Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject PacketMINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 25, 2002 7:00 o'clock p.m. (#02-2758 Robert Pieper, Continued) Kluth indicated the Planning Commission cannot measure the intent of the person applying for an after-the-fact permit, and the Planning Commission tends to treat every applicant the same in applying fees. Nygard concurred that the City needs to be consistent when applying fees . Sansevere inquired whether the City has waived this type of fee in the past. Gaffron stated normally the City does not waive after-the -fact fees for contractors but on occasion has waived after-the-fact fees for homeowners where a contractor is not involved. Gaffron stated in his view the contractor and owner might have been unaware that a conditional use permit was needed but should have known that a building permit would be needed. Gaffron suggested the Council consider waiving the double fee portion of the conditional use permit but charging a double fee on the building permit for the guest apartment, and to waive the double permi t fee for the CUP. Nygard moved, White seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLl"TION NO. 4778, a Resolution Approving an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit for Robert D. Pieper, 3995 North Shore Drive, with the applicant being charged a double permit fee on the building permit for the guest apartment only. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(#9) #02-2759JOHN COLLETTE, 2160 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -RESOLUTION NO. 4779 Flint moved, White seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4779, a Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit to John Collette, 2160 West Wayzata Boulevard. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(#10) #02-2760 JAMES CUSACK, 4140 IDGHWOOD ROAD -VARIANCES, RESOLUTION NO. 4780 Flint moved, White seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4780, a Resolution Granting Variances to James Cusack and Christine Grace, 4140 Highwood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) #02-2763 CLAYT AND JULIE ANN TABOR, 960 NORTH BROWN ROAD- SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Cfayt and Julie Ann Tabor, Applicants, were present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a sketch plan review to split two lots previously combined . The lots were combined in 1984, with the property now totaling 3 .66 acres . Based on the property having only 3 .66 acres, it is not possible to subdivide the property without granting a lot area variance for one of the properties for a lot less than two acres . PAGE7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 25, 2002 7:00 o'clock p.m. (#02-2763 Clayt and Julie Tabor, Continued) The Planning Commission reviewed this item at their March meeting and has requested the Council review this application because it would require either rezoning or granting of a lot area variance. The consensus of the Planning Commission was that this request is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance. Weinberger stated this property has recently been included in the MUSA, but noted that the City's Comprehensive Plan is clear in stating that including rural properties into the MUSA area did not mean these are properties intended for rezoning or higher density development. The Planning Commission did review this item at their March meeting, and since it was a sketch plan review, did not make a formal recommendation. The Planning Commission did look at, however, the precedent that might be set by approving this lot division and the fact that this subdivision is not consistent with what the City has done in the past. Weinberger noted Staff has identified two occasions when a subdivision was approved that created lots less than the required lot area for the respective zoning district since the rezoning of the City in 1975. Sansevere inquired whether the property owners were aware they were in a two-acre district at the time they purchased the property. Tabor stated they were aware of that and were told by the real estate agent that they could possibly subdivide the property. Tabor indicated they have been approached by some people recently who currently live in Long Lake and are being displaced by the new Highway 12 corridor about the possibility of buying a portion of their property. Tabor stated the development adjacent to their property consists of 22 homes, all of which are less than one acre. Tabor stated the largest property located in this area is slightly over two acres, which is adjacent to their property. Tabor stated if the lots were subdivided, the 1.66 acre lot would not be inconsistent with what is currently in the area. Tabor commented they would like to continue to reside in Orono, but are forced to consider relocating because they are financially unable to renovate their house without selling a portion of their property. Tabor stated only one neighbor has expressed a concern with the proposal out of the 23 properties. Sansevere expressed a concern that approval of this request would result in a precedent being set, and stated this could open up the door to others who want to subdivide their lots that do not meet the minimum lot size standard. Tabor questioned whether a precedent would be set, noting there are possibly two or three lots that would fall into that scenario. White questioned how many parcels have been combined into a single parcel that originally were separate parcels. Gaffron stated there are quite a few combined lots in the Navarre area, Saga Hill, and Casco Point area. Gaffron indicated the philosophy of the City has been to encourage combination of small lots to prevent PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 25, 2002 7:00 o'clock p.m. (#02-2763 Clayt and Julie Tabor, Continued) higher density in certain areas, such as the Crystal Bay area, noting two acre zoning is standard for this area. Flint stated he is cognizant of the discussion that the Council had at the time the decision was made to extend the MUSA area, noting that it was made very clear at that time that this type of lot would not be allowed to be subdivided since there are other issues involved besides septic. Sansevere reiterated he has a concern that this would create a precedent and result in a number of people requesting their lots be split. Sansevere stated he would have a hard time supporting this type of application. Mrs. Tabor commented they would not be changing the character of the neighborhood since there are already a number of lots less than the two acre minimum. White stated he has viewed the site, noting the City Attorney has advised against doing this type of lot division in the past. Sansevere commented this is a tough decision to make in light of the fact that the Tabors are taxpayers and volunteers in the community, but that the Council must do what is in the best interests of the City. Mayor Peterson and Flint indicated they also would not be able to support this type of request. White encouraged the Tabors to look at their other options prior to making the decision to relocate. The City Council took no formal action on this item. *(#12) #02-2765 DAVID CARLSON, 740 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH -VARIANCE RENEW AL, RESOLUTION NO. 4781 Flint moved, White seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4781, a Resolution Granting Variances to Lot Area and Lot Width to David Carlson, 740 Willow Drive South. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS, CONTINUED Kluth stated when the Planning Commission reviewed the Johnson application, the Planning Commission gave deference to the past decision of the City Council since this was labeled as a variance renewal. Kluth suggested in the future if variances are not renewed within three years, that they no longer be called renewals and instead be treated as new applications and fall under current zoning guidelines and restrictions. PAGE9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 25, 2002 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT This item follows Item #20. 7:00 o'clock p.m. (#20) AW ARD OF BID -FIRE STATION PROJECT Gabriel Jabbour, Jim Murphy, Orono, Representatives on the Joint Fire Station Construction Committee, and James Cox and Michael Brown, Long Lake Fire Department, were present. Jabbour stated the committee is recommending unanimously to have the new fire station built with the sixth bay, the ambulance space, and the seamless floor, but without the hose tower based on the height limit issue and the price. Jabbour stated the bid the Council will be awarding is for approximately $1.9 million. Jabbour stated the architect is reviewing the bid with the low bidder to insure that all items are covered. Mayor Peterson inquired when construction would start. Jabbour stated they are expected to start in April. Jabbour commented their architect is also familiar with the contractor and feel they are qualified to do the project. Jabbour complimented Cox and Brown for their efforts on this project. Brown and Cox extended their thanks to the City Council for working with the committee on this project, noting that it was a difficult process at times in coordinating the project between two cities. Brown stated in his view completion of this project will benefit the entire community. Brown also extended his thanks to Jabbour and Murphy for their work on this project. Mayor Peterson, on behalf of the Orono City Council, thanked the committee for their work on this project. Flint stated the Council is aware of how hard the committee has worked on this project and their efforts to make it a win/win situation for both cities, noting that cooperation is a common goal of the two cities. Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to award the bid received from Rochon Construction in the amount of $1,981,000 for construction of the new Long Lake Fire Station, with the addition of the sixth bay, ambulance space, and seamless floor. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. l\.IAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT White reported he attended the rotary meeting the other day, along with a number of other people from the City of Orono. White stated Mary Hill Smith of the Met Council spoke about cooperative efforts between the Cities of Long Lake and Orono, and about assistance available through the Met_ Council. Sansevere stated it is helpful to have the applicants that appear before the City Council know what the possible precedents are and how the Council feels about certain situations. PAGE 10 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Item Description: #02-2763 Clayt and Julie Tabor 960 North Brown Road Sketch Plan Review DATE: March 20, 2002 ITEMNO.: // Agenda Section: Zoning Zoning District: RR-lB -Single Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) List of Exhibits A Plat Map B Land Use Map C Zoning Map D Memo -Mike Gaffron Regarding History of 960 North Brown Road E R.L.S. No. 926 F ca. 1980 Plat Map G Current Plat Map H Neighborhood Petition Application The property owners have requested a Sketch Plan Review to split two lots previously combined. The lots were combined in 1984. The Sketch Plan Review is the first of a three-part subdivision process. The Sketch Plan Review is intended to be a review of the site concept. Typically, the Sketch Plan Review is only done at the Planning Commission level. The Planning Commission reviewed the Sketch Plan and has requested the Council also review this particular application because it would require either rezoning or granting of a lot area variance. The Planning Commission had a consensus that this individual request is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance. Minimum Lot Standards Zoning District: LR-I A Minimum Lot Size: 2 acres Minimum Lot Width: 200' The property totals only 3.66 acres. Based on the property having only 3.66 acres it is not possible to subdivide the property without granting a lot area variance for one of the properties for a lot less than 2 acres. If the properties would be split along the old property line a lot width variance would be required because the lot would have frontage along the street of less than 200'. Mike Gaffron, Orono Planning Director, has prepared a memo that provides a background history of the 960 North Brown Road property. The memo is attached as Exhibit E. #02-2763 Clayt and Julie Tabor 960 North Brown Road Pa e 2 of 4 City Policy Relating to Combined Parcels The City of Orono has encouraged parcels held in common ownership to be combined when properties do not meet minimum requirements for lot area and/or width. Properties being combined require City approval. The City of Orono's approval assumes the property becomes one individual lot. Following a property combination it is assumed the common property line effectively disappears. A building could be constructed over the previous property line and no setbacks to the property line are required. The remaining parcel functions as one lot. A subdivision to separate combined parcels is required in all cases where lots, have been combined. Section 11.03, Subdivision 2.66 of the Subdivision Ordinance defines the separation of lots previously combined as a "Class I" Subdivision, which means that they are exempt from platting, but still require approval via the subdivision process, and are still subject to minimum lot standards. History of Creating New Building Sites Not Meeting Minimum Lot Area Requirements Staff has been able to identify only two occasions when a subdivision was approved that created lots less than the required lot area for the respective zoning district since the rezoning of the City in 1975. 1. Plat of Bayside Beach -1980 The Plat of Bayside Beach was a 3 lot plat that created three residential lots and a common outlot that is used as a shared driveway and also contained a shared septic system until the Stubbs Bay area was sewered. The total area of the property prior to subdivision was 2 acres. Three-½ acre building sites were created with one-½ acre common outlot. The owners of the property requested the City change the zoning from B-2 (Commercial -Marina Use) to residential. The property was rezoned to LR-lA which is a 2 acre residential district. Effectively the property was "down zoned" from commercial to residential. Rather than rezoning the property a ½ acre residential district, the City chose to rezone the property the 2 acre LR-I A district, and grant lot area and lot width variance as all the surrounding properties were zoned 2 acre. 1980 was the final year the marina operated, before the rezoning to residential. The 1980 approval allowed a total of 55 boats on the property and within the individual slips. 2. Plat of Blue Hill -1994 The Plat of Blue Hill resulted in a two-lot plat of a 3.24 acre property in the 2-acre residential district. The basis for the approval of the lot area variance to allow one lot less than two acres in size dated back to a 1980 Council resolution which was adopted during the process of assigning sewer units to the Minnetonka Bluffs sewer project. That resolution appears to anticipate that the City would either grant a future lot area variance as part of the future subdivision of the property, or to rezone the individual lot to a I-acre #02-2763 Clayt and Julie Tabor 960 North Brown Road Pa e 3 of 4 district. Following the 1980 sewer project the property owner did pay a sewer assessment assuming future use of one of the two lots as a sewered building site. Rezoning the property to I-acre was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Other properties in the area are all zoned 2-acre. The Council approved one lot to be less than 2 acres based on the "agreement" that had been made by the 1980 resolution between the City and the property owner. The MUSA separated the property to allow one lot to have sewer access and the second, larger property was outside the MUSA. Based on the number of subdivisions that have been approved in the City of Orono it would be precedent setting to approve this proposed subdivision. An approval of the subdivision would certainly open the opportunity for many properties in the City that have been combined or are nearly large enough to subdivide to potentially do so. The two specific cases noted above had some unique situations and history behind them to justify variances. Comprehensive Plan The property has been guided for 2-acre rural residential development by the 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan. The property has been zoned 2-acre since at least 1967. One recent change to the property is its' recent inclusion into the MUSA allowing sewer connection to the property. The provision of sewer to the property does not change the rural character intended for the district and the land use classification. The Sewer Policy Plan, within the 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan states "Orono's urban and rural areas provide distinctly different lifestyles, amenities and services which jointly benefit the community as a whole. Each area has separate planning priorities and separate environmental considerations. Urban areas and urban services will not be permitted to encroach on or destroy the rural community." (CMP 4C-6) The property is defined as a rural area in the Comprehensive Plan. The closest area to the property that is defined as urban would be the Sugarwoods neighborhood. The general sewer policy goes on to say in order to protect Lake Minnetonka from the severe negative impacts of excessive stormwater runoff that would be generated by development densities in excess of 1 home per 2 acres, Orono will not allow residential development in the rural area at densities greater than I home per 2 acres. Sewer has been provided to a number of areas that are defined as rural areas. Generally the preferred method of sewage disposal within the rural area is an individual on-site system. The rural areas that have been provided with sewer service have done so because the lots were developed prior to the adoption of current zoning standards. Many of the lots are substandard and had non-compliant or failing septic systems. The size of the properties did not provide for future septic sites so the logical solution was to provide sewer service to those areas. Neighborhood Petition The applicants have provided a petition signed by a number of surrounding property owners. The petition is attached as Exhibit H. #02-2763 Clayt and Julie Tabor 960 North Brown Road Pa e 4 of 4 Staff has received one call from a concerned property owner in the area that they had received information that the property may be available for a future town house development. Staff advised the neighbor the zoning of the property would not permit a town house development. The caller also stated they were not in favor of the development that would create a second building site. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission in not required to take a final action on a Sketch Plan. They did have a consensus that the proposed lot division would not be consistent with the City's philosophy on rural zoning districts. The granting of a lot area variance has the potential to set a precedence for lots that are close to, but do not meet the minimum requirements for subdivision. Planning Commission also requested the Council review the application to determine if the proposed lot area variance is something that would be considered for this individual application, and other similar requests in the future. Staff Recommendation Staff requests the Council reviews their policy on lot divisions that would create sub-standards lots and/or spot zoning. Staff has reviewed the individual sections of the zoning and subdivision ordinances as well as the Comprehensive Plan and has determined the proposed division is not consistent with what the City of Orono has been doing since the 1975 zoning of the City. If the City of Orono were to approve the request as presented the City would also have to review the goals and policies within recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and Zoning/Subdivision Ordinances. 7-/18--23-@ /2) • /27) ,oe.11_•_.,_,_••_f·_,.._D_•a_.,_• ___ _. -...-s,arw -,l.-------fr/0S"Afr·N&o;·- < /14) ! ',,~ ... ,,._,. 3 /12) ~ ', ~~',, ~ .. '-,1~,, /5) • /8} f<IR /1) /2) ~i----/--r------,..~ ,! (4) (3) I" I m ii-------,--------,----,--------1--l ~ -~ 1$ 19 •••• ii ll Q/11.0TA ' /5) • /14) 201,51 /28) (5) /5) :;).7-118-:2~@ :I ! /5) .; ,,,_ .. ""'., • /13) !ii DR) \ I 11P.01 ~ 2 ' I!! /12) ~ z /4) ,.,.,. f /3) ZlD.t» f /9) ,, ., 2!J7 , .. /4) /3) COUNTRY CLUB RD i 2S5 1!i0..1 • ,a.TT 1 /19) (22) " (13) ,,,_ .. i ounorc : i /24) l fOJ,.55 1 51.&J $07: R-351 12 (14) 7-,, S ,.. A /5) 150 ----' ·~ -~ ·;...'\ isj , .. ' " /15) NJ I - w ,. (17) (2) 2:23.24 " :orn: fl,, NH1!\M( fr::ru;,::;:Fu Im [ FnJ--I i 1200 ... aoo 2 2 •oo ;!¼ii. I 5i7 '\,/J=fl,! '":.liwl..U 400 ·~~~~ r~ ~~ -~·w .. 1·,~~r K ,oo l~IIJl~ ~~4 ~ ? (-"""~ . ' . ----FT= I : I ,oo . -to. I .. ., iil --~ 5 6 1200 7 1600 j "\,: ! :X,.f1; 1600 8 2000 I I ~I Ef I F W""'""uu""· '.( I-2000 9 2,c0 I I ; ~ 2400 10 10 2a001 I 11 ~ 2800 11 11 3200 J .l. m• I i . i>~~ if i 1· I I I I ~ B ~ C = D = E = ,.,0 A F UI\IA N Land Use Plan 2000 -2020 City of Orono Minnesota * 3000 0 3000 Feet D Rural Residential 5 Acre Minimum D Rural Residential 2 Acre Minimum @ill Urban Residential 1 Acre Minimum CE:] Urban Residential 0.5 Acre Minimum ~-- -Urban Residential Medium Density SFR/MFR -Commercial lall Industrial D Park, Recreation and Open Space 1J11 Public, Semi-Public OOpenWater CJ Right-of-Way MAP 38-6 -·-,,__ .. ~-..--- .,,~7 §~ ~~ MEDINA ~ l ■l:alllll ■-■ "''-' ■-■-■-■-■ E Xis~iri:, Zoni~, ·-·-·--~---Ph·ll·;,s Cr. WA'1ZAJA RR·1B z .. ~ ~~ ~ HIGH, LANE ) ~ ... i I~ n~ \ r- . \ "' . t -?I ME.BIOW~~r ROAD (/) el .J .... .,., s &' nr ~ Cf) >-a: u 0 ~ _A'l_E_N\.)_E (2 At1t~)- I j ~ .. ·o > 0 ~ (!) 0 ni ~ ------ u o1 1 ,. 0 > l "' ,;; ~ l Devon lane ~ " 0..:• d ,:;.,-' ~ 110 3: r I,___,__ ~--:--1 / Longview ~ countr'i' sid0 ' r,,.,-lp or. ~ :::, 0 Cf) u "' .x _g <: 0 RR·1B ~ }~ _JI£. ~ ;R To: From: Date: Subject: Paul Weinberger Mike Gaffron 2/27/02 Background Information on #02-2763 960 Brown Road North Here is some additional background information regarding zoning and past subdivisions and combinations involving the subject property: July 1 O, 1950: As of mid 1950's: Township ordinance adopted which zoned the portion of Orono including this property as ''North Orono District"; no lot size or width restrictions. The property was unplatted and included all the land that was later platted as Long Lake Country Club Addition. September 12, 1955: Village of Orono Ordinance No. 7 adopted, establishing that all building lots in the Village must have at least 15,000 s.f. area and 100' width. February 10, 1958: Village Ordinance No. 15 increased minimum lot size to 25,000 s.f./120'. October 12, 1959: Village Ordinance No. 22 increased minimum lot size to 1.0 acre/140'. June 17, 1960: RLS 926 filed, creating Tracts A, B and C; existing residence on Tract A. September 14, 1961: Tract C was platted as Long Lake Country Club Addition. Post-1962/Pre-1970: Tract A was split into two tax parcels: N. 160' (43125-3010) and S. 72' (43125-3020). Additional research ofCoimty records is needed to determine exactly when this occurred; however, it is clear that the S. 72' of Tract A would not have been buildable when it was created, as it was only 0. 66 acres and 72' in width when 1. 0 acre/I 40' was required for any building site after 10/12/59. Also, if it was split off after 9/14/67, the N. 160' of Tract A would have also been unbuildable because it was only 1.46 acres where 2. 0 acre/200 'width was required. September 14, 1967: New zoning code adopted, created new zoning districts. The area including subject property was rezoned as R-lA One Family Residential District requiring a minimum lot size of 2 acres/200' January 1, 1975: May 9, 1984: New zoning code created new zoning boundaries and district; subject property included in LR-lA One Family Lakeshore Residential District, requiring a minimum of 2 acres/200' Until this time Tracts A and B had remained as three tax parcels: N. 160' Tract A (43125-3010) PINS #27-118-23 43 0011 S. 72' of Tract A (43125-3020) PINS #27-118-23 43 0012 Tract B (43125-6000) PINS #27-118-23 43 0010 In May 1984 the 3 parcelswerecombinedintoPINS #27-118-23 43 0025 and have remained as a single parcel since then. September 15, 1997: Warranty deeds from Alvord to Tabor included Tract Band N. 160' of Tract A on one deed and S. 72' of Tract A on separate deed (I don't think this is relevant, but interesting). #02-2763 February 27, 2002 Page2 The basic City premise is that the entire property as it exists today is only 3.66 acres. The legal descriptions in County records exclude the road, and the plat maps have shown the road at 66' width since at least the mid 1950's. Subdivision code Section 11.03, def. of Lot Area, Minimum excludes right of ways and road easements from the calculable lot area for subdivision, so the lot area cannot include the 33' used for Brown Road. Section 11.02, Subd. 10(A)(6) prohibits the granting of a variance that would vary the minimum requirements for a lot as set forth in the zoning chapter as applied to the entire subdivision; this has been interpreted to mean that within a subdivision, while some lots may be slightly undersized and others slightly oversized, the average of all lots must meet the standard. In practice, we have rarely allowed any newly created lots to be undersized even when the subdivision average is conforming. Section 11.03, Subd. 2.66, Definition of"Subdivision, Classification", defines the separation oflots previously combined as a Class 1 Subdivision, which means that they are exempt from platting but still must be approved via the subdivision process, and are still subject to the minimum lot standards. Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subd. 6(C) disallows the separation by transfer or sale of commonly owned nonconforming undeveloped lots in a contiguous arrangement, except when approved by Council. Therefore, even if Tract B or the S. 72' of Tract A (both vacant) had never been legally combined with the N. 160' of Tract A, it could be argued that merely selling off the vacant parcels would be prohibited without Council approval, and each of these would have required a variance in order to construct a home on them. i\.t:\:11.::>,i.:r.'.i.:U !.Ak'4U ~Ui<.'i~l l'4v.2.f:£_ HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • 1 DENOTES IRON MONw.ENT, · • ® • DENOTES JUO IC I AL LANDMARK. BEARINGS SHOWN AR£ ASSWEO, JlllE, . 1960 SCAL£: 11 -160 1 EG~, FIELD & NOWAK St.RVEYORS I hereby certify that in eccordlince v:th the provisions of Chapter 508, Minnesota Statutes of 1949,· as amended, I have surveyed the following described tract of lend In the County of Hennepin end State of Minnesota, towlt: Tracts A, Band C, Registered Land s~rvey No. 911, Hennepin County, Minnesota, REGISTERED line parallel with the ~outh line •f U.'/, of hc.r,. --410.0•-· 1u1•w1rw. \ llt\.UD&D/ / 1.ri•1no·e. -4 O.o•·- 4'0.o ..... \ delineation of said survey, of _____ l960, Minnesota Registration paid L.C..f·.JD . --·~ -----·-·-··- C ;_ . Point l\lO.O'fut ll~rthif f B ~ .. the ~•uth lhu •f the !.E.r,J SURV;y~ S 1TE f .._ 11 · 41 00 ~ "A .8 NO. G.,.· ;l!t.o:: I ;l . I • ": + • -I ., _,• .; i:.;i= t, ·· ► 4 :E1~ · 1;. . ~;. ... r: ,I :..,. 0 '"' ::i J ~ ~ -l RA Ci A ..,i : ,-.. I · I~ ~ti :; i! 1l II ,: 1i• .:::-~ • I I -.0 410.0 ,.. ~ ~~ ,:r-::r~--~----r----1-----:=:i:m~==----~IO~O~O.~Sl ______________ l -~ ; ~ I rJ I ··-14."~0-'il •--' ~ 't .Ill! .. :. ! ;:-· :rl . 11.,,.,._.,o-w. · ... -1: SIT I Linc parallel with th& South line of the 5.l:.'/4 of Sec. 7.1, T. 118, P..U fi Z':i ~ _,.,, "t.. ti .;.:; ~J5.w. corncrof ~ ,. l!,E,1/4 of ~IC.17. d~ ~~ ..... C-" •-..-:.-:. l a.·:. .,. . '' ,, 0) r:--, J--/ ., { . w u -- ) -,: .. ... ,~ ,--1-,~2~--,. I ~ ' {10) 'f'i ~ 1' (9) 0/TION ~ ;3 _:;_------,·:. (4) .., l030 ~ 153 3ZJ } ')012 (s) ~ 32.5 :, :; <"l n ..., . ... 'l ci "' N I C) '-' "l 0:) . "' ~., .. ~ CA., zn." zs~.3· z .zz 110"01'0r-£ t1 . , r. J7' 34·5o·w 43.1 2510 l_S) S 87• 34· SO· E i (j o,) 0,1.-, 23 d,) 4 II 450 TRY w . ~ =-..:. ..,.._. !..- -!: V) 'ti ""I G 124 ..... . .L; "' ---,.. .. - 0 :a: C) .., 150.J <,_-z.Ol 2 22 (J..'1 ~ 3 350.4 380 3 4 2 'JB \.'r-__ 2_6_0 ..... 12 __ -, --r---------------------i 440 <:() -N l1 A.) ·1? ~ ~ 21. (J,01 (JS) I::\ . ·' ' . woL.~·· ·-- •;.,,,,,. 11$~ Cl ':::! I - (I 1) ~ I ·· (.i' .... .,.. 6 .,;. ~ ~ ,. _j r-~ . ; "'' I !10 35:3.16, (11) is 22 2 ll6l. ~§) !... . , .·.-· ,,' ... ,, , .·, .. ,,, ~"'"'f ,' . ti . -·:' (15) . @OJ.o) : ~0.69 : 80 :wEST 80 ·w (9~5) ~ C: Q \:;)/ r ~[_o~ij) _ 430 S87" 34"50•E COUNT~Y 255 I (19) liOd~ 24 q~ (23) 0 ,.., ,.., 77.59 ~ CLUB 150.7 5 (4) ~ 219.87 340 S87° 59'11'E 22 (21) B 380 20 <19) ~ 3: ~ ¼ ~-;;., ~ ,.., u \II, --r-----3=-4:..:::27:ii;-----..L--..::9:.::'.8-!:~ -440 ;... N 0 z 23 ~ [F&\(Ri (22) 21 (20)~ U\99_V N87"47'57•w 121.65 106.83 ..,. ..,. 0 0 ,..: ,...: !:: 2'.! 0 "' "' a:, N u (13) LR-I A ---,--'----:::-:-::--:-:-----, 50 I~,, 2 ◄7.26 "'1 -IA ;;; • •• I ~ (3) ~" ••• -····· ·····--••. __ {> • • q, •• • _..,.,_ .. · · .. ~- ,§:,/ ··t6'. ~;...... g \~ co 12 (14) 765.91 EAST 799 "' 0 V 13 (15) 1238.7 EAST 1145.6 A (5) <BROWN 6 ~ (II) i-. .,:.;.-N 260.12 19 i\@~ (18) c• SS:.9 I o'_ ..... "'•"'.J . ·· .. 21,89. . 220.05 R=276,29 329.4 14 (16) 415 RD <'aa ·so 1819.08 RES Q 0 N N .···-:···· :···. ·-•• !•• • .: ... --~ C-U~1 _. . ..... -------·· ·- -I { We, Clayt & Julie Tabor, are in the process of asking the City of Orono to allow us to sub-divide our property into two parcels. This would allow us to tear down the existing dwelling and replace it with a new home. A new home could then be built upon the adjacent lot. We would appreciate the support of our neighbors. Name Address Signature \ --= --:-_/~J::::-~: MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2761 Addison and Cindy Piper, Continued) Bottenberg stated the pool house was originally built 9.3 feet from the property line rather than the required 10 feet. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the Applicant filing the appropriate restrictive covenants on the property for a guest house and an accessory building with plumbing. The builder stated the roof over the screen porch is an extension of the existing roof. Piper stated the house was originally constructed in 1954, noting there have been no major improvements done to the house during that time except for a new kitchen following a fire in 1984. Piper indicated she is unaware of when the pool house was originally constructed, and it is her intent to clean the property up. Piper stated she is willing to comply with the applicable standards. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2761, Addison and Cindy Piper, 1125 Spring Hill Road, granting two conditional use permits, average lakeshore setback variance, and crowding variance, subject to the property owners filing the · appropriate restrictive covenant on the property for a guest house and an accessory building with plumbing. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN (#12) #02-2763 CLAYT AND JULIE ANN TABOR, 960 NORTH BROWN ROAD, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Clayt and Julie Ann Tabor, Applicants, were present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a sketch plan review to split two lots that have previously been combined back in 1984. This property is located within the LR-lA zoning district, which has a minimum of two acres. Weinberger noted this property is located on the lakeshore. Weinberger stated initially in 1984, the property consisted of three tax parcels that were combined into one lot. The entire property is 3.66 acres . Based on the size of the property, it is not possible to subdivide the property without granting a lot area variance for one of the properties for a lot less than two acres. If the properties were split along the old property line, a lot width variance would be required because the lot would have frontage along the street of less than 200 feet. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has encouraged parcels held in common ownership to be combined when the properties do not meet minimum requirements for lot area and/or width. Following a property combination, it is assumed the common property line effectively disappears. Weinberger stated Staff has only been able to identify two occasions in which the City approved a subdivision that created lots less than the minimum area required. Weinberger stated the first instance was in 1980, for Bayside Beach, and was approved basically as a down zoning . The second instance PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. happened in 1994, with the plat of Blue Hill. The basis for the approval of the lot area variance to allow one lot (#02-2763 Clayt and Julie Tabor, Continued) less than two acres in size dated back to a 1980 Council resolution which was adopted during the process of assigning sewer units to the Minnetonka Bluffs sewer project. The Council approved one lot to be less than two acres based on the "agreement" that had been made by the 1980 resolution between the City and the property owner. Weinberger indicated based on the number of subdivisions that have been approved in the City of Orono, it would be precedent setting to approve this proposed subdivision. The subject property has been guided for two acre rural residential development by the 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan. The property has been zoned two acre since at least 1967. This property has also been recently included in MUSA, but the provision of sewer to the property does not change the rural character for this district. Weinberger noted the Applicants have submitted a petition signed by a number of surrounding property owners in agreement with this particular plan. Weinberger stated Staff did receive one call from a neighbor who had some concerns regarding a possible townhome development on this property. Tabor indicated the country club addition that surrounds their property consists of 22 properties, with 21 of those properties being less than one acre. Tabor stated in his view this subdivision will help increase the housing value in the neighborhood and will give them the financial ability to renovate their existing residence. Tabor stated if the property were subdivided, the two lots would still exceed the size of the majority of the other properties within the area and will not detract from the rural character of the neighborhood. Mrs. Tabor commented they would like to stay in the community and remodel their existing residence, which this subdivision would allow them to do. Mabusth inquired whether the Applicants had petitioned for sewer. Mr. Tabor stated they had not, noting their current septic system works fine. Mabusth inquired why rural sized properties were included in the MUSA. Gaffron stated the MUSA boundary that was adopted with the new Comprehensive Plan incorporates everything south of County Road 6 from Lake Klassen all the way to Spring Hill Road. Gaffron stated this area consists of a significant number of shoreland properties and are also adjacent to the sewer main. Gaffron stated this area is not currently sewered by City sewer. Hawn indicated the Planning Commission is bound by the City Code, noting this application does not comply with those documents. Hawn stated the Planning Commission is a recommending body and recommended the Applicants pursue this matter with the Council. Hawn stated in her view without input from the Council she would not be able to support this subdivision. Mabusth stated she would agree with Hawn, noting she does not feel the Council would be in support of this type of lot di vision. (Council Member Jim White arrives at 8:46 p.m.) PAGE 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2763 Clayt and Julie Tabor, Continued) Gaffron stated Staff did look at the history of ownership and the chronology of events that have affected this property. Gaffron stated to his knowledge the City has not granted variances to subdivide in cases similar to this and would be precedent setting if a lot area variance were granted to one of the lots. Mr. Tabor noted that this property is adjacent to 21 other properties that are substandard. Hawn commented that is somewhat of a compelling argument, but that the Planning Commission needs to follow the zoning guidelines for this area. Gaffron stated from a precedent setting standpoint, the Planning Commission needs to look at what was there prior to the zoning change in 1975 and what has been approved through a PUD. Gaffron stated he is doubtful you will find a lot within the two acre zone that wasn't either platted before the Code changed to two acre minimum or that isn't a PUD type development where the average lot size has to meet the standards. Gaffron stated to his knowledge of the City, this would be precedent setting because the majority of the rural lots have been there for quite some time. Fritzler commented it is also possible that someone could purchase the property and construct a residence that is not in conformance with the rest of the neighborhood. Hawn recommended the Applicants discuss this item with the City Council. Gaffron stated the Applicants could possibly find an adjacent property owner who would like to purchase some additional land and split that piece of property off and sell it to the interested buyer. Mr. Tabor stated in his opinion that is not likely to happen. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#14) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 25, 2002, AND MARCH 11, 2002 Berg indicated she attended the February 11 th Council and has nothing to report Smith stated she attended the March 11 th City Council meeting where the application regarding the vacation on Big Island was discussed. Smith indicated the City Council referred that application to the Park Commission for their input. Hawn inquired what progress is being made on the clean-up of Big Island, noting that it was suggested a couple of years ago to have a barge brought out there. Hawn recommended Staff follow pursue clean-up of the island. PAGE 18 TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator DATE: March 13, 2002 SUBJECT: #02-2763 Clayt and Julie Tabor 960 North Brown Road Sketch Plan Review List of Exhibits: A Application B Plat Map C Land Use Map D Existing Zoning Map E Memo From Mike Gaffron Regarding History of 960 North Brown Road F Copy of Registered Land Survey No. 926 G ca. 1980 Plat Map H Current Plat Map I Neighborhood Petition Application Property owners are requesting a Sketch Plan Review to split two lots previously combined. The lots were combined in 1984. Minimum Lot Standards Zoning District: LR-lA Minimum Lot Size: 2 acres Minimum Lot Width: 200' In 1984 the property consisted of three tax parcels that were combined into one lot. The individual lot was platted at Tracts A and B, RLS 926. A copy of the RLS is attached as Exhibit F. The property totals only 3 .66 acres. Based on the property having only 3 .66 acres it is not possible to subdivide the property without granting a lot area variance for one of the properties for a lot less than 2 acres. If the properties would be split along the old property line a lot width variance would be required because the lot would have frontage along the street of less than 200'. Mike Gaffron, Orono Planning Director, has prepared a memo that provides a background history of the 960 North Brown Road property. The memo is attached as Exhibit E. City Policy Relating to Combined Parcels The City of Orono has encouraged parcels held in common ownership to be combined when properties do not meet minimum requirements for lot area and/or width. Properties being combined require City approval. The City of Orono's approval assumes the property becomes one individual 1 lot. Following a property combination it is assumed the common property line effectively disappears. A building could be constructed over the previous property line and no setbacks to the property line are required. The remaining parcel functions as one lot. A subdivision to separate combined parcels is required in all cases where lots, have been combined. Section 11.03, Subdivision 2.66 of the Subdivision Ordinance defines the separation of lots previously combined as a "Class I" Subdivision, which means that they are exempt from platting, but still require approval via the subdivision process, and are still subject to minimum lot standards. History of Creating New Building Sites Not Meeting Minimum Lot Area Requirements Staff has been able to identify only two occasions when a subdivision was approved that created lots less than the required lot area for the respective zoning district since the rezoning of the City in 197 5. 1. Plat of Bayside Beach -1980 The Plat of Bayside Beach was a 3 lot plat that created three residential lots and a common outlot that is used as a shared driveway and also contained a shared septic system until the Stubbs Bay area was sewered. The total area of the property prior to subdivision was 2 acres. Three-½ acre building sites were created with one-½ acre common outlot. The owners of the property requested the City change the zoning from B-2 (Commercial- Marina Use) to residential. The property was rezoned to LR-1 A which is a 2 acre residential district. Effectively the property was "down zoned" from commercial to residential. Rather than rezoning the property a ½ acre residential district, the City chose to rezone the property the 2 acre LR-IA district, and grant lot area and lot width variance as all the surrounding properties were zoned 2 acre. 1980 was the final year the marina operated, before the rezoning to residential. The 1980 approval allowed a total of 55 boats on the property and within the individual slips. 2. Plat of Blue Hill -1994 The Plat of Blue Hill resulted in a two-lot plat of a 3.24 acre property in the 2-acre residential district. The basis for the approval of the lot area variance to allow one lot less than two acres in size dated back to a 1980 Council resolution which was adopted during the process of assigning sewer units to the Minnetonka Bluffs sewer project. That resolution appears to anticipate that the City would either grant a future lot area variance as part of the future subdivision of the property, or to rezone the individual lot to a I-acre district. Following the 1980 sewer project the property owner did pay a sewer assessment assuming future use of one of the two lots as a sewered building site. Rezoning the property to I-acre was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Other properties in the area are all zoned 2-acre. The Council approved one lot to be less than 2 acres based on the "agreement" that had been made by the 1980 resolution between the City and the property owner. The MUSA separated the property to allow one lot to have sewer access and the second, larger property was outside the MUSA. 2 Based on the number of subdivisions that have been approved in the City of Orono it would be precedent setting to approve this proposed subdivision. An approval of the subdivision would certainly open the opportunity for many properties in the City that have been combined or are nearly large enough to subdivide to potentially do so. The two specific cases noted above had some unique situations and history behind them to justify variances. Comprehensive Plan The property has been guided for 2-acre rural residential development by the 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan. The property has been zoned 2-acre since at least 1967. One recent change to the property is its' recent inclusion into the MUSA allowing sewer connection to the property. The provision of sewer to the property does not change the rural character intended for the district and the land use classification. The Sewer Policy Plan, within the 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan states "Orono's urban and rural areas provide distinctly different lifestyles, amenities and services which jointly benefit the community as a whole. Each area has separate planning priorities and separate environmental considerations. Urban areas and urban services will not be permitted to encroach on or destroy the rural community." (CMP 4C-6) The property is defined as a rural area in the Comprehensive Plan. The closest area to the property that is defined as urban would be the Sugarwoods neighborhood. The general sewer policy goes on to say in order to protect Lake Minnetonka from the severe negative impacts of excessive storm water runoff that would be generated by development densities in excess of 1 home per 2 acres, Orono will not allow residential development in the rural area at densities greater than 1 home per 2 acres. Sewer has been provided to a number of areas that are defined as rural areas. Generally the preferred method of sewage disposal within the rural area is an individual on-site system. The rural areas that have been provided with sewer service have done so because the lots were developed prior to the adoption of current zoning standards. Many of the lots are substandard and had non-compliant or failing septic systems. The size of the properties did not provide for future septic sites so the logical solution was to provide sewer service to those areas. Typical Subdivision Process This application is at the Sketch Plan phase since the subdivision application requires variances. The Sketch Plan does not require a public hearing. The second phase of the subdivision process is the Preliminary Plat where the hearing is held. Following preliminary plat there is a final plat process. If the subdivision would be a lot division along the same property line that previously separated Tracts A and B it may be exempt from platting, but still requires approval via the subdivision process. The role of the Planning Commission is to review the proposed subdivision in relation to the general layout of the lot division, its' compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, and to review impacts of the proposed development with the community. The process as defined in the Subdivision Ordinance only requires a sketch plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Since the subdivision would require either rezoning the property to one- acre or a lot area variance, this sketch plan will be reviewed by the Council. 3 Layout The proposed layout of the property would be to have two lots with direct access to Brown Road. The layout will be the 2-lot general layout that existed prior to the lot combination. Planning Commission Action Requested A sketch plan does not require an official action. Applicants should be advised of the Planning Commission's position on creating a sub-standard lot. Applicants should be given a position on the following issues for discussion: 1. Creation of a lot not meeting the minimum requirements for the zoning district. A change to this policy would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the long term policy of the City of Orono to protect rural areas. 2. The Land Use Plan designation of properties in the rural area with sewer service. The Comprehensive Plan states the provision of sewer does not change the rural character of the non- urban areas of the City. 3. Does the City of Orono want to change the long standing policy regarding the combination of substandard lots? Neighborhood Petition The applicants have provided a petition signed by a number of surrounding property owners. The petition is attached as Exhibit I. Staff has received one call from a concerned property owner in the area that they had received information that the property may be available for a future town house development. Staff advised the neighbor the zoning of the property would not permit a town house development. The caller also stated they were not in favor of the development that would create a second building site. 4 CITY OF ORONO -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Application # 0 2 -2 7 (p 3 Date Received 2-'2. 0 -0 "'Z.. Amount Paid S , 7 5 ·'A. Site address q too No,--½:-k '.8 r-ow"'-~c<L d Property Identification Number (PID) ::i 't -/ ( 8-2. 3 -L./ 3 . c., o .;\ S . Please check one -Property __ abstract or ~ torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT A ·,-< Name __ e_,_Cl:1---r=C--+~-,j~'-'--' ;_<.. __ T_«.._b_o_r ____________ _ Address _q~c,_?f~,.J_o_~~~6~r=ow~~-~~~ct.-d _____ Phone (home) q S-,;\.-'J'f S-<i'IB 2..... City b, o~ Lo...t.e , 1'Y'\tJ Zip .S"OS1.Phone (work) l9t~-G. 5q-J80c> OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ----------------------------Address __________________ Phone (home) ___ _ City Zip __ Phone (work) ---- (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size \ Acres DryLand ( 3. 91 pre.-e.oJe.~~Y\tJ Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present use ( check) Present Zoning District Residential; no. of units _ ___._I __ Other (specify) ___ _ LR1A PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) ✓ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites l Existing Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) \ New Units Z Total Units ---=2-;.___ Units per 3-(,,(,Acres \ '5 <\, 51't Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land ✓ Residential -~-- ----Other (specify) ___ _ .,, ~~, c=,/- I 9 / MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2 . Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official's Signature__________________ Date _____________ _ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATIO N I . Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable ). 2 . Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5 . Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Date Zoning Official's Signature _________________ _ -------------- I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A 2 plication Base Fees: Sketch Plan Review (Class I , II & III) $275.00 f Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 Preliminary Subdivision Application $400.00 + $30 .00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) Final Plat Application (Class III) $225.00 ___ Legal Review and Filing: ___ Subdivision only $100 .00 ___ Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 ___ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) ___ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200 .00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200 .00 (No change from original application) ___ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: ___ Proposed Private Roads $650.00 + $.50/lineal ft .; ___ Jin. ft. x .50 = S __ _ ___ Proposed Public Roads $950.00 + $.50/lineal ft .; ___ lin . ft . x .50 = S __ _ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $950 .00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $275 .00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $275.00 + $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $250.00 ___ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $60.00/per lot x ___ new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees ___ Variance $250.00 ($50 .00 per each additional variance) Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100 .00 PRD Application w ith Su)Jdivision $35.00/Dwelling Unit Totals ~.oo The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and · to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance . Applicant's Signatu ~¥~~~l.§l~~::.._,......,7""""::::::::::-_-:...-=.-:.:::~----Date .:2.. -/ q -0 l.... Date :>.. -I ~ -01_ --------~----- Applicant must have all submittals into the City O ice 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. ~ r: I . ' 10 ' 1 800 2 400 3 0 4 400 5 800 6 1200 7 1600 8 2000 9 2400 10 2800 11 City of Long Lake long LakE?,.. ....... 1 . __ ... : ...... ! 1~ ;,-,~ La e Mrinne onka K 4 400 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3200 +-----+-----+~~----!===-------#-----..LI ____ --J_:. ____ _j_ ____ j__ ___ -+------l.--3200 4 0 A 0 B 4 0 C 3600 D 33JO E 2abo F 24 0 G 2 0 H 1 0 1 00 J 8 0 1 800 2 400 3 400 L 0 Land Use Plan 2000 -2020 City of Orono Minnesota 30~00==~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii10====~3000 Feet CJ Rural Residential 5 Acre Minimum CJ Rural Residential 2 Acre Minimum !:-;&~':! Urban Residential 1 Acre Minimum I :::;:,,; I Urban Residential 0.5 Acre Minimum C - -Urban Residential Medium Density SFR/MFR -Commercial Ill Industrial CJ Park, Recreation and Open Space 1111 Public, Semi-Public D Open Water D Right-of-Way MAP 38-6 ~ ll I~ a.,d~ ....J..o ~ rv-oF-<+1 owh-'l.r".S \ ts-1;-'j> ~ ~c:::,h~c:..:,t-•• ~Ev'<-1 Co._._:< 6:.,-1 'al~ N. Gv--o~h. 1?..d. L"""() ~, t"\.J snsi;, File #97080100 FIRSTAR TITLE 960 BROWN ROAD NORTH, ORONO TRACT A AND TRACT 8, RLS 926 , EX ROAD inspected by; Tom Gallagher 9/2/97 A. 1 1/2 STORY FRAME HOUSE B. 2-CAR FRAME GARAGE C. 1-STORY FRAME BUILDING 397 331 ~ I ~ "tj- ~ O; °' 0 \0 ~I N ('() z N TRACTB Q ~ ~ 0\ t--------------0 T'"'"-i ~ I LBJJ3m. ~ 0 136 z 'tj" ~ Ill t1 0 291 ~ 0 I ~ 0 TRACT A N ('() I N N N ,-< 331 397 N 1" = 100' "tj- °' °' \0 ..... 0\ T'"'"-i 0 'tj" 0 0 N ('() N Accomodation sketch; plat drawing not a survey. 'The location of the improvements shown on this drawing are approximate and are based on a visual inspection of the premises. The lot dimensions are taken from the record plat drawings or county records. This drawing is for Informational purposes and should not be used as a survey. It does not constitute a liability of the company and Is intended for mortgage purposes only.• 4 Form No. 1-M-WARRANTY DEED innesota Uniform Conveyancing Blanks ( 1978) lndividuol(s) to lndividual(s) No deli11q11c11l laxes and transfer cnlcrcd; Certificate or Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( ) nol required Certificate of Real Estate Value No. _____ _ ~~~~ ~ ~~ STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON:$ ____ _ ii /I Date: September 15, 19 97 (reserved for recording data) POR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, _I_r_m_a_M_. _A_l_v_o_r_d_, _s_i_· n-=g:.....l_e _______ ----'------- ---------------------------------, Grantor (s), (marital status) hereby convey (s) and warrant (s) to Charles Clayt Tabor, Single ---------------------------------, Grantee (s), real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: The North 160 feet front and rear of Tract A, Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 926, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of I~nnepin, State of Minnesota. together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions: Subject to restrictions, reservations and easements of record, if any. 1Lac1~ Affix Deed Tax Stamp Here Irma M. Alvord ST ATE OF MINNESOTA } ss. COUNTY OF Hennepin ---------- The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 15th by Irma M. Alvord, Single J.997 1 ............. -·-•• _______ •• , ________ .. _. ____ ...... x·.,.. \ _ -1,,.,.........,.,J:.. / _ _ , Grantor (s). TIIIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAl'TED BY (NAME AND ADDRESS): OLD REPUBLIC TITLE 10801 Wayzata BouJ.evard, #150 Minnetonka, MN 55305-0000 0RNT 03380100c Charles Clayt Tabor 960 North Brown Road Orono, MN 55356 l _' • .. .,. . Form No. 1· M-WARRANTY DEED Minnesota Uniform Conveyancing Blanks (19781 lndividual(s) to lndividual(s) No dclinq11cnl laxes and transfer entered; Ccrlificale of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( ) nol required Certificate of Real Estate Value No. _____ _ County Auditor by Deputy STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON:$ ____ _ .I" .;, Date: September 15, 1997 (reserved for recording data) FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, _I_r_m_a_Al_v_o_r_d.,;_,_s_i_n-=g'-l_e ______________ _ --------------------------------------, Grantor (s), (marital status) hereby convey (s) and warrant (s) to Charles Clayt Tabor, Single _______________ , Grantee (s), real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: That Part of Tract A lying South of the North 160 feet front and rear thereof, Registered Land Survey No. 926, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions: Subject to restrictions, reservations and easements of record, if any. ~~- Affix Deed Tax Stamp Here Irma Alvord STATE OF MINNESOTA } ss. COUNTY OF _H_e_n_n_e=-p_in _____ _ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ _ by Irma Alvord, Single 1997 NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) i~1..~~~-~G~~W\ -"'NI.Y,~l,¥,NV'MMI\AA.AAA. l ~~\\f,~l JULIE J. PERUSSE I ~ r~':i,~_ ~~~-~\~;;/:! 'IOT,\AY PLIBUC-MINNESOTA ~ ~•,. ,,.,• lr-, ~ VY.. <i-1.c.tJ;.'.c-i•" ,, Crmmlis;cn Expir!S Jan. 31 , 2000 ~'MN'M,~. TIIIS INSTRUMliNT WAS DRArTllD BY (NAMll AND ADDRESS): OLD REPUBLIC TITLE 10801 Wayzata Boulevard, #150 Minnetonka, MN 55305-0000 0RNT 033801 00c SIGNATURE OF PER.SON ~ING ACKNOWLEDGMENT Tax St!tlmenlS for the real prop\:r(y described in this instrument should be sent to (Include name and address or Grantee): Charles Clayt Tabor 960 North Brown Road Orono, MN 55356 ,,,. RUN DATE 02/06/02 BATCH 503 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 27-118-23 31 0015 02020 SALEM CT IZABELLA STIPAKOV IZABELLA STIPAKOV 2020 SALEM CT LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 34 0002 00915 BROWN RD N THOMAS W LANE & WIFE THOMAS W LANE 915 BROWN RD NO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 34 0009 02015 SALEM CT DK KLEINSCHMIDT ET AL DONALD & MYRINA KLEINSCHMIDT 2015 SALEM CT LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 42 0018 01940 COUNTRY CLUB RD M J W SMITH & MF SMITH MARVIN J W SMITH 1940 COUNTRY CLUB RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 43 0002 01925 COUNTRY CLUB RD G & L FREDEEN GLENN G & LOISE FREDEEN 1925 COUNTRY CLUB RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 43 0006 01802 LAKEVIEW TER PA ANDREASEN/G C ANDREASEN GRANT C/PATRICIA A ANDREASEN 1802 LAKEVIEW TER LONG LAKE MN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 27-118-23 31 0016 02080 SALEM CT D L & B D PANZER DENNIS & BEVERLY PANZER 2080 SALEM CT LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 34 0004 00879 BROWN RD N DSR INVESTMENTS LLC DSR INVESTMENTS LLC 2003 SUGARWOODS DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 42 0005 01060 BROWN RD N J & L LUCAS JOSEPH R LUCAS 1060 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 42 0019 01020 BROWN RD N M J ROSE & DA KIRBY MELANIE ROSE & DENNIS KIRBY 1020 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 43 0003 01803 LAKEVIEW TER JOHN L SUNDEEN ETAL JOHN L SUNDEAN 1803 LAKEVIEW TERRACE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 43 0007 01800 LAKEVIEW TER D L GORDER & CL GORDER DAVID L GORDER CHRISTINE L GORDER 1800 LAKEVIEW TER LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 14 38 27-118-23 34 .0001 00925 BROWN RD N LYLE P COX & WIFE LYLE P COX 925 N BROWN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 34 0008 02055 SALEM CT JEFFREY E SODERSTROM ET AL JEFFREY E SODERSTROM & MARY R SODERSTROM 2055 SALEM CT LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 42 0017 01920 COUNTRY CLUB RD K & D CARLSTEN KEITH D & DEBORAH M CARLSTEN 1920 COUNTRY CLUB RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 42 0020 01965 COUNTRY CLUB RD PATRICIA A MONDALE PATRICIA A lMONDALEJ CONNER 1965.COUNTRY CLUB RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 43 0004 01801 LAKEVIEW TER DC THEIS/A I FROMELL-THEIS DENNIS CTHEIS ANN I FROMELL-THEIS 1801 LAKEVIEW TER LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 43 0019 01900 WEST FARM RD D S WILLITS & J A WILLITS D S & J A WILLITS 1900 W FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 l.. (.._ <- L (.. (_ (...., c.., c.. L L L RUN DATE 02/06/02 BATCH 503 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNE~ NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 27-118-23 43 0020 01960 WEST FARM RD DA ASMUSSEN ,& KA ASMUSSEN DONALD A & KELLY A ASMUSSEN 1960 _WEST FARM RD LOND LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 4~ 0023 00900 BROWN RD N M & M ROBBINS MARK W & MARIA ROBBINS 900 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 27-118-23 43 0021 01930 WEST FARM RD RA PETERSON & L M PETERSON ROBERT & LINDSEY PETERSON 1930 WEST FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 43 0025 00960 BROWN RD N CHARLES CLAYT TABOR CHARLES CLAYT TABOR 960 BROWN RD N ·LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 15 38 27-118-23 43 0022 01990 WEST FA~M RD A & M BRACHMAN ARMAND _E & MARY A BRACHMAN 1990 WEST FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 503 00023 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST DATE2 1 ,? 2. BY · OF HY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF .• -~~-~~• -~""-'='--,~-~:....C"---'-- ..) ...) /Zl/ • S89'54'07'W _ 0 L _____________ .::(HCS--AH-·Ne-6;·- /5/ /14/ 200 ~ I 7-/18--2.J-@ /2/ ,499 .77 I =2f '2'f'• R=fJS0 .39 130,91 \ __ r-f-5)--·-·---------------------------·-· (3) '237.79 "' N88"311'38 "E i EVERGREEN /OGE N88"49'15'W 27a78 /25) 1 ,, ' ' ' ' '• (15 / (4 / 2S3 ~ i ; I----+-----------.-------,, o.m..OTA (28/ 15 • ~ (6) W .••• : 201.51 'i ~ t:l 198 (5) 323.4 (6) :17-f 19-2 ~@ .,,.,.~ 250 250 3 : (5/ 1'; 2 /4} 172.89 13B.53 ', ~ :<i 5 ~ /13) 147.3J ~ ~ '~,;. 247.26 1 /3) 2 /10) 230.09 1 /9) ii! ., il 50 ~ ~ ~ ·~ •2.r:i::· ·so· ·-· ,J 251 14() 2.7-118-2 /4) (3) /2) ' ' 80.08 j 188.31 ., 25 :!? 1 ~ ~ /6/ ~ /27.28 248 ,, LAKEVIEW I 212.ee NBr30w i 1 LO (13/ ~ 272.97 "30Mr.u-50-w ~ (5/ 431JS8~ COUNTRY CLUB RD I 2SS ~ ... T1 !il : 150.7 f (19 / ! 250 ,.1 430 N87"34'50W ' (25 / ,, Q q,'l,: A ~o '3D N87"34'50W 311 11 /13) 2 (20/ N6r'7'>7W 121.65 JOfi&J i oun.orc i / (2 4) / 103.85 ! 51.86 54.91 : ,,....,., 12 (14) 7-,,a 11"5.6 765.91 EAST ,,,. f' A /5) 190 1 /22} R=276..29 329.< " /15) w 310 359.16 18 (17) L, /2/ "E198.8. 223.24 15 1 2 3 0 4 5 6 7 8 ··, i i -., .... .r..._ ··, .. , Long Lake __ .--••J ,, ,,,,,,.,. : ·•~j 1,,: La e M~nne onka i 2000-+---_JL.:::-t-----§4-~::..__1'*~~~~-+{------i-----1-----t--~-,--,-----,--:-----7r-1 c : ,_,,.., "I , . ..._,, 9 10 11 4 A L .. _ ,_,._,._,._,. \ 0 B 4 0 E 28 0 F 24 0 G 2 0 I I t H ✓-· ✓- .. ✓-· u-n-' 1 0 1 0 J 8 0 K 4 400 5 800 6 1200 7 1600 8 2000 9 2400 10 2800 11 3200 L 1 3 400 L 2000 MUSA and Planned Expansions City of Orono Minnesota 3000 O 3000 Feet -~~5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~~~~~ ti:~il Area within the 2000 MUSA D Proposed Additions to 2000 MUSA -Recreational Trail I. ''I Open Water D Right-of-Way 11111 Railroad Right-of-Way Proposed MUSA Additions Acres Addition Name/ Zoning MUSA Part Identifier Gross Net Dry District Part XXXII Dumas Orchard 78 55 RR-1B Part XXXIII Lake Classen NE 65 40 RR-1B PartXXXIV East Hackber,y 30 28 RR-1B PartXXXV Van Eeckhout 30 22 RR-1B PartXXXVI Bluffs Extensions• 22 21 RR-1B PartXXXVII Tanager Lake 75 64 LR-1A PartXXXVIII Murphy North Shore 82 70 LR-1A PartXXXIX Dickey Lake Shorelan 125 116 RR-1B PartXXXX Long Lake Shoreland 220 185 LR-1A PartXXXXI St. Edwards Church 4 4 RR-1B PartXXXXII French Lake Shorelan 430 199 RR-1B MAP4C-2 234.46 (3) ".l C''Y OF MEDINA . NO Cl:Y OF ORO •, ~ (17) \. \ ·,_17 :,uu 265.54 237.77 379.76 3 ~ (12)~ S87° 16'12'E (5) 200 990 (2) 60) @o~P ~\Y/~lffi@lffi~~ (25) N88" 49'15"W 278.76 430.77 2 (16) 629.58 N88" 49'36'W (I) 60 R (2) N 0 N , , ,' 192 , , I •• , (15) •-···Go.1~ (4) (ic:is€) 416.-14 I (6) 0B 140 376 (3) (2) §9'> Ci:q~ .:27.28 248 , 212.Js L AK E VIE W / .<1=1s• Jo• R=92s. 22 430 Na1• 34'5o·w g (5) (:-@6v 430 S87" 34'50'E £ COUNTRY CLUB 255 I (19) CTodo) 250 430 430 N87° 34':,0'W ~B .... 430 (25) \' NS7° 34•5o•w 317 24 (23) 77.59 /4~ \\\ 150.7 197 r--r--; N ~ N 5 (4), ~ 219.87 340 S87" 59'11'E 22 (21) ® 342 19G I (22) @ 350.4 380 20 (19) ~ 260.12 CITY OF MEDINA CITY OF ORONO 165 :.5 saa· 58'16"E I (Jff'@IL @If' !ff g,@ 370 359.16 18 (17\ I . 1,08 :a,. 59·wr 2 (3) JL/fj fltg ©@lifil/fJt 2 (6) I 17.39 ~ 9.o,. / / ~-0, ..., (18) RR-J ,::,_: ' I ....._, 4 10 (Ill REGISTERED :t.AND SURVEY NO. 926 HENNEP!N COUNTY, MINNESOTA ti N • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT. •@" DENOTES JUDICIAL LANDMARK. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE ASSl.MED. JUNE, 1960 SCALE: I" -160 1 EQ~, FIELD & NOWAK SLRVEVORS I hereby certify that in accord~nce ~ lth the provisions of Chapter 508, Minnesota Statutes of 1949, as amended, I have surveyed the ;01 lowing described tract of land In the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, towit: Tracts A, Band C, Registered Land S1.'rvey No. 911, Hennepin County, Minnesota. That the survey· shown hereon Is a correct delineation of said survey. t of County Road N!-6 ----.r.u~-: ----c----Dared this_day of ______ l960. , ... ,1:1, . :.... o U N ,-yl"i;;iro ,... __ -7., ,,r IE I t lz~ I ' ~ --...... L,1,z7.7,~9~ l -'1-,:--..... •' "';::--...,. . ' ------Ro~ ..____ AD ......... .........._ State Deed Tax paid -.....-..... "-...... her eon ____ • -..... A,;;-....__ .........._ rv/.6 '--.. Minnesota Registration No, 2~ ll I I I ~ l~fi'I · 1a: ... -0 ;: I ,:: ~-\ ; .. ::~ r-. r·:? -l: .... : c.: 7·· r-C· ;: :". t•, \Ji • .; •-1\~;....- tint paralltlwith tht ~outh \inuf H.1/uf ~rc.r. .. •. -4,0.0••···· N.n•wr;o"w. .6:~ ···-7 +.,< ]I, I -:;-:. I NOT \NtLUOED/ ~ 0 I -. , rt "i":. :; r ! -;::;,_:=I:! ~t:. ... ~8 .... . ~ , I ..... . .. / ,.,,.'4',;0·1:. •--·410.o···· ..... .;:z ... .. ~ .. I 2E.,. . -~~ . -::: .. ' /. /~;-.-:·~ (. ... •70 .... , \r:r-······ : f ....... :-...,11\2 ,. ,~ \ -1 Lint par1ll,I with the '-owth 1:,.~ of S.E.'/~ .; •; ..... rt ..-(' ! h (.. 't: z ; ~!I ~~I ~--···rw3.0l i r·· 4,o.o I•· .. zl• 1 ,..; 07 11~1 ___ T.RA CTr,( •.. _., .,~Y' ,.\ . 4,o.o I ;-ii . I al? ... I::: .:IR ACT I ~ lJ _tl :: ~ i !-:::: .,. J.OJ .. C • _,.,-f t:,.•.,' ... (~'\' 1 • 4,0.0 , ~r ~ , .. ...-:. ~ B A -.. ; . ........ ·-1 · ~;. lJ i'"\ \,' I:: y ------,• -: i>- 0 ~ :; 0 ~ ·•-...... __ . L .. !.~ f'-J [) .......____, "- "-~ (., ,l•'\ ·-· " ···'!'! ,.,,. ~ c..·· .,~~-.,. \ ,:--... . I ,,,.,. •• ~• ' , '. •, ' ' " ... \ ~ ··--·-· ... ..... ........... ......... 1;.. • r-.... rJ 't .,; .... _.,. ~ ..... -0 -~:::t' -0 . -:r; c:~ -; ... .. .,. -, r-o S!• --· +s= l ·-+-: !-i-., .. ::: r: ... -'--.. +- 0-or -~:;r; , .:.:1_; .. (Lint p,ra\ltl with ~•11th lllnt of ,.E.1/4 •i ~u..11. --•-•••h•------W •----~•~~••••-U1''4 'fO"f., 1,a.n ...... ,:., .... IOOMI Point IU0.04fut Nor+htf f th1 \outh lint •f th, U.V,J !·~ 0. c-.;: ..; .... . ..... 'r': ~"" 1;"~ : ~"t;.°' : . ., ... ; :. :S::: 0 :--i;...= 0 .... -~It_ .... • . _r' : .,... .. • IIO II . ,-., =""' "!':;' .. . .:::--+-• ..... -; .,:. = ... .. 0 I,. ., -C: 8 :=; I I I !--=_ ~. i;lfl I •······14-,o. '7' •······ N.11•,4• tO"W. Linc parallel with th1 South line of the 5.E.1/4 of ~cc.11, T.118, R.l,. O.•- ~:;: .-.,. j:: i:~ ~ "t ~ ~f5 w corner of :i u:e.i/4 of ,,t.?1. 0~ c;;-. .... "'! .,.._ +-"' C .& ·-+-:.-:; □ □ □ □ □ □ TRACKlNG SHEET FILE NO. 0;;>-c97&3 St ff Pi ~ . a: ~f'l.{JJi __ , _Ap~lic~nt: {! /uv f ,;' ") u) /~ . ·7.;_/::xJ /' ; . .. Address: ·ql~:. ?Ju~iif b/i~~rj- Meeting with Staff: Date Application Completed: 'Z.-2.0-02- Incomplete Notice Sent: Date Property Owners Notified: -AIA Date Legal Notice Published: -------NA PC Meeting(s): D Notice of PC Action: ______ ;__ __ _ □ D Resolution X:\APPS\WPWIN60\\VPDOCS\CAROLE\FORMS\TR.KNG.SITT Clayt & Julie Tabor 960 North Brown Rd. Long Lake, MN 55356 · I z.o ·~n {,-Z 0--0c .~ ay: ______ _ Vote: ----- Vote: ----- : Vote: -----_ ... Vote: ----- -.