Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 - Zoning File 2293 Whit& -rte s6e6 CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE #2293 ANNE P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMM464.142 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ACTION 473-7357 DATE OF NOTICE: September 16, 1997 TO: James Waters, Vice-President COPIES TO: Harriet J. Morgart LGA Investment Group, Inc. 1003 Wildhurst Trail 10700 Old County Road 15, #150 Mound, MN 55364 Plymouth, MN 55441 Barbara Sollner-Webb 17200 Melbourne Dr. Laurel, MD 20707 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning/Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Subdivision/Vacation DATE OF MEETING: 9/15/97 VOTE: FOR AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: 1. Rezoning: Vote 7-0 to recommend denial. 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Vote 7-0 to recommend denial. 3. Street Vacation& Subdivision: Vote 7-0 to table, allowing applicant to prepare and submit a revised proposal that doesn't require rezoning or Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, October 13, 1997,meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. Re: The rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment request. Applicant's next scheduled meeting as to the vacation/subdivision layout is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the October 20 Planning Commission meeting is Monday, October 6. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. ch X:\APPS\WP WIN60\WPDOCS\CAROLE\PCACTION\2293 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (Agenda item#6 follows item#4) (#2) #2293 LGA INVESTMENT GROUP, JIM WATERS, 1003 WILDHURST TRAIL - PUBLIC HEARING 8:00-8:49 P.M. A. CLASS III 12 LOT PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION B. REZONING C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT D. STREET VACATION The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is for subdivision of a number of individual parcels located at the end of Wildhurst Trail and consisting of the 10 acre Morgart property, the Sollner property,the Van Sloun property, and the eastern Morgart property, which has an existing house and accessory building. The sketch plan was reviewed by both the Planning Commission and Council. The proposal includes a request for rezoning. The Van Sloun and 10-acre Morgart properties are located in the RR-1B Zoning District, which is outside the MUSA boundary. The Sollner and eastern Morgart properties are within the MUSA boundary and in the 1 acre LR-1B Zoning District. Applicant requests that the 10 acre parcel be rezoned from 2-acre zoning to 1 acre zoning. This would also require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and a revision of the MUSA line. The applicant is requesting a vacation of the platted right-of-way in the eastern Morgart property, which has not been opened for public travel. This would involve replatting for building sites. The 14 lot plat consists of 26.4 acres. The proposed right-of-way for vacation is 2.05 acres. Gaffron reviewed the proposed layout. Gaffron noted the requests for subdivision,comprehensive plan amendment and zoning amendment, while intertwined, should be reviewed separately. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission to come to a conclusion first regarding the comprehensive plan and zoning amendments without looking at the specific plan itself. The 10 acre Morgart property, which probably could be developed to a limited extend under the 2- acre standards, consists of steep slopes. The rezoning to an urban density would allow for sewering and for efficient development of the property. It would also limit the length of Wildhurst Trail. The proposal limits the cul-de-sac extension as well. 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#2 - #2293 LGA Investment Group - Continued) During the sketch plan review, the Council suggested the rezoning be considered in the context of yielding no more lots than there would be under present zoning. The applicant would need to show how the development would occur in the current zoning without sewer. Gaffron indicated this would be difficult to do. Gaffron said he has concluded that the Van Sloun property under the current zoning would be limited to two lots. The Sollner property, in the MUSA, could be sewered and would be limited to six lots, but more likely five lots due to the topography. The Morgart 10-acre parcel would be limited to five lots but realistically, it would result in no more than three lots with septic. The east Morgart parcel, which is 4.7 acres, is likely to be divided into three lots. This results in the current zoning allowing for a maximum of 17 lots without rezoning, but realistically, no more than 13 lots would be feasible. Gaffron said the intent for Outlot A and B,the Van Sloun property to the west, if dedicated as open space, might result in justification for transferring the density to allow 13 lots. Gaffron indicated that the applicant's request for Comprehensive Plan amendment for MUSA boundary change and sewering to include the Morgart property, would be required for rezoning. Gaffron said the property is only marginally developable without sewer. He indicated that this proposal conflicts with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and read the stipulations in the Comp Plan as indicated on pages 3 and 4 of the Staff memo. Gaffron reported that the Council reinforced the opinion that the City should follow the Comprehensive Plan. Gaffron offered two optional methods for granting the proposed amendments. They include (A) changing the policy to allow such a change, or (B) determine that the applicant's proposal has so many compelling characteristics that expansion of the urban area for this development will be a positive move, enhancing those characteristics the City is intent on preserving by its current policy. Gaffron said Staff recommends that Alternative A is a more appropriate method than B as it establishes parameters for change. Alternate B would be a quicker method; however, it may set a precedent of reacting to developer requests for change on an individual basis. Gaffron said it is rare for Orono to accommodate development through MUSA and Comp Plan amendments. Sugar Woods was cited as an example where this did occur. However, Gaffron indicated that that development had a unique set of circumstances. 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#2 -#2293 LGA Investment Group - Continued) Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that they and the Council must first conclude that the Comprehensive Plan and MUSA boundary amendment is appropriate, along with rezoning in order for the developer to proceed with this subdivision. Gaffron asked whether the Planning Commission wanted to discuss the issue of rezoning at this time. Lindquist asked Waters to comment. Waters reported there are compelling reasons and characteristics for the MUSA and rezoning request. He said he has tried to avoid the use of the platted access from the south, Garden Lane,to eliminate impact on the park and the upper area of the site with its significant slopes and trees. He suggested the MUSA boundaries would not be expanded but zoning would be traded. The Sollner property would go from within the MUSA to outside the MUSA and the Morgart property from outside to within. Waters indicated that the number of lots developed from the property would correspond if he used Garden Lane for access. He indicated that the proposal is a more sensible development plan allowing for clustering of homes, which Waters feels is more appropriate for the neighboring. He felt the reasons for rezoning were no less compelling than that of Sugar Woods, only different. The public were asked to comment. Steve Bell, a resident of West Branch Road, noted the significant changes that would occur to the environment. He asked what testing and assessment has been done, and if any, whether it has been shared with the Planning Commission. Waters informed him that a wetland delineation has been done as well as perc tests for the two sites on the west side. Lindquist said an EIS has not been done and would not be done. Berg reported that a development for 20-25 lots would require a Phase I EAW. Charles Boehm, Wildhurst Trail, said he resents the increases in property taxes. He felt the way the MUSA boundary is delineated within these properties is ridiculous. Boehm said he is opposed to over building and asked that common sense prevail. Helen Overboe, Forest Road, reported that the property is very heavily wooded and steep. She felt the development would lead to further erosion in the area. 10 A ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#2 - #2293 LGA Investment Group - Continued) Mike Schulte, 4640 West Branch Road, said the proposal is in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He felt the runoff would enter the lake from the steep topography, and the urban development would be that of a rural area. Lindquist asked the Planning Commission whether they would like to review the Comprehensive Plan. Hawn acknowledged that the property is surrounded by the MUSA and the proposal would not increase the number of allowed residences, but she would like to see it accomplished in a different fashion, by allowing for fewer roads. She felt more roads would increase drainage problems and result in tree removal. If a development was encouraged to have fewer roads and sewer instead of septic,it would be preferred by Hawn. Hawn said it was not a question of no development but rather this development. She felt the Commission needs to determine whether this is the best development for the property. Hawn commented regarding changing the Comprehensive Plan or looking at proposals case by case. She agreed that there is a need to change the Comprehensive Plan, but questioned whether it could be done in a timely manner for this application. Schroeder inquired how many buildable lots can be developed as the property is currently zoned. Gaffron said it was 13 lots with no change in zoning, and the application proposed 14 lots. Stoddard noted that the zoning would allow for 17 lots but due to the septic site conditions and roads, it would be 13 lots. McMillan elaborated that the 13 sites would include 5 in the 2-acre zoning and 8 in the 1-acre zoning. The plan is for 12 lots in the 1-acre zoning and 2 lots in the 2-acre zoning. Stoddard inquired how the MUSA boundary has historically been changed. Gaffron said it normally has changed to accommodate provisions of sewering existing higher density neighborhoods. It has rarely been changed for new development, only in areas around Highway 12 and the Sugar Woods Development. Schroeder noted a better plan would be possible if the zoning was changed, but asked what could occur with no change. Gaffron said more roads would be required with the same number of residences. Schroeder said more trees would have to be eliminated for the septic sites. He acknowledged the difficulty in amending the Comprehensive Plan. 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#2 - #2293 LGA Investment Group- Continued) Gary Welch, 1214 Wildhurst Trail, said he was on the City Council when the sewering was established. He said the Council at that time was not comfortable with extending the MUSA line. He feels it would be a problem to make that change now. Welch was of the opinion that there may not be enough land for 13 lots. He voiced concern with runoff and the poor soils that exist. Bob Wolff, 4450 Forest Lake Landing, noted that the road was narrow and the subdivision development would double the use. He suggested another access be determined instead of by Wildhurst Trail with the condition of the road presently and the use of heavy equipment during construction. He cited an example. Jim Waters said 13 or 14 homes are not excessive for the property and would not significantly impact traffic. Many members of the public voiced disagreement with Waters. He noted Garden Lane could be used for access or Wildhurst Trail could be extended to the west. Homes would then be unclustered. Waters said more homes would be necessary to justify building the road. He feels it makes sense to cluster homes in order to minimize the impact and provide buffering. Waters confirmed that he would have to review the options if the Comprehensive Plan was not amended. McMillan asked Gaffron whether the park land within the MUSA and being undeveloped would change the character of the neighborhood. Gaffron said the park parcels adjacent to Garden Lane have restrictions placed on their use. The tax forfeit park parcel could include some development. He cited other areas within the MUSA,namely,Noerenberg Park, noting the City is not suggesting MUSA boundary changes. McMillan notes that this would tend to landlock the parcels within the MUSA boundary. Gaffron said it would have a negative impact on the potential for the Sollner property being an island of 1 acre lots. Bob Berklund, a resident of Wildhurst Trail, noted the drainage flow problems and recommended an environmental impact study be conducted of the area. Waters said an engineer is preparing plans and specifications for drainage, grading, and erosion control to allow for ponding away from the area. He feels the plan will not change the present situation and may even improve it. Berklund said he thought it would add more drainage problems to the area. Lindquist polled the Planning Commission regarding amending the Comprehensive Plan. 12 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#2 -#2293 LGA Investment Group - Continued) Stoddard while noting what building is allowed making sense to minimize the number of lots, he does not see enough to substantiate changing the Comprehensive Plan or MUSA boundary. Hawn agreed with Stoddard. She indicating changing the MUSA boundary is against the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. Smith agreed. She noted, however,that if the property is developed, drainage and runoff will have to be reviewed. McMillan also agreed. Berg indicated if the property was developed within the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan, 13 lots could be considered but may not be prudent. She suggested the design be such as to not impact the area. Schroeder agreed. Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to deny the Comprehensive Plan revision/MUSA expansion aspect of Application #2293 based on the fact it does not meet the guidelines laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. Gaffron indicated there were two phases of the application. By making the above motion, another proposal may be submitted. Smith questioned.whether it would be best to table the application. Gaffron disagreed unless there is a plan that would convince the Planning Commission that the Comprehensive Plan should be amended. Schroeder noted the problem with setting a precedent. Gaffron suggested taking action on the motion and tabling the subdivision portion of the request. Vote: Ayes 7,Nays 0. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to deny rezoning the property. Vote: Ayes 7,Nays 0. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2294 for street vacation and subdivision. Vote: Ayes 7,Nays 0. Lindquist noted there will be a request for an EIS in the future. Waters said an engineering study would be conducted and not an EIS for drainage. Berg suggested Waters speak with the neighbors. 13 (9 TO: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator DATE: September 11, 1997 SUBJECT: #2293 LGA Investment Group, Inc. -Various Properties at North End of Wildhurst Trail - Public Hearing for Proposed Preliminary Subdivision Including: A. Rezoning B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and MUSA Expansion C. Right-of-Way Vacation D. 14 Lot Preliminary Plat Zoning District: LR-1B, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre, sewered (11.6 acres) RR-1B, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unsewered(14.8 acres) List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map (Including Parcel Identifying Names) C - Property Owners List D - Preliminary Plat Drawings (Sheets 1-5) E - City Engineer Comments F - DNR Comments (et»-r- ^`Jt: q -(2 - 7 ) S. G - Utility Company Comments (Nor f%c v�`� A` q "E` H - Public Notice I - Septic Testing Excerpts J - Comp Plan Excerpts K - Planning Commission Sketch Plan Minutes - May 19, 1997 c IL/ L - Council Sketch Plan Minutes - June 23, 1997 Pertinent Facts: Total site area: 26.39 acres Proposed right-of-way area: 1.46 acres Outlot A: 1.50 acres Outlot B: 4.83 acres Total gross lot area(1 acre lots): 14.39 acres Average net lot area(12 - 1 acre lots): 1.08 acre Average net lot area(2 - 2 acre lots): 2.05 acres Proposed Rezoning Applicants propose to rezone the 10 acre Morgart parcel (See identifying names, Exhibit B) from RR-1B, Single Family Rural Residential, to LR-1B, Single Family Lakeshore Residential. In prior discussions with applicant, the basis for this request includes: i 1 Zoning File #2293 September 11, 1997 Page 2 A. This property is only marginally developable with septic systems due to steep slopes. Rezoning to an urban density coupled with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would allow installation of municipal sewer. B. Development of this site at an urban density, while developing most of the Sollner property at a 2 acre density rather than the 1 acre density it is currently zoned for, allows a more efficient development in terms of reduced road and utility lengths and costs. C. The proposal limits the ultimate length of Wildhurst Trail,which already exceeds the City's 1000' length limit for dead ends with no secondary outlet. During the sketch plan review, Council suggested that rezoning is perhaps only feasible if the result is no more buildable lots than would have been created without the rezoning. This conceptually suggests that the developer must show adequate evidence of how many lots could have been developed under the current zoning, by showing a realistic plat layout and providing on-site sewage treatment system site evaluations for the properties not zoned for sewer. Absent such information, staff would offer the following density analysis: Maximum Estimated# "Realistic" Gross of Lots Per Estimated Total Area Zoned Zoned Density # of Lots* Van Sloun 4.8 ac. RR-1B 2 ac. (Septic) 2 2 Sollner 6.8 ac. LR-1B, 1 ac. (Sewer) 6 5 Morgart West 10.0 ac. RR-1B, 2 ac. (Septic) 5 3 Morgart East 4.7 ac. LR-1B, 1 ac. (Sewer) 4 3 17 lots 13 lots *Based on excluding area for roads, stormwater ponding, etc. and staff estimated septic site potential. In staffs estimation the Morgart 10 acre parcel likely could only support 3 lots with septic systems due to the extremely steep slopes in the southwesterly half of that site. Staff estimates,then,that the total 26 acre group of parcels could realistically support 13 total lots under the current zoning. While the applicant proposes 14 lots, it would be critical to r Zoning File#2293 September 11, 1997 Page 3 confirm the ultimate use of the Van Sloun property. If that becomes dedicated open space (either subject to a permanent open space easement or deeded to the City for park purposes) then there may be some justification for the density transfer for 13-14 lots. II. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicant proposes that the City amend its Comprehensive Plan by expanding the Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary, and extending the City's urban service area to incorporate the Morgart 10 acre parcel. The basis for this request includes: A. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required in order for this property to be rezoned to urban densities. B. A MUSA amendment is required in order for the sewer to be extended to the property. C. The property is only marginally developable without sewer, and the rezoning would result in a more efficient development with greater opportunities to provide blocks of open space. Applicant has suggested that the City could view this expansion as merely a trade-off in sewer units from the Sollner property to the Morgart property. However, it can be argued that for properties that realistically could have contained 8 sewered lots and 5 unsewered lots, the proposal yields 12 sewered and 2 unsewered. The numbers don't balance;the issue is not one of sewer capacity but of expanding the MUSA to accommodate new development. Such an expansion is in conflict with a number of goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, in the overall planning policies: "2. URBANIZATION WILL NOT BE EXPANDED INTO THE EXISTING RURAL AREAS. Orono's Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan and therefore the urban service area will not be expanded into the rural service area. Urban services will not be expanded into the rural service area." "3. THE EXISTING URBAN SERVICE AREA IS FIXED. Orono's Urban Service Area (MUSA) is fixed by the various elements of the Community Management Plan, and is legally described as shown on Map#6." "4. ADDITIONAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR ONLY IN THE DESIGNATED URBAN SERVICE AREA. Additional urban development Zoning File #2293 September 11, 1997 Page 4 will occur in the urbanized areas consistent with the capacities of the existing urban services and at limited densities consistent with all environment constraints." The Comprehensive Plan's "General Land Use Policies" starting on Page CMP 4-12 include the following: "1. THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) IS FIXED. Orono's Urban Service Area(MUSA) and sewer service area (MSSR) are fixed by this and the other elements of the Community Management Plan and are legally described by Resolution of the City Council as shown on Map #6." In the "Urban Land Use Policies" on Page 4-18, the plan states: "9. THE EXISTING URBAN AREA WILL NOT BE EXPANDED. Orono's Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. The urban service area will not be expanded into the rural area and urban services and facilities will not be extended into the rural area for purposes of fostering or allowing increased development in those areas." Finally in the "Rural Land Use Policies on Page 4-20,the plan states: "4. THE EXISTING RURAL AREA WILL NOT BE URBANIZED. Orono's Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. The urban service area will not be expanded into the rural area. Municipal urban services will not be extended into the rural area or across open, rural lands. Rural land uses and rural land use density will be maintained at a level to ensure that private on-site sewer systems will operate satisfactorily and that rural wetlands and drainage ways will not be overloaded with stormwater nutrient pollution." Excerpts from the goals and policy sections of the Comprehensive Plan have been attached to this review as Exhibit K. Given the apparent conflict between this application and the Comprehensive Plan,how might the City justify granting the proposed amendment? Staff would offer two possible alternatives: A. Change the policies to allow such a change, i.e. amend the Comp Plan to establish a strict set of criteria by which expansion of the urban area might be allowed; or 1 / 1 Zoning File#2293 September 11, 1997 Page 5 B. Find that the applicant's proposal has so many compelling characteristics that expansion of the urban area for this development will be a positive move, enhancing all the characteristics the City is intending to preserve by its current policy; i.e. find that it meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies, if not the letter. Alternative A in staffs opinion is a more appropriate method than Alternative B, because Alternative A establishes parameters for change, rather than appearing to single out this individual property for change. Alternative A would avoid setting a precedent, where Alternative B may open the door to developer requests. Under Alternative A it would take some time for the City to develop appropriate criteria for change. Under Alternate B,the City might act more quickly on this individual application. Developer requests for MUSA and Comp Plan amendments to accommodate new development in Orono are rare. The last one was Sugar Woods nearly 10 years ago. as noted during the sketch plan review,that had a unique set of circumstances related to proximity to an adjacent city, annexation threats, etc. In order for the developer to proceed with this subdivision, the Planning Commission and Council must first conclude that the Comprehensive Plan and MUSA boundary amendment is appopriate, as well as the rezoning. The applicant has submitted a proposal and will make a presentation Monday night in support of his proposed amendments. III. Right-of-Way Vacation Applicant proposes to vacate the system of undeveloped roads and alleyways within the plat of"Mount Home Park", which was dedicated when the plat was filed in May 1895. These roads and alleys have never been opened by the City. Area utility companies have been notified and their input requested regarding the vacation. No responses have been received as of this writing. A portion of the right-of-way to be vacated could conceivably provide public access to Lake Minnetonka, depending on the actual location of the 929.4 contour which is not shown on the preliminary plat drawings. Staff has requested DNR input on this vacation request, since the City's experience in the past has been that the DNR commonly opposes vacations of right-of-way that provide public lake access. Applicant's submitted plans indicate that there are overhead power lines in the westerly portion of right-of-way to be vacated, as well as a municipal sewer line. Plans show that drainage and utility easements will be granted for the existing sewer line within Lot 1. The Zoning File #2293 September 11, 1997 Page 6 remainder of proposed sewer lines will be within the public road right-of-way to be dedicated. Applicant will need to deal with the utility companies regarding the necessary easements for existing lines, or move those lines to locations not needing special additional easements. Staff recommends approval of the proposed vacations in conjunction with this subdivision if it is approved, subject to review and comment by the DNR. IV. Merits of Subdivision The proposed subdivision includes 14 lots as follows: Twelve 1-acre density lots abutting a proposed public road. - Two 2-acre density lots served by an easement (not outlot) driveway. - The 2 acre lots are located in what is currently a 1 acre zone, and these 2 acre lots are proposed to be served by septic systems, for which site evaluation reports have been submitted (see diagram on sheet 4 of 5). The subdivision also includes 2 outlots as follows: Outlot A is 1.5 acres in area, abutting Highview Lane north of the DNR- interest park property. - Outlot B is the Van Sloun 4.8 acre lot abutting Highview Lane north of the tax forfeit City park property. Applicant has not confirmed his intent for Outlots A and B. Note that for park dedication purposes, 8% of 26.4 acres=2.1 acres. The Park Commission has not reviewed the current proposal and has not made a recommendation as to whether the City should require land dedication or a park fee. The following are some general comments, concerns and issues regarding the proposed subdivision: 1. Both proposed cul-de-sacs are intended to be public roads. Applicant notes that they extend no further north or west than the existing Wildhurst Trail cul-de-sac extends eastward. In the sketch plan review, it was noted that Wildhurst Trail is already excessive in length (approximately 2200' from the existing cul-de-sac to County Road 19 with no secondary access). 2. The current proposal does not include a connecting route between Wildhurst and West Branch Road, or to any other potential secondary access. 3. Outlot A is situated where it would be an added buffer to the DNR interest portion Zoning File#2293 September 11, 1997 Page 7 of the park. 4. Lot 9 is proposed at 2.00 acres,but includes a private driveway easement. The City normally does not accept such easements for access across a property, but requires them to be platted as outlots (Section 11.31 Subd. 5). Also, the location of that private driveway in Lot 9 leaves little room between the driveway and the proposed septic system sites for house construction. The driveway should be an outlot. It should be relocated through a different portion of Lot 9. Lot 9 should contain 2 acres all on one side of the driveway, not split by it. Although these are 2 acre lots in 1 acre zone,their use of septic systems suggest that they should probably be developed to meet all of the 2 acre zone standards. 5. The proposed driveway from the westerly cul-de-sac to Lots 9 and 10 extends over Lots 8 and 11. Again that driveway easement should be an outlot. The area of the outlot must be excluded from the attributable areas of Lots 8 and 11. 6. Lots 4 and 7 contain a stormwater basin, and easements to accommodate that pond appear to have been correctly excluded from the net areas of Lots 4 and 7. The stormwater pond appears to be in the location that would take most of the natural drainage, and appears to be appropriately located. Please review the City Engineer's comments regarding drainage. 7. The City will require its standard 10'perimeter and 5' interior lot line drainage and utility easements. 8. Sheet 3 of 5 indicates the location of proposed houses on each lot, and their orientation. In Lots 6, 7 and 8, construction will involve the creation of a defined house pad, and in those lots the house locations will have only a minimum of flexibility. For the remaining 1 acre lots,the standard 35' front and rear, 10' side, 35' side street setbacks would apply. For the two 2 acre lots, staff would recommend that the standard 50' front and rear, 30' side setbacks be applied. The orientation of Lots 9 and 10 as to what is front, side and rear is unclear. 9. The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetlands in Lots 1, 2 and 3. It appears that it will be critical to determine the 929.4 contour for defining the lake shoreline, specifically in relation to the vacation request. 10. Lots 9 and 10 meet a 200' width standard for lots in the 2 acre zone. Lot 3 has a defined width of 120' measured along the 35' setback curve, or 142' measured in a straight line from side lot line to side lot line at the front setback line. However, Lot 3 is functionally 160'in width and if it is concluded a variance is required, it is staffs II II Zoning File #2293 September 11, 1997 Page 8 recommendation to approve one. The same applies for Lots 8 and(perhaps) 11. 11. Septic testing has been submitted for Lots 9 and 10. The proposed layout appears to accommodate two mound system sites in each lot within the lot boundaries and meeting the required setbacks. As noted earlier, the proposed private driveway and potential requirement for a 35' or 50' setback from the driveway depending on how these lots are considered,leaves limited room for construction of a residence between the driveway and the septic sites on Lot 9. 12. Existing structures on the property are intended to be removed. 13. Applicant proposes islands in the cul-de-sacs. The City Engineer has noted that the City usually discourages islands in cul-de-sacs. If islands are to be used, additional right-of-way must be provided. 14. The City Engineer notes that the proposed driveway for Lot 11 makes use of the private driveway serving Lots 9 and 10. This will have to be revised since the City code only allows two users of a shared driveway;the third user triggers the need for development of a road. 15. The Engineer notes that grading plans will be required for individual lots prior to building permits. A proposed driveway location for Lot 1 should be shown. 16. Access to Outlots A and B should be discussed along with the intent for future use of those properties. Both outlots currently abut undeveloped Highview Lane which is not proposed to be vacated. 17. The City Engineer has noted that storm sewer design should include provisions for controlling runoff at the south end of the site, and should be submitted to the DNR and MCWD for review and approval. 18. The City Engineer has provided an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements and the amount of the required financial guarantee as part of the developer's agreement. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission is advised to consider the rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment first, as a separate issue from the vacation and subdivision layout. If there is sufficient support for these changes, the subdivision and vacation request should be reviewed. To avoid a 'chicken or egg' scenario, pplicant should be allowed to make his presentation in support of his proposed Zoning File #2293 September 11, 1997 Page 9 amendments based on his subdivision proposal. Staff is on record as stating that development of the Morgart 10-acre site at its zoned 2-acre density will be difficult unless sewer is provided. This can be said of many properties in the rural area which have had to develop with lot sizes of 3, 4 and 5 acres due to lack of septic sites. The only unique characteristic that differentiates the Morgart site from other rural properties is that it is adjacent to sewered property on 3 sides. Planning Commission and Council will have to determine whether this proximity and other factors are so compelling as to warrant the requested zoning and MUSA amendments. If Planning Commission concludes that the amendments and the subdivision can proceed, review the 18 items noted above and any others of importance. Provide applicant with direction as to how the plat drawings should be revised. Table for further review or send this on to the Council for action subject to appropriate conditions. ch d ��•A.. ,'•,LtFi Application # 3 ---. dDate Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address Wildhurst Trail , Orono Property Identification Number(PID) See At t ached Please check one- Property abstract or torrens? a Attach legal description to application. ro APPLICANT James Waters , Vice President Name LGA Investment Group , Inc . Address 10700 Old County Road 15 , ##150 Phone (home) 938-3657 City Plymouth , MN Zip 55441Phone(work) 5 9 5-9 51 1 • OWNER(if different than applicant) Name Address Phone (home) City Zip Phone(work) (attach list if more than one) See Attached EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels 8 Development Size ±2 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land • ±21 Acres Total, all parcels Present use (check) ✓ Residential; no. of units 1 Other(specify) Present Zoning District RR- 1B and LR- 1B PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) ✓ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites Existing Units 12 New Units 12 Total Units Proposed Gross Density < , Units per I Acres Minimum Lot Size 4 3 , 5 6 0 Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use (check) S i ng 1 e Favi l y Residential Other(specify) 10 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 APPLICATION 1. 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. Zoning Official's Signature Date I. APPLICATION FEES(Zoning Administrator to check[X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: Totals Sketch Plan Review(Class I,II& III)$250.00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement$350.00 Subdivision Application(Class I&II)$350.00 _ Preliminary Subdivision Application$375.00+$25.00/lot(Class III&all non-residential)y.►2_ L.407-, Final Plat Application(Class III)$200.00 Legal Review and Filing: Subdivision only$75.00 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: i -----Proposed Private Roads$600.00+$.50/lineal ft.; lin. ft. x.50=$ Proposed Public Roads_ OO.O -$.50/1ineal ft.; )f lin. ft.x.50=$ ,14/7 5. Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road$900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension$250.00+$25/stub 4 Proposed Watermain Extension$250.00+$25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System(excluding culverts)$200.00 On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review(applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x new lots . C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc.Fees tc- Varian e$220.00($50.00 per each additional variance) 01,J G �• Vacation -1:t. PRD Application with Subdivision$30.00/Dwelling UnitSa4C4tl9 f � t a ip r�tt•"'r The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator,City Engineer,CitY Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature : % _-- Date , 2,2 7 Owner's Signature k Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 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. 11 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 APPLICATION 1. 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. Zoning Official's Signature Date I. APPLICATION FEES(Zoning Administrator to check[X]those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: Totals Sketch Plan Review(Class I,H&III)$250.00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement$350.00 Subdivision Application(Class I&II)$350.00 ✓Preliminary Subdivision Application$375.00+$25.00/lot(Class III&all non-residential)k/ (p?,S', Final Plat Application(Class III)$200.00 Legal Review and Filing: Subdivision only$75.00 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 H Subdivision Application$200.00(No change from original application) Renewal of Class HI,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: 1.-/Proposed Private Roads$600.00+$.50/lineal ft.; 'lin. ft. x .50=$ r�Proposed Public Roads( 00.04)-$.50/lineal ft.; )SD lin.ft.x.50=$ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road$900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension$250.00+$25/stub x.t Proposed Watermain Extension$250.00+$25/stub t/ Proposed Storm Sewer System(excluding culverts)$200.00 On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review(applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc.Fees Varian a$220.00($50.00 per each additional variance) 3�, Vacation 3000 (i . ) PRD Application with Subdivision$30.00/Dwelling Unit P. Pte, tib" 3 , ip • The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator,City Engineer,City Attorney, Planning Commission and Co :cil necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature ;r �- - Date - fc 7 Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting,please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building&Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 11 • r Ia ti. r i a Y ?'1 Application #1 Area Zoning MUSA PIE) Land Owner 6+ Acres LR-1[3 I Ac. min. Yes 071 1723220007 Barbara 0711723220008 Sollncr-Webb 10 Acres RR-1B 2 Ac. min. No 071 1723210016 Harriet J. 0711723211002 Morgart 5 Acres LR-1B I Ac. min. Yes 071 1723210006 0711723210007 Barbara Solner-Webb 17200 Melbourne Dr., Laurel, MD 20707 Harriet J. Morgart 1003 Wildhurst Trail, Mound, MN 55364 2 ` *®I :.x= 4.0 '4 B '' I ,1..011...,. , ,fig -,:‘,14 -� - oa`` by (3 '1.n.4 =;,;t.,,. (2)- ISE i L ts) e) /1/ (4) �� ad \ aw i MM �/�/ (I) (3) S V 981 1 @ (2) vi x.B.FS-'-'}"..,.., mx NO 3090713 1 _ m—*•—mcw nmmu WF.ro.o: --_-- ,9--ss+.ao x8.09.141[$ 1—me.7 , .�•-. �i+ ' to / p �; ;ie- _._ ;(so x wE /2iill e „ N . (10, CR g � , N �QA��W �g�L d *; ", / F�• V " 07 //7-23L-2 / 3 �\ �. 799'v 3a 19 4 i NC�8.1�9 IQgi 9 /)__, \\ z) / 9 AM, ' ft wFa i i♦i♦♦i itit�i•g i 1.♦♦•i�J♦iiJ4t.Zi•:iiiiir x%.a 9E 7 AVE 1 --,;„k---A. \J\�\ .) (i'\V (. ` , 1..„ / §»• •�•rJi .,..;9;47,19'.-44...'_ 'i'i_ ::%��•���o•e:•�•4:s+:i:•:4':-:-No. 1+d`It;o:it m R-y • z i 'g 1 � ®�� 3''.."7h♦•♦♦♦♦♦♦♦Ji•••♦icJJJJi• ♦•••••i1�%.•••J♦♦JJih•♦Jh0 4• �♦• ♦ ••.♦w'♦♦♦i♦♦•♦Ji• a d•a •' I1.r--- + r.--.4:44,•.:•,,:.•:+41.1:• 1.•i r..�..p•JO •,1 J .,:f•-•4**"'♦J•♦J♦°S...S. ♦* ft! 5 :lire ti s. 1 x>.nN 4 •'ii. �4 i♦r'rel :A•�•t'••♦/, ♦�i'c�♦•♦ Na♦o♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�♦�et.,** •i c c ♦ -h. !i I' •♦h••.49th•4.44 Riititi iti iti•♦Citi 1.h •.°.�ci itiio. ;it,.it0,•ite, ,s,41,'$... y, .. yi, `-; ,,. so �� _ e_• �\ �1(t� ' 1 .io4.olOi!.•>!!oit�� i:::*.r i♦ptitaa�s!%*: 1��ii�J.e.1:4•♦♦a•$14.♦'.•♦♦�•ii*iii**X•f1. :=It "0,1u1♦.4-, 1..9♦i ..� IN t•:•:: •% x.' J♦��i-,�♦o i,4. O,s.VA "•VV•i�Ji:43$ . a•.`3 'sw-' Q ..*.*.i♦.,x*,4,•oo ♦•J♦J•i,...J•'044.4i44,4tesiw.,..�••.:�y•..4.ii1•1'11•• i., . :, K!♦ ,..._...4 I w;:I_--- '--- , / 1.w O •+*•-`. 14 4.**:-.14,:i i+.4"+s••i•• WOioS h 0�hOk 4 V444: i t**. --541 ''2 R --1 I.!::t - ~-7 •h•J44%40'4• '•4 p••♦♦♦•♦•i0i•h••�♦♦'$,: •♦ ♦♦ 0♦rJJ♦♦ih•♦»•JJJJJ"To♦♦••.•O♦•♦♦♦♦♦♦ :?-t:4";at1>- T - ----i-- �� o.q A w •.m_'41r, •• t.•xtt::o 4!00•**A:4+4'4W or444 44,••ss To-s�.♦ VVVVi�Jii 1.141 I' � 1. i — a R .�hMa�ha.sia (.a) 9.. aH • I ""'N �S:•.• _v-M`It-0HURSF-FR -R 1�----o - _ ._3'�.":,''xg 7,7'.', 9•oa•a6'E �, iv 9. \'A\+A\ IV.9i \131.nah :K.ai 3roron'x•E '�, ro ''' 1(BS) '4\4° __ \ •\ '3 „�P'�\�. N�P'3g tE v t 066 as -� sir/6� m w se�o9'z1'E h r\5 d a 4 fF�e (I�� �:0 .; s, - I (29) /r/ (Ii) ss 51446'24.5�'ea 11. 3 e.., `� . (41 g / �d v� • r n xe•w•ze•E�� a $:z S (205) gj, r. v N 91 «> d / ---tea _ m izo) a Ig �) M "-„' 4n �= s yr <...._- ��. • • (6) 89s ' - ' 9.1'3\ '' ' / (16) 2 " � `rw ;�-�s •••• /, 4)/ (seA • o ����Gu�°� 5 /i / , 'NI A11 s) I /��y!� \ 2 {� / 31./ q14 , :‘,.(40(gl� ii zfi) I ✓ .Re1„. s) • ,r i9 13 1 1.a t 1 _,"'y aliµtsA ' r O//4 - s 222Io) :19) 08) %— . Jil•I 'r. I SSC Vin= _ F ' I \ -. Sys S ` . C to) („4 if An is ca 6/ 8 Cr)e'� .(/ y / 45 i ARf •z^y4-x ,� / ”- (,7) I .- -1 ro . �y:• no , 9 0 v( __—____ � s7/. c*IN..• ¢` ,s51 50 1 1.3»r a�'� t z cab ' C/6) Pk) a („ 1 ,..(4‘ 4,--, ,,,,,,04,.,..,,,, 1.\::.t.3 /��rw.f.inn MM tµ " �pp w•'a �.\•8 •i _i 14 SA,^3) • r4Q (25)• 3 \ C4311©A�DENSa 4RI L $(I i11� R � �� ,:e 9):I a) \/�/�9! W(29)Sa EP' '' �'�:.,' ! x81.51.'18 t EAU Exp / n0 �I 'm• F.1. �i+ (27? .�\\\''II.SS _ w2Q). :=r:lA � OMfll1'I'R 1 '' l- RUN DATE 09/02/97 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM REPORT NO. PI435401 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE 7 BATCH 503 38 07-117-23 12 0003 38 07-117-23 12 0009 - 38 07-117-23 12 0011 PROP ADDR 00993 WILDHURST TR 00805 FOREST ARMS LA 00825 FOREST ARMS LA OWNER NAME WILLIAM A GILLQUIST J A & E S FRETHAM M D PARKS & K L PARKS TAXPAYER WILLIAM A GILLQUIST JAMES & ELIZABETH FRETHAM MATTHEW D & KAREN L PARKS NAME/ADDR 993 WILDHURST TR 805 FOREST ARMS LA 825 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 21 0002 38 07-117-23 21 0003 38 07-117-23 21 0004 PROP ADDR 04505 WEST BRANCH RD 00995 WILDHURST TR 00997 WILDHURST TR OWNER NAME HARRIET J MORGART R C LAVERE & J A LAVERE C E BOEHM & MAC BOEHM TAXPAYER HARRIET J MORGART RICHARD C & JULIE A LAVERE CHARLES & MARY ANN BOEHM NAME/ADDR 1003 WILDHURST TR 995 WILDHURST TR 997 WILDHURST TRAIL MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 21 0005 38 07-117-23 21 0006 38 07-117-23 21 0007 PROP ADDR 00999 WILDHURST TR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME MM & N C NIMERFROH HARRIET J MORGART HARRIET J MORGART _._•< TAXPAYER MARTIN W & NAN C NIMERFROH HARRIET J MORGART HARRIET J MORGART NAME/ADDR 999 WILDHURST TR 1003 WILDHURST TR 1003 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 : . 4,: it 38 07-117-23 21 0013 38 07-117-23 21 0014 38 07-117-23 21 0015 PROP ADDR 01001 WILDHURST TR 04505 WEST BRANCH RD 04455 WEST BRANCH RD OWNER NAME NANCY L FERRELL DAVID LEVY JANE E KLINE TAXPAYER NANCY L FERRELL DAVID LEVY JANE E KLINE } " NAME/ADDR 1001 WILDHURST TR 4505 WEST BRANCH RD 4455 WEST BRANCH RD ,,. 1 qk,,t>2' MOUND MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364-8277 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 21 0016 38 07-117-23 22 0007 38 07-117-23 22 0008 ' PROP ADDR 01003 WILDHURST TR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEDMyna OWNER NAME HARRIET J MORGART BARBARA SOLLNER—WEBB BARBARA SOLLNER—WEBB TAXPAYER HARRIET J MORGART BARBARA SOLLNER—WEBB BARBARA SOLLNER—WEBB :°* NAME/ADDR 1003 WILDHURST TR 17200 MELBOURNE DR 17200 MELBOURNE DR 4' MOUND MN 55364 LAUREL MD 20707 LAUREL MD 20707 38 07-117-23 22 0011 38 07-117-23 22 0016 38 07-117-23 22 0017 PROP ADDR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 04701 WEST BRANCH RD 04735 WEST BRANCH RD OWNER NAME RICHARD B HAWKINSON ROBERT L & CAROL L TRAPP B & V VAN SLOUN TAXPAYER RICHARD B HAWKINSON ROBERT L & CAROL L TRAPP BRUCE P & VIRVE L VAN SLOUN NAME/ADDR 1575 COPELAND RD 4701 WEST BRANCH RD 12809 FOREST MEADOW DR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 MOUND MN 55364 MINNETONKA MN 55305 Y RUN DATE 09/02/97 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM REPORT NO. PI435401 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE 8 BATCH 503 38 07-117-23 23 0021 38 07-117-23 23 0022 38 07-117-23 23 0023 PROP ADDR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO TAXPAYER CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO NAME/ADDR P O BOX 66 P O BOX 66 P O BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 07-117-23 23 0029 38 07-117-23 24 0030 38 07-117-23 24 0031 PROP ADDR 00038 ADDRESS PENDING 01045 WILDHURST TR 01055 WILDHURST TR OWNER NAME HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND MICHAEL V MCKENNEY CITY OF ORONO , TAXPAYER HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND MICHAEL V MC KENNEY CITY OF ORONO NAME/ADDR CONVEYANCE PENDING 1045 WILDHURST TRAIL P 0 BOX 66 i A CITY RSLN 43511-ALSO: MOUND MN 55364 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 Me q HENN CONSERVATION EASEMENT ' `'-''';, '"Zia 38 07-117-23 24 0032 38 07-117-23 24 0033 38 07-117-23 24 0034 f PROP ADDR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED �' ' OWNER NAME STEVEN G SIGAFOOS CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO _: — TAXPAYER STEVEN G SIGAFOOS CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO NAME/ADDR 2900 CASCO POINT RD P 0 BOX 66 P 0 BOX 66 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 F'' '.' `i K.'{ f Y 38 07-117-23 24 0035 38 07-117-23 24 0045 38 07-117-23 24 0046 PROP ADDR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 01006 WILDHURST TR 01074 WILDHURST TR OWNER NAME CITY OF ORONO R&I CONST OF BLOOMINGTON INC R&I CONST OF BLOOMINGTON INC ` ' TAXPAYER CITY OF ORONO R&I CONST OF BLOOMINGTON INC R&I CONST OF BLOOMINGTON INC NAME/ADDR P 0 BOX 66 1487 SHORELINE DR 1487 SHORELINE DR CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 � s PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER TOTAL BATCH 503 00030 NAME/ADDR 0 Bonestroo Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderlik and Associates,Inc.is an Affirmative ActioniEqual Opportunity Employer Principals::Otto G. Bonestroo,P.E.•Joseph C.Anderlik,P.E.• Marvin L.Sorvala,P.E.• Richard E.Turner, P.E.• Glenn R.Cook,P.E.•Robert G.Schunicht,P.E.• Jerry A.Bourdon,P.E.• RoseneRobert W.Rosene, P.E.and Susan M.Eberlin,C.P.A.,Senior Consultants Associate Principals:Howard A.Sanford,P.E.• Keith A.Gordon,P.E.•Robert R.Pfefferle,RE.• Anderlik & Richard W.Foster, RE.• David O.Loskota,RE.•Robert C.Russek,A.I.A.• Mark A.Hanson,P.E.• Michael T.Rautmann,P.E.• Ted K.Field,P.E.• Kenneth P.Anderson,P.E.• Mark R.Rolfs,PE.• 11 Associates Sidney P Williamson,RE.,L.S.• Robert F.Kotsmith Offices:St.Paul,Rochester,Willmar and St.Cloud,MN• Milwaukee,WI Engineers &Architects September 8, 1997 • Mr.Michael P.Gaffron Assistant Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay,Minnesota 55323 Re: Wildhurst Trail Site Plat File No. 139-2293 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the preliminary plat prepared for LGA Investment Group on the proposed Wildhurst Trail Site, a fourteen lot(and two outlots)subdivision of PID Numbers 07-117-23-22-0008,07-117-23-22-0007,07-117-23-22-0017 and 07-117-23-21-0002, located south of County Road 151 in the northwest quarter of Section 7. There are several issues that need to be addressed relative to engineering matters and included with the plan. 1. Utilities: The proposed sanitary sewer design appears acceptable from an engineering standpoint. Final plans should show service locations and elevations. Part of the area to be served is outside the current MUSA boundary. 2. Streets: We usually discourage islands in cul-de-sacs. A minimum of a 45-foot radius to the face of curb and 110 feet of right-of-way should be provided if islands are used. Final plans should include a typical street section based on a geotechnical analysis of the site. The driveway for Lot 11 is shown on the shared driveway for Lots 9 and 10. The City Code allows only two units on a shared driveway. 3. Grading:The proposed grading plan appears acceptable. Due to the steep topography grading plans for individual lots should be prepared prior to issuance of building permits. Where will the driveway be located for Lot 1? There should be some discussion regarding future plans for and proposed access to Outlots A and B. 4. Drainage: Storm sewer design should include provisions for controlling runoff at the south end of the site on Wildhurst Trail. Final plans should be submitted to the Minnesota DNR and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review and approval. Storm sewer and ponding and calculations should be included with the final plans. The storm sewer should be designed to minimize velocities at the pond inlet. 5. Easements: Drainage easements should be provided across all drainage ways and ponding areas. Easements should be provided for any existing utilities within the areas to be vacated. 6. Financial Guarantee:We have attached an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements and the amount of the required financial guarantee. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO,ROSENE,ANDERLIK&ASSOCIATES,INC. 11,40 Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa,City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 • Fax: 612-636-1311 Development Plan Review City of Orono APPENDIX COST ESTIMATE WILDHURST TRAIL SITE .�,,.,. ... :<•:.,;�. , :..,r l' z ��,.,� �.. ���ti���:��'. s� � � ''' k' ',: w'i „71 t Ze. Site and pond grading C.Y. $3.50 4,000 $14,000 Stabilization fabric S.Y. 1.00 4,500 4,500 Aggregate base, CI.5 100% cr. TON 10.00 2,200 22,000 Type 31 bituminous base course TON 28.00 480 13,440 Type 41 bituminous wear course TON 30.00 360 10,800 Concrete curb and gutter L.F. 6.00 2,600 15,600 8" PVC sanitary sewer L.F. 22.00 920 20,240 Connect to ex. sewer EACH 1,000.00 1 1,000 Standard sanitary manhole EACH 1,500.00 4 6,000 4" PVC service wye EACH 50.00 12 600 4" PVC service pipe L.F. 20.00 360 7,200 12" RCP storm sewer L.F. 20.00 105 2,100 18" RCP storm sewer L.F. 30.00 705 21,150 12" RCP apron EACH 500.00 1 500 18" RCP apron EACH 1,000.00 1 1,000 Standard catch basin EACH 700.00 2 1,400 Catch basin manhole EACH 1,200.00 6 7,200 Random riprap C.Y. 75.00 12 900 Silt fence L.F. 3.00 1,000 3,000 Sodding w/4" topsoil S.Y. 3.00 3,000 9,000 Clear and grub L.S. 10,000.00 1 10,000 Landscaping L.S. 5,000.00 1 5,000 Total $176,630 +50% Financial Guarantee Requirement 88,315 TOTAL FINANCIAL GUARANTEE REQUIRED $264,945 139GEN4.WB2 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway,P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, 1VIN 55323 Phone (612)473-7357 Fax 473-0510 NOTICE The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, September 15, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. on the matter of application #2293, a proposal by James Waters of LGA Investment Group, Inc. for preliminary approval of a Class III 12-lot residential preliminary subdivision of property located at and adjacent to 1003 Wildhurst Trail and including the following tax parcels identified by PINS number: 07-117-23 22 0007 07-117-23 21 0006 07-117-23 22 0008 07-117-23 21 0007 07-117-23 21 0002 07-117-23 21 0016 The proposed subdivision involves the creation of public roadways and the extension of municipal sewer. As part of this application, the applicant also requests the following approvals: 1. Rezoning of PINS 07-117-23 21 0002 from RR-1B Single Family Rural Residential to LR-1B Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment to incorporate PINS 07-117-23 21 0002 within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area(MUSA). 3. Vacation of certain public rights-of-way dedicated within the plat of"Mount Home Park", Hennepin County, Minnesota. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this time. Written comments are solicited. A copy of the proposed subdivision is available in the City offices for review, by appointment. City of Orono By: Planning Commission _ Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator To be published the week of August 30, 1997. • • C...-..,:.) _ I ,� 23 �. - • . , I / F1 1., I << \ If I I iI .! ] _ ��•Y r ^oA .•1.� .... ` I,S.Z I rr 1 15,4 4 I\ -54,- \ L,k,-,.?.4r� 1 I1--1 I \ `\ c! -- II.',,,. 44--4cS<.� "J I Nc,]s,.. et S I x/5.'1_/.1 - �, ,u.4 9r..'1 rs L I\ \,I tam<5 ;3:>_' _:/ 1 •I= V I ee,D / 9'1.l- Fy.•q,,j.\5101 �n I I Y-•- '%'' bo-1- yl•V-!}Y £ci, 171 ,EyT_ ,- 9A'.-z • I F c,G..0E-- --"(N4- .-- Epos sen .c�A-t4.1E,T_ APIA J -en-r- - .rrkF 7_ co,.,s"-r-,-Ir'noi-1 .. I - M1 -ci 1 �` \ 1 't �'TY�r, `r I r \ �•�' \ . : `t43.�5; - 8, "_12L..9 L_ — -- r 1 \ \ \\,`t 1 \ - , • PROPERTY OF:.i1��Cc: c_1.N-t*z w'i.r f vim- -few cF t4eal o� sem. ®Percolation Tests Scale• .i= �� zNN..,..a�-, AS-r "et e� 1._ _l XSoil Borings ' Lo-f g tr• "toN c.^-vNc...., LL c-3vs ..c.-`-ico.00 .®Bench Mark c-en--o M*.. • L. ...Ns.1 . co. ti.. Note: This system is to be constructed to meet - the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency S-P TEST/NG/NC.- Chapter 7080 & Local Ordinance 4r- s. L;_ Designed By Note : Check all underground utilities Dce:3/11/x, cI-I.612-597-3566 \----4 N, 1 1 tea., 1 Qrfal'y¢'Su Ll)) E 1� 1` -' __ tl • __I 41s4�' 1 -raw) 1 : AI� I 6 -� 1. S , I♦ fl.r.i). Ills 1:.'d.?3 i 13•:51 \- t ------ i / 'V. NLi \ N = wo / ,e.z 1 9\19.y x y�� 1 \ 0i .:4.1 • ' \ \� - . I 1 \ i� / t,..,00•••,, D * ,\ 51,E 4 S ri 7�y-!y' o lF -s1xQ •r y A ��3..{r/N 1U7.-,x,1.4—C c.'m`i . 9 H.J - - / \ '()lW1 vG / d 'YC m. !o P c F � a..4 - -c-+,- -Z c1+c / �'&-1\ nom. R- Yc se rz,>,,.1 At_ 'u1�X ec-eP-e< c.,11--1-41,,t.. l V �7.0 � 4wWmt2Z �,*.� _. IGG•O \--'///\\\ / �_i \ \\ '7 . _ / Pucao!ion Tests Scale: `J XS-ail Borings r../ s.,.r../ s.,..._ e Be,-)ch Mork / 1}O`'£ / Note: This system is to be constructed to meet / _w -- the Minnesota Pollution Control A,ency ' lz-C T Ati-‘- N�.orvK v„1-,\�r,"c o�� - / / - *;'0.S Chapter 7080 Local Ordinanc U+ -11-}'�Y'><PYCS -� '1��ATmSaY.T t��= - /` \ \/ 5c-o,, �� Check all underground utilities i -✓ PROPERTY OF:1-:•:1- c_Z, c^1 ‘-.\------'7- w:= t=o••'. 9 S (,-1,cA V vx•t) ;--'S Es-:c i:._ c, tt' - • O�s-t o- -l>J . l-1�c$-1�1. e o Q . 1 i - - I S-P TESTING/NCr OesSned By: 653. j — Co'e' /L/ F4.62 497-3566 } CITY OF ORONO COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT PLAN PART II CHAPTER 2 GOALS AND POLICIES Any plan is necessarily a compromise of ideals and reality. What Orono is today has been shaped by its location , history , geology and past population . What Orono becomes tomorrow is dependent upon how Orono ' s citizens manage their social and economic decisions in the years ahead . THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THIS PLAN HAVE MET THE TEST OF TIME IN ORONO. The basic premise of maintaining distinct urban and rural neighborhoods continues a hundred-year tradition . The commitment to environmental preservation was early , has been supported by Regional , State and Federal policies , and remains uppermost in the list of priorities of Orono ' s residents . The interreliance of lake-area communities for shopping and commercial needs , for housing variety and for provision of basic public services is both historic and economically practical . THE FOLLOWING GOALS AND POLICIES, BOTH IN CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION REFLECT THE BASIC PHILOSOPHIES OF ORONO. Goals and policies affecting the entire city are grouped in an "overall" category . In addition , more detailed goals and policies are separated under their appropriate "urban" or "rural" classification. Finally , each separate CMP chapter has detailed goals and policies relating to that particular subject . OVERALL GOALS AND POLICIES ORONO'S PLANNING GOALS 1 . THE FOREMOST GUIDING PRINCIPLE AND GOAL OF ORONO'S PLANNING IS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE LAKE MINNETONKA, ITS WATER QUALITY AND ITS RECREATIONAL ASSETS. This goal continues a commitment established at least twenty five years ago. It includes preservation of the associated marshland , wetlands and natural drainageways as the only practical , cost effective way of preventing flooding and of filtering out the nutrient pollution from storm water runoff. CMP 2-1 GOALS AND PO i( LE JUNE, 1980 2 . TO RETAIN THE EXISTING URBAN-RURAL LAND USE PATTERN ON A PERMANENT BASIS. 3 . TO MAINTAIN OUR LOCAL CHARACTER AND IDENTITY. 4 . TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE OUR MANY NATURAL RESOURCES INCLUDING ALL LAKES, CREEKS, MARSHES, WETLANDS, WOODLANDS, GROUND WATER AND STEEP SLOPES. 5. TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE, LIGHT, AIR AND SOLAR ACCESS FOR ALL CITIZENS. 6. TO PROTECT THE GENERAL PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. 7. TO PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY AT DENSITIES CONSISTENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE PLANNED LAND USE PATTERN. 8 . TO PROTECT THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE CITY, PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF SERVICES AT MINIMAL COST TO THE TAXPAYER. ORONO ' S PLANNING POLICIES 1. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE GUIDED TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE TH MINNETONKA WATERSHED. Lake Minnetonka has local and E LAKE regional significance as a vital ingredient in human experience and in the quality of life of all Orono residents . No development will be permitted that would have a detrimental effect on the Lake . 2 . URBANIZATION WILL NOT BE EXPANDED INTO THE EXISTING RURAL AREAS. Orono ' s CommunityManagement �� Plan is not a staged growth plan and therefore the Urban Service Area will not be expanded into the Rural Service Area . Urban services will not be expanded into the Rural ;) Service Area. 3. THE EXISTING URBAN SERVICE AREA IS FIXED. Orono ' s Urban Service Area (MUSA) is fixed by the various elements of the Community Management Plan , and is legally described as shown on Map No. 6 . 4. ADDITIONAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILLOCCUR IN SERVICE AREA. Additional urban devvelopmentYwillTHE DESIGNATED URBAN occur in the urbanized areas consistent with the capacities of the existing urban services and at limited densities consistent with all environmental constraints . I CMP 2-2 GOALS AND POLICIES JUNE, 1980 5 . ADDITIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR IN THE DESIGNATED RURAL SERVICE AREA. Additional rural residential and quasi- agricultural development can occur in the rural areas without taxing the limited capacities of existing rural services . Rural development will occur at limited densities consistent with self- supporting on-site sewer and water services and with maintenance of natural amenities , open space and other rural community characteristics . 6. NATURAL FEATURES AND SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS WILL BE PROTECTED BY ORDINANCES BASED UPON EXTENSIVE INVENTORY, ANALYSIS AND ESTABLISHED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GUIDELINES. Natural resource information will be used and evaluated in review of all land use developments . Ordinance provisions will be reasonably established , fairly interpretted and strictly enforced. 7 . HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS, PLACES AND SETTINGS WILL BE IDENTIFIED AND PRESERVED. The character of Orono receives much of its identity from our unique historic developments . Programs will be established to identify and help preserve this heritage for future generations . Where necessary, special considerations will be made to encourage retention of significant public or private amenities . 8 . HOUSING PROGRAMS WILL BE PURSUED TO PROVIDE SAFE, AFFORDABLE HOMES FOR ALL CITIZENS. Housing opportunities will be provided for citizens of all ages and income levels . Rehabilitation programs will be stressed to increase the livability and energy conservation of the existing housing stock. 9. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES WILL BE PROVIDED AND IMPROVED CONSISTENT WITH LOCAL SERVICE NEEDS AND WITH A COORDINATED PROGRAM OF AREA-WIDE TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES. Transportation planning will be sensitive to local land use and environmental concerns , and to local service needs . Levels of maintenance will vary between urban and rural areas . Alternative routings and alternative transportation modes will be explored . 10. PUBLIC PROGRAMS AND SERVICES WILL BE COORDINATED BETWEEN THE MANY INTERRELATED GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES. Orono will continue to pursue coordinated services with the County , with adjacent municipalities , with the school district and with specialized districts such as lake conservation , watershed or joint powers districts , all for the purpose of providing consistent , high quality services at affordable cost to the taxpayer. CMP 2-3 I GOALS AND POLICIES JUNE, 1980 11. ORONO WILL CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN A LOW PROFILE GOVERNMENTAL PRESENCE EMPHASIZING INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN RESPONSIBILITY RATHER THAN OVER-INCLUSIVE GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. Where there is benefit in a concerted public purpose , Orono will rely on professional staff and consultants to handle matters in an up to the minute manner . But Orono also recognizes that the individual citizen often can do for himself more quickly , 11 efficiently and at lesser cost , things that in other areas are left to government by default . It is here that the strength of the Orono citizens has its most direct benefit tr in maintaining our rural , small-town vitality. 12. ORONO WILL CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE ACTIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN POLICY FORMATION AND POLICY ADMINISTRATION. Local meetings 11 have always had the friendly, open-door characteristic of New England Town Meetings . Communication with the residents , both on general matters and on specific neighborhood development proposals , will continue to be a priority policy of this Plan and of this City. 13. IT IS ORONO ' S FIRM CONVICTION THAT THE GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS C OUTLINED IN THIS CMP ARE CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PRIORITIES AND ARE UNDENIABLY IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ALL ORONO CITIZENS, BOTH CURRENT AND FUTURE. This Plan emphasizes full use of existing public services and facilities without leap-frog expansion of unnecessary services into rural areas . This Plan reinforces regional plans for emphasis on the center city. This Plan reinforces the national concern for energy conservation through halting of suburban sprawl , through retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing structures , through coordinated transportation planning and through emphasis on natural rather than mechanical solutions to storm water and waste water treatment . This Plan emphasizes reliance on and efficient use of natural features and existing 11 services rather than arbitrary duplication of efforts between competing municipalities . This Plan is built on understanding and acceptance of Orono ' s unique location and environmental /I constraints . Working with these factors will improve our quality of life : ignoring them would destroy it. I 1r 11 CMP 2-4 URBAN AREA GOALS AND POLICIES JUNE, 1980 URBAN COMMUNITY GOALS 1. TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC IDENTITY AND SMALL TOWN CHARACTER OF THE SEPARATE NEIGHBORHOODS . 2. TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCE, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL FACILITIES TO SERVE ORONO ' S URBAN AND RURAL RESIDENTS ALIKE. 3. TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND NEIGHBORHOOD AESTHETICS WHILE MAINTAINING THE EXISTING DIVERSITY OF HOUSING AND SHOPPING OPPORTUNITIES. 4. TO PREVENT OVERLY DENSE DEVELOPMENT OR ANY EXCESSIVE DEMAND FOR SERVICES WHICH WOULD IN ANY WAY ADVERSELY AFFECT LAKE MINNETONKA OR ITS ASSOCIATED WETLANDS OR DRAINAGE AREAS. 5. TO PROVIDE MUNICIPAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES AT A LEVEL CONSISTENT WITH SMALL TOWN URBAN REQUIREMENTS. URBAN PLANNING POLICIES 1. FUTURE URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CAREFULLY INTEGRATED INTO THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS. No new development will be permitted to conflict with or adversely affect the established neighborhood character . 2 . THE CITY WILL ENCOURAGE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES AND SOCIAL CENTERS THAT COMPLEMENT THE EXISTING AVAILABLE SERVICES. The City will favor those developments oriented toward local neighborhood needs , recognizing the integrated service area of all adjoining lake-area communities . I3. PRIVATE LANDOWNERS AND DEVELOPERS WILL BE ENCOURAGED TO IMPROVE THE IMAGE OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. Programs will be pursued I to encourage maintenance and upkeep of all properties and to promote the rehabilitation of older or under-used properties . Commercial areas will be encouraged to provide a coordinated approach to identity , aesthetic and neighbor- hood appeal . 4 . URBAN DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE CAREFULLY SCREENED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY. Most of Orono ' s urban neighborhoods are located very close to Lake Minnetonka , therefore any urban development has the potential for direct adverse impact on the Lake . Storm water runoff control , erosion and sedimentation are particular concerns requiring careful design attention in all new urban developments . In addition , particular care will be taken to preserve open spaces , wooded areas and solar access . CMP 2-5 I URBAN AREA GOALS AND POLICIES JUNE, 1980 i 5. URBAN DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY CAN BE ADEQUATELY SERVED BY THE EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. New development will not be permitted to exceed the existing capacity of local roads , utilities , parks , police and fire protection. Where development within the urban service area requires local extension of 111 roads or utilities , such extension will be the full responsibility of the developer , not the general taxpayer . 6. HIGHER LEVELS OF PUBLIC SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE URBAN AREA THAN IN THE RURAL AREA. The greater land use density and the greater number of residents combines to require11 more intensive levels of public services . Police , fire , and ambulance calls are more frequent . Roads , parking lots and playgrounds require more maintenance . Public 11 sewer and water is necessary because of population density and proximity to the Lake . All of these factors combine to increase the cost of government in the urban portions of the City , which increased cost will be paid 11 by the urban users of the services without subsidy from the rural residents . 11 RURAL AREA GOALS AND POLICIES 11 RURAL COMMUNITY GOALS 1. TO MAINTAIN THE RURAL CHARACTER OF OPEN SPACES AND CLOSENESS TO 11 THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. 2. TO RETAIN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR RURAL COMMERCE SUCH AS FARMING, ORCHARDS, I GREENHOUSES, STABLES AND SIMILAR ACTIVITIES WHICH REQUIRE LIMITED SERVICES BUT RELATIVELY LARGE AMOUNTS OF OPEN SPACE. 3. TO RETAIN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES AND THE AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLES . 4 . TO PREVENT THE ENCROACHMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT OR ANY ACTIVITY WHICH WOULD IN ANY WAY ADVERSELY AFFECT LAKE MINNETONKA OR ITS ASSOCIATED WETLANDS OR DRAINAGE AREAS . I 5. TO PROVIDE ONLY THOSE PUBLIC SERVICES WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO SERVE A TRADITIONAL RURAL COMMUNITY SO AS TO LIMIT THE FINANCIAL BURDENS ON THE COMMUNITY AND THE LANDOWNERS ALIKE. I CMP 2-6 RURAL PLANNING POLICIES JUNE , 1980 1. FUTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE GUIDED SO AS TO HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE LAND OR ON THE EXISTING RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS. Rural developments will be permitted only at rural densities and only where the land is capable of self- supporting the necessary on-site sewer and water services . Care will be exercised to ensure that no new development encroaches upon its neighbor ' s open space activities . 2. RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS WILL BE RESERVED FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND QUASI-AGRICULTURAL LAND USES . Commercial services will continue to be provided in the urban areas of Orono and adjoining municipalities . No new commercial or industrial activities will be permitted in the rural service area except those quasi-agricultural uses that do not require central sewer or other urban services . 3. RURAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE CAREFULLY SCREENED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY. Most of Orono ' s rural land includes major or minor drainageways and wetlands all intricately tied to Lake Minnetonka . Therefore , each rural development will require particular care to prevent encroachment on these vital resources and to ensure protection of the soil vegetation and drainage patterns . In addition , consideration will be given to protection of woodlands and special open vistas having general public benefit . 4 . RURAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY CAN BE SERVED BY THE EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. New development will not be permitted if it requires the extension of urban services into the rural area . Privately constructed and maintained roads and recreational facilities will be favored over require- ments for additional public facilities . Buildings and structures must be located and designed for rural levels of police and fire protection . Rural residents cannot expect the same level of services as provided to the more concentrated urban areas of the City. 5 . SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR THOSE PARTS OF THE RURAL AREA LOCATED ON LAKE MINNETONKA ISLANDS. It is impossible for the City to provide island residents with normal public services such as police , fire , ambulance , sanitation or transportation . Therefore , all of these needs must be met by the individual property owners who choose to develop land on the islands . Because of these physical limitations , the City has determined that private island development must be discouraged , and may be permitted only in strict compliance with all applicable performance standards . CMP 2-7 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STRATEGY JUNE, 1980 PLANNING GOALS 1 . TO IDENTIFY COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS, NEEDS, ISSUES AND ASPIRATIONS. 2 . TO FORMULATE AND MAINTAIN LONG-TERM GOALS FOR FUTURE COMMUNITY GROWTH AND MANAGEMENT. 3 . TO FORMULATE AND MAINTAIN POLICIES, ORDINANCES AND PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT THE COMMUNITY GOALS. PLANNING POLICIES 1 . THE CMP IS DESIGNED AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL FOR CITY OFFICIALS, STAFF AND CITIZENS IN THE CONDUCT OF BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ACTIVITY WITHIN THE CITY. 2 . THE CMP IS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE EFFECTIVE AND COORDINATED IMPLEMENTATION METHODS TO PROPERLY BALANCE PRIVATE INCENTIVES AND THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 3. THE CMP IS DESIGNED TO HELP COORDINATE THE VARIOUS IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS SUCH AS REGULATIONS, ORDINANCES, PUBLIC PROCEDURES, PUBLIC EXPENDITURES AND PROPERTY TAX POLICIES. 4 . THE CMP IS INTENDED TO BE A LIVING DOCUMENT TO BE USED ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS. 5 . THE CMP IS INTENDED TO BE REVIEWED, AND UPDATED IF NECESSARY, ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. CMP 2-8 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES Orono ' s Land Use Plan is based upon the following goals and policies which in turn have been actively developed by Orono residents over the last 25 years . LAND USE GOALS 1. TO REINFORCE ORONO' S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITMENT. 2. TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC IDENTITY AND CHARACTER OF THE SEPARATE URBAN AND RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 3. TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE PLACES FOR A VARIETY OF LOCAL RESIDENTIAL, EDUCATIONAL, RECREATIONAL, INDUSTRIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. 4 . TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS FROM ENCROACHMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES. 5. TO COORDINATE ORONO' S LAND USES WITH THAT OF NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES. 6 . TO COORDINATE LAND USES AND DEVELOPED DENSITY WITH THE FINANCIAL AND PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES OF THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. GENERAL LAND USE POLICIES 1. THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) IS FIXED. Orono ' s Urban Service Area (MUSA) and Sewer Service Area (MSSR) are fixed by this and the other elements of the Community Management Plan and are legally described by Resolution of the City Council as shown on Map No . 6 . 2. ORONO ' S LAND USE PLANS WILL BE BASED UPON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICIES. Land use and development must assure the conservation , protection and preservation of sensitive I environmental resources in accordance with the goals and policies of the Environmental Protection Plan . Land use policies will encourage the wise use and management of natural resources while prohibiting their misuse , abuse , overuse or exploitation . I I CMP 4-12 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 I 3 . DEVELOPMENT DENSITY WILL BE LIMITED THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO A LEVEL WHICH WILL NOT OVERLOAD THE NATURAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND FILTRATION SYSTEM. Urbanization increases the speed and quantity of surface runoff while decreasing the water quality. Developed land use densities will be determined by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation . 4 . THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. Wetlands , drainageways and floodplains will be protected from encroachment and from alteration or destruction by filling , grading , excavation or drainage . Wherever possible , the City will acquire open space and flowage ease- 1 ments for conservation of these lands . 5 . PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS , USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Mn . DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes , Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1 , 000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays . Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density , land alteration and lakeshore encroachment . 6. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Shoreland areas , whether bluff , beach or floodplain , are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality , aesthetic values and land use function . These same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reason- able in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion , and to utilize excess nutrients . Clear- cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion , material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. 1 I CMP 4-13 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 7 . DEVELOPMENT OR ALTERATION OF FLOODPLAINS WILL BE RESTRICTED. Most of the City ' s identified floodplains are located along the shoreline or within designated marshlands and will be protected by regulations applicable to those areas . In addition , where floodplains do exist on otherwise dry buildable land , construction , filling or alteration will be strictly controlled so as to avoid flow restrictions , to avoid flood level increases on other properties , and to avoid costly flood damage or pollution dangers . 8. NATURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. This will include topographical information , soil analysis , drainage plans , vegetation plans , erosion control measures and similar site data related to each project , whether public or private . 9 . ORONO' S LAND USE PLAN WILL PROMOTE THE PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE, LIGHT AND AIR. Sufficient open spaces will be provided in each neighborhood and on each lot to prevent overcrowding and to ensure adequate light , air and recreation for all residents . 10. PRIVATE STEWARDSHIP OF LAND AND RESOURCES IS PREFERABLE TO INFLEXIBLE PUBLIC CONTROL. Private ownership , maintenance and stewardship of the land , including open space and many types of improvements , is favored over public ownership as being in the best and most beneficial interests of the property owner and the public , providing for more intimate , responsive and economical land management. 11. ALL LAND OWNERS MUST HAVE EQUAL LAND USE OPPORTUNITIES . No land owner should be denied the right to develop his land by any staged growth, land banking or no-growth policy , provided the development can be accomplished within the performance standards , policies and require- ments of the Community Management Plan . 12 . FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE COMMUNITY. Land development should respect and enhance neighboring properties and existing developed character of the neighborhood and the City , 1 preserving the value of the land and the integrity , stability and beauty of the community . CMP 4-14 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 ;1 13. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT. Land development should respect and enhance the unique natural features of the site and the general environmental assets of the community. Preservation of natural views , vegetation , drainage and general respect for unique site features always produces more aesthetic results and lasting value for the property owner and the community than does wholesale alteration of the landscape or mathematical division to the highest possible density. 14 . PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DEVELOPMENT MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER. Whenever 111 required , improvements must be provided by the developer. Because the City has limited staff and limited bonding potential , physical improvements such as roads , drainage and utilities required to accommodate new subdivisions or development should be designed , financed and installed directly by the benefited developer as a precondition to increased land use density. In addition , this philosophy includes developer responsibility for special fire protection equipment or devices in the case of unusual land uses or building configura- tions , and/or special security services in the case of unusual public safety situations . 15. ALL PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. Physical improvements related to health , safety or community systems such as roads , pathways , drainage or utility systems will be designed, located and constructed to uniform , City- "' standards to ensure proper functioning and compatibility with overall City plans . Ilk16. DEVELOPERS MUST DEDICATE LANDS REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE. Land subdivision or any development that results in increased land use density , and hence increased demand for municipal services , will be expected to include public dedication of lands necessary for additional road rights of way , parks , playgrounds , open space , ponds or storm water holding areas whenever such facilities are directly used by the subdivided land or required by such density increase. 91 CMP 4-15 i f 1 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 If the individual development ' s density increase or impact is relatively small , or the layout is not conducive to public land dedication , then in lieu of lands the developer may be required to contribute funds for the municipal purchase of such lands or the improvement of such facilities proportionate to the cumulative effect of such density increase from multiple small developments . 17. NO LAND WILL BE DEVELOPED UNLESS IT'S LOCATION AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ARE SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED USE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PLAN. Land to be developed must be of such size , character and location that it can be safely used for the intended purpose without danger to health , without peril from fire , flood or other occurrence and without undue impact upon neighboring properties . No land will be permitted to be subdivided or built upon which is held unsuitable by the City for the proposed use because of flood hazards , inadequate drainage , soil formations with severe limitations for development , severe erosion potential , unfavorable topography , inadequate water supply or sewage disposal capabilities , or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health , safety , or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community . URBAN LAND USE POLICIES 1. THE MAJORITY OF ORONO ' S URBAN AREA WILL BE RESERVED FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono ' s urban residential neighborhoods will provide the opportunity for a variety of housing types and price ranges . Many urban residences will be intimately associated with the lake shoreline and will be subject to density restrictions because of sensitive environmental conditions . Low-density multi-family residential uses will be limited to locations near existing shopping and transportation services , but will not be appropriate within 1 , 000 feet of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. 1 CMP 4-16 l LAND USE JUNE, 1980 2. LIMITED COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE BUSINESSES. The primary function of Orono ' s commercial areas will be to provide those retail , commercial and service businesses which are directly necessary to serve Orono' s urban and rural residents . Commercial development will be limited to areas where full urban services , including municipal sanitary sewer and adequate transportation are available . Commercial development of a regional nature which would duplicate existing services in the neighboring town centers will be discouraged. W3. LAKESHORE COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND LIMITED LAKE-USER SERVICES. Orono ' s residents and other lake users require lake access , fishing 11 supplies , boat service and boat repair facilities which are unique to our location on a recreational development lake . Orono ' s Land Use Plan will provide locations for such special-purpose businesses where appropriate from both the land use and the lakeside environmental standpoint. No use or location will be permitted to adversely affect the lake quality or the public ' s general usage of the lake . All lakeshore commercial is to be limited to areas where full urban services , including municipal sanitary sewer , and adequate transportation are available . 4 . THE CITY WILL ENCOURAGE PRIVATE UNIFICATION AND COORDINATION OF THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL AREAS. Unplanned strip commercial developments will be discouraged . Coordinated projects designed to aesthetically enhance , unify and identify the business areas will be encouraged . 5. FUTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO THE AREA OF THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL PARK. No other location in Orono combines the availability of transportation and public utilities with remoteness from sensitive environmental features . In addition , this land use is entirely consistent with Long Lake ' s neighboring industrial development . I CMP 4-17 / , LAND USE JUNE, 1980 6. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. The location and scale of commercial and industrial development will be controlled so as not to encroach upon the primary residential land uses in Orono. Wherever possible , natural land forms or buffers will be required between different land uses. 7. PUBLIC URBAN SERVICES MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL FUTURE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND URBAN-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Commercial , industrial and urban-density residential uses will be permitted only where municipal sanitary sewer , adequate transportation , police and fire protection services are available . In addition , commercial , industrial and multi-family residential development will be permitted only where a municipal water system is available for adequate water supply and fire protection . 8 . URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL UTILIZE THE CAPACITY OF EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES. New land uses and development will be allowed to infill existing vacant properties within the urban service area consistent with environmental limitations and with the existing capacities of water , sewer , drainage transportation and recreational facilities . New development will not be permitted to overburden these services at the expense of the existing users . New urban development will not be permitted if it requires additional unplanned local or regional facilities capacity. 9. THE EXISTING URBAN AREA WILL NOT BE EXPANDED. Orono ' s Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan . The urban service area will not be expanded into the rural area and urban services and facilities will not be extended into the rural area for purposes of fostering or allowing increased development in those areas . 10. THE DESIGN AND DENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONTROLLED TO ASSURE PROTECTION OF LIGHT, AIR AND SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES . Requirements for minimum lot size , amounts of open space , minimum yard setbacks , and maximum building heights will be designed to assure protection of these values for all urban residents . CMP 4-18 111 ' 111 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 11. A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NATURAL WOODLANDS AND OPEN SPACE WILL BE RETAINED ON EACH PROPERTY. Retention of the natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property. 12. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot width will space 111 out docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation . Lake use regulations will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat storage . 13. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height . Minimum green belts will be provided with pro- hibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation . Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion , in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation . RURAL LAND USE POLICIES 11 1. ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA WIL BE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono ' srollingEruralRVED FareOR dERMANENT LOW-DENSITY 11 is not suitable for commercial agriculture . Likewise , the delicate balance of storm water nutrient loading vs marshland assimilative capacity preclude expansion of the urban service area without major environmental problems for Lake Minnetonka. Therefore , the ideal land use for that portion of Orono located outside of the Urban Service Area (MUSA) is the planned low-density rural residential land use . Commercial and industrial uses will not be permitted in the rural area . I I CMP 4-19 N LAND USE JUNE, 1980 2 . ORONO' S RURAL SERVICE AREA PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR QUASI- AGRICULTURAL LAND USES. Greenhouses , orchards , truck farms , riding stables and recreation areas such as large golf courses and park reserves are not possible in more crowded urban areas but they are compatible with rural residential properties . Thus , the total commercial activity of Orono is broader and more varied than if the City were all urban or all rural . 3. RURAL DENSITY IS LIMITED BY NATURAL CONDITIONS . Development of rural Orono is naturally limited by a number of conditions including extensive wetlands , steep slopes and areas of high water table , which factors influence building locations and transportation options as well as the location and spacing of on-site sewage treatment systems. 4 . THE EXISTING RURAL AREA WILL NOT BE URBANIZED. Orono ' s Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan . The urban service area will not be expanded into the rural area . Municipal urban services will not be extended into the rural area or across open , rural lands . Rural land uses and rural land use density will be maintained at a level to ensure that private on-site sewer systems will operate satisfactorily and that rural wetlands and drainageways will not be overloaded with storm water nutrient pollution . 5. RURAL LAND USES AND DENSITIES DO NOT REQUIRE URBAN SERVICES. Urban services are not compatible with rural land use . Extension of certain urban services , such as extensive public road maintenance or municipal sewer or water cannot be economically justified or easily provided to developments in rural areas or at rural densities . 6 . RURAL LAND USES DO NOT REQUIRE MUNICIPAL SEWER SERVICE. Orono ' s soil , topography and low-density rural land use provide the ingredients necessary to assure safe , adequate , permanent on-site sewage treatment and waste water disposal without hazard to ground water , surface water or the public health. CMP 4-20 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 7 . RURAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SUBJECT TO PROVEN ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT 11 CAPABILITY. Future development in the rural area will be contingent upon the developer providing prior technical evidence that the site contains sufficient suitable land for all development , an acceptable primary drainfield area , and reserved space for at least one alternate drainfield area. The zoning area requirements for rural Orono will therefore be based upon minimum areas of dry buildable land exclusive of roadways , wetlands, streams or areas of high water table . 8. RURAL DEVELOPMENT MUST BE SELF-SUPPORTING. All future development in the rural area will be required to be proven self-supporting for the intended use , especially in terms of water supply, sewage treatment and internal improvement maintenance , so as to prevent extension of costly urban services into the rural area . 9 . RURAL LAND USE DENSITIES WILL ALLOW MAXIMUM RETENTION OF PRIVATE WOODS AND OPEN SPACE. Low rural densities will accommodate homesites without affecting the traditional vistas of open fields and woods . The retention of these woodlands and marsh- lands will then assure permanent habitat for our abundant wildlife . Public open space will be provided on a large-scale or Park 11 Reserve Basis , but neighborhood or mini-parks are unnecessary because of the large amount of available privately owned and maintained 11 open space . 10. RURAL WETLANDS AND MARSHLAND WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. As total population in the watershed increases , the total requirement for storm water filtration will increase . Orono ' s rural land use plans will protect all of our rural wetlands and marshland for future use as retention ponds and nutrient filters including the capability of accepting recycled urban storm water for increased nutrient filtration . 11 1 CMP 4-21 h LAND USE JUNE, 1980 11. RURAL LAKESHORE AREAS WILL HAVE DUAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. The low-density residential land uses will automatically reduce environmental pressures on the shoreline . In addition , the rural areas will be subject to the same shoreline protection performance standards as the urban areas , including minimum setbacks , green belts , clear- cutting prohibitions and lake use regulations . Taken together , these factors should preserve to a large extent the original appearance of Orono ' s rural shoreline as seen from the lake . THE LAND USE PLAN MAP NO. 6 INDICATES THE BASIC LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY: THE DESIGNATION OF ORONO'S URBAN SERVICE AREA AND ORONO' S RURAL SERVICE AREA. The detailed location of the dividing line (the MUSA line) between the Urban Service Area and the Rural Service Area has been established by careful evaluation of each of the elements of this Community Management Plan . Environmental concerns , historic land use patterns , and the availability of sewer , transportation and other public facilities all enter into the local decision of actual MUSA line location . Orono ' s Urban Service Area identifies those portions of the City that have been provided with public services and facilities necessary to support urban types and densities of land use as defined by the Metro- politan Council ' s Development Framework Guide . Orono ' s Rural Service Area identifies those portions of the City that do not have urban services and are not planned to have urban services . Orono' s Rural Service Area is intended to permanently accommodate General Rural Land Uses and housing densities defined by the Metropolitan Council , and as distinctly different from a Commercial Agricultural region. Orono ' s MUSA line location as shown on Map No. 6 has been legally described and established by City Council Resolution No. 1135 adopted April 14 , 1980 . This Resolution is included in the CMP Appendix . The detailed location of this line will not be changed without further official action of the City Council . Orono ' s MUSA line location as shown on Map No. 6 is consistent with the broad-brush location of the MUSA line as drawn by the Metropolitan Council . Orono ' s MUSA line location is consistent with the MUSA location and land use plans of adjoining municipalities. Orono ' s MUSA line location directly affects the detailed land use and facilities plans of the City . MAP NO. 7 INDICATES THE DETAILED LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY, IDENTIFYING APPROPRIATE LAND USES AND DENSITIES FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOOD. This land use map will form the basis for land use zoning decisions . CMP 4-22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 -� (#16-#2239 Tin Waters -Continued) Gaffron noted the following areas requiring direction: 1) Garden Lane is a public right- of-way so would become a public road;2)the public road would extend to the cul-de-sac as it is in a sewered zone;3) drainage and grading would require the applicant to work with the City Engineer and Schoen and Madson and consider off-site ponding requiring permission from the MCWD. Gaffron said there were no designated wetlands on the property. The lots would use private wells. The developer would pay to run sewer to the lots in addition to connection charges. Drainage easements would be required. Park impacts require discussion. Gaffron questioned how access is to be gained to Hennessey property. McMillan suggested a private driveway. Gaffron indicated this option may not be appropriate as it would require going through the open space. A possible swap of land has been suggested as a way to solve the Hennessey lot problem. Mclviillan asked that the sketch plan be reviewed by the Park Commission. Gaffron was informed that the Planning Commission had no concerns with the subdivision as proposed. (#17)#2240 JIM WATERS,LGA INVESTMENT GROUP,INC.,WILDHURST TRAIL- SUBDIVISION/SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Jim Waters was present. Gaffron reported that this proposal includes three groups of property, the Van Sloun, two Sollner lots, and Morgart property, totaling of 28 acres. A portion of the property is zoned LR-1B, one acre, and a portion is zoned RR-1B,two acre. The MUSA line follows the zoning boundary. This presents an issue with possibly changing the comprehensive plan to change the two acre to one acre zoning and the need for a MUSA amendment for sewering the two acre properties. The proposal calls for a 17 lot subdivision with 1-1/2 acres average per lot served by an extension road from Wildhurst Trail. The proposed road would extend north and west,with a driveway serving the back of a few lots. Gaffron indicated it could be argued that this would result in through lots with two parallel roadways and requiring a conditional use permit for accessory structures. The use of ITighwood Lane to Garden Lane and Wildhurst is not a safe access option due to steep slopes. Gaffron indicated that the lots generally meet the 200'lot width requirement for two acre zoning. At an average of 1-1/2 acre lots, this would place a large number of homes in an area where homes have not previously been located. They would also be located near the park land and might possibly change the nature of the park. 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 - (#17 -#2240 Jim Waters -Continued) - Another issue is the length of the road system. There would be one way in to the homes with no additional way out creating a possible public safety issue with the cul-de-sac and Wildhurst greatly exceeding the 1000'limit. There is a possibility for a connection to West Branch, though it is not the applicant's intention. If this connection is not permanent, it possibly could be used by emergency vehicles. There are also topography issues to consider. Lindquist questioned why the need for a long driveway with parallel roads. Gaffron said it was due to the steepness of the property. Waters indicated that he and residents would not desire front walk-outs. A change would require retaining walls and loss of trees. Aesthetically, this proposal would give the impression of traveling down a country lane as the homes to the south would not be viewed until you swing southward. It would also give the impression of two acre zoning according to Waters. Lindquist asked for comments regarding a road to West Branch. Waters referred to drawing C-2. This option shows a development not requiring rezoning. While it proposes the development accessing through Garden Lane or Highview, it does not address the issue of the passive park and low traffic. Waters says drawing C-1 addresses these issues while maintaining the country feel of the property. He noted that Wildhurst access would increase the length of the cul-de-sac by 1800'. Waters said an approach from West Branch would be satisfactory if a lot is not lost. He indicated he would provide an easement. If service vehicles are an issue, Waters said it would probably require a hard road surface. Waters said it could become a service lane only. A gravel road could be used down Garden Lane to serve the Hennessey lot. Lindquist noted the problem with both one acre and two acre zoning. He felt establishing all one acre zoning might not be accepted by the neighbors. Gaffron indicated the re- zoning would change the number of lots by only one lot. He indicated the zoning change would be sewer driven, not neighborhood driven_ Gaffron said it was his opinion that the property is undevelopable with septic systems as there are limited sites. He feels it is logical and reasonable to bring this property into the MUSA and not change the zoning. McMillan said she would consider possibly exchanging lots but did not feel it would be a good policy to do as suggested. She inquired what the gain would be. Gaffron said the gain would be the ability to develop the property. He noted lots 12-17 (Van Sloun and Morgart properties)without sewer are not buildable. If changed to sewered lots, there would be 4-5 lots on the Soliner property,possibly two on the Van Sloane property, 2-3 on the Morgart property, with three additional lots to the east. Schroeder noted that this assumes the Met Council will a fee with changing the MUSA line. 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#17 -#2240 Jim Waters-Continued) Waters indicated that drawing C-1 was not relevant but C-2 is relevant. The issue then becomes sewer. He suggested a communal septic system. Gaffron informed Waters that he did not believe the City would approve that scenario. McMillan said she is concerned with increasing the density. Gaffron agreed that the number of lots have been increased to 21-22 lots. McMillan did not believe the Council would recommend adding the property to the MUSA. Hawn asked the applicant if he would consider clustered housing noting it would create an expanse to the park land and still allow for expensive housing. Waters questioned whether people would purchase this type of housing_ He noted it would still require modification to the MUSA. Chris Morgart, noting the history of proposals over the years for the properties, said the MUSA boundaries currently do not make any sense. He did not believe the added housing would increase the drainage to the ravine. Gaffron stated that the key to this application is a change to the MUSA. John Hasselbalch, Realtor, noted problems with a roadway to the park land. He felt it was logical to make the lots one contiguous development winding down Wildhurst Trail. The land to the east is steep. Access to the west would require condemnation and there are no plans for access to the north. He noted the Morgart property is cut off from access to the north because of wetlands. McMillan asked if the sewer units are available. Gaffron said the capacity or number of units is not the issue if the MUSA change is approved. Berg questioned whether there is the potential for the Met Council to approve such a change. Gaffron indicated there was as it is based on merit. Gaffron suggested the property be visited during the Park Tour. Gappa said he would make that arrangement. Schroeder and Smith said they both would like to see clustered housing. The application will be reviewed by the Park Commission on June 2. Stoddard asked for additional information regarding history of the MUSA. The application will again be presented for review on the Planning Commission's June 16 agenda. 26 l MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 ' SKETCH PLANS (#13)#2240 - JIM WATERS,LGA INVESTMENT GROUP,INC.,WILDHURST TRAIL- SUBDIVISION/SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Jim Waters was present. Gafffron reported that this was a continuation of a sketch plan review. The Planning Commission had previously requested the applicant to consider clustering. The applicant has submitted two additional sketches providing open space preservation and future connection to West Branch Road. Sketch plan 3 involves the creation of 19 lots averaging less than one acre. The properties are located in both the one acre and two acre zoning and are within and outside the MUSA boundary. The plan would require sewering, a MUSA amendment, a PRD, rezoning for density, and a comprehensive plan amendment. Sketch plan 4 involves 28 smaller lots averaging 80' in width, 1/3 acre in size, in a linear clustering format with open space around the perimeter. A longer open space area is provided along the park boundaries. The homes would be closer together. Sewer would be requited and a comprehensive plan amendment. The plan would provide a corridor to West Branch Road. Waters said he found the clustering concept interesting. He noted sketch plan 4 would provide substantial open area, preserve the slope, provide tree and woodland cover, and a potential access to West Branch Road. He noted there would not be room for flexibility within the lots, and it would require more cutting of swaths of ground cover to achieve this clustering. He does not believe this plan makes sense and prefers a more modified clustering as shown in sketch plan 3. Waters said sketch plan 3 preserves open space and undisturbed areas allowing for wider lot widths averaging 140' and and one acre lot averages. There is also more flexibility in siting homes. Open space would be created on the south, along the road perimeter, the back and side areas, and preservation of dense wooded areas and slopes would be preserved. He suggested conservation easements be considered. Waters said this plan also allows for more movement of the homes to preserve the side lot treed areas. Clear cutting would not be necessary except for the roadway. The access to West Branch Road would be preserved. The sites would allow for sewering. It would allow elimination of the problem with access to the park from the north. Access to the Hennessey parcel would be from the other proposed subdivision property. Plan 3 would eliminate unnecessary traffic through the park. He noted while the plan requires MUSA amendment and comprehensive plan amending,the layout makes sense. 19 i 4 i f MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (#11 - #2240 Jim Waters Sketch Plan- Continued) Gaffron showed Lindquist the boundary lines of the MUSA through this property. Gaffron said the property would have to be within the MUSA for the plan to work. Lindquist, Stoddard, and Smith agreed that there were problems with sketch plan 4 as presented. There were no public comments at this time. Waters reported having attempted to contact Irene Silber, a neighbor of this property, to no avail. Lindquist agreed that it is important to receive neighborhood input. McMillan said she saw the biggest obstacle as being whether the Council would recommend amending the comprehensive plan and applying for a MUSA amendment. She acknowledged the impacts of development without sewering while noting the higher density required in sewered areas. Lindquist responded that sketch plan 2 that involves two acre zoning would answer these concerns. Gaffron indicated that this plan calls for 16 lots averaging 1.68 acres. Gaffron said he does not believe all of the lots could supply septic sites with the steep topography. Schroeder indicated that sketch plan 2 would include seven 2-acre lots according to the zoning but not septic requirements. He questioned how many lots could provide septic. Gaffron indicated there were about 14 lots that could provide septic noting lots 9 and 11 could not. McMillan noted that running sewer to the property at this density might not be economical. Schroeder indicated that the cost concern would be a problem for the developer to consider. Gaffron indicated that if no change was made to the zoning and the properties were sewered, sketch plan 2 would work. If sewering is not possible, sketch plan 2 would not work. Schroeder asked Waters what would happen if the Council did not recommend a MUSA amendment. Waters said he would ask for direction and felt a development along the lines of sketch plan 2 would work. He noted that the road would probably be as pTesented in sketch plan 3 and sewering would go up to the MUSA portion with the two acre lots not having connection rights. He would provide septic sites where possible. McMillan questioned whether the sketch plan could be sent to the Council without a direct recommendation. Lindquist suggested determining the opinion of the home owners in the area about sketch plan 3. He feels it would not make sense to by-pass the two-acre lots from sewering. 20 MIhTUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (#13 -#2240 Jim Waters Sketch Plan- Continued) Waters indicated that the use of sketch plan 2 would not require a PRD. Lindquist and Smith felt sketch plan 3 made most sense. McMillan said she preferred Pither sketch plan 3 or two acre septics. She did not support mixing two acre and one acre zoning. Lindquist said he felt all of the lots should be sewered or not be sewered. Waters said he would need to speak with the City Engineer. He noted that the septic systems would not serve the public. McMillan said she was concerned with removal of trees and creating more traffic. Schroeder said the perimeter buffering is reminescent of Sugar Woods in maintaining the trees. He saw sketch plan 3 as having similarities to the Sugar Woods development plan. He would prefer less lots but understands the economical ramifications. Schroeder said he would prefer 16 sewered lots versus following the MUSA boundary. Stoddard indicated that this would follow the concept presented in sketch plan 1 with MUSA and 17 lots. Schroeder agreed but said he would prefer to see more clustering and open spaces as shown in sketch plan 3. Waters acknowledged that more is accomplished under sketch plan 3. Stoddard inquired whether there would be demand for homes shown in sketch plan 3 versus sketch plan 1. Waters said he feels that plan would work and either plan would sell. He felt the difference came to tree preservation and sewer in the street that would not be used in the immediate future. McMillan noted that three lots in sketch plan 3 were less than 40,000 s.f and asked the reasoning behind it. Waters said the lots could be enlarged by diminishing the outlot, but he was trying to create more common areas with walking paths and eliminate creating one riparian lot. He does not wish to see a boat dock but possibly a fishing dock only. Schroeder indicated that a homeowners association might request such a dock for boats. Gaffron said the Shoreland Ordinance would prevent that from occurring. Schroeder asked if Waters was considering walking trails. Waters said he would not want hard surface trails. ?1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 97 (#11 - #2240 Jim Waters Sketch Plan - Continued) Smith questioned what "undisturbed areas" were and how they would be controlled. Waters said this could be done through conservation easement, association regulations, covenants, depending on the level of restriction desired. Smith said she would not want to see ball fields or uses that would deviate from the open space concept. Lindquist said the controls could make that determination. Smith said other applications where such intentions were made resulted in other uses. She requested controls be placed that would maintain the open space. Lindquist received confirmation from Waters that he-would meet with the Council and the homeowners in the area. Gaffron asked for clearer direction regarding MUSA, zoning, clustering, noting the Park Commission's review indicated requesting park fee or land would depend on the plan. Lindquist said he preferred all of the property be within the MUSA under a PRD. McMillan questioned whether accessory structures should be allowed. Schroeder indicatred that two acre zoning with sewering could accommodate accessory structures. If a PRP was used, the City could insist on covenants. Gaffron said the developer could be asked to restrict the use in the PRD. Schroeder said he preferTed the. property all be within the MUSA- use of clustering concept at a density level less than 19 lots(preferring 14 or 15 maximum), trails tied in to the surrounding area, noting sketch plan 3 as the preferred plan. Smith said she agreed with the comments made by Schroeder and Lindquist. As a second choice, Smith said she would recommend all lots be 2-acre zoning with both MUSA and non-MUSA. She would like to see controls placed on the open spaces, undisturbed areas, outlot, and stormwater pond. Schroeder questioned whether the 1 acre lots could be required to be changed to 2 acres. Gaffron said such a "downzoning" might create potential problems, getting into the issue of a"taking". Stoddard said he preferred all lots be within MUSS with sketch plan 3 preferred with one acre minimum lot size. He supported sketch plan 1 if all were within the MUSA at general 1.5 acre lots sizes. Stoddard said he appreciates the clustering concept. Gaffron noted that the Council will review the sketch plan at their upcoming meeting. 22 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23, 1997 (#6-#2233 Walter Holzer- Continued) Flint said due to the peculiarity of the principal structure height resulting in the need for a height variance, he would support the proposal. Goetten indicated that this could be said of any variance application. Flint responded that the applicant could increase the size of the home and, thereby, not need the variance for the accessory structure. Jabbour agreed that a 3-step process could be taken to result in the same as what is proposed. Holzer noted that the cost would be a factor in that process. Jabbour said he did not feel the intent of the ordinance is to prohibit an application of this type. Flint moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3916 granting a height ""ariance to allow the accessory structure to increase the maximum height to 30'where 11'6"is required based on the existing residence. Vote: Ayes 2,Nays 1, Goetten. (#7)#2240 JIM WATERS INVESTMENT GROUP,XXXX WILDHURST TRAIL -SKETCH PLAN FOR SAGA HILL Jim Waters presented a handout to Council containing the background information and benefits of his proposed development. Gaffron noted that the sketch plan review is normally performed only at the Planning Commission level but due to the uniqueness of the application including a proposed rezoning, the sketch plan was brought to the Council for direction before formal subdivision application. Gaffron reported that the sketch plan is for property north of the newly acquired Saga Hill park property. Two subdivisions are being proposed, one of which is to the south of the park property. The southerly subdivision includes the Sollner and Soskin properties. The Planning Commission expressed their support of the proposal with a road and cul- de-sac as presented in the sketch plan review in May. The northerly subdivision, which is being presented tonight for sketch plan review, includes the Van Sloun property,the Morgart property, and two lots owned by Sollner. The Van Sloun property is in the two-acre zoning outside the MUSA boundary. The western portion of the Morgan property is outside the MUSA in the two-acre zoning while the eastern portion is in the one-acre LR-1B zoning district and is in the MUSA. The Sollner property is also in the one-acre zone and inside the MUSA boundary. The proposed subdivision would require rezoning and sewering of the properties as noted. 5 MINUTES OF nit;REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEET] vG H Fri )ON JUNE 23, 1997 • (#7-#2240 Jim Waters Sketch Plan- Continued) Gaffron indicated that the Planning Commission reviewed four concept plans. After review of the first two plans in May, the Commission suggested the developer take a clustering approach to housing, which subsequently resulted in two additional concept plans. The Planning Commission generally supported sketch plan 3 with 17 lots averaging one acre in size, which would require rezoning of the two-acre zone properties. The topography of the two-acre zoning properties is not capable of supporting septic systems, and Gaffron indicated Staff feels the property should be sewered in order to be developed. The plan provides for open spaces and undisturbed areas as well as an extension of Wildhurst Trail and potential future connection to West Branch Road. The proposed plan would result in the need for change in the MUSA boundary, rezoning, and amendment of the comprehensive plan. Sewer would probably have to come from Wildhurst Trail. The applicant would ask for sewer only if the property would be considered for rezoning. Jabbour indicated that the applicant would be in a better position if he would make the presentation to the full Council as a 4/5th majority vote is required for rezoning. Jabbour said he did not feel it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to divert from the City's MUSA policy. Jabbour said he does not favor changing the MUSA boundary, rezoning, or making a precedent by allowing these changes in order to make full use of a property. Jabbour indicated that his opinion is not necessarily in reference to this application but as a general rule of thumb. He said the City would receive many requests for rezoning and sewering if such a precedent was set. He cited an example of property annexed to another city in order to accomplish desires of an applicant. Jabbour said the City should adhere to the present policy. Jabbour indicated that the Council is planning a work session to discuss the future including sewering but the critical mass needs to be considered. He noted that a development by Lundgren Bros. was denied for higher density housing within the sewered area. Gaffron noted that he had informed Waters of this occurrence when this subdivision was initially proposed. Jabbour said he is concerned that the Planning Commission would consider such policy changes when the other proposed subdivision was denied on a property that did not include steep topography. • Goetten informed the applicant that the Council has spent a number of years reviewing the issue of sewering noting the selection of ten hot spots which have received Met Council approval. She indicated that concessions are sometimes required by Met Council of the City when such applications are made and does not want to make any further applications for sewering boundary changes at this time. Goetten said the focus is on proceeding with the selected hot spots first. Goetten also noted that the number of lots for this proposal is excessive for the location. She does not recommend lots under two acres with the topography. Goetten said she is unaware of the opinions of the absent Council members. 6 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CTTY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23, 1997 (#7-#2240 Jim Waters Sketch Plan - Continued) Flint voiced another concern. He said he has difficulty viewing this application as a PRD without the Soliner and Soskin properties. He would like the entire area looked at as a whole. Gaffron responded that the proposal did consider the whole area for the PRD. Flint questioned what control there would be on the Sollner and Soskin properties and what impacts would be felt on the entire area by the subdivision. Jabbour asked Gaffron if Staff agreed or disagreed with Flint. Gaffron said he agreed that the Park and Planning Commissions need to review the whole area comprehensively. He indicated that the Park Commission has not seen the most recent plan. They saw the plan for the Soliner property and the first draft of the northern area. Gaffron said the Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan for the southern property but did not find it necessary to pass the sketch plan for that area on to the Council. Gaflion said the Planning Commission felt the properties required sewering and a PRD to achieve the open space amenities. Gaffron said the applicant could provide reasoning for the plans and Staff sees the proposal as viable. Jabbour asked Gaffron if Staff is satisfied with the southern plan in terms of number of units and density. Gaffron indicated that the subdivisions could be considered together or separately, and that the southerly plan would meet density requirements. He noted there are issues regarding density with the northern plan. Jabbour asked if there is a mechanism by which to deal with the subdivision as a PRD. Gaffron said there was as long as the property is sewered and Council found adequate reasons. Jabbour asked if the PRD could occur without sewering. Gaffron said no. Goetten asked about the status of the property being considered for a park. Waters said he has an option on the two Sollner lots. Waters said he understands that the full Council is not here and understands the reservations regarding the concepts. He asked to be able to discuss briefly why the particular approach has been taken. Waters noted when the City acquired the Saga Hill park property, all of the land that was within the MUSA was considered prime property for development with the platted right- of-way access to the site. With the creation of the park,Waters said the City desired to gain access to the park and limit access through the park. He said that in effect landlocks the two parcels within the MUSA,the Sollner lots,both zoned one acre and eligible for sewering. Waters said some benefit could be achieved by providing access to the park via Garden Lane to the Sollner property without making the park become a through street. Waters reviewed the sketch plans presented. • 7 MINUTES OF l'itE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL. MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23, 1997 (#7-#2240 Jim Waters Sketch Plan-Continued) Waters indicated that sketch plan 4 would require clearing of land which was adverse to the desire of preserving open space and trees. Sketch plan 3 preserves the topography according to Waters with large lots averaging nearly one acre in size, with the flexibility in spacing of the homes on the lots. This plan would allow for undisturbed zones and buffering for the park. Waters feels this plan would provide a high quality development with minimum impact. Waters does not feel that sewering is an issue in the right location. He feels the plan addresses the public health issue noting mound septic systems are damaging to wooded areas due to space needs. Waters said the plan would provide for 19 lots and a right-of- way easement to West Branch Road eliminating the need for the long cul-de-sac on Wildhufat Trail. Waters said the property could be developed regardless of the issue of rezoning noting the one acre parcels are within the MUSA for sewering and the two acre parcels could remain as such. He felt a better development than this could be gained. He indicated that a change to the MUSA boundary would be modest and be an administrative change. He believes the boundary is atypical at best, and a change would be similar to other modifications to the boundary made in the past and in keeping with the current neighborhood. • Jabbour noted the applicant's sensitivity to the issue of preserving the park area but felt there were more substantial issues with the application. He indicated that the park land did not have to be bisected but could be. He said the main issue is with the sewering of other properties within the City. Jabbour noted that other property owners are also requesting sewer with similar reasons why their properties should be sewered. Jabbour said he would not favor changing City policy to accommodate one applicant. It would be a major change in how the City operates if the policy was driven by one application. He cited the example of the length of time and discussions regarding sewering of the ice arena which was supported by all agencies. Jabbour indicated it is an honorable goal to change the MUSA in order to eliminate bisecting the park land but not if it involves changing City policy. Jabbour asked for Staffs recommendation. Gaffron indicated that the City's policy is long standing. He noted that rezoning is rarely considered. Gaffron said he believes in order to develop the property, it would require sewering or no development should occur. He noted that other similar requests could occur from properties abutting the hot spots for sewering. He did note the uniqueness of the property and design of the MUSA boundary at this location. Goetten asked how the MUSA boundary was originally determined. Gaffron said it followed the 1975 rezoning. 8 MINUTES OF '1'HL REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON J1JNE 23, 1997 (#7 - #2240 Jim Waters Sketch Plan-Continued) Flint said he does not understand how the plan would solve the problem Staff expressed regarding a connection to West Branch Road. Flint said there would still be no access. Gaffron said a future potential expansion would be present. As proposed, there would now be a 7/8th mile long roadway from Wildhurst requiring a secondary outlet. Flint said the road would be near CoRd 19 and West Branch Road. He could not approve a plan increasing the amount of additional traffic to Wildhurst and the cul-de-sac that would be caused by the development and changing the overall look of the area. Flint questioned how a PRD could be approved without this problem of access solved. Gaffron indicated that a possible consideration could be access to Highview. The applicant is providing for future potential access expansion. Gaffron said he previously posed many of these same questions to the applicant. Flint noting the configuration of the properties questioned the division of the Van Sloun property with access through existing West Branch Road. Gaffron said that access was intended to serve only one house on that property due to the number of other homes located off of this potential private road. Flint also noted the DNR grant application made on the Sollner property. Jabbour indicated that this was a moot point. Flint indicated the Morgart property could be accessed from Wildhurst Trail. These examples according to Flint show that there are other options for development. Gaf-on said many discussions regarding access to these properties have been held over the past year. He noted the high cost of providing access to the Sollner property from the north. Flint said this option would provide access without overriding the City ordinance and eliminate impacts on the neighborhood. Waters noted that another alternative would be to develop Garden Lane. Jabbour informed Waters that it would be the responsibility of the developer to make the improvements to the roadway and maintain the road as a private road. Gaffron noted that the Sollner property is in one acre zoning and the responsibility of the developer to provide road development. He said Waters expects to subdivide the Sollner property_ Jabbour indicated that even if the Council would decide to change the sewer policy, they would request maintaining the two-acre density. Waters asked if a proposal with sewering of two-acre parcels is viable. Jabbour said he was not suggesting that. 9 MINUTES OF 1'HE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HEIR ON JUNE 23, 1997 (#7 -#2240 Jim Waters Sketch Plan- Continued) Gaffron said sketch plan 2 presents a scenario with the two-acre zoning Morgart and Van Sloun properties. He said there is a problem with septic,however, in that there is no location for septic sites due to steep slopes on some lots. While noting the review is an informal discussion only,Jabbour acknowledged the interested parties in the audience and asked for public comment. Jim Stephenson, who resides on West Branch Road, said the property should not be developed into 19 homes considering the density and grade of the area. Sandy Rasmussen said she appreciated the Council's comments. She asked the Council to restate their vision for the City, suspecting accountability and health of the community 'were factors. While noting the plan's effect on the economic health of the community, Rasmussen felt there were other issues that bind the community together citing protection of the environment and open space. She noted that Forest Bay and Saga Hill are big assets and are examples of what the City is all about as well as examples of its vision. She indicated the community can be brought together not only by these issues but by threats to sensitive environmental areas and pollution to endangered Iakes. Rasmussen said a variance to the MUSA boundary would have a high impact on the community. She indicated the City was not only fortunate to acquire the park but recognized the large grass roots effort by the community in that acquisition. She said she hoped the developer understood this. She said she would be interested in hearing what the vision and mission is of the City_ Jabbour said the vision and mission of the City is summarized in the Comprehensive Plan and invited her and others to read it. He noted that page one recognizes the need to preserve the natural resources. He noted that the rights of individuals must also be upheld by the majority. Jabbour said the developer should be allowed to develop the property within the current ordinances. He indicated that the City does not normally grant variances to subdivisions. John Hasselbalch, the listing real estate agent for the property, said the environmental concerns are addressed by sketch plan 3. He indicated the current plan would bisect the park. Hasselbach said development of the area adjacent to the park will result in trees being removed if septic was allowed. This plan, Hasselbach said, eliminates the need to bisect the 6-7 acres of wooded open space and eliminates tree removal. 10 i Y 4 r MINU i'ES OF TH H' REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23, 1997 (#7-#2240 Jim Waters Sketch Plan- Continued) Kathryn Kasprick commented on developing the area to gain access to the park. She said she understood Jabbour's comments regarding development but noted the economic costs to the City of the development aside from sewering, citing maintenance and fire protection. With the rationale of determining how the property is to be developed, Kasprick questions the economical feasibility. She asked that the Council continue to show sensitivity to the issues. Jim Waters thanked the Council and indicated he would take their comments under consideration. (The meeting was recessed from 8:24 to 8:33 p.m.) (*#8) #2142 WAYNE A. JOHNSON, 1225 LAKEVIEW AVENUE-VARIANCE- RESOLUTION NO. 3917 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3917 that grants a front yard variance of 15.94'. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#9) #2243 JOHN D. BLACK, 4030 DAHL ROAD -VARIANCE-RESOLUTION NO. 39H Van Zomeren reported that the application is for replacement of an existing deck with the addition of a 12'x1 8' room with a screened porch underneath. The proposal requires variances to average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback, and hardcover. The Planning Commission supported the lakeshore and average lakeshore variances but requested the hardcover be capped at 3.9% or 555.5 s.f as existing in the 0-75' setback The applicant is in agreement with maintaining this level of hardcover. Van Zomeren noted that the resolution contains a typographical error and will be corrected. The error relates to the 125x18' room size. Goetten asked to review the plat and clarify the locations of the additional structure. Van Zomeren reviewed the survey and indicated that the topography makes the lot look like the structure is further back from the lakeshore than what it is. Goetten reiterated that the Planning Commission recommendation includes that no additional hardcover is allowed in the 0-75'from what exists. Black noted that the improvements could not be viewed from the neighboring properties. Black indicated he is satisfied with the resolution as presented. Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3918 with no increase in hardcover in the 0-75'setback. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. a IIP P • . 1 1 rli 4:5/ii) ,...!_l:D •.... . 2691. 22 RES ` 200 200 I (4) (3) ( 1) N rn o (2) I 0 OOC- 3090713 200 2D0 330.5 ��_ 364.98 S88.09'14"E _7,-1- 208.71 I'WE S T---- _6RAPI CH I� ..• R$-- (CoD-- N^ _ -----302.5 CCC NO 3090714 n).. 40.02 s0.02 ` LR[�--- NO 1 51 } ;� Q R.g�. 40.02 � 344.4 588'09'14 E f25 339.66 ' 672. 8 672.58 311.07 Nd9.39'w 74, x7.07 �.? (4 c. ,sti/ -,-. I o 50 /9j �5 / s cr., _ a„ ti� 'di '23 °"" ( 1 5) . 588.09'14.E - - 6P 251.26 a I "' 208.75 QQ5� 0«; 20 A. (4) v ;n n A irl un Ft us ?61 SIN a "4 o <crt a cn I tQQu / GPEN N - , 2syd ln to -••• i_I 37.25 -.I 60 E- ( 14) ( 15) i_ 55 .•-£5-.(5) 83 ( 16) oo11 L., 588.09'la"E o -51,e'' 2. 0 _ P . C o /3s.,FORF9 z 3 ST Z 1 1-2 4� ` � ( 1 ) 3. /2 ,,,5. .5e / .9--,r4Q o ` \ ". .j9 1s /Sos qRM� BRANCH HILL � , z6 2 ry 9SS• /( 12)/ ,..46 ( 11) N � N89 37'G9'W 368.15 1`Sy�jCq2� , . 5 11 •IS a GLE,V UV SJ 3 N $ 664 N a8'1 ON r 96,0 �,� Q LAFAYETTE r. (uNo) � • .-, �� y 1h"h"' i, ati 6 �s 0� 130.25 1F. 60_ti�I4 3C 1 °�. (-- °2, ( I4) 12) U • Z 0 25 7 m '1 ' o ®I��a o 2 a v 13 �- 'i l - z • 9 /� ppb' `a��j((�` M /� I 66 �' �� 2 _ 234 r- .---,--r-^-*� 7--- 11� o'� 10 4•.`.` (//Vir/ SECOND `,J" :..J i` 7,01‘,11, 12 x(7)3 •�- 1�2�;•--- ti: 3 c) •.•:,.., 3S3j• }��A _ II. r� ,i1 O IISa c •1 4 ? ,litti co y; Ii; 4 42 3/ 8 0 10 Q. 0 5 o Q�10 t 5 Co`'-'5''•:;'y ( 16) 367.47 It - g 1"0 0 6 c o 9 �'`- ;j-- 6-- ® A. %3335 \1 PART OF 1EUNT NOME ?ARK .`F',. ' ' • ' I:- _____ -_ VACATED 196 MC 342 0 H Ao�a cn 6 ` e Q Q o e :_t_ 73� ADDN °i __ _ • 11__. r__ ,y d3 2 o ( 17) 4.0 96 ° L 95 (2) N 16 or P i i` \'� (5) may(4) �µ e;\• ( i3) (8) R \ (7) e 15 'Q Q 2 ; or• ,oc11 0 14 0 13 /, u 7 1 1 /� < (16) Q 118----1 , Q a )11 (- 1 -�?II �. \ Q 13 A 4( 13)4 v%/, \ �c H . I I 38..2 45T N89'36'32'VI r= i x.,11 ti• 268.2 A• 366.94 rZ t..1 Q 12 � c d 4 $ v/ $; :" aJ . j 0 p�� 0 -9:\ `�1 6 ;1,0% m t. til 1`11 Q , c�. ' tit v rn '44 z .-1,, o o Up `��� D • 1 p% u0 ; 111 3) (2) r O. O 366.54 N88'09'I4 W 282 282 0 N. 9 0 0 `,8\ c o ; Iii z 30 v 130 'I iQ 1130 v/ a 11 I 30 O ._:•30.01 4 30.01•". R - N N I'll \., I I t 00 2T.26 _ 5 i 1 05 2 P' - HIGHVIEW {=A 9i 334.06 583'06'36'E R 275.83 588'06'36'E I cast 534 30 30 y 330 284 5, 152.97 134.83 43.34 E 188 (24) In -513 94 �7. �� `�' 246.31 588'G6'36'E Rs�� ‹J WO.--'Z6 :79.249 h - (Z3) (33) (32) i17.� s� E A i I -.. ... s33,ti` �(X8, 330.75 V W 11 In 1011 ! (22) nn\/`J�t +� - '3\4V: (3I) '1 4 &s? 's /�16) �� -.1..,