Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject PacketCITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. #2188 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: May 21, 1996 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Winfield R. Stephens 1071 County Road 92 Maple Plain, MN 55359 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances COPIES: -------------- DATE OF MEETING: 05/13/96 VOTE: 3 FOR -------------- COUNCIL ACTION -MOTION: 2 AGAINST To approve per the findings and conditions of the resolution previously mailed to you. Members voting approval of your variance application noted need for City to have confirmation from County that vacated right-of-way is to be included with the remainder of your homestead parcels before the City can issue a building permit for the new construction. Per our recent phone conversation, you agreed to commence legal combination at the County advising that you would provide written confirmation from Mr. Hill that vacated right-of-way is to be included with your property. Please note the legal combination should also include Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 with vacated alley. I was also happy to hear that you would agree to move the roofed deck at the lakeside of the residence to conform with the 50' Bayside Road setback. I will provide this information to the Council when I also present the confirmation from Mr. Hill of the inclusion of the vacated right-of- way with your property. Please continue to work with the Building staff in preparation of your building permit application. Do contact me if you have any further questions. lsv Win, Inc. Farms May 14, 1996 Mrs. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Jeanne: After our conversation this morning I spoke with the Hennepin County Taxpayer Services and made a formal request in writing to have the vacated alley at 3770 Bayside Road legally combined with Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Ottoville, Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota under one number for tax purposes. I have included a copy of this request. Please let me know if you need any further information from me as I would like to proceed with the building plan application and do not know how long Hennepin County w i 11 take to complete the combination. I was told that i f you needed further confirmation you may ca 11 Dennis Hi 11 's office. Thanks again for a 11 your help. ,a_, Win Stephens W.R. STEPHENS III 1071 County Road 92 * Maple Plain, MN 55.359 * (612) 955 -28.37 & (612) 446-1161 May 14, 1996 Mr. Dennis Hill Win, Inc. Farms Taxpayer Services Hennepin County A-600 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota S 548 7 Dear Mr. Hill: I have recently purchased the property at 3770 Bayside Road which includes Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. As you may recall we spoke several times about the 30' alley adjacent to the west . This alley was vacated by Orono and has been attached to lots the other lots. I am sending a faxed copy to reflect this which I received from Mr. Ray Hurdies in your office. My intentions are to build on this, site and I received ten t ative approval from the Orono City Council last nit,e. However, they would like to see this alley legally combined prior to issuing a building permit. After speaking to Teri from your office this morning it is my understanding that I need to make a written request to have al I the Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and the vacated alley in Ottoville, Lake Minne.to nk.a. :c.ornbined under one number for tax purposes. Please consider this let t~r my re q_lil,eS:~-Should you need any further information please do not t\~~\1~t~ to c,~!l:~ · Would you also confirm by wri'HD. :~ th~.t y ou. ~ave reg~:~yed this request as I would like to have a record fo r' Qrpno. , · Sin j r~ w.~!--- W.R. STEPHENS III 1071 County Road 92 * Maple Plain, MN 55359 * (612) 955-2837 & (612) 446 -1161 . . ,. l\illNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL l\'IEETING HELD ON MAY 13, 1996 (Park Commission Comments -Continued) Goetten asked for an update at the next Council meeting noting the large amount of time committed by the Park Commission . She felt it was important to extend the faith given in the trail plan and proceed with construction unless there are changes to impede its progress . Callahan asked Moorse to place the bike trial on the next Council meeting agenda. Flint informed the Council that the Commission is moving forward with the Park and Open Space Plan. The Park Commission is meeting on May 24 for its own work session and will be ready to meet with the Council in the beginning of June to solicit their input. A time for the work session between the Council and Commission will be set at that time . PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Hawn said she stood by the report as submitted and had no further comments . PUBLIC COl\ill\iIENTS There were no public comments . ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (#4) #2088 WINFIELD STEPHENS, 3770 BAYSIDE ROAD -VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3720 Mr. Stephens was present. Mabusth reported that the vacation of the 30' alley to the west of the property has been completed . The original comprehensive application involved both the current and former owner for both the vacation and variance application for proposed improvements. The Planning Commission had recommended the vacation be completed prior to review of the variance portion of the application . Mabusth reviewed the improvements proposed for the property consisting of a grade level and second story additions to house, detached garage, and roofed deck. There was a question on whether the original stone foundation would support a new second story residence. The building inspector approved the use of the original foundation with a riew support wall at the easst wall . Mabusth noted that the applicant has met with the neighbors to the west of Landmark Drive, and they have agreed to a 15' setback from the west lot line where an existing garage encroaches 1' to 2' into Landmark Drive right-of- way. 3 :MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL :MEETING HELD ON MAY 13, 1996 (#4 -#2088 Winfield Stephens -Continued) Mabusth reported that the new construction would extend 6' further east into the substandard setback on the north lot line proposed at 3.5'. This includes a second story addition. A 26.5' variance is required. The structure meets the required 50' setback from Bayside, but an 8'x21' covered deck extends to the 45' line requiring a 5' setback variance from Bayside. The existing hardcover in the 250'-500' zone exists at 45% and is proposed at 48.2%. Mabusth noted that the vacated right-of-way was added but this is a small area. Callahan inquired how the entire 30' alley was added to the Stephens property, when the normal procedure is for a 50/50 split between adjacent property owners. Mabusth said the division of the right-of-way is dependent on the underlying fee ownership. The original owner and applicant entered into an agreement with property owners to west to insure that they would not make claim to vacated right-of-way. Applicants have submitted the agreement to the County. The residents on Landmark Drive had no interest in the alley. It was noted that the property is part of the Ottoville subdivision in which the right-of-way is included. Kelley asked to view the legal building envelope for the property. Mabusth reviewed the existing and proposed building envelope. Jabbour noted that without the vacated right-of-way, the property would be very limited. Kelley asked to recall a 1979 variance approval for the property. Mabusth said the previous owner, Mr. Gardiner, never proceeded with that improvement. Goetten was informed that the old deck was part of the new residence. Mabusth noted that during the Planning Commission review, the neighbor to the north was found to be required to place his house at the 50' setback and asked that this proposed construction not encroach further east along the substandard setback. Kelley said, even with the use of the foundation, he saw the project as a tear down and rebuild. Mabusth advised that this issue was of major importance to the Planning Commission. Kelley asked what would happen if applicant's structural engineer requires a new cinder block foundation. Mabusth said the application would have to come back before the Council. She added that it was her understanding that the current foundation was usable. A new east wall will be built but the original foundation of the house will remam. The new support wall is required to support the construction of the second story. 4 :MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON lVIAY 13, 1996 (#4 -#2088 Winfield Stephens -Continued) Goetten was informed that the house was originally built in 1902. She asked what the use of the east wall will be. Mabusth reviewed the elevations and showed the small enclosed deck, which will be located within the 6' eastern expansion. Goetten was informed by Stephens that the main floor square footage will be 2100 s.f, less a 20x20 garage. The original house is 24'x3 l '. Jabbour questioned the validity of the vacation. Mabusth said she was advised that the underlying fee ownership and final division ofland had been resolved by the County. Barrett said he speculated that the vacation was completed as a simple interest. He noted that the vacated property needed to go somewhere, and the County concluded that it should go to the adjacent lot as originally dedicated. Mabusth said the homeowners on Landmark Drive had no interest. Stephens said he never discussed the vacation with the Landmark homeowners that Steven Gardiner conducted all negotiations with neighbors. Jabbour said if the vacation was completed traditionally with a 50/50 split, there could be a problem with the construction on this project sitting at the 0 setback. Mabusth said it would then be an encroaching setback. Jabbour said it was disturbing and questioned the validity of the vacation. Callahan noted that the vacation would be from one parcel if parcel is there. Barrett said that is the assumption. Stephens said the agreement with the Landmark Drive homeowners was to end the construction at the 15' setback and attach the garage to the new construction. The agreement is in writing and is to the satisfaction of the Landmark homeowners according to Stephens. The garage is currently located in the alley. Goetten said she would like to see appropriate setbacks on this project and inquired if there was another place for the garage to be located? She is concerned with the 5' variance for the deck. Goetten noted the ambitious project, the odd-shaped lot, and asked to see changes to the plans. The Council continued to discuss the problem with the vacation and the possibility that the 15' setback, if the vacation is not valid, the garage would be at 0' setback from newly defined west lot line. 5 l\'IINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL :MEETING HELD ON l\.1A Y 13, 1996 (#4 -#2088 Winfield Stephens -Continued) Jabbour said he saw the project as a rebuild and preferred that the original house be tom down and the new home placed farther away from the road. He then noted the review done by the Planning Commission and the lot being buildable with its sewer unit. Jabbour said the property owner is entitled to a house, and even though it is ambitious, it has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Jabbour said he would prefer the setbacks be changed from 3' to 10' and 40' from the roadway. He continued that he is concerned with granting a 0' setback, but if the Staff is comfortable that the vacation is legal and there is a 15' setback, he would approve it. Callahan and Goetten both expressed concern over the setback. Goetten preferred that the house be moved forward. Goetten said she would like to see improvements to the plan. She noted the right of the owner to build on the property but noted the size of the lot. Jabbour asked Stephens if there was value in the existing building or if he was attempting to accommodate the City's requirement of using the existing foundation. Stephens said he never looked at any other option and believes the house would sit best as proposed. Kelley noted the mature oak trees on the property. Stephens said two would be eliminated but 6 would remain. Maple trees are also located on the property. Goetten moved, to refer the application back to the Planning Commission. Jabbour informed the applicant that if the application was denied, he would not be able to present another application for six months. Stephens said he began the process in November. He said it was his understanding that if the foundation was sound and utilized, the plans could be accepted. Stephens said it was also his understanding from Mabusth and the Planning Commission that he was allowed 15% of the total acreage for structural coverage. The proposed structural coverage is 14.3%. Stephens said he was told that he would need to vacate the alley, which he has done, and to come to an agreement with the homeowners of Landmark Drive, which he has also completed. Stephens said the other neighbor to the north is satisfied with the plans. Stephens said he has been before the Planning Commission three times and is an.xious to move forward. Goetten said she is still concerned with the size of the structure for the small lot. Callahan seconded the motion previously made by Goetten. (Hurr arrived at this time.) 6 l\tlINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL l\.'IEETING HELD ON MAY 13, 1996 (#4 -#2088 \Vinfield Stephens -Continued) Callahan asked Goetten what direction she would give to the Planning Commission if the application was sent back to them for review. Goetten said she would ask for reductions in the plan. Kelley said the plan does meet the 15% structural coverage and could be made even larger. It was noted that the project could not become larger without additional variances and the hardcover issue would also be a factor. Mabusth commented that any corrections made would be outside of the 75-250' setback. Kelley asked and was informed that the property is not lakeshore property. Jabbour agreed that the project could be better by changing the setback or starting from scratch but did not feel the issue could be forced. The Council again questioned the vacation. Mabusth said if there is a question to the document, she noted the vacation and lot have not yet been legally combined, and Staff could reconfirm the validity as a result of the combination. Callahan said if the vacation is the issue, then there is no need to send the application back to the Planning Commission. He asked what the Council could ask the Planning Commission to do if the structural coverage meets the 15% allowable. Goetten responded that it has been requested in the past. Vote on motion to refer back to Planning Commission: Ayes 2, Burr, Goetten; Nays 3, Kelley, Callahan, Jabbour. Motion denied. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Resolution #3720 per the Planning Commission's recommendation providing Staff is satisfied of the vacation of the alley as presently proposed and is included in the homestead parcel and legally combined. Burr said she had a problem with the hardship for the variance for the size of the structure. Goetten said she feels that issue of the vacation is most important and that there are other options available. Vote: Ayes 3, Kelley, Callahan, Jabbour; Nays 2, Goetten, Hurr. Motion carried. 7 May 10, 1996 Winfield R. Stephens 1071 County Road 92 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359 Dear Mr. Stephens: CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Please review the enclosed resolution that will be ;presented to the Council for their review and formal action aMheir May 13th meeting. You are asked to review the findings and conditions of the resolution and to contact staff prior to the meeting if you have any questions. Sincerely, <) _,_,_, c~~ ~ h?4. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/ch Enc. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473--0510 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator DATE: May 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2088 Winfield Stephens, 3770 Bayside Road -Variances -Resolution Zoning District: LR-lA Lot area = 20,143.32 s.f. or .46 acres Application: The comprehensive application included a vacation of the 30' alley to the immediate west of the property and now the variance part of the application to allow renovation and additions to the existing structure. The City Council completed the vacation of the 30' alley at their February 12th meeting. Review Exhibit F, the County has given the entire 30' vacated alley to applicant for inclusion with the remaining parcels that make up the homestead. The proposed improvements of the existing residence require setback variances and a hardcover variance within the 250-500' setback area. The following ordinances are pertinent to this review: 1. Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C)-Review of structural coverage Total area= 20,143.32 s.f. Allowed= 3,021.5 s.f. or 15% Proposed= 2,891.1 s.f. or 14.3% No variance required. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 -Review of hardcover A. 0-75' = 0 B. 75-250' setback area= 15,237.82 s.f. Existing= 913 s.f. or 5.9% Allowed= 3,809.5 s.f. or 25% Proposed = 934.29 s.f. or 6.1 % No variance required C. 250-500' setback area= 4,905.5 s.f. Allowed= 1,471.7 s.f. or 30% Existing= 2,235 s.f. (865 s.f. residence, add 620 s.f. detached garage and 750 s.f. drive in alley) or 45.5% Proposed= 2,367.33 s.f. or 48.2% Variance= 895.63 s.f. or 18.2% Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 4 May 10, 1996 Zoning File #2088 D. Review of total hardcover Total area= 20,143.32 s.f. Total hardcover= 3,301.6 s.f. or 16.3% 3. Section 10.23, Subd. 6(B) -Setback variances A. Side street setback variance (adjacent to Landmark Drive) Required= 50' Existing= -2 to -3' Proposed = 15' Variance= 35' or 70% B. Side setback (north lot line) Required= 30' Proposed= 3.5'* Proposed attached garage = 27' Variance= 26.5' or 88.3% * Applicant proposes a second story over the existing story structure located at 3.5' from north side lot line. Applicant to install a support wall along east side of the structure extending 6' further east into substandard setback. C. Street setback (Bayside Road) List of Exhibits Required= 50' Residence structure = 50' Roof deck= 45' Variance= 5' A -Application B -Certificate of Mailing/Property Owners List C-PlatMap D -Hardship Statement E -Resolution #3651 Approving Vacation of Alley F -Confirmation from County Confirming Vacated Alley Credited to Applicant's Property G -Existing Survey Hl-2 -Options for Redevelopment Presented at 11/20/95 Planning Commission Meeting I -Current Proposal J -Access Easement to Property K-Agreement with Neighbors -Landmark Drive L -Floor Plans Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 4 May 10, 1996 Zoning File #2088 M -Footprint of Residence N -Elevation 0 -Planning Commission Minutes 10/20/95 Brief Review of Application At the November 1995 meeting of the Planning Commission all consideration of variances for the redevelopment of this property were delayed until the vacation and acquisition of the additional area was resolved. 5,220 s. f. of the vacated alley has increased the area of the property to 20, 143 s.f. Neighbors in attendance at the November meeting noted concern with the location of the detached garage that encroached the Landmark Drive outlot. Another neighboring property owner to the north was concerned that additions to the east of the structure would impact their views especially since structure is located 3 1/2' from the north lot line and their new structure had to meet the 50' setback. Applicant provided two options for development at the November meeting, refer to Exhibits Hl&2. Option Hl was the most preferred with the expansion to the south towards Bayside. Review Exhibit K, applicant and former owner have met with the Landmark Drive neighbors who have insisted that the existing detached garage be relocated or rebuilt so as to meet a minimum 15' setback. The Landmark Drive homeowners association president has contacted staff to confirm that they have approved the redevelopment plan as proposed by applicant. Planning Commission members asked staff to discuss the condition of the existing foundation and whether the north and west walls of the structure were to remain. The building staff had confirmed that the north and west walls will be used for the new construction but that a support wall will be installed along the east side. Note applicant has extended the support wall 6' to the east. The building staff has advised that it was not necessary that the support wall be extended 6' but could be installed adjacent to the existing wall. The majority of the improvements have been extended to the south so as not to impact the views of the neighbor to the north. Excessive hardcover exists in the 250-500' setback area as both the driveway and major portion of detached garage are located within property and must be credited against hardcover for property ( existing at 45. 5 and proposed at 48. 2 % ) . Hardcover in this setback zone are more excessive because of the limited area. Note hardcover in the 75-250' setback area is at 6.1 % . Access to the site will continue to be via the private driveway along the north lot line, review Exhibit J. The majority of Planning Commission members ( 4 of the 5) felt the applicant had addressed many of the concerns raised by members and neighbors in attendance at the November meeting. They noted that structural coverage was under the 15 % allowed for the property. The west side street setback has been improved from -2' to -3' to 15' setback. The hardships were reviewed from the earlier November review as follows: Request for Council Action continued page 4 of 4 May 10, 1996 Zoning File #2088 1. Triangular or unusual shape of property. 2. Property is surrounded by either roadways or driveways on all sides. 3. Property has been assessed and is served by sewer. 4. Desire of applicant to balance visual needs of property owner to the north and preserve lake views where neighbor has no legal claim as property is not a lakeshore lot. 5. Agreement with neighbors to west to maintain 15' setback from west lot line. The minority opinion felt the house was too ambitious and there should have been an attempt to reduce the setbacks further. The member noted it was not necessary to grant a variance to the 50' setback from Bayside Road for the roofed deck that could have been relocated out of the 50' setback area. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application as proposed subject to the ollowing conditions: 1. Applicant to provide a revised survey locating all approved hardcover improvements on survey and to provide an updated hardcover inventory upon application for a building permit. 2. Prior to filing a building permit application, applicant must apply for the legal combination of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Otterville on Lake Minnetonka Minnesota with the vacated alley. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either amend or approve the closed approval resolution. ch A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) FILE #2088 WHEREAS, Winfield R. Stephens (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3770 Bayside Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota, according to the record plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, AND, that part of the alley adjacent to Lots 2 and 3 dedicated in that plat of Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka lying Southerly of the Westerly extension of the North line of said Lot 2 and Northerly of the Northwesterly right-of-way line of County Road 84 (AKA Bayside Road) according to the record plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) for additions and a second story to be constructed over the existing residence requiring a hardcover variance within the 250-500' setback area proposed at 48.2% where the code would allow 30% and the following setback variances: A. Side street setback variance (adjacent to Landmark Drive) Required = 50' Existing = -2 to -3' Proposed = 15' Variance = 35' or 70% Page 1 of 6 B. Side setback (north lot line) Required = 30' Proposed = 3.5' Proposed attached garage = 27' Variance -= 26.5' or 88.3% C. Street setback (Bayside Road) Minnesota: Required = 50' Residence structure = 50' Roof deck = 45' Variance = 5' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2088. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 2 acres in area. The property consists of 20,143.32 s.f. or .46 acres. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 15, 1996, and recommended approval of the variances as proposed based upon the following unique findings and hardships: A. The property is of an unusual triangular shape. B. The pm1-1~rty is surrounded by either roadways or driveways on all sides. C. The property has been assessed and is served by sewer. Page 2 of 6 D. The applicant has been asked to consider the visual needs of the property owner to the north and has minimized expansion to the east thereby preserving lake views where homeowner would have no legal claim as the prope1 ty to the north is not a lakeshore lot. E. Applicant has met with residents to the west and has entered into an agreement whereby an existing detached garage was to be removed and new construction was to meet a minimum 15' setback. F. Proposed structural improvements for this property will be held to 14.3% where the code would allow 15%. G. Total hardcover on this property is proposed at 3,301.6 s.f. or 16.3%. H. Hardcover in the 250-500' setback area exists at 45.5% and is proposed at 48.2%. I. The majority of area of this property 1s located within the 75-250' setback area. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or · difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 3 of 6 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings or hardships, the Orono City Council hereby approves variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit additions to the existing structure involving a second story and grants a hardcover variance within the 250-500' setback area at 895.63 s.f. or 18.2%, a side street setback variance of 35' or 70%, a north side setback variance of 26.5' or 88.3% and a street setback variance of 5' or 10%. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall have completed the legal combination of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka plat and the vacated alley prior to applying for a building permit for the new construction. 2. Upon application for a building permit, applicant shall provide an updated survey and hardcover inventory including all approved structural and nonstructural improvements. Applicants shall also provide a detailed grading plan showing existing and proposed contour. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 13, 1997). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 4 of 6 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of May, 1996. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of May, 1996, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 CITY OF ORONO -VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $200. 00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200 . 00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ~ ~ _}:j :;,:;~} PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 3 , -, O ~ Jl\ ':1 s , JG" RaA u j 7.:· . J_,_•,...• Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) f'i.r -----------------'--=~c---A tt a ch legal description to application if not included on required survey . . Date Property Acquired ___________________ (fub;th/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: v residential other (specify) _________ _ Zoning District: _________________________ _ APPLICANT Phone (home) L/</te:, -11~1 Name W 11<1 ?1 c /J. ~ 5-1-Et_ I/ c:r15 Phone(work) 7:-,"..S --'-/J-3 7- Address :/ o ':+--I (c,v.-,T) 1/. 1,)_..-City: /Y) Apl£ P/.¥1,,N Zip: 5..S-3S'2 I DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost$ -------Describe request in detail: ______________________ _ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback: Front Side Rear __ Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) _______________________ _ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ________________ _ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 REQUIRED SUBMITT ALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. _ Completed Application Form 2. _ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). 3. _ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8½" x 11" for reproduction. 4. _ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8½" x 11" for reproduction. 5. _ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8½" x 11"). 6. _ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. _ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator,. agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/ or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature ______________ Date _______ _ OWNER'S 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 _______________ Date _______ _ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ss. ) CITY OF ORONO ) I, Jamie Bosma, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Re-Notification of a Public Hearing concerning the matter of #2088, was mailed to the attached list. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 27th day of March, 1996. Jamie~a •• ,.. - -• II RUN DATE 10/26/95 BATCH 504 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AD DR PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AD DR PROP ADDR Ol'lNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP .ADDR OWN.ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 05-117-23 21·0005 03780 BAYSIDE RD CL & R J WICKLUND CRAIG L & RENEE J HICKLUND 3780 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 22 0010 00055 LANDMARK DR D S PERKINS & PM PERKINS "v DANIEL S & PATRI,CE M PERKINS 55 LANDMARK DR ORONO MN 553,56 38 05-117-23 22 0014 00185 LANDMARK DR R F & K A KYLE RICHARD F & KATHLEEN A KYLE 1140 TONKAHA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0037 00255 LANDMARK DR MARK L & KARENA S CASEY MARK L & KARENA S CASEY 4320 ENCHANTED DR MOUND MN 55364 38 00038 J B MA & J E MAUS JAMES B JOAN E .MAUS v't 3700 .BAYSI E RD '\./ LONG. LAKE M 55356 38 05-.117-23 24 0101 03770 BAYSIDE RD S & C GARDINER ·'\') STEVE GARDINER . 235 GAME FARM RD N MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 05-117-23 21 0016 03700 BAYSIDE RD J B MAUS & J E MAUS JAMES B & JOANE MAUS 'I} 3700 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 22 0011 00175 LANDMARK DR LC HARREN & J M HARREN LEE C & JULIE M HARREN 175 LANDMARK DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0035 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED DIANE EVANS ET AL MARK & CARENA CASEY 255 LANDMARK DR ORONO MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0038 03850 BAYSIDE RD PM MADSON & K F MADSON PAUL M & KAREN F MADSON 320 GEORGIA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55427 38 05-117-23 24 0082 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED DANIEL P CAHILL MRS DANIEL CAHILL 224 N5TH ST DELAVAN·HI 53115 38 05-l'\7~23 24 0102 00038 A'tl_D~ESS UNASSIGNED S & C GARD!,NER "\·'"'I STEVE GARDIN):R ; 235 GAME FARA.RD N . MAPLE PLAIN MN-55359 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 6 38 05-117-23 21 0020· 03750 \BAYSIDE RD . JOHN & M~Y JANE BURGER ><::) CHRISTINE .GARY VALERIUS 3750 BAYSI RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 22 0013 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED D S PERK, S & PM PERKINS \) DANIEL S \ ' PATRICE M PERKINS 55 LANDMAR R ORONO MN 55 56 38 05-117-23 23 0036 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LANDMARK DR HOMEOWNERS ASSOC LANDMARK DR HOMEOWNERS ASSOC' C/0 LEE C HARREN 175 LANDMARK DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-17-2324 0069 00038 DDRESS UNASSIGNED J B MAUS J E MAUS JAMES _B & AN E MAUS "\) 3700 BAYSIDE D LONG LAKE MN 5356 38 05-117-23 24 0100 00038 ":,\ ADDRESS UNASSIGNED S & C GAQDINER STEVE GA~D~NER . -\I ?35 GAME F AJ.lM RD N . MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 05-117-23 24 0103 00038. ADDRESS UNASSIGNED S & C GA,RDINER \J~ STEVE GAROINER 235 GAME FAijM RD N MAPLE PLAIN Mt:t 55359 - .-- II RUN DATE 10/26/95 BATCH 504 PROP ADDR O~!NER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AD DR 38 05-li7-23 24 0105 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPI FORFEITED LANO CITY OF ONO DRAINAGE & CONSERVATION 5-18-90 ST ED •173561 38 05-117-23 24 0116 0003~ . ADDRESS UNASSIGNED .HENNflPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF\_ORONO CONVEYED'\ 2/8/82 ST'QEED 161148 ·, HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 05-117-23 24 0111 03775 BAYSIDE RD GR & CE ROWLETTE GERALD L RONLETTE 3775 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 24 0119 00038 ADDRESS PENDING JOHN & MARV JANE BURGER CHRISTINE & GARY VALERIUS 3750 BAYSIDE RD LON$ LAKE MN 55356 REPORT.NO. PI43540l PAGE 7 38 05-117-23 24 0115 00038-. ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPif:,I FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK · ... 4/13/79 ST D~D 156753 TOTAL BATCH 504 00023 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE . REPRESENTATlON OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY.TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY_ KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. / / . ~ ' J).lllf ' ) · DATE,o/g,1 /'flt~v 1tf2t ~UL.tL;Ly PT OF LOT 53 ( 14) i ~ i ~ ~ ":,'>) ~ ~ 2 ~ (33) ( 14) 7 ~14 , 27 ( 15) 8 510 . 48 I ( 10) 2 ( 11) N39•44' 16'\:/ 149, 05 52 ( 5) "" ... ~~ ,I 65 2 ( I Fi) ti 2 ( 20) ~1~0 10 g 8 7 66 ( I 12) ~ ? 0 z g;)- . <O t· ..., w ~ ,I ..... <O ~ 3 ( 13) 220 . '36 lr-~ . ,·~l 3-r~1J ''·"-.. ·= ~ "' ..... N ~'iii / '(//J@ I&,~ 4 5 cg~ 2 "' ( 12) ... 0 f;:; ✓--~i\'N l'.) _f;.-~ I) ~\tl)l,'J l J!i/T\1 . ······ 67 Hardships 3770 Bayside Road, Orono I am requesting variances so as to obtain a building permit to expand the present 744 sq. ft. home located at 3770 Bayside Road. It is my understanding that 15% of the square footage may be used for building structure purposes. The allowable area for structure is 2358 sq.ft. based on the surveyed total of 15717 sq. ft. My request would not exceed 1913 sq.' The requests for variances arise because of this irregular, triangular shaped lot and the location of the old home built only 4' from the north property line. This 1 /2 acre lot is configured so that it is difficult to meet the present 2 acre standards. I would Ii ke to propose two options for expansion to the existing home. Option 1 would extend to the south and Option 2 to the east. Both scenarios would have similiar floor plans and elevations as those presented. Option 1 almost satisfies the 30' setback from the north by 2'. However, by expanding this direction, two beautiful mature oak trees (2.5' diameter) would have to be removed. Option 2, or east expansion would enable the trees to be. saved but this addition would follow the same line as the old house and not comply within the 30' setback. Option 2 allows for a better factual finding hardcover area. Option 2, as seen in the photograph would not restrict views from the neighbor to the north. His floor plan is such that a 11 windows are located on the east end of the residence. Both options are not located in the 0 to 7 5' area and both would remain outside the 50' setback from the north line of the highway easement. Both options would mean that the west boundary setback would remain at 20', however I have requested a variance for vacation of the alley ( a 30' wide strip to the west) and was told by Dennis Hi 11 at Hennepin County that this parcel would be attached to Lots 2 and 3. Therefore, both options would met the west line requirements as well as improve the hardcover requirements. My preference is for Option 2 as I would prefer to save the oaksand it would be better for the hardcover requirements. Thankyou. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ·.S 6 71 A RESOLUTION VACATING AN UNIMPROVED ALLEY WITHIN THE PLAT OF OTTOVILLE ON LAKE MINNETONKA IN THE CITY OF ORONO, HEl'\-"NEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FILE NO. 2088 \VHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on October 31, 1995, Steven A. Gardiner (hereinafter the "applicant") filed a petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation of an unimproved public right-of-,vay adjacent to his property originally dedicated in the plat of Ottoville on Lake MinnetoI1Jca, Hennepin County, Minnesota in 1887 and legally described as follows: that part of alley adjacent to Lots 2 and 3 dedicated in the plat of Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka lying southerly of the westerly extension of north line of said Lot 2 and northerly of the northwesterly right-of- ,vay line of County Road 84 (AKA Bayside Road) according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and \VHEREAS, after due published and posted notice, public hearings were held before the City's Planning Commission on November 20, 1995 and January 16, 1996 regarding said vacation and all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and W"JIEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the proposed vacation; and \VHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono finds that said vacation as proposed is in keeping \vith the public interest and in consideration of the following findings: 1. The right-of-way as it exists today will not serve for public road use based on the pattern of residential development and access to adjacent properties. 2. The unimproved right-of-way contains no municipal sewer nor other utilities. Page 1 of 2 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. :S 6 7 l 3. The dedicated road right-of-way as it exists today serves no other public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the pet1t10n of Steven A. Gardiner is hereby granted by the Council of the City of Orono and that the unimproved alley legally described above 1s hereby vacated. The granting of the petition is subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall apply for the legal combination of the vacated alley with Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka. 2. Applicant is hereby advised that the City will not consider an improvement plan for this property until Hennepin County has completed the vacation and resolved the final dispersal of the vacated alley. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on February 12, 1996. Edward J. Callihan, Jr., Mayor 7 l Page 2 of 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID OS 117 23 SCH DST 278 WTRSHD 3 SWR OST IFPROJ # EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 ..;,,m.111;,. ,:, ill ..;; ~11UU\ rno~ ADDn ~o .ADPIU!IOO l.JNAOOIGNBO TAXPAY N/A STEVE GARDINER 235 GAME FARM RD N MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 nrm OTTOYII.i!JD OU IiAICD IolIUiillTOIIlt:A METES/ BOUNDS DESCRIPTION INCL ADJ VAC ALLEY LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORMATION :IHQU!.nY OODI!I 10~ rnor::rnnTY :ID o:::; 117 2:) Seti DST 278 WTRSHD 3 SWR DST IFPROJ I EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OWNERS & C GARDINER PROP ADDR 3770 BAYSIDE RD TAXFlil" H/1\ :JTI!IW GAROIUI!IR 235 GAME FARM RD N MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 ADN OTTOVILLE ON LAKE MINNETONKA METES/ BOUNDS DESCRIPTION INCL ADJ VAC ALLEY __,. l0/l0"d 9ll68P[ PAGE 1 NEXT == 24 0102 PSC C MUNIC 38 PLAT 42860 PARCEL 1200 DIV S'l'A't'US .LU'l.d l .a llil lo..ftld Y ~N ~Ul'U, C0tWMt; I LOT 00.J 13LOCK PREVIOUS OWNER APPROX PARCEL SIZES 130X135X9SX4S TRAN DATES 03/12/96 10/20/94 12/14/92 ADON DATE FILED 02/05/1887 A PAGE 1 NEXT"' 24 0101 FOC C MUNIC 38 PLAT 42860 PARCEL 0800 DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG VERF LEGAL CONDMN # LOT 002 BLOCK P!mVIOt.t.3 otmER APPROX PARCEL SIZE 50 X 160 TRAN DATES 03/12/96 10/20/94 12/14/92 ADDN DATE FILED 02/05/1887 A Xl::H Mcl::ldOcld OJ Nl'BH . , Certificate 0.65 Garage 1.54 ./ Lilac Hed e Gravel House ® L Deck Well 2 f -----~ I I I I I I ·~1•19" E 237.25 4 of Survey , le:) -,,,--.. - \.r. --- I I I I I ; I I ----.._ I --... I ) .---.---------I ,,-,- 1 ~ :j,, . i.Q / I \'-0 .< '!, \ ':) . / / ~ e,<'.17\/ / \) "~/ / ~\.r 'v/ / V / <1..0'?>, ~ t >-. (I) "<t-0 <'.( • l.() NI -- /// . / • A0 ·p / -./ - / / :);'-> / / // / ~~~:// I I I I I I I 3 I I · I I I I I "<t-• I I :-co ',:J 0 CO © 0 ..--+-' 0 u ~ (/) // / / /;}' I\.... / / ·{:-0 / n...V\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / /.'!,..,v<:-V / / 0' / / / • o'-/ ...._,O • / / / <vo;/ 0 '\~ / / / /// / ~o'lf-/ / /// / ><..,--\ / / / "',/ / ~<::-/ / / / c,0/ / v'._; / / / \ / LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RECORD: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, OTTOVILLE ON LAKE MINNETONKA, Minnesota, according to the record plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, AND, that part of the alley adjacent to Lots 2 and 3 dedicated in the plat of OTTOVILLE ON LAKE MINNETONKA lying Southerly of the Westerly extension of the North line of said Lot 2 and Northerly of the Northwesterly right-of-way line of County Road 84 (Al<A Bayside Road) according to the record plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. • denotes iron monument found O denotes iron pipe set and marked R.L.S. No. 14343 S denotes soil boring ~ denotes perculation test hole "'+l.''1 · ·:,,•. r J'<·"'.." '~ ,, )!'." <'<',''~ >'t1 '.' "(f%'l' ..-~fi''"':/T~Jl'.llt-:;.1~'11;i,ifl•~'"( ,~ .,, "· ~ '1n Requested By: W.R .. Stevens Date: I Drawn By: I Scale: 4 I 1 / 96 I P . E . 0 . l 1 11 =40 1 .,. III !Checked By: 0{) AREA: (Computed By AutoCAD) Total Lot Area = 20143.32 S.F. * House Area = 865.12 S.F. Garage Area = 846.43 S.F. Driveway Area = 1233. 76 S.F. Deck Area = 244.54 S.F. Wood Step Area = 49.6 S.F. Retaining Wall Area = 17.50 S.F. Total Hardcover Area = 3256. 95 S.F. Existing Hardcover Percentage = 16.17% * To R/W line, not including land between R/W line and Highway pavement. I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Edwar~y~zj~ Date:~ Land Surveyor Reg. No. 14343 9 west Division ~o Buffalo 1,W, 5531 ' p, Ph: 682·4727 ..... ,J_o_b_N_o-.--1 SSOC/ATES Fax: 682-3522 I ' F.naine11rs and Land Surveyors, Inc. 96085 ------Gravel dr'iveway"'(Easemem:T---------------------------------- I I I J 1 Garage ~ .. , ,,. "z50• setback -~ -~ 15,717sq,' 5220 sq. I I I ,,.,. ! .,.,✓~ V' Setback Zone Zone Area 0 to 75 0 75to250 13188 250 to 500 2529 Totals 15717 Scale : 1" = 40' Old Harsurface Area New Hardsurface Area Allowable Area Total 913 (7%) 865 (34%) 1778 1454(11%) 1081 (42%) 2523 Option 1 3297 (25%) 758 (30%) 4055 r. 1-----====Gravel driveway""(Easemenl:T=-------------------S------0 ·---- [t -··-----··---· ,---,......,--'-,-------, ---- ' I --I t -.-. !1 ---- 1, :1 Garage 'z50• setback 5220 sq. I _ ... - ! ,,, .. , I / i,•' Setback Zone 0 to 75 75 to 250 250 to 500 Totals 15.717 sq.' Zone Area 0 13188 2529 15717 Scale : 1" = 40' Old Harsurface Area New Hardsurface Area Allowable Area Total 913 (7%) 865 (34%) 1778 I t'f 7 (1 't lo) 11 E 1 _£? J 04) 3297 (25%) -~O 1 f1E2 6~ 758 (30%) 2523 '75&{o dk) 4055 Option 2 '· ' West Line r-----------Gravelariveway"('Easemem:T _________________________________ _ I -------------------------------------- New Const fuction / be, K oof i-D c.. .S()' r' / / '"' .,.-Q,)/ -/ <( , "'O / Q,) +J ro ~/ .,. 5220 sq.' Scale : 1" = 40' Setback Zone Zone Area 0 to 75 0 75 to 250 15237.82 250 to 500 4905.5 Totals 20143.32 3770 Bayside Road New Bldg. Hardsurface Area 934.29 1827.33 I 2761.62 Total Allowable Building Structure Area-20143.32 x (15%) = 3021.49 sq.' Total Area requested .................................................... (13.67%) .. 2753.94 sq.' - ~bis Jf nllcnturc, ':t ,o.1~o~ . '-173/f".fSS Jrlade and entered ~into this .............................. ::,<. .............. i{,Yg················ .. ······ day of ............ E.eb.r.uar.y. .............................. , 19 .... 8 . .3,., by a'M b~tween ....... M~.~ ..... ~D.9 .... M.;:§,t ..... ~.Qhn .... !?..~f.9:~.f. .... also ... known s; ~~~ ~~d·~=~d ~~1£~~~!. ... f.~.~~ .... ~.~.r..~.!.r..'. .... 4rantor.ifi ... , and, ........ !;l.:t.e.Y.Jm .... b., ..... ~.at.dine.r. .... ao.d ...................................... . ...... ...... C:.cJ..:i::m~n ... J.., ..... G.;;i.r.din.e.r., .... h:ushand ... and ... w.i:f.e .... a;n.d ... .j-0.i:nt, ... -t,enant-s·······: ............. grantees·--, Witnessctb, That whereas said, f)"1'antor is the owner of th-a·t: .. ·· traot ..... of land in the Cormty of .. I:I~r,ii:i_~p:i,.r,i ................................................. , State of .Afinnesota, viz.: .............................. . ........................... . N '7 Lot 1, Block 1, Burger's Bayside ruul .said [irantee is the owner of th .at .. tract ..... of land, in the County of .. HENNEl?..IN State of Minnesota, viz.: ... Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka which adjoins said land of said grantor8. .. on the ... S..9..\1:!.h:::.~.~.!3..!:.:.:; and said grantor:/! .... and gra11;tee.l;i .. have ag·reed upon the easement hereinafter described: Jlow, ~bercfore, The said gr·~itor.8.. .. , in consideration of ............ ,-............................................................... . ... . ..... : .............. :: .. ~ .... : ......... ~ ......... : ..•....................................... $.1 .•.. 0Q .. , ................................ ··One·····Dollar to .. ~1:1.~i:rt ............................ in hanJ;paid bLJaid. grantee.~ ..... receipt of which is herebl/ aclcnowledged, and h l ,,,. t' .;,:) b . . t t id "' t the1.r h ' d ot er good, a.nd va uable cons,,.,,,,r·a ion,. ,-ierq y gr.an. ...... o sa 5 ran ee, ...................................................... eirs an assir/ns, the easem,ent of .. ... ing.re.s.a .. and .. : .. eg.ress ...................................................................... . . . , (Describe Easement) '.d ~-- in, over, and upon, that part of said land, of said, 1grantorS .... desc1·ibed. as follows: -····•··•············································ : i /I a 16 1/2 foot easement over that part of Lot 51 Auditor's Subdivision No. 203, Hennep-n County, Minnesota; lying South of Lot 52 in said Auditor's Subdivision No. 203, and the South ~ine of said Lot 52 extend.ed easterly to the westerly 11.ne of County Road 84; TO H.11. VE AND TO HOLD SAID E.11.SE.W:EKT unto said, grantees ... , .................. .thei.r. ................. :,,····heirs and assigns ............. forever ...................................................................................................................................................................................... . as appurtenant to ............................................................ said, land. ]n ~itne.s.s mber:cof, Said grantoiB. ... haY."2 ...... hereunto set .......... t.b.~.ir ................. hand3 .... . the day and year first above written. ',C /·~ .. ~ ........................................ . {;1.f/..c.tlu(°~~~···················· l i ·~ ": -: -------------~ Deed of Appuctenant Easem~ ~. 4781988" )I· t if / TO Office of County Recorder ~talc of ;{flinncsotn County of. ... J I hereby certify that. th,· 71'ilhin Deed ,ca.• filed in thiH .oJjir,· for rr•cord on the .. day of ... 1.9 .......... , at.. o'rlork. .l[., and ,ca.• drily rc<'ord,·d in Hook of Deed.~, page.. or ..... . ~--0 Copfrd O .llicrofilmecl and 1cas duly rl'e-orded as instrument By ..... • Yo Delinquent Taxes and Transf,•r entered this.. . .. day 19 ....... County .1nditor . By ........ . .. Deputy. Tax statements for the r<'al property described in thi.• i11.•trument should be sent to: .Yanie .1ddress \, ~~1· ~, 1-1<--a,l"J./l c;,,--'!J 'l' f'3 ""uC-Il'.19 2 8 ( $ 005.GO!u -·-· ... -• --..... ,L.; . .-" .. -···· ...... CfFICE or COUNiY j,[CORnrn ll[NstPIN C0U'lfY.M:S~cS0i,~ C[K t:nro ra ED .',!~D Ofi f.:f'Cl1Nt1t.D ON 1983 MAR ·JO Pit 12: 37 -~S flOCUMfNf 4781988 -~ ~~ ¾::,,rEC-DROER t• 1 _CJi t.c..v7~-Pll T ( No delirrquent laX8$ altd trallSr.,. im!lred DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION HENNEPIN COUNTY MINN. MAR 30 .1983 ~JL ~ ~t:ri~ 11 r,im>i" 1,w:ii,~ BY. ~Ef'UTY D r,--,,:, •.l.!rtihcnie dof:'S not relate to taxes for the t:.urrcnt ',r?.a,£. 1naJ·~··' 'ls~;~notac:::i·,~v . 37 70 f3.~Y.s-,J,e. RMJ N .c-Kl. L,~i\Jf. Z.IU:E.. :>:J . • 0 I-'· --.J -f ~u ::s O'I • :!: ::s O (/l .~-(DI-' _, /,-. 1~~ ~. J~ ~ I-'· ~ -;:, " i:u::r' 3: oa ~ 3 i!' z ~-~~~ :s f ~ -1 a·~"'s z :E ~.~~~ ~ j.;;~~ ~ t ~~~-V1 0 -•m::;!zo 1w :::io ~ -zz '~ -~ ;;; -~ Wo.. 'E--I :-~ ~ 3 m <a ~ .!. 0 ~ .!::, ~ ..,vvvw,,wwii O" <:::: I j ,.. ~ ~ :x '-3 :11 ;:,- ~ i ~-:~" : i~ ~ " <:> • ...,,. -:-,. ~ -:::r: ~ ~ IIG,. ~ ~-c ;:: J:'-s 'IC, :t,t:1 0 :z -:z i fj ~ ~ .... So <-,co ~ ::I: o,( C: a t1 (IQ :t:<:I ~ -,ltj :,; :H ~ iz :::· .: : -~ i = "' i ~ .. ; tA. "'" i 0 ! I ¥ r ~ C '-v--' [ ~ •c. " .... O" "' c' ., "' ;! " "' ~ ii~_i ti ~ -:; ~ ., ~ ,. > z ~ :,O:,; z: ~:~· t ""! m: ~: 0. m: ~ ,., C>l z· ... .... II> ID ::I • Q. f t1 '< t., !l; ID 0, C: t1 ~ t1 g' "' O" [ ~ Q. AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this 1~ day of JCU\uocr~ , 1 9 9 6 between Landmark Drive Homeowner's Association, {Minnesota non- profit corporation ("Landmark"), and Steven A. Gardiner and Carmen B. Gardiner (11 Gardiners 11 ). RECITALS 1. Landmark is the owner of Outlet D, Bayside Landing, Hennepin County, Minnesota. This property was a part of the original plat of Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2. Gardiners are the owners of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lots lie Easterly of said Outlet D, Bayside Landing. 3. The plat of Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka includes an alley located immediately Westerly of said Lots 2 and 3, Ottoville, and located immediately Easterly of said Outlet D, Bayside Landing as now platted, and separating said Outlet D from said Lots 2 and 3, Ottoville. Gardiners' garage is located near the Northerly end of said alley and encroaches slightly onto said Outlet D. The alley has not been used as an alley and appears as an extension of the Gardiners' yard. 4. Gardiners have requested the City of Orono to vacate the alley. The matter is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on January 16, 1996 and by the City Council on January 22, 1996. 5. The parties desire to make certain agreements with regard to the property as stated below. AGREEMENT In consideration of the promises and covenants made herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Both parties will support the vacation of the alley by the City of Orono. 2. Gardiners, for themselves and for their successors in title, agree that the garage now existing on the alley and encroaching o to said Outlot D, shall be removed or remodelled not later than :.e-bvc.-t O\rf l I 'I so that it does not encroach onto said Outlot D and wi 1 be at least fifteen feet Easterly of the Easterly boundary of said Outlot D. 3. The entire interest and ownership in the vacated alley shall be in Gardiners or their successors in title. Landmark will execute and deliver a Quit Claim Deed conveying its entire interest in said alley to Gardiners. Such Deed shall be prepared by Gardiners, at their expense, when the exact legal description used by the City in its vacation of the alley is known. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The parties have executed this Agreement on the date set forth above. Landmark Drive Homeowner's Association Its • ~tJ-~ Steven A. Gardiner 010896/DRS/DRS2/C:IWPWIN60\DATAIREIGARDINER.DRS\AGREEMEN --.----·--·---- 23' 20' 4 11 ~ -i----- 23' 20' 4' i -~I= ! 7' I _I Cl. N /l / Bedroom ~====~===-J1101~ 11 w.c. Cl. ~ w.c. ~ Bedroom // Cl. '"", Cl. Open to ceiling --, Cl. MASTER Deck 12' ►I ◄ 12' ►I ◄ 29' 4" -------------21' 8 11 ►I ~!-------------------71' ____________________ __., Scale 1 /8" : 1' Second Floor Plan ,/· N ~ Bath~' i--+-,,--1 ·'::, E:c-cc·------c,c· -------S • ,.J ------=- 0 -==c=----Jue walk ----;1 -.r L_~ / Pantry // Mud GARAGE □ Kitchen ~--11~ ' Laundry II LJ~_J SHOP 4 Season Porch 37' 2" Office/ Bed Room "' Step down Family Room // r[:~ Covered Deck / E----II r 1===-·--==-+1 -·-- // Covered Deck 8' -------------71'1" ·~·· tl ►! 14 21'8" Hardcover Actual House 2717.77 Sidewalk 111 . 1 9 Deck 173.33 Total 3002.29 Hardcover Allowable 1 5% X 20937 = 3140.55 Scale 1 /8" : 1' 3 -, 1 c 2>~'!:,\L., Rd . N 111.19ft I 2717.77 ft I 173.33 ft :z 'O ,;:+ ::r !!! Cl) < Q,) :!'. 0 ::::, m IJ) (") ~""' Q,) ..... ..... ....... ex, - /! I I ij 1/ / ..... c.o 11 ·.:-1 i :j i[: ::l j ··! llj :! ··1 'j i I I [\ \ Ivlil\JlJ l.cS OF THF ORONO PLA.l-Jl'•Hl>JG COW.1.MlSSlON MEETTI\J"G HELD ONNOVErvIBER 20 . 1995 ( " ,f "'?ng ~ ..... . . '" T • ,,'1 De,;:nurcos r,u-.-r;n""',.:J' tt4 -tf..:...-....,· ) ueparrn1eni or 1~aruru ..L'-. ..... v .1 '-' -vu.1.11..u u'"'u Gafilon inquired about the construction schedule. Linnell said it would next go to the Council in December. If no maior chan2:es were necessarv. the final olans would be drafted in January and February with bidding for early spring. Construction would begin in Mav and comoleted durim! the summer. No formal action was required at this meeting. Wigen asked if a motion could be made on signage regarding trespassing . He was told these concerns would be addressed by Staff Lindquist asked that the comments be passed on to the Council. Peterson closed the public information meeting. (#5) #2088 WINFIELD STEPHENS, 3770 BAYSIDE ROAD - VARIANCESNACATION OF PUBLIC RO,A .. D-9:06-9:35 P.1\1. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the application was for the vacation of a 30' alley and setback variances for maior additions to ex1strn!Z residence . The orooerty is made uo of 4 seoarate parcels and involves an improvement plan. Existing on the property is a 1-1/2 story home with a garage that is located totally within the 30' alley . The improvement consists of r.vo options, option #1 involves an addition to the south side and option #2, an addition to the east. The Staff memo was said to discuss the setbacks and hardcover for the property. Peterson said there would appear to be no major concern as long as the applicant was able to acquire the alley . Mabusth advised from calls she received, it appeared that the adjacent owners may make claim to the alley. Mabusth said she had spoken with Dennis P..ill at the County, who said the entire alley would probably be granted to the applicant as owner oflots 2 and 3 . Mabusth said she had spoken with Hill again after calls had been received from the neighbors, and he advised that the matter may have to be further studied . Hill informed Mabusth if the neighbors pressed for a piece of the alley, these claims may be raised during a required legal proceeding. Peterson asked if the application was not one step ahead of itself He asked if Staff was awaiting information on utilities. The City Engineer reported there were no sewer lines encroaching the alley, and there are no power poles. 11 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEl\.1BER 20, 1995 (#5 -#2088 Winfield Stephens -Continued) Both the current owner, Steve Gardiner, and the new owner, Winfield Stephens, were present. Stephens said the vacation was suggested to minimize impact of variances with the proposed improvements. The vacation had also been recommended by Staff He said the area where the alley is located seems to be part of the lawn, and the entire detached garage is located within the alley. Peterson asked if the issue of the vacation was frivolous on the part of the neighbors or not. Mabusth said she had just been made aware of their interests: Peterson asked the applicant if he was aware that he would need to combine lots 1-4. Stephens said that was not an issue. Lindquist asked the applicant ifhe did not gain the vacation of the alley, if he still wished to proceed, and Stephens advised he did wish to proceed regardless of the outcome of the alley. Peterson said the applicant could not proceed without the 30' alley as both development plans show garage remaining in alley. Option #2, Mabusth said entailed an issue of impact to the neighbor if the addition was to the east. The Wicklands report an impact on their views. There is no legal claim to the view but option #2 also involves new construction at 3.5' from north side lot line. Setbacks and hardcover variance are less intense with the inclusion of the additional area from the vacated alley. Peterson asked the applicant what he would prefer. Stephens said he preferred option #2 in order to save 2 big oak trees in front yard. Option #1 does require the removal of2 large maples. The old owner said the oak trees were beautiful. He noted that one of the trees was 7' in circumference and would be a shame to lose it. Hawn asked if the addition couldn't be altered and sit where the diseased maple is located but skirt the oak and save the other maple. Stephens said it could but would be within the 50' street setback from County Road, which he thought was more critical. Mabusth said it would be difficult to approve an encroached of the 50' setback. She noted that we are dealing with limited building envelope. Lindquist said he had a problem with 3-1/2' on the north lot line and then doubling the amount. The old owner, Steve Gardiner, remarked that this was the way it had always been. Lindquist said although this was true, he could not imagine doubling the area. The applicant and owner said they had a notarized copy of the easement that provided access along the north lot line. 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO:MMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#5 -#2088 Winfield Stephens -Continued) Christine Valerius reported that she owns the property they were referring to and noted that the Wicklands use the driveway but that there was no easement in favor of this property. She said she looked when she purchased the property and found no easement. Stephens reported on the attorneys who had searched the title and showed Valerius a copy of the easement. Peterson said there were other concerns with the garage encroachment and clean up of area to the west. Gardiner said a boat had been there and rubbish -left by previous owner of Landmark property. Lindquist asked if any improvements involved the tearing down of the garage located on the alleyway. Stephens said he had no plans to do so. Lindquist said he could not approve any improvements with the garage in that location if the vacation was not approved. Berg said it was important to make sure the easement exists. She added that she did not feel the Commission could proceed to approve any improvement without the alley vacation. Peterson agreed that this would be an integral part of the application. Peterson said he favored option #1 and the vacation and asked if the survey (1988) commented on the alley. Mabusth said there has been no new construction to require a new survey. Lindquist said the variance should be based on whether or not the vacation is granted. He was not in favor of any further encroachment of the west side yard. Smith commented that the addition was very aggressive and could not take a position without a decision on the alleyway. There were no public comments. Gardiner remarked that the connection charge to City sewer was $13,000 and would be a very expensive sewer for a 1 bedroom house. Gardiner said that is why it should be expanded and noted that the neighbors had expanded. The Wickslands commented that their lot was 1-1/2 acres, and they had to sacrifice a large tree in order to meet building setbacks. Stephens was asked ifhe planned on living in the house and was told he did. 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO:Mrv:IISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#5 -#2088 Winfield Stephens -Continued) Mabusth asked for Planning Commission's view if the vacation was not part of the application. Lindquist said he ~as of the position that the garage should come down if it is not located in the legal building envelope. He noted that it was to the benefit of the applicant to proceed with the vacation of the alley. Gardiner said he had offered a neighbor $2,000 to consider the vacation but had received no reply. Gardiner asked if the Commission would consider option #1. Berg asked where the garage would go. Stephens asked if the vacation of the alley could not be done, if the process could proceed. Peterson said the garage would still need to be addressed. Gardiner remarked that he had purchased the property in 1982, and the garage was built before that time. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2088. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Peterson suggested the applicants put the burden on the neighbor to determine the driveway easement. (#6) #1958 LOUIS OBERHAUSER, 2405 DUNWOODY A VENUE, 3865 AND 3877 SHORELINE DR..T\7E-PRELWJNARY SlJBDIVISION -9:35-10:02 P.lVI. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was represented by Jack Neveaux. Mabusth said the application was for a lot line rearrangement and replat of two lots. The original subdivision application was filed in 1994 had also included applicant's homestead parcel. The current application includes 3 substandard lots. The property is in the 1/2 acre zoning district. Lot 1 to the west contains 16,500 s.f, and Lot 2 to the east contains 20,000 s.f Existing now, according to Mabusth are two boarded up structures, one structure had been removed, and one rental unit structure. Mabusth reported that the applicant seeks approval of lakeshore setback variances for lot 1 involving a 6' encroachment oflakeshore setback line. The structure will be located l O' from street lot line and existing detached garage is 6' into the right-of-way. Both structures would meet the 1 O' side setback. A timber retaining wall is located in lot 2, and the applicant is willing to remove the wall if able to gain the variances for lot 1. There are no lakeshore decks proposed with new construction plans. '14 ft---r-r, /JJ ~1 " c..-~.A"-¥ o~ k ~ ~ , "'t -"J...._ b-1 ~ 6 o C) -1 7~--~ -:i-q cJ.-) r) I 5 1 ~31 , $,~4d I \ () 1a NITNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONllvIISSION l\1EETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#3 -#2127 David Wilde -Continued) Peterson commented that a roadway would require a cul-de-sac with a 80' finished diameter, platted at 100'. Bruce V anSloun, property owner to the west, said he was concerned with access . He said there were tremendous issues to be solved . VanSloun noted there was no cul-de-sac on the right-of-way now. He said he would need to know how this development would affect his property value . VanSloun noted that for a road going over his or the Hawkinson property, the easement that exists extends only part way through. Peterson commented on the need for tabling the application with the various issues being brought forward. He asked the applicant to work with the Staff and neighbors in determining access , easements, and drainage .. Peterson moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2127 to resolve questions noted . Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) 8:15 P.M. -#2130 NORBERT JOHNSON, 1181 \VILDHURST TRAIL - PRELil\HNARY SUBDIVISION The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted . Peterson moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2130 at the request of the applicant. Vote : Ayes 5, Nays 0 . ACTION ITEMS (#5) #2088 WINFIELD STEPHENS, 3770 BAYSIDE ROAD -VARIANCES - CONTThTUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING -'WRITTEN RENOTIFICATION OF NEIGHBORS 7:09-7:32 P.M. The renotification of the public hearing to the neighbors was noted. The applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the vacation of the alley was . approved earlier. The amended application, now includes the area of vacated alley totalling 20,143 s.f. Mabusth said the foundation of the structure was reviewed and found inadequate to support a second story. The project will now be a tear down and rebuild . An area variance will be required. 4 lYIINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONfMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#5 -#2088 Winfield Stephens -Continued) Mabusth reviewed direction given by the Planning Commission in previous meetings advising that structural coverage be minimized in order to meet the code. The setback variances were to be reduced. It was also requested that no new addition be permitted to the east so as not to impact the views of the neighbor to the northeast. A 6' expansion is proposed on the east side. The variances required in the application are for setbacks, hardcover in the 250'-500' setback area and lot area. Mabusth said the proposal involves a 2-story residence with the attached garage. The residence structure would be 50' from the Bayside right-of-way with the covered deck at 45' setback. The garage, which encroached Landmark Drive, will be removed. The 15' setback from the west lot line would satisfy the agreement with the Landmark Homeowners Association. The City requires a 50' setback. A 3' setback variance would be required from the north side lot line. 15% structural coverage is allowed and is proposed at 14.3%. There is a hardcover allowance of 30% in the 75-250' setback a.TJ.d is proposed at 48.2% for a 18.2% excess. Smith asked what changes were made to the variance requests from the earlier proposal. Mabusth explained that there is now an increase in the lot area reducing hardcover and structural coverage excesses. Setback variances would be required for the expanded second story. Smith said the proposal for 4 bedrooms, a den, and a porch was still excessive in her viewpoint. The applicant had no additional comments but was asked about the possible loss of the maples trees on the east side. Stephens said there would be some loss of the maple trees but was unsure how healthy one of the trees is. He noted that there would be a loss of2 oak trees to the south. There were no public comments. Hawn said she was concerned with the tear down of homes on substandard lots and the rebuilding of homes larger than intended for a particular zoning area. She noted that the codes were present to ensure the proper size homes for a lot size. She was not in favor of a second story expansion with the current foundation problem. Peterson opined that approving the side and rear setbacks created a problem. Smith said with proposals of rebuilding on new foundations, the City was more critical and stringent in applying the codes. 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO:MMISSION ~fEETING HELD ON APRIL 15 1996 ' (#5 -#2088 Winfield Stephens -Continued) Mabusth asked the Commissioners their opinion of the 3-1/2' setback to the side lot line and what their recommendation would be of the encroachment into the County right-of- way. Lindquist noted the proposal meets the structural coverage allowed and suaaested ~ 01:l the home be rearranged on the lot to meet the setback. The applicant said the building inspector said the foundation could be used, if more support posts and beams were added, to extend the home 6' and add a second story. Mabusth noted that she will review this matter with the building staff. The former owner noted that the original part of the house had a fieldstone foundation that was 2-3' thick and adequate to support the addition with a new foundation wall on the east only. Mabusth clarified with the applicant that the proposal would only require a new foundation wall on the east to support the structure. Hawn noted that the project would then not be new construction. Smith asked the applicant if there were any reductions that could be made to the home. Stephens said he used the 15% allowable for structural coverage in designing the house. Smith suggested reducing the structure to eliminate the need for any variances. Lindquist noted if the home was rearranged, it could have significant impact on the views for the neighbor to the north, and felt there would be the need for a variance for setback. Peterson commented that the dramatic variances are for side and rear setbacks. Hawn commented on the need to be consistent when homes are being torn down and replaced. She noted the value in taking the impact to the neighbor's view into consideration. Mabusth clarified that the 3-1/2' setback variance is for a side setback to the principal structure. The attached garage will be located 27' from lot line. Lindquist asked if the existing foundation would be used with the exception of the east wail. T}J.e applicant said the existing footings and foundation with the exception of the east wall would be used. Peterson said the proposal would be acceptable to him if the applicant would remain within the existing foundation. · Berg noted the need to clarify the inspector's comments. There were no public comments. 6 l\1INUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO:MMISSION l\.1EETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#5 -#2088 Winfield Stephens -Continued) Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2088 for a 15' west side street setback for the garage, a 3-1/2' north side lot line setback structural ' coverage not to exceed 15%, setback of 5' from Bayside Road for covered porch, with the understanding that the existing foundation will be used with the exception of the east foundation wall, which would be replaced. The Building Official must confirm that existing foundation, except for new support wall at east side, is to remain. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Smith, due to excess structure. Motion approved. (#6) #2098 EVA THEOBALD, 4104 IDGHWOOD ROAD -VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING -\VRITTEN RENOTIFICATION OF NEIGHBORS 7:40-7:50 P .. M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Stuart Hoarn represented the applicant. Mabusth reported that the original application has been revised. The street setback remains the same as originally proposed. The west side lot setback, originally proposed at 6.8', has been revised to 9.5', where 10' is required. The separation of the neighbor's garage to the house has been revised to 11 ', meeting required 1 O' separation. The lakeshore setback is met by the proposal. The lot coverage has been revised to 1492 s.f meeting the 1500 s.f. allowable. The hardcover in the 75-250' setback, originally proposed at 46%, has been revised to 40%. The code allows 25% in this zone. The lot area and lot width remain the same. Hoarn commented that the applicant and he reviewed and followed the Planning Commission's direction, which resulted in the amended proposal. Hoarn asked that the application proceed on to the next Council meeting. There were no public comments. Hawn asked if the driveway was of the size to allow a visitor's car to park. Hoarn said the driveway would hold two cars with two cars inside relieving some of the street parking problem in the area. Commissioners commented that the proposal was in keeping with the neighborhood, and ·. the applicant's addressed the concerns previously brought forward by the Planning Commission. Hawn said she was concerned with precedent setting and noted the need for the Commission to discuss the overall codes and set specific guidelines. 7 i f ~-- 1o :__ --d~ C :f d . {)1010 _ (t;(J'1).9: Sfo//<2 {ytrclt~ 2 }5 Ga-Y\.Q_ F,tr ~ v2..J _ fl~p&_ (?/a,~ 1 /vi N 5~ )S-Y _ i- Re ·~ /Jpi>l, ~q;+,'0 v--. it 26 8'i ~I f<-e~ol '( /-,~ ~ :l C, 7 J l;l);"' S-fep~s hts !j)ct vc4a~ d ~ _ 'f>_ '"f cd7 4/-J7? U Bo/' S? /4 1/Y ,,jfk ,:;I, ifi bt)/C{o._vy 2-Z--/ /f1 ~, fly v-i~ S4-~ 0£-ire,~ -4-avr.-, J:d ,~ 4:cl'~t,is _ cf o Vl,,c_,€/ r'i : --::f ~ pvo f e./ 7 . ~~ ----~ ---------------------- MAR 1 1 1996 • 0 s " Certificate 0.65 1.54 / 3: en !:: C 6 Garage Lilac Hed e Gravel House @ L Deck Well 2 ! ----1 ·---~ I I I I l I I I ·.4.1'19" E 237.25 4 of Survey --- ! I ! I ! 1 ,, ! , f>{br ~ I • I>{~ ) _,,,.--,,..-, \..r', ----- ----l '\~ 0"J _, l '-6 9 .,.,.,i 1.-~ / / __-- 0' a 9 \\// --~ ,~ 9 / .,,,.,,. o(_;-1 \,/ / v" _,, _,, o'o- / _/ ~t>~ --- / . ~ -/ / > / // / ~'3,~:/ / / / . .· // / / >,, ~ (I) N < -.:I-0 -.:I-L() r-co 'Cl 0 co IP 0 ,-+' 0 ! I I I I 3 ! ! I ! ! I I ! ! ! I ! ! / / (J) 0 5 I ! ! I I ! I l I l I i ! I ·R>·· /;:? I\._. ,<o / -~o/ l),._V\ /':v0(:' V / / <o' / / //0°' / ... ,o· / / '-'01/ .__... / /r 'b-0. / // / ~o ./ / / / ~ ,/ / ~' / / . :--v '-"& / / r\.-::,. <::-/ / / / c,v/ / JJ / / / / LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RECORD: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, OTTOVILLE ON LAKE MINNETONKA, Minnesota, according to the record plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, AND, that part of the alley adjacent to Lots 2 and 3 dedicated in the plat of OTTOVILLE ON LAKE MINNETONKA lying Southerly of the Westerly extension of the North line of said Lot 2 and Northerly of the Northwesterly right-of-way line of County Road 84 (AKA Bayside Road) according to the record plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. denotes iron monument found Requested By: / / denotes iron pi~e set and marked R.L.S. o. 14343 W.R. Stevens, III denotes soil boring Date: Drawn By: Scale: Checked By: denotes perculation test hole 4/1/96 P.E.O. 1 11 =40 I 0}{) AREA: (Computed By AutoCAD) Total Lot Area = 20143.32 S.F. * House Area = 865.12 S.F. Garage Area = 846.43 S.F. Driveway Area = 1233. 76 S.F. Deck Area = 244.54 S.F. Wood Step Area = 49.6 S.F. Retaining Wall Area = 17.50 S.F. Total Hardcover Area = 3256.95 S.F. Existing Hardcover Percentage = 16.17% * To R/W line, not including land between R/W line and Highway pavement. I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Edwar~f~hj~ Date:~ Reg. W.!~ 9 West Division Buffalo MN. 5531 Ph: 882-4727 Job No. Fax: 882-3522 96085 Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc. ..,, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCil, MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 12, 1996 (Public Comments -Continued) Joan Valek said the County had agreed to split off the 1/2 acre to add to the Valek property, which was needed to alleviate drainage problems. The County, however, needs the City's approval by way of a resolution stating the metes and bounds of the 1/2 acre parcel before the County can split off the 1/2 acre parcel. Joan Valek said O'Connor is awaiting a survey of the property, which she was told needed to be done by the City. Callahan responded that the County was the owner of the land. Moorse interjected that it was StafPs understanding when the Council approved the 1/2 acre parcel to be added to the Valek property that there was a co~dition that an easement be provided to gain access to the parkland. Valek noted that the 1 O' alley was an abandoned utility easement and questioned that it was to be turned into an access. Moorse said when the approval was made, it was agreed that the easement would be moved to the side of the property and still be maintained as an easement. During preparation for this to occur, Staff determined that in order to provide a reasonable access, there would be a need to expand the easement from 10' to 20', to which the Valek's disagreed . Joan Valek said the resolution was never contingent on moving the easement on their property. She added that the alley had nothing to do with the resolution. The Valek's asked that the issue be placed on the Council agenda. Callahan responded that the matter would be taken up at the next Council meeting scheduled for February 26,1996 . ZONING ADIVIINISTRATOR'S REPORT {*#3) #2064 GEFFRE/OLSON, 4665 BAYSIDE ROAD -SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGE.M:ENT AND VACATION-RESOLUTIONS #3669 AND #3670 Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3669 granting a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement and oversize accessory structure variance for Irvin T. Geffre and Robert S. Olson at 4665/46:XX Bayside Road, and further adopt Resolution #3670 vacating a portion of drainage and utility easements within Outlet C, Bayview Farms Second Addition. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. {~#4) #2088 STEPHEN GARDINER, 3770 BAYSIDE ROAD-VACATION OF 1 Il\1PROVED ALLEY -RESOLUTION #3671 Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3671 vacating 30' unimproved alley as dedicated in the plat, Ottovi1le of Lake Minnetonka, in 1887. Vote: Ayes 3 , Nays 0. 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: February 6, 1996 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeanne A Mabusth Zoning Title Building & Zoning Administrator Item Description: #2088 Steven Gardiner, 3770 Bayside Road -Vacation -Resolution Zoning District: LR-lA Existing lot area = 15,717 s.f. or .36 acres Adjusted area with addition of entire alley = 20,937 s.f. or .48 acres Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.12 -Vacation of unimproved public alley at 30' width. Refer to Exhibits C and H. List of Exhibits A -Application B -Property Owners' List C -Plat Map D -Gustafson Letter 11/14/95 E -Access Easement to Property F -Gopher One Request by City G -Ottoville Plat of 1887 H -Survey of Property and Unimproved Alley Right-of-Way I Gardiner Letter 1/23/96 J -Agreement with Landmark Drive Property Owners B!'ief Revie," of Application The comprehensive land use application was originally presented to the Planning Commission at their November 19, 1995 meeting. The application included the vacation of the unimproved alley and an improvement plan of the prospective buyer of the property. During the November review, the Planning Commission advised that before they could act on any improvement plan it was necessary that applicant complete the vacation application so that final area and lot lines were resolved before setbacks or hardcover variances could be considered. Mr. Gardiner, the current owner of the property, has assumed the responsibility of completing the vacation application. Refer to Exhibits C and G, the underlying fee owners of the Ottoville p;operties indude applicant's property and the properties within the Bayside Landing :>~LOdivision ., Lhe i11 1ectiate west. Refer to Exhibit J, Mr. Gardiner has executed an agreement Request for Council Action continued Page 2 February 6, 1996 Zoning File #2088 Steven Gardiner, 3770 Bayside Road with the homeowners' association president agreeing to claim no interest in the acquisition of the vacated right-of.;.way if future plans for the improvement of the property would ensure certain setbacks for future residential construction on the property. Review Exhibits D, F and I, the City Engineer advises that the City has no interest in the unimproved right-of-way. The Stubbs Bay sewer improvement did not make use of the specific right-of-way area. Gopher One has been contacted by the City to determine if other utility companies have any interest in the unimproved right-of-way. Mr. Gardiner's letter advises that they have completed the staking of the right-of-way and representatives of the utility companies have confirmed that no existing electric, gas, cable or telephone lines exist within the unimproved right-of-way. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the vacation as proposed, finding no public use or interest in the unimproved right-of-way as it exists today or for future use. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either approve or amend the enclosed approval resolution vacating 30' unimproved alley as dedicated in the plat, Ottoville of Lake Minnetonka, in 1887. lsv TO: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE: January 8, 1996 SUBJECT: #2088 Winfield Stephens/Stephen Gardiner, 3770 Bayside Road -Vacation - Continuation of Public Hearing Status of Application The comprehensive vacation and variances application was tabled at your November 20, 1995 meeting as Planning Commission felt before they could act on the improvement plan that it was necessary for Hennepin County to resolve the matter of which of the adjacent land owners is to benefit from the vacated right-of-way. Planning Commission specifically advised applicant that if entire area of alley is not to be acquired by applicant, the existing detached garage must be removed as part of any improvement plan. Planning Commission members also asked that a copy of the legal easement providing access to the property at the north property line be included to complete application information. Winfield Stephens, the applicant, has advised that he will not proceed with the variance application until the vacation is resolved by Hennepin County. Steve Gardiner, the owner of the property, has assumed full responsibility for the vacation phase of the application. List of Exhibits A -Survey B -Plat of Ottoville Lake Minnetonka C -Plat Map D -Letter to Valerius, 3750 Bayside Road E -Easement in Favor of 3770 Bayside Road F -Utilities -Gopher I Request The property owners of Bayside Landing subdivision have been in contact with City staff and advise that they will have no claim on any portion of the vacated right-of-way as long as certain setbacks are maintained with the improvement of the property. Lee Harrin, the president of the homeowners association, advised that he would send a letter to each of the Planning Commission members advising of the homeowners' decision. Staff has yet to receive a copy of that letter. It would be helpful if members of the Planning Commission could provide a copy of the letter at the meeting so that it may be included with the public record. Zoning File #2088 January 8, 1996 Page 2 In reviewing Exhibit B, it is not clear what claim the property owner at 3750 Bayside Road would have if the underlying property was not part of the original Ottoville plat. Again this issue is resolved by Hennepin County once the City has determined no public use for the 30' alley. Mr. Gardiner has submitted a copy of the easement as requested by the Planning Commission that confirms the legal right of the owner of 3770 Bayside to use 16 1/2' wide easement along the north property line of the property for access. The issue of utilities has not been resolved as of this writing (refer to Exhibit F). Utility companies will advise the City as soon as they have completed their inspection of the area. City staff cannot schedule the vacation application before the Council until the four utility companies have reported their findings. Staff Recommendation To approve the vacation for 30' alleys as originally dedicated in the plat of Ottoville Lake Minnetonka subject to the following conditions: ch 1. The vacation petition shall not be scheduled before the Council until the City has received a report from the utility companies confirming whether utilities are located within the unimproved public right-of-way. If utilities exist, applicant to provide easements over all existing utilities. 2. Applicant's surveyor to provide a complete legal description for the vacation of the 30' alley for the official resolution of the City. CITY OF ORONO -GENERAL LAl~ USE AP.P""', ~A ~ ?-'" f. .,,.,.:) PROPERTY LOCATION I Site Address S 7 \ o ~ C\.n.i ? c L Type of Application to be Filed ---------------------Property Identification Number (P. I. D.) C)S~Ot · 2:3 -2'--/ -Olo c),, 0101 ,0 1a2 J o103 Phone (home) '17 C/ -Z O 95 Phone (work) <t€J 7 -3 / q I -~----~-----~~------ -----'"----"--=---~'i-1""'==-,......-.~'---'----',-~~ City Ha.p (e, P/ci to, MAJ Zip S-5" 3s-9 t/ Cf{o -( 14 ( DateProperty Acquired ___________________ (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land . FEES -CONDITIONAL USE PER1\1ITS - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $ 50 . 00 For each variance request with CUP application $125.00 Residential Accessory Use $200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $17 5 . 00 Guest House/ Guest Apartments $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200. 00 Land Alteration Grading and filling -designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling -101 cu . yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID -see Fee Schedule $100.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee -Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review ( + consultant fees) '\::,> )( $250 . 00 Vacation $17 5 . 00 Easement Vacation ---$ 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ---$300 . 00 Rezoning (PUD -refer to fee schedule) ---$300 . 00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ---$100. 00 Appeals ---Other -see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District _____ _ ~ Present Use of Property ___ Residential ___ Other (specify) _______ _ 6 REQUIRED SUBMITT ALS 1. __ Completed Application Form. 2. __ Describe request in detail. 3. __ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). 4. __ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) -refer to handout for survey information. 5. __ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. 6. __ Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 7. __ List of the legal names (include marital satus) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 8. __ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 9. __ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: _____________ Date ___________ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/ or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature ________________ Date ________ _ OWNER'S 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 signature _________________ Date ________ _ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 7 \ REQUIRED SUBMITT ALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. _ Completed Application Form 2. _ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list , labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603 , Govt Center, 348-3271). 3 . _ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition , provide one (1) copy 8 ½" x 11" for reproduction . · 4. _ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 ½" x 11" for reproduction. 5 . _ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one ( 1) copy 8 ½" x 11 "). 6. _ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 7. _ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons_ you wish notified of this application. 8. _ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator,. agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/ or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is t e and c~rrec~ best of his/her knowledge. Applicant 's Signature ~-'JC, ( (__ Date / tJ l'-f, !'ft OWNER'S 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 ,)~ Date f o/ 31 / q: ~ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 CITY OF ORONO -VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $200. 00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORivIA TION Site Address 3 '7 7 0 ~ .t'.'.l \j s Id€ Ra/4 u Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ------------------Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ___________________ (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: v residential __ other (specify) _________ _ Zoning District: -------------------------- APPLICANT Phone(home) L/l/tc,-11<;,/ · Name lJ , Af ?1 e· /d ) 5 .J-E/ IIE:ri_s Phone(work) 7..l.S -.;..,r 3 7- Address:/ o =?--f Cov.-,T) ~-j.,:2....,-City:/Y}Apl£/·7/~,,A/ Zip: S-...S-3.S'"o/ I DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost$ -------Describe request in detail: ______________________ _ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback: Front Side Rear __ Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore __ Other (specify) _______________________ _ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ________________ _ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 lJJ Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Eq ual op·portunity Employer -Bonestroo Rosene Anderlil< & Associates Engineers & Architects November 14, 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. Robert W. Rosene, P.E.* Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. Marvin L. Sorval a, P.E. Richard E. Turner, P.E. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Thomas E. Noyes, P.E. Robert G. Schunicht, P.E . Susan M. Eberlin, C.P .A.* * Senior Consultant Y- Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re : Gardiner Vacation File No. 139 -1958 Dear Jeanne, Howard A . Sanford, P.E. Keith A. Gordon., P.E. Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. Richard W. Foster, P.E. David 0 . Loskota, P.E. Robert C. Russek, A.I.A. Jerry A. Bour don, P.E. Mark A. Hanson, P.E. Michael T. Ra u tmann, P.E. Ted K. Fie l d, P.E. Thomas R. Anderson, A.I.A. James R. Rosenmerkel, P .E. Donald C. Burgardt, P.E. Thomas A. Syfko, P.E. Frederic J. Stenborg, P.E . Ismael Martinez, P.E. Michael P. Rau, P.E. Thomas W. Peterson, P.E. Michael C. Lynch, P.E. Br ian K-Gage, P.E. James R. Maland, P.E. F. Todd Foster, P.E. Jerry D. Pertzsch, P.E. Keith R. Yapp, P.E. Scott J. Arganek, P.E. Dou glas J. Ben oit, P.E. Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. Mark R. Rolfs , P.E. Cecilio O livier, P.E. Mark A. Seip, P.E. Kent J. Wagner, P.E. Gary W . Marien, P.E. Paul G. Heuer, P.E. Paul J. Gannon, A.I.A. John P. Go r der, P.E. Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E. Dan D. Boyum, P.E. A. Rick Schmidt, P.E. Jeffrey J. Ehleringer , P.E. Dale A . Grove, P.E . Joseph R. Rhein, P.E. Philip J. Caswell, P.E. Lee M. Mann, P.E. Mark D. Wallis, P.E. Charles A . Erickson Miles B. Jensen, P.E . Leo M. Pawelsky L. Phillip Gravel, P.E. Harlan M. Olson Kare n L. Wiemeri, P.E. Agn es M. Ring Gary D. Kristofitz, P.E. James F. Engelhardt We have reviewed the proposed alley vacation at 377 0 Bayside Road for Steven Gardiner. There does not appear to be any reason for the City to retain the 30-foot wide alley and we would recommend the vacation . We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. Mr. Gardiner's property presently exists as four separate lots. The vacated alley will represent a fifth parcel. We would recommend that a replat be done at this time to combine all of the parcels into one lot. The right-of-way for Bayside Road (County Road No. 84) is presently 66 feet wide . We would recommend that an additional 9 feet right-of-way be provided as part of the replat. Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of-ways . Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~J)~ Shawn D . Gustafson, P .E . 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 Gopher Stale OneCall 3 Ticket No: 765 Send To: CDROND01 Seq No: Transmit Date: Oriainal Call Date: Work lo Beain Date: 1/03/96 1/03/96 1/05/96 Company CITY OF ORONO LORQ NON-EXCAV. 9 Map Ref: Time: Time: Time: 10:48 am 8:27 am 8:30 am Op: DLEL45 Op: OLEL45 Contact Name: JEANNE MABUSTH All. Contact: JOHN G Phone: (612)473-7357 Type of Work: NON EXCAVATION LOCATE REQUEST -VACATING PUBLIC ALLEY Work Beina Done For: STEVE GARDINER Explosives: N Duration: UNKNOWN R.O.W: N State: MN County: HENNEPIN Place: ORONO Address: 3770 Street: BAYSIDE RD Nearest Intersecting Street: STUBSBAY RD Location of Work: MARK ENTIRE ALLEY LOCATED ON W LDT LINE OF ABOVE ADDRESS. Remarks: CALLER STATES THIS ALLEY IS ONE SIDE OF LANDMARK DR. Twp: 117N Rns: Z3W Sect-Qtr: 05-SE Twp: Rna: Sect-Qtr: Legal Given: Y COROND01 MINGAS0Z MNDCBL01 NDSTPW0Z USWEST03 End Of Transmission I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,, I I I I I I hi -0 '· ,' ,',l , r ,,. /' It: I ~ 1(1) ,.--.;,.._-~ ;~ ~~ ~~ ~& ~ ':J.. ~¼ v " ~y la 0 ..>t'o \U \L & 0 ~ 1E I I~ I J ~I 1,- \ () d. ~ VO ~I ~ :z- 1 ro I _fJ 1 . ,_ I~ I ~ "I -' I~ I .a, IC I ;_, jO, _.,........ ___ I I (1) I -., 1 ,ftl,' I: I~ I ... , I l5 I N ·-----., I I "--o I I l.f) O I I I I I-...,"""==~~-: ~ I I ',J-,n f ) \' I --. I . I ! I I I '-I ~ !k. '. ' . o .. , -~ ~-/ ~i _.·' / ~-~ Q) , _,,..· ----~ \, ~ \ ·\ \ \ I ..... \ I \;i I J t ...,.._-.i \ ·, Aa{l'v' pa:ie~e f\o; I . ·, , (J) N rn . C'f') N 0) ~ L ,~,·-t -.• w•' I .·-----...:...!, \ .. \ --~- -0 v II --~ •• Q) -ca u V) --0~ ~ ~ . O" (/) 0 N N l.f) .~ ~ o> "'C ctS 0 c::: Q,) -c ·-(/) ctS co 0 t'- t'- M 0.65 Garage 1.54 . ./ ~->, s:: (I) N --- -.;t-0 -< .. l() "q"' . ,--co ""O • co 0 (1) 0 ,---t-J CJ (J) I u 0 > Gravel House @ I Deck Well ·41'19" E 237.25 2 ---------~--------------- I I I I I ' ,, l .; I ' r,./J,, I • ~~ I '\C?J \J~ I ,,,,. ':>':>':>. 'l-ro / / ,-,,.__◊ h \<::J• / \)0 \l-... ,,,,. ;, / / 'v/ / / /// . / . ,\0 ~ / / t!!... ~\j _/ 1 I t I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 I 4 /// / o..'3-~~ / / / V ./ // / / I f I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I I I I I I I I I I C?>·· / v0 fl... ,'D / ·,<;--o / l')..V\ /.'--V(c' . V / / <o'/ / / / e, o"-...._, 0 ♦ / / ,Oo;/ ,...._ / ~'V/ 0 / /// / ~ore-/ / ... / / / Steve Gardiner 215 Game Fann Rd N Maple Plain, MN 55359 January 23, 1996 Orono City Planner and Council 2780 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Dear sirs: JAN 2 4 1996 Enclosed is the information requested to present item 2088 Vacation of alley between 3770 Bayside Rd and Landmark Drive to the Orono City Council meeting. The legal description of the alley was provided by Phillip A Nelson Registered Land Surveyor: That part of alley adjacent to lots 2 and 3 dedicated in the plat of Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka, lying southerly of the westerly extension of north line of said lot 2 and Northerly of the Northwesterly right of way line of County Road 84 (AKA Bayside Rd) according to the recorded plat thereof Hennepin County Minnesota. The search for utility lines has been completed and marked by Gopher service. There are no utility lines marked in the alley. The Gopher tracking number is 6559. Please schedule this item for the February 12, 1996 City Council meeting. Please send me an agenda and notify me immediately if this item is not to be discussed on February 12. Sinre~~ W61 k. :ii fi-i 7 -3 f Cf I ~ 11r-2oqs CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Winfield Stephens 1071 County Road 92 Maple Plain, MN 55359 ZONING FILE #2088 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: April 22, 1996 COPIES: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING: 04/15/96 VOTE: 4 FOR 1 AGAINST The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application as proposed approving the following setbacks: West side lot line = 15' Northwest side street lot line = 15' North side lot line = 3.5' Front/street setback (Bayside Road) = 45' The hardcover variance within the 250-500' setback area at 48% was also approved. Approval was based on the fact that structural improvements were under the 15% allowed for the 20,143 s.f. lot. Prior to scheduling the application before the Council, staff was directed to review the structural issues with the Building Official who confirmed that existing foundation was to be retained for new construction. The Building Official has also confirmed that a structural support wall will be installed on the east side of structure as well as a support beam located to the center of the existing residence structure. Lyle Oman advised that the existing north, west and south wall will be retained/used with the new construction. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed at the City Cormcil meeting of May 13, 1996. Please note the meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. Please contact Jeanne Mabusth if you have any questions pertaining to the matters discussed above. lsv TO: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE: April 11, 1996 SUBJECT: #2088 Winfield Stephens, 3 770 Bayside Road -Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA Lot area= 20,143.32 s.f. or .46 acres NOTE: The property now includes the area of 30' alley vacated by City Council in February of 1996. The application was originally tabled at the November 1995 meeting of the Planning Commission pending resolve of many issues raised at the public hearing dealing with legal access to the property and whether adjacent property owners would have any claim to the proposed vacated right-of-way. The vacation portion of the application was once again reviewed by the Planning Commission at their January 1996 meeting and was approved by the Council. Applicant was advised at the November meeting that the Planning Commission could not make any determination on setbacks until it was known whether applicant would acquire the vacated right-of-way. Applicant now presents a revised construction plan seeking hardcover and setback variances. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review: 1. Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C) -Review of structural coverage Total area= 20,143.32 s.f. Allowed= 3,021.5 s.f. or 15% Proposed= 2,891.1 s.f. or 14.3% No variance required. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 -Review of hardcover A. 75-250' setback area= 15,237.82 s.f. Allowed= 3,809.5 s.f. or 25% Proposed= 934.29 s.f. or 6.1 % B. 250-500' setback area= 4,905.5 s.f. Allowed= 1,471.7 s.f. or 30% Proposed = 2,367.33 s.f. or 48.2% Variance= 895 .. 63 s.f. or 18.2% Zoning File #2088 April 11, 1996 Page2 C. Total area= 20,143.32 s.f. Total hardcover= 3,301.6 s.f. or 16.3% 3. Section 10.23, Subd. 6(B) -Setback variances A. Side street setback variance Required = 50' Proposed= 15' Variance= 35' or 70% B. Rear setback Required= 30' Proposed residence= 3.5'* Proposed attached garage = 27' Variance= 26.5' or 88.3% * Applicant has been advised that a second story cannot be constructed over the foundation of the existing single story structure. Existing foundation shall be replaced requiring approval of the setback variance of 3 .5' for all new construction. C. Street setback List of Exhibits Required= 50' Residence= 50' Covered deck = 45' Variance = 5' A -Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/95 B -Renotification, Certification and Notice Sent Out to Neighbors C -Plat Map D -Vacation Resolution -Approved by Council 2/12/96 E -Easement Driveway F -Agreement with Residents of Landmark Drive G -Floor Plans H -Footprint of Building I -Elevations J -Proposed Improvement Plan K -Revised Survey L -Staff Sketch of Setbacks M -Hennepin County Confirmation of Inclusion of Vacated Right-of-way with Property Zoning File #2088 April 11, 1996 Page 3 Review of Amended Proposal As recommended by Planning Commission during the November review (Exhibit A) the applicant has placed the addition to the south side of the existing residence so as to minimize any visual impact upon the Wicklund residence to the immediate north. At the request of the Landmark Drive neighbors, Exhibit F, the structure is now placed 15' from the newly defined west lot line. Residents of Landmark agreed to not pursue any claim to vacated alley if applicant agreed to meet the 15' minimum setback. The structure measures approximately 71' in an east/west direction. And at the west side the structure averages 26' in depth and at the east 58' which includes a 21.8'x8' covered deck at the southeast comer of residence. Applicant's surveyor, Exhibit K, has not located deck at southeast comer that will be 45' from County Road. As already noted above, the applicant has been advised that the existing foundation under the old structure cannot support the proposed second story. Applicant shall install an entirely new foundation. Applicant has applied for approval of the existing setback at the side/north lot line at 3.5'. Applicant has also placed garage addition at existing detached garage setback of 27' from the side north lot line. Hardcover in the 250-500' setback area is excessive because setback area is limited. Total hardcover is maintained at 16.3%. The 75-250' setback area will contain only 6.1%. Major issue for this review is resolve of the intense setback variances sought by applicant. Hardships The hardships remain the same as in the earlier review. 1. Triangular or unusual shape of property. 2. Property is surrounded by either roadways or driveways on all sides. 3. Property has been assessed and is served by sewer. 4. Desire of applicant to balance visual needs of property owner to the north and preserve lake views where applicant has no legal claim as property is not a lakeshore lot. 5. Agreement to maintain 15' setback from west lot line. Zoning File #2088 April 11, 1996 Page 4 Issues for Consideration 1. As we are dealing with a new foundation under the structure, how can proposed substandard setbacks be improved? Will you approve a more intense setback to the County Road right- of-way? Should structure meet the minimum 1 O' setback from side north lot line? 2. Is the 15' setback acceptable from west lot line. Neighbors have approved the 15' setback. Staff has faxed a copy of the improvement plan to the chairman of the homeowners' association and he has approved the plan as long as the 15' setback is met. Orono code requires a 50' setback. Note the structure will be expanded 6' along the east lot line beyond the existing residence. Will the 6' expansion result in the loss of the maple trees? 3. Could the footprint be reduced in size? 4. Will an excess of hardcover in the 250-500' setback area be of concern? 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Options of Action To deny, approve as proposed or as amended. If the improvement plan is to be amended, applicant must provide a revised survey and updated hardcover inventory before the application can be scheduled before the Council. ch Zoning File #2088 November 15, 1995 Page 5 of access at Landmark Drive that will abut property as soon as vacation is finalized. The applicant may have some knowledge as to the status of the driveway easement. Issues for Consideration 1. Is the proposal too ambitious for this size property? . . . Review factual findings above. 2. Property owners to the immediate north (Craig and Renee Wicklund) have no legal claim to lake views as we are not dealing with lakeshore lots. How shall we address their concerns? 3. Which option best satisfies the standards of the City's municipal zoning code? ... Which option will Planning Commission recommend for approval to the City Council? Any recommendation of approval must include the condition that Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and the vacated alley be legally combined before a building permit is issued for the new construction. ch PLANNING CO:Ml\1ISSION NOTICE FOR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 1995 3 . 9:00 P.M. #2088 Winfield Stephens proposes a vacation of an unimproved public right-of-way legally described as follows: 30 ' wide "Alley" as dedicated in the plat, Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota The application involving the property located at 3770 Bayside Road also includes an addition to the existing residence requiring hardcover and side setback variances. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at the specified times. Written comments are solicited. Plans are available in the City offices for review, by appointment. City of Orono By : Planning Commission To be published the weeks of November 6 and November 13 , 1995. CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (612)473-7357 Fax 473-0510 NOTICE The Planning Commission will hold scheduled public hearings in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, November 20, 1995 on the matter of reviewing the following vacation applications: 1. 7:00 P.M. 2. 7:30 P.M. #2082 Richard Stark of 575 Oxford Road has applied for an after-the-fact conditional use permit and variance for tree removal and minor land alterations within an area of his lakeshore yard that was designated as a protected wetland with the plat of Stielows Addition. Mr. Stark has provided an updated wetlands delineation report that would redefine the boundaries of the wetland area and has filed a petition seeking to vacate the original II Conservation and Flowage Easement and Waiver of Damages 11 dated September 20, 1978 and dedicate a new Conservation and Flowage Easement over a less ambitious wetlands area. The easement to be vacated is legally described as follows: All that part of Lot 5, Block 1, STIELOWS ADDITION, lying Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point in the Southerly line of said Lot 5 therein distant 385. 06 feet Westerly of the Southeast comer of said Lot 5; thence North 22 degrees 4 7 minutes O 1 seconds East, a distance of 115.72 feet; thence North 10 degrees 40 minutes 18 seconds West, a distance of 135.03 feet to the Northerly line of said Lot 5 and there terminating. For purposes of this description, the Southerly line of said Lot 5 is assumed to bear North 39 degrees 41 minutes 21 seconds West. #2090 Ron Rantz of Autografs, Inc. proposes the vacation of drainage and utility easements within the property located at 2525 Shadywood Road and as dedicated in the Leach Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota legally described as follows: That part of the 10 foot drainage and utility easement lying within 5 feet on each side of the southeasterly line of Lot 1, Block 1, Leach Addition, which lies southwesterly of southwesterly line of the northeasterly 10 feet of Lots 1 and 2, said Block 1. Also, that part of the 10 foot drainage and utility easement lying within 5 feet on each side of the northeasterly line of Lot 3, Block 1, Leach Addition, which lies northwesterly of the southeasterly 10 feet of said Lots 2 and 3 and southeasterly of the northwesterly 10 feet of said Lots 1 and 3. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ss . I, Jamie Bosma, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing c oncerning the matter of #2088 , was mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 6th day of November, 1995. Jamie osma / / / ,_ _______________________ Gravel Driveway ____________________________ _ ! f 8' 0.00" --.j'" 31' 3.00" t t 4' .00 I I I .----~ I / 458.73 / I .-----I I I I I I I , Deck , 1 147 Total 588.06 1 1 64 1 I 24' 3.QQ I I I I ~------4 I I I , Existing House , I I I I I I I I 129.33 I I I I I I I I 122.34 ft I I I 136 I I I Decli 101 I I I I I I Scale 1/8': 1' Present Lot Plan 3770 Bayside Road Present Lot Plan 3770 Bayside Road N I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepared tor: SETBACK ZONE O to 75 75 to 250 250 to 500 ZONE AREA 0 13, 188 2529 I HARDSURFACE AREA 91 3 865 PER CENT COVERAGE 7% 34% r -------------------,<'...--}------------ 1 ' --- 1 •--__________ /:'rr1"'cl _ -:_···2.07.3G,-.. ------- : \,/ 58,032'24''£ __ _ ,' GrAvcl I I / -: I ,. I N I I I I // / I .,, .. , ••- < • ' t.. ... \ ..... ~ ~ / . .. ........ ~ .. = ... ..: ! ., c:. Ai EA " 151111 ~-Fi. LEGAL DESCRIP'rION: I r I I I I / I Lots 1,2,3 and 4, OTTOVILLE LAKE MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deed~ in and for said County. Revised 2/21/90 to show hard surface area calculations. GENERAL NOTES: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / I I I I I ' / 0 Denotes M • lC Denotes x931.3 Denotes iron monument cross chiseled in concrete existing spot elevation Proposed top of foundation elev. = Proposed basement floor elev. = Proposed garage floor elev. = 1987! Denotes proposed spot elevation n .. n,.,t'.es. surface.drainage BENCHMARK: -- 3770 BAYSIDE ROAD SINGLE FAMILY -PROPERTY TYPE 1 SF <<< L-$ 119,900 S-$ BR : 1 TBA: 1 FBT: 1 TBT: HBT: NEW > » QBT: STY: l.5STY TRM: FHA,CON,CSH MT : OMD: 3770 BAYSIDE RD MUN ORONO ZIP 55356 AR 381 SUB 1 DIV 3 COU HENN LOT SEE LISTER ACR .35 DIR STUBBS BAY RDS TO BAYSIDE FIN: TAX$ 1,106/95/F MAP 4C-6·1 TWA$ 2,193 ASB $ 7,072 ASP U HS FOR 1995/F YBL 1903-N # 1148657 THE VALUE IS IN THE LAND. THIS MODEST HOME HAS BEEN REMODELED AND HAS LOTS OF POTENTIAL. YOU CAN EITHER ADD ON OR BUILD NEW. ACROSS FROM LAKE MINNETONKA. 4 PIDS SEE LISTER!! NO SHOWINGS TIL OCT.18TH. RECARPETING & PAINTING LGL SEE SUPPLEMENT PID 0511721210101 WAT WELL REF,RNG,F/H L APROX L APROX SEW CONNECT D/P,HWF LR M 23Xl2 Bl U 22Xl3 FPL l,L AIR C TRM FHA,CON,CSH DR M 12Xl0 B2 X HEA FA /GAS MTG INT .000% FR X B3 X EXT·WOD EXF CON OD -ASM N KT M llX 9 B4 X BSM F,S PIN$ MC2 MA2 DK M ax 8 X GAR 2,D COMP: 3.15% TO SELLING X X SDN 278 SDP 449-8300 BURNET REALTY INC. BBT N -MBT N BROKER FSZ 735 AGF 1,021 BGF 5141 BC 3.15 SA 0 MYRLE MACKENZIE 621-4375 INFO. DEEMED RELIABLE BUT ER N NOT GUARANTEED FSF 1,021 NA 0 PHN 612-473-3000 APT 612-473-3000 LIST#: 1148657 SUP #: 1 ADD 3770 BAYSIDE RD THIS PARCEL OF LAND HAS 4 PIO NUMBERS 0511723240101 HOUSE ON THIS LOT 0511723240100 0511723240102 0511723240103 CONTACT LISTER FOR COPY OF SURVEY CONNECTED TO CITY SEWER IN 1984 NEW FURNACE FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL MYRLE MACKENZIE BURNET REALTY 621-437-5-- [B@ A RESOLUTION VACATING AN UNIMPROVED ALLEY WITHIN THE PLAT OF OTTOVILLE ON LAKE MINNETONKA IN THE CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FILE NO. 2088 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on October 31, 1995, Steven A. Gardiner (hereinafter the "applicant") filed a petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation of an unimproved public right-of-way adjacent to his property originally dedicated in the plat of Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota in 1887 and legally described as follows: that part of alley adjacent to Lots 2 and 3 dedicated in the plat of Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka lying southerly of the westerly extension of north line of said Lot 2 and northerly of the northwesterly right-of- way line of County Road 84 (AKA Bayside Road) according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, after due published and posted notice, public hearings were held before the City's Planning Commission on November 20, 1995 and January 16, 1996 regarding said vacation and all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the proposed vacation; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono finds that said vacation as proposed is in keeping with the public interest and in consideration of the following findings: 1. The right-of-way as it exists today will not serve for public road use based on the pattern of residential development and access to adjacent properties. 2. The unimproved right-of-way contains no municipal sewer nor other utilities. Page 1 of 2 3. The dedicated road right-of-way as it exists today serves no other public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of Steven A. Gardiner is hereby granted by the Council of the City of Orono and that the unimproved alley legally described above is hereby vacated. The granting of the petition is subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall apply for the legal combination of the vacated alley with Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka. 2. Applicant is hereby advised that the City will not consider an improvement plan for this property until Hennepin County has completed the vacation and resolved the final dispersal of the vacated alley. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on February 12, 1996. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Page 2 of 2 ®· Garage 5220 se(. Setback Zone Zone Area 0 to 75 0 75 to 250 13188 250 to 500 2529 Totals 15717 Scale : 1" = 40 1 Old Harsurface Area New Hardsurface Area Allowable Area Total 913 (7%) 865 (34%) 1778 1454(11%) 1081 (42%) 2523 Option 1 ,¢~~ ~\J :'-:! .:,;.·~":;.-·- 3297 (25%) 758 (30%) 4055 .>:·:"''::\ . ·1 '\ p/~~t~l 8 a_:.'_,1,,1<'.,.:l,'.: •• W.t.J!l.:.i_.;~--',l./,..:. ,L ,\ ~,~, • .;,o.,:~,.;...,;..~.{~IUUJ.~,.i;\,lllilill~..----~'•"'·• ,;i~)J:.i,....,.,_,,,.,"-·" _,,.~l.i.l CERTIFICATE OF SlJRVEY Prepared for: STEVE AND CARMEN GARDINER SETBACK ZONE HARDSURFACE PER CENT ZONE AREA AREA COVERAGE 0 to 75 0 75 to 250 ~-&& 913 7% 250 to 500 ~-865 34% r--------I I -----------/---]-----I .' -_____ _,_ r: ... -__________ f~:n~c~ ,-···'207.3G:,···-------- Ml { ~' " ,.,-;-::',: · ,' ·,.,.,, -. 58'}0 32' 24 ''£ -----. ---- / ., ' \!. " " "" j . ----,rG,.v<J , w ,_• ~•' . ,,,,\ i ,>-~ --1 _ I 1.,"' -J <l" '-1 / 1 1 ' ''\, Hou,e, "-._N I , " ---"- 1"'?!'"7"'"7::-:-'--.-_JL;,, .. -; '1 • >. "---I~ : : : I I/ 7.0 "' t • ------·-· ,_ , --...! Z-4-2..__ ; '. : : • ) •---. . l. O I Deck ;r. _ . , , I Ex,sf. · v.J-~j; r t,\-.o ') I I ARE/\ ,,_ 1'5, 111 5Q. FT. I I .~V _.,... ,_ 1,\'·-1.•' \'-•I • '1.., \ . .. V ,~o<-,Q / t,.'-\ '•,\~B I ~ ,, 3 //,/·-..I (\t~ / / \'o~c!-'bo, ~r;:, ...., ~ // . ,., .. 1:'' 0 -"' 'l '\,<.fl 0\ . N +vq_/' T I • ,-\ --~ l h ..... _ ~ / V)V)'v ~'l,\Ji ~1)- J! ,........ J - • ' 1-0 Ui/ : o ,:I : ti) _,.J I ' / ' ,' .. -• / ,:( / / ,l,' t' I ,,, ... \ _,.._. I ( ; L. -• / , -; ,,, ~ • / ~t,~~ ~ °'try t:}.L,~ ~ ~I).'\\; /\ ~\~ ~O: ~~ '-.../ V:t;J • ,.__o.., \''' \) / ~O,~ ~~· "'-...::s. / , ";;~ ~,~~/I_ ,...,, /' tx IJ> ... ,,. "I'\,~-'/ -.._\.." / CJ"", / LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1 I I I I / I \-<'~ /, \.'"'°'v / / c)v,,.. / -:,._'Or,/ • <-,t / (~// Lots 1 ,2,3 and 4, OTTOVILLE LAKE MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said _ _county. Revised 2/21/90 to show hard surface area calculations. GENERAL NOTES: I I I I ~~ \jvo.-..1"\ -- ~/ ~ // / / I I I ' I I I I I I / I I I I I I I / I I I I 0 ti 11 X x93l.3 19871 Denotes iron monument Denotes cross chiseled in concrete Denotes existing spot elevation Denotes proposed spot elevation Proposed top of foundation elev. = Proposed basement floor elev. = Proposed garage floor elev. = Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour lines denote proposed features Solid contour lines denote existing features BENCHMARK: ALL-METRO LAND SURVEYORS I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was ISCALE I I prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that \ ''= 30 I qm a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of • 2 3 40 Daniels Street Long Lake I Minnesota 55356 Ph: 475 -1433 the State ~nnesota. ~A~ DATE /O /12/88 REG. NUMBER l70Z$ BOOK IPAGE Ito 12 FILE NO. 8811'5 B ~--,.,...._ l 4W ~•rnllQ•titl,4ffM('gf'F WAoC ........ __.., ____________ ... ___________________________________________________ ... __________ ,.. T)-1.l'"'·•·::;;,;,.,, •; / ...__Y :":::v -, __ _ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7S' 15-250' ! 250-500' EXISTING HARl>tQYER Pi ZONE A. House J ( " x ungth B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk ..., L/ I E. Patio/Deck ex -, F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE --.~··/ I a 'f..!:S. 7S = Width == = = = ' /0 = = = = lo'+ ::J., 3 == = = = = = TOT AL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 13180 A Cf/ 3 + B ___ U_ x 100 = fROPOSED HARDC3'.?R IN ZONE A. House O / B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other ungth X X X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE I 3-S-8 /+~ = Width = = = = Jo' == = = = = = = = == == TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE /,..::, i'08 A /S7.S: + B _..J_,_,a __ x 100 = 13 _/_~-=-9 __ S.F.0 _____ S.F. S.F. -----$.F. ----- S.F. ----- @?C> S.F.@ -----_____ S.F. S.F. ----- -----S.F. I o4 s.FCID ----"--S.F. ----- S.F. -----_____ S.F. _____ S.F. S.F. ----- S.F. A -----S.F. B -,........--,. '/.....-~=-:L-=--% 8?S-'4" _____ S.F. '.:::!J _____ S.F. S.F. ----- -----S.F. _____ S.F. 680 f'S) ____ S.F.~ S.F. ----- _____ S.F. _____ S.F. S.F. -----_____ S.F. S.F. -----S.F. ----- -----S.F. S.F. ----- _____ . S.F. A _ __,,___,,. __ S.F. B _...;../,..::....1/.--'j'--_% HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' ~ =00-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House a~, 11 x Length I• Jl '-/-: l·..;l.. B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other ~··o' JI ,. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Width TOT AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 'i?&S-B dS;j._9 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House SC> 1 x B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other Length , c1J·O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE Width I = = X 100 = = = = TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE "'"'l ,-... -'°' q A /oaf + B _e,,('_v="·c e:,,,._L,__ x 100 = 13 -~_JS_· __ S.F.@ S.F. ------S.F. ------S.F. ------ /~O S.F.® ------ ---=(;-"'· t;;,"-.. __ S.F.® S.F. ------ S.F. ------S.F. ------ __ ~__,_Lf_·· _S.F.@) ______ S.F. ______ S.F. S.F. ------______ S.F. ______ S.F. S.F. A ------S.F. B --=--,,-----c=--:lf ~S" % ~·°JS-S.F.@) S.F. ------S.F. ------S.F. ------ / ..:to S.F@ ------ ,:; G S.F.@ ------S.F. ------ S.F. ------S.F. ------ S.F. ------S.F. ------ S.F. ------S.F. ------S.F. ------ S.F. ------ S.F. A ------# S.F. B ==+=--,&-"_--=--=-% CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 HARDCOVER ORDINANCE-In 1975, the Orono City Council adopted an ordinance limiting the percentage of lot area that can be covered with impervious surface ("hardcover") such as roofs, driveways, sidewalks, etc. on properties located within 1,000 feet of a lake. Studies have shown that sediments, oils, and debris carried into the lake from highly urbanized areas have a detrimental impact on the quality of water in the lake. The intent of Orono's ordinance is to ensure that rainfall run-off will be cleansed by filtering through grassed or vegetated yard areas before entering the lake. Hardcover Zones -Allowed Percentages: 0-75 0% 75-250' 25 % 250-500' 30% 500-1000' 35% Hardcover includes: -Roofs -Sidewalks -Paved or gravel driveways -Patios & decks (includes slatted decks) -Tops of retaining walls & rock walls -Decorative landscape areas underlain by plastic sheeting or fabric -Any other surface that does not allow direct absorption of rainfall into the ground INSTRUCTIONS FOR COl\1PLETING HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 1. Circle which setback zone (0-75', 75-250', etc.) the calculation is for. 2. For each item of hardcover within that zone, enter the length and width, and multiply to get square footage (s.f.). 3. Add up all the square footages to get total square footage of hardcover. 4. Divide by the toral area of property within the zone and multiply by 100 to get percentage of hardcover in the zone. 5. If changes in hardcover are proposed, you should do a "before ti worksheet and ti after worksheet. If either results in percentages greater than those allowed, contact City staff before proceeding with your project planning! TELEPHONE -413lJ'357 • FAX -473--0510 N .I f I I 1 ___ .. 1 I 11 I I 11 LaundiJ- 1 11 I I 11 I I 11 I l 1 1 1 ' ; lu-rrl 11 I I 1523.36 ft I ~B=th .• I ~ . .'.) X I I I I I B □edroom 16 X 17 ,nl 1111 ILil I I lrl II I I uP---.---~-1, ------: ; a ' I --"""II ~ . _ : .. l Old wall -111111'-1 j -·-·-·f>err·-·-·-·-·-· L : L i I § Foyer 50' 15.Sx13 Dining Ki hen -----------41' 8" ---------- 3770 Bayside First Floor Plan Option 1 Scale 1 /8 = 1 ' 50' Bath 8.5 X 11 -·---Be-droom-·-·-· 1 5.5 X 13 7 Bath WIC 1 523.36 ft Bedroom 16 X 17 Old wall s-~~~=•l--·-·--·-* ·--· Foyer Master 13 X 26 -----, I I I I I __ j -41----------41' 8" -------------- 3 770 Bayside Second Floor Plan Option 1 Scale 1 /8" = 1' N m mmmm m mmmm~ North Elevation Scale: 1 /8" = 1' I 7 I I 29' - --[E8 [E8 m ---i.--i.-- - D mm 1 : i: i: i : i: i: i: i : i : i: i: i: i : ; : i: i: i:;: ii 1:;: i: i: i: i: i: i: i:;: i: i : i : i: i: i : ; : i: i: i: i: i : i : i: i : i:;:;: i : i : i : i:;: i: i: i:;: i:;: i: i: inn:;: i:;: i I East Elevation Scale: 1 /8" = 1' 50' I mmmm --- -- -.... --.... --- 41'8" . -·--- South Elevation Scale: 1 /8" = 1' If' _,__ ------ _,__ -- ...--------...... ...... ....__ ---- -:::.::-_ _,_·__. 29 / m m - Ii;;;; ii: iii; i;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;: i;;; ii;;;;;;;;; l; i; l ii;:;: i:;:; iii;;;;; ii: i; ii; iii i;;:; i;; iii;;; i:;;;:; ! 50' West Elevation Scale 1 /8" = l' r-----------"""Grave'rcfriveway"'(Easemem:T _________________________ _ ----------- ~;.~50's West Lin \ 5220 sq.' Scale : 1" = 40' 3770 Bayside Road Setback Zone Zone Area New Bldg. Hardsurface Area 0 to 75 0 75 to 250 15237.82 934.29 =25-0~t=o-5~0~0_4~9~0=5=.5 ______ 1~8-2_7=.3-3~+ 6f O 4t) d YIU Totals 20143.32 2761.62 Total Allowable Building Structure Area-20143. 3 2 x ( 1 5%) = 3021 .49 sq.' Total Area requested .................................................... (13.67%) .. 2753.94 sq.' Garage 5220 Setback Zone Zone Area 0 to 75 0 75to250 13188 250 to 500 2529 Totals 15717 Scale : 1 " = 40' Old Harsurface Area New Hardsurface Area Allowable Area Total 913 (7%) 865 (34%) 1778 /ffCf7 (, Ltlo) HE1:(J Ja4) 3297 (25%) ~cl t=-4 1 E.36} 758 {30%) 2523 1 5&'-(__oa'b) 4055 Option 2 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepared for: SETBACK ZONE HARDSURFACE !?ER CENT ZONE AREA AREA COVERAGE 0 to 75 0 75 to 250 13,188 913 7% 250 to 500 2529 865 34% I ; -----------~------~_,:_ __ }---------------- I ---_________ ,(Grt1"cl _ .--·Z.07.3G,---------,.-- , · V, .. 1.0 ·;-:: 1 ?~~-,' ··,-+.ca 58~0 32' 24 ''£---------_ .[_G'Tlvej ave! / -; Q "-. "-. "-. • , I ~ •Q•.)-. e.i,tin•' "! ' ---- I . ', -\\ > ,,-• ' , ' I / \,.• N llll'SC/ ~ ,._ .. _ • J.,·1 ,.?i-.. ;(:\: ~--:~_,T -, ,,. \ ~---- 9 ' i . \\'":'>~~\·· i Oc.k ,i , " t..() I ~,,> ..... 6 ,i1;,_, V O ., , , / Ai EA ., l'i, 111 ~-Fi. ,,_.c:,/ x~!,, 01. u!'" .,1,;;,, ~ ..... _,,. ,<•">, , .. ~".,, / ,:V, LEGAL DESCRIPTION: / / / , / / '+,-o; / '\i.i/" (/ ,' QC~~ Lots 1,2 ,3 and 4, OTTOVILLE LAKE MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deed~ in and for said County. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / , , , I , ·::/::;,:\:\ ( r-'71'"!°,,y Revised 2/21/90 to show hard surface area calculati~ns . 0 ~ . X x931.3 (987! GENERAL NOTES: Denotes iron monument Denotes cross chiseled in concrete Denotes existing spat elevation Denotes proposed spat elevation Proposed top of foundation elev. = Proposed basement floor elev. 2 Proposed garage floor elev. 2 tt .if -"'!f., '~ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET .. ,/ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' ~ 250-500' 500-1000' EXISllN~ HARl>CQVEll 1?i ZOrsi A. House 3 I X ~ '-I 4--s. ,s = Ltngth Width X = X = X = B. Garage X = I C. Driveway r;p-I X lo = X == D. Sidewalk X = X = ~e../-' / ' E. Patio/Deck X /0 7'.=?·3 = X = F. Landscape X = Underlain X = By Plastic X = G. Other X = TOT AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE /:.r/ ~~ A 91,J + B _...J __ a_0_ X 100 = PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 7 l x. B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other Ltngth X X X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE = Width = = = = I = = = = = = = = = = TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE / .:3/f? g- A /,f'?r + B ____ x 100 = 11 /d)... 9 S.F.Q) S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G &,o S.F.@ S.F. S.F. S.F. Io':{ S.F@ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _____ S.F. A S.F. B -,..,....._-,,?c-~=--.2....-% _/_~_/ )_ S.F@) _____ S.F. S.F. ----- -----S.F. _____ S.F. _c;_s:,_o_s.F.© ______ S.F. S.F. -----_____ s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /(!·31? % A J81 #,i ,..,, @ .;.'1 J,6,-y ,,,,. . ~ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CffiCLE ONE) 0-15' 75-250' EXI~TING HAru>cOVEB IN ZQNE :;;. Cf (-;-I• '--A. House 3 (., X ungth Wldth X ,c ,c B. Garage ~o X ~I ,,, ~ , C. Driveway // X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck "i-( X [i, I X F. Landscape X Underlain X By Plastic X G. Other X TOT AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE .:is;;.., A ~Gos-+ B X 100 PROPQSED HARD~QVER lIS ZQNE ~1-,. A. House 7/' X --:--< ·'tr Length Width X X X J20"' I B. Garage X b /( I ~ I C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape X Underlain X By Plastic X G. Other X TOTAL HAADCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE .2.s-22 A 75"6 + B X 100 g = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cr, ( s-_____ S.F.© _____ S.F. _____ S.F. _____ S.F. /~o 'Sr 6'9 ____ S.F~ ___ S.F.@ _____ S.F. _____ S.F. _____ S.F. e (/ ---=----S.F.@ _____ S.F. _____ S.F. _____ S.F. _____ S.F. ,: _____ S.F. _____ S.F. A _____ S.F. B 3 l/ ,;,._s----'--=---% ~7.:L ____ S.F.@ _____ S.F. _____ S.F. _____ S.F. /-to ~~ _____ S.F@ _____ S.F.@ _____ S.F. _____ S.F. _____ S.F. _____ S.F. _____ S.F. _____ S.F. _____ S.F. _____ S.F. _____ S.F. _____ S.F. _:--::::----S.F. lS 30 _::,,&<..,;;;. ____ % } w ~ Iv J J •·1~!. ~ r Ji , .. ' . I b' :~: t n f I.~ r ,. : I . j ~ .,. ~ 11• l t i I t l , f 1 e ~ ~ . ~ j: f 1t-r 1.: 863571 . ,,. -, ,t~,... c.-:\ \,,,, .... ', .. - •• ·/ , -' 'r , ... , # ~--!.· .. , " " . . -~ , . . ...... I I ~ I\)' C\i \ ~ ---- -·--•-·-- WWWWlJit:aaa.U.~1":~~ LEW HNl&IWW - )./ Certificate of Sur ·ey for Dan Farr Constru :tion of Lot 52, Auditor's Subdiv . ~ion 1-lcnncrin County, Min 1 ~sota ;116'' "44 '/6"W l</'l. 05 't' ..I/ i'J/ 'J'! ,ill ~ ~ I .I , I I I I -----···· -------~ ~ I\. ~ <>,: ().. 'J 1 ------------------------- No. 203 ORONO copy· CITY OF ORONO SIT E PLAN _J!:, __ GHADING PLAN i-yAPF1 q y1t[:[) ~ ,\ .... /j-- [J 1\):1PHCYvTD WITH HEVISIONS . ~~Olf.AP~D~ DATE t.t-1"-1 -r : • _ _/.-~: / '/ :. ~ I ,',:I(• 1._:) • ----, ----- ,~ / ~ / /~] 1 '/ / .. :-,~) ~1._j ~ ~ ~ ' I ~(,; 1,.4) ~, // q¼ '-i I, / _I\J ' \ \ 7Jr;-..... ' ---'- r-.,, -. ' -, ✓ ' --; --- /_J \ -, \ ~ _. '--. .:_~~; /~~: :y ... --~; !. :~ E ~ "' lj "' C) ,-r----..... ,, , ,-, ' 1-I I J •, I I I _, --' \.., ., I ✓ ,.. • , " ~ \ ~ '>, \ ·"' ,~ ,1-; ,' -, .' -.r-/ .'\, ,-, ~.. '--' ' , ' ... , . \ ~ -~ I ' ' "' ~ ~ ~ . J ,'f. ./ If ;V q'"_-'J,,., '() ~ I ~ c:P I I -~ ., .... \ \ \ \ \ {ns.'1)- , I \. I L ega l Description (?'1'1.1)_,, \ I ,,, >~(f:17.7) ,} , \ . • , ~--. s) , o,(filDJ7, , ~ •c)(1fr,JJG \../ . • J 'O e,vCl~ (' /1 1-JJ , 'A~· ®~(qn.9) , / · , ---rl1) Toi' ' ~ ('1J'}.a)., ~~ '1,"' \..,".,... ~ I . ' ( <J • • !9-":;: 0 " ?:· t,).1.'° \ (q1'1,q) . \ \ \., Lot 52,. Auditor's Subdivision No. 203. \ • ' ,~· . ( 1-•· D ' ~' ••.•. \ \ < I 'Al•~ 01' %., •~ 1· , ,,. T' 0 ·" \ ,.___ ,?.. o 0 1 7,. r11,., •••• .>.. ', I I,• jl. • 'J~• \ .Y/, :z -I p \ ' ) . \ MMt< • ~ -':0 )'. \ Q ll This s urvey s how 1, I: he l oc,1 tion of a proposed hou se on the above described p 1~opcrty .· It doe ~, n ot rurport to show any other improv eme nts or encroach- ments. ,t''>tlf" <':, r '\ Ii ~ u .I. ron 111 <1 .r kc,_· \ (911.1) ,1~~')) >>•. . \ ..... ·,' \ ' ' (1 11.t)~ ... .,,.,0 I ", \ :1 -., " \ Yy , .._____ r,,.-o 1(. 1 ·..:.:·=-·ne--,exis ting contour (v~~ existing e l eva tion [?J7.s] proposed elevation ' -'r, '6' \ ? \ \_, I -"Ir----... • ) "6' o'' "~ ,. ~ '-S' "' ·, -<.-r \ I I ' I ' \ I \ \\\ j I \,:, ' . ' I \ dc1.tum: inc.::an sea l eve l ,..-:1_,fC,·,OC)/('-,P C°f. l~J/4 7-,,r~✓,1 / .. J'" I} r'PJ1 O,C-,&°A,✓(77,-.., :: 944. 0 2} frA~-'C:., = '1,;l,?, 7 J) ,s.,,.r.,...r,,.,r /'l.?o.o . -l.: I I "' ,) ) "' l I JI / ----• - 1 NtJ9 °,t4'/(r" , .0--rv-;1.v 148.S · / J • ..__,,... --··---·----- "' I JI.I ---L!ow.-.t--""c-r---~--1---.. ----·-....,____ ;?,-?c,;>(.)f(.,1 ': 110,.,, ~-, ~ (i,;7.tJ cuF,.. F,,_r ('117,3) 1:~,,,.J,-,,, / (?:17.1) .P;(/V~ __ ~---.... ..___~"' ~- I , --, . (97J.2) ,.o . I f<,j.,d'1 116 r "l>"'rn ;i •~. ,,,,, '0 gA \o fillJLWi'b3tiiJ:&Ciii5!£:ii.Wlt1iUAt2U5&3Jbilli&UftU~~~~likMibditW~~-~--■ 11 I hl'rl'by CL'rlif:· that this sur\'l')' w,i's prl'pML'd b:· nH ' llr undl'r 111,· dirvd Slll 'l'I'· visilln, and that I ,1111 ;i duly regis\e1;ed Civil Engi m'L'.r.~rn d I.and Survl'vor undn l1,\l'l : 3-22·9S ·-·--- llw l,11,·s pf lhl' St.ill' 11f ['v1innl'st•l.i'. ),(,\II ·. /,,:: 40 / --~-~ t-.'1.irk S. Cru11bl'rg Mi1111L'sol.1 Licl'11se N1.11nlwr 12755 .. ~~.a;.iJ.t!l,li.,nQi..-:!~~... .. · :i<~~11~J ·----------· -••·••--..... -.. ··-·--1t 111 r-.·t 1. ?s-7 o 1~--- J --· :MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#7 -Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 6 -Continued) Schroeder asked why the single property was added to the amendment. Gaffron said it was a specific request by the property owner. The owner wanted to have the option of upgrading if his septic failed. There is a sewer stub directed at the property now, but the property is not within the MUSA. This owner would pay the normal connection charge involved . Gafilon added that the City is also asking for an additional 50 units to meet future requests such as this one. This would allow a comprehensive plan lasting for a couple years rather than the need for a 3-month review every time an individual request is received. Schroeder asked what the Met Council does. Gafilon said the Met Council looks at regional development issues such as sewer capacity, as well as unrelated items such as housing plans, density, existing and proposed traffic and transportation plans. The Met Council has 60 days in which to take final action on the application. Council Member Jabbour remarked that this amendment was a good idea and was a result of the City's Shoreland Management Program dealing with the issues of non-conformity with 3' separation requirements. He noted there are as many as 600 houses in the City, who may have to upgrade their systems. The amendment should help solve so of their problem in a comprehensive way. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of the MUSA Boundary Revision, Comprehensive Plan Amendment #6 . Vote: Ayes 4 , Nays 0 . Lili McMillan asked if the amendment was approved, if there was a time deadline for sewer installation. She was informed that there currently is no set schedule. The North Long Lake area is the number one priority with Orono Orchard, where McMillan resides, in the number two priority spot. It was noted that no interest from her neighborhood has been shown at this time. When the Long Lake area sewering is complete, the City wilI inquire as to the interest in the Orono Orchard neighborhood. ACTION ITEMS (#8) #2088 STEPHEN GARDINE~ 3770 BAYSIDE ROAD -VACATION OF UNIMPROVED PUBLIC ROAD -CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:07-7:16 P.M. Mr. Gardiner was present. 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#8 -#2088 Stephen Gardiner -Continued) Mabusth reported that the vacation application was separated from the variance application. Mabusth said she was told by the homeowners' association president, Lee Harrin, that a letter was sent to each Plannning Commissioner advising of their decision to have no claim of interest in the right-of-way to be vacated. Members of the Planning Commission reported that they had not received any such letter. Gardiner showed Mabusth an agreement signed by Harrin as representative for the homeowners giving up all rights of the alley way. Gardiner provided a copy of the agreement. Gardiner noted that the garage would be modified or destroyed to ensure its distance of 15' from the property line. Schroeder asked if it was critical for the applicants to receive approval from the homeowners' association. Mabusth said it was important for Gardiner and Stephens in order to develop realistic improvement plans. Mabusth also commented on the question of any legal claim by the property owner to the north and east on the vacated right of way as that property was not part of the original Ottoville plat. Mabusth also noted that Gopher 1 has been alerted, and applicant staked out the alleyway for the utility companies to review. Confirmation of the location of any utilities is necessary before the vacation can be approved. Hawn noted that the dispersal is completed by the County, and it is their final responsibility and not the City. Mabusth agreed. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2088 for vacation of30' alleys as oiginally dedicated in the plat of Ottoville Lake Minnetonka subject to the vacation petition not being scheduled before the Council until the City has received a report from the utility companies confirming whether utilities are located within the unimproved public right-of-way. If utilities exist, applicant is to provide easements over all existing utilities. The applicant's surveyor is to provide a complete legal description for the vacation of the 30' alley for the official resolution of the City. Gardiner noted his understanding of the conditions set forth. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#9) #2095 STEPHEN lVI. ENGLAND, 3855 CHERRY A VENUE -RENEW AL VARIANCE-PUBLIC HEARING 7:16-7:17 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. 13 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2088 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: January 22, 1996 -------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Winfield R. Stephens 1071 County Road 92 Maple Plain, MN 55359 COPIES: Stephen R. Gardiner 235 Game Farm Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 ___ , __________________________________________________________________________________ _ TYPE OF APPLICATION: Vacation (First Phase of Review of Application #2088) ---------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 01/16/96 VOTE: 4 FOR O AGAINST The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the application for vacation as proposed, subject to the following conditions: 1. The vacation petition shall not be scheduled before the Council until the City has received a report from the utility companies confirming where the utilities are located within unimproved public right-of-way. If utilities exist, applicant shall prepare easements over all existing utilities to be filed with the resolution for vacation. 2. Applicant's surveyor to provide a complete legal description for the vacation of the 30' alley for the official resolution of the City. Staff is in receipt of your letter of January 24, 1996. Your vacation application will be scheduled before the Council at their February 12, 1996 meeting. Please contact Jeanne Mabusth if you have any further questions concerning the review of your application. lsv March 27, 1996 CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 To All Property Owners Originally Notified of Application #2088 for Winfield Stephens Involving the Property Located at 3770 Bayside Road: The Public Hearing will be continued at the April 15, 1996 meeting of the Planning Commission a t which time the Planning Commission will consider the variance portion of the application. Variances involve setback and hardcover variances for new residential construction. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this meeting. Written comments are requested if property owners have any concerns. Your written comments should be submitted no later than Monday, April 8, 1996. Plans are available in the City offices for review by appointment. Sincerely, n.:-e~.,-?U a. m~ud y Luu) Je anne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/lsv Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. #2088 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: February 23, 1996 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Steven Gardiner 23 5 Game Farm Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Vacation DATE OF MEETING: 02/12/96 VOTE: COPIES: Winfield Stephens 1071 County Road 92 Maple Plain, MN 55359 4 FOR 0 AGAINST -------------------------- COUNCIL ACTION -MOTION: To approve per the findings and conditions of the resolution enclosed herewith. The resolution will be filed by the City Attorney's office within the next week. Please contact the Zoning Office if you have any further questions concerning the review of this application. lsv CITY of ORONO February 6, 1996 Steven A. Gardiner 23 5 Grune Farm Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 Dear Mr. Gardiner: Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 The enclosed approval resolution vacating the 30' unimproved alley just to the west of your residence will be presented to Council for their review and formal action at their February 12, 1996 meeting. Please review the enclosed resolution and contact staff prior to the meeting if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/lsv cc: Winfield R. Stephens, 1071 County Road 92, Maple Plain, MN 55359 Telephone (6U) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Steve Gardiner 215 Game Farm Rd N Maple Plain, MN 55359 December 13, 1995 Orono Planning Commision Members 2780 Kelley Parkway Orono,MN 55356 Dear Orono Planning Commision Members: Enclosed is a copy of a letter I sent to the Valeri@us family concerning item #2088, 3770 Bayside variances/vacation of public road. Sincerely, Steve Gardiner 215 Game Farm Rd N Maple Plain, MN 55359 December 13, 1995 Gary and Christine Valerius 3750 Bayside Rd Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear neighbors, Enclosed is a copy of the easement granting access to my house at 3770 Bayside Rd. I am surprised that a copy is not registered with your property. In my conversations with Gary I said I had an easement to use the driveway and that you should check with the Burger family to confirm my claim. Please note it was registered with Hennepin County document number 4781988. The Burgers were kind enough to sell the easement to me for $1.00. I have a proposal for you to consider. I am trying to vacate the alley to the west of my house. The Landmark association were considerate enough to allow me to claim the whole 30' alley in exchange move the garage 15' from the property line. This is most helpful. Your property might have a claim to part of the alley also because it borders it on the north. I would appreciate it greatly if you would agree to give up any claim to gaining title to it. In exchange, I would provide you with an easement to cross my property at the east point that meets the street. This would provide easier access to your mailbox. If you chose in the future to sell the west portion of your property as another building lot, access across my property to it would be much easier. Please cail me at 887-3191 (work) or 479-2095 (home). I reaiize the holidays are here but I would like a reply as soon as possible because all information must be give to the Orono Planning Commission before 1/3/96. Steve Gardiner Sincerely, Cc: Orono Planning Commision, Win Stephens CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2088 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 28, 1995 TO: Winfield R. Stephens 1071 County Road 92 Maple Plain, MN 55359 COPIES TO: Stephen R. Gardiner 235 Game Farm Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 ------------------------------------------ TYPE OF APPLICATION: Vacation/Variances DATE OF MEETING: 11/20/95 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Planning Commission recommended tabling application pending resolve of the following issues: A. Vacation of 30' alley. If applicant is to proceed with comprehensive application consisting of vacation of the 30' alley and variances for proposed additions to residence, Hennepin County must resolve the matter of which of the adjacent property owners is to benefit from this proposed vacation. In reviewing the Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka plat, filed on February 5, 1887, it would appear that the 30' alley was created for the sole benefit of Lot 2 as remaining lots would achieve-access via 60' platted roads or avenues. Applicant should research this issue with Dennis Hill of Hennepin County. B. Variances for proposed additions. If applicant does not include area of vacated public alley, any improvement plan must include the removal of the existing garage within the 30' alley. Applicant may choose to include an attached garage with the improvement plan. Staff has enclosed a copy of Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka plat for your information. Planning Commission has also asked that a copy of the legal easement providing access at the north property line be included with your new submittals when applicant wishes to reappear before the Planning Commission. The following is a listing of the dates of the January and February Planning Commission meetings and the deadline for resubmission of new information: Meeting: Tuesday, January 16, 1996 Tuesday, February 20, 1996 Deadline: Wednesday, January 3, 1996 Wednesday, February 7, 1996 Please contact Jeanne Mabusth if you have any questions pertaining to the Planning Commission directives or if you wish additional information from staff. ch TO: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE: November 15, 1995 SUBJECT: #2088 Winfield Stephens, 3770 Bayside Road -Vacation/Variances - Public Hearing Application: Applicant seeks to vacate 30' alley at the west lot line_ of the property. Acquisition of the alley area will improve building envelope and setback needs. Applicant seeks setback variances for two options of redevelopment of the property. The improvements involve two story additions either to the east or the south side of the residence at an approximate 25'x31.6' footprint. Zoning District: LR-lA Lot area= 15,717 s.f. or .36 acres. Pertinent Ordinanct;s Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C) -Review of structural coverage. Total lot area = 15,717 s.f. Allowed = 2,358 s.f. or 15% Adjusted allowed = *3,141 s.f. Existing= 864 s.f. or 5.4%, adjusted *4.1% Option 1 Proposed= 1,910 s.f. or 12.1%, adjusted *9.1% Option 2 Proposed = 1,909 s.f. or 12.1 %, adjusted *9.1 % No variance required * Area adjustment for inclusion of vacated alley. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 -Review of hardcover. A. 75-2)(1' s.:tbaci, area = 13,188 s.f. -adjusted area *16,008 s.f. Allowed =0 3,297 s.f. or 25%, adjusted = *4,002 s.f. Existing = 913 s.f. or 6.9%, adjusted = *5.7% Proposed Option I = 1,575 s.f. or 11.9%, adjusted = *9.8% Proposed Option 2 = 1,897 s.f. or 14.4%, adjusted = *11.8% No variance required Zoning File #2088 November 15, 1995 Page 2 B. 250-500' setback area = 2,529 s.f., adjusted = *4,929 s.f. Allowed = 758.7 s.f. or 30%, adjusted = *1,479 s.f. or 30% Existing = 865 s.f. or 34.25%, adjusted = * 17 .5% Proposed Option 1 = 1,081 s.f. or 42%, adjusted = *21.9% Proposed Option 2 = 758 s.f. or 30%, adjusted= *15.3% No variance required with acquisition of vacated alley area * Adjusted area calculations for inclusion of vacated alley area Section 10.23, Subd. 6(B) -Setback variances A. Side street yard (determined from west lot line of alley) Required = 50' Option 1 Proposed = 50' Option 2 Not applicable B. Side yard Required = 30' Existing = 3 .45' Option 1 Proposed = 29' Variance = 1' or 3.33% Option 2 Proposed = 3 .45' Variance = 26.55' or 88.5% C. Rear yard setback Required = 50' Existing = .44' Option 1 Proposed = 44' Variance = 6' or 12% Option 2 -Not applicable Zoning File #2088 November 15, 1995 Page 3 List of Exhibits A -Application B -Applicant's Addendum C -Plat Map D -Property Owners List E -Survey F -Hardcover Plan -Option 1 G -Building Envelope -Option 1 Hl-2 -Hardcover Fact Sheets -Option 1 I -Floor Plan -Option 1 J1 -4 -Elevations -Option 1 K -Hardcover Plan -Option 2 L -Building Envelope -Option 2 Ml-2 -Hardcover Fact Sheets -Option 2 N -Gustafson Report 11/14/95 0 -Wicklund's Survey Vacation The applicant has been encouraged to file the petition for vacation of the 30' alley originally dedicated in the plat of Ottoville Lake Minnetonka. The applicant has been advised by Dennis Hill of Hennepin County that the entire 30' wide alley would revert back entirely to the fee owner of Lots 2 and 3. Underlying fee ownership of the alley at the time of the Ottoville plat did not include the property to the immediate west (properties located within the Bayside Landing plat). Refer to Exhibit N, the City Engineer has reviewed the area of the alley to determine if any municipal sewer lines encroach the unimproved right-of-way. The Stubbs Bay sewer project did not make use of the unimproved alley. The vacation will be referred to utility companies that serve the area to determine if utility easements would be required although there were no signs of power poles within the vacated alley area. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed vacation of 30' alley subject to applicant filing for the legal combination of the 30' alley with the homestead parcels upon the filing of the vacation resolution with Hennepin County. Setback Variances Applicant has presented two options for major improvements to the existing 1 ½ story residence. The addition consists of an approximate two story 25'x31 ½' addition with a two story bay at Zoning File #2088 November 15, 1995 Page 4 8'xl5'. Applicant has submitted floor plans and elevations of Option l's development plan. Applicant notes that floor plans and elevations for Option 2 are similar to those presented for Option 1. Both plans would meet the requirements of the structural coverage ordinance without inclusion of the area of the vacated alley (with alley proposed at 9.1 %, without the alley 12.1 % ). With the inclusion of the vacated area, there are no hardcover variances proposed with either Options 1 or 2. Acquisition of the additional area within the 250-500' setback area has had a major impact on the hardcover percentages, refer to factual review above. Both options will not require side street or street setback variances. Option 1 requires a l' side yard variance and a 6' or 12% rear yard (existing is 6' or 12%). Option 2 will require a 26.55' or 88.5% side setback variance, review Exhibit L. Note the entire addition is located within a required side yard setback. Review Exhibits G and L, even with the acquisition of the alley area, the building envelopes are severely limited. In comparing both options of development, the majority of Option 1 's improvements are located within the legal building envelope. The majority of the improvements for Option 2 are located outside of the legal building envelope. Refer to Exhibits F and K, applicant notes that with Option 2's plan, the mature oaks will be saved within the south street yard. Staff has located two mature maple trees located within the east side yard which would be removed with Option 2. Staff met with the Wicklunds to discuss the variance application and the potential impact on their lake views of their newly constructed residence. Members may remember that the Wicklunds were required to meet all required setbacks with their new construction. A 50' setback was maintained from their south lot line, refer to Exhibit 0. Mr. Stephens has met with Mrs. Wicklund and provided her with information on his plans for development. The 30'+ addition to the east (Option 2) would have a major impact they feel on their lake views. Their home was designed specifically at an angle to capture that view. The structure would be located approximately 63' from their residence. Wicklunds noted they are very happy to see the proposed improvement of the property and ask the City to consider Option 1 as opposed to Option 2. The Wicklunds also noted that the two mature maple trees would be lost with the addition to the east. Wicklunds will submit a written statement setting forth their position. During the review of the Wicklund variance application, the issue was raised as to whether the owner of the subject property had legal access via the driveway easement along the north lot line of the property. It is not certain as to whether the current owner, Mr. Gardner, has claimed his rights via a prescriptive easement through years of use. Applicant may request use 11-14-1995 9:52AM FROM Bot\JESTROO • AS'.:;QC 6 ·1 2 636 1 3 ·1 I BoneWoo, Rosene, Anderlik and Assoclati!<, Jr,, I~ ~n Affirm~tlve Actlon/E,1ual Opportcmlty employer Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects November 14, 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, c>tto o. $.;,nestroo. P.E. Robert 11✓. ilo,ene. P,E: Je,;~ph C. Ant;1erllk, P,E;, Marvin L. £orval«, f,E, RrcMld f. iurn~r. P,l:, Glenn R. Cook. !>.~. ThOl'l'!Al f. Noy~s. f'.la, Roti~rl G Scliunicht. P.e, Sus~n M. Eberlin. C./.'.A.' ,. senror Cur'JsuJt3nt Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 C t ""l B · .M. t .::J.::3?.3 .,rys a av.:,: __ mneso a .J -. . ( i Re: Gardju.er Vacation File No. 139-1958 Dear Jeanne, HOwMd A. S~nford, P,E. Keith A. Gordon .. P.E. Robert R. Pfefferle. P.E, Ri~hard W. l'ostc:r, P,E. David 0. Loskot;,, P.la. Rotlerr C. Rus<ek, A.I.A, Jerry A. Bourdon, P,r:, MarU A. Manson, P.e. Michael T. R&utm~nr1, P ff, Tod K. i'i<ild, P.f. Thomas R. ,-\ndc::r.son. l\.t,;ih .. ,~m~s i?. Rose(,m erkt:I. f'.e. Oonafd C Bury.&rdt, Pf. ihomas A Syfko, P.!l. Frederic J. Stenborg, P.e;, q::m-;1~1 Marfir"Jt-t, P.E Ml;hacl I', Rau, P.E. Tnom.:,;~ w. Pctt'ef$◊r'I, P ~ Micha~! C. Lyn<h, P.E. Jaf11~i R. Molano. P.E, J~rry D. f'ert'.sct>. P.E. Stott J. Arg•no~. P.E. Kenn(<th P. Ander.on, P,E. Mark R. ROif,. P.E. Matk A. Seip, P,li, 'Ga,y W Morl,:n. F',f, Paul J Gannon. A.I.A. Daniel J. Edgerton. P.E. A, Rick Sd'lmidt, P.t Dale A. G(0Vt p f Philip J. G,,woll. P.G. Mark D W.;llh, ~.e, Mile$ 0. Jensen, P.e. l, Phlllip c;,~vd P ~ K.;lre-n l Wi~m~rf. PJ;. cl~ry D. Jtr/srofir~. /• E Briar, K G1\~e, ~.(l, , Todd l'o$1N, f',E Keith ft ~•~pf], PE Doug!~, J, $cnoft. P.E. Shawn D. Gu$t~fson, F.E. C<':tillo Ollvlcr. P.E. Kent J, Wa~mer. P.!i. Paul G. Htver. r.c. Jehl"! P Oonier. r.E Dan D. Boyum. P,E. Jeffrey J. ~hl~rlng~r. PE .ro~eph rt Rh~fn, P.n. Lee M. MMn. r.e. Chari~~ A £rlck50fJ Leo M. Pi!W('Jsky Harlan M L'h.:;,n Agne2 M Ring ,1am~i F Eng,.lhorct \Ve have reviewed tJ1e proposed aHey vacation at 3770 Bayside Road for Steven Gardiner 'There docs not appear to be any reason for the City to retaio the 30-foot. wide alley and we \Vould recommend the vacation. 'Ne have the following comments in regards to eng1neeri11g matters. Mr. Gardiner's property presently exists as four separate lots. The vacated alley wilJ represent a fifth parcel. \Ve would recommend that a replat be done at this time to combine all of the parcels into one lot Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC ,Jl,twn J) _zlt~4eJJ Sha-A'll D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 \X/est Highway 36 11 St. Paul, MN 55113 m 612~636-4600 West Lin ~p r----·--· -====--c;i-av'erdnveway"'(tasemefitT--------------------------~---/ I I --._.__ I I --1 572 I .__ I ~d j New Construction ge 1 / ,,, ,.,.. ""z.50• setback i : 5220 sq.' I Setback Zone Zone Area 0 to 75 0 75 to 250 15237.82 250 to 500 4905.5 Totals 20143.32 3770 Bayside Road New Bldg. Hardsurface Area 934.29 1827.33 2761.62 Scale : 1" = 40' Total Allowable Building Structure Area-20143.32 x (15%) = 3021.49 sq.' Total Area requested .................................................... (13.67%) .. 2753.94 sq.' To: Orono City Planner From: Craig Wicklund RE: Win Stephens Addition 3770 Bayside Road MEMO Date:11/15/95 We do appreciate that Mr. Stephens wants to improve the property at 3770 Bayside Road. However, we prefer the proposed option 1 because we feel it would have less impact on our property. Option 2 would greatly change the view from the front of our home. Option 2 has proposed to build 3 1/2 to 4 feet from the line which is the front of our home. The N.E. comer of this new addition would sit approximately 25 feet from our driveway. Due to the elevation of the lot, the back of the new home would be 2 1/2 stories high in the N .E. comer. Which faces our front lot line. We would much prefer that the end of the new home adjoin our front line as proposed in option 1. This would not extend the 3 1/2 feet setback that is already there. Last spring we applied for a variance to be 26 feet from our front line. We wanted our home to be on a higher elevation of the lot. We were denied that variance and had to comply with the 50 foot setback. In doing so, we adjusted the angle or position of our home to face more of our front lot line than our original proposal. With the construction of option 2 the front of our home would be looking at the back of the 2 1/2 story home. In light of the alley that is to become part of this parcel, we feel the construction should be done as per option 1. The alley allows reasonable setback to the west line. We welcome improvement on the property and feel that option 1 is the reasonable plan. '1 "1')_.: .. '"CITY OF ORONO · ~ .'f'cJ,i ".'· 2. t:30 P.M. ·#2090 Ron Rantz of Autog'rcifs, · ,11 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 00 j'(;J',,l Inc. proposes the vacation of drainage and ~~••'Jlil',\itCfYstal Bay, MN 55323 .. ,,, fl'•,·1: ,.,_'utility easements wlthlfl the property located , .. phone(612)473-7357 · Fax 473-0510 '·'· :• at 2525 Shadywood Road and as dedicated · .. ,,',,,Ji. , , ,_ 1,. _ ,_, , , ,., · . , , ·!_' •·1 \.in •the Leach Addition, Honnepln County, .;\,J,; ··. ,. . ,.~·,f; ti!2IlkE ·· · ,. ,: .•·.,, L· , 1., Minnesota legally described as follows: • · .. ,;''.!,'.~• •:.:;:::: ,~· ~:'•: \ ;• .. ~;1 ~'.~•:: .. •~~::;-i ·''1 , -~ . .,-,h._1..,,_~.,...,i~":""' -.• -~-1i 'r, The·_, Planning _,, Commission .. will : hold 1,l ,.Thal part of the 10 foot drainage and utility scheduled public hearings ln'lhe c uncll ,1!,1'-·easement lying within 5 feet on each •side of Chambers at .2780 . Kel!ey 'Parkway : on -.-\'-\;: the southeasterly line of Lot _1, Block .t ,-Leach Monday; November 20,,1995 on the matter,of.';\il,Addilion; which ; lles ;i southwe'stetly ,, of ! reviewing the following vacation applications: c • .: southwesterly line of the northeasterly 1 O feet \.·t,\ ~1.'.'..'i"'·'it<'""'""· "" •., .... " ,-,,,,,,,:~.:,~il'ii!i'ofLots.1 and2,saldBlock1.v ·,,. ••; · /,1 • .. ;. 1:''-ii :OOP.M,i/i #2082 'Richard tarkof'575··•:t1! : ·--;., ', ·_;1 ,,., .. ~,, \_{,•·,••·i:1••••• Oxford Road has applied for an after-the-fact <,.,·, ::Also, that part of the 1 O foot drainage ··and ' condltlonal :use permit and variance for tree · .( 'utility easement lying ·wilhin .5 feet on each remoy~I and __ r:nlnor land alterations within an.:jl /f side of the northeasterly line of Lot 3; Block 1,.: ·araa \.:of _, _hla,.1.lakeshore 'vard l,that !·was r,V :,Leach Addlllon ;:whlch lies northwesterly -of · . designated as a protected wetland with the~ ;,'· I the southeasterly 1 o feet of said Lots 2 and 3 , plat;9 ,.SMlowst Addition , JJ.1r., Stark-\ ha!l e/,i,!•;and southeasterly '. of th~! /lOrthwesterly .1 Q : provided : an •. updated wetlands delineation 'j-'\;, ;reel of said Lots 1 and 3. · :, ·, . . . •·,. .. .. report that would redefine the boundaries _of _/:· · ; ·•"•"•/1:: . ·;.,· ·. }/ ,_ ... , the _wetland ,area _and has filed a. petition ·;; · ·a. 9 :00 P.M. #2088 Winfield Stephens _seel<ing _to,_,,vacate the original "Cons~rvation ,,,.\: proposes a vacat ion of an .unimproved publi9 _ and . Flowage ·1-Easement ··and •. Waiver ·of <'' _right-of-way legally described as follows: · ·' Damages" dated September 20, 1978 and , . ·-30' wide "Alley'' as dedicated in the plat, dedicate a: ne'i(Conservaliori and 'Flowage ..,_ , :ouoville ·on Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin Easement over · a less ambilioull wetlands • · _County, Minnesota ·, , area. The easement to be vacated is legally · ,The application involving the property located , described as follows:. , .1 -. at 3770 Bayside Road also includes an '-~~\\, "''~"\</,~,-. , ,!': ... · , • ,.''. 1. ;' · 1 • •• • addition to the existing residence requiring 1 All_'that part ,,:of Lot ;s ,: Block 1, ~TIELOWS hardcover and 'side SEltback variances. , ., _) ADDITION dying ,Westerly of the . following .; , .. ' ' ·'.. ~••,.f'< 7,,i',. . ' ·· .,.. . _.. desc,ribed itne : .Beginning at a point In the 1 . _All persons wishing to be heard will appear at 1 Southerly .line of ·said . Lot 5 therein distant . , the specified times .. Wrillen comments are 385.08..feet Westerly of the Southeast corner solicited. Plans are available in the City : of · said Lot 5, thence North 22 degrees 47 offices for revi.ew, by appointment.· minµtes : 01 J secoi:ids . East, a distance of • . : . · ! . -.; ,t ~· :·, ,,.,.,.',; :.:.:.,_ .,.: . ·,.. , . ! _._ 115 ;72 .,feet:-,thence•North..j 0 ___gegr:e~~1ty oLQrn!!.d · ·' · ' ,. --:;/:~ · minutes .18 seconds West, a .distance ,of .. By: Planning"'COlTf~n :·, ... _; .. '· , 135.03 feet to the Northerly line of said Lot 5 · ·· :: · and there terminating . For purposes of this : ,-~' ,Jeanne A. Mabuslh, . description, the Southerly line of said Lot 5 is :.•· •i · .. 1 ( .-'. ... • ·1. I Building &·zoning · ·. I , assumed to bear North 39 degrees 41 ·' f ... · ' ' ' · · Administrator · ' minutes 21 seconds West. 1 • · 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, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed 1£.J;m r,GJ;;w)_ which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and wps printed and published once each week for -1l_ successive weeks: It was first published Monday, the-1_!_day of /);tw1ckJJ 19f_!i_, and was thereafter printed and published every Monday, to and including Monday, !It. the /3 day of Authorized Agent Subscribed and sworn to me on this (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $11.72 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $11.72. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $6 .80 per inch. Each additional successive week: $4 .90. . ,-.-o ,,.~.f~ !:~l'f 1_41NptQ. ,,U -~ HENN[PIN cou,-~TY PP ··· F' r:· PT ··./ ·IJ J· t.J T :-:' ·1· ··· 1··' c 1:· I-w-i::· r .. ._, ···, J n r:· 4 , l.J ... , I . . , .. -> .. lJ 1-., .. l ... _ I . l.. , . _ ····-·-···- M~NLCIPALITY: ORONO -·(·38 SCH DIST 278 WATERSHED 3 SEWER DIST IF PROJ I GREEN ACRES OPEN SPACE TRANS LINE /EZ INDIC / .... -____,__, ·. DIV I ~~~l?__~~·I· ~~. :_) ) PROPERTY ID 05-117-23 24 0100 OWNER WINFIELD R S TEPHENS III TAXPAYER N/A WINFIELD R STEPHENS III 3770 Bt-iYSIDE RD ORONO MN 55365 SR EX (.~G PT H Ol-.JN ;{ LAN i l BLDG I J..J2... J-1 Jot) . J/oe> PROPERTY ID 05 -117 -23 24 0101 OWNER AK!WM NIA : I' ') '1 '.( ( I . l. I {_ l , ~ ,, .;OUNTY ,\SSESS()f"l WINFIELD R STt:P~i~~:11:i:·· .. · WINFIELD R STEPHENS \111 37 7 0 BAY S IDE RD 0 ROND MN ~:i536~'i METES & BOUNDS :DESCRJ PT ION ._··•·•.· INCL ADJ VAC ALLEY Sf! EX AG PT H OWN }; I ... ANJJ BLDG . ·· ... :.. ·-·: I R J--1 /{)0 Z16DCJ 9S-~< Mt1CH Mt-iCH • w , ••• J'J.?~.6.«yf)_✓-f;(/~:. ti~~ DIVJ '.:,I(~i'~ ~: ~(~.~•~5: .. ·. ~~ ··.• f>AY .,. __ 9 7 · . ·_,.; NEW PLAT -···-·-* TO ASSR JU~ 2 fl 1996 COPY . FDR .• ---, ...... -c: ... ,. :It l~Ef.~UEST ~ * FROM f-1SSR / ·/ JJtrT E · O~i/20196 · ~JD ··---···-· ;1, t)AL.UE CH CC K / / BY .............. _h~····-----· ·1>: (~CD --·-··-··· ·A· S PEC CHECK / I FILED S I /6/96, ,1; CIJ ...... ·--·· * COMPUTER / I APPROVED ·· / I · · ·~ • •··~l (~::IER ···_i_~:~O;~;j-T ~DJ.C,-cf;/ PROPEIHY r-UJIJRE!3!3 ()003B . ADDRE tl" ONASS.IGNED ADDITION NAME OTTOVILLE ON LAKE MINNETONKA DATE FILED ADDNt 02/05/1887 42860 DATE OF LAS + TRt1N 10/20/94 ·121i4/92 . ~~t~g:it¥]{~~~~~(:~ rz ;·,. ;::.j_~g t ~~.~;. ·x .·.• ~o?~. TCJTt1L. H--BM>El H-BASE2 N/H-BASEl NIH TC GIWSS TC PROPERTY ADDRESS 03770 B~iY S I:DE RD ··•· .. ··•••· ···.· ......... •.·•.· ·.• ADli:rTIO:N} N~~$.:!:: <.·•·.··•,,,'• OTTOVILLE ON Lhl<E Mt NN.l::.i ONKA ........ --~-:.: \1•.• "-~-.... ·-;-,--\· ··DATE .FI LED ADDNt 6i/6§/19~j 428~0 DATE OF LAST TRAN 03 /12 /96 l0 /20/94 12/14 /92 LOT 002 BLOCK ACREAGE 0 .00 TClTt1L H --Bt-i [;E:1. H-BASE2 NIH-BASE1 NIH TC GROSS TC 1[~6-!<1 "Jz.o l2CJ · HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY DIVISIONS SHEET NU, :~~ UF .. 4-_ DIVISION I 960151 SPECIALS LEVY PR0,JECT TOTAL ASSMT ··· LEVY PROdECT TOTAL ASSMT LEVY PROJECT · TOTAL ASSMT 12554 8,840.00 PROPERTY ID 05-117-23 24 0102 OWNER WINFIELD R STEPHENS III TAXPf·~YER NIA WINFIELD R STEPHENS III 3770 BAYSIDE R:O ORONO MN 5536:'5 METES & BOUNDS DESCRIPTION INCL ADJ SR EX AG PT H OWN¼ LAND I y· ' ?gll /DO. PROPERTY ID 05-117-23 24 OWNER WINFIELD R STEPHENS III TAXPAYER NIA WINFIELD R STEPHENS III 3770 Bl-1YSI ORONO MN SR EX AG PT H OWN/~ LAUD BLDG I LJ<. &a M(.'.iCH PROPERTY ADDRESS 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ADDITION NAME DATE FILED ADDNI OTTOVILLE ON LAKE MINNETONKA 02/0511887 42860 DATE OF LAST TRAN 03112196 10/20/94 12114/92 LOT 00~3 :131...DCK t1CREAGE O. 00 APPROX PARCEL SIZES 130X135X95X45 GROSS TC 39~c 1</ ADDITION NAME OTTOVILLE ON LAKE MINNETONKA DATE FILED ADDNI 02/05/1887 42860 ·· "~If f ~!i~Jbgi~it~~l~ilgf ~:~f .. •····AP?ROX PARCELSIZr ❖s 7!5X45X6s···•······· TOTAL H--BASEl H-BASE2 N/H-BASE1 N/H TC GROSS TC ~ 77. I .-t ~ ii') !M 0 i..!... --0 0 °' z -0 0!-1 z Cl) !-I !-::> L:JH WA -·~ :_:.: z 0 H H >- >- i--~ -<-. ::) 0 u ....,., .<.. H '-'- jJ z ...,, .•~ ~ -'- z a H i- <!: z I-! .xi ;c a u '-. z a I-! lfj H ::> I-! i=! ( ' . ....; LLl en X L!.. ::) lfj u w r.D X L!.. ::) (,') cr cr (b e::: 0... 3 i- (._) IJ.J lfj (.,') q H >- i- e::: w 0... 0 e::: 0... 3 LLl :z P_ROPEflTY DIVISIONS & COMBINATIONS I MUNIC Division form No. HC:569 (09/94) 3 8 STREET NAME DATE 5·2o-9{. TAXPAYER'S NAME, ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP SUFFIX ADON CODE BLOCK MEETS & BOUNDS TAX DESCRIPTION \JJ.1 L,O 317 CJ I, D.t: LIE, L.11)_ OI 1£3, A 0 o_ .51 I , I , 2l _2i..3 Lz., 41 e>, I L 4,218.~.0 L,017.~ L 2 3 A-, All D ~ I ,t.J IC. IL o. X, I V,A.C DIVISION NO. 9,b,o, 1,s, 1 ~ CONDO UNIT s.o L,L, E, _-, ~ I ( 10) @ ~ !}=O . ~1·1 (§) ~ ~ d 3 ra 1,.-- ~ UJ in N ~ ~ t ... ~ ~ ~1 <s,f~ ~x···'f ™ -~ (§) ~ @» ~ ~2 @§) (11) : ✓. : ~ .. '1 ~ ... ~ v• -~· ,···~·:,- I 575. 16 ~ 1 ~ (37) ~ I I I ~ ~ ~ .. ~~. ~ .,v~~ ~ ~ ~.-2 ~ ,~ (38) 1;1"\, aj>· ~ :x "' in 1 N , ( 19) ~ /&; ~, ~~ ., ~ 176. 76 N89'44' 16'1 ~ 149. 05 ', ~ ~ @ ~ ~~. 2 ~ (16) t' 3 ( 1'3) '!! .,; ,1; ... 40·0~,f)',f I 'S, ~-·•1eq, ~ ~ ~ ~ /4 ~ ~)~ ~ ~ ... "'I'!' .... '!? O 5 ... 65 ~ ~ ~ ....._ 0-, 2 ( 20) ~ tr«;,~~5 1 2 ( 12) ( 11) 4@g Of ( 111) -2 3. 2 4 ( \959 t,..'c.Rlt>-.l ?1-\0iO) ··:,, 1/l# If t@& .~~'®~ ,-......•. ·I·· ..............•.••......•.•... l\_." \\_ ~ ~~~····················I••············ pti_'{ 67 (,a HC 516 (7/78) DIVISION YEAR l :·'.,I; ---- SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DIVISION ANO COMBINATION OF NEW PROPERTY I. 0. DIVISION# 9.~Jl 5 -~ PAGE# --- MUNIC CODE -~ s DATE lJ/:2/S:S 19 BY LSV ----- () r 0 , Y] c_, MUNICIPALITY ____________ _ ORIGINAL ADDITION CODE AND NAME !.~?00(J :lcLc:-;:~L·ij_,~ :~;~·1 ~·-~· ·-rj_}~,:-,_,_::tc)t,}:.:. COMMENTS NEW PROPERTY I. D. :-; '.-=-, ~ ~ l ! , ~ I~ ·_) ~-·- TOTAL EACH LEVY AND VERIFY WITH ORIGINAL AMOUNTS PROPERTY I. D. NO. ::, -·(. ~----, -: ~· -L} ~) l ~_} l ADDITION CODE I LEVY PROJECT --, ·, ,,-'"' . .,;:_ .. .. :2 s -~. ~t BALANCE TO ORIGINAL AMT. TOTAL ASSESS ~~ .: e ~1 ·J • ,; o FT. ::3, -i o 'B ~" cd.e, t-d. • S&>t.u+H ~,~it Dl'\k5 ~ r 6 tz ~ t,..{o·u.,; l'\f ~-F -~ t 7 o ~~s:~ 'E45l F+.-. "S 1'-L ,,__,ct- r