HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: request for waiver of covenants ,�
*
To: Chair Kempf and Planning Commissioners
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
From: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director
Date: April 12, 2007
Subject: Andy Anderson Residence, 2001 Sugar Woods Drive -
Request for Waiver of Sugar Woods Covenants:
Grading, Tree Removal within Protected Setback Areas
Application: Applicant has filed an application seeking to waive the requirements or standards
of the covenants of the Sugar Woods Development. The first involves removal of trees greater
than 2" diameter within the required yards. The second involves grading within the required
yards.
List of Exhibits
A- Letter of Request
B - Plat Map, Airphotos
C - Grading Plan, Tree Removal Plan, Tree Planting Plan
D - House Plans & Elevations
E - Relevant Excerpts from Sugar Woods Covenants
F - Building Permit Supplement Sheets: Waiver Process
G - City Engineer Comments (Review of Feb. 14 submittal)
A special review procedure was established by the City in dealing with requests of owners who
aze unable to meet the special standards agreed upon by both the City and developer Sid Rebers
in the early 1990s for the Planned Residential Development of the Sugar Woods subdivision.
Commissioners are asked to familiarize yourselves with those standards in Exhibits E and F.
The Anderson application includes the following:
1. A request to vary from the standard that prohibits the removal of trees greater than 2"
diameter at 4' above grade, within the "no grading zone/woodlands protection area", i.e.
in the setback areas defined within each lot. Tree removal is proposed to allow for
grading to help eliminate existing drainage problems on the site. Tree replacement is
proposed.
2. A request to allow grading within the protected area, to help solve the drainage
problems on the site.
Planning Commission members are advised that the requests of residents of Sugar Woods to vary
from the covenants are not charged a fee by the City. Because of this, applicants are asked to
provide all tfie necessary information and present their special request to the Planning
Commission and staff. You are asked to review the exhibits and to specifically refer to the
applicant's letter of request and submitted plans.
. , r_
.
2001 Sugar Woods
April 12,2007
Page 2
Council has approved an abbreviated process for all such requests whereby the Planning
Commission shall assume the sole responsibility for the review and final recommendation
regarding the special requests. Each applicant shall have the right of appeal to the Council of all
decisions of the Planning Commission. In other words, should the application be denied or a tie
vote occurs, the applicant would have the option to then proceed before the Council. This is
brought to the Council as an appeal and would involve payment of a fee. The application would
be placed on the Councils next agenda.
The applicant is a resident of Sugar Woods and is replacing his existing home. Staff has been
advised by the applicant that the Sugar Woods Homeowners Association has reviewed the house
and site plans and has granted their approval.
There are a number of factors with the applicant's site that could be considered as unique or
limiting site conditions:
1. Topography of the building envelope, the setback areas, and the surrounding properties
that brings drainage directly through the buildable area of the lot.
2. Existing sub-optimum drainage conditions caused by development that respected the
covenants when originally built, but in doing so did not solve potential drainage problems
inherent in the site.
3. Location and condition of existing trees within the protected areas, and the potential for
those trees to thrive given the current and proposed site conditions.
Staff Comments
The City Engineer is in the process of reviewing the latest revision of the proposed grading and
drainage plan, which involves some filling within protected zones as well as the installation of a
catch basin and storm drain to carry runoff from the low ground north of the house, to the
existing storm sewer system in the street. Staff has been advised that from an engineering
standpoint, the grading plan and tree removal & replacement does not present any unsolvable
issues.
The intent of Mr. Rebers in establishing "no grading/no tree removal zones" in each lot and
within the common outlot areas, was to protect the natural woodland he had nurtured for a
number of decades, and to provide Sugar Woods with a unique character all its own. To a great
extent his goals have been met, as Sugar Woods remains a heavily wooded neighborhood with
homes in close proximity yet largely hidden from each other and from the passerby.
To some extent the proposed tree removals are necessary to do the grading to resolve existing
drainage issues. However, the fact that the proposed residence and driveway will cover the full
80% allowable of the non-protected areas, makes it extremely difficult to accommodate drainage
without doing some site re-working.
. . �.
2001 Sugar Woods
Apri112,2007
Page 3
The proposed grading to the south (left) side of the new home will be the greatest revision of
existing grade. The tree removal plan suggests that few trees will be removed here, however,
and the grading will not change the general direction of flows from the site. The new home is so
close to the setback line here that attempts to minimize grading encroachment by adding a
retaining wall would still place that wall in the protected zone. Note that there is no immediate
residence to the south side, as there is a common outlot corridor south of the property.
At the rear of the site, the existing maintained back yard will become house footprint, and the
border of existing vegetation ringing the yard will be cut back. The woods behind this is fairly
dense, and the next home is quite distant, so the impacts in the rear yard are minimized. The
existing back yard is rather flat and at the base of a slope. The new home will have no flat back
yard, and is to be graded to drain to the north or south.
There is a low basin area between the north side of the house and the neighboring residence to
the north, which is fairly close in proximity. This area will be drained via the catch basin and
storm sewer proposed.
The driveway will be relocated slightly to the north of its current location, resulting in removal
of virtually all vegetation in the NE corner of the lot.
From staff's perspective, the tree removals to the north side of the lot, as well as in the street
yard at the NE corner of the property, are the most critical to be replaced in terms of maintaining
the privacy and wooded feel of Sugar Woods. Planning Commission should pay particular
attention to the replanting plan in determining whether it will suitably re-establish the intended
natural barriers.
Staff Recommendation
This is the first"rebuild" in Sugar Woods, where most of the homes are only about 15 years old.
The City was quite protective of the covenants during the initial construction phase of this
subdivision in the early 1990s. Planning Commission should drive the entire length of the Sugar
Woods loop road to gain a perspective on how the neighborhood has developed, and ensure that
the activity proposed for this site stays in character with the neighborhood.
Options for Action
1. Approve as proposed.
2. Approve with conditions or revisions.
3. Deny.
,` ,. . �
i�
SIIPPLEMENTAL SHEET TO BUILDING PERMIT APPI,ICATIOAI
FOR RESIDENTIAI, CONSTRIICTION WITHIN
THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF
SIIGAR WOODS SIIBDIVISION
In addition to the plans, specifications and information
---- _ _ __.._ ._.^.__
requested in the Orono BuilcTing Permit-�App�icati�ori�p�ack-et;-t e--------------
� following is required by special resolution of the Orono City
Councii of al. l applicants seeking to obtain a building permit
within the Sugar Woods subdivision:
1. Your site plan must designate the Specific Building Setback
Area for your lot.
A) front 50' , rear 50' and side 40' for Lots 1 through
4 , Block 1 ; and
B) front 50' , rear 50' and side 30' for aII other lots
in B3.ocks 1, 2 , 3 and 4.
2. Per Orono resolution �2652, each lot shall be served by a
single driveway/one curb cut at a 20' maximum allowed width.
The driveway width sha11 be measured parallel to the loop
road, Sugarwood Drive. The portion of the drive Iocated
within the front/street setback area shall be placed in a
�traight al�gnment from tre Ioop road and shal 1 not be
curz=ed.
3. An inventory of aII hardcover on the Iot must accompany
each application (see worksheet attached, Attachment A).
AII hardcover improvements on each lot shall be within the
building pad defined as tnat portion of the Iot thdt is not
� within the building setback area (exception: the driveway
Ieading to Sugarwoods Drive Iocated within the front
building setback area, retaining walls and similar land-
scaping structures that may be built within the fron�
building setback area). The hardcover improvements for each
Iot shall not exceed 80� of the area of the building pad for
each Iot. The hardcover areas of each lot sha11 include �the
surface area on the ground � of each of the fo � �owing
improvements on the lot (the inventory shall include allowed
improvements within the front/street setback area) :
A) Footprint of each and every structura� improvement
on the � lot, including each house, garage, accessory
building, porch and covered walkway;
B) AI1 wooden decks and boardwalks regardless of the
spacing between the planks on the surface;
C) AI1 driveways and parking areas that are paved or
graveled;
E) AI1 walkways and patios that are �covered with
asphalt, concrete, paving blocks (regardiess of the
space in between the blocks ) , or covered with gravel ,
rock or woodchips upon an underliner (whether the
underliner is impervious or not ) , but not those
walkways that •are dirt, grass or gravel. , rock or
woodehips without an underliner;
� oF�
F) Each and every landscaped area with an underliner (whether the underliner
is impervious or not), regardless of whetrher the area is covered with woodchips,
stones, dirt or plants;
G) Any swimming pool or wading pool;
H) Any tennis court covered with concrete, asphalt or clay, but not any tennis
court covered with grass.
4. Lot Coverage. Per Ordinance 80, 2nd Series adopted February 26, 1990, the total
combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15%
of lot area. The foilowing shall be included in calculation of lot coverage by structures: -
a) all ro'ofed structures which extend more than 6' above grade level;
b) tennis courts, patios, decks and all similar open structures when partially or
fully enclosed by fences, railings or walls which extend more than 6' above
grade level(if any portion of such structure extends more than 6' above grade
level, the entire structure shall count towards lot coverage);
c) pools, including pool basin and associated deck or patio areas, regardless of
whether such pool basin, deck or patio is enclosed with a fence.
5. All lots shall be provided with a functional means or method of backing out. The City
will not approve the backing out of motorized vehicles onto Sugarnood Drive.
6. For all applicants who find they cannot meet the required standards for development
within the Sugar Woods Planned Residential Development,please refer to Attachment
B for special directions.
7. Written confirmation from Rebea-s Construction that the building plans and site plan
have been approved by the Architectural Review Committee for Sugar Woods.
At the time a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a new dwelling within the subdivision
of Sugar Woods,the City has agreed to execute and deliver to the owner of each lot a}�artial release
of�»h�ivi�er's agreement for th�t lot. tlpon the recordation of such partial release of subdivider's
agreement,the Registraz of Titles is authorized and instructed to remove from the Certificate of Title
� for the lot,the memorial of this instrument and the memorial of the partial release of subdivider's
agreement.
Please contact the Building and Zoning Department (473-7357) if you have any questions
concerning the directives listed above.
Prior to anv site�reparation tree curting land alterations o�constru�ti�z,the Buildin�
Setback Area must be defined on the site with nlastic or wooden snow fencin�. This fencinQ
must remain on the site until a reRresentative of the Orono Building Denartment nrovides
tivritten confirmation that fencing may be removed. .
� _ • '2 e� r'L.
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORRSHEET Attachment A
Proposed Hardcover -
a. House x = s .f.
Iength width
x = s .f .
x = s.f .
x = s .f.
x = s .f .
b. Garage x = s .f.
. c. Driveway x = s .f.
(include area within front setback area)
X = s .f.
d. Sidewalk x = s .f.
x = s .f.
x = s .f.
e. Patio/ x = s .f.
Deck/Pool/
Pond x = ' � s.f .
f. Landscape x = s .f.
areas
underlain x = s.f. .
with pervious or impervious
sheeting/ x = s .f .
fabric . � - �
X ^ s.f.
g. Other x = � s .f.
x = s . f.
x = s . f. �
TOTAL HARDCOVER = s . f.
Lot Area s.f. - Building Setback Area s.f.
= Building Pad Area s .f .
Allowed Hardcover
Building Pad Area s. f. x 80� = s.f.
Attachment B
REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR ALL APPLICANTS ���
DNABLE TO MEET SPECIAL REQIIIRF�NTS �
FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN SUGAR WOODS PLAT
AI I owners' or builders' seeking special consideration must
submit a written request to the Zoning Administrator 7 days
before the official Planning Commission meeting for the month
(third Monday of the month) . The City Council of Orono has
approved an abbreviated review process for aIl such request
whereby the Planning Commission shall assume the sole
responsibility for the review and final recommendation regarding
these special requests. Each applicant shall have the right of
appeal before the Council of a�l decisions of the Planning
Commission. AI1 appeals to the Council shall be placed on the
Counci I agendas f or the f o l lowing Monday (f ourth Monday of the
month) . �
Applicants may find that the strict enforcement of these
special requirements for residential deveYopment to not be
practical nor functional when certain site conditions are found
within a building lot. The following site conditions are Iisted
below as examples to assist applicants in the preparation of
their specific request: •
l. the shape or Iimited area of a building envelope;
2. unique or mature trees within a building envelope or
front/street setback area;
3 ., the topography of a building envelope;
4. desire to place house within a building pad so as to
minimize impact on adjacent properties.
A1 I special requests shall consist either of one or more of
the following submittals, depending upon the specific site
conditions to be considered: ,
l. survey/site plan designating structures, pathways,
drives and type of back out improvement; � .
2. inventory of hardcover (be sure to include all hardcover
within front street/street setback area) ;
3. topographic mapping of property; �
4. location of mature, unique tree specimens;
5. other unique physical characteristics of property that
requires special placement of house/drive on site.
' i . �
t
r�
� ; ;���4�����k��� c�t� o� oRoNo
� �4rt �.���:;
�� � ��
� 4 � � ��'��'� `� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� , �, ,
�-'"t�Ci�a���c.-�,��>1
1 �'�vi.Jr-Sr'�����r , 2 9 1 7
�F :IGti1��.p�`7� �� �O•
7.^r'' i .l�cY?Y';
t' Ita�������L.��� .
; .
„-
,�.: ;.?„
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLDTION #2652,
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVING A
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
RNOWN AS SUGARWOODS
WHEREAS, Resolution #2652 dated Ju�y 10, 1989 and
approved by the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter
"Council") granted to Rebers Construction Company a condit�onal
use permit pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Section T0.20 ,
Subdivision 3 (H) for a Planned Residential Deve�opment known as
"Sugarwoods"; and
WHEREAS, Condition #1 (F) on page 5 of resolution 2652
reads as fol3.ows:
"F. The applicant has created a "no grading"
zone/woodlands protection area within the private open
space outlots (namely Outlots A and B) and the setback
areas def ined within each bui lding lot. .Within those
areas no future owner wi1l. be allowed to remove trees
in excess of 2" in diameter at 4' above grade. No
g�ading is allowed within the protected areas.
However, each residentiaZ �ot m� inc}.ude one driveway
u� to 20 ' wide, leading to the loop road. This
driveway m�be graded and trees of a� size ma �e
removed to build it. The subdivider's agreement should
a�so define the protected areas such as the �setback
area of each lot and the private open space outlots"
(hereinafter "condition") ; and .:._,- .,__
WHEREAS , the Council has found that the strict
enforcement of this condition may have a negative impact on the
future residential development of a building lot or. to be in
conflict with the original goals and intent for the Sugar Woods,
Planned Residential Development. ��
Page 1 of 2
�i
' • .41 . ,� _,..�� I
1
� q
� j��& V f R�NO
� �t i`y�d`i�`� ���°'�'�� ���-1 O
� '�9.1�e��5.�' �" � f/
�'=S .'�p��5� ��� :
Y �
f M Y: � ,
'�� �'� z�"`w` RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
J ��. 4���C�`�"Ty,� [� �7 ,
FT� s �rT,r. NO. 271 / �
k A�a��'k�vi�3'�a ,hn�
� r �y S=t�3�r ;1
��., ,a.,f� �
� ��r'
.
NOW, THEREFOR$ BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of
Orono shall consider requests of a property owner or owner's �
agent �to waive or vary condition of approval as set forth above
for the Sugar Woods PRD and directs the Orono staff to present -
such written request before the Planning Commission at their
earliest upcoming meeting (third Monday of the month) , and �
further approves an abbreviated review process wh.ereby the
Planning Commission shall assume the sole responsibility of the
review and final recommendation regarding these requests with the
owner or owner's agent having the right of appeaY before the �
Council of all decisions of the Planning Commission. All appeals
to the Council shall be placed on the Council agendas for the
following Monday meeting (fourth Monday of the month). Such
written requests must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator 7
days before the official Planning Commission meeting and shall
include facts and information to support this request.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono,
biinne�ata, this 14th day �f January, 19S1.
. `i��•��/� � ' d ����'�~�'��/ � .�..',,,�_ ._
/�;..J�GL''G C'�'�/LC��',�.�(��'(�✓L:,�LL��+tr-' .
Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor .
ATT T:
Do othy M llin, City Clerk �
STATE OF M NESOTA ) - •
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was a�kr�cwledy2d before me c:�
this 14th day of January, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson & Doro'thy
M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesoza
municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf
of the City.
L.�`� '�:;'
''�`"' THERESA L. NAAB � � � `
i�7OiAAY PJBLIC - MINNESOTA � � — . ' /i I/�
. . HENNEPIN COUNTY I/'�-.C'�' � ;�-Z �` �L�1�'��/`'�
�;�: ,.:,._ • �
�I e�-:'��_: ir¢s 9-8-92
-a;�. (yiy commission exp � �
�;.� . - Notary Public
,�.Y:.��_ _ �
PaaP ?_ c�f 2
f
• �_ y ..{--�j�', ��:� � c.}.-" � i� (,J
�1' t � �
-- ; y '`,_.`'`' ' �
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 16, 2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3266 Vogue ICF Homes, Continued)
a building height variance if the gable end windows are not present; subject to tapering the
driveway to meet City standards without increasing the hardcover over 3,000; and subject to the
City Engineer's recommendations and the Watershed District recommendations; and relocating
the house five to six feet further back. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1, Zullo Opposed.
Zullo stated she would like to see the final plans showing the relocation of the house and the drainage
for this lot prior to moving the application forward to the City Council.
NEW BUSINESS
6. 2001 SUGAR WOODS DRIVE—APPEAL OF WORK IN PROTECTED AREAS,
7:50—8:05 P.M.
Andy Anderson, Applicant,was present.
Gaffron stated the applicant has filed an application seeking to waive the requirements or standards of
the covenants of the Sugar Woods development. The first part of the application involves removal of
trees greater than two inches in diameter within the required yards and the second part involves grading
within the required yards.
A special review procedure was established by the City in dealing with requests of owners who are
unable to meet the special standards agreed upon by both the City and Developer Sid Rebers in the early
1990s for the Planned Residential Development of the Sugar Woods subdivision.
The Anderson application includes the following:
1. A request to vary from the standard that prohibits the removal of trees greater than 2 inches
diameter at four feet above grade, within the"no grading zone/woodlands protection area,", i.e.,
in the setback areas defined within each lot. Tree removal is proposed to allow for grading to
help eliminate existing drainage problems on the site. Tree replacement is proposed.
2. A request to allow grading within the protected area,to help solve the drainage problems on the
site.
Council has approved an abbreviated process for all such requests whereby the Planning Commission
shall assume the sole responsibility for the review and final recommendation regarding the special
requests. Each applicant shall have the right of appeal to the Council of all decisions of the Planning
Conunission. In other words, should the application be denied or a tie vote occurs, the applicant would
have the option to then proceed before the Council. This is brought to the Council as an appeal and
would involve payment of a fee.
PArL�' 14
. ._ �
- MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANI�TING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,ApriI 16,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(Sugar Woods Drive—Appeal of Work,Continued)
The applicant is a resident of Sugar Woods and is replacing his existing home. Staff has been advised
by the applicant that the Sugar Woods Homeowners Association has reviewed the house and site plans
and has granted their approval.
There are a number of factors with the applicant's site that could be considered as unique or limiting site
conditions:
1. Topography of the building envelope,the setback areas, and the surrounding properties that
brings drainage directly through the buildable area of the lot.
2. Existing sub-optimum drainage conditions caused by development that respected the covenants
when originally built,but in doing so did not solve potential drainage problems inherent in the
site.
3. Location and condition of existing trees within the protected areas and the potential for those
trees to thrive given the current and proposed site conditions.
The City Engineer is in the process of reviewing the latest revision of the proposed grading and drainage
plan.
Anderson stated the main reasons for this appeal are to handle the trees that are dying and that they
would like to remove those trees and replace them with evergreens. Anderson indicated the trees do not
get the sunlight that they require,which is the reason the trees are dying.
Anderson stated they meet all of the covenant's restrictions as far as the building is concerned but that
they would like to address these other issues.
Chair Kempf opened the public hearing at 7:59 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Kempf closed the public hearing at 7:59 p.m.
Rice commented this property is more heavily wooded than some of the other properties located in the
Sugar Woods development and that she does not think the removal of the trees would be a problem.
Anderson stated his sump pumps are req�iired to pump almost continuously 24 hours a day and that
something needs to be done to address the water in this area. Anderson stated the neighbors are not
opposed to the project.
Kempf stated he would like to see the trees replaced in a thoughtful manner. Kempf stated it appears
that the trees were planted a while ago and were not taken care of over the years. Kempf recommended
PAGE 15
� _ . .
MINUTES OF THE ' -
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,Apri116, 2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(Sugar Woods Drive—Appeal of Work, Continued)
that the entire neighborhood would benefit from an arborvist going through the entire neighborhood and
making specific recommendations for each property.
Kroeger indicated he is in agreement with Chair Kempf.
Zullo stated she would like to see soine guidance given on the type of trees that are planted and that
replanting of any trees that die during this process should be required.
Anderson stated they would like to keep the neighborhood as is and that they are working with some
people on the appropriate plantings.
Zullo moved, Kang seconded,to recommend approval of Item 6, 2001,Sugar Woods Drive,
subject to review and approval of the landscaping plan, subject to the condition that the trees
proposed to be planted would be replaced in the event they die within two years of planting.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
7. #07-3277 ALBIN AND SUSAN NELSON,500 OXFORD ROAD,VARIANCE,
8:06—8:19 P.M.
Susan Nelson,Applicant, was present.
Turner stated the applicant has submitted a revised plan,which reduces the number of variances being
requested. The applicant was requesting a setback variance to construct an addition to the house as
close as 37 feet from the rear properiy line when a 50-foot setback is required. The addition would
provide for a fourth garage stall, a mud room, a dinette, and a third bedroom on the main level. It would
allow the expansion of the master bath and dressing area into the existing mudroom and laundry. An
existing craft room would be converted to a laundry room. There would be a basement under the
addition except for the garage portion. It would provide for an expanded bedroom and a starage room.
Turner noted the plans were revised this afternoon and that the one addition has been pushed toward the
end of the house. The applicants have also reduced the size of the addition located behind the garage,
reduced the size of the master bath and dressing room, and eliminated a bedroom. Turner stated the
setback from the garage addition would be 44 to 45 feet and the setUack from the corner of the other
addition would be approximately 45 feet.
Nelson stated they had originally proposed to add a bedroom to the house and a dinette but were unable
to accommodate the entire addition to the rear of the house for various reasons. Nelson stated there is a
tiling system in the basement and that they are not proposing to consri-uct any work in the area of that
system. Nelson indicated they are not adding to the height of the structure.
PA(�F �(