the current site grading plan to determine what elevations have been changed from the original grading plan. We have also reviewed the basement elevation relative to the original contours. The original site grad ing plan indicated a basement floor elevation of 933.4. The attached site plan (Figure I) indicates various depths between original ground and the base ment floor. Area I required an excavation of 4 to 7 feet. Area II required an excavation of 7 to 10 feet and Area III required an excavation of 10 to 17 feet. The developer has proposed to outlet the footing drain to the lagoon area. We would not see this as a problem if properly constructed. The current site grading plan directs storm water runoff from the east 1/3 of the lot south and east to the lake. This plan directs the runoff through a pond which should improve the water quality prior ^o entering the lake. The original site grading plan directed *>11 storm water runoff west to the boat lagoon on the property and then into Crystal Bay. We feel the revised site plan is an improvement to the overall drainage plan for the area. The current site grading plan proposes changes from the original site plan in three primary areas as shown on Figure II. Area I would be south of the home and has become an option because of the lot line rearrangement. Area II con sists of a proposed bc:;in south of the driveway near Bohns Point Road. Area III consists of a berm north of the driveway near Bohns Point Road. The changes proposed in Area I are beneficial as a level area on the lot would be provided to improve greandwater percolation, fill above original ground in this area would range from 0 to 8 feet. Area II would consist of a berm and plantings to screei; the propc. ty from the road. We recommend that no filling be allowed on City right-of-way and that no slope exceed 3:1 unless retained. Page 1. 4516d 30 Year Anniversary city of Orono Orono, MN Re: File No. 139-1018 Wm. Ulrich April 16, 1986 If the slope facing the street were to be retained, the wall could not exceed 3.5 feet in height. Slopes above the wall should not exceed 4:1. Fill above original ground in this area would range from 0 to 10 feet. Area III would consist of a berm and plantings to screen the property from the road similar to Area II. The comments for Area II are applicable to Area III. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:li End. 4516d MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 18, 1986 11003 HANS G. WEILER & DON KEMPF 1125 & 1135 NORTH ARM DRIVE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:04 - 8:20 Mr. & Mrs. Hans G. Weiler were present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained the request for a lot line rearrangement which was previously approved in 1972 in order to build a new house at 1125 North Arm Drive but was never filed. Mabusth noted that Parcel C, which is actually a part of Lots 22 & 31, will be acquired by Weiler. Mabusth explained that Lot 6 is used as a riparian lot and staff recommends requiring an open space easement over this lot. Planning Commission reviewed with applicant the proposed lot combinations. There were no comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Goetten, to recommend approval of the subdivision of a lot line rearrangement subject to the following conditions: 1. Kempf to combine Lots 23, 30 and rearranged 22 & 31. 2. Weiler to combine Lots 20, 21, 32, 33 with Parcel C. 3. Weiler to execute special lot combination with City formally approving riparian use of Lot 6 by Weiler and recognizing special ownership relationship (Lot 6 cannot be sold as separate parcel). Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. ^vTlHfi^WlLLIAM ULRICH "■ 155s 6 1595 BOHN'S POINT ROAD SUBDIVISION OP A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:25 - 8:48 Representing Mr. Ulrich was his attorney, Gregory T. Halbert. Also present in Mr. Ulrich's behalf were Mark Gronberg, John L. Noble, and Don Brauer. Goetten questioned why this application was being submitted without the entire plan as requested by the Planning Commission back in November. She stated that she would not be willing to approve anything until the total picture was presented for review. Mi. >*MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 18, 1986 11004 WILLIAM ULRICH continued Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Conditional Use Permit application was not before the Planning Commission at this time, only a request for a lot line rearrangement and that there is nothing in the ordinance to prohibit application or consideration of the subdivision as a separate application. Planning Commission may take formal action to table pending receipt of the conditional use permit application for the illegal fill. Zoning Administrator Mabusth briefly explained the request and noted that each parcel appears to satisfy the standards of the zoning district and staff recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement. Rovegno stated that he would like to see the entire plan of the property but feels denial of this request would be inapppropriate because it meets the standards. Chairman Kelley questioned how the Planning Commission could recommend approval of subdivision when the conditional use permit for fill has not yet been satisfied. Attorney Gregory Halbert stated that the subdivision application is separate conceptually from the other issues being dealt under the conditional use permit. There were no comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Goetten, ser:onded by Chariman Kelley, to table this matter until the April Planning Commission meeting or until information needed is received. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. #842 ROBERT ZIMMERMAN 3415 CRYSTAL RAY ROAD VARIANCE - SECOND REVIEW PROPERTY OWNERS RE-NOTIFIED Robert Zimmerman was present for this matter. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the request which was tabled in 1984 subject to applicant revising his plans. He noted that applicant has revised his plan to include a garage addition and proposes removal of existing hardcover resulting in net increase of 2,2% in 75-250' zone. McDonald stated that she felt it would be a nice addition to the neighborhood. i ‘ ICA ^ % Kathleen Blatz, City Attorney Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator February 27, 1986 Ulrich Guest House sJr- In my memo of 2/14/86, I advised that the conditional use permit of 1981 for guest house use was no longer valid because the kitchen had not been constructed and the guest house use discontinued for over 6 months. Mr. Ulrich has since advised that the guest house was in use approximately 4 months ago. The improvement of the second story pool/changing room area in 1981 did involve creation of bedroom and sitting room area, upgrading of bathroom, and kitchen area was "roughed in". The guest house served the previous owner in its present state without the proposed kitchen. There was no formal resolution drafted in 1981 granting the conditional use permit. The motion to approve merely cited the kitchen improvement and not the other interior changes that created the present guest house. Staff would like you to respond to the following: 1) Can the existing guest house structure be used in its present state by the new owner without a new conditional use permit? 2) If the new owner wishes to install a kitchen, must Ulrich obtain a new conditional use permit? We have never required residents to apply for new conditional use permits whenever renovations or upgrading are planned for legally recognized guest houses. TO:Jean Mabusth FROM;Kathleen Blatz DATE:March 26, 1986 RE:Ulrich Guest Home V ^ I and not a formal resolution. The motion to approve cited the kitchen improvements but did not condition the approval of the conditional use permit upon the kitchen being completed. The argument that the lack of kitchen invalidates the conditional use permit is also not supported by the City Code's definition of a guest house which reads as follows: §10.20, Subd. 3G. Guest Houses. A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house. The guest house definition does not specifically require that a kitchen be included and any inference would be subject to considerable question and debate. Without a resolution or similar written instrument documenting the City Council's intention to condition the 1981 conditional use permit on the kitchen being completed, the current state of the guest house does not put the validity of the conditional use permit in question. It should be noted, however, that any future structural alteration of the guest house by the owner will necessitate a building permit and review by staff as set forth in §10.07, Subd. 6, of the City Code. CONCLUSION 1. Based on the facts as currently known to the City staff, the owner may continue to use the guest house without obtaining a new conditional use permit. The 1981 conditional use permit is sufficient authorization for conditional use unless further proof is offered that the guest house was in fact not used for a period of at least six months. 2. Any further structural remodeling of the kitchen will require a building permit but will not necessitate a conditional use permit. This conclusion is based on the grounds that the original conditional use permit was not conditioned on the inclusion of a completed kitchen and that the City Code's definition of guest house does not specify that a guest house must have a kitchen. If you have any questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me. KAB/jk 4443e -2- i AScfbadk. lines 'I \ (.ng oori SI 9.67 404.9Z* Of .ft tpfol divtdIdino line ! S5' 3osoc^ .: ^ V - 100.00 ‘ i.0^ I Cui'sfinj^ house ;__ i?oO*a • I 7s* 'C^^S:r f I 35* tfl074 •• • 41* «343.5S’ .• ■ ■t-' ‘ DcSCRlPTIOtl "1 2. "LYLiIARO'S PARK", Lake, Minnetonka } DESCRIKIOHS 2 a'.d that part of lot 1,"LYDIARD'S PARK". Lake Minnetonka, lying Northerly of the following •ril’d !inp and its Southwesterly extension: Beginning at the point of intersection of the South . tti’ It-irth 83 feet of said Lot 1 wltn the East line of said Lot 1; thence Westerly along said lino of the fiirth 03 feet a distance of 305 feet: thence di ’flecting left 23 degrees to the shore • of Lake Minnetonka, and said line there ending Dart of Lot 1, "I.YDIARD'S PARK", Lake Minnetonka, lying ibuthe.iy of the following described . -:ni If ‘V !•*hwester!•.' extension: Beginning at the point of intersecUnn of the ?«uth line of ;,:’rth fei’t of said tot 1 \iilh the East 1 ne of said Lot 1; thence W'*,terly along said South • of Tlf-' -xirtli o3 feet a distance of 305 feet; thence deflecting left '3 degrees to the slioreline ,a<e Minnetonka, and said line there ending. i ifi ■i«a Mayor Date Clerk Date I-' 1 inch e 100 feet Oeceiabcr 9, 1935 I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that 1 am a duly Registered Land Survey and Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. COFFIN 6 GROriBERG, IfIC. /*r579.^7 S&fbdcX lines 'I 404..92 •"■*5 to • • ^ \ \ I09 oorl Hi ,215^(80 ^oial ropoeeci dividing line. i SS* I \ !( I lobroo* fSo. o ^ j^xfsfing hou! • I' • / /» • _F ■■•r.‘.._ \ ^guv.s'f'hjust 35* ... y.•e ; 53* 563.58' t,- $ « IPTION lYDIARO'S PARK", Lake, Minnetonka IPTIONS |that part of Lot 1,"LYDIARD'S PARK". Lake Minnetonka, lying Northerly of the follov/ing ine and its Sr;utl»westorly extension: Beginning at the point of intersection of the South North 83 feet of said Lot 1 with the East line of said Lot 1; thence Westerly along said f the North 83 feet a distance of 305 feet; thence d^^'flecting left 23 degrees to the shore |e Minnetonka, and said line there ending f Lot 1, "LYDIARD'S PARK", Lake Minnetonka, lying Sxjutherly of the fo 1 lowing described is V-vthvest.er]V extension: Beginning at the jX/int of intersection of the South line of iTi ^ * nr n « -< I r> ** »1 r ^.1 1.4. 4 »-1 1 ♦. ..1 ^ }. y f r-* IOC* rsJturcK#]lOAl#X#] MiH«r«lilir»tsl •Ts¥«l Required Existing Variance 1. Lot Area 21,780 sf 5300 sf 16,480 sf or 2. Lot Width 100*49*51* or 51% 3. Street Setback 30*10* proposed 20* or 67% 4. Left Setback 10*8 * proposed 2* or 20% 5. Lakeshore Setback 75*±63* proposed 12* or 16% 6. Hardcover 0-75*0%360 sf proposed 360 sf or 12% 7. Hardcover 75-250*25%760 sf proposed 52.4% (27.4% va 8. Structure in 0-75* 9. Fill/Structure None 360 sf proposed 360 sf Below 931.5*None Some likely (Required) in i f. April 8, 1986 Orono Planning Commission P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota* 55323 We would like to confirm our place on the agenda for the Orono Planning Commission meeting which takes place on April 21. 1986. We would like to propose two solutions to the problems that have annoyed the planning commission thus far for the property located at 3598 North Shore Drive ( Lot #9, Block 2, Baldur Park, Hennepin County.) The first problem concerns parking on the property and access to North Shore Drive ( Hwy 51). We propose to build/locate the driveway adjacent to the property owned by Marilyn and Lou Feger. This will give each lot owner the ability to turn around, pull in and pull out with the highest degree of safety and efficiency avail able. This has been verbally agreed to by the Feger's on March 29, 1.986. The second problem concerns the size of the structure that has been proposed. We propose to reduce the size of the structure from the dimensions fo 36' X 24' to 30' X 24'. The new dimensions ( 30'X 24') would result in a new structure that will be built within the old foundation. We propose a 10' right side setback from the Feger property. We propose a 5' left side setback from the property owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, (MOOT). This is the most obvious solution since after the foundation is entirely excavated there is going to be a hole left on the property. It would also fit the Planning Council's specificat ons not to build within ten feet of the Feger property line. We ask for the left side setback of 5' from the MDOT property because the MDOT land cannot support a structure { as stated in previous planning council meetings), and that in our building 5' from the property line would not create a fire or structure hazard. The final topic of this letter is a question of the possibility in acquiring the property offered by the Minnesota Department cf Transportation. The property in appearance is smaller than the property we would be building our house on. We have not been contacted a«; to the precise date of sale or method of sale, l.'e have been informed of the price that the MDOT is asking for. We believe that the asking price of $30,000.00 for just one of the lots is absurd. Because of these reasons the purchase of the lot is not a viable alternative to consider. We would welcome your thoughts in considering these proposals and look forward to the April Planning Council meeting. Sincerely Evan Meline Benn Bel den I 4 '* * ♦ • I'h kf ».: ■» r Vo"-^ Cc'U i^hj IkoxcI si ------------.>a.*iMi. ffii -> .4-Jgat.r^ 1 ■ i % I . • .p-70 M* • 5 To: From: Date: Subject: Planning Conmiission Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator December 5, 1985 #999 Evan R. Meline, 3598 North Shore Drive - Variances List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Composite Survey With Staff Notes Hardcover Calculations Zoning District - LR-IC, 1/2 Acre Application - Requesting variances to construct a new home on a substandard lot. Variances Required: 1. Lot Area - Required = 21,780 s.f.. Existing = 5,300 s.f. dry buildable Variance = 16,480 s.f. = 76% 2. Lot Width - Required = 100', Existing = 49' Variance = 51' = 51% 3. Street Setback - Required = 30', Existing = 8' Proposed = 20', Variance =10' or 33% 4. Left Side setback - Required = 10', Existing Proposed = 5', Variance = 5' or 50% 10' 5. Right Side Setback -- Required = 10', Existing = 6.5' Proposed = 7.6', Variance = 2.4* = 24% 6. Lakeshore Setback - Required =75', Existing (measured from assumed 929.4 elevation) = 64', Proposed = 57' (house), 51' (deck), Variance = house 18 * or 24%, deck 24' or 32% (also requires variance to allow structure in 0-75' setback area). 7. Hardcover (calculations based on assumed 929.4 elevation) 0-75*: Lot Area = 3,800 s.f. Existing = 190 s.f. = 5% Proposed = 700 s.f. = 18.5% Allowed = 0 s.f. = 0% 75-250': Lot Area = 1,500 s.f. Existing = 535 s.f. = 36% Proposed = 380 + 360 = 740 s.f. = 49% (house)(deck) Allowed = 375 s.f. = 25% Zoning File #999 December 5, 1985 Page 2 Notes - There is no house to the west of this one, so the average lakeshore setback is based only on Feger's house to the east. However, the proposed house is closer to the lake than the Fegers, hence some views may be encroached upon. - In cut-and-pasting a composite of the three surveys for Meline (LaBresh), Fegers, and Pemberton, all done within the last year or so, note there is little consistency as to the location of the shoreline. On none of the surveys was the 929.4* elevation shown, which is technically the contour that lakeshore setbacks are measured from. Based on the 3 surveys, staff in conjunction with applicant's surveyor has created an "assumed 929.4* elevation contour" for setback purposes for this application. - Applicant notes that Hennepin County may consider selling the properties directly west of this property. If this was to occur, the City would likely allow only the adjacent property owner (Meline/LaBresh) to purchase them, giving a little more dry buildable land in the 75-250* zone. The County as of 12/5/85 has made no final decision on sale of these properties. - Applicant has not proposed a garage for this lot - this should be an item for discussion. The applicant, Evan Meline, is purchasing this property from the LaBresh*s subject to being allowed to build a new house. There has been an existing structure on the property for many years, but it deteriorated to the point that the City declared it hazardous, and this fsll the cabin portion was demolished, leaving only a capped basement foundation which is caving in. As noted above, a number of variances are requested by the applicant. The dry buildable lot area as it exists is 5,300 s.f. or 0.12 acre. In the LR-lC zoning district, with a total of 631 developed properties, 619 are greater in area than the property in question, based on the lot area/common ownership study done in 1983-84. A review of the plat maps indicates only a handful of vacant lots in the LR—IC district similar in size to this one and in single separate ownership. From a planning standpoint, it would be preferable that this become a vacant lot based on its substandard size and proximity to the lake. However, we must also consider the substantial property rights of the owner, especially in light of the fact that a house has previously existed on the property. km (Granted) Fegers (Conceptual) Pemberton (Proposed) Meline/LaBresh (Required Standard 6#250 s.f.7,000* s.f.5,300 s.f.21,780 s.f 49.96*49.9*48.71*100* t 5.0%20%**18.5%0% 56.8%52%* ■49%25% 63* 51*51*75*too+20'+/-20*30* 6*10*,5*5*10* k 6.5*15*7.6*10* i S.f % Zoning File #999 December 5, 1985 Page 4 4. Remember that the property is served by and has been assessed for municipal sewer. Are there substantial and adequate hardships shown to justify granting of the requested variances? If not, is there a lesser magnitude of variances you would consider acceptable? Finally, if variances were denied can the property be put to some other reasonable allowed use? 4 ^ ■ ar«f CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION U» / U W' • • / j •//- J4rf 5-^T *• . » » Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional project) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address O' t S-idi't:. Di'iu c- Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Please check one — Is the property _ _ in-^ abstract or torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name ^/A k\) R.Phone 5^9^-«8/03 Mailing Address 3^0? Lu Pltjni yu.ih-M OWNER Name ■I a Phone ^7Q Mailing Address ~7S 7_rffa- .f Date Property Acquired\/f»vi7. / 9^/^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land (#’• PRESENT U2L* OP PROPERTY PiL'GLeiit Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail; ,Q appt S'Za? nKTtyp/ ^Crunci'/fir * VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ^ Lot Width Setback Variances ( X Front x Side Hardcover ^ Rear) Other (OVER) HARDSHIPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from str.ict enforcement of zoning regulations; Hu-e. in erf-fKt Qyti OL I p auo o^/cn. <->i< 2d l> ‘ DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code i\-QkeijcS H REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150 ' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10 ) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Plat Map. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay 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. >,r~^^ ^ hi'^U DateApplicant * s signature'// i OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission membe'rs, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature/'. //' • lA/T 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. - I‘s -----------------‘^— 5?tii ^^.O' ^ « io ►- O fi» o m o 70 c. mo rjt Q C H* o rv>Z M O »-« XI m m XI t/$ m w on L o o rtft>»da*»t)wo.wi; whhM>0 D*MH 0) ^1X»1XH-X (D M O Oa o T3 aTDH" Oi O O O W »-• (0 W O w o H* Pj (0 < n>3* 0) Q> X H H- Qi 0)H* H- rt H* M < 01 3* COrt » ft H- rf H* ^ H* 3 H‘ 3 » 3 3O Pi(D0<iPK^rtU3 ^ a H » 3* (ooia*aa amt^ PihCQi O at{ tctc.Qhcoirt a D* h c*T3 o n » o 0) > o o < o o n < < a < H- (0 Q (D H* (D M» 0) n H t1 H- O (DH- H- ^TJ t» H- a 3 3 (D 3 ft ft H* ft 3 O O Di 3* (1> n> (0 N (0 H* 3 I ft i-n d ! 3^ 3 (D 0 3 D* tn Di 0) ft H- Qu 0» - ft < Qi H* 3* H- H- 3 (D a ft H- O CD H- 3 C 'O O vQ (D ft 3 01 H 3* tl) ft) 3* O CD H* O (D < C 3 3 3“ 0» ft d ft) a ft) 3 t{ H- VQ tr Qi ft) n n> (D O 3 O 0) t< 0 0 3 < (!) ftH'H* Q • ft) 3 3 n o n ft olo H3 (0 O H 3 ft H-- o* 0 0) 3* C ^ »0 tt fl) 3 OP) 3 ft 01 M N 3* (D H-* O W CD 3 H* th 3 3 O d H-iQ n 3 H» O* O ft) (T> 0) (0 3 ti t< 01 ft CO O d t« 3 Hi ft> ^ (1) rt 3 UJ P. O I (ft »H < X Hi ft) uj O H* Ul (ft ^ (ft O' Oi)< H* Qj 0 I-* d p- ft d a < a Qi (ft H* O (ft 01 Qi h 01 (ft ft H ft a ft PI a (ft a H- (ft (ft 3 (ft I 01 X 3 H-iQ H* d 3 C (0 3 *0 ft) ft O' (ft t( H- (ft h (ft 3 O < «Q H- Ml H-0 O a 3 c o O) (ft ft Mlw P) Qi B vQ o ac (ft 0 •< n < M» O (ft ft pi Ht M ao (ft (ft (ft ^ ax >-•3 H- C C < bi 01 3 H- a O' ft H* PI (ft a 3 H* M H-fQ M 3 H* M »0 3 ft O M a O 0|>(ft M» n3 01 0 pi a ' 01 3*0 (ft Qi a Qj Qi n (ft 3 H-O P) d Ml X Qi M H- 01 a ft o •• H- H- CL ft 'O 01 P* »-• N H- o v: 6 a 3 3 (ft P) a a c HiK • p) M(ftOaH*0301 /CX o O 1 o o11ro1zlOOOIUl *oo Ulo Ul<•w O ij 13 n c Ww>oa §wcnaoaw 1 ^ U3 In 0 ^ 'J § 0 u 0 ’ V--- cn 01 01 01 Hi Hi a a c h JN. X u I'J 1 4 ^ 0 n f cn (0 01 cn Hi Ml a Hi H- 3 N O 3 (ft M n o X a H* 01 p) M (ft a H- 3 0) vQ -.T3 a (ft O (ft •I* M > O z' I LAKESHORE REGULATIONS AND HARDCOVER SEC. 10.22. REGULATIONS FOR "LR-IA", "LR-lA-1", "LR-IB", "LR-IC* AND "LR-lC-l" ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Within any "LR-lA”, "LR-lA-l”, "LR-lB", "LR-IC”, or "LR-lC-1" One Family Lakeshore Residential District the following regulations * shall apply: Subd. 1, Lakeshore Set Back Regulations. The set back from the shoreline for lakeshore lots shall be at least 75 feet and no building may be located closer to the shoreline than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent and nearby lots. Subd. 2. Lakeshore Hard Cover Regulations. Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hard cover. Within 250 to 500 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hard cover. Within 500 to 1,000 feet .of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hard cover. Subd. 3. Tree Removal Regulations. No trees within 75 feet of the shoreline with the diameter of six (6) inches or more shall be removed without first obtaining a permit from the Council. •.w ' HAllDCOVER LIMITATIONS /-• A \ \ — ^ • 4 • . ^ \\ • \ \ \ • y. 0^^ 0-75' Zone - 0% Hardcover allowed 75-250' Zone - 25% Hardcover allowed 250-500' Zone - 30% Hardcover allowed 500-1000' Zone - 35% Hardcover allowed Percentage of hardcover for each zone is calculated as follows: Area of hardcover in zone (sq. ft.) _ Pe,c-,ntaae of- - - - - - - - - - -__ X 100 ~ Area of lot in zone (sq. ft.) Jiardcover in zone NOTE: Measure setback distances perpendicular to the shoreline, not along the lot line. 0 . .. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD DECEMBER 16, 1985. PAGE 11 ^AN R. MELINE 3598 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 10:03-10:34 PM ^ Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the affidavit of j publication and certificate of mailing. [ r Even Meline and his associate Bennett G. Belden were present for this application. Lou and Marilyn Fegers of 3590 North Shore Drive were present for the public hearing. Mr. Meline commented that the foundation is still remaining because they felt by cappinq the foundation through the winter it may not shift as much. Also, this should eliminate water running into the foundation in the spring. Mr. Fegers congratulated the applicants on their achievement of tearing down the old house. He had no opposition at this point to the proposed house. Mr. Meline continued to explain that property to the west is currently owned by the Hennepin County Department of Tran sportion. He lias tried for months to acquire this property or a portion of it. This is still pending. At this point there is no p:an for a garage, which may be considered if additional land is acquired. Currently, owner would have to back out onto County Road 51, but there is a shoulder which extends out so as not to back directly out into a lane of traffic. Kelley suggested that should additional land be acquired, perhaps the garage could be located on the Fegers side, thus both properties would have a backup and construct a 1/2 moon shaped drive at the end to eliminate backing onto County Road 51. It was moved by Chairman Callahan, seconded by Sime, to recommend to table application for a variance for Evan Meline until the February Planning Commission meeting until the applicant has the information he is waiting for. i I Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. i #1000 WILLIAM WEAR 2160 WAYZATA BOULEVARD , VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:34-10:40 PM j Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted publication and certificate of mailing. the affidavit of William Wear was present for this application, one present from the public for the hearing. There was no .1^ . ;e 11 Lt of isent orth ining the Lnate jment this iredr thus noon- Road t of 5S no \ / Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date: Subject February 12, 1986 #999 Leslie LaBresh/Evan Meline^ 3598 North Shore Drive - Variance - Second Review List of Exhibits f ll.t'' ^ o Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F - Planning Commission Minutes 12/16/85 ~ Letter From Neighbor Fegers, 1/10/86 - Administrators Response To Fegers Letter 1/29/86 - Letter To Applicant 2/5/86 - Memo and Exhibits of 12/5/85 - 2/12/86 Letter To Hennepin County Department of Transportation Planning Commission tabled this item on December 16, 1985 so that the applicants could firm-up plans to purchase additional property from Hennepin County. As of this writing, the appli cants have stated that the County intends to sell some portion of the adjacent property at a public sale in March. The County apparently intends to keep as right-of-way a strip 40' from the centerline. It is not known how many of the 6 adjacent lots will be sold. The City has advised the County that the subject properties will not constitute a building site, and no dock may be placed on the property, hence it has little value except to the adjacent property owner. Because this land is owned outright by the County, they have a right to sell to whomever they wish, i.e. highest bidder. Presumably, Meline will be the only bidder. If the applicant does acquire additional property, it appears that the majority of it will be in the 0-75' setback area, hence the requested hardcover variance in the 75-250' zone will change little. Please note the correspondence from Fegers and the Building Official's notice that further hazardous building action is pending. From a technical standpoint, the foundation remaining is definitely a hazard, and the documentation exists to ascertain that a structure did in fact occupy the property, hence there would seem to be no viable reason for futher delay in demolishing the structure. Please review the^memo and exhibits of December 5 (Exhibit E). Are there any hardships or unique circumstances which justify granting of variances? f'- iw.. i \ January 10, 1985 3590 North Shore Drive Uayzata, MN 55391 JAN I 31986 CITY I Dear Mrs. Butler: Last Spring uje uinet Council meetings at the variance to build a 10 o several Planning Commission ai Orono tillage Hall. Ue applied for 10 deck. Several weeks ago, we were notified that the owner of the house at 3598 North Shore Drive had applied for a variance. UJhen we arrived at the meeting, another name was on the agenda. The man on the agenda was one of the two men who took the house down and had applied for a variance as he intended buying the property and building a house to sell. What I would like to know is why Orono hasn't enforced their condemnation order? On June 21, 1985, the building was condemned. Why wasn't it enforced and removed within 60 days? Now that the top of the house Is gone, when will the rest of It be removed? The rotten floor and caving-in foundation can be hazardous to anyone accidently going over there. 1 don't want to take any credit away from the two young men who tore the house down, but have you driven by and seen what It looks like now? Please do! How can the lot be sold while it is in the middle of being condemned? How can someone attempting to buy the lot apply for a variance to build on a lot that is only !)0 feet from the lake and is too close to the road to build, and before it is even purchased? While we haven't finished our remodeling yet, we don't have debris and junk laying all over our yard. Last year when our contractor dug our foundation and some of the dirt rolled Into LeBreshe's yard, we were reported and construction was halted until one yard of dirt was removed from their yard of weeds. Have you ever tried to have a nice yard and garden when on either side of you the weeds get cut once a year? For 23 1/2 years we have had to look out at this decaying house that wasn't fit to live in. Everytime a window or door was broken, I was accused of it. Before the road was posted with no parking signs, our guests would be arrested by the Orono police when the LeBresh's would say they were blocking their driveway, even though they didn't have a driveway. If anyone is given a permit to build (2S00 square feet), I am sure that the be back for more and more exceptions My Mife and I would like to see obligation by leveling it and forbid because it can^'t be done and stay wi requirements. on this undersize l^t future occupants will to the building code. Orono fulfill their anyone to build on it thin the Orono zoning We would greatly appreciate your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, Lou Fegers ,f1 1 ( • • 1 ’« » . r i'^V fii'i.!..*ij Ot i ti i CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, MinnesoU 5S323*Munidpa) Office On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka January 29# 1986 Mr. Lou Fegers 3590 North Shore Drive Wayzata# MN 55391 Dear Mr. Fegers# In response to your letter dated January 10, 1986, and as indicated in my phone conversation to you a few days later, we have presented your concerns to the Council regarding the property abutting you at 3580 North Shore Drive. Additionally we are taking steps to attempt to correct the various safety features on the property in discussion with the current property developers, so that it does not present a hazard to persons in the neighborhood. As indicated on the phone we are anticipating this will go back to the Planning Commission for their consideration in February, but would like to correct the hazardous problems prior to that. Should you have any further or comments, please feel free to contact me. S incere](^ M aVk ^rnhcTrdson City Administrator cc: Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator BUILDING & ZONING - 473-7357 ASStSSING ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 47.1 7 158 PUBLIC WORKS - 473 7359 iwfr rcfTv'‘i« ^\‘- 'i^. rORpNO teiiii-.'S-va-i i • M CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, MinncaoU 55323 •Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka February 5, 1986 Evan R. Meline 3509 Pilgrim Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 Re: 3598 North Shore Drive, Orono - Hazardous Building Dear Mr. Meline: On February 4, 1986, I conducted an inspection at the above subject property which revealed that the basement has not been removed. I have spoke with the Zoning Department about this matter and they have told me that your variance application has been tabled. The basement is left in a hazardous condition and must be removed within 20 days or the hazardous building action will be continued. If you have any questions on this hazardous condition, please feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Thomas J. Jacobs, Building Inspector cc:Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Admininistrator BUILDING A ZONING - 473-7357 ASSISSING administration a FINANCI- - 473-7358 •■g ti .>>1 rUBLIC WORKS - 473 7359 ! . V - ' . •; l,V. , ,V, V »*.*A V. ,‘v i ^ .v*!*! C2&® CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 56•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka February 13, 1986 Hennepin County Highway Department 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, MN 55343 Attn: Dave Swanson Re: Properties Adjacent To Hendrickson Bridge On County Road 51 Dear Mr. Swanson: This letter is to summarize for the record the City's policy on the status of County-owned properties on the north side of County Road 51 east of Hendrickson Bridge (P.I.D. #'s 08-117-23 34 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, 0005, 0006). The above referenced parcels taken singly or as a combination, are substandard in dry buildable land area and are considered unbuildable unless variances are granted. Due to the extreme nature of variances which would be required in order to declare this as buildable property, it is highly unlikely that such variances would ever be granted. Furthermore, the Orono Zoning Code prohibits construction of accessory structures on property where no principal structure exists, hence, this property would not be granted permission to construct a dock. The City would oppose any new vehicle access onto this property, and to the City's knowledge no access exists as of this time. It is requested that potential purchasers of the properties in question be informed of the above noted restrictions. Assistant Zoning Administrator ftlilLOINC A /.OMNf; - 473-7357 ASSFSSINC ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 18, 1986 #990 WARD FERRELL continued All the Planning Commission members basically concurred with their opinions stated at the November 18, 1985 Planning Commission meeting, that this property should be allowed a total of only 2 buildable lots. Mr. Ferrell stated that the City of Orono requested him to divide the property back in 1958 so there would not be future problems with building another home, and that this fact should be honored. He also noted that when the zoning changed from a 1 acre to a 2 acre zoning district, he was told that this would not affect existing lots. Assistant Zoning Administor Gaffron reviewed the history of zoning changes in that area from 1950 to 1984. He noted that the proposed lots meet the criteria required of lots in single separate ownership based on the 1975 zoning code, but a density issue and setting a precedent are open, because these are substandard lots in common ownership. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Taylor, to recommend denial of the 3 lots because they do not meet applicable zoning code criteria. Motion, Ayes 2, Nays 3. Motion dies. Rovegno, McDonald, and Goetten voted nay. Rovegno stated that he felt this is a difficult decision because it seems that 3 lots would have met code requirements up until a few years ago. McDonald stated that because of the many years of ownership by applicant, it would be inappropriate to deny. Goetten concurred with McDonald in this matter and stated that 2 lots would be acceptable. It was moved by Rovegno, seconded by Goetten, to recommend denial of 3 lots but could recommend approval of a total of 2 properly laid out building sites and recognizes the efforts, time and reliance the applicant has put in his 1958 application but still recommend denial of 3 lots. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. 0999JBVAN MELINE NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE - SECOND REVIEW Benn Belden, being half owner of the property, was present for this matter. He noted that Evan Meline was unable to be present because he is in Europe. This application was tabled from the December 16, 1985 ' Planning Commission meeting, so that the applicants could firm-up plans to purchase additional property from Hennepin County. was was MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 18, 1986 #999 EVAN MELINE continued Mr. Belden stated that the County intends to sell some portion of the adjacent property at a public sale in March, at which time they plan to bid on the property. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed the plat map indicating the parcel of property Hennepin County intends to sell. He further explained the variances which would be necessary with the proposed plan whether • the applicant acquires additional property or not. McDonald questioned Mr. Belden on when the existing hazardous foundation will be removed. Mr. Belden stated that the foundation is presently capped and will be removed as soon as possible, weather permitting. He noted that the delay has been Mr. Meline's absence and the weather. McDonald stated that any new residence being built should be built within the boundaries of the existing foundation and would not be in favor of granting any variances enfringing on the Fegers property. Goetten stated that she would not approve application as presented, but acquisition of additional property may affect her decision. Rovegno stated that it is a problem lot in that if applicant was not allowed to build, it would become a maintenance problem, however, if the additional property were acquired, a modest dwelling could be built within limitations. Chairman Kelley stated he has a very hard time approving this as being a buildable lot. # McDonald agreed with Chairman Kelley. Taylor stated he would be willing to consider a proposal for construction of a new house under one of two conditions l)if the adjacent property cannot be purchased, consider a structure no larger than the one thats been there 2)if the adjacent property to the west can be purchased, consider a proposal similar to the one in concept presented at the December nceting. Taylor noted that the current owners purchased the property as if mid-January. McDonald stated that someone should be fined for not complying with the resolution ordering removal of the foundation. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 18, 1986 le In iS ir Y IT IT. .t I ‘Y le te .f a y in il ro )6 te le :o le ►t le #999 EVAN MELINE continued It was moved by Goetten, seconded by McDonald, to table this application until acquisition of property is secured. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. #1005 NED INC. 1390 FRENCH CREEK DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 10:02-10:15 Ned Dayton was present for this matter. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the request for a conditional use permit to excavate a pond. He noted the City Engineer Cook has reviewed it and feels that the proposed grading may have little effect on the algae problem but will provide a suitable duck nesting area. Cook recommends a timber baffle structure be installed to eliminate floating debris from moving downstream and placement of silt fence at the outlet during construction. McDonald stated she has concerns with the disturbance of land involving approximately 230 truckloads of sediments and nutrients. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to recommendations by the Engineer and subject to permits required by the Watershed District. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. #1006 CHRI.S & DALE PALM 1710 shadinood road VARIANCE PUBLIC BEARING 10:15 ^ 10:49 ^ Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron submitted a letter from Jack F. Rhode, non-resident owner of the propertv located at 1690 Shadywood Rd., indicating his feelings and suggestions regarding any development being done at 1710 Shadywood Rd. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the request for a hardcover variance to construct an addition and attached garage. (2% increase in 0-75'; 6% increase in 75-250*). Chris Palm was present for this matter along with their agent Henry D. Lindner. 4 8 18 eir TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator April 16, 1986 SUBJECT: #1011 Excelsior Bay Yacht Club Inc., Deering Island - Conditional Use Permit and Variance Planning Commission - Second Review - Tabled pending receipt of additional information LIST OF EXHIBITS A - Planning Commission notice of action B - Applicant's addendum C - Letters to Spring Park and Mound D - Letter from Spring Park Planning Commission member E - Letter from Spring Park Mayor F - L.M.C.D. application G - Site plan - dock layout H - Floor plan of gazebo I - Elevations of gazebo Per Exhibit A, the applicant was asked to submit a written statement that the proposed Day Recreation Area Use conformed to all pertinent standards of the RS District. Review the applicant's resp<^nse. Exhibit B, if Planning Commission members have additional questions, please contact my office prior to the meeting so that I can assure applicant can provid. the necessary information for our meeting. The site plan. Exhibit G, has been submitted as requested, only hardcover proposed for the site is the gazebo structure; subject structure satisfies all setback standards. The the Applicant has also submitted a copy of the LMCD application and proposed dock layout. The plan provides for 38 slips. The proposed number of slips satisfies the allowed watercraft availability units (WAU) per 1,920 lineal feet of shoreline [ 1,920' T 50' = 38 WAU's]. The LMCD will not approve a joint use dock license for the Excelsior Yacht Club until the City of Orono approves the CUP. Note the docks are to be installed along the southern shoreline. They will not inhibit heavily trafficked lane on west side of island. The dock structure meets all pertinent LMCD standards - docks .lOt to exceed 100 feet in length and no dock section can exceed 6 feet in width. The City of Mound has informed my office that as long as a reasonable user level is maintained and adequate supervision and controls are placed on the use of the island that the City of Mound had no concern with the proposed application. They felt assured that the City of Orono would place the necessary controls on the operation and they too echoed a Planning Commission member’s opinion that the lack of supervision and environmental destruction of a "public” owned island would be less desireable. Review Exhibits D and E. Staff will attempt to respond to the 4 points cited in Mayor Rockvam’s letter. 1. The number of users shall be limited to 53. Users includes both members and their family members or guests. The Club shall regulate who picnics on the island and keep tabs on members. Attendant on island must secure user level. 2. Nighttime activities control. As requested, staff contacted the VJater Patrol, Deputy Myers had the following comments and advice to the applicant: As soon as the faciltiy becomes popular trespassing will become a problem at night. Provide adequate lighting and signage advising that the island is private property and that trespassers will be prosecuted. Provide a slip for the Water Patrol specifically flagged for their use - this deters a would be trespasser. Provide a special keyed phone for VJater Patrol use. Secure docks with a physical barrier each night so they cannot be used by prowlers - exclude special slip for Water Patrol. As the owner, applicant is still responsibx*^ or liable for any mishaps on the island at nignt. Applicant/owner should consider a night time security person for at least the first year. 3. Applicant should respond. 4. Noise and garbage control. Attendant or security person must control noise. Garbage collection has been addressed in applicant's addendum. The City Attorney advises that because of the very specific rights granted to the property in the RS ordinance that applicant can rightfully seek the use as proposed. If the City in light of the new facts surrounding the substandard area of the island property still finds that the proposed use would be detrimental to the public’s health, safety and welfare, the City can deny such use. Is the proposed level of use detrimental to the public welfare? If we approve the use, the property must at the same time be reclassified as substandard (amend RS code) and the use recognized as a legal nonconforming use. In staff's review of 3/12/86 unique findings were cited for granting an area variance. Planning Commission Action a) If denied refer to your variance and CUP sections for the necessary findings. b) If approved consider the following findings: 1. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the RS District and Orono Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use satisfies all standards of the RS District except for the required area of five acres and Planning Commission recommends an area variance based on the following findings; Refer to memo of 3/12/86 3. The proposed level of use is compatible with other Day Use Recreation facilities within other areas of the RS District. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Recreation area must be operated per guidelines and standards setforth in Section 10.31 Subdivision 3(c) and all other pertinent standards of the RS District. 2. User level shall be limited to 53 based on user to area ratio [1 acre per 20 users, 2.65 acres = 53 users]. f 3. Applicant must submit copy of Commodore Club rules and guidelines for use of Deering Island. Rules must specify how club members "sign up" for use of island. Who controls? - Have base in Excelsior or island attendant? 4. Provide following security measures: a) slip for Water Patrol and keyed phone b) signage and security lights c) install physical barriers to control use of slips at night d) provide night security person for first year - summer season 5. The conditional use permit must be renewed annually until Council advises otherwise, with joint use dock permit each spring. ZONING FIUB NO. 10 0 3 -I I' CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 TO: Paul A. Scherber 3900 Walden Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Date of Notice: 2/21/86 COPIES TO: Douglas Klint 3545 Ivy Place Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance & Conditional Use Permit Date of Meeting; 3/17/86 Vote; 5 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following; Tabled; For reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Application #1011 was tabled pending receipt of site plan locating all improvements (joint use dock location, gazebo structure, picnic area, play area, etc.) Site plan must be to scale - new submittals should include plan of docks to be submitted with LMCD application. Submit a written statement confirming that your proposed use conforms to the following Code Sections; Section 10.31 Subdivision 3(C) items 1-9 •• " Subdivision 8(A) & (B) " •* Subdivision 9 ” " Subdivision 10 •' " Subdivision 11 (A - G) ” ” Subdivision 13(A) & (B) I would suggest that you respond to each section so that the Planning Commission only need concern itself with the area variance issue. Planning Commission conceptually approved the use 4 to 2. I will notify the Cities of Spring Park and Mound as requested by the Planning Commission. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the April 2, 1986 meeting is April 10, 1986 or May 9, 1986 for the May 19, 1986 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. m ■’ ■ J EXCELSIOR BAY YACHT CLUB PO Box 685 Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 March 31, 1986 City o-f Orono Attn: Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Deering Island Dear Ms. Mabusth, Enclosed please find a site plan of Deering Island drawn to scale showing the dock plan as submitted to the LMCD, the location of the Gazebo, picnic area, play area, sign, exterior lighting, and beach area. Also enclosed please find the final set of plans for the Gazebo structure. The main purpose of this structure is to provide bathroom facilities complying with City Code on the Island. It is not intended for habitation and will not be heated. I would also like to address the following Code sections; 1) Section 10.31 Subd.3(c> 1-9 Item 1. According to Subd. 6(E) Deering Island is a conforming record lot which may be used for any conditional use in the RS District. Subd. 6 A(3) provides that the record lot inventory shall be considered accurate and final for all properties unless the property owner appealed within 6 months after the effective date of the ordinance. Given the acreage adopted in the Code, the Island is authorized for 130 people at any one time. Obviously, it is in the best interests of the Yacht Club to restrict and regulate the number of people on the Island in order to provide a quality recreational area for its members. As noted in my letter of March 11, 1986, the Island will be staffed daily from Memorial Day to Labor Day and all members using the Island will have to register first with the manager of the Club. Telephone service is provided to the Island and will help facilitate enforcement of these restrictions. Prior registration will ensure that no more than the authorized number of members will be on the Island at any one time. Item 2. The shoreline length is 1,920 feet, well in excess of 200 feet. Item 3. Enclosed please find a copy of the LMCD J;. ‘I application. At 1 dock for every 50 feet of lakeshore, the permitted number of slips is 38. Item 4- The swimming area is marked on the site plan and is seperate from the dock are£\. No lifeguards will be on duty. Item Plans for an on-site drain field have been provided to the City. Item 6. Enclosed are plans for the Gazebo structure for submission to the Council. Item 7. Telephone service is provided for emergencies. Item 8. The property is located on the shoreline. Item 9. All property is combined in one parcel. 2> Subd. 8 AS<B Item A. The Gazebo, well and septic system are all back at least 75 feet from the Lake. Item B. There are no designated wet lands on the Island. set 3) Subd. 9 The only hardcover on the Island will be the roof of the Gazebo which is at least 75 feet from the Lake, is smaller than the roof of the existing house, and is well below the 257. limit. 4) Subd. 10 The height of the Building is less than 2 1/2 stories or 30 feet. 5) Subd. 11 Item A. The building plans show a treated wood foundation. Item B through E. The Gazebo is not a dwelling and exempt from these requirements. Item F. The roofing material will be treated wood shakes. The Gazebo will not bo used as sleeping quarters. Fire extinguishers will be provided per subsection 3. The Gazebo is not a dwelling for subsection 4. In subsection 5 the occupancy load is less than 50 people. Item G. Additional private security measures include staffing during prime boating season and as needed during other times, telephone service, locks on all doors and windows, solid plywood covers over screens and windows when not in use. There will be no intrusion alarm. 6) Subd. 13 All garbage and refuse will be removed as needed by the Island staff, at least on a weekly basis. We have attempted to address all questions that were raised at the last meeting and the specific code provisions. Please advise me if any other information would be helpfull. Thankyou. Very Truly Yours, CITY OF t ORONO^i CITY ORONO Post omoe Box 66•Crystal Bay, MinnesoU 55323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka y.r. March 21, 1986 Ed Shukle, City Administrator City of Mound 5431 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle, The Planning Commission of the City of Orono is currently reviewing the application of the Excelsior Bay Yacht Club for a conditional use permit to allow a Day Use Recreation Area on Deering Island for a select club membership of 300. Use of the island will be limited to 53 members (1 acre per 20 users) at any one time. The Club plans to install a joint use dock area, gazebo structure (lavoratories, storeroom) and picnic area. Attendants will be on the island supervising all activities during the day when open. No night time activities are planned. Plans of the total operation will be available at the Orono City office for review by April 10, 1986. The City would appreciate any comments you may have by April 15, 1986 in order to meet the deadline for all materials to be included in packets for the Planning Commission meeting of April 21, 1986. Please contact my office if you have any questions pertaining to the proposal. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/pp BliLDINt; & ZONINi; - 473-7357 ASStSSlNG ADMISISTRATTON & FINANCE - 473-7358 PUni lC WORKS - 473 7359 -- mm V CITY OF CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66 •Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices ORONof On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka March 21, 1986 Pat Osmundson City of Spring Park P.O. Box 452 Spring Park, MN 55384 Dear Mrs. Osmundson, The^ Planning Commission of the City of Orono is currently reviewing the application of the Excelsior Bay Yacht Club for a conditional use permit to allow a Day Use Recreation Area on peering Island for a select club membership of 300. Use of the island will be limited to 53 members (1 acre per 20 users) at any one time. The Club plans to install a joint use dock area, gazebo structure (lavoratories, storeroom) and picnic area. Attendants will be on the island supervising all activities during the day when open. No night time activities are planned. Plans of the total operation will be available at the Orono City office for review by April 10, 1986. The City would appreciate any comments you may have by April 15, 1986 in order to meet the deadline for all materials to be included in packets for the Planning Commission meriting of April 21, 1986. Please contact my office if you have any questions pertaining to the proposal. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/pp Bl'ILDINGA ZONING - 473-7357 ASSISSIN(; AOMINISTKAIION & HNANCE - 473-7358 pi'nnc WORKS - 473-7359 •4 HMWicrVfcMrr'x-# . b 'i^ I'l. \ • ^ 1 ' *1 .Li U r\ I'31'^'^y ij ■■ I n APR - 9 193 ' rv (■ ' (>:-i - . !ri'. J-' Peter van Beek P.O. Box 462 Spring Park, MN 55384 (612) 471-9479 Home (612) 291-7790 Office April 7, 1986 The Planning Commission City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: I strongly urge you to carefully consider the impact of granting a conditional use permit, to create a recreation area on Deering Island, will have on the environment in that area of Lake Minnetonka. The West Arm on which Deering Island is located, is already heavily overcrowded with boat traffic going between the upper and lower lakes. The noise created by this traffic, especially on weekends, is already a serious nuisance. The proposal to create additional boat launching facilities on Lake Minnetonka will add to the problem of overcrowding. I recommend that the approval for this permit be denied or at least that any decision be postponed until such time the Interested parties, such as the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the Metropolitan Council, the Waterpatrol Division and above all the residents In the immediate area have had a chance to voice their opinions. Yours /Sincerely, / Peter van Beek f- Pat Osmonson, City of Spring Park Frank Mixa, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Don Omodt, Sheriff Hennepin County Senator Gen Olson Representative John Berger Sandra Cardebring, Metropolitan Council iifi. Mayor Jerome P. RocKvam 471-9515 Couneilmamben Ellle Heller 471-8304 Larry C. Junge 471-7369 Ron Kraemer 471-7339 Carl Widmer 471-9429 i / City of) Sbit'mg ^akk P. O. BOX 452, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384 • Phone: 471-9051 • ON LAKE MINNETONKA April 10, 1986 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. O, Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth: On behalf of the City of Spring Park Council and Planning Commission please accept our thanks for the notification of your intent to consider plans for Deering Island. We appre ciate the opportunity for input because of the close proximity to our shoreline. There were several comments made by the Council and Planning Commission. 1) The numbers of people on the island at any one time. 53 members - Does that include any family or guests of the member? Nightime activities control. We understand no night time activities are planned but how would it be con trolled? 3) How memy boat slips and how much more boat traffic will there be in West Arm Bay? 4) Noise and garbage control is in question as well. Thank you for any consideration and/or discussion you may have to address these issues. •^9.% -Y-- -^ ^ ^ I > ^ 'I « \ »i I Anurn I M :U‘i I J'*.. l..ikc Minnetonka Conr.ervnt 1 t>n Mslrlct LMCD Fee f_ _ _ _ Village response due received I Because this form is I to be copied, please | use black ink or type (for LMCD use) License Year No. of Boats Boat Density Index_ _ _ _ Can be reached at phone # APPLICATION: MULTIPLE DOCK. RAMP. AND/OR MOORING LICENSE PAULA. SCHERBER (Print or type owner's name) 3900 Walden Road, Wayzata, Mlrtncsota 55391 476-2A69 (Owner's address) the owner of land In the City of Qrono Peering Islaind Business name: Excelsior Bay Yacht Cliib. Inc. Phone; If no answer, call: (Street address) (if different from owner) 685 Excelsior Blvd.. E?ccelsior, Minnesota 55331 N/A Phone, if no ansi/er,,csll: 685 Excelsior Blvd., Excelsior. Minnesota 55331 (Hailing address if different from street address) which is riparian to LMCD area(s), Number(s) I.ake Minnetonka, applies pursuant to LMCD Code Chapter III, Section 3.08, for a new or revised Multiple Dock License, in accordance with all data and other information sub** herewith and made a part hereof* The following.must accompany this application (see samples): (a) Locator map (b) County plat of thd area (c) Certified survey and legal description (d) Site plan of dockage to over* lay.survey (e) Dock construction detail sheet (f) Gas storage detail sheet 1.Type of application (please check one): ( )(K:tlot association ( )Multlple dwelling ( )Private multiple ( )Municipal ( )Connercial marina ( ) Trans lent (^Private club ( )Other (explain)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2. Intended use of facility private yacht cl\ib 3.Abutting property ownera at the lakeshore: North or West NONE • • • t0 • (Name and HAILING address) South or East NONE (Name and MAILING address) Other affected parties NONE A. (Names and HAILING addresses * attach sheet If necessary) All required permits, licenses and approvals have been obtained from the City in which the multiple dock is located, and the MN DNR: Yes applied far No_ _ _ _ _ _ 5. Public liability insurance: Amount $; Company l.nVic MlnnctonVo Conservation District «Application: Multiple Dock, Damp, and/or Mooring License Name Paul A. SdiPTber one # if no call: if no .call: nev or sub- cation I I Ti • 6, Maximuni number of Watercraft Availability Units (WAU): W Storage by Use Atl SliLpS •••see**38 WAU for rent, lease, etc. • • •WAD at slides . . . . . . . .WAU for service work • • • • .WAD at lifts . . . . . . . . .WAU for company use . . . . . .WAD at moorings . . . . . . .WAU for private use ......38 WAD • at tle-ons . . . . . . . .WAU for transient use .....WAD at off-Lake storage . •WAU other (specify): other (explain):WAD WAU WAD WAU WAD TOTAL WAD applied for:38 WAU TOTAL WAU applied for:38 JUAD (The number of moorings under separate District Mooring Area peimit is • U'A % Site Lake frontage “1.920 a feet. m WAU computation: Frontage 1,920 feet f 30 - 38 VAUs allovable (If this number is leas than the total VAUs applied for in #6 above, an application for a Special Density Permit is required.) All commercial (and others, vhere applicable) must provide the folloving additional information: 9* Check the nature of services and parking provided: W/A a) Boat storage _ _ _ _ _ _^_ _; number of parking spaces number of parking spacesb) liSuncliing ramps_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _j Times ramp is open for public use: c) Sales d) Service e) Boat rentals^ f) Restaurant g) Other (explain) h) Parking not required reason ramp overflow parking number of parking spaces, number of parking spaces, number of parking spaces, number of parking spaces number of parking spaces r in TOTAL parking spaces N/A LnV.e Hinnctonka Connorvntlon District • Application: Multiple Dock, Rnmp, and/or Mooring License Name PAULA. SaiERBER 10. Sanitary facilities are provided: Yes X ; number of units 2 bathr< 11. Boat toilet pumping service is provides: Yes No X 12. ALL APPLICATIONS: Base fee $ Watercraft Availability Units 0 $10.00 • . . +380.00 VAO jMAD UAO lluwablc :otsl ensl Total fee enclosed 430.00 I certify that the information provided herein and the attachments hereto are.true and correct statements^ and 1 understand that any license issued may be revoked by the District for violation of the LMCD Code, Including Section 3.02, Subdivision 10: "No person shall sell, rent, or lease for the storage of boats or watercraft any space '^Ithln dock use areas other than at commercial docks; provided, however, that such space may be rented or leased at docks of apartments solely for the storage of boats’ vatercraft owned by residents of the apartments.*' 1 consent to permitting officers and agents of the District to eiter the premises at all reasonable times to Investigate and to determine whether the Code of the District is being complied with. Authorized signature / Title PAULA. SOOHER Oaner Date Relationship to owner N/A I* ' Return this application and attachments to;Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 402 East Lake Street Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Phone: (612) 473-7033 10/84 i_ / ■ :! •fal'-.ti human «rrar. cior t* vvrlf/ til tftttntlont ant lor.a* 4rtmtnca, tanctpit tn4 lit#Iratltra art InttrwMrla tf •tnrUt « tuck rttain tht ateltatva frtptrlf I. Ctit Dttlfnt; «r Htttt. t/td art I W caplad. ruPlIalicl. 4lttrituia4 ‘4 far a#»f atnar prajaci atcapf alui *11144* C44*aai*t 4f f Ca«». HT WM. I. OAOE. DE8I0NER Of HOMES. INC, ALL aioHTa HteEavio PROJECT: NEW HOME FOR 4 ♦/ ^ -- V 4 I ^ / « .• CONTRACTOR: • / • - # ! PsCOF TRUS I / Overhang Tri ------JZ— I " n J'-C £5 « *' !i' !'• >1 I I j ■ r I • •I • r i r: • I <*«• ! 1 S' r? I r 2^ T-“~ --------V—Zi r 1 1? • I :;• r \ UWs ' ■■, ■•>.■■ I if V..:, 1 '.‘S ------^ I ' ‘ i • ( ‘ !l ‘_____!l_______i M iiil it.’ i I M , • •LLuJl 5CRLEN WPa/: C TO MAWE" CEP4^^ PA»sJELS. INSrAL 5CREWS r C 1 •■»■■■ |-i f*::? Kn^vATloM !, j.: M. ••• . f; - jy fe REVISIOM; DATE 40S #t 3•Z7-ac ■— -• >***• TO:Planning Commission FR(M1: Jeanne A. Mabusth 4-17-86 #1014 Board of Governors of Big Island Veteran's Camp - Conditional Use Permit Application - Conditional Use Permit for the temporary use of the island by workers involved in the clean up of the Big Island Veteran's Camp. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Deed C - Property Owners List D - Plat Map E - Site Plan In 1985r the Veteran's Camp on Big Island was closed because of the potential health and safety hazards posed for the public who regularly used the facility- The structures were fire hazards. The entire facility had been allowed to deteriorate without any provisions for routine upgrading and maintenance. In that same year, the City commenced hazardous building proceedings against the State Department of Veteran's Affair, responsible agent at that time. The Department of Veteran's Affairs has since relinquished all responsibility as trustee for the property. The Board of Governors of Big Island has assumed complete responsibility for the property in late '85. The Board of Governors has been asked to apply for a conditional use permit for a limited time period to allow workers, who have volunteered for the clean up work, to camp overnight on the island. The City must establish safety guidelines for that temporary use. Review the enclosed site plan - Exhibit E. The Xed structures are those scheduled for removal - non repairable. The circles note the structures already removed. Applicants have been working on the clean up since the ice out and should update us on the status of the property. The structure labeled 1 through 3 are non-conforming and cannot be rebuilt in present location. All new struc"^ "ires must meet zoning setback standards of RS Code. i Memo #1014 April 17, 1986 Page 2 of 3 At the time the Board plans to restore the remaining hazardous st] building plans must be submitted to assure that standards of the uniform building code and state fire code are met. Before the facility can be reopened for public use, the Board must apply for conditional use permits for Day Recreation Camp and Overnight Camping Use. Review of Current Application The City is asked to allow workers to camp overnight on the island during the clean up period. The following issues must be addressed: i 1 - Approximate number of workers involved in clean up ~ workers cannot bring family members along because hazardous - unsafe conditions still remain on the site 2 * Advise how meals are to be provided - kitchen area and dining hall cannot be used - portable gas stoves and charcoal grills can be usec^ - no recreational or cooJfing fires allowed. 3 - Designate temporary toilet facility to be used - Gaffron to inspect. 4 ** Remaining hazardous buildings cannot be used for sleeping quarters - tenting allowed only. 5 - Hazardous buildings not planned for removal must remain boarded up during clean up. 6 - Determine time period request for clean up •- permit to be written for specified period of time. 7 - Fire extinguishers must be provided on site during clean up period. 8 - Provide a repair schedule for hazardous buildings that are to remain 9 “ How shall garbage collection be provided for at temporary camp site. Memo #1014 April 17, 1986 Page 3 of 3 Staff Recommendation Approve a conditional use permit for the temporary overnight camping of work crew at the Big Island Veterans Camp facility for specify period of time providing guidelines for the safe use of that facility during"the clean up period defined as covering the following activities: 1 - Razing and burning of buildings 2 - Clean up and burning of debris/brush 3 - Locate and determine usability of septic system and well The guidelines for the temporary use of the facility are as follows: 1 “ Crew to be limited to ~ family members and friends cannot be on camp site for the duration of temporary permit 2 - Workers shall use portable gas stoves and charcoal grills for cooking 3 - Tenting is allowed only for the overnight campers 4 - Septic facilities to be approved by on site septic mgr - Michael Gaffron 5 - Hazardous buildings not removed are to remain boarded up 6 - Fire Extinguishers must be provided on site 7 - Garbage collection and temporary water supply shall be provided as follows T i' ^ ! 0l4 CITY OP ORONO I ^ GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ** Site Address Bio Island Veterans Camp________________________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Lot unplatted 23-117’23-21-0001 Please check one - Is the property XXX abstract or torrens? (for Conditional Use Applications only) Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT ---- Board of Governors of Big Island Veterans Camp Name Leonard A. Carlton. Chairman____________Phone (612) 473-3147________‘ Mailing Address 19260 Azure Road Deephaven. MN 55391 OWNER Of (Tovernors of Big Island Veterans”(Tamp Name Leonard A. Carlton. Chairman__________ Phone (612) 473-3147______________ Mailing Address 19260 Azure Road Deephaven. MN 55391______________________ Date Property Acquired November K 1985___________ (inonth/year) I KKXXK (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS « _ _ _ _ $100.00 a) Residential accessory Use _ _ _ _ $150.00 b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) _ _ _ _ $150.00 c) Duplex Credit/Bldg __ _ _ $250.00 d) Commercial/Industrial Use __ _ _ _ $200.00 f) Land Alteration _ _ _ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more _ _ _ Seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore _______ PRD/PID - see fee 1 OTHER APPLICATIONS ff JSb. wMm _ _ _ _ $150.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ' _ _ _ _ $250.00 Vacation __ _ $150.00 Easement Vacation _ _ _ _ $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision OTHER APPLICATIONS - CONT. $250.00 Rezoni $200.00 Appeal #10 X XXX other “ see fee schedule $200.00 PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Veterans Camp Residential Other (specify) • «DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail; To allow overnight camping for work crews to: Remove condemned buildings; Remove and burn brush left bv forester's crew: To locate and | determine usability of cesspools, septic tanks and well. ________________ 4 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain .this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Cernter 348-3271) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre—addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey. 5. Construction plan, if applicable. 6. Plat Map. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. 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. . _ /'y-f Applicant's signature ^ c ' ' C ■ d'yi Date , Leonard A. Carlton, Chairmanj Board of Governors of Big IsTand Veterans Camp OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to tl.is application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of Leonardos. CarVto1/]^CfTa^rrn/n^^f(?ar3'^o^^ov^c^nor^^ Veterans Camp _ _ _ _ Date ^_ _ _ _ _ Owner's signature ,:.-7. Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 davc roar quii citim Otcdln:?(vl<]J«l !• Individual.Form No. 27.V/jItcr S. Booth & Son. Minneapoili MttinesoU Uiiifo'in CunveyAncing BianKs f •3nt)cuturf. thi, ........ dnu of......Inticn ..Board of Governors, Big Island Veturahs Camp . 19. Remove Id of the Countif ......................... .\iiul Shii-- of part y........of the first port, and State of Minnesota. .Minnesota ................................. part y o/ (he »vvund part. jiHii state of.......Minnesota. That the sittd part Y t)f the first part, in ccnelderation of Ou ium of One Dollar and Other Good and Valuable Consideration ..00} to.......... ^ t.............. 1,1 hiUiit paid by the said part )f...... ...of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby ockmarled(ed . d.» es hereby Grant. Jfarjlain, Quitclaim, and Convey un(o the said pnrt y of the second part, itS......heirs amt us.ti(<ns. Forever, all the tract..... or parcel.......of land lyinf and bein^ in the County of .........llQnpcpin............ and State of Minnesota, described as followe, to-ivil: Government Lot One (1), Section Fourtecni (14), Township One Hundred Seventeen (117), Range Twenty-Three (23); and Government Lot Two (2), Section Twenty-Throe (23), Township One Hundred Seventeen (117), Range Twenty-Three (23); and That part of Government Lot Three (3), Section Twenty-Three (23), Township One Hundred Seventeen (117), Range Twenty-Three* (23) , commencing at tJie Northeast corner of said Government Lot Three (3), Section Twenty-Three (23); thence Southwesterly along the lake shore to the Northeast corner of Lot A, Merse Island Park; thence South 350 foot to Lake Minnetonka; thence IZcxst along t)ie shore of Lake Minnetonka to the East line of said Lot Three (3); thence North to the place of beginning. ibtaini :nment names Thin conveyance is made subject to the condition and restriction that the property is used for cnmjj purposes for veterans of the military services of the United States; and in the event such condition or restriction is violated, then the property shall revert to the grantor (as originally constituted according to the terms of chapter 72, Section 2, of the Laws of Min.nesota, 1947), its successors, heirs or assigns, as trustees for the veterans of the State of Minnesota, as provided by the Stipulation for Hennepin County District Court File No. 732097. Base has #1014 3 or a/or that /her (To anb to JBclb IfjC J&aitK, ToQ'eChtr mth oH thf krraiitainrnts and, appurtenances there- untu ltelon(lin(f or in miyiri.^e appertaining, to the said * ;r( 7 of the second part,^ ..........heirs and ashufn.s^ Furei'er. 3n (EfrJilUOnp Ihe part y .»/ Utt pr\t par^ /i(j U lit reunt-o set ......... hafid the day ,tnd year first above ur tten. r 1 n ). K. I.sar,C;?, Chairman of Ho II I Governors, Big Island ... \ ct v -r.ai:* Caii.p the the 1 ^ I 1 4; siv- %■ O O » M •nun 3 H 3 n •< X m » m t/) H X m M 3 > m > \ -< > m a X a X o5 ni;o o•a >oa;a m ??m (A M fvj o U1ro C- c. X a z _ s •D>:o ur- 99 u a U1 04 04 >z (/) ^ o aH C5 m m Sii•o > MM C Z U) U) Z W ?? X O M M ► r- r- r“ OJ o ui > > in (/) Z Z M H m ni m H I >» f- G9 5s Oio> o o O o S n> 04 I N| Ir» 04 r> o M 0» 04 0» f\> 04 I f\J 04 fV> M Oo ' H O Uz > n » > X :f o 3 -o m Tj ni )► aj N -< > S C! 2: 2a aj > as 5 *aj m 01 > HO X o u) rv> H O 0> > < C m tr H m 3i"i m ui ui 01 0)m < Mn ni O O 09 O M O < Q > m aj aj M o Z 01 _ Q r- O aj > -Ti s ^O m rv> 04 I Ir» 04 O 09 11 o o o Ga 04 09 f\> 04 I I fj 04 rv» ooo m Xom 09 M N 8 cn Ms i 5i as o cn > n ai X m m H -n fV9 04 I Ml Ml 04 04 §? m m 3-* ni > r- r* ij Irv9 04 fV» IN> O o o fV9 o 04 N N 09 O 99m i ? •M M 04 Ml O •A tr t 1, ^ vjJ. \ C»§fO 2i.*4 UM lh,t liS dmt, UkalL.t ai6 ot*htk Date: Planning Conunission Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator April 16, 1986 Subject: Memo #1016 George and Martha Haeny, 1978 Shadywood Rd. -Variance ZONING DISTRICT - LR-IC APPLICATION - Variances to height and placement standards of the fenc ordinance. PBRTBNBNT ORDINANCES Section 10.03 Subdivision 15(D) amended 1-28-85 Section 10.22 Subdivision 2 LIST OF EXHIBITS A- Application B- Property Owners List C- Plat Map D- Nehring Letter 4-14-86 i E- Staff Sketch F- Section 10.03 Subdivision 15(D) Mrs. Haeny seeks variances to the fence ordinance in order to rebuil fence installed by neighboring property owner to the north. Mrs. Haen assumes the fence is on her side of the property line. The Nehrings hav advised that the fence is actually located a few feet into their propert; Prior to fence construction, a surveyor must confirm exact location o shared lot line. Note that the Nehrings have no problem with the proposa and require only that the fence be located on the lot line. Please review the staff sketch exhibit E. The fence is located withi: 75 feet of the lakeshore. To rebuild a variance to Section 10.2 Subdivision 2 - no structures within 75 feet of the lakeshore - must b' granted. Mrs. Haeny wishes to rebuild 34 lineal feet of the 4 feet hig, section and to continue a 6 feet high section to the access drive locatei to the rear of property. To continue the 6 feet high fence into tb defined street yard requires a variance to Section 10.03 Subdivision 15 (D (Exhibit F). The Haenys have no more than 20 to 30 feet of a side yard - feet high fences are not allowed in street/rear yards of lakeshor properties (30 feet in from county road setback). The Nehrings will remove the old fencing along the shared lot line i the Haenys build a new fence structure. The applicant also asks the City to approve a 3 1/2 foot high fenc along the front of her shoreline yard - exact setbacks have not bee discussed. Since his illness, Mr. Haeny has to be watched constantly fencing has already been installed around the rear and south side yard o: the property. Mrs. Haeny advises that the fencing would be chain linker same as in her rear and side yards. hor \e i Memo #1016 April 16, 1986 Page 2 of 2 STAFF REC SNDATION snc To approve the variance application of Martha J. Haeny to permit the installation of a fence within 75 feet of the lakeshore and a 6 feet privacy fence in the rear/street yard of her lakeshore property based on the following findings: 1- The feeding of wildlife/fowl conducted by the Haeny*s neighbors to the immediate north of their property has deprived them of the enjoyment of their lakeshore property. A fence placed at the lakeshore line has helped to confine the majority of the wildlife vistors on the neighbor's property. 2- The special health problems of Mr. Haeny has necessitated fencing along the shoreline for his protection. The fence would be chain link so as not to provide view problems and maintained at a 3 1/2 feet height. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1- Surveyor must designate shared lot line prior to construction. 2- Lakeshore fence constructed parallel to shoreline must be no higher than 3 1/2 feet and chain link. y ■ t the feet ed on jal Vi r-the •¥i CITY OP ■" VARIANCE APPLICATION ^($50.00 per each additional variance) e ^5.0iW (i™ change from original application) s UjBiible'<te<fi61ication fee) i r\ i iro tr PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address /1 S' <su Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /7-//7>^3 7</ <00Z6 Please check one —- Is the property _ _ _ abstract or _ _ torrens? Please attach legal dr'rsription to application if not included on required survey. ncing link feet igher APPLICANT Name y£^O AV'nu'Phone >/7/- 7/4; Mailing Address 9 75< S tl : up <k V\ ________________' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OHNBR '^J 13: Name Phone Mailing Address Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT DSE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear)^j| (OVER) tr HARDSHIPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ fed DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS * « . Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 3* Stamped^ legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Plat Map. The Applicant and Property Owner mi. st sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is n« t complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay 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 OWNERS SIGNATURE I^ate 17- The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature nA,Date .3 - 0.0 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. Let 3de r iTVOFORONO P.O. BOX 66CRYSTAL BAY. MN 55323 TELEPHONE: 473-7358’/Uf L.LM:KA1. KlA Liri • ^ W For i •- Fund Object Program Div.Amount ^.,SADOLLARS r- .#• ..•. , bhe 4 I * 'h JL ^ii #/6/(p3LLARS 4 ■ ^ • i >S"5J^ ■ m .• 4 ^ n - in “55 ' a/ - oo A3 19 *fC vS A< OcL UJtov SS3<^/ > ^ -*-4 f'O /7 - /^7 ~ SL3 - AK -dda/ ***^ /1~ /n - 9iZ ^a / ' »C/«iJ^»k4‘»J Wccj /KaXu^ «i ~ a*7 aV ** 60 9l<, If] Sr u«^ >• >4giy<< l^/c n- fjJtL, /? fd //7 “'A3 ~ *y~ *0^7 S-MrJt 'S'/stiU-W /y ^ it'is. vTJrJV n~ in - 33 -Ay /ff# v£A^ OOUf- <rj-J9/ / ORDINANCK NUMBER 9, SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO THE NON-ENCROACHMENT AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SECTIONS OF THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE The City Council of Orono Ordains As Follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code of Orono is hereby amended by amending Sections 10.03 Subdivision 15(C). (D) (E), (F) and 10.22 Subdivision 1 to read as follows; SECTION 10.33 Subdivision 15 Non-Encroachments C. Fences which do not exceed 3-1/2 feet in height, fences not over SIX feet in height along the street lot line of lake frontage 1-ots which front on a major. thoroughfare, if fill is tji^toj^l combined height of both fence and Tin sha 11 n^_exceed ^ fe£t a^^e tjie *%i£hC"'S^jmZofThi terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or simi lar^tructures, which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than two feet from any lot line. D. In side or rear yards only, bays not to exceed a depth of two feet nor to contain an area of more than twenty square feet, fire escapes not to exceed a width of three feet, fences and walls not to exceed a height of six feet above original grade and ^pen off street parking except for lakeshore lots, no fence or wall over forty-.tW0 inches ^t not in excess of seventy-two i*n^es'"TjE ■Lg .pt ^ ab^e original grade “may fee located cfoser to the shorel ine_than the average distance from”'the""' shore 1 ine of residence bui.Id;ng.s on adjacent lo^, such fences shall ^e constructed within 75 feet of th^ shorelineT"-------------— E. Rear yard only; balconies, breezeways, detached outdoor picnic shelters and recreational equipment except ns regulated Jl^acc<?ssorv structure shal 1 be closer than five LsJl shall a Hrence o^ wall constructed ^ 1 j ^ tear yard exceed a height of six feet above"~originar" F. Side yards only; np_accessory structure shall be closer than ^n feet f_&o.m any sj^e l_pt line nor shal 1 ^ fence o_r wall constr-uctpd within a side yard exceed,a heiqlit_of six feet above original grade, ----- ' ' —-----— -- SECTION 10.22. Regulations for One Family Lakeshore Resi dential Districts. u u Lakeshore Set Back Regulations. The set DacK from the shoreline for lakeshore lots shall be at least 75 eet and no bui Iding, fence or wal I over forty-two inches but not Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator April 17, 1986 #1017 Morris & Jackie Nelson, 1900 Shoreline Drive Zoning Amendment/Conditional Use Permit i-. t' 1'- Zoning District - LR-IA Approximate Area - 3.3 Acres Application - Zoning Amendment to create a Bed & Breakfast Conditional Use Permit within a residential distric, List of Exhibits - A - Council minutes of 1/14/85 B - Current Application C - Applicant's addendum D - Property owners' list E - Plat map F - Kristi Kaul - site plan - locating guest parking area G - Survey of property H - Introduction to Bed & Breakfast - Kaul application I - What is a Bed & Breakfast - Kaul application J - Magazine article - Kaul application K - Proposed conditions for Rivertown Inn L - Excelsior resolution approving CUP at 201 Mill Street Review of Proposed Bed & Breakfast Amendment Review exhibit A, in the final resolve of the Kaul's appeals applicat .on in January of 1985, Council directed staff to schedule a public hearing for the formal amendment of the code allowing a B & B use as a conditional use. It was unfortunate that the Kaul's were denied all reward after all the hard work that was put into the preparation of the application. The Nelsons propose the same level of use. The site plan presented by the Kaul's depicting the off street parking on the south side of the water tower to the rear of the house is also proposed by the Nelsons. The Nelsons will maintain this residence as their homestead. Four to five bedrooms will be available for guests of the B & B. Meals will not be served from the kitchen - "continental breakfast" menu. Personal family laundry will be done in home laundry - all guest laundry will be done commercially. The Nelsons will manage the operation without the assistance of employees. I have asked Mrs. Nelson to contact Kristi Kaul, now a resident of our City, to let the Kauls know of their similar plans for the "old blue house" at 1900 Shoreline Dr. She wishes them luck and may even be present at our Monday night meeting. Review the background information on the applicants submitted with the application (exhibit C). L. Zoning File #1017 April 17, 1986 Page 2 of 7 The following are excerpts from a memo drafted for the Council's review of the Kaul application that will serve as background and a reminder of the issues and concerns raised raised in our first considerations: The subject property is the former Alden Anderson homestead. In 1981, the City denied Anderson's variance application that proposed the separation of his substandard rural lots. The code requires four acres of dry contiguous land, the property contains approximately 3.3 acres of dry contiguous land. Since that variance review the Andersens have moved out of the house — the house has been vacant for over 2-1/2 years. The Andersons have had the house offered for sale for at least four years . Reports from persons seeking information on the property confirm the house will require major repairs if it is to remain in its present state and not be torn down. Raul's B&B will provide 5 lodging rooms with a limit of 2 persons per room for a maximum use level at 10 persons. Meals will not be served except for a "Continental Breakfast". Guests will not be allowed to use their residential dock for boating. The nearby marina. Sailors World, will serve all guests. The dock will be used by their guests for swimming, fishing and sight seeing. The grounds and porch area will be used by guests. Lawn games such as croquet will be provided. Guests of the B&B usually arrive in late afternoon and leave after breakfast the next day. There is no commercial signage planned as guest of B&B's are referred via a special statewide B&B directory. B&B owners do not advertise in local papers. I have been advised by the Rauls that a B&B operates in Minnetonka Beach - neighbors and the City are not aware of its existence. Are there adverse effects on the character of this residential neighborhood as a result of this use. a. External appearance will not change except for the appearance of guests in yard or at dock but in the performance of associated residential like uses. Remember the house contains seven bedrooms and if used to the "maximum potential, family unit" could sustain 14+ permanent members instead of the intermittent week-end use of the B&B guests. b. Septic use will be comparable to eight member family use—except Mrs. Raul advises that laundry will be done commercially. There is certainly adequate area for more drainfields. I have been in contact with two cities that have approved B&Bs. Stillwater allows theirs via a Conditional Use Permit in what they classify as an R-2 or duplex zone. A district that has predominantly large older homes. Their staff has sent copies of Zoning File #1017 April 17, 1986 Page 3 of 7 the minutes of the first B&B application back in '82 The opposition voiced by the affected Stillwater residents is the same as that voiced by the most affected Orono residents. 1. Establish commercial use in residential neighborhood. 2. Increase of traffic. 3. Detrimental to property values. 4. Bring in strangers to neighborhood. The Stillwater staff reports that after the first B&B was approved at an 8 bedroom use (not primary residence for owner) that they never received a complaint from the neighbors and that those they heard from said they wouldn't even know a B&B operated within the residence. A second request for a B&B was approved in late '83 without any objections. The City is considering limiting the total number of B&Bs to four for the district. Excelsior allowed their B&B via a Conditional Use Permit because the use satisfied the performance standard established for use of designated historic structures. I have enclosed the resolution that approved the use at 201 Mill Street. Staff concurs completely with the Planning Commission recommendation that although the B&B use satisfies the performance standards of the Home Occupation Section of the Code, that the original intent and scope of this section was never intended to review a B&B. If the code is to be amended, many of these very same performance standards should be considered. I have checked with other governmental agencies that would have to either inspect (annual inspections) or license such facilities. A B&B is classified as a Lodging '■•ouse by both State and Hennepin County "where sleeping accomodations are furnished to the public as regular rooms, for periods of one week or more, and have five or more beds to let to the public". Hennepin County would require a license for such use and conduct annual inspections of the facility. Prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City, Hennepin County's Environmental Health Specialist must renew and approve all plans for B&B facilities. The Stat( Fire Marshall will inspect the premises to assure that all State Fire Code Standards are upheld, the facility must be approved by the Fire Marshall before it is open to the public. As the B&B will not provide meals, the more restrictive standards for kitchen facilities is not required by the Board of Health or Hennepin County. - I Zoning File #1017 April 17, 1986 Page 4 of 7 The Planning Commission also recommends that Council consider an amendment to the code that would permit a B&B use in an acceptable or more suitable area. I don't quite understand what a more suitable area means. If adequate controls are placed on a B&B operation what is there about the use or its associated uses (the outward, visible signs of guests using the facility) that would endanger or be in conflict with any residential district. A bio house IS more likely to be inhabited by a big family, multiple renters, etc. ^ Ever since I have been with this City, we have been involved with discussion^s of innovative ways to save our older, larger homes ^®come landmarks for the Community. Many of these homes are located along the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. The B&B use may be one approach to this problem, certainly not the only solution. I would concur with the Stillwater staff that a limit would have to be placed on B&Bs within the City. If we go the Conditional Use Permit route, you may not place limits on their number. We may have to opt for licensing or franchising where limits are permitted. I have discussed this concern with the City Attorney s office and they concur. The City Attorney will review the question of Municipal licensing and report his findings at a later date. ^ Options of action available to Council; a. To deny the appeals petition of Thomas & Krist Kaul finding a conflict with the original intent and scope of the Home Occupation Section of the Code and the B&B use not permitted as a Home Occupation. 1. And to direct staff to draft a resolution of denial and to further advise the applicants that a B&B use would not be compatable in a residential zone and to be in complete conflict with the intent of the residential zoning districts of the City. or Direct staff to draft a denial resolution of the appeals petition and to further direct the Planning Commission to study and make recommendations to the Council regarding a proposed amendment of the code that would allow a B&B use in a residential district either via a license or a conditional use permit and address the following issues in performance standards; 1. Sewer capacity or adequate land area drainfield to sustain subordinate + principal use “ need to secure area for future septic expansion. 2. Use must be located in principal residence of owner/operator. I: ^ Zoning File #1017 April 17, 1986 Page 5 of 7 3. Limit on number of bedrooms - guest. 4. Additional signage limits outside of Section 10.61, Subdivision 2 A,B,& C. 5. Required screening for off street parking -* 1 off street parking space for each bedroom unit. 6. Use not to be advertised in local papers. 7. Sale of alcoholic beverages prohibited. 8. Regulations on meals served on premises. 9. Permit or license non-transferable. 10. No public gathorV'^'^d be allowed on property. Per the minutes of the Council meeting in '85, Council opted to go with a conditional use permit control rather than the license. City Attorney Radio advised a license would not address the land use concerns of such a use. A conditional use permit can be as "restrictive as the City wants". A conditional use permit can be reviewed at specified times - best stated as a condition of an approving resolution than as a performance standard. City Attorney should advise on this matter. Performance Standards for Bed ^ Breakfast Use A) Zoning District - 1) Are all zones suitable for B&B use 2) Are existing controls within each district adequate Ex: hardcover alone would deter a B&B use on an established substandard lot in LR-IC and LR-lB Applicant would have no hardcover problems B) Area - 1) Lot must meet all area and width standards 2) Lot must meet 150% of lot standards Current application would satisfy either 1 or 2 C) Ownership/Residency - 1) Owner occupied 2) Full time live in manager Staff recommends owner occupancy/primary residence D) Access - 1) Safe access - more intense use require approval by either City or County 2) Access cannot be shared with other residential Must have separate/independent access drive Applicant has separate access - should be reviewed by County E) Sanitary Facilities - 1) Adequate sewer - possible need to pay additional sewer unit or SAC charge 2) Confirm on site septic capability at full level of operation Applicant must submit septic tests to assure compliance A kA. « rj % Zoning File #1017 April 17, 1986 Page 6 of 7 F) Parking - , _ 1) Off street parking space for each guest room screened from public view - In LR districts applicant must provide hardcover inventory 1) Additional signage limits outside of Section 10.61 Subdivision 2 A B C 2) No commercial signs advertising B&B use, no special lighting except for low to grade safety lights H) Conditional Use Permit is not transferable to new owners - 1) B&B use must be licensed and routinely inspected by all appropriate agencies ~ City must receive copies of all licenses and inspection reports J) Conditional Use Permit must be approved annually. K) Structure must be inspected by Building Dept, of Orono to assure all pertinent fire code and building code standards are met. L) Appropriateness of Facility - Age of Structure - Size of Structure 1) Must structure be of a specific age, design, or size 2) What about limits on rooms for guests no matter the size of the structure, area of property, etc. M) What about prohibition of children's use of facility or is this best addressed in a resolution and with each specific case. N) If property has an approved B&B use what specific allowed residential uses should be denied to owners: a) other accessory uses b) other conditional uses c) public gatherings d) riparian rights of guests , •4_v. Or are these once again best addressed in each resolution with each specific case. P) Setbacks from lot line for B&B guest use activities (games, courts, picnic area, etc.) 30 feet, 40 feet, 50 feet Many of the items noted above may be better addressed with each specific application as suggested by the City Attorney. The amendment should provide specific standards regarding: 1. Appropriateness of facility ~ historic 2. Area - lot width standards 3. Ownership/occupied - non-transferable - annual renewal Signage & lighting : jti *1 • Zoning File 11017 April 17r 1986 Page 7 of 75. Parking - access - screening6. Sanitary facilities/water supply 7. Specific allowed residential uses denied to B&B use 8. Setbacks for all B&B activities from side & rear lot lines Applicant should submit their own covenants for the use of their home by guests concerning - sale of alcohol, pets, children, guests allowed per room, meals, etc. Staff suggests that a definition of a B&B use be added to the definition section of the code. Review the proposed definition and make necessary additions or amendments. "Bed 6.Breakfast" - The owner/resident of a principal structure/dwelling provides guest rooms in which overnight lodging is provided for financial compensation by reservation only, and where no provision is made for cooking in any guest rooms and regular meals are not provided on the premises and in which ingress and egress to and from all guest rooms is through the principal structure. ? MINUTEL OF THE REGUI^H OROKO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JANUARY .14, 19RIj PAGE 7<1 I ^J878 THOMAS & KRISTI KAUI.1900 SHORELINE DRIVEAPPEALS PETITION Thomas and Kr.isti Kaul were present. Neighbor PaulineBouchard of 1860 Shoreline Drive was also present. Kristi Kaul explained that she and her husband would like to restore the home at 1900 Shoreline Drive. Kaul noted that they would like to start a traditional bed and breakfast (hereafter B & B) operation in their heme. Kaul stated that a B & B operation is when guests come and stay in your home just overnight or for a few days. Kaul explained that she could start a day care in her own home, but that the day care use would be a more intense use of the property. Kristi Kaul noted that the heme has 7 bedrooms, but they are only requesting that 5 bedrooms be used for the E & B use. Kaul stated that they would restr.ict the maximum number of guests to 10. Kaul stated that the guests come on weekends during the summer and fall. Kaul stated that they expect 10 house guests per week. Kaul noted that their B & B use would be registered in the National Bed and Breakfast Registry. Kaul explained that guests come after 5 p.m. and leave by 11 a.m. which leaves little tim.e for yard or lake use. Kaul presented a survey to the Council regarding B & B uses and vfhat the neighbors thougnt of the B & B use in their neighborhood in Stillwater. Kaul stated that the neighbors are objecting to things that would not be happening. Kaul noted that there are a lot of misunderstandings about B & B's. Kaul explained that they are willing to do whatever the City wishes as far as licensing or permits. Kaul stated that they would be willing to let the City review their license every year so that if any neighbors have any complaints that things can be cleared up right away. Kristi Kaul stated that many of the B & B's that are in operation around Lake Minnetonka and surrounding communities did not even check with the City to get permission because they did not feel it was necessary. Kaul stated that neighbors have not complained about them and only a few people even know they exist. Mayor Butler noted that she was in favor of the application and asked staff how the City could approve this use. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that first the City would have to deny the appeals petition finding the Horne Occupation Section of the code not applicable for a B & B use. MINUTES OF THE REGUIJVR ORONO COUNCII. MEETING HEED JANUARY iA, ]9B5 PAGE S#878 KAUL (CONT.)Counci Imcmbor L. Adams stated that the B (. B concept is a good one. Adams felt that Planning Commission member Rovegno was right in his minority opinion at the Planning Commission meeting. Adams stated that he felt that this B fi. B use fits right in with Section 10.20 of the zoning code under accessory uses. Adams felt, that the Hauls weren’t asking for anything that is outside of the zoning ordinance. Planning Commission member Rovegno noted that the Hauls are willing to cooperate with the City and subject themselves to City review every year. City Attorney Radio stated that if the City was to view this application as a license, such license vrould not address the land use side of the application. Radio stated that the City could approve this under a Conditional Use Permit and review it from time to time and incorporate provisions in a resolution to be restrictive as the City wants. Councilmember T. Adams stated that he was in favor of. the application and that the conditional use permit is the way the City should approve this application. Pauline Bouchard of 186C Shoreline Drive noted that she was very concerned if the Council was considering placing no restrictions on the property. Bouchard stated that the City needs control over the property. Bouchard stated that the portion of lakeshore is very desireable and that it will attract quite a few people. Bouchard stated that it will look like a resort next door. Councilmember T. Adams moved, Mayor Butler seconded, to conceptually approve the bed and breakfast project and direct staff to prepare the necessary provisions under the code to handle this as a conditional use permit and come back to Council in 30 days with standards and rules that should be applied to the B & B use. Appeals petition fee to be applied towards a different application. Motion, Ayes (4), Kays (0). Councilmember L. Adams asked that staff check into the concept of letting the B & B concept fall under the accessory use section of the zoning code rather than the conditional use permit section. S / • 'i %-ENERAli'LAND /CITY OP ORONOAt^PLlCAT:I 3 h(^^ JO nPROPERTY LOCATIONSite Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /6 ’^JJ^'^0DC>/S^ Please check one - Is the property _ _ (for Conditional Use Applications only) abstract or torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name f Phone ^^ ^ S(9 Mailing Address d^Aj^ fioou^ //<e>, OWNER Name /}^cOeno. Date Property Acquired Phone (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS _ _ _ _ $100.00 a) Residential accessory Use _ _ _ _ $150.00 b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) DO c) Duplex Credit/Bldg 00 d) Commercial/Industrial Use 00 f) Land Alteration ______ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more _______ PRD/PID Cf^ZiJu OTHER APPLICATIONS $150.00 $250.00 $150.00 $ 50.00 Seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore ■ see fee schedule Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation Easement Vacation With Subdivision • •. OTHER APPLICATIONS - CONT. _ _ _ _ $250.00 Rezoning $200.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form 2.Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you can obtail this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Cernter 348-3271) 3.Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the namet on the above list with no return address. i 5. Certificate of survey. Construction plan, if applicable. Plat Map. ' c^OO.OO —I \» \ A V lA'V -VO tr\‘^4 ■'■?- • :'rV'I / r J The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. 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 Icnowledge. Applicant's signature OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signatu uici Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 davc: bP*fnT*a <-k 44 ii A 1I' ® **•»»■-r iJil r-v Jackie and Morris Nelson live in the Hamel area, married twelve years, and have a three year old daughter. Amy Christine. We are originally from the Fargo area and moved to the Minneapolis area twelve years ago. We have lived in Hamel for nine years. Jackie is employed by the Rockford School District where she has been a sixth grade teacher for eleven years. She is a graduate of Moorhead state University with an education degree specializing in reading and art. Jackie has coauthored a book on the history of Wright County. This book is used by many area schools and is in its third edition. Two of Jackie's learning centers have been pub lished by Instructor Magazine. Jackie is a watercolor artist. She particularly enjoys painting realistic nature settings. Her works hang in the homes of friends and family as well as our own. Jackie enjoys collecting novelty watches, a hobby which she shares with her students. She also collects bears. Morris is a computer and communication specialist with Rosemount, Inc. where he has been employed for the past c.1 f r ♦ L? 1^*tr V ; h A ■‘1*1.I . •!* I i ^f • >v :1 i| eight years. His responsibilities include assisting others within the company to use and communicate with computers to analyze data which helps Rosemount maintain its leadership its industries. Rosemount is a high-tech manufacturing company specializing in industrial and aerospace measurement devices. Morris* favorite pastimes include photography, and matting and framing Jackie's artwork. He also enjoys popular and classical music. Both Jackie and Morris enjoy restoring antiques. Our home is furnished with many of these items. Restoring a piece of furniture to its original condition is a satisfying experience. Restoring the "Blue House" would be an equally satisfy ing experience. Sharing it as a Bed and Breakfast Inn will allow others to appreciate its beauty. ))) m Tj ni > 9 > m z 6 6 z > o ) z ^ S> X 2 o3 5 m Hm > z Si» ^ a o 3 71 ffi gm 'I l^ii m > aa S -< > > ni Z O a z > os 3 Z z m H Q 3 z > s z> X 2 o 3 Z m Z m > z \ -< >> m z oo z > o 5 3 zz m 1> > X 2 o 3 z m z m > z N •< > § z ^ o O 3 Zz m Hn D a 1 y ■I 1 y I y >1 ^ 09 » 5 SS a O H o m 5:1•—r>» O O 30 M "H m 3 H S m ^ z m ;o ni 01 H X m M |S55 m m M z O T1 Q >ss^-' igM™ w 5 ^ >m -< Q n r * H M O 3 0)•n,!5!5S» 533 ^ ^>!i! ^ 3“§ _ «-Syp " |5S^ o ni m r^M ;*ap 2fUf Sz oO m • M •- 4> O 04 -i . «-4»;i»«»> ♦ < ^ '■•• rt 4t/ N- \ V V !• r u li> c>. c>r c »•* ^ X* CtaiSTERED Land Survey N?_9£ MENNiiPifsj C ounty , MINN'£SOTA € > E(?3n. Field Y Nowak ^ engineers ^ Surveyors Scale'.r= 100 4 t r.» Y ■?<' '.V vr.V' *■ykf4 /-^tr ,\JV ' '‘‘'/v- * %* . ■'.» /. A eh’: »>'/ >v.//. vf: / V v^rr /V.'’,'v//>/>/’.■»'• M/.nmsc/s S^s^u^es cT. ;n\»nc/ec/. /hsv<s Surv^s<>o^/o/foiv/n^ o'^scr/cey rrsc/c: cr'/^'ye//r* f/7^ Ccunfy c/^Uenmp/n ^nd S/s/s c.yil/nmfy^ fciv^:' ^^^’{•’' Vc'^^^y yV, yJ^yy^pr;^ ScySy/hWc'^ AuPi6s>r JSc. ypnrjep/h Coan/\,AJ.'nne$c/s. / T/?s/r/:eSun/ey shax/i herpon /s S cor^pcf Oc/ypc7r/pf^ p/'s^p/y s^n py. M'n/?eppp//s . M/nn. 7pc7^py r.h/s______ .__yO. 1952. Sur% evPP- A itnn. /Ppp'. /V^ //S7 / cP I *—i i(i 0Ct25'^ ^i0*7 S IhTKUbUCTIUH 7nd Many large historical homes all over the world are ialling into ruin because they are too large and costly Tor one I’amily to maintain. This is a serious problem. We see an antidote for one of these houses on Lake Minnetonka, we wish to restore the house back to its original grandur which will be enjoyed by many people in the future like others have in the past. P’or years in Lurope the owners of castles and large homes have allowed paying house guests to come and stay in their homes to help maintain the estate. This is where the new conceut of a iaed ana* Breakfast was born. Every state in the Union prides itself with historic areas ana homes. Bed and Breakfasts dot the country in these historical sites. Concentrations of B&B's are on the east and west coasts. In Minn esota there are sixteen historical homes and buildings being usea as a private home and a B&b. There is a b&b Registry in Minnesota witn 40 locations and 80 rooms available. One is even located in the Minnetonka beach area. Two new B&B*s are planning on opening soon in the area, one in the Pierce-wyer house in Excelsior and one in the burwell House in Minnetonka Mills. • \ BED AIMD BhEAKFAST? WHAT IS IT? A Bed and Breakfast is a private home (almost exclusively in a residential area) in which the owners allow people to be their house guests for a fee by prereservation. The type of house guests which generally stay in a B&B are 25-80 y.o. in the middle to upper income bracket. They are looking for a quiet, romantic, home as a retreat or place to celebrate a special occasion i.e. honeymoon, anniversary, or birthday. Included with the lodging is generally an over view of the home and areas history, and a full breakfasts The rooms vary in decorations and whether or not they have a private or shared bath. There are as many types of B&B‘s as there are BkB's. We are planning a B&B similar to Thornwood in Hastings, Overlook Inn in Stillwater, and Pratt Tabor Inn in Red Wing. The similarities are: the home is in a residential area, the family who cwnes and operates tlie B&B live in the house, and the house does not have a commercial kitchen (they serve a hearty continental breakfast). i2se Bed t L Breakfest rom Maine to California, Americans are discovering the pleasures of this traditionally British institution. by Norman T. Simpson merica is being swept by bed-and-breakfast fever. Along well-traveled high ways, in quiet country .villages and in the center of bustling towns —bed-and- breakfast inns and homes are popping up all over the country; California alone boasts more than 450 accomnnodations. There are establishments custom- made for bicylists, hikers, skiers, city folks seeking tranquillity and antique, history and architecture buffs. Just a few years ago, the term "bed- and-breakfast,” or "B6B," was as sociated almost exclusively with Brit ain: it evoked an image of the thrifty English fiousewife who tucked away a few extra shillings by renting out her two spJ^ bedrooms and offering a bit of breakta."' ‘^odny, however, the B&B establishmort" n' no longer solely a British institution. has become an American phenotTienon. On this side of the Atlantic, the definition of a B&B accommodation is elastic, stretching to include everything from small private homes with a cou ple of extra bedrooms (resembling the British original), to imposing mansions with chandeliers and parquet floors, to rustic lodges overlooking a lake or the sea, to country inns and small hotels that offer a complimentary breakfast along with room service. A far cry from a distant cousin, the "tourist home" of Mornings at a BQB lodging may begin with homemade muffins, a bow! of fresh fruit and hot tea or coffee. the 1920's and 1930's, which was notorious ’ for its threadbare carpets, skimpy towels and creaky beds, the B&B establishment is, at the least, comfortably and attractively furnished. In some cases, it may be opulently out fitted, featuring such luxuries as Jacuzzis, hot tubs, breakfast in bed and shoe-shine service. The main distinction between a B&B home and a B&B inn is not sim ply one of size, although the inn usu ally has more bedrooms and at least one common room reserved exclusive ly for guests. It has more to do with at mosphere: a home, where guests share the living and dining rooms, full of personal souvenirs, bibelots and photographs, with the host family, is obviously more intimate. Innkeepers, on the other hand, often live in separate quarters, and are not always accessible to their guests. One fortunate result of the B&B movement has been the renovation of a number of lovely, capacious old buildings. Beautifully restored homes and inns, many of them on the Na tional Register of Historic Places, can be found in such disparate places as southern California, Colorado, Maine and New Jersey. Dilapidated houses, whether they are Victorian piles or Federal town houses, are prime can didates for bed-and-breakfast conver sion. More eccentric structures, such as former mills, factories, schools, hos pitals, barns and carriage houses, have also been made into lodgings. Inside, it is not unusual to find canopied or four-poster beds, marble- topped chests, handmade quilts, braided rugs and family portraits; if you are lucky, you might even end up in a room with a v^orking fireplace. Hand some reproductions of antiques grace the rooms of some B&B establish ments. and a few places are filled with the real item, complemented by orien tal rugs and fine objets d'art; their opulence is reflected in higher rates Most homes and inns, however, fea ture furniture best described as "early attic"-interesting if well-worn relics obtained by the family at auctions, flea markets and antique stores. in many B&B homes, guests share a bathroom. However, )ust as innkeep ers have become more responsive to the American public ’s preference for privacy, many B&B proprietors have added private baths to the guest rooms. There is a segment of inn-goers who don't mind sharing a bathroom, myself among them. The breakfast part of the B&B equa tion is usually continental-meaning juice, breads or rolls, and coffee. This term, however, is open to interpreta tion. You may be served orange juice that is frozen or freshly squeezed, or you may be offered a choice of juices and fresh fruit. A couple of slices of toast may follow, or you may be pre sented with a spread of home-baked breads, sweet rolls, croissants, muf fins, popovers - you name it-accom panied by jam, sometimes made from fruit harvested in the yard. Freshly brewed coffee and a choice of a dozen ** *Advt'nture Road January/Ft^bruaty 1365 13 r leas may bo offered Some hosts - they are more the exception than the rule — have no truck with such dainty fare; they serve such stick-to-your-rib Items as hot cereal, eggs and bacon or sausage, French toast, pancakes, waf fles, omelets, quiches, crepes, fritters and roast-beef hash. However, in these days of thinking thin, many people don't care for a big breakfast, so the continental one fills the bill nicely. If a heartier meal is preferred, it may be available for an extra charge. Most B6B proprietors do not pro vide other meals, although afternoon tea with cookies or crackers is coming into vogue. Some hosts serve wine and cheese or hors d’oeuvres at cocktail hour —a custom almost de rigeur in California and, I suspect, in other areas where there is a good deal of competi tion. (In all fairness, many proprietors offer these little extras simply because they enjoy making their guests feel at home ) A cold or even a hot meal may not be out of the question for the fam ished traveler who arrives at dinner time, and some inns serve dinner reg ularly. However, it is best to check ahead: dinner is available at some places if arrangements have been made in advance. Otherwise, the pro prietor can probably recommend a The Inn at Stockbhdge. in Massa chusetts, offers skiers a cozy respite. m ■ m-m good rcstauront nearby. When you arrive, you may be greet ed by a single woman or man, two women, two men, a man and a wom an partner, a married couple or a fami ly; your host may be either young, old or middle-aged. No particular combin ation or age range seems to have the corner on success Usually, the host's personality determines if the atmos phere IS casual or formal. Guests may be welcome to wander into the kitch en, they may gather around the table for breakfast, or they may help them selves from a buffet and retire to their rooms. Some proprietors inspire their Visitors to pen poems about them; others are savvy, alert to opportunities for publicity, such as the B&B owner I encountered a few years ago in the Midw'est: when I arrived at the estab lishment, after having driven many miles, I discovered that the enterpris ing innkeeper had made arrangements for my visit to be covered by two televi sion and three radio stations a.nd both local newspapers. In choosing B&B accommodations, there are a few points to consider. If you are a smoker, find out if the place has a no-smoking policy; otherwise, you might end up out on the porch try ing to enjoy a cigarette in a gale If the house is adjacent t'' . restaurant or a tavern, your sleep mu it be pierced by the sounds of merriment m the wee Mf:ii Ben it hours. For similar reasons. S-‘e your room doesn't ‘font a t-S.- st'ee:. Be wafy if the house or me > r.'0 sro a 'S neglect, chances a^e the irs de .v". a >z shoddv.AA final Viiord of sajt.C" ^all mom-and-pop estab ’ s^'-e-ts. unlike larger places, a'e ret -s-a > subject to local by ’.a^vs the-. '-'=•/ la:*; liability insurance, end their f *e P'av^"- tion features and samta-'y may leave much to be des *ed * Small children a.'e net gene'a i •**- - comeat B&Bestablishrrierts. .-tt'cse places in which they are a ev.-ed, me host's own childrer ’ may prede d .e;'- sion. Very often a friendly c:o c* cat adds a homey touch. If yc - a*e r:t partial to children and you ret cs tcr.s scattered around the ya'd, c' ' ,-cu a*e allergic to animals and see a oc-c'cuse, you'd best drive on. With the exception cf inns, mes: B&B places do rot feature s-.*. '"mirg pools, tennis cours and cthe' 'ecrea- tiona! facilities. Hewe-.er, rr.a-\- a-esu'* rounded b-/ woods or crcss-c:-'my s< trails Some places are equ peed v/im. indoor diversions, such as t>DC«;s a'd magazines, video tapes, boa'C cames and jigsav; puzzles, which ca' be a boon if your vacation gets .'■a 'ed out. The intimacy and scedb t. of a B&B home can become a b t steky. given the w-rong mix of peep e Hc-w- ever, I believe that B&B visitc's tend to be a friendly, to'e'ant let, vmc en;P. different kinds of peop'e. i'-.e "earn stories about guests w-^- c we*e eacer :: pitch in and help cut when a p*:c'e"': arose. Perhaps B63 acccmn-caat cns are answering a rea' need fc' '-ma-' contact, felt not only by Guests, b-t also by proprietors. People dc't cce' their homes to strange.-s see / be cause of the profit m.oti'.e; ng = B&B establishment is ret mat lucra tive Many B&B owners ha.-a tc d that their real reason for gc "t business was to escape f.'C'^ .w W. « it pr- t i - w «porate world and live m humane v/ay. Most sad the, .-.e'e g ac they had made the change t.~c a~' jiad the-,' made the cha'oa-B&B hosts are offering g'owing r ."■be^s c*’ travelers a home away fmm -erne. Norman T Simpson is the a^mc' z" the Country Inns and Back F.oadS se.ner and Bed & Breakfast, An e'C-n Stye •• V ♦ ••^ . 14 AfJvcntuM' Road Januafy/FebrurKy 198b TW^ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR THE RIVERTOWN INN BED AND BREAKFAST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Sherwood and Gloria Vegsund 1. Maximum of eight (8) bedrooms to be used for guests of the Inn. Maximum of sixteen (16) guests per day. No children under twelve (12) years of age will be allowed. No pets allowed. No liquor to be sold to or consumed by guests on the premises. Wee)cend guests required to stay two (2) nights. Breal<fast served only to paying guests of the Inn. No other uses or functions such as wedding receptions permitted. On-site parking with numbered parking spaces will be provided Vegsunds and employees shall park in the carriage house. No additional exterior lights will be added. An identification sign of the size and type approved by the City and permitted by the City Ordinances will be provided. The Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed annually. Either a member of the Vegsund family or a comparable person would be on site at all times for the purpose of managing the facility. i ■ ‘j '"I RESOLUTIO.'I NO. 84- 31 L. RESOLUTION OF THE EXCELSIOR CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AND PERMIT PROPERTY AT 201 MILL STREET TO BE USED AS A BED AND BREAKFAST INN WHEREAS, the City of Excelsior has received an application for a conditional use permit to allow and permit property described as Lots 1 through 8, Wilcox Subdivision Lot 62 and part of Lot 64, Auditor's Subd. 120 to be used as a bed and breakfast inn limited to not more than 10 guest rooms, and WHEREAS, a published notice or hearing of said application has been had and a hearing held before the Planning Commission of the City of Excelsior on September 10, 1984, and the council of the City of Excelsior has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission in regard to the application, and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application and the interests of the public and other matters involving such requested use; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the ity of Excelsioi that a conditional use is hnrphv arr.nrfari rCity of Excelsioi that a conditional use is hereby granted to authorize the property described as Lots 1 through 8, Wilcox Subdivision Lot 62 and part of Lot 64, Auditor's Subd. 120 to be used as a bed and breakfast inn limited to a facility of not more than 10 guest rooms, .subject, however, to the following terms and conditions: 1. That there be a minimum of 13 spaces made available fo parking cars on the property. 2. No exterior changes are to be made to the building. 3. Off-building signage shall be limited to 25 square feet and on-building signage shall be limited to 100 square inches. 4. Kitchen facilities may be maintained on the premises. . second building located on the premises may be con tir.ued to be used as a residence dwelling. i • Pago 2 6. The site plan attached to this conditional use permit is hereby approved and is incorporated herein and included as part of the limiting terras of this conditional use permit. This conditional use permit shall be effective on and after November 15, 1984. Upon vote being taken there were 5 yeas and 0 nays Attest: e ^^tersoVTcfty Clerk 4 Adopted by the Excelsior City Council September 17, 1984. j t April 18, 1986 1860 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN. SS391 Planning Commiasion City of Orono Dear Comnilaaion Members: RE: Petition for conditional use permit to operate a bed and breakfast establishment at 1860 Shoreline Drive As the property owners residing adjacent to the subject property, we oppose any official decision which would eventually allow for the use of the residence at 1900 Shoreline Drive as a bed and breakfast (B & B) establishment. Regardless of what such an establishment is called, and regardless of any promises which the operators might make, it is still a commercial establishment, with all the usually attendant problems of noise, traffic, signs, parking and inquiries from customers seeking directions. Ours is a residential neighborhood which would like to keep that way. There is already an excess of commercialism, particularly for those of us who reside near the intersection of Shoreline Drive and Spates Avenue. Any official city action authorizing the establishment of a B & B would only allow that commercialism to encroach even closer to our property. As to the question which was posed last year when a similar request was made, about what the City should do about its old houses, there are alternatives which do not necessitate commercialization of such properties. City officials are not elected to make decisions which benefit individual property owners at the expense of their neighbors, particularly not when the property can be used as a single family residence. Allowing operation of a B & B at 1900 Shoreline Drive would undoubtedly affect negatively the value of our property and therefore should not be approved. We thank you for the opportunity to express our views encouraging the maintenance of the unique and deslreable residential character of our neighborhood . Sincerely yours. Thomas and Pauline Bouchard April 18, 1986 Planning Commission City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re; Commercial Use of Single Family Residences as Motels/Restaurants Zoning Amendment Application //1017 Dear Members of the Commission: Please permit us to again raise our concerns and objections to the City of Orono*s permitting single family residences to be used as motels/restaurants. In our view Orono is a unique community, and it is that unique ness that induced us to purchase our home. It is unique not only visually and statistically (witness its "country roads", low density housing, wetlands, and limited commercial develop ment), but also because it has taken specific action to preserve its uniqueness. This is something other communities have not done. Examples? Orono took upon itself the task of on-site sewage treatment management, thereby preserving its rural size lots. Another? Orono has attempted to keep County Rd. 15 a two lane road, thereby protecting all those homeowners, their property values, and the character of the City*s lake frontage. In short, Orono is unique because it has made an effort to pre serve its main characteristic ‘(rural-like single family residency^. Now, is this proposed amendment by itself equivalent to widening County Rd. 15? Obviously not. But that does not mean that there cannot be longer-term implications and unforeseen results that will follow from approval. And it does not mean that Orono officials should feel at all obliged to be accommodating with a plan that is, no matter how you cut it, the opposite of what single family residency is all about. We note that when this discussion was last brought up, there was considerable material developed about where a "B&B" would fit into the existing community. A "B&B" was called "quasi commercial". "Continental Breakfast", not meals, would be served. People using the facilities would be "guests". We are reminded of the joke about the woman who was asked by a man if she would sleep with him for, first, one million dollars (yes she would). Planning Commission - Page 2 then for half a million dollars (she still would), and finally for one hundred dollars (no she wouldn't, what kind of a woman did he think she was?). In our view these euphemisms avoid the main point. If you accept a buck, it's commerce; if you eat food, it's a meal; and if you pay for a bed, you're a customer. And if you have these things, you have a motel, not a family residence. This proposed amendment would put that motel in a single- family, residential neighborhood. It would deny the residents of that neighborhood the zoning protection they thought they purchased when they bought their homes. It would visit upon those neighbors the risk of lower property values (they cer- won't go up, folks), the additional noise, lights, and traffic that attend commerce, and forever reduce, however mar ginally, some of the special uniqueness of Orono. One last issue we would like to address is the community's concern for the preservation of its older homes. We certainly cannot provide any ready answers to this problem. However, we would like to point out that, in our opinion, with apologies to everyone concerned, the house at 1900 Shoreline Drive does not warrant special concern. With extensive repairs, it will once again become a nice home for a single family. All it will take is a price that reflects the current condition of the home. We do not understand why Orono should become involved in this real estate transaction. We are sorry for the length of this letter. However, we believe that this proposed amendment is not in our interests, those of our neighborhood, nor those of the larger Orono community. Approval of an amendment which has the effect of changing the character of a neighborhood should only be granted when there are clear and unchallenged reasons for doing so. In this case approval is just plain unnecessary. Sincere!y. Kathy and Greg Coward Owners of 1950 Heritage Drive y A.,L To: Fr< Date: Subject: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator April 18, 1986 #1020 Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, 2685 North Shore Drive - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing APPLICATION - Conditional Use Permit approval for the Noerenberg Park Master Plan LIST OF EXHIBITS A- Application B- Plat Map C- Property Owners List D- Hardcover Calculations E“ Master Plan Deborah Bartels and Marty Jessen of the Park District will be making a presentation of the Master Plan for the Noerenberg Memorial Park. I would make the following preliminary comments: 1- North side of Co. Rd. 51 - proposal includes relocation of the driveway about 100' east of its present location, and significant regrading of the hill in that area to make it suitable for overflow parking. The driveway will be continue to be gravel; the overflow parking is intended to be grass covered. The house here was connected to sewer in 1975. 2~ Changes on the ^outh side of Co. Rd. 51 appear to be more intensive, and include: a) Relocation of the entrance driveway b) Construction of a new 50-car bituminous parking lot c) Removal of the existing garage/storage building d) Construction of a new visitor center e) Construction of a Memorial Arbor f) Construction of approximately 1/2 mile of pathways through the grounds. 3- Hardcover review - please note ^he hardcover calculations provided by the applicant. Because of the relati e‘y large acreage within the park, the hardcover percentages are quite sm*!!. Note the portions of the trail system located within 75' of the lakeshore are for the most part located on relatively flat areas where they will have an insignificant effect on the runoff. The gazebo and pumphouse are pre-existing structures. The 0-75' hardcover proposed is 5% on the south side of Co. Rd. 51, which translates to 0.9% over the entire property. 75-250' hardcover is 6% south of 51 or 2.5% overall. 4- Drainage review - City Engineer 0. ^nn Cook has reviewed the grading and drainage plans, and will be putting his comments in writing. To summarize, it appears that virtually all of the runoff from the visitor #1020 April 18, 1986 Page 2 of 2 center and parking lot will be directed toward a holding pond area next to Co. Rd. 51 which will provide excellent treatment of runoff waters. The bulk of the flow is overland with one stretch of storm drain to be created. Glenn's main concern in the drainage plan was that the pond have an overflow swale or culvert perhaps to the southwest, so that under unusual flood conditions the high water level will stay at least 3* below the County Road elevation. 5- Access - the entrances to the north and south portions of the property will be moved to the east as previously noted, and will be opposite each other. I have requested that Hennepin County DOT review this but no response yet. 6“ Utilities - there is no City water in this area, hence a new well is intended to be installed at the east end of the visitor center. Building Inspector Tom Jacobs in his preliminary review of the plans noted that the visitor center would likely require a sprinkler system and some type of water storage facility. Sewer - Public Works Director John Gerhardson informs me that a sewer stub is available but is located on the north side of Co. Rd. 51 which will require approval of Hennepin DOT for the crossing of the road. Also, the sewer line in this area is owned by the MWCC, so the connection will require MWCC approval, as well as City of Orono approval because this is still considered an "unsewered" zone in Orono's Comprehensive Plan. An additional question yet to be answered is what assessment, if any, should be paid for the use of this stub. John also suggested that an inventory of existing storm sewer and culverts serving the property be provided. 7- Landscape/Screening - please review the landscape plan submitted. The planting schedule would appear to provide natural vegetation screening around the perimeter of both north and south parking areas. Please be reminded that the park is located in the RR-IB Single Family Residential zone. While "parks" are a permitted use is RR-IB, the multi use facility to be provided at Noerenberg Park requires additional review, and the Conditional Use Permit is the appropriate method for review. In looking at the use aspect of this project, consider that the visitor center includes a classroom; that there is a "sales" booth planned, probably for books, pamphlets, art prints, etc.; and that the facility has in the past and will likely continue to be used for weddings. The facilities suggest that larger groups, garden clubs, school field trips, etc. might be likely users of the facilities. The Planning Commission might request that the applicants elaborate on the expected intensity and types of users of the property. lat a 1. 51 road. :tion this An lould imi ly ilti- view. A A : and tted. ening Submitted March 28, 1986 by Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District 12615 County Road 9 Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 well Iter. loted some APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE CITY OF ORONO FOR NOERENBERG MEMORIAL COUNTY PARK sitor ined, f has The rips, ssion Y and HENNEPINPARKS Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District 12616 County Road 9 p.o. Box 41320 Plymouth. MN 6644 1 (612)559-9000 (CITY OP OROHO GBHBRAL LARD USB APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2865 north shore drive , wayzata Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) _P9-117-23-2A-OOOI Please check one - Is the property x abstraei- (for Conditional Use Applications only)torrens? description to application i£ not includedrequired survey# APPLICANT S Name Suburban Hennepin Regional Park Districphone 559 “9000 Mailing Address 12615 Co. Rd. 9, Plymouth. MN 554^1 OWNER Name Suburban Hennepin Regional Park Distrlcphona 559 “9000 Mailing Address 12615 Co. Rd. 9. Plymouth, MN 55^41 Date Property Acquired March, 1972 (month/year) I (dO)i (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS $100.00 a) « $150.00 b) Residential accessory Use Institutional (churchr school, etc.) Duplex Credit/Bldg Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 f) Land Alteration (grading, filling) PRD/PID - see fee schedule $150.00 c) $250.00 d) Other JM^pllcatlons $250.00 Vacation $250.00 Rezoning f 9 1 i ' ■$100.00 Appeals ' i i Other -see fee schedule L_ 1 ens? ded PP^ENT USE OF PROPERTYPresent Zoning District Present Use of Property •»a fl S *■ I ;7H ii ..'7- ■1 vLR-^'IA^ Lakeshore Res"f(5ent ia 1 X Residential (North Parcel) Other (specify) ,,4JnnrnnkQi'j DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST c u u u Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District seeks Describe request in detail; „ ^se per. it and approval for the L«.ElL«l.nji.rih.of.Co^_R_d^_5t.wjl]__b_e_a ,2 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS parking spaces for visitors and a*Trr*^l~now’Wd‘area TSF overflow parking from the gardens. 1. Completed Application Form. £romHln!fepfnS^rDep?rtmento°W on the 4e Certificate of survey. 5. Construction plans, if applicable. 6. Plat Map. OBR NHft •• •• MB BV 4BIB EBE BM ___ ___ that*yoit''aDDlTeM'Ton®f^^ applicatIon7'plMsi’r^emterincluded! is not complete if the above information has not been APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE th^ hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested bv in reS!ew^f *=•= ^nd/or unusual expenlelTncurred and co\Te:l\^“th"e'’be?t"oThW^^^^^ information supplied is true MApplicant's signature OWNERS SIGNATURE rector, Dep^r^tmenl bf Planning S Engineering Date ^arch 28, 1986 Owner's signature 4 ^7"(^^artment ot/ l^anniui rectorrbepartrfient o|^P/nanning £ Engineering Date March 28, 1986 r submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Monday of eTc'h moTt^^^ Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Moerenberg Memorial County Park Legal Description That part of Government Lot 2 and 3 lying northeasterly of Noerenberg Channel and that part of Government Lot 4 and 8 lying northerly of Highway No. 51 and lying westerly of Highway No. 84, all in Section 9, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County,Minnesota. Also: That part of Government Lot 4 described as beginning at the intersection of the west line of Government Lot 4 and centerline of County Road No. 51; thence southwestly along said centerline 390.0 feet; thence southerly to a point on the shore of Lake Minnetonka 322.5 feet easterly as measured along said shoreline from the southwest corner of said Government Lot 4; thence westerly along said shoreline 322.5 feet to the southwest corner of said Government Lot 4; thence North along the west line of said Government Lot 4 to the point of beginning. All in Section 9, Township 117, Range 23. Also Except: That part of Government Lot 3 and that part of Government Lot 8, if any, described as commencing at the southeast corner of said Section 9, thence on an assumed bearing of North 9 degrees 39 minutes 57 seconds East along the east line of said Section 9, a distance of 1323.63 feet, thence South 89 degree^ 54 minutes 41 seconds L'est a distance of 324.00 feet; thence North 58 degrees 28 minutes 49 seconds West a distance of 1268.51 feet; thence North 64 degrees 32 minutes 27 seconds West a distance of 859.20 feet; thence North 72 degrees 38 minutes 02 seconds West a distance of 472.14 feet; thence North 00 degrees 58 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 194.14 feet, thence North 87 degrees 01 minutes 30 seconds West a distance of 13.0 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 00 degrees 58 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 82.0 feet; thence North 87 degrees 01 minutes 30 seconds West a distance of 31.0 feet; thence North 00 degrees 58 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 83.0 feet; thence South 88 degrees 28 minutes 30 seconds a distance of 98.0 feet; thence South 5 degrees 09 minutes 15 seconds East a distance of 158.81 feet; thence South 87 degrees 01 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 112.0 feet to actual point of beginning. //cjy- , //1. o 1 1 II 1 ■ I ) o o M n fi m 3 H 5 m ^ X m » m (/) H 75 m MX r n m H -< moom 32** I h* >) 1 1 1 38ac c- c-i ooi r>o o»KO ^ O 3 Qo MOO 1 0^ tn 3 rt* O Qo 1 «• CL ro ^ 3S n> 3 O W 3 3 “» -» M Lfj ^ ->• —*^.J (/> o> n>r+ 3 -J Ol O* 3 GO cn —•O CJ 7^O U3 CO -J-O—• o» n> «< 3 ISI 33 —• a. (D 1 O > ■Hn XIi oo r>j a > Hm o U4 V. M NS mim TJ M X no C a J 00 3 O•om X 3 mQ ^*: —• o o O id0* CD —> —■CO niIX M N tn 0) X Ol O -♦> -h —J •n rt M S Ol a: -Ti -n«# Ol 1ro 155 TO -H -H CO HA__As —* -I S ro Ol Ol M i X9 “h -h «i^ # ro (II cn Q. C-. c-to cmo -s "5 o m CO n>o X CO o —• X5 90mi H o oni • •o M ^ U4 1/1 o 4 1 <T U) • M O ■) 00 as H O H m ^ o o C ri rr n sr a" ro ro 0> OJ (jJ ^ u> 4S « •C' O OJ to VO CO CO NJ i-» 0) CD (0 • • • hti i-h r-h «• Ui I O I «• XN Ln O CO CO CO • • • Hi Hi Hi • • • LO O ON 5^3 3^ • • • Hi Hi Hi • » • Ln O 0 1 ooo ro o u> 3^3 3^ LO Ui 3^ H in o g H C > rtr* sr 25 O H H ro ui 0 1 Uioo H O C/5 2S O O C H H Hsr :r U1 Iro Ln O H O H CO 25 O O C H H HO' =r 0 1 Ln J [ rj Lo VO CJN O ON VO !-• 00 «• « w 00 ro ON VO O CDO -O VO oc CO CO CO • • • Hi Hi Hi ^ O 4>- C3N LO lO 0^10 O Ln Ln CO CD CO • • • Hi Hi Hi H* ^ 3^ ^3 3^ Hi Hi Hi -C> Ln 3^3 • • ON O' ^3 3si LJ O 3^ o ro 00 CO x> o -vj U) 00 u> ^ -O VO 00 C3N ^ to CO CO CO • • • Hi Hi Hi ^ o ^ Ln O U1o o o CO CO CO • • • Hi Hi Hi • • • to XN ^ 3^ 3^ 3^ Hi Hi Hi ro ON H- • 3^ • Ln iN ^3 ^3 ro v-n 3^3 Ln H- i> VO I— 00 'vj 4N LJ vO to Ln LJ VO ^ 00 ^ ^ CO CO CD • • • Hi Hi Hi ro lo o o o o o o CO CO CO • • • Hi Hi Hi LJ ^ O 3^ 3^ ^5 o• Ul ^ro H» H-Ln Ln H*cr ►tj LJ LJ ro O' V-n ON ro w w D 0> ri w w WWW WWW Ln Ln •1 O H•1 H•CX) ov -o ^ o VO VO O N O. *0•o 1 VO VO O VO 00 o 00 CO O o o Ln Ul Ln Ln o ^ 00 VO CO 9 O CD CO CD •(0 < fl> CD CD c?>CO CD CD s8s••Hi fl) CL Hi Hi • VD Ln O 3^3 30 3-3 O 30 ■gsT Jt ■*»- N O:oto in r* (0 » rr ^ cr <T> 0) COo a" o H 0) H* M M 3 O X rt H* N O to 0) H 0) CO H :o (0 OQ H* D* W 9 0> X H H* N CL CO O O H 5 O H*35 <5 d fl) CT5 H Q nro:o H D) DO (D cr W 0) X H H* CL CO O H O H* 3 (t> CW H 0) H O (!) 0 rt 0) IDQ cr ^ 10 H H O CL-Oo oo <ro CO (0 CL ro Ho 0):o rt 0) OQ (!) P" > D) H* H M CL O O € O <ro H ro CL ) lOo /03-O JAMES A. MITCHELL 2685 North Shore Drive Orono, Minnesota 55391 ::■! APR2li3^ i J Ll. LMoroiToNo^ April 17, 1986 Planning Commission City of Orono 1275 South Brovm Road Orono, MN 55391 Dear Commissioners: Subject: #1020 Noerenberg Memorial County Park. We will be out of town on Monday, April 21, and therefore are unable to attend the public hearing on Noerenberg Park. We do however want to comment on this application. We^ live at 2685 North Shore Drive, on the lot immediately adjacent to the east side of the park. Thus we are very personally concerned with the development which i« being proposed. We believe that Mrs. Noerenberg's intent in donating this park to the county is clear. She wished to make a space available where residents of the county could go to enjoy nature. This might take the form of looking at beautiful flowers or pastoral woodlands. We have serious questions about whether the large facilities which are being proposed are appropriate in a rural residen tial area. If these buildings are constructed, we believe it essential that their exterior be consistent with the pastoral setting in which they are located. Of even greater significance to us is the proposed parking lot. We believe that it is appropriate for the park to include a facility for parking, and think that 50 spaces is not excessive. However, we feel very stronkly that this parking lot should not impair our enjoyment of our property nor impose on the rural character of our neighborhood. We strongly urge you to require a berm which would screen the parking lot from our view, and i“ series of plantings to further enhance the rural nature of the park and screen the development from us (and us from the users of the park). 1 i 4 -2- We very much appreciate your attention to our request. Our intention is not to interfere with the public's enjoyment of the park. We do want to preserve the rural character of our neighborhood and the park, consistent with Mrs. Noerenberg's desires and those of the residents of this area. Thank you. ll ^ Jim, Pat and David Mitchell ■ V ■ JAMES A. MITCHELL 2685 North Shore Drive Orono, Minnesota 55391 Al l . t \ u VAi I City (• u April 17, 1986 Planning Commission City of Orono 1275 South Brown Road Orono, MN 55391 Dear Commissioners: Subject: #1020 Noerenberg Memorial County Park. We will be out of town on Monday, April 21, and therefore are unable to attend the public hearing on Noerenberg Park. We do however want to comment on this application. We^ live at 2685 North Shore Drive, on the lot immediately adjacent to the east side of the park. Thus we are veiry personally concerned with the development which is beink proposed. We believe that Mrs. Noerenberg's intent in donating this park to the county is clear. She wished to make a space available where residents of the county could go to enjoy nature. This might take the form of looking at beautiful flowers or pastoral woodlands. • We have serious questions about whether the large facilities which are being proposed are appropriate in a rural residen tial area. If these buildings are constructed, we believe it essential that their exterior be consistent with the pastoral setting in which they are located. Of even greater significance to us is the propos'sd parking lot. We believe that it is appropriate for the park to include a facility for parking, and think that 50 spaces is not excessive. However, we feel very strongly that this parking lot should not impair our enjoyment of our property nor impose on the rural character of our neighborhood. We strongly urge you to require a berm which would screen the parking lot from our view, and series of plantings to further enhance the rural nature of the park ana screen the development from us (and us from the users of the park). i m -2- We very much appreciate your attention to our request. Our intention is not to interfere with the public's enjoyment of the park. We do want to preserve the rural character of our neighborhood and the park, consistent with Mrs. Noerenberg’s desires and those of the residents of this area. Thank you. A' Jim, Pat and David Mitchell i TO:Planning Commission FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator DATE: April 9, 1986 SUBJ: #1021, Jan & Nora Akerberg, 4075 Highwood Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB Application - Request to add hardcover with concurrent hardcover removal, all in 75*-250* setback zone Existing 0-75* hardcover - 544 square feet or 12.4% Proposed 0-75* hardcover - no changes Existing 75-250* hardcover - 3604 square feet or 34.3% Proposed 75-250* hardcover - 3604 square feet or 34.3% (See survey and staff hardcover review exhibit E) List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Hardcover Review 4 SuMeY P^F/Ai/A/G The applicants are proposing to construct an addition to their home, and to replace the existing detached garage with a more conforming detached garage and new driveway. As you will note from the staff hardcover review based on the applicant*s survey, the proposed removals of existing garage, sidewalk, plastic, and gravel parking area offset the proposed improvements so that there will be no net increase in hardcover on the property. Note that the new garage location will meet the required side setback and will be 27* from the street right-of-way, opening to the side rather than to the street. This would seem to be vastly preferable over the existing situation from a safety and road maintenance standpoint. The existing boat house is nonconforming in that it is not only in the 0-75* zone, but is mostly on the public alleyway. This nonconforming structure is subject to the pertinent ordinances which ^upgrading or remodeling of such a structure. You may ask the applicants whether they have any plans to remove the structure. A recommendation for approval of a hardcover variance could be based on finding that there will be no net increase in hardcover on the lot, and that the new garage will be in a more conforming location than the old one (note that under the proposed zoning amendment to allow side loading garages 10’ from the street lot line, this garage would become completely conforming). CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ' • V a ':<t‘ • -'■- •V. Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional project) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Addre£is VA'\C|VoV Cd n X'-?.* -• f}r V--/rv Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Please check one — Is the property abstract or _ _ torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name tlAfJ k)0^fi Phone {H I Mailing Address H ^ g'/yuJor??) M e>u/x;^ rn/J OWNER Name \)AKi 4 A;qR-Y\ /^kev\?€-/cj Phone _____ Mailing Address H iqVix),or<j) f<?.A j 6 -Tg"(month/year)Date Property Acquired I (do) fdo not)) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property OhfB Lqk^Siogrg^Residential _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ,O0O * Describe request in detail: /] c *>£ r^aiigst^) T<:> ^ Q UJ r} V. ^ A / "T 7 ^ ^ XO I (T: 7^* /^/aUdUO^K') • VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Aiea_ _ _ _ _ _ Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances ( Front Side Rear) Other (OVER) ( Lred HARDSHIPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; Vn f\,yi j hcAv^J A A/f) Clf ^vVrM (p^ O.A > Mid»"V ‘crr\ SaWi P'^oV po -^ wtT <iS ‘Y'u/^/s to V^ci^SC ■^ror'A. . _ -^Qad Ju j.±b ^aojOurJOL ^jtj^ a ______________________________________________ DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: JLSfS REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Plat Map. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide a31 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 signatureQa^1 Date ^ P OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature ^Wa/ ; Date ^ 0 ~^Cp 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. t ► -1 II f* \ - \ j:,. '•t « k; ..//'_____■j\l ------------JSi 1 *<•' vv// ^ .-*3 S' Vif-.., r® .. XV /. S' ti jAuci ■• -/ < “ I' S.;/; ^ i! A ^ ;S ' r K-i .1 r'*> ®0‘"' »r %fO tl h - ^5^5 i: ■>5 VT 1 vV 1 ► I 1 :f \ r. , \ \ f \ ^ \ 1 V ■■ 1 it! north arm PR )) • I I 3m a 70 H O 3 X i, m 70>-<m;a o a ;a o (n ^ ^ ^ rn i>5 I-* O O » M Ti Ti m 2 H 3 nj-< X m :q m w HX m M I I *55 55hm m M X 5 2Q M X H m X o oo Of•— o I 1 H Z > > X Zt J} m > N -< ► rn a 70 a ;q o $ m 70 3 OU a :q ^ m m o ^ •- < < ^ o ► ► 5"*3 M H m I S8?avvn o > b X N VI o c ^ b ^ o g ♦ 3 |5i m > u 3 Ou 6S*o 70 5m oo ^ u c. o ^ ) C0 •Hn X 70 i oo rvjo 3 m3 H a 5m • M ^ XM 2o HARDCOVER REVIEW - 4075 HIGHWOOD ROAD 0-75'; area = 4400square feet Existing structures: Sidewalk 4' x 60' = 240 square feet +/- Sidewalk + Plastic — 40 square feet +/- Boathouse 12x22 = 2^ square feet +/- (partially on alley) 544 square feet « 12.4% (no changes proposed) 75-250*; area * 10,500 square feet Existing hardcover: House - (32.5 x 28.2) + (5 x 8) + (5.5 x 6.7) * 995 square feet Sidewalk - (3 x 77) + (2.5 x 48) + (2.5 x 50) = 4T6 square feet Garage - (20.2 x 21.2) = 428 square feet Concrete Garage Surround - (7 x 24) + (3.5 x 25) + (5 x 4) « 325 square feet Driveway Gravel = 705 square feet Plastic Around House =» 675 square feet (5 X 33) + (8.7 X 5.0) + (15.7 x 5.0) + (5 x 34) 12/2) + (15 X 12/2) + (6.7 x 4) Total = 3604 square feet - 34.3% + (17 myi' Proposed hardcover: House 995 square feet Addition (16 x 28) - (5x8) * 408 square feet Plastic 27 + 90 + 102 + 170 + 20 = 409 square feet Sidewalk 120 + 39 * 159 square feet New Garage = 528 square feet New Driveway = 132 + 108 + 180 + 295 + 315 = 1030 square feet Probable Sidewalk » 75 square feet Total T664 square feet 34.3% Ui Cert IfIcjto of Survey for Jan & Kora Akerbcrg of Lot 11. llighwood Lake Minnetonka Monncpln Cotinty, Minnesota K /VAAC C9 k'fA AA^Al ri/ r 113 ATAA3C^i/eA / AA0A9jr3) rs y V* S33 t ft, mrAL Jj/P f St. A-JYctyf A fCA/irrA^ f / (a ) A'CC iA A3J/rUfJ s Y3i t ff Airtay^ A^CA * 2fji Jf.AY.27 J I Jj. T*3€: ala t /ff f A/, (S) A'SC k ^' fytAtS t S2B i /> A A. y.'£C^ f * /4P7 f fJ r** up 7 f ff \ /SSStJf./'A. ffPiAPC C amas f • Y*8 r fm.AA Af/SAAc rtp t Sj A A.1___ ___I . fAAPi* t TATt A AA. pssif.y.AA ■" fvcrr- .rU ^ZT: vu vx.. r.,t A I Hereby certify that this Is a true ^n^* correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 11, *'HIGHW0cJ .AaE Hn;ri£rOfiKA“, the location of all existing t-ildings. sidewalks and rock ireas thereon, and the proposed loca tion of a proposed garage and an addition. It does not purport to show other inprover.ents or encroachfnentS- COFfin & GROhBERG. INC. .uir< sr'GT'^OfrbeVg Tw:~'tJw.'T?7W Enn.'fU'ers & Land Surveyors Lonu Lake, Minnesota OA-.e : 3-3t-86 Scale: 1” ^ 20* 0 : Iron marker #1021 4 r ■5 i » f To:Planning Commission From:Michael P. Gaffron,Assistant Zoning Administrator Date:April, 16, 1986 Subject:#1022, Charles A. Schall, 605 - Variance - Public Hearing Park Lane LIST OF EXHIBITS A- B- C- D- E- F- G- H- Application Plat Map Property Owners List Elevations, Layout of Building Proposed Additions (Survey) Existing Hardcover (Survey) Hardcover Proposed Additions and Potential Removals Hardcover Calculations Existing Hardcover 0-75'=4% (No changes proposed) Existing Hardcover 75-250*=48.8% Proposed Additional 75-250* Hardcover = 8.6% Potential 75-250* Hardcover Removals =9.0% (Potential Slight Net Decrease in overall Hardcover) This is a 0.19 acre lakeshore property with a small existing house and attached 1-car garage exiting directly to the street. The existing garage is 1.7 feet from the right-of-way of Park Lane. There also is an adjacent parking apron on the south side of the garage. Because of the small lot area and the existing sidewalks, deck, paved areas, rock beds with plastic, etc., the hardcover on this property is quite extensive. The existing house is 3.6* from the north lot line, and about 10-12* from the neighboring house. Applicant is requesting to add a 22*x22* attached garage on the street side of the house, loading from the south side, plus a 5*xl6* entryway on the south side of the house. The new garage is proposed to include a 2nd story room, and will be 7.7* from the north lot line, and about 3.5* from the street, both technically requiring setback variances. Applicant has not specified which (if any) items of existing hardcover will be removed; however, I have reviewed the existing hardcover and find that there are substantial areas that can potentially be removed in order to offset the increases. This is, of course, an item for Planning Commission to discuss with the applicant. FORTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: 1) Is the property large enough to justify variances for a major new ZONING DISTRICT- LR-IB APPLICATION- Hardcover and setback variances to construct a new attached ' garage, 2nd story room and entryway. MEMO #1022 Charles A. Schall April 16r 1986 Page 2 of 2 structural addition? How will the 2-story garage addition affect neighboring properties? 2) Note that while this is a very low traffic area, the side-loading garage will make egress from the property easier, but what about making the sharp U-turn invo a south facing garage? 3) The 5*xl6* entryway as proposed will be only 1' away from the well. State Well Code requires a 3* setback from well to structures or overhangs for maintenance purposes. Staff would not recommend a variance to this requirement without specific approval from the Minnesota Health Department Inspector. Perhaps the entry can be redesigned. In making a recommendation to the Council on this request, consider the above information and consider whether there are demonstrated hardships justifying the granting of the requested variances. i • *< 5o-oi< c.LV'-' /cirCJ- CITY OF dRONO - 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 CpOSt Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Ofe-//7-Zi <// ooc/<^ Please check one — Is the property t^abstract or ____ torrens? survey legal description to application if not included on required APPLICANT Name ^ ScA//tLX^ Phone 4^73 _____________ Mailing Address ^ OWNER Name Phone Mailing Address Date Property Acquired S ’-VV_ _ _ __ (month/year) I fWfr) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 0()d Describe reque^ in detail: ol VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback Variances (Front Side Hardcover Rear) Othei . (OVER) HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: _ _ _ _ _ _ _■ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certif ied Property Owners List of owners within 150 * (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) / 3. Stamped, legal sized en alopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address, 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Plat Map. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator f 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 OIfNERS SIGNATURE Date Z'toSrC The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of bhLs 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. fo cr p.k: h-* Pi O (n oo o • LAKESHORE REGULATIONS AND HARDCOVERSEC. 10.22. REGULATIONS FOR "LR-lA LR-lA-l’ ,"LR-IB" "LR-IC" AND "LR-lC-l" ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Within any "LR-IA", "LR-lA-l”, "LR-lB", "LR-IC", or "LR-lC-1” One Family Lakeshore Residential District the following regulations shall apply; Subd. 1. Lakeshore Set Back Regulations. The set back from the shoreline for lakeshore lots shall be at least 75 feet and no building may be located closer to the shoreline than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent and nearby lots. Subd. 2. Lakeshore Hard Cover Regulations, Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hard cover-. Within 250 to 500 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hard cover. Within 500 to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hard cover. Subd. 3. Tree Removal Regulations. No trees within 75 feet of the shoreline with the diameter of six (6) inches or more shall be removed without first obtaining a permit from the Council. HARDCOVER LIMITATIONS U IN \ \ 9 • % • . r* vO 0-75' Zone 75-250' Zone 250-500' Zone 500-1000' Zone 0% Hardcover allowed 25% Hardcover allowed 30% Hardcover allowed 35% Hardcover allowed Percentage of hardcover for each zone is calculated as follows: Area of hardcover in zone (sq. ft.) Area of lot in zone (sq. ft.) X 100 =Percentage of hardcover in zone NOTE; Measure setback distances perpendicular to the shoreline, not along the lot line. ROAX \ -»o -o z > s a> X i o3 a n; T3 m > aj N. -< >> m z o a :o > C3 O 3 » » m tfi IN fsJ fSJ VJI i-' > • ♦ r.'N % ‘ !:■ K k '■y. • ‘ ^ V -jf /fv4C-r ^4£VAr7«>fO riS 1_L I i 1 ■ 'J .1 ’1 i i r % •c O .'■ ''*■ t:Xl-^l&i T «tf c:fUO/’fuui}yf 9yt>7 • C -0 , ^c* > o^ ^ > •V » rik •*<S? J • ' * 4> ^■‘ ^ i* •. jCc V ^ V -n % O .f» ^ S',^ *V • •> c*j*. Or^ C'3c .> i^M *1* O’* -C* ^ ^ .4' 5-' o o . lis, .O A‘ Ay ^ ^ ^ o' ^ c>.^ >4^ *• oO 5 0 &■"'a </ ' ^ ^ j" r*'* jO • . ^vC r^c .*-'^ 2r •■• i? ' Oo \ _ ^ X, %\^\V\ T* T- 'C. O \' / i ( I I r ^ hn&\T t>’>5 \ r- =.,/.-'V. av 'I f-^,. •»V|J 111 ^ '• •'Cr i 3ro>/-^ \ I )\ '1 ‘4 I ) Ji - !• # < • • • A ■!w- %- • • • • / f I «« *1.^ ■2.4A {> o \ »'• »-» /• **% cr ^ ________f - V - - 1 .*' ••• • • ••-T*'*« •55 • • •• • •• 0 ft I * I V* 5S.fc2‘ S$.04 ‘••••I II A> • •< Co.. •* “V • ' *V O V ^o o ^ . ^ 5'-c ^ v?, ^ .C .-,r *‘' .> «• ^ • .-. .^' c, -NJ A;^>‘ ■« cj i'c-*'Cr ^ *7«r, o ^ „*y C* ^ <7 jt* V -<?' -^7 A *»c? *:■.■“ -i’ o* ^'*J ’ X'* e <y^ Z' P _ . -4* 4<34:4 ^ ^ !r ^ " <^ ^ A .r S <?O ^*- . AT• r W <? t m c ^ {L^/ ( I I • > /tijDi ;€C /^AoVA tX / f I I,1^\' r-fl *'.» ■< fin ’.M .4 . # 4V , i; lit > i: t ■K'm 'j4 r /t > ,-*'i •• • Vi^,||} :.■ »f.In .1 V- » V'% 'i'dl M I* -ihi i;I >v Vi ;/ Hi iri .M-»' ?•!/ *.• I • •i- • • fr o -^r • O ^ v> ^ 'v 6‘..c vV ^ .M /'U\ • •• '•• •• ••• •• •• • • fT, ^pii’^ • •5^.62* ___J^J>4 _______ ••4h-____- £♦•'«//4< •fS s»9*^' Lakt Hinnt^cn^*^ . jv* <•* h ;C^ ^ f O A O -V •-C C ^ ^ £C » ••./ S o ^ ' ^ 'f 7 A oc * £• 5yc. .>* •K • • 2^ V < .•^ :f ' c- *■■* <•» ’.* ^ ' o' ^ £. p O ^ ^ ^ A ^ C- A « %• c «,*• > cr ^ ^ ^ V' V ^ v-f / ri i^4-r2£>CoU€riC^ "” (s>OS^ Or k .^m' -* •- ^ = 27,S"s^. o-nT' ^ Z S 5 f , ft^X" LnJA^L. C^‘ SI'DCT^H^L <^rs>c22,')-f-Ce V^O =■ y^ - Lr srC. )LT7^ 5" s ^ ^ ■i /;o i»/«o coutfie 7S''2^ro' ^ssa s.^. ._ H ou S€^ •>' c firLdOM^ (j/, I X- tl.^l') ■ t>H\\/ec>JA^ ■^2-J = f(iitici/^C» C/S'AcSO^ — n>gQC (! 3 )C24-V<5J^/<S^ SiDe^oiSrcfjl vb ■= 2-3C=» C mo€1^ ^ z.i;. - V8,a% , ^g-«j '7S'7'S^' i4>fw2-b c-o i/t-Te 2 2-><'2^'2- — foeT /''.tit.rV =■ E^SO srS’, i- S7D s.iC. <'^0 JS.<. ^t>0 ; Al:i^\Ti of^ Kx, ,_j! ror. i - sj. VS’-i'iro- /Te*^s leew^ouAiS^^ A. Fo«-r><»J loF- fn«-\cj^c. Aa^Ar ^/S~ ~ <3^ s A. B* piioioT-'S.t'a. «^vjA^_ie: 2x2-^ __ c 4s^ s^. ^ ^ gy ICT/M6. y 7 ^i£Ave-U c. /i'C xA./AJ ^ , covc-t^ — iCe'v^\JA£.c^ .. ....... j= d»r S ■^ .^ U^JflA^TTIC. CoAjri ^^yvoU;Ai<-» Tl-f^. s/D>^kj A-wi A^'xr^ ‘no "7>^ ? Ta -hs ttk^^L-V /M A P^rftsrKtrje. ^r0wCr7OAO • .*. • ? .f» Ipc. ■ O'W ^ M 21) ^ -Hi‘ * r y \: '^mm << a - If CiiifwiS: if */ y-M H. "-A %■' 1II;11^1 M • O 9 « X • 9 9 9 ->•- W* l:=i“m m m o* n#• a % M o p<.p. f»*.« ^ <V>3 ^ 'v L sSsi— O \ . . V .v,■^^:^^'•^: V■ Cu’^ .'n , ;<^o ‘'^- N >7^.: ^1 M(' y r^C^ m^m:?o,y- H mmtmm^t \ '\ v_>V ‘ •O'. \ -■ _ _ _-_. • v" p.c Mbilic' M/OAO UMMCCM H4M COUNTY P«i^ MASTERPLAN CRYSTAL BAY il' ili L "3h; k m i a tl> K * ■ •> K :r > pc I Mb'!*’ S/OJtt / -xs-. Kuar a?a-S- m 11' r '•'Vfe’ KiaRtei-i a ■xn AVD LAWMOAra VLAV WILLIAM17LA1GH i #1018 i ^ a: ' A t T^,-' IfJP C.x\ “V-fr ^ ■'-A' i - 4'yj I i, >'a D f ' ''\. , , I j§’[\i(,f it t . . - l';,ii^ftf^;’*'‘ ^' T ''1 wiitimr// SITE AVD LANDSCAPE PLAN WILLIAM ULRICH #1C18 S