HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: request to vary from covenants /3
TO: Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator
DATE: June 17, 1993 �
SLTBJECT: Kenneth Figge, 2004 Sugarwood Drive - Request to Vary from Covenants
List of Exhibits
A - Location Map
B - Plat of Sugar Woods
C - Original Survey Presented with Building Permit Application
D - Revised Survey with Amended Driveway Plan
E - Supplemental Sheets to Building Permit Application for
Sugar Woods Development - Highlight of Covenants Required by City
F - Current Drainage Pattern for Properties Located at 2002 and 2004 Sugarwood Drive
G - Hardcover Fact Sheet
H - Packet of Support Information Submitted by Applicant's Consultant
Zoning District R-lA - Planned Residential Development
Lot area = 53,421.89 s.f. or 1.226 acres
Building envelope area = 19,483.23 s.f. (defined by 50' front and rear setbacks and 40'
side setbacks)
Allowed hardcover = 15,586.6 s.f. or 80%
Proposed hardcover = 10,125 s.f. or 50%
Description of Request
At the time of the development of the plat of Sugar Woods, covenants governing the
development of each site were developed by both City and applicant's attorney. The City
executed the covenants in an attempt to reenforce special conditions of plat approval. The Sugar
Woods handout, E�chibit E, highlights some of those development controls.
The applicant asks the Planning Commission to approve "variances" to these covenants.
The first involves a slight curvature of the driveway resulting from the need to save a mature
tree. Review Exhibit C, the curved drive was shown on the original site plan submitted with
the building permit. The building staff could not accept this plan for with the building permit
application because of the curve and asked for an amended site plan, E�ibit D. Applicant now
seeks approval of the Planning Commission.
Zoning File #2004
June 17, 1993
Page 2
The second request involves installation of a paved walkway located within the 50'
front/street protected area. The conditional use permit that granted approval of the planned
residential development and the covenants specifically state that the only hardcover improvement
allowed within the front street protected area shall be a driveway at a maximum width of 20'.
The whole intent of the P.R.D. application was to minimize removal of trees. This would be
the first request for the installation of a walkway within the front yard protected area. The
builder, Mr. Kramer, has advised that no trees were removed as a result of the installation of
the walkway as the walkway follows the line of the utility installation from Sugarwood Drive.
T'he third request involves the need to fill a low retention area to the north of the existing
residence, review Exhibit F. The area is located within the 50' rear protected area. The
standing water has already killed off several of the trees located within the area. Applicant
wishes to provide positive drainage from the residence and connect with existing natural
drainageway that drains from west to east. The low area will receive approxunately 20 cubic
yards of fill from the construction excavations on site.
Applicant's consultants have advised that there are major problems developing with
drainage for both the residence at 2002 and 2004 Sugarwoods and will file a conditional use
permit application for the July meeting that will involve a more comprehensive review and
improvement plan.
New members should be advised that it is the responsibility of the applicant to present
their position seeking to vary from the covenants. Review Exhibit H, the packet of supportive
information submitted for members review and action. There is no charge by the City for these
reviews. In the review of these requests the Planning Commission will have the final say. It
will only be brought to the Council if applicant wishes to appeal a recommendation and final
action of the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission denies a request, the applicant
may proceed with an appeal to the Council at the very next Council meeting on June 28th.
ch
HARDCOVER CALCULATIOI��`�O =� ' T achment A ��
�����
Proposed Hardcover
_ �� _
a. xouse x = �/S��I s .f.
3.ength width
x = s.f.
X = s.f.
x = s.f.
X = s.f.
b. Garage x = I l 6 s s.f.
c. Driveway x = 2co $I ' s.f.
(include area within front setback area )
X = s.f.
d. Sidewa�k x = b�� s.f .
X = s.f.
X = s.f.
e. Patio/ x = i I �Z s .f.
Deck/Pool
Pond x = s.f .
f. Landscape x = s.f.
areas
underlain x = s.f.
with pervious or impervious
sheeting/ x = s.f.
fabric
x = s.f.
g. Other x = s.f. �
x = s.f.
X = s.f.
TOTAL HARDCOVER = 1 O, �Z S s.f.
Lot Area S3,yZZ s.f. - Building Setback Area s.f.
= BuiZding Pad Area i��S'1 Sf s.f.
Allowed Hardcover '
Bui Zding Pad Area (����� s.f. x 8 0$ = 15�90 Z s.f.
Ib,i Z� = (�,�s�� = s�`�D
� �' r1f
1 V L. • v v - a
.
� -i�: I D,� OL� F�NL��Wt� _
—_ I v�Tf� G�'VNf�ON���IQ7V�til�l.�c
�
� PRIVATE ODLAND PRES RVE - � � �
� � �
�� � �
��. ,�
� �� � .
1 �� �,�%� �
� 1 � � wo9•` , �.,,
��� \ � � � ��
\ \ � � �
� \ \ � �
\ `
. � � �, . �
_ �� 1` . I
, � � � � �
. � � � ��� ��►� �1
/_�o�—� � � � � c�-v��vy�� � �
�� � �. � � �� \ � \
� � . t -
. � � � � � �
- - - _J � � �J
� � � _ �
. � � - �
� '--� -� � ,-� � �
i � / ` . � 1�
�?G / I 1 . :. I � •
� `-�r / � , ���
2. � � �
� 1e� > �4
�-� � 23.3_� tZ .
►- - � _ I , - �� �
1 LAH' D��QP� PAOJ.ECT: F'� �����
' DE� �0�a � � v`'�� ,�`'
_ , o Ot�N� , �nN .
coN ������ooa
80X 308 . EXCELSIOR, MN. 55331 • 612-474-2260
�f�o�1� 1�!N��� �i,�,N - �i��� �r l.t.� 1�. �
�
42001DS Cexr�q IN DENvat
�SOl7TH Ei(iHTH STREET LJNDOUIST,VENNUM Ei CHRI5TENSEN
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 554�2•22(1�J �0 17TH$TAEEf,SUfTE 21'ZJ
LINDQUIST &VENNUM T�P"°"E:g,2�"�„ °E""ER,�°R"°°�_�,
Fqx:612-3713'L07 T�fflot�e:303-57&�00
ArroaNevs Ar Lnw
ROBERT G. MITCHELL, JR. %('��� '�_ - ��;=�� ��' �
612-371-3262 .
c:i i—_
June 16, 1993
r�U Pd � �g �.��3
Ms. Jean Mabusth
Zoning Administrator
City of Orono
2i50 Kelly Parkway
Long Lake, MN 55356
Re: Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth J. Figge, 2004 Sugarwoods Drive
Lot 2 , Block l, Sugarwoods
Dear Jean: ,g,���
On June 2 , 1993 you and �� Vang met with Larry Kramer, his
employee Wayne and myself concerning three issues about the Figge
residence in Sugarwoods. This letter will constitute the Figge' s
application to Orono for permission for two items with regard to
their new house. The three items relate to a sidewalk from the
front door to Sugarwoods Drive, the driveway itself from the
garage area to Sugarwoods Drive and a drainage area immediately
north of the patio at the rear of the house. We understand this
matter will be heard by the planning commission at its meeting on
June 21, 1993 .
Driveway issue. Orono's position on the driveway through
the 50-foot building setback area to the street is that the paved
surface of the driveway must be perfectly straight. The Figge's
propose that the preferred and reasonable interpretation of the
rule is tha� the 12 fGGt wide paved driveway surface may curve
within the 20-foot wide permitted zone for a driveway, but that
the 20-foot driveway zone itself must be straight from the street
through the 50-foot restricted zone.
Alternatively, if a variance is needed, the Figge' s believe
the driveway will be more aesthetically pleasing both to their
house, to the development and to the public if 12 foot surface
can be curved. The slight curve will enable them to better
landscape their property to insure privacy for their property and
to add additional landscaping to the Sugarwoods. It also aids in
preservation of existing trees.
Sidewalk issue. While originally the declaration permitted
curved, half-moon driveways with two curb cuts, Orono Resolution
No. 2652 reduced the number of curb cuts to one curb cut and one
June 16, 1993
Page 2
single driveway. Neither the declaration nor Resolution 2652
prohibits sidewalks. The staff is concerned that if only one
driveway is permitted, and sidewalks are not specifically
discussed, that they are prohibited because no grading is
permitted in the 50-foot zone.
The Figge's position is that due to the severe elevation
change at the rear of their house, as contrasted to the
relatively flat elevation from the front door of the house to the
streAt, tr� topegrGphy is disti��t from ather lots in Sugarwoods.
In addition, their house is relatively close to the street
compared to other houses and other lots because their property
falls off to the rear. Also, as a result of the topography
falling off to the rear, there is relatively little space in the
front of the house or at the side of the house outside the 50-
foot restricted zone within which to put a driveway, parking area
and pedestrian access to the house.
When the houses in Sugarwoods are constructed in each
instance some "grading" has to be done from the street to the
house to install the sewer line. Such is the case with regard to
the Figge residence as well. Thus, the city understands that not
all grading is prohibited within the 50-foot restricted zone. In
addition, when the grading was done for the installation of the
sanitary sewer line no large trees were removed. No large trees
will be removed to install the sidewalk. The sidewalk will be
over the sanitary sewer line where grading has already occurred.
The declaration does not prohibit sidewalks. In fact, it
mentions them at Article IX, Section 16 (e) as counting
(appropriately) as hardcover, or "Covered Area" . The Figge's
Covered Area at 60.7� is well below the maximum permitted of 80%.
Presumably the prohibition against "grading" is intended to
prevent substantial earth additions, subtractions or movement
within the 50-foot zone which would alter the land and thus take
away from the naturally occurring elevations and topography, the
variety of which is one of the esthetic elements in Sugarwoods
being protected. In fact, no "grading" is needed to install the
sidewalk. It lays on the existing elevations following the slope
of the land, so the sidewalk does not contravene the purposes of
the "no grading" rule.
The Figge' s believe that it is reasonable given the
topography of their lot which falls off steeply to the rear, and
the consequent relatively small size of their actual usable lot
area and the restriction it therefore places on the size and
extent of their driveway and parking area, and in view of the
fact that their house is relatively close to the street and there
June 16, 1993
Page 3
is only a small elevation change, that a sidewalk curving in the
fashion indicated on the site plan attached be a permitted
improvement within the 50-foot zone. The sidewalk will be low-
key, nicely landscaped and will be a positive addition to both
the Figge residence and to Sugarwoods.
Drainage Issue Immediately north of the patio, at the rear
of the house there is an area approximately 35 ' x 25 ' , triangular
in shape, under water with about 10" of water at the deepest
goint which water has already killed some mature trees. The
Figge' s wish to fill this area so that the area will positively
drain to the north of the lot where the drainage and utility
easement lies and where the balance of the drainage on the lot
now flows. This small, low spot was caused by "volunteer"
(suckering) ash trees which grew up along fence line. The trees
should have been trimmed to prevent water blockage, but they were
not. Over time, as the ash grew in profundity they stopped the
water flow out of the area, caused the water build-up and killed
trees in the area. Even though this fill will be within the 50-
foot setback zone, it is beneficial to the Figge's property and
Sugarwoods in general in that it will facilitate better drainage
from the site, will prevent the killing of more and more trees
and will restore the area to its preexisting natural condition.
Procedure. The Figge's would like permission to make the
three changes described above. The methodology of making the
changes may either be by interpretation of the existing
declaration and Orono Resolution No. 2652 , or by variance from
Orono Resolution No. 2652 and other governing rules and
regulations because of hardship to the applicant.
With regard to the sidewalk, the hardship to the applicant
is caused by the unique shape and topography of the Figge lot in
that it drops away steeply to the rear limiting the usable area
outside the 50-foot setback zone on the street side of the
property; the problem is a naturally created one not created by
the Figge's; for a substantial and lovely new house it is a
hardship that there be no adequate means of pedestrian access to
it. The lack thereof would set their property apart from other
lots in Sugarwoods which have a more amenable usable building
area on the street side for appropriate vehicular and pedestrian
access.
The reasons for the driveway interpretation or variance are
similar, but are more related to, in essence, carrying out the
intents and purposes of Orono Resolution No. 2652 in that a
curving driveway, the Figge's submit, is more aesthetic, more
natural, than a perfectly straight driveway and it is our view
that "straight" refers to the permissible 20-foot width from the
June 16, 1993
Page 4
street through the 50-foot building setback area. In the Figge
case, the 20-foot driveway parcel is "straight. " The only thing
that is curved is the 12-foot paved portion of the driveway
within the 20-foot straight driveway itself. The reason for
stating that the driveway may not be "curved" in Resolution 2652 ,
referring to the 20-foot strip for the driveway, is that an owner
could run a very long driveway somewhat parallel to Sugarwoods
Drive thus consuming a great quantity of land in the 50-foot
setback zone when what Orono intended in Resolution 2652 is that
tiie 20-foot permitted driveway access be in a straight line from
the street to the house so that the 50-foot restricted zone would
not be consumed by the 20-foot wide driveway.
The reasons for permitting the small amount of fill as a
matter of interpretation or variance are that an unnatural
condition, namely, the fence line which was allowed to go to seed
so that sucker trees came into existence and blocked drainage
exists. This is through no-fault of the Figge's. The topography
of the land, the placement of the houses, the provision for the
perimeter drainage and utility easement around the lots
substantiates that in limited circumstances Orono understood that
slight variations in existing drainage patterns might be
necessary to carry out proper drainage for residential lots. We
submit that this is such a circumstance and that the small amount
of fill be permitted to improve the drainage situation.
Respectfully submitted,
;
� � � '
�_s=��-��. � `� ����..-�
Robert G. Mitchell, Jr.
RGM/ssc
cc: L. Cramer Co.
Lan-De-Con
Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Figge
CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE S�gazwood Covenant Applicarion
P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION
Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ACTION
473-7357 DATE OF NOTICE: June 23, 1993
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: Kenneth Figge COPIES: L. Cramer Company
2004 Sugarwood Drive 5500 Lincoln Drive
Long Lake, MN 55356 Edina, MN 55346
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Request to Vary from Sugar Woods Covenants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF MEETING: 6/21/93 VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST
The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of your three part request
to vary from the covenants for the Sugar Woods Planned Residential Development. Approval
was as follows:
A. Driveway.
Your request to curve entrance drive is approved per plans by Lan-dscape Design
Construction dated 10/25/92, revised 11/20/92, Page 1 of l. No project number
has been assigned.
B. Sidewalk.
Sidewalk has been approved by the same site plan except that steps have not been
approved at entrance to road right-of-way and curved sidewalk with landscaping
has not been approved within the road outlot. Applicant may install a grade-level
paved sidewalk so as not to interfere with snow removal activities and snow
maintenance.
C. Filling.
Filling of 35' x 25' triangular shaped depression at 10" depth to rear of residence
has been approved. Please see that contractor applies for the appropriate land
alteration permit required from the Orono staff for filling activities approximately
20 cubic yards.
lsv
TO: Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator
DATE: June 25, 1993
SUBJECT: Kenneth Figge, 2004 Sugarwood Drive - Request to Vary from Covenants of
Sugar Woods Planned Residential Development-Review of Planning Commission
Action
Please refer to the enclosed staff inemo that further provides background concerning
resident's request. Briefly, the resident seeks approval of a three part request to vary from
covenants as follows:
1. Request to curve driveway in order to save mature trees within 50' street
protected area.
2. To install sidewalk as shown on Lan-Dscape Design construction plan, dated
10/25/92, revised 11/20/92. Review E�chibit H, shown at a 7' maximum width.
Sidewalk is proposed within 50' front/street setback area where no such
improvement is allowed.
3. Filling of approximate 35'1c25' triangular shaped depression at a 10" depth to
create positive drainage from rear of house and to allow drainage to flow via a
natural drainage path to northeast.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission unanimously approved the three part request as follows:
1. Applicant had demonstrated that curved drive was needed to save mature trees
within 50' undisturbed area.
2. The paved sidewalk within the 50' protected area was also approved. Width is
approved at a maximum 7' width as shown on landscape plan submitted for this
review.
Approval was conditioned on the circular sidewalk and formal landscaping area
being omitted from area of road outlot in addition to the steps that end at the
street lot line. The portion of the paved walkway that encroaches within road
outlot shall be installed at existing grade level providing no interference with
snow maintenance equipment and snow storage. The covenants specifically state
that the only improvement permitted within the 50' street setback zone is a 20'
wide driveway.
Figge Memo
June 25, 1993
Page 2
Approval of the sidewalk was based on the following fmdings:
A. Installation of the walkway required no removal of trees as walkway
follows path of utility lines installed at the time of construction.
B. Installation of walkway had not required major land alteration but
followed existing grade except for alterations needed to level sidewalk.
C. Total width of paved walkway (7') and paved drive at 12' does not exceed
allowed 20' maximum width for driveway allowed per covenants.
D. Based on limitations of offstreet parking space and the overall design and
needs of existing structure, cement walkway to street will provide
walkway access for visitors who park in Sugarwood Drive.
3. Filling of depressed area to rear of house will have no impact on drainage to west
or east and will allow approved drainage plan to function by allowing drainage
from rear lot to flow to northeast along approved drainage route. Applicant will
file a conditional use permit within the next month for drainage improvements to
define swale within the natural drainageway that exists within commons outlot and
nondisturbed area of existing property and property to immediate east, Exhibit F.
New members of the Council should be aware that the City approved an abbreviated
review process early in 1991 that allows the Planning Commission to assume the sole
responsibility for the review and final recommendation regarding request to vary from the Sugar
Woods' covenants. Each applicant is given the opportunity to appeal to the Council all decisions
of the Planning Commission. Applicants do not pay a fee and assume the complete
� responsibility for the preparation of all requests before the Planning Commission. If applicants
wish to appeal a Planning Commission recommendation, they aze placed on the Council agenda
for the following Monday (the 4th Monday of the month). Please review page 4 of Exhibit E
that outlines the review procedure. Specific site conditions have been listed providing examples
of necessary supportive information in addition to exhibits and submittals to support the request.
ch