HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: permit 2012-00610 I
�Y
�<y
t t�
p *t
Angie's
From: Melanie Curtis [mailto:MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us]
Sent: Friday,July 06, 2012 9:48 AM
To: 'chris@artisticlandscapes.biz'
Cc: 'Patrick Middleton'; Christine Mattson; 'patrick.middleton@daikinmccquay.com'
Subject: Pemit 2012-00610 for 720 Tonkawa Rd
Chris
We have received the zoning permit application &materials for the retaining walls and minor land alterations on the
property at 720 Tonkawa Road. I have begun to review the materials and have the following questions/comments:
1. Walls are proposed to be constructed within 5 feet of the property lines. Other than an in-kind replacement City
Code does not permit land alteration or construction of retaining walls within 5 feet of property lines. The wall
design must be revised.
2. Hardcover within the 75-250'zone is was limited to 55.4% noting that a considerable amount of landscape rock
underlain by plastic or fabric was present. The level of hardcover permitted by variance, when illegal hardcover is
removed from the calculation, is actually 3,859 square feet. All of the hardcover variances granted by the City
require removal of all fabric or plastic weed barrier materials as a matter of course. The square footage of fabric
or plastic is not a"deductible hardcover"as it is considered illegal.
The ±1000 square feet of plastic/fabric removal is not available for exchange. Even with the reduction in the
walkway hardcover, the proposed retaining walls appear to account for an additional 144 square feet; 144 square
feet of allowable hardcover must be removed.
The plans must be revised to address the above issues before the permit will be issued. Please contact me with any
questions.
Melanie
Melanie Curtis
Planning &Zoning Coordinator
City of Orono
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Direct Dial: 952.249.4627
Fax: 952.249.4616
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: 720 TONKAWA ROAD—STREET FILE
FROM: MELANIE CURTIS, PLANNING &ZONING COORDINATOR �I
SUBJECT: APPROVED HARDCOVER
DATE: 13 FRIDAY 2012
Upon review of zoning permit application 2012-00610 it came to my attention the Council approved
hardcover levels approved with the variances resulting in Resolution Nos 5857 and 5908 inaccurately
allowed plastic and/or fabric under landscape rock to remain.This is inconsistent with City hardcover
policy as well as the condition language noted within Resolution No.5857. An as-built survey was
required in July 2010 to verify compliance with the aforementioned Resolutions. Hardcover at that time,
although it included the illegal fabric/plastic,was consistent with the approvals.
The property owners are currently removing all of the fabric and plastic from around the home in
conjunction with a necessary retaining wall reconstruction project. As a result the requested zoning
permit will be issued. The wall construction will not result in hardcover levels exceeding previous
approvals;a new variance will not be required. Additionally, I will require an as-built survey be submitted
at the conclusion of permit 2012-00610 to establish the conforming/approved level of hardcover for 720
Tonkawa Road going forward.
ti
Melanie Curtis
From: Melanie Curtis
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 12:10 PM
To: 'chris@artisticlandscapes.biz'
Cc: 'Middleton, Patrick J.'; Christine Mattson
Subject: RE: Permit 2012-00610 for 720 Tonkawa Rd
Chris
I apologize I was in a meeting this AM; I have just now retrieved your voicemails/email.
If you would like to meet to discuss the proposed project I can schedule a time either tomorrow between 2:30 and 4 or
Wednesday between 10 and noon to meet you at the site with our City Engineer. Please let me know if either of the
times work for you.
Regarding an"in-kind'replacement of the walls, I of course do not mean the same material has to be used but rather
they must be constructed in the same location and footprint. I realize that a boulder wall will have a greater footprint
than a timber wall but we will count the additional hardcover used and setback requirements will apply. There are other
materials(than timbers)which would result in a more conservative footprint which may also offer a more durable wall.
The illegal hardcover referred to in my email is not meant to infer the property owner installed something illegally. Rather
the landscape plastic and fabric are deemed by our Code to be illegal and therefore cannot be used for a net reduction of
hardcover. I apologize if my terminology was confusing.
The City's hardcover regulations are currently under review and potentially will be amended later this year. However as
the new Code language is still in flux our current regulations must be used. Considering the current state of your project
you may not have the luxury to wait out potential new language that may or may not affect your project. We can discuss
this when we meet if you would like.
Please let me know which of the times listed above will work for you and the property owner.
Thank you - Melanie
Melanie Curtis
Planning &Zoning Coordinator
City of Orono
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Direct Dial: 952.249.4627
Fax: 952.249.4616
Planning&Zoning Office 952.249.4620
Email: mcurtisOci.orono.mn.us
Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us
City of Orono SUMMER Office Hours
Monday -Thursday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm
Friday 7:30 am to 11:30 am
From: Chris Baker [mailto:chris@artisticlandscapes.biz]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 12:02 AM
To: Melanie Curtis
Cc: 'Middleton, Patrick J.'
Subject: RE: Permit 2012-00610 for 720 Tonkawa Rd
1
Melanie,
left you a voicemail on rriday asking for a meeting with you, Pat and myself on Monday. I think it would 6e good if we
could actually meet at the Middleton's Property so that you can visually see what it is we are trying to accomplish
rather thanjust looking at a survey as the majority of the properties in Orono are unique and the City codes often
do not fit universally for every property. I am very concerned that you do not have an understanding of this particular
property and are only following standard procedures based on a limited knowledge of the property.
Regarding item#1 the current/previous retaining wall was installed along both the north and south property lines.
These retaining walls were constructed of treated tim6ers which are/were in major disrepair including rotting and
erosion issues.We could replace the retaining walls with like/kind materials in order to 6e a6le to install the walls
along the property line as you have stated which will end up being in the same state of disrepair in 10-15 years,or we
could install)=fieldstone boulders which will take a few hundred years to fall apart if not longer. I would 6elieve that the
City of Orono would rather have property owners using superior material that will last rather than materials that will
cause decay and erosion issues over a relatively short period of time 6ut your email would suggest otherwise.
The retaining wall along the north side of the property that is proposed to 6c installed along the property line has a
length of 26 ft running along the property line and then moving toward the south.The north side of the house is 7 ft
from the property line so if I understand you correctly you would have the retaining wall installed less than 2 ft away
from the house if not using like/kind materials. Please tell me how this makes any sense at all since this would increase
potential water pro6lems along this side of the house not to mention that it would limit access along this side of the
House. In addition the elevation from the neighboring property is 4 ft higher in this area and 69 moving the retaining
wall to within 2 ft of the house will encourage/increase the chance for more water to flow toward the foundation.We
are proposing to use)=fieldstone boulders to increase the longevity of the retaining walls, but there is a need for the
retaining wall to 6e built along the property line at the north side.
The retaining wall along the south side of the property line has an existing retaining wall that runs along the property
line and is part of a retaining wall that is installed on the property to the south within 5 ft of the property line.The
proposed retaining wall would 6e constructed along the property line for 1 O ft.This wall is needed to 6e installed
along the property line to tie into the existing retaining wall,to keep erosion from occurring into the neighboring
property and to keep the neighboring retaining wall from collapsing.59 not having any part of the retaining wall
installed along the south side property line to tie into the neighboring retaining wall erosion may become an issue.
To not allow either retaining wall to 6c constructed along the property line in this particular situation would 6e using
poor judgment.Also,to require a property owner to install inferior materials in order to satisfy the definition of
like/kind materials would 6e poorjudgment.
Regarding item#2 1 6elieve the property owner satisfied the hardcover requirements during his previous project when
the City required that the landscape poly and rock 6e removed from the area along the north side of the house.
don't 6elieve that there was any mention to Mr. Middleton that there was additional"illegal" hardcover present in the
75 ft to 250 ft zone.The proposed project has the hardcover being decreased 69 10%from the current hardcover
which I would think that the City of Orono would find to 6e positive.F)ut instead it appears that you have the
attitude that this is not good enough and that you would ratherthat the property remain at a higher percentage of
2
! ardcover than encourage the Property owner to reduce hardcover 69 approving the Permit. I believe the so called
"illegal"hardcover was there prior to the current hardcover code so I do not understand how or why the property
owner should 6e penalized.
in response to needing to reduce the retaining wall hardcover 6,9 1++69.4. 1 would like to know how you propose to
accomplish this feet.)=or this particular property it would 6e like suggesting only 6uilding 2 of the 4 walls of a house. It
just doesn't work and would not 6e structurally sound or correct.
It is mg understanding that the City plans to make changes this year which will state that boulder retaining walls do
not count against the hardcover percentage and this will take effect in less than two months. Is this correct?If this is
true then the issue of the retaining wall 6eing over in hardcover should 6e a mute point.
The property owner is trying to work with the City of Orono 69 decreasing the percentage of hardcover on his
property and improve the value of his property at the same time.The City of Orono on the other hand seems set
upon having the distinction of 6eing one of if not the most difficult city to work with in Minnesota. It is mg belief that
the City of Orono is not interested in working with the residents of Orono to improve their property and that the
City is only interested in making improvements as difficult as possible for the residents of Orono.The alternative is
to have the hardcover percentage remain at 55.4%.
look forward to meeting with you to resolve these issues.
Chris baker
ChristopherA.baker C) 612-566-5+++ O) 952-+72-5265 r) 952--+72-2558
Artistic Landscapes Inc.
email to:chris@artisticlandscapes.6iz
Pease visit our web site at:
htt�://www.artistic�anc�sca�es.6iz
3