Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject Packet{' f �i CTIY OF ORONO, MINNESffTA Conditional Use and Variance Application LOCATION OF PROPOSAL (or property) Address 0,440 CARMAN 5fr: Legal Description ,�PPLICANT Name r / -, /_ � Phone rt q%/_ Address ONNf0t - � 1 Name 7. Phone Address ;�_` f� �' <.�. ; f « c e e — Present Zoning 4A -/ C Present Use AC TYPE OF REQUEST Conditional Use Variance Wetlands Variance Riprap Fem _N 1, j,11,71 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Council Action to Zoning Ordinance Se,_ t ion Relating to Reque ­. 3j/.,f,�fL Denied Specify Ordinance Requ-.rements ' cT,640<5 Explain Request Relative tc .requirements fi204VT 122 Extent of Non -conformity l &OWT AW tr`%r Hardships to Property (Your reasons for requesting this Variance or Conditional Use Permit MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE APPLICATION (Mat be submitted 1 week prior to Council Meeting) 1. Application completed 4. Certified Property Owns ' 2. Plitt Kip Section o%ners within (300 ft. (1S0 ft. 3. Survey (Sketch in proposal) from Hennepin County Reg of Deeds S. Pate % Si aturC f t < / r 4"Cl l/ � l , ,! . ' ��• DEPMOiENi OF FINANCE ROOM 116, ()URTHOUSE MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55415 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST ou DESCRIPTION NAME ADDRESS I LOT I BLK.1 PARCEL _ eZ' c • t:. <=_. 1 iAjrT21 v i= A Ur 2�31 �• �C. `_ cif u'c Soy, Cc► �� u, A a-, I p r. Lo: C_ 4- f T Lc: ,- - VT 55 L,c,,o , v �_ _ _ _ 2Mn caR u Sr L.rs; � •_ 1 i F4 tL1<jcK IT Z6 0 o._ 7'=55 - �- u� - I- do Sa+_ S.�►�1.� A_1Q G �. 5 q Cart ._ . % r o L•'_ `_� yl ` _._, , , 9 ►,� 211 F.T. f�>-_ _LQF[- i w eL ` _.s.. ! i �� •,ram � � t ,-�r„ ...��' �.� r' > � !'1 .� _..ter_.•_ _-... ._......._..�..._ -- _..r _ - + - - -`! +} �1 ' DEPARIMENT OF FINANCE ROOM 116, COURTHOUSE MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55415 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST _ __ _ DESCR I PT I :`N _ NAME ADDRESS LOT BLK. C 2Akfi_ 3-101V -i-i_.t- lz...- --- _.---- -' 17 is = ' ' • F. �.'� r- - _ 3�2 � ��r Q_�t ISLE - - ...�.a��-_3--Gel^_`�'_--_ _ - _ -- -- -_ ___ 7 _. �� k,A�►_ 5341 t.� MAtpLrt "CL E- t�iil1�'�1:_ is i�111t, /.. •( ! r4 C; � �..r r'f� {`,�•� Gi _ ' _ _ _ . _ ..- -� PARCEL G 451 -CIS lc �s_n 1 I - JZ4> t5 16 1 17, IS Is, 20, 21 Lf 24 21�. 2e, z7 ze •/ , ' , �.�� K •, t."• lttp •i1 '�� •i^� .1 Ir 1 _ lot 3 e 13 jr 4ar OD 74 60 IL RIC AVE. ( - —T_so a 01 `.j, •.� z, %1. ° k 7 e j-s• �`� z • ' ti; 1� or s / bey �•s•`, • ,1s , 2., 1 ; ,�i'1 � � { i. � �� � V•.' .44 �1i 164 17'' le• 19. 2 21 • ?�,t Set , -.�+• 17 / 1� 19 20 21 ,32 23� 24 IS,� -, : i Ly.= _'` -_ t 181 69 !15 32 CD J � �,' -I•, `71• J st �+ sL� :G�;: ••`, '_�,� tpa s e 315 32 r c oo N99" 51 25 W y --- 91 its d d � ti . 4i �� � \�' '' ►5�.j1 '.i. P to ' 91 " is _- ?�, ;� s `•i. - o �� - s ..e� •• ti Na �r Fd to M-All 4 , •; Spa, �'D _ �d• - _ - ' ,. � .. s .� �.. 3 t tel: D • . by '; - t - .''-• -;; � ;• `1 •.. !%L �- s. �► • .ate• 4..~' - _ _ - r.. '• ► '' �, ` r r McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INr. >>>>� CONSULTING ENGINEERS ■ LAND SURVEYORS ■ SITE PLANNERS July 25, 10, 1975 Mr. Hank Muhich City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Subject: Edward T. Lehman Block 1, Nivar, and Block 6, Townsite of Langdon nark Dear Hank: We reviewed the data submitted by Gordon Coffin regarding the feasibility of placing fill on existing low land and still maintaining existing wetlands .in the subject property. This project has already received a fill permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The low lands shown on the Hennepin County Soil Conservation Department and the Village Wetlands map as being wetlands. This was determined by the County from their aerial photographs. Subsequent to the time the aerial photographs were taken, but prior to the adoption of wetland ordinances, some of the wetlands were filled. We have talked to Pat Kennedy, HCSCS, and since the preparation of the maps, they made a field inspection of this area and no longer believe that the large low area can be classified as wetlands. Therefore, it is our opinion based on our data, and consultation with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Hennepin County Soil Conservation Service that the wetlands shown on Gordon Coffins survey of 7/17/75, are a correct representation of the existing wetlands on this site. For this reason, we have seen no engineering objection to granting permission to do the grading proposed, as long as no fill is placed in the area shown as edge of cattails and that nothing is done to restrict the present drainage of storm water through the property. If this proposal is approved by the council, before any construction is actually done, we would see the detailed proposals from Lehman if he proposes any changes to the existing ditching. We trust this will answer your questions regarding this proposal. If you have any further questions, please advise. Very truly yours, Mc-C('%1B0-1KNU,.jT/SOtNf�ASSOCIATFS, INC. Hlit' iam .�!rfcC6m�. .'80Ot5nN kit MOPIAL HIGHIA'AY MINNFAPOtIS MINNESGTA 1.5441 TELEPHONE (612' 545 3735 it- NUHTH :AAIN t-Wf1T HUTCI++NiI N `.'I%%b ',"1A -54•,(1 if11f"HONF 6'2 8y' W)31 SOL!THMST fN(,)NtLFONG D,YISION MAHSHAII %1'NNt`,()TA bb,158 TFItPN"1NF +507 53. 5810 GORDON P. COMm LAND SU64VI WON ANU PLANNaA 1P..f NATf NTOWN MOAO LONC. LAML %0INN 5%1%6 Al) 4140 m.:cT•ii *ic:t. for .r:w�,r.i .c i„r.r. in 'tt !G, ;i; �;: , Tc..,n8it•e rr :t,r►Fc!cn ark An o :ramnt ft* :r, r c n, , a c• .'-.r t:,a' r,--, or' _c L 10, lire: rcr, m,3rcir:,~ fit t�-c : er!r.eu::t cor:,.4r a "' . ,dd lot; 1T.:V% 9!orr- Mr 2 .-st '.inA cr :.•,id o, n 6.: trance o., -art: +: rr•e r1j, t ni• i?r, f?crt �* `.`^ '):n`. A;,'x,''rr,fn cf 'i - dF+: �rlh,,'.; t�''nnc ^'.c c►tln�- ri;fht 130 a dir U:nce "AOt,; V-1,'r:cn de?'1•cct'.n,- rifnt 20 ca vre3s a ci. tr,nee 0f J .pert, %nr; tf!r. enain,•; nd';r ­ -ie- t('nw rTw.�ir;• ��s_ �'Tt;i'f': R: C":9r +.h1.t rwart n' ',at 10 f ",cr•= ��, ^�.^r►: `U. of .d,rR,;rr :'►Trl, '•T'nr ui thln 5 feat or, the ±� • :'^ .10 1 :,t c.r. t. ;(- lc:'t�side a' tho :r'_Icw.n,-- cet cr-_ -C li n : *�c.-Tinrx nc R! ' ._ _t>•..,.; 1 -c"'nr of nhid lot: tYonre Ic* in Ci: t rim of 24 rT+rt to Vie noir' line beir.,• described; ' 'n(-.r �•C t',`1, rtl^, -t j' .t �h .:£,'�•;: h .'.0 v, `r�e t.r (x ��� McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 5 # CONSULTING INGINEERS 0 LAND SURVEYORS is SITE PtANNERS Ili August 6, 1975 Mr. flank Muhick Village of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Subject: Drainage Easeiiient --Edward T. Dear flank: Lehman_- We have reviewed the legal description of the proposed drainage easen.ent across Edward T. Lehman's property. It appears to be satisfactory. We have asked Gordon Coffin to furnish you a map showing this easement. We have sent a copy of the description to Bruce Malkerson for drafting of the documents. I talked to Bruce and we concur that this descrip- tion meets our requirements and your issuance of a grading certificate is recommended. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. WHM: 1 ,, 9 Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. William tl. McCombs, P.E. 67�f ':1405 OISON MfMORIAI HIGHWAY MINNftiPOtIS M NNfSOTA b5441 It' FPH(;NE 6121 545 3735 )8 NORTH Mt.IN STREET, HUI'HINSUN MINNfSOTA -0'k50 T(1tPm0Nf 612 897 $031 SUUTHAfST tNGINFERING DIVISION MARSHAIL MINNfSOTA 50258 1tltPHONE c507) S32 5620 RF,oUjTION N0. 769 A RESOLUf]ON APPROVING THE LFIiF%N ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ororo has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and %I EREAS, the City Camcil has considered the application for a subdivision plat for the Lehman Addition by Edward T. Lehman; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVFD, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat for the Lehman Addition, fennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following: 1. Approval of the plat does not constitute approval of the lc,.-.ation of any dwelling. 2. All proposed dwelling 1 oc:at ions shall meet ie minimin 7S' lakeshore requirement. 3. Appropriate Park Dedication Fee (total $3,086.00). 4. Final plat is same as preliminary which was previously approved. S. All necessary easements. Conservation easement over wetlands and any other easements that are deemed necessary. 6. Title opinion. This resolution will expire October 1, 1977, if the aforesaid subdivision plat has not been filed with the Hennepin County Register of Deeds. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision approval. Dated this 11 day of April 0 1977. William B. VAest, yor kra.ST: Walter ,_.rtson, Cleric/kIministrator STATE OF M INNESM ODLDM OF HJWNEPIN CITY OF ORONO 71ie mdersigned duly qualified and acting City Clerk/M!, *nistiator of the City of Orono hereby certifies that attached hereto is a ie and correct copy of the original Resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Orono on April 11, 1977, approving the Le}umn Addition Plat on file in the office of the City Clerk/Mninistrator, City of Orono. Kalter . Ben -Son C1er1Sf ciministrator Dated this day of �''C, , 1977. REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL HELD APRIL 11, 1977 Page 11 Henry Muhich, Building & Zoning Administrator, XBDIVISION read into the record the following information, 3527 Shoreline Drive dated March 30, 1977: #182 Ed Lehman Mr. Ed Lehman, 3527 Shoreline Drive, just sub- mitted plan #3 showing the proposed location for a home on Lot 3. The house would meet the front and side yard setbacks, but not the lakeshore setback, I suggested combining Lots 2 & 3, but he objected. We should determine now whether or not we would approve a variance from the 75' lakeshore setback requirement before making a decision on the ' final pla' . ' Planning Commission Meeting - April 4, 1977 It was brought to the attention of the Planning Commission that any dwelling proposed for Lot 3 would have difficulty meeting all setback requirements, (front, side and lakeshore) because of the lagoon. The Commission recommended approval of the final plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the plat does not constitute approval of the location of any dwelling. 2. All proposed dwelling locations shall meet the minimum 75' lakeshore requirement. 3. Appropriate park dedication fee (total $3,086) . 4. Final plat is game as preliminary which was previously approved. There was no request for adjustment of the special assessments at the present time. Council Meeting - April 11, 1977 Welsh moved, Butler seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION #769 Resolution #769, A Resolution Approving The Lehman Addition LeNnan Addition, as per the Planning Commission Minutes of April 4, 1977, with the addition of: S. Title opinion to the City. 6. Necessary ronst•rvat ion t'd,.( mt•nt s ind of ht,r eascoents that mit_Iht by ,��,i�l i ►hlt�. Motion, Aycs (5) - Nays (0). TO: Planning Commission and (7ouncil FW1- 11mik 'SflAch, Zoning .Administrator DATE: November 14, 1977 S1RT-,(,T: licl Lehrw - 2,40 Car n Strut Variance - Front Se sac This report will cover .11 three applications by "r. I'd Lehm•tn. The three nrcnerties involved are adjacent to one another. 244() and 245) Caman Street are related t- parcels resultim, rrom the subdivision recently approved by Ccnmcil. (:Inclosed are copies of Planning Corrissi.rm minutes of April 4, 1977, Council minutes of knril 11, 1977 and resolution of approval of plat. I'm also enclosing copies of reports from the City Engineer in regards to this subdivision.) Tie individual pronosals are as follows: LkYj0*'­"337 - The nroposetl location for a dwelling on Parcel uld require approval of a front yard variance of 8 ft. (2) 0338 - The proposed location for a dwelling on Parcel C would require approval of a front yard v.iriaJ.Le of 10 ft. and a lakeshore sethacl� variance of (3) 6339 - i?ie application on this narc^1 consists of a conditional use permit for a duplex (7-oning r1rdinance �: ction .14.129). A conditional tisc permit for :t dur)lex could 1)e considered if the emits are sewered and if the stnxture is within 201 ft. of adjacent commercial property. This proposal for duplex credit is similar to the one we recently approved for .Tian Lindsay or }telly %venue I oVinp "o many on :,elly ivenue in ;avarre . If Vie conditional use nernit for a duplex is approved, a second issue must he ;uldres%e d. 1".e nropose"l location of the stricture wo,11,' rc-quire a front vnrc'. variance of 11, fr . an(] a rear var(' variance of "I ft. PLANNING 01WTS51M WnRK SESSI(W - November 21, 1977 Reviewed V., ,-oposals. Discussion included zoning, density permitted, setbacks (lake and road), duplex credit in reference to zoning regulations, related proposal 'o recent similar proposal by Iran Linsav on Kelly avenue. (,Approval of duplex credit for Linsay proposal conditioned on stntctures heinR locstecd within 2111' or commercially znned district.) PLANNING COMMISSION - December 5, 1977 Recommended approval of 8' variance from the street setback require- ment of 30'. (Dwelling to he located 22' from property line along Carman Street.) Justification: 1) Hardship - toFography r.f the land and soil conditions restrict location. ED LEHMAN - 2440 Carman Street Variance - Front Setback Page 2 2) Lot meets zoning area requirement. 3) Property is sewered. COUNCIL MEETING - December 12, 1977 Approved per Planning Commission recommendations Letter received from Greg Frank, City Engineer, dated December 2, 1977, which states: On December 1, 1977, the applicant's engineer for the subject project submitted grading plans, road profile and drainage plans showing proposed drainage easements. Based on our review of these submittals, we recommend approval of the preliminary subdivision. End of letter Pesek moved, Paurus seconded, to approve the preliminary subdivision request of the George Jackson Construction Company, 90 Willow Drive South, per the Planning Commission recommendations of December 5, 1977, to include a Homeowners Association Agreement, and review of Lots A & B as possible combination. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). SUBDIVISION 90 Willow Drive South (Continued) Mr. Alan Olson, Assistant Building 6 Zoning Adminis- VARIANCE tratcr, entered into the record the following informa- 2440 Carman Street tion concerning a variance request of Ed Lehman, #337 2440 Carman Street, dated December 5, 1977, which Ed Lehman states: The Planning Commission recommended ipproval of 8' variance from the street setback requirement of 301. (Dwelling to be located 22' from property line along Carman Street.) Justification: 1. Hardship - topography of the land and soil conditions restrict location. 2. Lot meets zoning area requirement. 3. Property is sewered. Mayor Van Nest moved, Pesek seconded, to approve the variance request of Ed Lehman, 2440 Carman Street, for Parcel B per the Planning Commission recommendations of December 5, 1977. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). Mr. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Administrator, entered into the record the following information concerning a variance request of Ed Lehman, 2450 Carman Street, dated December 5, 1977, which states: The Planning Commission recommended approval of a 10' variance from the street setback RIANCE 2450 Carman Street #3:.8 Ed Lehman (Continued) 1' MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD DECEMBER 5, 1977 - PAGE 12 Commissioner Hurr asked if the lots could be ED LEHMAN rearranged so the building would be more than 50 (continued) feet from the shoreline of the lagoon. Mayor Van Nest explained that because of the steep road `here would be a hardship. Also, he stated these proper'' have been assessed for sc-aer and water, but ti, ave not been able to hook up because they are too low. He added, however, that this could be solved by installing a lift station. The Vning Administrator explained that the proposed location of the duplex exceeds the required 200 ft. from a commercial area. He also stated that Mrs. Peterson had telephoned him and was concerned that the duplex would obstruct her view. She also was concerned about the parking because the renter who just moved out had been parking on the street. Mayor Van Nest stated that a small part of the building would be within the required 200 ft. Commissioner Hurr commented that the Ordinance required the whole building to be within 200 ft. of a commercial area. The Zoning Administrator reviewed the variances and setbacks that were being requested. Mayor Van Nest stated there is some history to this request and felt some of the regulations might not apply here. He explained that Mr. Lehman had said he wanted to develop this properL-- for hiF- whole fami'y and plans to li,v,e in one side of duplex for ilis retirement. Also, he commenter felt there jas a hardship on Lots C and D. The Commission discussed the duplex being within 200 feet of a commercial area and the dwelling on Parcel C being located only 50 feet from the shoreline of the lagoon. The COITimission discussed "- variance for 2440 Carman ED LEHMAN Street. It was felt the :iince should be approved 2440 CARMAN STREET since the property was serviced by sewer, and the VARIANCE lot met the minii:nun lot area req►i+rement, and a FRONT SETBACK hardship was demonstrated because of the topography 4337 and soil. conditions. The Cosnnission discussed the variances for 2450 Carman Street.