The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-21-2004 Planning PacketOKONO Pl.ANNING C O.MMISSIO.X Monday Janr 21. 2004 6:00 PM 2750 Kelltfv Park%«av - Council C'bambm ac;f.M)a C'ounril RrprrM*nlati\r: I ili McMillan Ai niFM'F MKMBKKS: Pka%r sien in for Ihr public record at the front podhim if you Hhh to addre^f the Planning Commission. Applicants nill be asked to mose to »he front table to answer questions when Ihr C hair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an adsisory bod> to the City C ouncil. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the July 12. 2004 C'ity C'ounril meeting unless othensise noted by the Chair. OI.D RI SINKSS 1 04-2**6M I crry and Grcichcti Blount. 1300 C'herry Place, \ arianccs (SlatV: Juniev Gundluchi 2 04-3000 James S. & Darcy D. Lofllcr. 1690 Shady wood Road. N’anance iSlafl': Mike (lalTron) NKW HI SINKSS 3. 04-.3UI0 ThctHlorc L. Capra. 3534 Ivy Place, \ ariancc (SialV: Janice (iundlach) 4. 04*3019 Wendy .Sullivan. 325 Crests icw .Aseniir, \ arianec (SlalT: Janice Ciundiach) 5. 04-3023 WikhII uII C'ounlry Club. 200 W'oodhill Road, Cotuliiu>na1 Use Pemiil (SlalT: .Mil.e (iafTnin) 6. 04-3024.A C'lty ol Omuio. C'hapter 78-1431 /oniiii! C'ode .\mendmeiUs (StalT: JamccGuudlach) 04-.3024B City of Orono. C'hapter 78-1577 (Cl (2.A), Zoning Code AniemlmciKs (Slafl Mike tialTron) 7. 04-.3025 Darrell b. & Karin H. Anderson. 925 Old l.ong l.akc Road, N'ariance (SlalT: Mckinic C'unisi 8. 04-.3026 Aniliony Sequira C'o. on behalf of David Pomije. 801 Tonkawa Road, Variance (Staff Mchuiie Curtis) SKKTC'II PI.AN 9. 04-.3027 Brenshcll Development on behalfofThomas James Properties. LLC.SW Comer of Old Cry stal Bay Road and Highw ay 12. Sketch Plan (StalT: Janice Gundlach) M ANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 10. Rqx>ri of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings Mav 24. 2004 and June 14. 2(KM. 11. Other issues for discussion. 12. Plarming Commission approval of minutes for May 17,2004. 13. Selection of rcprescnlali\ es for City Council mcctines on June 28. 2004 ami Julv 12. 2004. AUJOt’RNMKNT Mu JilMK' Public A tti-ndance □ COl'MIL DT*i.a ,\mn (; C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other ___________ NAME (plea!ii ‘ priat) Fleam , mlloi t fiie infurmatkim req < esteo BE1.UM FOR UI. R CITA RECURUS. ADDRESS FKESIM EOR (from aernda) NAAIi: OR M AIBKR ll'ii f'f />*/- jy/,';' /I -O.I 'li/^jj C f j |2te > t______CH " it .* ^ 6. "r*AvMrl»S U \?lic u;.f IUt\j /-^g vvvV 7 Aib^rW. K] \> Vzo il* K. .4^7-i-l 4 By. Avw.yv- 13.. 14.. 15. n« ln»»iiT4r«f»|>y L... ^ • JL^<. MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Mabusth & Planning Commissioners Mike G&ffron, Planning Director June 18.2004 Various Topics of Current Importance Stonebay Towuhomcs Exterior Appearaace. Since your June 2 work session: PC members collectively drafted a memo to Counc !1 (anached) regarding concerns about the exterior appearance of the Stonebay Townhomes, especially the 2-story units. - Your memo and a set of elevation views comparing the PUD plan set and the Building Permit plan set were provided to Council at their June 8 work session. Council directed staff to contact the developer and discuss the issue. • Staff drafted a letter and delivered it to the developer on June 15. - Staff and Planning Consultant Phil Carlson met with the developers and their architect on June 17. The developers agreed :o have their architect provide drawings of some upgraded exterior design changes (incorporating a number of the features in PC’s punch list) for staff review, and agreed to incorporate whatever changes we agree to, into the townhomes that have already been constructed as well as those yet to be built. Jeanne Mabusth Resignation. Jeanne has submitted her resignation as a Planning Commissioner as of June 30. in order to spend needed time with her family (see attached lener). Jeanne has provided us with a unique perspective and an unsurpassed depth of knowledge regarding City codes and policies during her years on the Planning Commission, and I hale to see her go. The City Council is likely to ^ipoint a new chair and a new regular commissioner prior to your July meeting. Ju'y 7 Planning Ccmmlssion Work Session. We have our regularly scheduled work session on Wednesday, July 7, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Topics for discussion are yet to be determined. I will be on vacation July 16-August 2. so I will miss your July 19 regular meeting. The agenda for that meeting is not yet determined, but I’m leaving it in the capable hands of Janice and Melanie! r*: L o o \ ‘V • *'45* GITYofORONO Munki|Ml OtTfccs Street Addrest: 2750 de!!e? Partwiy Oreno. US 5535S Mailhi Address: PO Bn 6S CfytUi Bay. MN SS323 dOS6 June IS. 2004 Terry Dahlstrom Dahlstioin Development IXC 7745 Polaris Lane Maple Grove. MN 55311 John Hassler do John Terrance Homes 2500 Kelley Parku-ay Long Lake. MN 55356 Re; Stonebay To^^TJlomes Gentlemen: You may recall that just pnor to issuance of permits for construction of the iiutial StoneBay to\i«>tthomes last September, you met with City staff at our request to discuss our concerns with the proposed exterior treatments of the two townhome styles. Our primary concern was that the plans submitted for buildmg permit approval were vastly different in exterior styling, appearance and quality as compared to the plans diat were subnutted to gain development approval, especially vkith regard to the t\s o-story townhome plans. When we met with you on September4,2003, you suggested to us that the reasons for the cl.anges were related to your intent to provide a more casual, 'lakeshore home' feel rather than the more urban styling of the original t>xo-story designs. Our response was that many of the exterior feauires provided in the original renderings as pro\'iding a high quality appearance, were missing from the plans submined for building permit approval. At that meeting you suggested that the units would be equivalent in quality to other sirry priced townhomes in the area, and you specifically directed us to the Charles Cudd development eu;.i oi highway 101 just north of Midway 55, as an example of something similar in quality. I visited that devebpment and fbu^ that the units were quite attractive and contained a variety of a^tectural features that gave them a high-qu^ty appearance. I somewhat reluctantly accepted your assertions that we would be satisfied with the quality of your final product and your suggestion that if we were not, you w ould make it ri^t. IUtphoM(952)24M6M • Fu (152) 24M4I4 L G) To: Mayor and Council From: Planning Commission Date: June 8,2004 Dear City of Orono Council Members. At the June 2"^ Planning Commission work session, one item on our agenda w-as to discuss the C.U.P. for Stonebay Marketplace. After discussing the item, several comments were made regarding the exterior appearance of the town*.iome buildings. These comments resulted in an interesting and detailed discussion on that subject. We all had strong concerns on this maner, and decided a letter to the City Council regarding these cor.cems was necessary. Planning Commission members Ln anendance reviewed the plans submined by the do ’eloper and observed that what is being constructed is very different than what they expected. The consensiu was that the Planning Commission expected the new development to utilize more color, more stone or bnek, and more extenor details. All members agreed that what is bemg built does not meet the expectations of the Commission, based on the plans approved by the City nor do the buildings already constructed have the expected color, brick, and exterior details. Equally troubling to the planning commissioners was staffs comment that, in town-home developments, once the development is constructed the exterior appearance is extremely hard to change. This is because the town-home association would have to approve and pay for exterior changes. Based on this reality, it was recommended that, if we are concerned about the exterior appearance of the development - which w e as a Planning Commission are - now is our best and possibly our last chance to change it. At that point the tone of our discussion changed. We went from discussing our concerns about the development in general to becoming that much more determined diat somethmg needs to be done. Therefore, after review of the plans w'e documented ’he differences between the plans submitted and the buildings being constructed. As we suspected, we found that the original plans contained far more exterior detailing. VXHiat we found to be missing from the buildings being constructed includes: Shuners Divided light windows Half-moon windows and pon hole window s Brick or stone fascia that extends to the roof Brick or stone fascia wiping onto the sides of the buildings Architectural soffit details More detailed exterior trim (color, profile, and keystones) Use of more exterior color W— •• r V.- ^ V ■ 'v:•^ •;.^';v«A- ;'.’A''^*...V* . / —■^’•i‘% REAR ELEVATION 0 V • 1/8“ - r- 0" ORONO PLANNXNC COM>nSSION Monday June 21, 2004 6:00 PM 27SO Ktllry Parkway - Connell Chimbert AGENDA Council RcprescaUUvc: LiU McMillan ALDIENCE MEMBERS: Picnic ii|o in for the public record at the front podium if you ««bb to nddrcu the Planning Commiitioo. Applicantt «*iU be uked to move to the front ubie to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. Tbc Planning Commliiion is an advisory body to the City Coun:U. If action Is ukca on any items on tbu agenda, they will be scheduled for the July i2, 20^4 Citv Council meeting unless otberwlic noted by the Chair. OLD BUSLNXSS I. 04-2969 Terry and Gictchen Blount. IJ9Q Cherry Place, Vanacces (Staff Janice Guodlacb) 2. 04-3009 James S-A Darcy 0 Loff.et, 1690 Shadywood Road, Variance (Staff Mdee Cafboo) NEW BUSLNESS 3 04-3010 Tbeodotc L Capra, 3534 Ivy Place, Vanance (Suff Jamce Guadlach) 4. 04-3019 Wendy Sulhvan, 325 Crcsivlew Avenue, Variance (Staff Jantcc Guadlach) S 04-3023 WoodhitI Country Club. 200 W'oodhiU Road, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Mike GafEroo) 6 O4-3024A City of Oreno, Chapter 7t-1431 Zoning Code Anendmenta (Staff Janice (rundlach) 04-3024B City ofOraoo, Chapter 7t-lS77(C)(2A), Zonag Code Amcndmciits (Staff: Mike Gtffron) 7. 04-3025 Danell B. & Ka.*in H. Andenon. 925 Old Long Lake Road, Variance (Staff; Melanie Curbs) B 04-3026 Anthony Sequira Co on bdialf of David Pomije. SOI Toakawa Road, Variance (Staff: Melanie Curbs) SKETCH PLAN 9. 04-3027 Bmnihell Development on behalf cf Thomas James Properties, LLC.SW Corner of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12. Sketch Plan (Staff Janice Guadlach) PLANNLNG COMNnSSION COMMENTS 10 Report of Planning Commiarion representabvei aneodmg Council meetings May 24. 2004 and June 14,2004. 11 Other issues for discussion 12 Planning Comauasien approval of minutes for May 17.2004 13. Selection of representabvea for City Council meetinga on June 28.2004 and July 12. 2004 ADJOURNMENT 'mSUtM M04-2M9 June 21.2004 r«t«ier2 Date AppIlcstUNi Received: 12-17-03 Date Appikalioii Considered as Compleic: l-S-04 60-Day Review Period Espires: 3-0-04 eilcnded to 5-74M extended to 7-0-04 To: Chair Mabusih and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Adminislralor From: Janice Gundlach. City Planner Hate: June 15,2004 Subject: 04-2969, Terry & Greichcn Blount. 1390 Cherry Place - Hardcover - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR - 1B, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre min.) Lot Area: 0.527 acres (22.957 s.f.) Lot Width: 100 feet Application Summary: Applicant requests to amend the original deck replacement variance approval, received in March, 2004, to include the following v’ariances needed in order to construct a covered entry in conjunction with a remodel project: 1. Hardcover variance to permit 39.25% hardcover in the 75’-250* zone when 25% is normally allowed and 39.25% currently exists and no change is requested. 2. Variance to allow the proposed covered entry to be located 4 ’ from of the existing detached garage where a 10* building-to-building setback is normally required. Sta// Recommendation: Staff recommends the variance approval for the deck be amended to include the requested variances needed to allow the applicants to cortstruct a covered entry over the front stoop. LUI of Exhibits Exhibit A - Survey Showing Proposed Covered Entry & Previous Deck Approval Exhibit B - 60-Day Review Period Extension Letters Exhibit C - Prior Approved Resolution Background The applicant originally applied for variances in order to essentially rebuild a new residence on the existing lot The applicant then decided rather than constructing a new home; a major renovation of the existing home would be conducted and the applicants merely needed a variance to rebuild the existing deck. The applicants received a variance for hardcover and average lakeshore setback for the deck in March of this year. The applicants are also working on submittal of a conditional use permit request to replace the existing railroad tie retaining wall, within 75’ of the lake, with a boulder outcrop. The Planning Commission will review this request once an engineered plan hu been submitted The ^jplicants have since proceed^ in the lenovation of the existiitg heme. r «04.296f J«m2I.2004 ra|«2«f2 The applicants arc now requesting an amendment to the Mareh approval. The amendment includes a hardcover variance and a variance to allow two structures to be within 10 ’ of each other, in order to allow a covered entry over the front stoop of the home within 10 ’ of the existing detached garage. Hardcover Variance The applicint is proposing to construct a roof over the front stoop in order to achieve a covered ertry. .although over existing hardcover, a hardcover variance is required because thi nature of the hardcover is changing to structural. The existing hardcover within the '5 ’-250 ’ zone is 39.25% where 25% is normally allowed. 10* Separation Variance The Zoning Ordinance Section 78-1438 requires that all structures and buildings maintain a separation of 10 feet. With addition of the covered entry the separation between the roof and the existing detached garage will be 4 feet, requiring variance approval. Hardship Because the applicant has chosen to conduct a renovation, the existing hardcover of 39.25% can remain whereas in a rebuild situation it would be strictly held to the 25% regulation for the 75'-250 ’ zone. The applicant is also proposing to keep the existing detached garages on the property and is therefore restricted by their current locations These could be considered hardships, although possibly created by the applicant and not inherent to the land. The Planning Commission should discuss the overall effect this request has on the existing non-conforming hardcover and location of the existing detached garage. Issues for Consideration 1. Is there a hardship inherent to the land in order to allow the covered entry? 2. What effect, if any. docs the covered entry have on the overall non-conformities? 3. Are there any possible negative visual or access density impacts when the 10* separation is encroached upon? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Amend the originally approved deck replacement variance to include approval of the following variances in order to allow a covered entry over the front stoop: 1. Hardcover variance to permit 39.25% hardcover in the 75 ’-250 ’ zone when 25% is normally allowed and 39.25% currently exists and no change is requested. 2. Variance to allow the proposed covered entry to come within 10 ’ of the existing detached garage This approv'al is subject to the following condition: 1. Should, if under some unforeseen circumstance, the covered entry comes within 3’ of the existing deuched garage the construction shall adhere to the pertinent building code provisions for fire-proofing. € OF BLOCK 4.- TAL BAY VCW il peci. TO \ II . BE <^oveD'-ns>«w \ \lK)RTH LWC or LOT 1. BLOCK 4. -CRYSTAL RAY VtW“ sX 5 H N 87®42'30" W r'lzo' LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Thol pari of Coveriment Lois 4 and 5. Seclion 8. Township 117 Norlh. ” described os follows: Beginning ol the Southwest corner of Lot 7. Bloc the South line of soid Lot 7 to the shore of North Arm. Loke Minnetonk Minnetonko 57.0 feel, more or less to the Northeast corner of Lot 1. B L April 13,2004 APR I 9 fgit einwtng/^ Janice Gundlach City Planner City ofOrono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN SS323-0066 RE: Conditional Use Permit request to replace the existing railroad tie retaining wall with a boulder outcrop. * Dear Janice: I would like to have the review period for my CUP request extended 60 days to complete the investigation and final plans for the project. If you have any questions, please contact me. Yours truly, i) Gretchen Blount Terry Blount 208 N. PineAve. ThiefRiver Falls, MN 56701 C218) 681*2550 EXHIBIT C A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-282,78-1288 (B) AND SECTION 78-1279 (6) HLE NO. 04-2969 WHEREAS. Teny J. Blount and Greichcn M Blount, husband and vwfe. (hcrcmafier "the apphcanis") are the owners of the property located at 1390 Cherry Place within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally desenbed as follows That part of Government Lots 4 and 5, Section 8. Township 117 North. Range 23 West of the 5*** Principal Meridian, desenbed as follows; Beginning at the Southwest comer of Lot 7, Block 11. Saga Hill Rivised; thence East along the South line of said Lot 7 to the shore of North Am. Lake Minnetonka; thence southerly along the shoie of Lake Minnetonka 57.0 feet, more or less to the Northeast comer of Lot I. Block 4. "Crystal Bay View"; thence West along the North line of said Lot 1 to the Northwest comer of said Lot 1; thence northerly to the place of beginning; AND ALSO Lot 7, Block 11. Saga Hill Revised. (hereinafter the "property”), and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Or'nn for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-282.78-I2S8 (B) and Section 73-1279 (6) to allow reconstniction of an existing rotted deck in a slightly different locauon in conjunction with an inlenor remodel; such deck encroaching four fee: past the average setback line, and resulting in hardcover in excess of the 25% normally allowed in the 75’-250‘ zone. NOW, THEREFORE BE Orono. Minnesota; IT RESOLVXD by the City Council of FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-2969. Page 1 of 6 4. The propeny is located in the LR - IB. One Family Lakcshorc Residential Distnet. which requires a minimum lot area of one (1) acre. The applicant's property is 0.S27 acres in area. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at public hearings held on January 20. 2004 and February 17. 2004 and recommended approval of the hardcover and average hkeshore setback variances based on the following findings: a. The property is 0.527 acres in size where the zoning distnct requires t acre. b. The existing deck has rotted and is in need of repair. c. The property contains 40.45% hardcover in the 75’-250' zone where 25% IS noi-mally allowed and the applicant is proposing to reduce that hardcover by 183 square feet. d. The four (4) foot encroachment into the average lakeshore setback will not obs ’ruct any views to the lake as the neighbor to the north sits much higher in elevation and the neighbor to the south doesn't have any views over the applicant's property to due changing topography. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safely and welfare of the community The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning distnct; that grar.iing the variances would not Aversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 6 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER ANT) CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of ihe above findings, ihe Orono Ciiy Council hereby grams variances lo Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-232, 78-1288 (B) and Section 78-1279 (6) to allow reconstruction of an existing rotted deck in a slightly different location in conjunction with an interior remodel, subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which arc not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. Hardcover in the 75-250’ zone shall be limited to 5,966 s.f. or 39.25% per the proposed plan and hardcover allowance summary as depicted on Exhibit A. Applicant is advised that any future requests to increase hardcover or change the nature of cxisting/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover will not likely be approved without concurrent reductions m existing hardcover. 3.Applicant shall remove all plastic or fabric liner materi :i from the decorative landscape beds on the property to ensure their perme.oility as non-hardcover surfaces. Required removals of structure and hardcover (133 sf. of decking) shall be completed at the time of the footing inspection for the deck. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (March S, 2005). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants* heirs. Page 3 of 6 ! I .ari I successors ar.d assigns, hereby agree u) the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 8^ day of March. 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee. City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor Property Ownerfs) Pag|B4of6 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this __ day of ________. 2004 by Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNTPLN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this — day of _______. 2004 by Linda S. Vee. City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public PaseSofd Stale of Minncsou ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Terry J. Blount, husband of Greichen M. Blount. __day of...2004 Notary Public State of Minnesota ) )8S. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Orctchcn M. Blount, wife of Terry J. Blount. ___day of.,.2003 Notary Public Pa«B6or6 'L DMt Ap^katlOB IUtci«td: 4-21-04 Date Appileatiaa CeaiMcred as Compictt: 4-2l<04 lalUal M-Day Review ^irlod Eipirts: ^2(M)4 M Day Etteattoa Notice S-I9-4M; Eileaded to: 1-19-04 Chair Mabusth and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike GaiBon, Planning Director June 17.2004 il04-3009 James and Darcy LofUer, 1690 Shadywood Road -Variances - Revised Plan - Public Hearing Zouing Dbtrfct: Lot AreaAVidth: LR'IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Required - 0.50 acre (21,780 s.f.) min. area, IOC* min. width Existing per updated surveyor calculations: 17,060 s.f. (0.39 acre) 0 ‘75'^6,280sf; 75-250 ’^10J80sf AfpUcaHon Summary: This item was tabled at your May meeting for revisions. Applicant has submitted a revised plan with reduced hardcover, and eliminating the lot coverage variance. Variances needed for the revised plan include: 1. Lot area (0.39 acre where 0.50 acre required; does not meet 80% rule) 2. 75-250’ Hardcover (Proposed ■ 3,557 s.f /10,780 sf in zone = 33.0% where 25% is allowed) Other items of note: - All existing structures to be removed. - New house will meet average setback and 75* setback, as well as all other required setbacks. - A proposed grading and drainage plan has been submitted. Staff Racommendatiom: Staff reconunend.* 1. Approval of lot area variance. 2. Approval of 75-250’ hardcover variance for 33.0% as proposed. 3. Subject to City Engineer acceptance of grading and drainage plan. List of Exhibits A - Updated Survey w/Grading Plan B - Revised Site Plan C • Revised Floor Plans and Elevations D - Corrected Hardcover Calcs E - Notice of PC Action/60-Day Extension F • Memo and Exhibits of May 12,2004 PcrtlacBt Code Sectkms 1. 78-350: Area, hei^t, lot width and yard requirementt for the LR*1C District 2. 78*282 A 78-1288: Hardcover limitations for LR districts and Shoedaod District IV04-3009 Jum17,2004 P«gc2 Revised PUb At the May meeting applicant was advised to formulate a new site plan that w ould reduce the hardcover substantially from the 42% initial proposal, and elunmate the need for a lot coverage variance. Applicant has submitted a revised plan with the following characteristics, based on the surveyor's updated lot area aiul hardcover zone calculations; Lot Coverage bv Structures: 2.S06 sf / 17,060 sf » 14.7% (1S ‘.. ^ould be 2SS9 sO 0-75' Hardcover . 0 s.f ■ 0% 7S-2S0' Hardcover . 3,557 s.f. / 10,780 sf - 33.0% Hardcover Variance. As noted m the May memo, from staff s perspecuve, there is some hardship to support approval of a modest variance based on the lot shape and the need for a backup apron to allow forward vehicle movement onto Shadywood Road. The degree of hardship supported by the lot shape is calculated as follows: 17,060 sf / 250 ’ ■ 68.2' ■ optimum width for 75-250' Hardcover 68.2’ X 175' “ 1 1,935 sf x .25 ■ 2,984 sf-2,695 sf • 289 sf variance due to lot shape Also, the property should be allowed a reasonable backup apron. The proposed apron per the revised plan is 8’ X 8*. or 64 s.f, tlic bare minimum needed for a reasonable turnaround. The drivcw ay now proposed at 8’ w ide plus a minimum garage apron, has adequate room for off street parking for at least 4-5 vehicles. Planning Commission at the May meet uig suggested that the potential reduction in view s and the impacts on adjoining average setback lines, by moving the house nearer the road, is also a hardship that justifies some measure of hardcover variance for this site. F rom staff s perspective, a justified quantifiable “5-25Qf hardcover vari ance iiK lude 289 sf due to lot shape, and at least 64 s.f (If not more) due to the need for a backup apron. Total quantifiable 75-250' haixlcover would be 2,695 + 289 64 * 3048 sf, (28.3%). More difficult to quantify is the impact due to location of adjoining homes. Given theat the apphomt has reduced the home to meet the lot coveragel 5% limit, given the factors of lot shape, road access and location of neighboring homes, stafTfcels the proposed plan is reasonable. !________ L «04-300f June 17.2M4 Patt3 REVISED/CORRECTED LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Arga/WldA : LR-IC Lot Area Denned Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre)100 ’ Actual 17,060 s.f. (0.39 acre)80 ’-83* SsHtifiku LR-IC Required Existing Proposed Street (West)30’(to be removed)6T Lake (East)75 ’(to be removed)75* Right Side (South)10’(to be removed)IT LcA Side (North)10’(to be removed)10* Average Lakeshore No Encroachment (All homes in line)No encroachment Structural Coveragn: Total Lot Area ToUl Structural Coverage 17,060 s.f. (0.39 ac.)Allowed: 2559 s.f. (15 0%) Proposed: 2506 s.f. (14.7 %) Hardcover Calculatioas: Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75*6,280 s.f 0%900 sf (14 3%)Osf (0%) 75-250 ’10,780 s.f 2,695 s.f (25%)2,126 s.f (19.7%)3,557 sf (33.0%) ToUto 17.060 s.f 2,695 8f 3,026 sf 3,557 sf «04-3M9 Jut 17,20«4 Pt|t4 Grtdiig ud Drtlaagc The submined plan directs drainage down the side lot lines toward the lake. This plan appears acceptable, subject to any conditions the City Engineer may recommend upon his review. Issues for Coustdcratioa 1.Does the revised plan meet the goals of the Planning commission for redevelopment of this lakeshore property? 2. 3. Are the requested variances supported by hardship or other reasonable justification? Does the Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns about this proposal? Staff Recomrocadatioa Staff recommends; 1 . Approval of lot area variance. 2. Approval of 7S-2S0' hardcover variance for 33.0% as proposed. 3. Subject to City Engineer acceptance of grading and drainage plan. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JAMES S. LOFFLER LOT 10 AND PART OF LOT 11. SHADYWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA O '. LAKE MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY 929.4 CONTOIM LfC LEGAL description OF PREMISES : to. S?iodywood. end thot port of Lot 11. Shodywood described cs follows Beginning ot the Northwest corner of toid Lot 11: thence southerly otono the westerly line thereof to the Southwest corner of the North 14 00 feet of said Lot 11; thence South 87 degrees 27 mnutes Eost. ossimed beorirg. to the shor% of Crystal Boy; thence north along soid shore to the North line of soid Lot thence west olong said North line to the po>nt of beginning o: denotes iron morker (909J): denotes esisting spot ciceotion. rmen sea level dotun Blow; denotes proposed spot elevation, mean seo level dotun ..g*7.....: denotes existing contour line, meon sea level dotim HBSD 1 denotes proposed contour line, meon seo level dotim PROPOSED ELEVATIONS Bearings shown are bosed upon on ossimed dotim. This survey intends to show the boundories of the obove described property, the location of on exist ing house ond garage, ond the proposed location of o proceed house thereon. It does not purport to show ony other inprovements or eneroochnrents. 1) Corege - (5SE2 2) Top of foundotion 3) Bossment > QQZSl 4) Lookout - [T357I EES A o GRONBERG it ASSOCIATES. INC. OONSULTMO ENOtCCRS, L»0 aURVCYOR& Smi flAfMRS 448 NORTH «UO« ONM. LONG LANE. Mi 5SSM 9U<473-414t 1 locrr eorrrr that na wtoncwnyi oi wtronT MS imptm Bv w «iMce anr omcct entswM wo I M « oav ucond merame oaMn wo two MHCns esR sc IASI * sc r«n V mmmrk /iY-dV muaommtm TKMX ••It 9~4-04 WSM 04-140 04-240 I 1] 1 11 1 1 ' 1 1 1 I 1 1 i 1 I - •. 11 f 1 1^' —I 1 1JL^1^ 1 1 ^ -i. LcfFLEd HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250* 250-500*500-1000' EXISTING Hardcover in zone A House Width B Ctrige C. Dn\ew»y D Sidewalk E. PaUo/Dcck F. LtndKtpc Underlain By PlMtic OrFtbno O. 0±«f TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A_ _ _ _ _ - B a 100 - PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Uncih B Garage C. Dhveway D. Sidewalk E Pauo/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER WZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______________ ♦ B xlOO SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF, SF SF SF RCTAiHiMtt' SF - Ttf SF SF. % SF SF ’SF SF SF. SF SF SF SF. SF SF. S.F .SF. S.F. H Jam« Loffl£r. . S-f-af HARDCOVER CALCULATlOa'VORKSHEET ^HAofwoa^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCU.ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House . Ufii^ B Gtragt C. Dnvewsy D. Side\»itk E. PiUo/D«ck F. Lindscspe Underlain By Plisuc Or Fabric O. Other 0.75’ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ __ - B (75.2Sj^250.500' W,«h 500.1000' SF SF SF SF ,SF SF. .SF. SF .SF. SF SF SF X 100 SF SF % e CITY OF ORONO 27S0 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 ZONING HLE #04-3009 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION CrysUl Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 DATE OF .NOTICE: May 19. 2004 TO: James & Darcy Lofller 9471 Foxford Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING: May 17. 2004 Plaaniag Commisfioa rcconuneadcd as follows: Tabled, to allow applicant to revise application. VOTE', Table: 7 FOR 0 ACAiSST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: _____City Council - Monday, Juae 21, 2004; mcctiag starts at 6:00 p.m.____________ If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, the>* are available from the City Recorder afler rev iew and approval by the Plaxuiing Commission. If >ou hav e questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 9S2-249-4600. 60<Day Extension Notice. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the ^plicant. Your application was received on April 2 1,2004. The 60-day review penod would end on June 20,2004. However, because >-our application was tabled by the Planmng Commission to the June 21 meeting, the earliest scheduled date of final Council action falls after the 60-day period ends. Therefore, the 60-day review penod is hereby extended an additional 60 days to August 19, 2004. Enclosed is a copy of the draft minimum standards for dnveways, decks, etc, which should help guide you as consider reductions in hardcover. •04*300f May 12,20f4 Patt2 Pertiaent Code Sections 1. 78*350: Area, height, loi width and yard requirements for the LR-IC District 2. 78*282 Sl 78-1288: Hardcover limitations for LR districts and Shoreland District Bnckf round This nearly conforming lot contains a modest home and detached garage. The existing residence and garage arc in fair condition but are in nonconforming locations. The applicant recently purchased the property with the intent of removing the existing structures and constructing a new 2-stoiy residence with anached garage. The property is served with municipal sewer and water. lS‘ Area Variance Reouired. The lot size is a factor not controllable by the applicant, and no additional land is available for acquisition. The lot area based on the submitted hardcover calculations is 0.37 acres, not quite meeting the 80% of %*acre exemption, and requiring a lot area vanar.ee . Lot width at the ihorelinc is 83' and at the 75* setback line is 80', meeting the 80% standard and not requiring a w idth variance. Lot Coverage bv Structures. Based on the hardcover calculations submitted (which do asi match the sum of the hardcover zone areas used on the site plan) the allowed lot coverage by structures is 15% of 16.283 s.f. or 2,442 i.f. Proposed lot coverage including the house (1686 sO, garage (720 sQ. front covered stoop (I04a.f.)andrearcoveredsioopdtporch(l51 sf)-2661 sfor 16JV*. There is no hardship to support a lot coverage by structures variance; the house can sunply be made smaller. Note that the applicant has included open porches, but no open decks, on the lake side of the house. Hardcover Variance . The applicant ’s hardcover proposal based on the 1999 surv ’cy is for 42^*/« (4,297 sO in the 1S-2SV zone where only 25% (2.525 sO is allowed. Based on staff calculations, the 75-250' zone is approxinutely 10,100 sf in area, not the 11,600 sf used in the calculations submitted by the applicant. From staffs perspective, there is some hardship to support approval of a modest variance based on the lot shape and the need for abackup apron to allow forward vehicle movement onto Shadywood Road. The degree of hardship supported by the lot shape is calculated as follows: 16,283 sf / 250' ■ 65.1' • optimum width for 75-250' Hardcover 65.1* X 175' - 11,393 sf x .25 - 2.848 sf-2,525 sf - 323 sf variance due to lot shape Also, thepropetty should be allowed a reasonable backup apron. The proposed apron is 261 sCbdng IS* wide and 14* deep with angled comers, allowing easy baddngmovement. StafTcan support the 261 if for t backup apron. The driveway proposed at 13' wide and 73' long, plus garage apron, has substantial room for off street parking, but could be narrowed significantly to reduce hardcover. •04-30M May 12.2004 Fata 3 The other factor that comes into play is &c length ofthc lot and the neighboring homes ’ proximity to the lake. While applicant proposes to place his home to meet the 75’ setback, the homes on either side are located just 55 ’ from the shoreline, so applicant would potentially be depr.ved of lake vtc\fc s as he moves his new home closer to the road to reduce hardcover. Mo v.ng closer to the road also negatively affec*.s the average setback line for both neighbors, changing it to make their homes less conforming. Planning Comznistioa must determine whether this potential reduction in vie\^ s and the inpacts on adjoining average setback lines, by moving the house nearer dte road, is a hardship that just;f.es the magnitude ofhardcover variances requested. From staffs perspective, quantifiable and justifiable TS-ISO* hanlcover variances Include 3 23 sf due to lot shape and 261 sf in the proposed backup apron. Total allowable 7S-2S0’ hardcover would then be 2,525 323 261 - 3.109 sf, (30.8%) as compared to the 4.297 sf (42.5%) proposed. Staff would recommend as a st<irting point that the driveway be reduced in w'idth fiom 13' to I O’ for the first 50* from the road, reducing hardcover by 150 s.f Additional reductions in hardcover should be considered to bring this property nearer the 30.8% level. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Aree/Widtht LR-IC Lot Area Defined Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre)100 ’ Actual 16,283 s.f. (0.37 acre)80’-83’ Setbacks: LR-IC Required Existing Proposed Street (West)30’(to be removed)69- Lake (East)75’(ro be removed)75’ Right Side (South)iO*(to be removed)IT house, 10 ’ deck Left Side (North)10'(to be removed)lo- Average Lakeshore No Encroachment (All homes in line)No encroachment Midi •M.3009 May 12,2004 Paft4 Structural Coverage! Total Lot Area Toul Structural Coverage 16,283 s.f. (0.37 ac.)Allowed: 2442 s.f. (15.0%) Proposed: 2661 s.f. (16.3 Vo) Hardcover Calculationi i Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75'6.183* s f 0%900 sf(14 8%)56 sf (1%) 75-25a lO.lOO* s f 2,525 s f (25%)2,126 s.f (20.8%)4.297 sf (42.5%) Totab 16,283 s.f 2.525 sf 3,026 sf 4,353 sf •staff cstiaute Hardship Statcmeot Applicant has provided a hardship statement, and should also be asked for his icsumony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis la contidtriag applieulcas for vorioaeo, flio J>laaaOtg Commisshu $holl eoaslder tlit effect of the proposed oorionee upon the heailh, safety and t»elfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic condUions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the pabtlc safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. Ue Hanning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zonwg Code in instances v,here their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unigue to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demottstrMed that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that substantial hardship exists to support the lot area vu. This lot has had a home on it for decades, is served with all utilities, and is similar in size to mo. ither lots in the neighborhood. Staff finds no hardship that would support a variance to the 15H limit on lot coverage by structures. The lot is suitably sized and shaped that a substantial home and garage of over 2400 s.f. footprint can be developed without the need for variances. As noted above, staff finds a number of hardsh^is that might suppoit a variance for hardcover on the site, irxluding: - Lot shape (323 s.f. quantifiable) • Need for backup apron due to County Road (261 s.f proposed is acceptable to sUff) - Length of lot, relationship to lake setback of homes on either side (not quantified...) •04.3009 May 12.2004 PaitS Iitucs for CoosIdcritioQ 1. Does the fact that applicant will be removing m'o nonconforming structures (garage too near the road, house mostly within 75 ’ of ±c lake) have any bearing on whether a hardcover variance should be granted? 2. To what extent, if any, is a hardcover variance justified based on the need to keep the house relatively near the lake due to the location of adjacent homes which block peripheral lake views as the house movca further back toward the road? 3. Is there anyjustification for a lot coverage variance? It appears applicant's proposal mistakenly assumed the 75-250 ’ zone was 11.600 s.f in area based on the surveyor’s 1986 numbers, which apparently didn't account for the 929.4' OHWL but which also showed a lot size more than 1400 sf greater than depicted by today's survey. 4. The property is relatively flat, with a gentle slope from north to south. Applicant has not provided a topographical survey nor a grading plaiu The house elevation views and floor plans suggest a basement is proposed. This lot should not be filled to create a walkout, as that would place it out of character with the surroundings. By the same token, the basement floor elevation can be no lower than elevation 932.5 ’. City topography maps indicate lowest grade at the existing house is about 937'; if they are correct, abasement could be placed about 4.5 ’ into the ground on the south side. A site grading and drainage plan with existing and proposed contours will be required prior to Council action if this application moves forward. 5. Should the proposed house and site plan be redesigned to reduce the e.xtent ofhardcover \ ariance and eliminate any lot coverage variance? 6. Does the Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns about this proposal? •04.3009 M«yn.2004 PattO Stiff Recommenditioa Stiff recotnmends is follows: 1. Approval of lot area variance. Denial ofanyloi coverage variance, limiting the propertyto 15% of the 16,283 s.f. lot are*, or 2,442 s.f. of structures exceeding 6* Ln height. 3.Approval of the degree of hardcover vanar.ce necessary to accommodate a house (and its essential amenities) that is conforming in terms of setbacl^ and lot coveiage; i.e., allow only the amount ofhardcover necessary to functionally accommodate the house, driveway, necessary sidewalks, AC pad, etc. A 75-250 ’ hardcover variance to allow 3,109 s.f. or 30.8% appears justified; any Planning Commission recommendation for additior-al hardcover variance should be accompanied by a clear hardship justification. If the plication moves fixwanl with a recoosmendation to Council, a site grading an drainage plan should be submiaed for review and approval prior to Council action. 5.The applicant should be provided with clear direction in terms of any revisions that may be required. Options for Action I. Approve per applicant’s request. ^prove or partially approve with conditions, forward to Council. Table for submittal of revisions to be reviewed at a future PC meeting. Denial. Other 2. 3. 4. 5. City of Orono Variance Application Srreef AdSress 2750 Kelley Parnway O'Of.o MN 55356 Application #300*^ Date Rece^eti. ---------- - ' CCi Van. 952-249-65C0 fax- 852-249-66*6 Mailing Acarnss o O Rnv Crystal Bay. VN 55323-:065 Amount Paid jfe f •. Staff Fee:S6CC Rerewa*: 5500 A**e'-t“e-fact 51,230 Ccuc e ^ee Tr.s applicalon form must be completed in full. Aop cant w.ii &e rotfed w.tnin *.S days as to i-e status of t-e Bppication. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: . o 4 Site Address t(s^O ^o <Jci • >n Number (PIN):' } T i i “7 - ^'^y-O ^ O Property Ident.fication Number (PIN):t - c o I 7 (Attach legal descriptor! to application if not nd-ded on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): ^ jn^ □ Yes, I own the adjacent parcels. PrasAnt use of orocertv: f^wResidep.tai * Q CtT.er________________________________Present use of property: ^Resider.tai Zoning District: f .q I C __________ APPLICANT INFORMATION; (Comp ete legai raras and rran^status reguired for eacn interested party) Name; tiarexl ----------------------- Phone (home): Address Email: me): 0 4 “It i^cydl ~T‘i 7c _ Phone (work); ,C7^2_ CJi^Qy^ Uri Ji» ei/^_____________________________ rf Wu) ? <T t _ "7 ✓vn ^ 3 l OWNER INFORMATION; (Ccmplett legal rames s-d rr.^r.:a'^ status Name. ___________________________ Phone (home): Address; ___ Email- Phore (work): DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): _______________ _________r_c di .1 sf [Aj k^/ »n ------------------------- $ - lO % u f ^__________'fk/' (2^ c iT!C~h ShctC^L. *5? Ov.-f-Cr ^^73 'iV' kcj. /'d 3l^jp i«jp lA/* L>^ci I St / 9 ,2.% Afl .-tf g4»/r<v* uo/’W. ,'!/i "7^ ^j-LtU'CA ________ _____^n:^v5-i /i^ot^/y uo//in'z/i roodujr^ t7<t77:> v BO 09 I REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order fcr your acpiication to be processed. 'X □□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Owners List - owners w.thin 15Q' of the subject proper./, iabe-s and plat mao. List, labels and map nay be obtained from Hennepin County Deca-tment of Finance. Government Center. A-603 300 South 6*“" Street. Minneapolis, telepfone 612-248-5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting al the requrem.ents listed within this packet, including hardcover calculafons. Also provde one copy 8,5’ x IV or ll" X 17* for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide ere copy 8 5“ x 11" or 11" X 17* for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5” x 11" or 11" x 17") Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the pro>ct * APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review cf this application and certifies that the information suppl.ed is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request r^ardless o^-its potential merit. Applicant’ . _______ Date: Applicant’s L , . ^ uyi ~ OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reascrable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Membe's *or purposes of investigation and ver^fm^tion of this request. Owner's Signature Owner’s Signature; Applicant must have all submittals into the City cffices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plam.ing Commission Meetings are normally 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 schedulea meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. P&ge 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An app-icaticn will not be ccnsidered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submined to the City.________________________ Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27, Subdivision 7 requires that a hardship ^e demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be urvque to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal end ecanor. c situations are not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard ty the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO 1 PROVE A HARDSHIP? u v This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determ.ne if a hajuship exists and how th.e variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as dearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance Is justified. The information the City receives is what is used m determ.n.ng a denial or approval recommendation. !f you leave something out it wil not be considered. Please address each cf these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply): 1.“The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." 4LL 2. "The plignt cf the landcwner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." 3. -The variance, if granted, will not alter th.e essential character of the locality.' "Economic considerations alone shall rot constitute an uncue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." ^ », W i Page 2 of 3 "Undue hardship aiso includes, but la not limited to, inadequate access to direct suniight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for eaan sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Secton 116J C6, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council nay not permit as a ^variance any use that is not permitted under th.s Chapter for prcpety in the zone where the affected person's land is located * 7. . "The Board or Cc-r.cil may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." "The special conditions apply ng to tfie structure or land in question are peculia- lo such property or immediately adjoining property.* •The conditons do not apply generally to other land or structures In the district in which said land is located." 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substant.al property right of tne applicant* 11. ‘The granting of the proposed variance will rot in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, cr in any other respect be confary to the intent cf the Zoning Code." Cc»nCa.rtA #3'^in f s Page 3 of 3 12. "Tho granting of auch variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty • Hardship Statement • . Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above critena. describe the . ur.que hardship, practical difficulty or unusual properly condit ons preventing compliance ’ with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): Tr CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JACK F. RHODE OF LOT 10 AND IN LOT 11, SHADYWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY, ViNNESOTA Hil % WOO- 00- E IP—* • •} I ^ ^ 0 \i 207 rr fcn*cK uc =:r—S.(«»«.. 1UJ0 Ul M. »W|»„C M IMI •» bM II.•r*M m •ttmmt •I M •mP^M twPtt »• M Ul II; »• •«l*rr l"« U »• (a^viMd M»« •( M Mrt^ 1*00 >M« •* M WM II. KM"** IT (VT*** 1* (Ml Ua^KO •• •• C»r»«0 •»T O'*!** •>»» *••'• W Hi»B> •*• *1 *M Ul II. «>M« aMl Mv* t>« !• M •" m«»»»o • • <>—Ul Pm avur 1*0 oa**t MM M »«• M MMio* »• «,•*«• •* •* cvfUo *<•>•*• M li’M*- ■"* ■*• IMTMM • ••*• <«l W Pmm mf apm Mr* 1 r MO** iM***■»« COFFIN kGRONBERG, INC. *01 UwMWai mMCIM U« M MM pirussr,,r^jMBir^ I *a • M« \mm I---------- IM u« r M «•« r • r»M -THI •->•1 Wr^Xi^lN I • IM IWLi/U. OF LOT 10 AND IN LOT 11, SHADYWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA OP o-nt ■ ■^'55:: 1^.,- ^ ‘//0t-*5®!C7 = -’O ?.>i. ' ,• ^ /•.4 ‘T ;*■ • « ?/ >V sn f .\i'-’ fl>*c.L r i:>_r7V!- r / 'Z /i :c.:l vJs- / -r^TAc *’•••. 19± TMtt g«rto« f30x24> DViY diva n>n tlete 4 incUla» Ukf ur^okrd) l44«fMl(.Y4niKda; YMrMMpr&as; 34«rp«dr*x4; SWMifPOfOl 334Yf9EAR5TAI<eS S3ir lanckeeptng •;• f ^ .. .• r -i» * C-M ■(?'•/ -,0. - • ■ - ‘7^-.. •*•' -- a 't r- j> •. r ssiiia^Siiffiaisss^^.-■> v•^^• fv?.* -?.' V'i’l a M- 'Vi' ■' • '^ **■ -WN^T ^U^VATtQM-'^‘v> . Sf'f ■ Wk W .»r CtiWMU • V€»*>(^a- r ^11 |4l^ '^(»wy»e cIJiJwy THli Aktt HARDCOVER C SETBACK ZONE: (aitCLEONE) 0-7r EXBTtWQ HARDCOVER IN ZONE A Hoos# X LON WORKSHEET 250*50(r 500*1000* Uo9t« B. Garag* C. Driveway <4^. *» IfiAfOUlAj^ D. Sdawailc 9S‘i' E. PaboA^eck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Retamir>g Wans H.Ottter TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A *2 I ^ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House Langti 6. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk ___^ ____i E. Patto/Deck c^sr F. Landscape Undertain ByPtaatic 5ouT)f G. Retaining Wala H. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL WOPERTY Al^ IJI ZONE ♦ B •f* L_ .S.F. S.F. (0 5$, .S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. .S.F. .S.F. .8.F. .8.F. .8.F. /I UC?C9 xlCO llCgQg ___S F. A ___S F. B 1 e>>^ % .S.F. S.F. 73-0 Ml.S.F. SF .Si*. .S.F. S.F. S.F. .SE. ,SJF. -SF. w^oo XlOO f} *r. ___8.F. A ___8.F. B i # -■aaweiB , \..r> M*/-- '..• •■ ^ ■ \ 5 ■:■ I'M m'i, A ly'V if'' WMfP m >Ji.V §m- »i ‘ r. * ^V'' ■0‘" ^: ' ^'!VkL fewia <.rf^ ^,*MfEi5-l-i.<ic' .'^ ^'yimi ll. ill t \ ■• ' ii S»^-tsiyT-<-«S s»'<»r=’--. ■ '■•'^';T, " •• ■ /’.• ■<^*'>v^'^.-'». ',,—5tJ g:^ Hennepin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I Ta9\.-£,H^>o_______of \LS‘^ S^<^v*3q^ _____ /< [print namc(s)l [print address] have reviewed the plarw for the proposed Improver.ent or proposed use of the property located at ^4qo S k/^^N^vocot) also referred to as Land Use Application No • I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. cA Owner Date Property Owner Date I (we)i'rYyj [print name(8)Vj -p\iri£k of >»i *oor') ?n/ [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at____________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to conriim for the City Counal that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. 7 Vlr(2- Property Ownfer / (/ Date // / Property Owner Date If you have any Information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use /^plication, piease submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 1009 \ L CITY of OROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3066_ _ _ _ _ _ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, PILE #1707 WHEREAS, Jack Rhode (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the oroperty located at 16 90 Shadywood Road wi.hin whe ?i?; of OrSno (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows : Lot 10 and that part of Lot 11 described f f ® Becinning at the Northwest corner of said -ow lx. th^ence southe ’’ly along the Westerly line thereo* to the Southwes- corner o^f th^^’orth 14* of said Lot 11; thence South 87 degrees, 27 minutes East to the shore of Crystax Bay;^ thence North along said shore to the North 1-ne of said ^ct 11; thence West along said lot line to the point of begi..ning, in Shadywood, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter t..e property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions x aSS'l to permit thi cor.strulticn of a new principal structure using the existing foundation, the propo^sed oV would require approval of a lakeshore setback ir^^ead o. the required 75* and a hardcover variance within the 0-75 setback area of 812 s.f. or 13.3% where none is axlcwed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota:FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1707. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a 1/2 acre or 21,780 s.f. The property consists of 17,700 s.f. or .41 acres. 3. The Orono Planning Cotanission reviewed this application on January 21, 1992, and recoimendcd approval cf the requested variances based upon the following findings* Page 1 of 5 VI CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.3C66 A.Maior upgrading of the property will result in the following changes to existing substandard conditions; 55* 10' 61' 4. 1) Lakeshore setback: Required = 75' Existing Principal Structure Existing Accessory Structure Proposed Principal Structure Proposed Accessory Structure » 59' (second level deck extends 2' beyond lakefront of principal residence) Variance: Existing Principal Structure ■ 20' or 26% Proposed Principal Structure - 14' or 18.61 Existing Accessory Structure » 65' or 86% Proposed Accessory Structure « 16' or 21% (second story upper level deck) 2) Hardcover within the 0-75' setback area: Allowed = C s.f. Existing - 926 s.f. or 15.8% Proposed " 812 s.f. or 13.5% Total Reduction » 2.5% B. The application involves no need for a hardcover variance within the 75-250* setback area as applicant proposes removal of major portions of existing hardcover within the 75-250* setback area. C. The use of the existing foundation will provide less of an impact on the lakeshore property. D. The original structure was placed on the property prior to current standards for lakeshcre development. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commissionr reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 5 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 3:66NO. 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to ocher property in this coning districtj that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Crono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit the construction of a new residence structure using the existing foundation subject to the following conditions; 1.All hardcover scheduled for removal must be completed prior to the final inspection by the Building staff for the new construction. Please refer to Exhibit A of this resolution fcr hardcover areas designated for removal. 2. 3. Applicant to provide a Highway Department permit for the relocated curb cut to the site. Applicant or applicant's architect shall provide the Building staff with the engineering data or findings that confirm the existing foundation can sustain the proposed 2-story structure at the time of application for a building permit. Applica-.t is hereby advised that, if for any reason unknown at this tine, the existing foundation cannot be used, all improvements shall be installed per an amended plan that shall meet current standards of the City for development of lakeshore properties. If the amended improvement plan does not meet all applicable standards, applicant shall file a new variance application with the City. Page 3 of 5 fo\ 'o\CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ...r» 3066NO. ___________________ STATE OP MINNESOTA ) } S8. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this a ^ ^_______day of ------------------- before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared *Ta.g.)C /Zhcct^ . sole , , known to me to oe the personCaj described in and who executed the foregoing instrument# and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. LISDA S. VEE KOTAHV PUSUC • M’J»kE50TA MENNEP'N rCLNTY My csmmtASfl S '3 X TKTS or ■TfnTRtSDTiVy C/^ Notary Public )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of ____________________________.• —before me a Notary Fuoiic within and for said county, personally appeared . ,—knovm to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument# and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page S of 5 w -V V * • v7 . > ' . ,-•- j. 'v 4*:;: , . • k '»-.- ~ .»14 ■ -. • •.. • -,, ■ -s.- • vy. ' ■ • *''v' •H- ti;; ?,:V *•.♦,;- 5^--. - -A, ______________:____. v»- to- 4^ •v V ^5- fe- ■ 1%:^ IP:--"-- Pf-"S!rv':^ *< * ■* fT'^ lA.Cj -S. •04-3010 May 17,2004 Page I of 6 Dale Apptleaiion Recelvad; 4-21-04 Date AppiKalton CoaiMercd at Coiaplclc: 6-9-04 60-Dav Review Period Etpiret: i-0-04 Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From:Janice Gundlach, City PlanncrV^ Dale: Subject: June 17,2004 #04-3010, Theodore L. Capra, 3534 Ivy Place . Hardcover Variance, Conditional Use Permit • Public Hearing Zoning Districl: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - IC, One Family Lakeshorc Residential District ('/»acre min.) O.SO acres (21.926 s.f.) 104 feet fS Shoreline; 101 feet (a, 75’ Setback Application Summary: Applicant requests the following in order to construct a new residence on an existing lot: 1. Hardcover variance to permit 32.86% hardcover within the 75’-250 /one where 25% is normally allowed and 49% currently exists. 2. Conditional use permit to allow land alterations within the 0-75’ zone Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the hardcover variance as the project is a rebuild and should be held to the 25% hardcover limitation and no valid hardship has been demonstrated Staff also recommends denial of the conditional use permit to allow grading within 75’ of the lake. The applicant can still achieve a walk-out style home without requiring the extensive grading. Pcrlincnt Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-282. Lakeshorc hard cover and land alteration regulations. In any LR-IA. LR- IB. LR-IC or LR-lC-1 district, within 75 feet of sh. reline, there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under section 78-281. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30 percent hard cover. Within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover. Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tribut^y. except for stairways, lifts, landing x and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. L *04.3010 Mty 17,2004 Pagt 2 of 6 (b) Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHUT, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. Between 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. Section 78-1286. Topographic alierations^grading and filling. (b) Grading, filling or excavating of more than ten cubic yards is prohibited within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of the public waters enumerated in section 78-1217. Grading, filling or excavating of ten cubic yards or less shall require city staff review’ and permit and be subject to other pertinent sections of this chapter (addressed in the conditional use permit section of this report) LUI of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applications Exhibit B - Hanlship Documentation Form Exhibit C - Existing Survey Exhibit D - Proposed Surv ey Exhibit E - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F - City Engineer Comments Exhibit G - Front & Rear Elevations Exhibit H - Floor Plans Exhibit 1 - Adjacent Property Owner's Acknowledgement Form Exhibit J - Photographs Exhibit K - Property Owner's List Exhibit L-Plat Map Background The applicant has met sev'eral times with Planning Department staff to discuss construction of a new residence on his existing lot. The Planning Department has advised the applicant that new construction has consistently been required to meet all standards established by the Zoning Ordinance, including hardcover. The applicant has attempted to work with staff to determine if any hardships exist to warrant approval of hardcover in excess of 25%. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot AreaAVidtk LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (C.50 acres)100’ Actual 21,929 s.f. (0.50 acres)104’ @ Shoreline 10r@75 ’ Setback i«4-30I0 M»y >^-20M ragciofft LR-IC Required Existing Proposed 1 Front 30 ’N’A N/A Rear 30 ’ 99.6* - house 11.5’ - detached garaee 71* Left Side (north)10 ’ 23.2' - house 1.3' - detached carace 28’ Right Side (south)10 ’ 26.2' - house 73' - detached earase 10 ’ Lakeshore 75*91.5’ - house 18.5’-shed 90 ’ - house Average Lakeshore 71.5'-98.5* (going north to south) 110’-94' (conforming)94 ’ Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 21,926 s.f (0.50 acres)Allowed; 3,289 s f. (15%) Proposed: 3,208 s.f. (14.6%) Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 6,978 s.f.Osf 320 s.f Os.f 0-75 (0%)(4»/o)(0»b) 75 - 250 14,948 s.f.3,737 s.f. (25%) 7,032 s.f (49%) 4.676 s.f (32.86%) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Hardcover Variance The applicant is proposing to tear dowTi the existing house and rebuild. The existing house has approximately 7,032 s.f. or 49®/o hardco\cr within the 75*-250* zone. The applicant is proposing to remove approximately 2,356 s.f. of hardcover, although is still requesting a variance to permit 4,676 s.f of hardcover, or 32.86%. Also, the property cuirently contains 320 s.f. of hardcover within the 0-75* zone or 4% (the rock w’all at the shore does not count towards hardcoverX The applicant is proposing to remove this hardcover and comply with the 0*/§ hardcover standard for the 0-75' zone. ■M-3010 May r. 1004 Pat«4erft Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship staicnieni in Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship AnaKsb ___________________________________________________ In consUeung applicMiont for variance, the Planning Commluion vltall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community , existing and anticipated traffic conditions, l^ht and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Cemmhtion shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only w hen It is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Stair finds that no valid hardships inherent to the land exist to warrant approval of the hardcover variance. The lot meets the '"j acre area standard os well as the width standard The applicant has proposed 3.208 s.f footprint leasing only 349 s.f. for allowable non- structural hardenscr. which would work under most circun stances however the applicant has proposed an attached. 3-stall garage. If the applicant were to construct the garage at the road, 1.368 s f. of hardcover for a dnseway would not be necessary ’. The Zoning Ordinance specifically addresses detached garages for lakeshore lots and reduced setbacks to allow for minimal dri\eway. The Planning Commission has consistently required that properties meet ail standards, including hardenser. when a property is being rebuilt. Conditional L'se Permit The applicant has expressed his desire to *’e\en out*’ the grade on the lake side of the home. In doing this the applicant ha. proposed grading all the way down to the shore. Ihis in part has to do with the applicants proposed walk-out style home but also an attempt to remove the existing retaining wall that a previous owTier constructed in an attempt to create a flat area for a garden. The grading proposed on site will consist of a substantial amount of fill on the street side of the home, which doesn't require a CLP unless it exceeds 500 cubic yards, and also the grading on the shoreline side which does require a CUP. The C:ty Engineer has reviewed the proposed grading plan and his comments are anached as Exhibit F. Below, the proposed grading within 75’ of the shore is reviewed against the conditions established under the Shoreland Overlay District: Conditional uses allowable within shoreland areas shall be subject to the review and approval procedures and criteria and conditions for review of conditional uses established in the Zoning Ordinance. The following additional evaluation criteria and conditions apply within the shoreland overlay district: (1) Evaluation criteria A thorough evaluation of the water body and the topographic, vegetation and soils conditions on the site must be made to ensure: a. The prevention of soil erosion or the possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction; •04-3010 Ma> 17.2004 Page S of 6 Because the applicant can achieve a ualk-out style home uithout grading to the shoreline, the possibility of the above criteria can he avoided. The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed frum public waters is limited; From staff's perspective, the proposed grading uill not make the proposed home any more visible from the lake than the existing home. The applicant is proposing to merely even out the grade ITic site is adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment, and This site is served with public sanitary seucr. The types, uses and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate these watercraft. S/A The applicant will continue to use his lakeshore for personal boat storage and lake accessibility Conditions attached to conditional use permits The city council upon consideration of the criteria listed in subsection (1) above and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, shall attach such conditions to the issuance of the conditional use permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. Such conditions may include but arc not limited to the following; Increased setbacks from the ordinarv’ high water level. S/A a. Limitations on the natural vegetation to be removed or the requirement that additional \egctation be planted. The existing vegetation on the lake side of the home consists mainly of underbrush Should the Planning Commission determine that some amount of grading on the lake side of the home is appropriate, additional vegetation implementation could be required. Special provisions for the locations, design and use of structures, sewage treatment systems, watercraft launching and docking areas, and vehicle parking areas. The applicant is proposing to remove the shed located at the lake in an effort to reduce hardcover. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the iqiplicants desire to have an attached garage create a hardship? 2. Can a lakeshore property handle a 3-stall + garage? «.WPI ,m ■04-3010 May 17.2004 rat*0of6 3. Would it be inconsistent to grant a hardcover variance when the property meets the required area and width? 4. Should the applicant be allowed to grade all the way to the shore when a walk*out style home could be achieved without the grading within 75* of the lake. 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff RccommcadalioB Denial of both the hardcover variance and the conditional use permit request. The applicant should revise his plan to incorporate a smaller detached garage or reduce the total foot print area in order to achieve 25% hardcover within the 75*-250* zone. The applicant should also be advised to revise his plan to incorporate minimal grading only needed to remove the retaining wall constructed by the previous owner. City of Orono Variance Application EXHIBIT A street Address: 2750 Kei;ey Parkway Orono, MN oS356 Main: 952-249-4600 fax- 952-24S-45*6 Ma'Urtg Address P.O Box 66 Crysta! Bay. MN 55323-2C55 Appiicat:on A Date Received. Amount Paid. Staff; Fee;S6CC Renewal' S300 A*ter-tne-fact $1 200 Dcuce Fee Tfts aopiication form must te completed m fun App cant w.ii be notif.ed witrin 15 days as to the status of tne appiicaton Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: ^ Site Address; *4 PAj^L o lion Numb ^.:2-Properly Identficalion Number (PINV .^V} - I NT, (Attach legal description to application if not inc'-ced oh the survey.) Gate Property Acquired (month/year); _______□ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property. Of Residential □ 0*j*er____________________________ Zoning District; 6./2.-I6*__________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal ra-es and rrantal status requ-red *or each interested partyl Name: L M Pnone (home); __ Address: Email: i/ss 5 2> Phone (work): At fL A.g . -TL.^-nkO^L.9s‘ rr OWNER INFORMATION: (Cono'ete legal names a'O rra-tai satus requ.red for each nteresiea pady) Name: ^H•cA^r^cC fc L. Phono (home); "7^.^ 3 *^ Address: -3d n Cj /Vt if AJTT Email /A J ________________________ Phone (work);-I.KC: ----1n DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: %^'OXCO, Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): T^>U\LD U^JL^X- c'pf A \ y H Pi cLr^cru 4 pi TO a I c?u > L-Dj>/e 1/uc.Lu SGOP>,C^ r-^tT uJH/CH all ~TO # V -3 0 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for yc^r asplication to be processed. □□□ O □ □□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, ccrrpleted by a City Planner Completed Application Form ^ Completed Hardship Documentation Form ^ 5 ' Certified Property Owners Ust - owners within 150* of the subject property. labels and plat nap List, labels and map nay be obtained from Hennepin County D^artrr.pn* nf p.narr^ Government Center. A-603 300 South 6**' Street. Minneapolis. telephoreoll-aAS-SSlO ^95*’^ Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), rr.eetihg a i the requTrenents listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations Also provide one copy 8 5' x 11* or 1 r X 17" for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8 5" x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of f.oor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 17") Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project." APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and cer.ifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it Is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardl^ji of its potential merit. -V*.Applicant’s Signature: gardless of its potential m< Applicant’s Signature: Date: Date /■ OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request „ - '....... --Owner s Signature:7 Date. Date Applicant must have all submittals Into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are normally 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 representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project # O ‘J .L 5J neufOMmmHnfM EXHIBIT B page 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM Thl» term is a requirsd submltUI for ALL variance applications. An application Will not be considered complete or placed on any rr.eetrg agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City ____________ ^X^Ste^d'^n tole ur^qte'^tS mS property as variances run with the land and not the land cwner. Personal and ecoron^c s=tusUons are not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by IP.8 Banning Commisson and City Council a hardship having merit trust be dimonstrated. stow DO 1 PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a ha dship exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used m determm ng a denial or approval recommendation If you leave sorreth ng out it will not be corside-ed. Please address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some m.ay not apply): 1.•The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.* -.W4P THe U>T IS uVVS— THft fO A~r IaSpI Ir ripfOS T\7UM A 1^ I ^------------- -The plight of the landcwner is due to circumstances unique to hts property not created by the landowner." f*Au\tfocr nriSAVPi c. r>r~^ The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.* n uoit^L rJcn PtLrt^JL iro hrro^ XT ^sUOalo if\)^^-4\roUcr \T.___________________________ •Economic consideratons alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zcnng Chapter.* (MLTT WliOMPif. _______________________________________ 10 j L Page 3 of 3 •Tha granting of such varlinca will not merely serve as a conv^.ienca^ to the SDONcant. but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or d^icuity/ Aqa n f-* CAP t'it- PA ^ - * at Op > fMiorO go AO u^rrHtfUrr Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above cnteria. descnbe the unique hardship, practical diff.culty or unusual property conditions preverung compliance with Zoning Ordinance raquiramenu in the foUowmg lines (attach additional shee.s if **TMV- iLtAw IT .rwiJBiiJJoJJ-JU'f- M rfNAC-jftn^ XT IP- t >fru [LAAdoa5>T^ \ I .1 gr V. ~TI t i^iierv- ^'&'ifSL.l. IHaS CXNVSiP<t.eA:ili>V^\ tc,f\e_ Dv P> i_i^i/^ u -M\1a I - O ~rififw~ii -■ ------- -j LuO/\n>^ iOPT- gOAO. LOi> u>nvcL-«*^ ?><-— AST~Tftc»H> \ cx\n& A.»fcA.o AOrmPL liJrt iC.H LOt^Lj^ Pi_-v^y XA i\a. t -TUtrur- TKii toryu>t-C^ gA^t-\Arv;(LCr D^PvC.t6f^ J. r^n n AuAiAftL2L StWui u^aQ. DfP\Ci6fO i»HJui ytVi rri^ 0«-irv\nrv^ ,4. fvrtevx>.iY=>-it-v^«!uC- Timt. Trr <7 *■ Z''*';* cr., r •■i RCVOIONS I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY SURVEY rort Ted C apra EXHIBIT D • ■- • •— ! •-r J4.19 —' Ted C apra BARDCO SETBACK ZONE: (COtCLBONS} EKisnsn iM jffff***^** ^ A. Beau ____________ V^^^JCVLA TiONWORESBEBT 75>230'25»J«0' EXHIBIT E soa-ioeo' s3ip B. Garoit C. Driveway D. adtmOi fttU: £. Patio/Deck _________ - F. LureLcapt (MerioOt _____________ ByPkutie ________ . OrFoMe S.F. 5.F. ’SJ^. 'SF 5.F. \S.F, S.F. KF. S.F. S.F. S.F. ’SF HARDCOVER CALCUIA TWN WORKSHEET SBnACKZONB: ta*CLBONE) »-75' ^SsO^ 2S9-SW grfCTTAtfp utAmnrvifVKm nt t/mk A. Hotat _____________ 50O-/M0' 1 B. Garage C. Drivnuof D. SdefMlk £. PiaAoBMc F. Landuape UiklerlaiH By Plastic OrP^c C. Other 35SEB5’ ytihlM S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ‘S.F. > S.F. So S.F. S.F. ]S.F. S.F. S.F. ' S.F. TOTAL HAKDCOVEB IN ZONE - TOTAL PROPERTf AREA IN ZONE . A *1^2, + B xIOO m •7052. 5.A S.F. % f"AMncavsR in zone A. Haase B. Garage C Drt^eaiay D. Sidemalk E. Patie/Deck 1^3^ F. ixmdseape Vaderlabt ByPlastie Or Fabric C. Other S.F. S.F. S.F. S4o S.F. 'S.F. S.F. ;s.F. S.F. S.F. _S.F. _5.F. S.F. S.F. ATOTAL HARDCOVER m ZONE - ^ , _ Bonestroo j^Rosene on ■ Ancterlik & ^\j|Assodaces Cngln«tri 4 Archiiecit 2335 VWeit Mig.*iwiiy 36 • St Paul. MN 55H3 Office. 65I-636-4600 • Fa*: 65I*636-I3'I wwwbcncit'oo com EXHIBIT F June 14.2004 Ms. Jtntce Gundlach Pltnner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 CrysttI Bay. MN 55323 Re: 3534 Ivy Place File No. 139-04-000 put No. 04-3010 Dear Janice: We have rT.-iewed the plans for the proposed improvements to 3534 Ivy Place. The proposed improvements include removing an existing residential home and garage, constructing a new home and regrading the entire lot. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters; • The proposed grading plan shows a swale along the south lot line that will convey drainage onto the neighboring property to the south. Plans should be revised so storm water is conveyed around the house on the subject property. • The plans propose to regrade the slope between ihc new home and the lake. This does not appear to be necessary and should be strongly discouraged. Any grading within 75-feet of the lake should be avoided if at all possible to preserve the subility of the slope and prevent erosion into the lake. • The grading pUn should be revised so that swales are incorporated along both the north and south sides of the home. This may require relocaimg the home to provide adequate room to construct the • Thc'rcvised plans should include existing contours and topography both on the sue and extending to at least 50-feet beyond all lot Unes. If you have any questions please call roe at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLDC A ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc . Oreg Oappa, City of Orono • St Paul. St. Clouet. Rocheiter. Wiiimar, MN « Miiwauiiee. Wl ■ Chicago. II tAKe Cr-ApQ-A |;2-flC.10 6‘f3^e^ *,€•^4 ivv puif^ sfdhHz^T^ • cr:.oMM ►J®* ^^424^^ <s5T^Msen’ ***^^ ^x.ei/A.T ‘0 gtd o Dt2JJ <Z»t 14 L rn-=T^-------^ F|R»T FtotfB- !«••►* 2oflo 4> Moisr 4f»-«T q^Op dlACAU I P*IKH Itt -T&Ti-t- H a i t j!I i.\C '. .T5 I I r , ■■' ":n ■;d.;„.. - . •vv - • -s • •«V*vv ■*- -^*1-“; ■« **' •/■ ' . • ' ■ A. ' ■ '*. *•'■' ' .-,• . • - / r 'JfV-JL MM-M19 J«m2I.20<M Date AppUcstioa Ricchrtd: 4-2I-04 OMt Applkitton CMUidtrtd M CoMpIcte: 6-9^ 60-Diy Rfvkw Period EipJr«: »-»-04 Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ren Moorse, City Administrator Fran: Date: Sabjcct: Janice Gundlach, City Planner June 14,2004 #04-3019, Wendy Sullivan, 325 Crestview Avenue - Lot Area, Lot Width, Front and Side Yard Setback Variances - Public Hearing Zaaiag District: Lot Area: Ut Width: LR - 1 A. One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre min.) 0.43 acres (18,796 s.f.) 150 feet Applicant requests the followinR variance in order to construct a new residence on and existing lot: . . « 1 Lot area variaiKe in order to construct a new residence on the existing 0.43 acre lot where 2 aces is normally required. 2. Lot width variance in order to construct a new residence on the existing 150’ wide lot when 200’ is normally required. 3. Front yard setback variance to allow the new house to be setback 30 ’ from the front property line when 50* normally is required. 4. Side yard (south) setback variance to allow the new house to be setback 19’ from the side property line when 30* is normally required. Staff Recommendation: Staff reconunends approval of the variance requests as submined. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-305. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Aroo (oert)Lot Widtii (fed)Froot Yord (fdof)SMt Yord (iMt)Side Yard A4ioccm to Street (feet) 2 see so 30 SO SO Lbt of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applications Exhibit D - Hardship Documentation Form Exhibit C - Proposed Survey Exhibit D - Hardcover Calculations Wi-Mlf JHM31.2004 P*|t2or4 Exhibh E - Proposed Floor Plans & Elevations Exhibit F - Illustrations Showing BuUdable Ai^ at 'A and 2 Acre Setback Requirements Exhibit G - Aerial Photograph Exhibit H • Neighbor Comments Exhibit I - Property Owner’s List Exhibit J-Plat Map Background This lot is located within a small lot neighborhood zoned for 2 acre lots. Many of the lots on Crestview Avenue and Tonka Avenue are substantially under the required 2 acres and require variance approval to do virtually any iroprovemenL This particular lot has a vacant, old, and dilapidated house that has been posted as hazardous by the Building Official. The applicant's father rented the house out, where the Police Department discovered that methar..pbetamines were being created. Since that discovery the house has remained vacant and remediation will be required prior to issuance of a building permit for any new residence. The applicant proposes to tear down the existing buildings and construct a new residence. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot ArcaAVidth LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres)200 ’ Actual 18.796 s.f. (0.43 acres)150 ’ Setbacks (a survey of existing conditions was ix>t provided and the following existing setbacks are estimates from an aerial photograph on file) LR-IA Required Existing Proposed Front 50 ’22*30.5 ’ Rear 50 ’70 ’ - house 50*-shed 50.6 ’ Left Side (north)30*18 ’49.4 ’ Right Side (south)30*95 ’-house 85 ’-shed 19J’ A pool is proposed for the new residence however it is considered an accessory structure and meets all of the accessory structure setbrxk and hardcover requirements. MM-Mlf Junt 21, 2004 PaScJofO Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 18.796 s.f (0.43 acres)Allowed: 2,819 s.f (15%) Proposed: 2,702 s.f (14%) Hardcover Calculariona Hardcover Zone 500-1000 Total Arta in Zone 18.796 s.f. Allowed Hardcover 6.578.6 s.f. (35%) Existing Hardcover Information not provided_____ Proposed Hardcover 5.370 s.f (28.57%) * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Lot arca/widlh variances This property sits within a small lot neighborhood in a 2.0 acre zoning district. Many of the lots on this street as well as Tonka Avenue have substandard let areas. Because this property is less than a Vi acre, where 2.0 acres in normally reqiiired and has a defined width of 150’ when 200’ is required, variances to area and width must be approved in order for the applicant to construct a new residence. Front and Side Yard Setback Variances Because of the namre of the small lot neighborhood the applicant has proposed !4 acre setback standards when the 2.0 acre setbacks are required. The applicant has proposed a 30.5’ front yard setback when 50’ is normally allowed under to 2.0 acre slandar^. The applicant has also proposed a 49.4* north side yard setback and a 19.3* south side yard setback when 30* is required under to 2.0 acre standards. This requires approval of front and side (north and south) yard setback variances. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis _______________________________________________ In eoHsUtrinf mppttattiota for yariancf, tfie Piannhii Commitsion thaU consider the effect of the proposed vorimmee t^on the heolth, sofety and welfare of the community, existing end mticipoted ttoffk condMoms, tight end tie, danger of fire, risk to the pubtk safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Hanning Commiulon shaU consider recommending approval far variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Cede In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of rite Orono Zoning Code._____________ Staff finds that a hardship exists with relationship to the lot area and lot width variance requests. The lot was established prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and is thmfore a legal lot of record. J mw21.2M4 Stiff also finds a hanUhip exists with relationship to the front and side yard setback variance requests. The lot is situated within a small lot neighborhood yet is subject to the 2.0 acre standards of the zoning district and the neighborhood is too small to re-zone to acre standards. It has not been unusual for other lots in this neighborhood to receive variances at acre standards to rebuild. If the 2.0 acre standards were applied much of the lot would be unbuildable and the applicant would be forced to construct a long, narrow home, as demonstrated by Exhibit F. Issnes far Consideration 1. Should the shape of the buildable area be considered a hardship? 2. Are acre standards reasonable due to the small lot neighborhood? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Approval of the plaiu as submitted. City of Orono Variance Application EXHIBIT A Sfraef Address;Aoolication • 1 ^ 2750 Kelley Parkway Date Received; U -Zt-64 Orono. MN SS3S6 Amount Paid: r.OO.*"-* Px» Staff: .V* - Main 952-243-4600 Fee; S600 fax: 952-249-4616 Rane-.val; 5300 Mating Address.Af :r-the-fact 51.200 Doub'e Fee P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323>:066 This applicabon lorm must be completed in full. App'cant wHl be notified within 15 days as to the status of the app;«ation. incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: 325 __________________________________________ Property Identification Number (PIN): ___________________________________________ (Attach legal description to application if not Included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): t [ 0 4 □ Yes, I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: ^Residential □ Oner_________________________________ Zoning District;___________________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal na-es and marital status recuired for each interested parly) Name: V/gyirlo 6u\U va*^_______________________ceW - qcy=»2> Phone (home): Address: Email: ■ Phone (work): (CotT.^ 2.06-5-0 49 pot'^ • u3SatV%v>o-*^^0 -cor>o Cfcvoo (.OS>OfS>S OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal na. .es manta: status required for each inte'ested party) Name; _______________________ ____________ Phone (home): * Ut(^) nP-H-11 V*i Phone (work): (Ln J ___ Address: a*\0*l _____ Email: \>)wv.V.»vnlfcvL«vv»y ’r^ ^ Fax:((gt^j DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if rjecessary);_________ ■ c CLCr^ OjL\i C^C * V Jt ^ S 5^iC:.ocjD (c ril lA-U* «r- yv*'^ »CV.K.(L.< LKA/^Jf IC- U^V.-* f V*’ yytj.tJ fl ronv..lQ-lJ-A^ ^l^SrC/7 bSavT* Ufl,ii^cu-T cklr C^r.gTtL/r»jri •/ _____________ iiiaAictw^. JL^i^Kuj tuTxwL Ix>a,.-pUJ # on 19 » REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: Alt of the fonwringjnformatlon must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your □□ *□ ja: -□□ Pre-Appiication Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certmed Property Owners List - owners within 150* of the subject property, labels and plat map List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance Government Center, A-603 300 South 6*” Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-34B.591Q Original Certificate of Survey ‘(signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8 5* x 1 r or ir X 17* for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet) Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8 5"xir or 1 r X 17’ for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 17") Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. • APPUCANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all Applica.U's Signature; ^Date: Date: OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Owner's Signature Owner's Signature: [ )Date; Date; ^hilp9 Applicants must be present at a I scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and J. please make arrangements tohauVln ss IT-----® awieauieu meeiing. piease make arrangements to a'Gi^ned to you7pro^^^^ applicant and advise the City Planner o .r\ Page 3 of 3 •Tho granting of audt varianoa w»l not marety ten/a as a convanlenca to the aoDlicant but is necassary to aHaviate dsmonstoabla hardship or difficulty.* IjA t\ CfvVvi SpaC<^----------- fl. tL*Wa i. 'if - "ft? klLu/ d- Should you faal the hardship cannot fully be described In the above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinanca requirements In the foHowing lines (attach additional sheets if "******^’lyf ;< toly .WA (J.rt.'s •* a\l t«JUt •JA\ lo^ !?> UlU £w.~ pt L\J<>iuLQj . hi c fl^L»U ^----- Vh^ tltr/ Sc.f- ^Jrtck ----- Ivlei.rll.t’ 4e> lA«n_tr« ft /t t Ivv fl .____ • # i t 1 “5 2^'EXHIBITC I •• L \a 4h OT SvlUVAM B a Hioc Aoa Iakc JivtA HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-2S0* 250-500* EX15TINC HARDCOVER tN ZONg Qoo-1000’3 A Houm WAH B. Garage C. Dhitway D. Sidewalk E Patio/Dcck F. Landteape Underlain ByPluUe OrFabne O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - B xlOO PROPOSED HARnCOVER IN ZONE' A House B Oarage C. Driveway I74A D. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck 4^98 F. Landscape Underlain By Pluiic Or Fabric 0. Other 432. total HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B KlOO SF. SF. ’S.F. S.F. SF SF SF. SF. .S.F.* S.F S.F. .S.F SF ’SF. % 270Z. S.F - HdW5£ SF ’S.F. sf-s«x>4 S.F. • SF SF SF - f^T*0 S.F. SF, SF. S.F. ST.-foot. S.F. -A SF. B H r~- ^gtM mA wu mu \\7 oifttm: , ir~tr u i* -«*• 4>M »>w-#■i^-. —--.--j , nu mm mmm )CBCALJ<QQM i» - I’ I !«■ •■ i>M*4 ••I* W FIRST FLOOR PLAN tICMt • VINl SCiltDUt ' rm DMtfiti _muMM. Urt w VUk MM-r SCO JOU SCO MW-J SCO OM SCO •MO SCO KMO SCMO «/0i4/a ■ ••4ion MM 0 0 0 Iftto • 01 l»ri 10 01 10 n »•« rmt fuoi soMH rauua • noi afipug,sgggt°%g-** MfCMtH CVSJOM SU*S ••IHt I * 1 •> C/MtMo*iw «. 1/1 ■»m t: •ail mt coco «an* vmtr ims «no mm (htmc ion «U IStilC raHMS «M siinho uanuoi fit nooo •• hoOsc wmi rmc la au iuii«rs R vuMio iMouCM M tv a«i Of MWSi auMxa a ■tvws*i rv tmma Ml nM*flciaas n m mm imt% am sin SKIiaoCa Ml M till Oil lOT (M an niaMHC cflMcms • Mono am n< nooa mat DATES MVttfD mw 4-JO-oa oaa •-W -04 OMB »-»-o« caa ea-n-o« m oo-n-04 CM tt ii-a« M iifloai NORSE BUILDING SYSTEMS UMTT n.-unsm. fi MM WENDY SULLIVAN CT7771 SUIUVAN NTSOCNCC JMMMUMII vuTmm !“■ VTC* Mte SfCA IMO'l UCA XM UCA «MO SCCA MUI uMt «/o«t/a ucMf » vtMi scmuuu mir cMiMM* ll(MR mOKO^5" - r«-Tr raj-TT — ^q„se&. DAimafl arcTTBT iOM MM 0 l»M «Oi irot ■ •OJ MM • MSI f\0(M y»«M fOOlMX ■ lOUain&grggggysag WtcMM CIARM iIMn OMKM CUVUtMnit I • 1 *1 CU%R ____MIm «■ 1/7 UMH II tOI «M> COlO ■MT* VJMIT IMS «M> aUTI HTMi )0H «( PtUMMC InTMtS «M %IUMU> tHMOUQI IM ruMR » iOHC Mat l«MS »M Ml inriAMi n WUMRO IMWUCM iK MM n«it Wf MOMU lUUMM K W1MMMU •(» MMMC Ml C(MC«On W l>« HHI IMS <H «fC ■ ML K irn orr roM « INCVMinon piummm oaMCfnn r wun w ■*« noot ISAM "WSIDBR^ OATES MONH. nAN J-II-OL KVBU riAM oa S-IOHM CM s lo-M cm M-20-M tm CM M-If-M CM L_oaan__ /INORSE ^BUILDING SYSTEMS IIM lAMn UL- UDY90TH. fl MM SECOND riOOR PLAN WENDY SULLIVAN fwN|##f ISUUMIM RCSCCMCf sccoNO noon plan wc wi H ini an or iw MMf I caMWt tr iMM tK ■onoM or «« XMrtl. J count* HIWCMI nooniMi iM MS Ml noon OM « > ttooT. M m mo «MC OH tx CMC no WHOM R tkMUCO «MO IMMO W «nntm m oMn MM MCK CM SIC m oncRS GMucc Bt omn DATES ■MM. OUM i-lt-O* -10-0* -10-04 OHO l-IO-M i-n-M »-M-0< igsafsaHT UM 11 ZM* FRONT ELEVATION r»W|#/f IViUlWlIM HtSMCMCC id ii« i NORSE BUILDING SrSTKMS HRBLlitnMn.llSIM WENDY SULLIVAN TRONT ri rVATlON llA*l7i \«vr. Wt m till Of c* i>< • OUU II I t0t4rj% IMIMIM •i« isi iwM |tir( iii«m ON A ) Vu«f m>fn lao CM lltl OMI •NU'i Mt'IIMl r, V«f>tu |M ttr. AMI IlM'^AIj (M !icn III ll!i« liMM ^l)UILDINK*SYm:MS tin mutm ii» • uoraiiT.i. r jy KN1) YVsnm VAN MrjTu , -» "7 S 89"34' 00** E (M7-D (W«J) WMKU.O («StO v^'iMGi 'i2 Me r=io‘ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : lot< 4 nnH A Rlnrb A RAYAIHP 1) Garage «• 2) Top of foundotion =[55 - V. A-vHr-..■**• t ■K.'^ V f •'r.z-tTsi > '.V'-T'^i* " '*1^ '*■ -v mmm ''-ii'-j 'v' <. ' «Jk. m .•# ' - 1 IS;! r * eS/ll/2M4 08:38 7634786445 CREPEMJ KXXS L Miyll.2004 Michael P. Gefhon. Planning OirMtor CilyafOrono 2750 KelKV Piflcway Orar«. MN S6356 PAGE 01 EXHIBIT H RE: 6/17W Plwning Conwnlliion MaeBng Dear Membeti o> the Planning Conwniealcn, Ptoaee ooneUer earahily Ihe raqueat of Wendy SuHvan. 32S CmMmt Avenue (fOA-aOlfi).vwianoee of lot area, lot eddlh, front tida and rear eelbacke. In order to oonetnid a new ra^^lence on the properly. Everyone in thieneighboihoodeiantethen property deennrt up After melMab buelleel the property hae beooma on even wdtm oyeeore, end le tram In terhble condWon Hoerover. %wd hat 8, Wendy 8u»ren a »ie daoghlef of ore oeew. or If ehe hae pon^WMdg^ property-her folher wee the prevlOMeoienef WeinlheneMhbortwodimiplyr^tobeaidiJnBd that IhO proparty wii not become another rental homo to Ihe Ukee of eevoral of the previoue j renlere. SInoarely. SMcJ/Uuumil ^ \ Sandra Nieeum 205 Creetwew Avenue Oreno,MNSS3Se RUNOAll:«]ynM M OSII7UI400II •ftor ADM no cmstviewave 3WNERMAMII J » WKfclAN A KM WiCMAH rAXTAVCR JOHRAKRISTEHMWOCMAN aWCRESTVEWAVe LONGLAXEMH U3M 31 OSII7UI400Si mor ADO» 325 CTESTVICW AVE DWNCANAME WaUAM lsuluvan TAXPAVEK W1UJAM SUUJVAN mi/rboehtaven «05 BKOOKLYNPARKMN 5544J n 0311723140035 mOPAOM 330 BAYSIDCW) OWNERNAMO AI.ADOOOMETAL TAXPAYER -itRSALADOBON NAME/AODR 33OBAYSI06RD LONOLAKEMN 553M 31 03II723I400U rROPAOOR 300 CRESTVIEWAVE OWNERKAME THOMAS RBET7 taxpayer THOMAS RBE12 NAME^AOOR 300CRESTVIEWAVE LONOLAKEMN 3S136 31 0511723140057 ntor AOOR 330 CRES7YIEW AVE OWNERNAME WRSTEPHENSBlETAt TAXPAYER WWFIELD R STEPHENS III NAME/ADOK 3770BAYS10EIU1 LONOLAKEMN 551M HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGf: 31 0511721140025 PROPADOR 2R5 CRESTVIEWAVE OWNERNAME SANDRAiNCOJM TAXPAYER SANDRA IHCCIM NAME/ADOR 215 CRESIVIEW AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 31 O5II721I4O013 PROPADOR 31 ADDRESS IMASSIGNED OWNERNAME BERTLAPOOONETAL TAXPAYER MRSALAOOaON NAME/ADOR 1312 BAVSIDE RO LONOLAKEMN 55156 31 0511723140016 PROP AOOR 30 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNIRHAME ESTHER M AOOSON TAXPAYER MRSALAOOdOH NAME/AOOR 3302BAYSIO6RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 JO 05II72JI40052 PROP ADOR 3390 DAYSlOE RD OWNERNAME BARBARA JOANNE HUBER TAXPAYER BARBARA JOANNE HUBER J3WBAYSIOERO LONOLAKEMN 55356 30 Q5II721I40O6I PROPADOR 200 TONKA AVE OWNERNAME PARKSSKOOO TAXPAYER PHILIP R KAREN SKOOC NAME/ADOR 200 tonka AVE LONOLAKEMN 55356 30 05II723I400J0 PROP ADOR 315 CRESTVIEW AV8 OWNERNAME R A EDOlWCTON/r J EDOINGTON TAXPAYER ROBERT A TAMARA EOOMOTOH NAME/AOOR 315 CRESTVIEW AVE LONOLAKEMN 55156 30 05II721I400J4 PROP AOOR 30 ADDRESS UNASSKJNBD OWNER NAME ESTHER M ADOOON TAXPAYER MRSALADOOOH NAME/AOOR 3312 BAYStOE RD LONOLAKEMN 55156 It CM 1723140039 PROPADOR 340 1ONKAAVB OWNERNAME PATRICK JSKEIE TAXPAYER PATRICK JSREie NAME/AOOR 5710 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55164 30 0SII72V<J056 PROP AOOR 320 CRESTVIEW AVE OWNERNAME J P LEHMEYERRTLLEMMEYER TAXPAYER JOHN R TRUDY LEHMEYER NAME/ADOR 120 CRESTVIEW AVB LONOLAKEMN 55316 31 0SII723I400U PROPADOR 330 TONKA AVE OWNERNAME BRUCESWCERRLORMSIHOER TAXPAYER BRUCE SWCERR LINDA SBCRR NAME/AOOR 120 TONKA AVE LONOLAKEMN 55356 CO ms » r Date Applicallan Keceivcd: S-I44M Date Applirailon Contidcrcd as Complete: S'14-04 60-Day Review Period F.tpires: 7-13 04 From: Date: Subject: Chair Mabusth and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorsc. Cily Admmisiralor /Mike Gaffron, Planning Director June 17,2004 W04-3023 Woodhill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Avenue - - CUP Anicndmcnt - Public Hearing ZonloR piilricl: RR-IB Single I an ily Rur.il Rcsidcniial. 2 acre min Zoning Status: Golf courses, country clubs and tennis clubs .uc allowed as a Conditional Use within the RR-11) zoning district. Woodhill Country Club is aiiihori/cd to operate a golf course and related country club activities via a Conditional I he Permit issued by the City Council in 196S. Hie Club has obiauicil a mimlvcr ol additional conditional use peimits for various improvements or activities since 196S. Property Area: (Portion in Orono); Approximately 135 acres Appheation Summary: Applicant requests amendments of certain conditions of Resolution No 4305 adopted June 14. 199 ‘J. which rsiahlisbed limitations on the use of the Woodhill Avenue curren/onc propcriy. The Club requests opening the enlrancc to two-way traffic vs. ihc Staff Recomme0tdation: (Sec Page 7) l.isi orKxhibiis A - Application * 1 ist of Re«.|uesi'*d Revisions B - Applicant’s 6-15-04 Letter of Request; 3-12-04 Club Ixllcr to Nciglibors C - Resolution No. 4305 including Access Detail Map D • Club Overall Site Plan (.Airphoto) E - Ron Moorsc Memo to Council 6-3-04 including Exhibits from Pnor Application; El - Staff Memo to Council M.iy 5. 1999 H2 ■ Special Council Mig Mtnutes of 5-1 1 99 E3 - M.iy 4. 1999 Letter from Bnicc Malkcrsoi. incl. Iknshoof Tralfic Study E4 - April 16.1999 Applicants Letter and Narrative E5 - May 1999 Applic.mLs TrafTic Study by Parsons Brinkerhoff F - Letters from Neighboring Property Owners FI - Jane Delaney, 1315 Woodhill Avenue F2 - Bill McGuire, 315 Woodhill Road F3 . David Lubben of United Healthcare re: 1250 Wcxxlhill Avenue G - Traffic Counts - Woodhill Avenue and Woo dhill Road, June 11-14,2(X)4 H - Airphoto: Configuration of 15/WoodhiII Road Intersection I - Plat Map J - Properly Owners List •04-M2J J mm H,2004 ragcZ BackfroHMl Please review Ron Moorse’s June 3,2004 memo to the City Council (Exhibit E). His mono provides a briefbackground regarding die conditions placed on Woodhill Country Gub's use ofWoodhill Avenue as an access to the Club property. The exhibits attached to his memo provide a good overview of the variety of positions and concerns expressed in 1999 by the vanous affected parties. Summary of Request Woodhill Country Club is requesting that Resolution No. 4305 be amended to result in a relaxation or elimination of various limitatioirs placed on the Club's use ofWoodhill Avenue as a secondary access to the properly, particularly, opening the access roadway to t\s o-way traffic v.«s the current one-way, in only. The primary access to the Club is from Woodhill Road, accessing directly to County Road 15. Club representatives have advised staff that access onto County Road 15 is difficult and dangerous due primaiily to high traffic volumes on CR15 with few breaks in the traffic during peak houni. but also due in part to the access’s physical configuration related to the Dakota Rail crossing, and somewhat related to the config iralion of County Road 15. Limits imposed on the Club's use ofWoodhill Avenue in 1999 via Resolution No. 4305 include the following;: *'2. The Club shall install a gate across its private driveway within 30 feet of the western boundary of the Property, which gate shall be locked at all times except when used as follows: A. Use of the Woodhill Ax-enue access by emergency vehicles (police, fine, ambulance and utility). B. Use ofUic Woodhill Avenue access for transporting Club tractors to and from Long Lake for repair. C. Use of the Woodhill Avenue access for general access to the Property if the Woodhill Road access to County Road 15 is temporarily blocked (subject to reasonable noti fication to the City and affected neighbors), but only during the period of such tcmpoiary blockage. D. Use of the Woodhill Avenue access under the terms of that certain Easement Agreement, dated October S, 1987betwooi the City, the Gub, and MSM, which benefits one residential lot if County Road 15 access is blocked. •04-J02J J mmU.2004 rat* 3 E. Use of the Woodhill Avenue access as an entrance only (i c. one way, fnim wes; to east) for private passenger vehicles between the hours of 7 00 a m and 8 00 p.m. during those days that the CluVi is open.” The mppUcants wish to revue Condition 3E to allow both entrance to and exit from the property via tyoodhiU Avenue, to read as follows: E. Useofthe Woodhill Avenue access as access and cgress(i e. two-w ay irarTic) for private passenger vehicles betw een the hours of 7 :00 a.m. and 8 :00 p m during those days that the Club is open Condition 4 of Resolution 4305 lists a number of specillc uses that are not approved, as follows: **4. The following uses are not approved at this time,and would require further review and an amendment to this CUP: A. Conversion ofihe Woodhill Avenue access into the main etitronce to the Club on a pemianent basis. B. Tlie aulhori/cd use of Iht Woodhill Avenue access as an eiitiaiice or exit by delivery, taxi, sersice, or other commercial vehicles. C. Use of the Woodhill Avenue access as an entrance or exit by the general public. D. Useofthe Woodhill Avenue access alt ime periods other than as provided for in Condition 3 above. E. Expansion of the Club’s westerly interior drivew ay between the maintenance building and the Woodhill Avenue access. F. Placement on Orono Orchard Road of any identification or ditcctional signage concerning the Club." The applicants wish to revise Condition 4B to no longer prohibit use of lyoodhill Avenue by taxi vehicles; 4B would be changed os follows: B. The authorized use of the Woodhill Avenue access as an cnir,uitc or exit by delivery, ttm; service, or other commercial vehicles. MM-3923 Jane 16.2004 Pagc4 Condition S orResotulion 4305 requires City monitoring of the use of Woodhill Avenue as an access, per the following: “5. City staff shall monitor use of the Woodhill Avenue access during its first season of operation and shall report to the Council any pcoblems or concerns that arc encountered The City may penodically meter the amount of tnflic using the Woodhill Avenue access.” The applicants wish to eliminate the requirement for further monitoring, i.e. they propose that Condition 5 be deleted in its entirety. Condition 7 of Resolution 4305 required the Club to make certain improvements regarding the access, as follows: ”7. TIicGub shall make or be responsible forthe following improvements in conjunction with its constniction of Uic Woodhill Avenue access, and these improvonents shall be completed before the access is opened: A. Installation ofeastbound and noitlibound stop signs at Uie intersection of the public ponionsuf Woodhill Avenue and Uie pnvate road serving the Woodhill Ridge development (Sec Exhibit B). B. Installation of eastbound " 10 MPH" speed lunit signon the pnvate access drive at the Club's west property line. C. Installation of westbound "Do Not Enter" signage at Uic Club's intenor dn veway near tlie maintenance building, and at a location on Woodlull Avatue approxunatcly 20 feet west of the Club's west property line. D. Installation ofat least two sets of spa'd humps along Woodhill A\’cnuc at locations approved by the City Engineer. E. Pavingof the Woodhill Avenue access fron the eastern end of thccurrently paved roadway to the Club p.-opcrly line F. Removal of vegetation within th c right-of-way of Woodhill Avenue or Orono Ordiard Road that may impede adequate sight distance, as requested by the Pi hlic Services Director sidiject to notification of the property owner abutting tl.e vegetation to be removed. G. Installation of stormwater facilities and other constniction per Coffin & Gronbcrg cngjneeringplaD dated April23,1999 subject to provisionof any othainfonnation requested by the City Engmea per his letter dated April 30.1999.” MH-3023 June 16.2004 Paces The €^>ptiauits tvish to revise Condition 7A and 7B to add a westbound stop sign at the intersection of the puhtic and private segments of W’oodhUl Avenue, to read as follows: A. Installation ofcasibouml. westbound and northbound stop signs at the int* ction of the public portions of Woodhill Avenue and the private road sor ing the Woodhill Ridge development (Sec Exhibit B). B. Installation of castbuund a mi \\ esiboiuKl ** 1 0 MPI1** speed limit signs on the private access drive at the Club's trest property line and on the Club’s Property. The applicant concurrently requests deletion of Condition 7C so that "Do Sot Enter" signs will no longer be required. Analysis of Request PlanningConunissioncrs are ffikod to review (he detailed discussions from the 1999 application (Exhibits E-1 thru E-S) to get a sense of the concerns and issues regarding use of Woodhill Avenue as an access to Ih j Club. The applicants have not provided much detail as a supporting basis for their current proposal. The Club's letter of request (Exhibit B) suggests that safety of access for Club members is the Club's primary concern. The potential impacts on the Woodhill Avenue neighborhood of allowing this access to be opened was clearly an issue die Council struggled with in 1999. Opening it in a limited fashion was a solution that some residents in the neighborhood felt was iruppiopriate. As of this writing I have rccei' cd two letters of non objection to the two-way pr< >posal, and one phone call strongly objecting to expansion of the access use to two-way status. Issues for Consideration Planning Commission should consider the following in order to reach a conclusion: O What are the specific needs that will be met by opening the access to two-way traffic? - What specific problems are currently being experienced? - Are the problems validated by traffic studies, accident counts, or other information? - How will the 2-way roadway specifically solve these problems? Q What will be the impacts on the residents along Woodhill Avenue? - What is the impact of increased traffic? - What is the magnitude of projected traffic? Will it be spread out over long periodi, or be event-related? - W i 11 the projected magnitude and time dismbution o f traflic cause signi ficam safety issues? - Ability of the roadway to accommodate the projected traffic levels - Safety of pedestrians along the roadway M4-30U June 16,2004 Page 6 What U the proper/reasonabir balancinK of the interests of the Club and the lotercsls of the residents? What actions can be taken to mitigate the impacts of the Club traffic on the residents? Additional Information Pending or for Consideration StafThas contacted Bob Byars at 1 lennepin County Transportation Planning regarding accident counts at the 1 SAVoodhill Road and 15/Orono Orchard Road intersections. 1 hey have accident data available for the 3-year period 1999-2001 . For Orono Orchard/15,5 accidents wen: recorded. 4 of which were right- angle collisions of vehicles southbound on Orono Orcliand turning lefl onto 15, hit by westbound vdiiclcs. For the Woodhill /15 uUersoction, 9 coiUsions were recorded of which 5 were weather related, 2 inattcntis c driving, I animal, and 1 no reason given; i c. no nght angle crashes due to turning movements More recent data was not available. The City completed trafTic counts for the penod 12 noon on Friday June 11 through 12 noon on Monday Junc 14, to provide a brief ovcrv'iess ’of the tralTic entering and leaving Woodhill Avenue at Orono Orchanl Road and also that entering and leaving Woodhill Road at Count) Road 15 (Sec Exhibit G) Ilicsc counts do nut take into account the weather or any special events that may have been held at the Club on those days. I lowcver, they do suggest a relative magnitude of traflic using the two accesses, and they show to some extent the hourly dislnbution during the day. Sheldon Johnson, ttaflic aiguiccrat Boncstroo, review ed Uic Farsons-Bnnckcrliofrtrafric study from 1999 and has verbally conuiicntcd to stall that he agrees with the findings of drat study, and that the recent traflic counts appear to be in line with expectations. The ulis from tlic 1999 law suit and subsequent CUP application compnsc approximately one-half of a file c Ainct draw cr. They contain volumes of information subnulted by the applicants and the neighbors, and their rcspcci i vc attorneys and consultants, from Utc City and its consultants, etc. To provide Plaiuiing Conuiiission w ith more than a small (raction of Uus mfomuUon w ould be unreasonable Rather than to re invent the w heel in this memo, we luve attached as Exhibits those documents wliicn in staffs cstunation provide >00 w ith a balanced overv iew of all sides of the issue as it was considered in 1999. NMiat has changed since 1999 ? Factors w hich may ment some discussion include. - Reconfiguration of the Orono Orchard Road connection to Highway 12, and the impact on Orono Orchard Road traffic pallcms, both short-tenn and long-lcmi... • Probable increased traffic on County Road IS in the past 5 years... • Potential future changes in the Woodhill A vmie neighb(»hood resulting from acquisitions of developed and vacant properties along Woodhill Avenue by an area property owner. No data was provided by the Club to indicate any changes in their membership, the type or number of cvenu held at the Club, or other specific changes to their operation. MM-302J JuM 16,2004 Ps|t7 Staff RccommeadatioB City policy and codes do not provide clear direction regarding this application. On one hand, the City generally avoids mixing commercial traffic with residential traffic. On the other hand, a country club is a conditional use inaresidendal zone. Also, in this case, although the amount oftraffic proposed to be added to Woodhill Avenue appears to be witliiu the range oftraffic volumes that can be safely accommodated by the roadway, the current character of the roadway is a low volume street. The additional trafTic will refiect both a significant increase in traffic level and a significant change in the character of the roadway. To reach a conclusion. Planning Commission should strive to find an appropriate balance between the interestsofthe Club versus the interests of the tesidtnls. This could in\ olve establishing conditions tlut will mitigate the potential impacts. Please refer to the Issues for Consideration on pages 5 and 6 to assist in year review of this appliactiom Any recommendation for approval or Umitol approval ofthc Gub’s request should be accompanied by whatever additional conditions or limitations you conclude arc appropriate. Pages 4 thru 6 o fthe Ben^oof Memo (attachment to Exhibit E3) contiin a number ofsuggested condition .. Your options for action include: 1. Recommend approval as requested by the Club. 2. Recommend q>proval or partial 4/proval with specific limitations. 3. Recommend denial. 4. Table for further infomiation (provide applicants direction as to what infonnation is desired) Note that tabling will result in an automatic extensionoftbe fiOnlay review period, as the initial 60^y period expires July 13, prior to your July meeting. CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPUCATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 200 Woodhill Road______________________ tiL Application# Data Received i<i (’ H Amount Paid _ c*l~ » - Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) see attached APPLICANT Name Woodhill Country Club Phone (homo) 952-473-7333 Address 200 Woodhill Hoad Phone(WOrk) 952-473-7333 City Wayzata Zip 55391 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name same____________________ Phone (home). Address_____ Phone (work) _Ci[y______ Date Property Acquired 1915 (montli/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _______$600.00 Residential Accessory Use _______$600.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _______$600.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _______$600.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg y/' $600.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _______$600.00 Land Alteration + Permit _____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain _____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS ______$600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ______$600.00 Vacation _____ $600.00 Easement Vacation ______$ 100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ______$600.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals _ Other - see Fee Schedule" - - ................ REQUIi^O SUBMITTALS 1. / Completed Application Form. 2. y. Describe request in detail. 3. y Certified Property Owners List of ov/ners within 350’ of the subject property. labels and plat map. L'st. labels ar^d map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center. A-603 300 South 6*” Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910). 4. y Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) • refer to handout for survey Information, 5. y" Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. 6. / Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 7. s/ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). y Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements) As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. 9. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff v/il' require scaled drawings of alt documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:_________________________Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Tho applicant hereby agrees to provide all Information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature ___JP- 'fti Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this ‘ApplicaniThJit hSVi'aH'tuBftliBM WgHleXity ofRceaZa petom th4>' Riipn^ COfnfni»»bh Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at an schsduled review meetings of the Planning Commisaion and Counefl. If an appHcant Is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authodzed agent attand In your place an^^a phor to lha meeting. A-1 . Woodhill Counlry Club requests the following changes to City Council Resolution No 4305. This is a resolution granting a CUP to Woodhill Counlry Club for a driveway. This is file #2484. Requested changes arc as follows: Page 4 of 8 Item 3E To change as an entrance only. To read Woodhill Avenue as access and egress (i.e. two-way traffic) for private passenger vehicles between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8.00 PM during those days that the club is open. Item 4D To delete taxis. Item 5 - to be deleted Item 7A - to aid westbound - to read Installation of ca.stbound. westbound and northbound stop signs, etc. Item 7D to read: Installation of eastbound and westbound “10 MPH” speed limit signs on the private access drive at the clubs property line and on the clubs property Item 7C - to be deleted. I r- 'L. i ?i.dd L' .'i • i i i iU i ^ i;.,.. M-.-C «i..; i t‘i A V/ci'JOIULl. COUi !T!V: Cl UE •.. V (hU’Miu •' ^./ v’ \ *l'u: »'T». •"■'I ••' ■ • 4;» ; •»I B-1 June 15.2004 Planning Commission City of Ofono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Woodhill Country Club has pending before the City of Orono a inodincatiun of the Conditional Use Permit issued in 1990 for the use of Woodhill Avenue The only change requested is converting Woodhill Country Club’s use .f WcMxlhill Avenue from a one-way entrance only to two-way traftic. 1 wo-way traffic would involve only private passenger vehicles between the hours of 7;00 a m. and 8;00 p m., the same conditions which exist in the 1999 Conditional Use Permit I he reasons for the requested modification are several 1 Use of Win dhill Avenue for exits would take traffic off of Highw ay 15 at Woixlhiirs main entrance. Even though Highway 15 has been improved in recent years, the amount and speed of traffics continues to be danger«’us to those exiting fn>m Woodhill Country Club. 2 nie usage of the one-way access to Woodhill Country Club on Wwdhill Avenue has been less than had been anticipated when the initial conditional use application was made It is unlikely tliat two-way trafilc will make a noticeable difference to the adjacent residents 3. Safely will continue to K* a primary issue Hie stop sign for those exiting will be placed at the Woodhill Country Club westerly property line so that users of the road will be required to stop before entering on Wotnihill Avenue. Woodhill notified residents with a ss to Woodhill Avenue in March, a copy of that letter is attached, fo date no resident has contacted cither Betsy Massie. Edge Jackson or myself with concerns about our request. Wc plan to be at the meeting on the 21” and will be prepared to answer additional questions at that time. M. Elizq$^ Massie President Very truly yours, Mark A. Albrecht, CCM General Manager FROM FAECRE i BENSON (TUE) 6 15’04 15:?3/ST.15;?7./N0. 4863547456 P 4 B-S WOODHILI vOUNTRYCLUB ;.C ♦•vjoiim HoAP »^AY?ATA. MINNESOTA »1V»| •IJJ *%: *u ;»»> March 12. 2004 Jane Delaney 13lj WoodhiU Avenue Wayxaiji. Minnesota 44391 Dear Jane. I am writing to let you know that WoodhiU Country Club will be appruathing the City of Orono this spring to request changes to our Conditional Use Permit to show two-way access to the club on WoodhiU Avenue. We are in the process of notifying all users of WoodhiU Avenue of our inteniions. It is our intent to open communications with our neighbors to assure you that we are aware of your concerns about Uie WoodhiU Road and. to woik toward providing our members who are Orono residenu safe access to and from WoodhiU. We are initiaung thU action as a lesuli of the ever increasing trafTic on County Road 15 and the increased risk it poses for our members entering and exiting llic Gub property. If you have any specific conceros or questions regarding our plans or would like to discuss this mniter in person, please feel free to give me a call at 952.473-1493, Edge Jackson at 952.473-6415 or Mark Albn-chl, Oeneral Manager, at 952.473 7333. We hope to remain conscientious neighhurs who am concerned for the safety of all. Sincerely. Betsy Mussie President WoodhiU Country Club bcc: Tom Crosby CITYoTORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ NOW, THKREFOKE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cit>- Council of Orono. Minnesota: FINDINGS This application was reviewed os zoning file No. 2484.1. 2. 3. 8. The property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. Within the RR-IB zoning district, golf courses and country clubs are a permitted use via conditional use permit (CUP). Woodhill Country Club operates under a CUP granted by the City on September 13, 1968. The text of the 1968 CUP docs not c.xprcssly address (either by way of limitation or authorization) the use or location of any driveway on or access to the Property. Subsequent CUP approvals have been granted to Woodhill Country Club for construction of tennis courts in 1973, construction of a maintenance facility in 1988, and construction of a pumphouse in 1998. The western driveway of the Woodhill Country Club abuts the platted right-of-way of Woodhill Avenue. The Club's main entrance is on Woodhill Road. Woodhill Road serves an e.vistirg neighborhood of eleven private homes. Traffic from Woodhill Road crosses the railroad tracks and enters onto County Road 15. Development of the Woodhill Ridge subdivision occurred in the late 1980's and the Woodhill Avenue access was not used for regular vehicular use during or since that development occurred. The traffic levels on County Road 15 make access to the Club difficult, particularly from the west and north, due to the need to make left turns across heavy traffic onto County Road IS and from County Road 15 to Woodhill Road. Page 2 of 8 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILr.* 2 NO • 10. The Club wishes lo use Woodhill Avenue as a secondary access for vehicular UafTic to the Property. The use of Woodhill Avenue as an access for regular vehicuKU tr.ifllc lo Woodhill Country Club will he a change from the traffic pattern in place since 1980 and may change the cuirent character of Woodhill Avenue, which has functioned as a dead-end street since 19S0. 11. The City Council finds that the Club’s use of Woodhill Avenue as an access road may create certain negative impacts to the existing Woodhill Avenue neighbiuhood unless some limitations on the Club's use of the access are established. The City Council desires to place limitations on Woodhill Coimtry Club's u.se of Woodhill Avenue os a secondary access in order to ensure that the health, safety and welfare of the existing residential neighborhoods served by Woodhill Avenue is adequately protected, and that any negative impacts which might be created by the Club’s use of Woodhill Avenue arc minimized or avoided 12. The City Council finds that granting this Conditional Use Permit to allow use of Woodhill Avenue as a secondary access on the terms set forth in this permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air, nor pose other dangers to neighboring properties, nor will it be materially injurious to property or improvcmcnis in the vicinit>’ and that the proposed location of the use of the access will be in keeping will; the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprclicnsive Plan of the City. CONCLLSION.S, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the City Council of Oiono, Minnesota hereby grants to Woodhill Country Club an amendment to its 1968 Conditional Use Permit to allow limited access via Woodhill Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1. The right of the Club to the reasonable use of the Woodhill Avenue access is hereby acknowledged and gtanted, subject to the the right and authority of the City to place restrictions on the use of the access as necessary lo protect the public health, safety and welfare, and subject to the . undilions of this permit. The City docs not reserve the right to completely close the Wc -lull Avenue access under the CUP process. Page 3 of 8 f • CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ ^ ^ ’ 2. The Club shall pevc Ihc road (to be hereinafter refered »o as "the Wcodhill Avenue access") within the dedicated right-of-way of Woodhill Avenue extending from the easterly end of Uk currently paved ponion of Woodhill Avenue, to the easterly end of the dedicated right-of- way. The Club may impro\c the gravel driveway within the Property to connect the Club's interior driveway system to tl'.e Woodhill Avenue access. An after-the-fact staff-administered land alteration permit as vs-cll as an after-the-fact permit from the Public Services Director for work within the right-of-way shall be issued with the CUP for such work, prior to recommencement of construction on the Woodhill Avenue access. 3. The Club shell iirstall a gate across its private driveway within 30 feet of the western boundary of the Property, which gate shall be locked at all limes except when used as follows: A. Use of the Woodhill Avenue access by emergency vehicles (police, fire, ambulance and utility). D. Use of the Woodhill Avenue access for transporting Club tractors to and from Long Lake for repair. C. Use of the Woodhill Avenue access for general access to the Property if the Woodhill Road access to County Road 15 is tcmpot.uily blocked (subject to reasonable notification to the City and affected neighbors), but only during the period of such temporary blockage. D. Use of the Woodhill Avenue access under the terms of that certain Easement Agreement, dated October S. 1987 between the City, the Club, and MSM, which benefits one residential lot if County Road IS access is blocked. E. Use of the Woodhill Avenue access as an entrance only (i.c. one way, from west to cast) for private passenger vehicles between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 p m. during those days that the Club is open. Page 4 of 8 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L no_JL1_:JL_ I. The following uses arc not approved at this lime, and would require further review and an amendment to this CUP; A. Conversion of the Woodhill Avenue access into the main entrance to the Club on a permanent basis. B. The authorized use of the Woodhill Avenue access as an entrance or exit by delivery, taxi, service, or other commercial vehicles. C. Use of the Woodhill Avenue access as an entrance or exit by the general public. U. Use of the Woodhill Avenue access at time periods other than os provided for in Condition 3 above. E. Expansion of the Club's westerly interior driveway between the maintenance building and the Woodhill Avenue access. F. Placement on Orono Orchard Road of any identification or directional signage concerning the Club. 5. City staff shall monitor use of the Woodhill Avenue access during its first season of operation and shall report to the Council any problems or concerns that arc encountered. The City may periodically meter the amount of traffic using the Woodhill Avenue access. 6. In addition to the review provided for in Orono Zoning Code Section 10.09, Subdivision 11, the Council reserves the right, subject to Condition 1, to review and amend the terms and conclitionr. of this permit pursuant to Section 10.09, Subdivision 6B The City may review and amend the conditions of this CUP after the first golf season of operation under this CUT’, or if the peak daily traffic count exceeds 100 trips per day at any time. The City will not review or amend the basic right of access as set forth in Condition 1 of this Conditional Use Permit. 7. The Club shall make or be responsible for the following improvements in conjunction with its construction of the Woodhill Avenue access, and these improvements shall be completed before the access is opened: Page 5 of 8 ClTYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 ' ' " D. Installation of castbound and northbound stop sigr»s at the intersection of the public portions of Woodhill Avenue and the private road serving the Woodhill Ridge development (Sec Exhibit B). Installation of castbound *'10 MPH" speed limit sign on the private access drive at the Club's west property line. Installation of westbound "Do Not Enter** signage at the Club*s interior driveway near the maintenance building, and at a location on Woodhill Avenue approximately 20 feet west of the Club*s west property line Installation of at least two sets of speed bumps along Woodhill Avenue at locations approved by the City Engineer. Paving of the Woodhill Avenue access fiom the eastern end of the cuncntly paved roadway to the Club property line. Removal of vegetation within the right-of-W'ay of Woodhill Av'cnue or Orono Orchard Road that may impede adequate sight distance, as requested by the Public Services Director subject to notification of the property owner abutting the vegetation to be removed. G. Installation of stormwater facilities and other construction per Coffin & Gronberg engineering plan dated April 23, 1999 subject to provision of any other information requested by the City Engineer per his letter dated April 30, 1999. 8. If all access from the Club to County Road 15 is permanently blocked as a result of either County Road 15 alteration or improvement, or as a result of closure of the Woodhill Road access by the owner of the railroad right-of-way, the City recognizes the Club's right of reasonable access, but resers'cs the right and authority to detemiine via Uic conditional use permit process whether such permanent access should be provided by allowing a full access to Woodhill Avenue, or via some other method or location, and what conditions must be imposed on that access to protect the health, safety and welfare of all citizens in the area and the users of the roads, including Woodhill mcm^rs, guests and employees. Page 6 of 8 /oT ''d'im!M0ir S:' CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.A 9. Authorities granted by this conditional use permit run with the property rtot with the applicant. 10. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code per Section 10.09, Subdivision 12 and Section 10.99, and may terminate any authority granted herein, after review by the Council. 11. The undersigned applicant has read and understood the terms of this resolution, hereby agrees to Conditions 1-10, and on behalf cf itself, its heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the Property. 12. The applicant asserts that its agreement to the conditions of this Resolution is made solely on the condition that it docs not waivx and is without prejudice to applicant’s claim of right to use the Woodhill Avenue access without limitation and without further amendment of its 1968 CUP. which claim of right the City denies. 13. The City will consent to a dismissal without prejudice of the litigation concerning the access. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on l’»e 14th day of June, 1999. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Applicant acceptance *. Authorized Representative of Woodhill Country Club Gabriel Ji^bour, Mayor Page 7 cf 8 CITY of 0R0\0 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ;• •' •' STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COlfNTY OF HENN'J-IN ^ The foregoing Lnstrumcni was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of June, 1999 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vec, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. MARYA-NNJOHttSONNOTARY PuauC-MOntSOlA My Conrvss-on lip^ics in. 31.2000 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) OtJ., Notary-Pul^Jfc On this /J 7 f>_day of ■ • »t__________________ . _________________, 1999 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared A. Afb,tt s * r known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instalment, and acknowledged that he(thcy) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed Co<Jn C/ 1 MARY ANN J0HUG0T4 Q/vey ^ NOTARY PmiC Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 4305 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1. The Northeast Quarter of Section 2, Township 117 North. Range 23 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part of said section 2 embraced within Woodhili Ridge, Woodhill Ridge 2nd Add., Edgewood Place, RLS #1596, RLS if 1098, Dakota Rail right-of-way and Burlington Northern right-of-way. 2. Part of the Northwest Quarter ^NW 1/4) cl Section 1, Township 117 North, Range 23 West, Hennepin County, lying south of Burlington Nonhern right-of- way and north of Dakota Rail right-of-way. 3. All that part of Lot Thirty-four (34) in Auditor s Subdivision #45 lying South of Burlington Northern right-of-way and north of the Dakota Rail right-of-way. EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. 4305 ‘cli- .UT, ?; r*;^ ;<:3 * ' . T * I ♦ t7 *. • .. . ... ^ •‘* < : r-:z> RESOLUTION U -i.: {. 7218l^i0 . . “:.":*-r? T VT w ■• •-• i j r.;i2: 1:5 - . . .7218MG STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COITNTY OF HENNFPIN ) ) CITY OF ORONO ) I, Linda S. Vcc, City Clerk of tire City of Orono. Hennepin County. Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing eopy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on _____June 14. 1999____, and that the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this __24lh____ dav of _______XiUlfi________, 19 99 A'-, Linda S. Vee. City Clerk * (SEAg HINSIIAW & CULBERTSON Amrrw «isoinv «< •ttUVTUX aUM>ll ■IOOVO«10N ILLINOIS mOOKniLO. W1SC0M.-N CHAMPAXM aUNOIS CHICAGO 0.1001$ c* WAi LAti. aioois n lAUDtosAU. ruiusA lAcuofH-iui fLCtiaA XHICT tlLOOtS LAU cr^vK wtjroNSfN LtSLLILLOOiS Pint lAnoAY towto Sinn iiM u: SOUTH wiHTH srun MtNtalAPOUS. MTOOMTA SSKl Si'lllMW Nancy Cbadwick Direct 612 295 0660 nchadwick@onnur.pine net January 17,2000 . mami n.o*.OA MLWALVXL <*11C0*«S«*» MVOtSTlIL OmUKA PtOUA. OO.P>OIS PHOrVtX. AIU/CHA *. aocwoac o-loois ST LCLU MISSCVSJ }AN»VAM.I\CO Cal»0«-VV» tPArNGPULO ux>eis Tampa. iLoaiOA • ALIUCAM moors Carole A. Hascman, Deputy City Clerk City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. NIN 55323-0066 Re- Recorded Resolutions Our File No. 752031 Dear Carole: Enclosed please find certified copy of Resolution No. 2484 (City File No. 2484) recorded on November 19, 1999, in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder as Document No. 7218146; and certified copies of »he following resolutions that were recorded on December 2, 1999, in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder: 1. Resolution No. 4366 (City File No. 2519) recorded as Document No. 7223037; 2. Resolution No. 4368 (City File No. 2538) recorded as Document No. 7223038; 3. Resolution No. 4343 (City File No. 2511) recorded as Document No. 7223039; 4. Resolution No. 4364 (City File No. 2523) recorded as Document No. 7223040; 5. Resolution No. 4365 (City File No. 2524) recorded as Document No. 7223041; and 6. Rcsclution No. 4183 (City File No. 2427) recorded as Document No 7223220. 1 have also enclosed an anested copies of the following Resolutions that were recorded December 2, 1999, in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles: 1. Resolution No. 4355 (City File No. 2520) recorded as Document No. 3230193; 2. Resolution No. 4374 (City File No. 2528) recorded as Document No. 3230199; and 3. Resolution No. 4179 (City File No. 2418) recorded as Docur ent No. 3230201. In addition, although I do not have a document No. for it, a certified copy of Resolution No. 4387 (City File No. 2542) was recorded in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles on January 5,2000. An attested copy of this resolution is enclosed for the City's records. Carole Haseman January 17,2000 Page 2 Upon your receipt of the enclosed, recorded documents please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Na^y L. Chadwick Paralegal Enclosure cc: Thomas J. Barrett, Esq. r ^ ‘ ^ : W wmm ■ tf \ Vv;r•'r. - •■-\ ... * w,. •/ *• I ’ f' V. zsr 4)-'•7- rs TO: Mayor I’ctcrxon ami Council Members FROM: Ron Moorsc, City Afirninisiiatui DATF.: lunc 3. 2004 r' SUBJECT. Background Infonnalion Regarding the Woodhill Country Club CUP Application In 1908. the Woodhill Cotintry Club decided to open up a connection from the Country Club to Woodhill Avenue to provide an alternate access to the Club. Tlie purpose was to enable men oers to avoid the heavy traffic on County Road 1 5. Providing the alternate access on Woodhill Avenue meant opening up a roadway that had been a cul de sac for many years. The residents along Woodhill Avenue, and on a small cul de sac connected to Woodhill Avenue, objected to the change from a cul de sac to an acces.s to the Club. The initi.al issue concerning the connection was a legal issue regarding whether the Club had the right to connect to a public road without authorization by the City. The City and the Club were involved in a legal dispute regarding this issue. This legal dispute was set aside when the Club made an application for a CUP to enable the use of the access 1 he result of the CUP application process was the approval of Uic use of the access as a one-way access in to the Club, within a set of conditions. Tlic Woodhill Country Club has now made an application to amend the CUP to allow the connection from Woodhill Dnvc to be a two-way connection. It is important that the Council has an understanding of the initial application as it considers the current application. Attached to this memo is a set of materials related to the initial CUP application. The materials include the following. ■ Resolution W4305 granting the CUP for driveway access to Woodhill Avenue ■ The staff report regarding the CUP application ■ The minutes of the special Council meeting at which the CUP application was heard ■ A letter from Bruce Malkcrson, the attorney representing a number of residents who lived along WoiHlhill Avenue ■ A cover letter from James McCarthy, the attorney representing the Club, and Uie luinaiivc titled Application of Woodhill Country Club ■ A letter from Parsons Rrinkerhoff, the traffic engineer hired by the Club, regarding a traffic study conducted to analyze the traffic impacts of opening the connection from the Club to Woodhill Avenue. Dale Application Submilted; 4-14-99 Date Application Considered Substantially Complcl : 4-30-99 60-Day Review Period Ends: 6-29-99 £iL i n-oH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: May 5,1999 Item No.: Department Approval: Name: Michael P Gaftron Title: Senior Planning Coordiivator Administrator Appruval:Agenda Sccliiin: Zoning Item Description: W2484 Woodlull Country Club, 200 Woodhill Road - Conditional Use Pennit • Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB. Single Family Rural Residential Zoning Status: Golf courses, country clubs otul tennis clubs arc allowed as a Comtitioiuil Use within the RR-IB zoning district. Woodhill Country Club is authorized to 0|KTatc a golf course and related country club activities via a Conditional Use Pemut issued by the City Council in 196S. Tlic Club lias obtained a numl cr of additional conditional use pctmil.s for various improvements since 1968. Brief Summary of Request Woodhill Country Club requests that its 1968 Conditional Use Permit be amended I) to acknowledge certain basic rights of access to Woodhill Avenue; and 2) to impose certain new tcsttictions and conditions on Woodhill's access to Woodhill Avenue. Tlic Club cleared at d re graded a former access from Woodhill Avenue to the Club property in May 1998 without obtaining City appioval. The Club now seeks approval to use this access on a limited basis, requiring a CUP application and icvicw process for this projxiscd clumgc in use. 1 #2484 - Woodhill CC Mays, 1999 Page 2 List of Exhibits Submitted Wednesday April 14 bv Mark Albrecht: A. General land use application form, signed by Maik Albrecht, and S2S0 fee Plat map from Hennepin County used for defining areas to be notified 350’ Properly ovMicrs' list from Hennepin County List of property ID numbers (PINS numbers) for Club properties m Orono and Way /ala List of Board of Trustees/Officers/Mcmbers List of persons to be notified regarding application correspondence Submitted bv Fax ‘lliursdav April IS: G. l.egal Description Submitted Fndav April 16 bv messenger from Lindquist and Vennum: B. C. D. E. F. H I. J. K. L. M. N. O. Letter of transmittal by Jim McCarthy 9-page document detailing the request Copy of 1968 CUP application and City summary sheet 8- 31-98 Sathrc-Bcrgquist sur\ cy of gravel driveway area 9- 26-88 Maintenance facility survey by Sathre-Bcrgquist Half section map from Henepin County Excerpt of half-section map with sketched site plan showing roads and buildings Plat of Woodhill Ridge Siihmitlftl Monday April 26 bv Surveyor Mark Gronber g: P Existing driveway design/grading/drainage plan dated 4-23-99 (Plan 'A") Q. Alternate driveway design/grading/drainage plan dated 4-23-99 (Plan ’’B") Submitted Thursday April 29 bv Surveyor Mark Gronberu : R. Drainage area map and calculations Submitted Friday April 30 bv fax from Jim McCarthy: S. Cover letter by McCarthy and traffic study by I’arsons-Brmckcrhoff dated 4-30-99 Additional Exhibits Added bv City Staff T. Referenced .Municipal Code l-xcerpts; 6 01 Subd. 1(E.F). 6.05 Subds. 2.10. 10.03 Subd 19-21; 1009; 10.20Subd 3C CMPpp. 8-12.7-13.4-18 Letters and Conunents received from Public as of 5/5/99U. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. V. W. X. 5/3/99 Letter from Jerry & Shelly Storch 5-'2'99 Letter from Charles & Maria Maille 5/3/99 Letter from Michael & Judy Wood 5/4/99 Letter and Petition from Jane Delaney 5/4/99 Letter from Bruce Malkcrson including Dcnshooflcticr of 5/4/99 Public Hearing Notice City Engineer Tom Kellogg's Comments 4/30-’99 City Engineer's Draft CSAH 15 Traffic Management Study <<2484 . Woodhill CC May 5. 1999 Page 3 Public Hearing Notification Notice of the Public Hearing was publislicd in The Pioneer and The Laker on April 24. 1999 a* J May 1, 1999. Written notice to all property owners wiUiin 350* of the property boundaries ami within 350* of Woodhill Avenue was mailed on Tliursday, April 29, 1999. Additional Permits and/or NotificationsWhlch May Pc Required Other permits which may be required in conjunction with the proposed driveway access include; a) permit for work in right-of-way; b) permit for land alteration; and c) CUP for land alteration exceeding 500 cubic yards Tire above pennits will be held in abeyance pending the result of this land use CL P application. d) Minnesota Statutes requite notification of fee holders when trees arc to he cut w ithin dedicated right-of-way. Application Background In May 1998 Woodhill Country Club did grading work within the Club property and witlrin the dedicated right-of-way of Woodiiill Avenue to re-open a driveway access from tlic Club property to Woodhill Avenue, which access had been closed by the Club since approximately 1980 The City stopped the work upon being advised it had occurred, and indicated to Chib representatives that certain pcmtils and approvals would have to be obtained by die Club in order to retain the work that had been completed and for the access to Woodhill Avenue to be used. Subsequently a number of public and non-public meetings occurred between and among Club representatives, the City Council, staff, and the immediate neighbors potentially affected by the re opening of lire access. Tlic City refused to sanction Woodhill's use of Woodhill Avenue w ithout the proper CLP public review process. Woodhill refused to make such an application In July 1998 the Club filed suit against Orono, claiming that Woodhill has a right to open and use the Woodhill Avenue access without City approval. The lawsuit proceeded with discovery through March 1999. In April 1999 Woodhill proposed a settlement procedure by which Woodhill would apply to the City for a CUP to allow opening and use of the Woodhill access on a limited basis. Woodhill filed tlic cunent application on April 14, 1999. This application was deemed by staff to be substantially complete as of April 30,1999 upon receipt of the trafiic study by Parsons Drinckerhoff. «2484 Woodhill CC May 5,1999 Page 4 Summary' of Woodhiirs Request Woodhill's request is detailed on pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit 1, and is summarized as follows: 1 . Requests amendment of 1 968 CUP to acknowledge the following vehicular access rights, i.e. Ute rights to: a) maintain unbarricaded access to Woodlull Avenue b) gate and maintain control of said entrance c) have access available at all tiroes for Emergency Vehicles d) liavc access available from 7 00 am to 8 00 pm for Woodhill members and :*ivUcd guests during days the Club is open (Tuesday thru Sunday, plus Monday public Holidays, closed in March) e) have access available for transporting tractors to I ong Lake for repair f) have access available for general access if Co. Rd. 15 access is temporarily blocked (subject to notification of City and neighbors) g) have access available per 1987 cascnicnl, which grants access to Lot 3, Block 1 , Woodhill Ridge over Woodhill property to Woodhill Avenue if County Road 15 access is dosed or otherwise denied 2. 3. Requests City agreement that Ute above rights shall not be revocable, nor for a limited period, nor be subject to further review except as provided for in Orono Zoning Code Section 10.09 Subd. 1 1 Requests that 1968 CUP be amended to include the following ’triggers’ that will require further City review or further amendment of the Woodhill CUP. a) Conversion of Woodhill Avenue access into Ute main permanent Club access b) Use of Woodhill Avenue as an access for delivery, taxi, service or other commercial vehicles c) Use of Woodhill Avenue as a general public access d) Use of Woodlull Avenue access at times other than allowed in 1 . above e) Expansion of Woodhill ’s driveway between the maintenance building and Woodlull Avenue f) Paving of the driveway abutting Woodhill Avenue g) Signage concerning Woodhill on Orono Orchard Road (identification or directional signage) Requests City confirmation by CUP amendment or Council Resolution that Woodhill's right of access to Woodhill Avenue exists independent of any CUP process and is not revocable through CUP process in regards to: a) 1987 easement agreement; and b) In the event of permanent blockage of access to Co. RcL 1 S as a result of Co. Rd. IS alteration/improvement or resulting from closure actions related to the railroad right-of-way. (Is this a conflict with request 3a above?) #2484 . Woodhill CC May 5,1999 Page 5 What Woodhill is implicitly not rcquestir.i? Staff assumes the following activities, uses or improvements, by omission, arc implicitly not being requested: 1 . Use of the Woodhill Avenue access for Club maintenance vehicles other Ilian tractors. 2. Use of the Woodhill Avenue access by Club employees except in relation to tractor serv icing. 3. (Tlicre may be additional activities, uses or improvements which should be noted hctc) Staff Review and Summary of Issues A. Pertinent Sections of City Code and Comprehensive Plan CUP for Country Club Use. Woodhill Country Club is in Orono's RR-ID Single Family Rural Residential zoning district, the standards for which appear in Zoning Code Section 10 28. Section 10.28 references the R-IA district stund;.rds for conditional uses. Section 10 20 Subd. 3. The pertinent subsection which addresses country clubs as a conditional use, reads as follow's: "Subd. 3 Conditional Uses Within any R-JA One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the followinfi uses except hy conditional use permit: .. .C Clubs. Camps, etc. Golf cnur.ws. country clubs, tennis clubs, public S'^ imming pools serving more than one family, scout camps. YSfCA camps. )lf'C/f camps, church camps or private non-profit parks, playgrounds and other similar uses The principal structure for any of the above listed uses shall be ICO' or more from any abutting lot in an "R" district, and accessory structures shall he a minimum offifty feet from any lot line." Tliis is identical to the language in effect at the time the 1968 CUP was applied for and issued. The City has historically required a new CUP for any new physical improvcmcnis (new buildings, extensive grading work, etc ) to an existing conditional use. Tlic City has also required such a review when a new use or activity is proposed by an existing conditional use, and such review is especially appropriate in the context of the CUP process, when such use will have potential negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Zoning Code Section 10.09, Subd.l, states in pan that " Conditional uses include those uses generally not suitable in a particular zoning district, but which may under some circumstances be suitable. When such circumstances exist, a conditional use permit may be granted. Conditions may be applied to issuance of the permit and a periodic review of the permit may be required..The City Council is empowered to grant or deny conditional use permits and to impose reasonable conditions on them. «2484 - WuoUluIl CC May 5.1999 Page 6 With regards to the Woodhiti request, it is the City's position that the rc-opening of an access to Woodhill Avenue after a nearly 20-year closure, requires a new CUP (or an amendment of the existing CUP) for the following reasons: 1 I he 1968 CUP was issued based on a given set of circumstaiices prevalent at that tunc. Tire conditions that applied when the 1968 CUP was granted have dunged, i.c. there is now an adjacent neighborhood in whose creation the Club participated after the original ('UP was granleil. and A hich may be impacted by this change in u.sc. 2. It can reasonably be argued that Ihe 1968 CUP to allow tlie Club to operate, has not lapsed. It might also be reasonably argued that tlic lack of use of Woodhill Avenue os a sccondar)' access to the Club for nearly two decades or more, might be considered as a lapse in that specific aspect of the conditional u.sc (if in fact the Woodhill Avenue access veas even covered under the 1968 CUP) as contemplated in zoning code Section 10.09. Subd. 9. 3 Tlic conditions that applied when the 1988 maintcnaiKc building CUP was granted have also changed, 'flic access was not proposed to be used at dial time, )ct neighborhood concerns were raised related to the location and use of the building even without use of the access Additional concerns would likely have been raised if the road access had been proposed. 4. The proposed use of Woodlull Avenue by a non-rcsidcntial user raises concerns of health, safety and welfare that the City is rcsponsibilc for addressing, and which are properly rai.sed within the fonnat of a public review process when a conditional use is involved Permit for Work in Public Right-of-Wav. The proposed driveway wiUhn the dedicated right-of-way of Woodhill Avenue is defined in the zoning code as a "Business Driveway Approach" (Chapter 6, Sec. 6.01 Subd. IE, F). A permit from the City is required for construction or reconstruction of this driveway approach per Sec. 6.05, SuM. 2. Such permits are administered by the Public Works Director, wlio has tlic authority to approve or deny such permits. Additional sections in Chapter 6 regulate and provide standards for work and activities within the public right-ofiway. #2484 - Woodhill CC May 5. 1999 Page 7 nHvewav Standards. The proposed driveway is subject to the driveway standards of Municipal Code Section 6.05, Subdivision 10 "Uusiness Driveways, Approaches and Turnarounds". Tliose standards which may be applicable to the current request include- Only one business driN-eway is allowed per development unless approved by City Must be paved (bituminous) within the rirht-of-way - Driveway approach to be at least 100* from a corner in a residential district . Must be 10' from side lot line Tlic proposed driveway is a second driveway to the Club. The proposed driveway is gravel, not paved. Tlie standard for a drivewny approach being 100* from a comer has, at best, dubious applicability in Uiis ease due to the linear nature of the road and driveway layout. Tlie proposed driveway is cx.ictly 10 ’ from the lot line abutting the property to the immediate south, and more than 10* from the property to t!ic north. I and Alteration Permit Land alteration in excess of that auihori7cd by a drivew ay pcmiit or when not authorized in conjunction with a building pennit. requires, at a minimum, a staff administered land alteration pennit per Section 10.03, Subd 19-21. Wlien the volume of land alteration e.xceeds 500 cubic yards, a Conditional Use Permit is required Staff is authorized to refer land alteration pemiit requests to Council for volumes less than 500 c.y. if staff concludes the work may create negative impacts or be not in keeping with the goals and policies of tlic Comprehensive Plan. While from all information gathered to date it appears the volume of grading in conjunction with this access work was significantly less than 500 c.y , the proposal docs "potentially create negative impacts" in the opinion of staff, specifically related to diainage, noi^c, odors, visual impacts and public safety, all of which should be reviewed by the Council given the neighborhood concerns. con^micdop^tion of the private golf courses (Rural Park and Open Space Policy #8 on page CMP 8-12) because they provide acsttietic open space and natural vistas to the benefit of adjacent landowners and the general public. In regards to Rural Transportation Policies, the CMP in Policy #7 on page CMP 7-13 states that "Driveway locations and rural street or private road intersections w-ill be limited for traffic safety...", the intent being to consolidate access points onto major roads. Urban Land Use Policy #6 on page CMP 4-18. states that "Commercial and industrial development will not be permitted to adversely affect neighboring residential property...". While Woodhill is not strictly a commercial or industrial use, certain aspects of its operation may have impacts tliat arc not strictly residential in nature, and that is why private golf courses are a conditional use rather than a permitted use. #2484.Woodhill CC May 5,1999 Pages JL26SXU2- Tlicre is iw question titai Woodhill Avenue served as a secondary access to Woodhill Country Club for many decades prior to issuance of the 1968 CUP. Tlte 1968 CUP was not detailed, however, and docs not lead to any conclusions regarding the coniinuing use of, or level of use of, the Woodhill Avenue access. It was unquestioned in llie 1968 CUP that County Road 15 w,is ihe access to the Country Club. The 1968 CUP document tdentihes a request fora "Non-Confonmng (sic) Use Pcmiil for golf course ”, and its approval on 9-13-68 included tlic following minimal 'conditions' of use: "Approximately 150 acres in Oiono. Club house and various buildings for entertainment. Private club " The sketch wliich accompanied Uic 1968 CUP request shows an access to County Road 15, depicts interior driveways and buildings, and shows a dnveway leading to the edge of the map but not identified as a connection to Woodhill Avenue. 1980 Closure . The Club in 1980 closed off it's Woodhill Avenue driveway access to most vclucular trallic, and placed a new chain across the entrance which became accessible only if the cltain was removed by the Club The Club infonned tlic City ill writing of its intent to voluntarily close the driveway, and staled that the Club reserved the right to use the entrance should it choose to do so in the future. 1987 Subdivision and Easement. In 1987 the Club, in conjunction with a private developer, subdivided the property south of Woodhill Avenue and created the 5-lot residential plat of Woodhill Ridge. The subdivision resulted in tlic following actions which are pertinent to this review: 1.Created a new private road to serve Lots 1,2,4 and 5, extending southward from near the cast end of existing Woodhill Avenue. Resulted in expansion of the dedicated right-of-way at the east end of Woodhill Avenue, apparently to incorporate the unused driveway leading from Woodhill Avenue into the Club property, so that said driveway would be within a public right-of-way rather than within one of the private residential lots. Resulted in upgrading of existing Woodhill Avenue firom Orono Orchard Road to a point just past the intersection with the new private road serving Woodhill Ridge, ending approximately 65* west of the Club’s property boundary but apparently to provide a connection to the old chained-o^ driveway. #2484 - WoodhiU CC May 5,1999 Page 9 4. Resulted tn the Club’s granting an access easement in favor of I .ot 3, \VtM»i!hill Ridge (the lot which is not ser\’cd by the private road) over Club property to WoodhiU Avenue in the event the Co. Rd. 15 access is blocked 1988 Maintenance Building Cl 'P. In 1988 WoodhiU applied fnr and was issued variances and a CUP for a new maintenance building to be located approxim.i'.cls 160 ’ cast of tlie WoodhiU Ridge subdivision, and adjacent to the old driveway coiuiccting to WoodhiU Avenue. A portion of the old driveway bed was filled near the northwest comer of **'•• maintenance building, in conjunction wiUi the site grading for that building. ITte CUP/vanance resolution docs not address future use of the driveway connection to WoodhiU Avenue. The only reference in the Planning Commission and Council minutes as to use of the old driveway was a negative response from the Club’s surveyor to Jcanr.c Mabu^th's question whether the WoodhiU Avenue connection would have to be opened during maintenance building construction. During the 1988 review' process the concerns of the neighborhood were addressed, resulting in a relocation of the original proposed building site (north side of old driveway, 50’ from west lot line) to the final location 160 ’ from the west lot line and on the south side of the old driveway. 1 his placed it approximately 350’ fiom tl;e actual house sites of each of the two nearest residential lots, and allowed for the saving of several trees, a screening barrier to the surrounding rcsidonti.al properties. TIic review' process also resulted in n CUP approval condition lh.it future comp ’ *nts from adjacent residents about increased noise from the maintenance operation would allow the City to rc-open the CUP for further review C. Why is a Secondary Access Needed? For Whom? When? llic Club was advised to define the concen.s that have resulted in this request. The Club addresses this topic on pages 6-8 of Exhibit 1 (PLEASE READ!). In brief, the foUowi g topics arc addressed; Increased traffic volume and speed on Co. Rd. 15 Temporary ptoble.ms during Co. Rd. 15 improvements construction Expected greater volumes and speeds on Co, Rd. 15 once the improvements arc completed Raised elevation of Co. Rd. 15 Left turns difficult and danrerous for member access from west Potential to reduce access to 15, making 15 safer No other access points available to Club without acquisition Other potential access locations which might be acquired/developed would have greater impacts on other neighborhoods. #2484-Woodhill CC Mays. 1999 Page 10 • Club activity has not slgniricantly ir :rcascd since 1968 Anticipated use of access oniy by members nho live u cst of Club • Anticipated use is 20-30 trips per day summer u-eekdays, 60 trips per day on stimmer weekends; less in spnng and fall, much less in winter D. Traffic Saf*l> Concerns: Impact on Woodhill Avenue Comments from Uie Woodhill Ridge neighborhood indicate a concern with safety, related to the conversion of Woodlull Avenue from what has functionally been a private, low-traffic tul-dc-sac to a somewhat busier through road serving a quasi-commercial use. The impact of additional traffic due to Club usage of the public road is proposed to be minimized by adding new, more restrictive traffic controls. The publi'* road ponton of Woodhill Avenue will no longer function as the mere extension of a 6-fomily private road. The Club was advised to investigate and address the impacts of die proposed access on Wooditill Avenue and the surrounding neighborhood. Tlte Club's initial submittal addresses the topic of traffic impacts on pages 8-9 ofKxhibit I (PLEASE RE.'\D’!). The Club's points are summarized as follows; - The proposed access will be very limited in scope The impact on the three homes accessing directly to Woodhill Avenue will be no greater Uuai it w'as when those homes were built. • The 3 homes with driveways accessing to the private road portion of Woodhill Avenue, w ill have no Club traffic directly in front of them, and will have no problem entering or c.Mting their driveways. - Woodhill wall periodically remind members using the access of traffic rules and safety concerns • The gravel road. 10 mph speed limit, and wrst-bound stop sign at the point where the driveway enters Woodhill Avenue, all will act to keep the access sale. A Uuce-way stop could be established if the neighborhood desires. • The proposed traffic controls and low level of use will yield a greater measure of pcdcstrian/child protection than most City strcct/privatc road intersections - The proposed level of traffic is not considered high for a local residential public street • The impact on Orono Orcliard Road traffic levels will be minimal since most anticipated users would otherwise use Orono Orchard Road to and from Co. Rd. IS The Parsons BrincknhoCf traffic study submitted by the Club is summarized later in this memo. Note that although Woodhill Avenue is 24' paved width rather thxm the City's 28' standard for a public residential street, sta£f docs not view this as a limiting factor for the level of traffic currently proposed by Woodhill. «484 WoodhillCC May 5, 1999 Page 12 3. Odors . The proposed low level of traffic and prohibition on service and delivery vehicles will likely result in no significant odors generated due to this access. 4. Lights. Theie is cuncmly no streetlight at the mtersccuon of Wojdhill Avenue and the A'^oodlull Ridge private road, and none is proposed. Headlights from vehicles entering and exiting at the new access will not sliinc directly at any neighboring homes Tlie proposed limitation on hours of access availability of 7:00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m.. and the limited usage during months where darkness occurs earlier in the cv’cning, will also result in minimal headlight impact in the neighborhood Any existing or proposed lighting at or near the maintenance building who*;c source may be more visible when tlie access is in place, would liavc to be redirected or siiicldcd. 5. Visual Impacts. Opening of the access to Woodhill Avenue results in lire loss of some vegetation which in the past acted to screen the maintenance building from users of Woudliill Avenue. Tlie maintenance building will be somewhat more visible in the winter months with the road being open. Tire additional projxised traffic signage aixl the proposed level of traffic will result in minimal if any negative visual impact on the neighborhood. 6. Security. The Cl S does not propose to install a gatehouse, but docs propose to Itavc a gate or chain that would have to be opened at 7 a.m. and closed at 8 p.m. The Club closed tliis access in 19S0 due to security issues, i c unwanted traffic, etc At least one neighborhood resident has expressed concerns regarding security. The lack of a gatehouse or other monitoring at thi.> access location is a topic for further discussion. City Engineer's Coinnunis re: Proposed Driveway Design The comments of the City Engineer appear in Exhibit W and arc summarized as follows; 1. Proposed driveway slope in some locations is 14%, slightly exceeding recommended driveway maximum of 10%; private road maximum slope by code is 12%. 2 Erosion is a concern, needs erosion controls during/aftcr construction. Need vegetation established in ditches. 3. Recommending typical street section for a private road; if remaining as gravel surface, dust control measures may be needed. 4. Drainage calt ilations acceptable. Could divert nutofl from upper driveway to small exi..ting pond north of driveway. 5. Need a retaining w all design for area near NW comer of maintenance building. «484 WoodhillCC May 5,1999 Page 14 f. Easibound stop sign on Woodhill Avenue at Woodhill Ridge road intersection g. Slop sign for outbound traffic at north comer of Woodhill Avenue and Orono Orchard h. Painted bar line ano painted lane dividing line at west end of Woodhill Avenue i. Vegetation clearing along cast side of Orono Orchard Road south of Woodhill Ave. 2. Proposed restrictions on use of Woodhill Avenue access driveway: a. Open only 7 a m. - 8 p.in. b. No commercial, delivery, taxi or service vehicles allowed c. Only members and invited guests may use access d. Emergency vcliiclc access allo\ved at all times e. Full general use allowed when Co. Rd. IS access is blocked 3. Traffic sources: a. 50% of current Woodhill Road trips arc staff / visitors / service vehicles which won't use Woodhill AveniK b. Less than 25% of membeni live west of Club c. f 1 vehicles per day is estimated Club use of Woodhill Avenue access 4. Woodhill Avenue capacity: a. l!xpcctcd increase from 50-60 neighborhood ^xhiclcs per day to combined neighborhood / Club use of 100-120 vehicles ^■■.r day is well within the defined capacity' for this typc/nalurc of residential road 5. Intersection capacities: a. Woodhill Ave at Woodhill Ridge; - Apparent proposed stop sign for outbound Woodltill Ridge traffic? - Level of Service "A" , i.e. no delays b. Woodhill Ave at Orono Orcitard Rd: - No capacity constraints - No sight distance constraints • No added traffic to Orono Orchard Road c. Co. 15 at Orono Orchard: • Slight (30 vehicles per day) decrease in traffic and leduction in cross movements • Greater traffic safety d. Co. 15 at Woodhill Road; - Same comments as for Co. 15 at Orono Orchard 6. Road design; a. 1 l** u slope on gravel driveway is not a problem for traffic movement b. Woodhill Avenue is wider than Woodhill Road c. Woodhill Avenue has sufficient capacity, better than Woodhill Road d. The Orono Orchard / Woodhill Ave intersection will have sufficient capeity and sight distance when the recommended signage, etc. are in place «2484 WoodhillCC May 5, 1999 Page 15 7. Alternate Solutions a. Police traffic personnel or a semaphore at Woodhill Road / Co 15 arc not feasible b. Turn lanes on 1S at Woodhill Road do not solve high speed, limited sight distance, or "critical gap" problems c. There ore no other locations where the Club o\%t.s land that abuts a public street that could be used as an access. Neighborhood Comments The City has received letters from a number of property owners in tlie neighborhood. Tliosc letters arc included as Exlubits U. They include a petition oprosing the CluKs request Please review these submittals. Malkerson I.etter and Benshoof Traffic Study Also included in Ute attachments are a traffic study by Benshoof & Associates, Inc. and a letter from Bruce Malkerson on behalf certain homeowners in lltc neighborhood. Please rcMcw these documents included within Exliibits U. Issues for Discussion Council should consider the following questions in determining a course of action on tlic Woodhill request: 1. Has Woodhill CC provided sufficient justification to warrant consideration of a second access to the property? 2. Has Woodhill CC adequately demonstrated that otlier secondary access options are cither not feasible or arc inferior to the proposed Woodhill avenue access? 3. Do public health, safety and welfare concerns suggest that the benefits of allowing Woodhill CC an access to Woodhill Avenue outweigh the potential negative impacts to the neighborhood? 4. Are the Club-proposed limitations on use of the access sufficent to alleviate most or all of the concerns expressed by the neighborhood? If not, what additional limitations should be attached to City approval of the access? «2484 Woodhill CC May 5,1999 Page 16 5. Docs Council accept the Club's premise that the Club has access rights \\hich should be formally and petmancntly acknowledged? Docs Council accept the Club's request tliat once established formally, tlicsc access rights will not be subject to future review except by neighborhood petition per tlie zoning code? Given the large si/c of the Club property, should some modifier be established so that factors other titan "petition of 75"o of all property owners within 1000' of the property" woi;'d trigger a future CUP review'* 6. Docs Council agree that Club rights regarding the 1987 casement for Lot 3 and regarding blockage or involuntary closure of the Woodhill Road access to 15, must be independent of any CUP process or review? 7. Docs Council agree with the 7 "triggers" proposed by Woodliill CC that will require further City review or further amendment of the CUP? 8. Docs Council agree w ith staff tlut this application docs not and will not address tlic historical ongoing country dub use, but merely deals with tliis secondary access issue? 9. Should the Club be required to pave the portion of the driveway w ithin the right-of-way of Woodhill Avenue? Staff Recommendation Council must weigh the needs and the rights of both the Club and the neighborhood, against the public health, safety and welfare concerns that surround this issue. In the event that Council detemtines that some limited use of the access is appropriate, staff would recommend, as a starting point, that the following minimum conditions be attacned to such approval: 1. If tlic Club's access to County Road 15 is closed for whatever reason for an extended period olhei than a short term emergency situation, the City must have the right to reconsider the Club's Woodhill Avenue access CUP to allow consideration of all altcn. Mivcs for provision of proper and adequate access for the Club and other potential access users, and consideration of the impacts of those allcmativcs. 2. The City sliould establish triggers which will allow review of the Woodhill Avenue access CUP, including but not limited to: Uiose proposed by the Club; • a review based on the amount of actual trafiic using the access, - a review aAcr some given time period. If Council concludes that approval of the access is appropriate. Council should direct staff to draft a CUP approN'al resolution with appropriate findings and conditions, for consideration at the May 24 Council meeting. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCH. MEElTNn OF MAY 11,1999 the Club In actuality was issued Is a conditional use permit for a conforming use. Historically the City has required a new conditional use permit for any new physical improvements. I.e., new buildings, grading v^rk, to an existing cord tioral use This requirement has been applied aaoss me board for ai; conditional use permits mat nave been issu^ oy me City. Conditional uses i.dudes those uses generally not suitable in a padicu'ar zoning district. t'jt which may under some circumstancns bo suitable V;hen such circumstances exist, a conditional use permit may be granted. Conditions may be applied to issuance of the permit and a periodic review of the permit may be required. The City Council does have the authority to grant or deny corxlitional use permits arvd to impose reasonable conditions on them. Gaffron stated with regard to Woodhltl’s request, it is the City's position that the re-opening of an access to Woodhill Avenue after a nearly 20 year closure requires a new conditional use permit or an amendment to the existing conditional use permit for the following reasons: t. the 1968 conditional use permit was Issued based on a given set of circumstances that existed at the lime; 2. it can be reasonably argued that the *i368 conditional use permit to allow the Club to operate has not lapsed It might also be reasonably argued that the lack of use of Woodhill Avenue as a secondary access to the Club lor nearly two decades or more might be considored as a lapse in that specific aspect of the conditional use permit; 3. the conditions that applied vrfien the 1988 maintenance building conditional use perm t was grafted have a so changed; and 4. the proposed use of Woodhill Avenue by a non-resklential user raises concerns of health, safety and welfare that the City is responsible for addressing, and which are properly raised within the formal of a public review process when a conditional use is Involved. Gaffron commented that one of the permits required »s a permit for woik in the pub' c right-of-way for construction or reconstruction of this driveway approach per City Codes. City Code currc.nily only permits one business driveway per development unless approved by the City, the driveway must be paved within the right-of-way. the driveway approach must be located at least 100 feel frem a corner in a residential district, and the driveway must be ten feet from the side lot line. A land alteration permit is also required if the volume of land aitcraticn is under 500 cub>c yards, and if over 500 cubic yards, a conditional uso permit is required. If City Staff concludes that tne work may create negative Impacts or arc not in Keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. City Staff is authorized to refer land alteration permit requests to the City Council for volumes less than 500 cubic yards. It Is the opinion of City Staff that while the volume of grading in conjunction with this access work is significantly less than 5C0 cubic ya-ds. the proposal does potentially create negative irripacts specifically related to drainage, noise, oaors. visual Impacts and public safety, all of which should bo reviewed by the Counol given the neighborhood conceits that have been expressed. Gaffro'' remarked that Orono's Community Management Plan docs encourage trie retention and continued operation of private golf courses in that they provide aesthetic open space and natural vistas to the benefit of adjacent landowners and the general pubKc. Gaffron noted that the City s in favor of the golf course existing at that location. The Rural Transportation Policies state that driveway locations and rural street or private road intersections will be limited for traffic safety, with the intent being to consolidate access points onto major roads. The City's Urban Land Use Policy states that commerical and industrial development will not be permitted to adversely affect neighboring residential property. While Woodhill is not strictly a commercial or industrial use. certain aspects of its operation may have impacts that are not strictly residential in nature, and that is why private golf courses are a conditional use rather than a permitted use. Gaffron stated that the City of Orono does acknowledge that Woodhill Avenue served as a secondary access to Woodhill Country Club for many decades prior to the issuance of the 1968 Page 3 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY II. 1999 conditional use permit. The 1968 conditional use permit, however, did not specify whether Woodhill Avenue would continue to be used as a secondary access, and it was unquestioned that County Road 15 was to be the access to the Country Club Gaffron commented that the 1968 conditional use permit contains the following language: 'Approximately 150 acres in Orono. Club house and vanous buildings for entertainment. Private club." In 1980, Woodhill Country Club dosed off its Vi/ocdhill Avenue driveway access to most vehicular trafTic and placed a chain across the entrance which became accessible only if the chain was removed by the Club. The Club informed the City in writing of its n tent to voluntarily close the driveway, and stated that the Club reserved the right to use the entrince should it choose to do so In the future. in 1987, Woodhill Country Club, in conjunction with a private developer, subdivided the property south of Wo'''1hill Avenue and acated the five lot residential plat of Woodhill Ridge. The subdivisior' resulted in the following actions which are pertinent to this review: 1. created a new private road to serve Lots 1. 2,4, and 5, extending southward from near the cast end of oxlstin^. Woodhill Avenue: 2. resulted in expansion of the dedicated right-of-way at the east end of Woodhill Avenue, apparently to incorporate the unused driveway leading from Woodhill Avenue Into the Club property, so that said driveway would be within a public right-of-way rather than within one of the private residential lots; 3. resulted in upgrading of the existing Woodhill Avenue from Orono Orchard Road to a point just past the intersection with the new private road serving Woodhill Ridge, ending approximately 65 feet west of the Club's property boundary, but apparently to provide a connection to the old chained-off driveway; and 4. resulted in the Cit/s granting an access easement in favor of Lot 3, Woodhill Ridge over Club property to Woodhiii Avenue In the event that County Road 15 access is blocked In 1988, Woodhill Country Club applied for and was issued variances and a conditional use permit for a new maintenance building to be located approximately 160 feet east of the Woochtti Ridge subdivision and adjacent to the old driveway connecting to Woodhill Avenue. The only reference in the Planning Commission and Council minutes as to use of the old driveway was a negative response from the Club's surveyor to Zoning Administrator Mabusth's question whether the Woodhill Avenue connection would have to be opened during maintenance building construction. Gaffron staled he will let Mr. McCarthy and the Club representatives address the reasons why a secondary access is needed, and the traffic impact to County Road 15 and the secondary access. City staff has identined some potential drainage and grading issues, and portions of the proposed gravel driveway have a relatively steep grade and therefore arc subject to possible erosion. The rales and volumes of stormwater runoff generated by this access driveway do not warrant a storm drainage pond nor other extensive stormwater management facilities City Staff Is recommending a paved driveway in that It would be less susceptible to erosion and sedimentation City Code requires, since this is a business driveway, that all portions of the driveway In the rlghl-of-way are required to be paved with bituminous malorial. Other potential neighboihood impacts idenUfied by City Staff Include dust from the proposed gravel driveway. A resolution to this problem may be to limit the traffic speed to ten miles per hour as proposed and periodic waterir.g or calcium chloride treatments could also be utilized. Staff feels the additional traffic generated by this access will have little noise impact on the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETLNG OFMAYII. 1999 neio^borhood and would be reduced If the driveway was paved. Odors are a minor issue and should not pose any problem. There is no street lighlirg being proposed at this street intersection and headlights from vehicles entering and exiting at the new access will not snme directly at ary neighboring homes There also will be a minimal vie- ai imnact to the neighborheod by opening this access. Gaffron commented that V^ccdhill Country Club does not propose to install a gatehouse, but the Club is proposing to have a gate or cnam across the access that would be opened at 7:00 a m. and dosed at 8 00 p m. The Club closed this access in 1880 due to security issues, and at least one neighborhood resident has expressed concerns regarding security. The City, independent of this proposal and this application, authorized a traffic management study for the segment of County Road 15 from North Shore Drive to Fcrndaie Road West for the purpose of analyzing traffic movement and access from cross streets, to look at mclheds to improve east-west traffic movement that could provide some relief to County Road IS. to look at the feasibility of providing a frontage road on the north side of 15 between Woodhill Ro.id and Orono Orchard Road, and to look at the feasibility of installing a stoplight at North Shore Drive and at Orono Orchard Road. One of the conclusions of the study was that access to Y/oodhi!l Country Club would be vastly improved with the provision of a traffic signal at Ororo Orchard Road. Gaffron noted that the City has received numerous letters from the neighborhood residents regarding this application and that those have been included as an exhibit in the City Councils packet for their review. In addition. Included is a traffic study by Benshoof & Associates on behalf cf the neighborhood residents as well as a letter from Attorney Bruce Malkerscn on behalf Of certain homeowners in the neighborhood Gafiron stated the City should consider whether Woodhill Country Club has provided sufficient Justification to warrant consideration of a second access to the property and whether Woodhiii Country Club has adequately demonstrated that other secondary access options are either not feasible or are inferior to the proposed Woodhill Avenue access The members of the City Counol should also consider whether the potential public health, safety and wcitore concerns do not outweigh the benefits of allowing Woodhill Country Club an access to Woodhill Avenue City Council should also address the other questions on pages 15 and 16 of the May 5. 199'.» Zc.ung Administrator's report in reaching an opinion on whether an amendment to the conditional use permit should be approved. City Staff Is recommending that if the City Council determines that seme limited use cf ihc access is appropriate, some minimum conditions be attached to such approval. First, if the Club’s access to County Road 15 is closed for whatever reason for an extended period other than a short-term emergency situation, the City must have the right to reconsider the Club’s Wccdh.i; .*.ver.us access conditional use perm.it to alicw conSidcraiion of ail ailc(na'...c3 fer provision cf proper and adequate access for the Club and other potential access users, and consideration of the impacts of those alternatives. Secondly, the City should establish triggers which will allow review of the Woodhill Avenue access conditional use permit, ^nr‘ d f' but net limited to those proposed by the Club, a review based on the amount of actual i >**: \ ng tho access, and a review after some given lime period of the situation Gaffron suggested that if the City Council concludes that approval of the access is. proprialo. Council should direct City Staff to draft a conditional use permit approval resolution wit’- appropriate findings and conditions for consideration at the *«lay 24th Council meeting B. Council Questions of Staff Page S ORONO CITY COUNCIL ^^NUTES OP THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETLNC OF MAY 11,1999 There were no questions by the City Council Members of City Staff. C. Presentation by Applicants Edge Jackson. President of Woodhill Country Club, stated he is a reside.nl of Orono and resides on Woodhill Road. Jackson commented that he has requested that the members of tho Country Club refrain from contacting the City Council members regarding this application. Jackson stated due to safety concerns that the Club had regarding the use of County Road 15. the Club had decided to reopen the access to Woodhill Road, which the Club fell was within its legal rights But the Club's position resulted, however, in lengthy and expensive litigation with the City. Woodhill Country Club subsequently drafted a settlement proposal, which was presented to the City, and the Country Club elected to apply for a conditional use permit to reopen tho access. Jackson rem jrked that the Club's proposal to the City takes into account the vanous safety concerns that have ansen with the high traffic volume on County Road 15 and tho dangerous left hand turns onto County Road 15 from Orono Orchard Road and into the Country Club. If access to Woodhii! Road is granted, it Is the Club's opinion that there will be a minimum impact to Ihe traffic levels currently experienced on Woodhill Avenue. Given the new environment that now exists in that area, it is Woodhill Country Club's view that this proposal is the best solution for all parlies involved as well as the general public that currently uses County Road IS. Jim McCarthy. Attomey-at-Law with Lindquist & Vennum. reviewed his May 11.1999 letter regarding Woodhill Country Club's application for amendment to the 1965 conditional use perm The Traffic Management Study by the City's engineering firm illusirales the dangerous traffic safety problem faceo by Woodhill Country Club members and the general public on Highway 15 In front of Woodhill Country Club and at Orono Orchard Road. T re average daily Iralfic count in June of 1998. was approximately 22.000 vehicles, which is estiriaicd lo increase to 27,000 near Orono Orchard Road in future years. McCarthy stated Woodhill is requesting that access be gra ded off of Woodhill Avenue lo Club members from 7.00 a m. lo 8 00 p m.. which will be secured il night by a security gate. Commercial traffic will nol be allowed lo access the Country Club through this road The access is intended lo help members to the west and north of the Club by providing an alternate traffic route. McCarthy remarked that the Zonir>g Administrator’s report do not identify any significant safely issues with the Club's application related to traffic impacts on Woodhill Avenue, noting that the Club is willing to deal with any outstanding issues that still remain McCarthy noted that the residents In the neighborhood prefer that the road not be paved, which is also the desire of the Counti^ Club, but if Itio City requires a paved road, the Country Club Is willing lo abide by that condition. McCarthy commented that It is nol the Club's intent to make this access look loo desirable to avoid euracting higher levels of traffic than what is desired. McCarthy slated that the road was nol regraded but a new load of gravel was spread over the road, noting that the grade of liie road has remained the same for approximately 100 years, but that the Country Club is willing to work v«th City Staff if need be to alter tho grade of tho road. McCarthy remarked that Woodhill Country Club's existir>g cond tional use permit does nol have any reviewr triggers or provisions for annual reviews, and it would be the Club's request that this Issue be discussed in further detail, noting that the Club at this time would strongly oppose that Page 6 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 11, 1999 condition. since approximately 1917, Woodhill Avenue has served as the secondary access to the country club. The primary traveled access is from Woodhill Road to County Road 15. From 1917 until 1980, Woodhill Avenue was used regularly by dub membe'S. guests, emp’oye^s. and service and delivery vehicles. Since 1980. the Country Club has voluntarily limited access to pedestrians, bicyclists, and very limited vehicular tralfc. and i-'-.wated tc the City in a letter wrritlen by the then president of Woodhill Country Club, that by taking that action the Club did not. in any way. want to limit its right to use tha back entrance, should future circumstances wr’rrant a change In the CIub‘s decision. Woodhill mainla'ns the position that use of this road has never lapsed and continues to be used today. McCarthy remarked that there is nothing in Orono's City Codes that requires an access be utilized at a certain frequency in order to keep that access open. McCarthy commented that the traffic volumes on County Road 15 reed to be addressed by the City, r.oUr.Q that this proposed access is bcncfic.al but will not greary reduce the tra'*-'; vC jrr.es currently experienced on that road. However, this secondary access to Woodhill will provide a safe route of travel for those members of the Club that live to the wer t and north and is consistent with the City of Orono's Comp.uhensive Plan. One of the goats of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide for the safety of all Orono residents, and Woodhill Country Club feels this proposal meets that goal. McCarthy noted that the golf course is considered to bo recreational and open space and not commercial, and Woodhilfs proposal to the City maintains that the golf course is recrealional and is compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Regarding the impact to the neighborhood. McCarthy comme-ted that the City Council should look at U.u whole picture, noting that this access is considered to be a secondary access by Woodhill and will have a minimal impact on the current traffic patterns already being experienced In the area McCarthy stated that it is the opinion of the Country Club that Woodh.ll Avenue is the best road to accommodate this secondary access due to the wider street and better sigtit lines that exist McCarthy remarked that if the City Council reads the Benshoof report, there are only three ncg.nlivc impacts that Woodhill's proposal would create. First, the two residences located at the intersection of Orono Orchard Road and Woodhill Avenue have a lim ‘.cd impact from the restoration of the Woodhill Avenue access. The driveways for these two •. mes are lorated on Woodhill Avenue and their ability to use these driveways would be impacted by me motorists traveling to and from the Country Club. It would also be more difficult for them to waik or n *e a bicycle a'ong Woodhi:i Avenue. Secondly, the entrance trom the Woodhill Ridge private road onto Woodhill Avenue doer, pose a significant traffic hazard due to extensive trees and brush that obstruct the Sight distance. The owner of that property has agreed to trim or remove the bushes if needeo to mipiove the sight lines Thirdly, the Benshoof report states that Woodhill Avenue is not wide enough to accommodate a motonst traveling in each direction plus a pedestrian or bicyclist traveling in one direction. McCarthy stated this road is 24 feet vride and is certainly capable of handling that traffc. McCarthy commented that Ed Axt of Parsons. Brinckerhoff is present tonight to answer any questions relating to their traffic study. Ed Axt. Senior Transportation Engineer with the firm of Parsons. Brinckerhoff. staled that Woodhill Country Club's conditional use permit amendment proposal will have a minimal Impact on Woodhill Pa&e7 ORONO CITY COUNCIL minutes of the special city council meeting OF MAY 11,1999 McCar.hy replied that the Club Is not proposing that Ks employees utilize this access, noting that most of its employees arrive at 6 00 a m., before trafHc becomes a problem on County Road 15 Jackson commented that the Club would like the hours of access to remain cons stent to avo»d traffic iravellno down that road when the access is not open and wilt eliminate any confusion lha. might be caused if the hours varied. Jackson stated that the Club is also not interested in installing a sign at Orono Orchard Road In an effort to keep this load low profile. E. Open Public Hearing I) Public Questions Bruce Malkerson. Attomey-aMaw. Inquired what the actual acreage of ;.ie club is, noting that the application says 214 acres and the 1958 conditional use permit lists 150 acres. McCarthy stated that the 150 acres is what lies withm the City of Orono and the rest Is In Wayzata. McCarthy commented that he does not know what the history of the acreage has been over the years. Malkerson remi.Ued that the trafHc study presupposes that 30 trips in and 30 trips out will be made on this road, v iVketton inquired how that number will be controlled and monitored. Mayor Jabboi« .r.T.siioned on what basis that number was arrived at and whether that number is accKrate. McCarthy lepiir: ’♦■..Oshe Club has set limits on the hours that the access will be opened and have estimated thosi i .-nbers based on a review of the membership and where those members live. Malkerson Inquir^i why the Club was not willing to put a limit on the number of cars that would utilize this access. Ma-,^rson suggested that routine traffic counts cou'd be conducted as one possible means of monitoring the traffic flow in and out of this access. McCarthy stated that the engineer worked on averages and that the Club is not in a position to guarantee the number of trips. McCarthy comr-'er.ted lhat the Club has no reason to believe U.al those numbers are grossly inaccurate. Jane Delaney. 1350 Woodhill. Inquired whether the Club determined how many members out of the 400 families that belong to tho Club actually drive. McCarthy stated it..'* some of the 400 familes are inactive. Traflic counts have shown that there is approximately 500 trips daily to the Country Club Shelly Storch. 1245 V.'ooChii! Avenue, inquired whether It would be possible to monitor the traffc on a Saturday. Ed Axl. Senior Tralfic Engineer, staled that the City of Orono conducted two traffic counts in August, noting lhat on one of those days the Club was hosting a wedding reception, which elevated the IrafHc count by 150 cars In addition to the traflic normally experienced. The counts showed that approximately 500 cars per day. 250 In and 250 out. traveled to the Country Club. Axt staled that the City's numbers were then incorporated within their traffic study. Shelly Storch inquired whether the Country Club has any figures showing the number of people who drink alcohol at the Club and also drive. Pa:e9 mam.. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF TUE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETLNG OF MAY II. 1999 Jackson commented that Woodhili Country Club is a family club and only has a smalt bar. Jackson staled tliat the;r members normally do not gather at the bar and drink, and that the atmosphere of the club is more of a family gathering Woodhili Country Club at this time docs not have speonc numbers regarding the number of members who crmK Jerry Storch, 1245 Woodhili Avenue, inquired whether the ’'affc count d.stmguished m any way the 25 percent of the membership that live to the west and north. McCarthy stated that the trathc count v/as not broken out to reflect those numbers ii) Public Comments Jane Delaney, 1315 Woodhili Avenue, commented that their pctitior' is representative of 45 households that are in opposition to this application, notnig that the only ones who were in support of the application were members of the Country Club. Delaney stated that the residents were questioning why public hearings were not held before this time regarding this proposal Delaney also slated that she used to walk m the area where the secondary access is proposed and in her opinion that road is more of a footpath and has not been maintained Delaney also expressed concern that her driveway is located by the access, which will make U more difficult for her to exit her driveway due to the traffic going in and out of the Country Club Brian Palmer. 1190 Lyman Avenue, speke in favor of the application, noting that hiS family has used that secondary access when traveling on foot or bike for approximately 14 years. Palmer stated that the left-hand turn that is required olf of Orono Orchard Road is dangerous and that this secondary access will provide a safer route of traffic to and from the Club for his family. Palmer commented that people need to be responsible drivers and to watch out for pedestrians and other vehicles on the road, but that this proposal will help improve the present traffic condition on County Road 15 Charles Maile, tPCO Woodhili Avenue, expressed his thanks to the City Council and City Staff for all Iheir hard work regarding this issue. Maile commented that in his opinion annual reviews of ttiis situation should be required as part of the conditional use oermit due to the safety concerns that have been raised by the neighbors MaJe remarked that this access will increase traific on Woodhili Avenue and would directly impact his family Maile also raised concerns about the consumption of alcohol at the Country Club and the Woodhili Bam. noting that alcohol is being served within a short distance from his residence Malle also commented that this application Is proposing to put commercial and business traffic on a residential street, and encouraged the City Council to vote in opposition to this application. David Luther. 9900 Bren Road Last, Minnetonka, stated they were in favor of this application, noting that they arc the owners of the property located at 1250 Woodhili Avenue and would not be opposed to removing the vegetal on and brush that exists on the comer if deemed necessary. Shelly Storch thanked the City Council members for all their efforts regardirtg this application, noting that she Is strongly opposed to approval of this application due to the safely and equity concerns that have been raised surrounding this issue. Storch stated that Woodhili Country Club is a business that sells liquor and their proposal will bhnq that traffic through their residential neighborhood. Storch remarked that the Country Club should choose between selling liquor and having this access through a residential neighborhood. Page 10 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETLNG OF MAY 11.1999 Storch remarked that Ihis secondary access will not hdp eliminate the traffic problems currentiy being experienced on County Road 15 but w.ll have a great impact on their neighborhood Storch presented a picture of Woodhill Avenue at the section where it curves, noting mat a puddle routinely forms at that location and becomes an ice slick in the winter which causes a safety concern. Storch stated that this secondar, nccess was not brought up by V/ocdhill Country Club at the tme this area was developed, noting that they may net have purchased this land if this accers was being contemplaled. Storch commented that she has rot seen vehicles using this access in the past, noting that this area is overgrown. Storch further remarked that at the time Woodhill Country Club was constructing this access, they were informed that this would be a temporary access, noting that the City was not initially informed that the Country Club was going to reopen this access. Jerry Storch. 1245 Woodhill Avenue, commented that being a citizen of America, indtvidu.nl rights should be recognized and not pushed aside when those rights are being challenged by a business or corporation. Storch stated that the issue that the City Council should consider is whether th.s application is right or wrong, noting that the City currently docs not allow ether businesses to have a secondary backdoor entrance through a residential neighborhood. Storch stated he has a concern with the house that is located at the end of W'oodh.!! Avenue, noting that this house has been sold approximately a year ago and remains vac-nl to this day. Storch remarked that the conditions that are bemg requested are not very enforceable In his opinion and the Country Club should be required to install a card system to insure that only members of the Counl.-y Club utilize this access Storch indicated that currently a semi-tractor truck makes deliveries to the Club on a regular basis, and requested that commercial traffic not be allowed to utilize this access. Storch commented that the mam issue here is the number of cars that wi'l be utilizing this access, noting that this proposal will not greatly reduce the number of cars on Cou'.ty Road 15 but will greatly impact trairc on Woodhill Avenue. Storch remarked that in his opinion he has a hard time believing that Woodhill Country Club will respect the neighborhoed based on their previous attempts to construct the access without informing the City or the local residents Storch indicated that it has been the neighbors* position that they will abide by the decision of the City Council, noting that they were not the initiators of this lawsuit agamst the City and have endured inflammatory remarks by people who support this application Storch indicated that he hopes all parties involved in this matter will be able to put those differences aside once this Issue is resolved and become friends once aga n. Bruce Malkerson. Allorney-al-Law. reviewed his May 4.1999 letter regarding the application by Woodhill Country Club, noting that pages 12 and 13 oullme the standards and reasons why ihis application docs not meet the City's standards and should be demed If access is granted, then access should be limited by installing a security gate which is locked at all times and can only be accessed by Club members. Further, the access should be lim ted as outi ned on page 9. Items A. B, C. and D. and should be designated as one-way to permit trafFic into the Club. Malkerson suggested that speed bumps also be installed along Woodhill Avenue to reduce the speed of the vehicles that will be traveling down that road as a result of the secondary access. Malkerson remarked that it is within the City's authority to deny this application, and commented that if access from County Road 15 is cut off. then that is a different situation and should be reviewed. Malkerson requested that some type of review system be Incorporated into the conditional Pasell L-i. ORONO a TV COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETLNC OF MAY 11,1999 use permit to guarantee some control by the City over this property, r/alkerson thanked Woodhill Country Club for electing to submit an app’ication. F. Close Public Hearing The Public Hearing portion of this application was closed at 9.SS p m. (Recess taken from 9:58 p.m. to 10:07 p.m.) G. Council Deliberation Mayor Jabbour thanked Woodhill Country Club for submitting an application for a conditional use permit, noting that the City was informed by the local residents that something was occurring In that area and the City had no information regarding what was happening Jabbour noted that the members of the City Council have not taken any posil'on on this issue other than requesting that an application for a conditional use permit be fled to allow the proper procedures to be followed City Administrator Ron Moorse read a letter from v;iiliam ar.d Nad>ne McQuire of 315 Woodhill Road indicating their support for this application. Matkerson inquired since this letter was read after the public hearing was dosed, could the members of the public comment on Its content. Mayor Jabbour indicated he would reopen the public hearing for the sole purpose of commenting on the letter that was read. (Public Hearing reopened at 10:12 p.m.) Jerry Storch stated he has difficulty with the letter because that house has been S‘ttir>g vacant for approximately a year and it is a matter of speculation as to what is going on there. (Public Hearing closed at 10:13 p.m.) Mayor Jabbour staled that it is up to the City Council to determine whether this application is appropriate, and if approved, what conditions should be imposed on the conditional use permit Peterson indicated that sne was disappointed in the fact that this process has become so difficult, noting that this is a matter that has not been taken lightly. Peterson staled that in her view this secondary access should be allowed based on the iniormation that has been provided and that Woodhill Country Club does have a legal right to have this secondary access Peterson commented that she would like to see some conditions placed on the conditional use permit Flint indicated that this has been a difHcult situaticn, noting that if he lived in that neighborhood he also would not want the additional traffic on that road, but that Woodhill Country Club docs have a legal right to that access and he would vote in favor of their use of the access. Flint commented that he would like to see some restrictions placed on the conditional use permit and would like to have this situation reviewed periodically by the City. Flint remarked that perhaps one-way traffic is the best answer to this issue, noting that adjustments can be made If it is deemed that there is a problem. Flint indicated that he also is in favor of a stoplight at the intersection of Orono Orchard Road and Page 12 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETLNC OF MAY 11,1999 County Road 15 as a way to alleviate the tratnc concerns in that area. Sansevere indicated that he does not have the full history regarding this matter, but is looking at what is fair and equitable to all parties Involved. Sansevere commented that this access vrlM not greatly reduce traffic on County Road 15, but will make tra</el safer for a percentage of the Club s members. Sansevere noted that the Club Is not requesting full access and that some conditions are being proposed. Sansevere commented that he would like the Count.'y Club to cons der some type of card access system to restrict the use. Mayor Jabbour stated in his view Woodhlll Country Club is entitled to use of this road, but that some restrictions need to be placed on the conditional use permit to allow the City to have some control over what occurs on this property. Jabbour commented that Woodhiil is attempting to limit the number of people who can gain access through Woodhiil Avenue by its proposal. Jackson commented that he understands what the members of the City Council are saying, not ng that the Country Club's Board of Directors is in attendance at tonight's meeting to gain a better understanding of all the positions involved Jackson indicated that he does not have the authority to make substantial changes to the proposal without first holding a board meclirg. but would like to be informed what the City Council is proposing as far as restrictions Jackson remarked that Woodhiil Country Club has come to the conclusion that this is the proper method for handling this issue. Mayor Jabbour stated that the City is not requesting that Woodhiil Country Club settle this issue tonight but is attempting to come up with some conditions that should be placed on the conditional use permit that all parties can live with. Jabbour indicated that the City has issued numerous conditional use permits where the right to review the permit has been reserved by the City, Gaffron commented that the Cily does have the right to incorporate that condition into the conditional use permit. Mayor Jabbour commented that the City does need to protect the rights of its citizens as well as the rights of the C<ty. Sansevere suggested that this application be reviewed m approximately s x months, noting that their busiest season will have ended. McCarthy commented that he does not feel this Issue should be reviewed every year, and suggested that the City wait until County Road 15 Is completed before a review is conducted Peterson commented that, under the Club s proposal, the residents of V*'oodhi!l Avenue would need to adjust their lifestyles during the majority of the daytime hours, noting that she wiould be in favor of limiting the number of hours that the access is open Flint stated that if the Country Club has the right to d smiss its lowsuit v. thoul piojudice and bring It back before the Court if they feel that they are being treated inappropriately by the City. Malkerson inquired whether the people in opposition to this application will have an opportunity to speak to these different points if the Applicant is able to comment on them. Mayor Jabbour stated that they are not going to reopen the public hearing section of this meeting, but that the comments by the Apollcant will be limited to questions that the City Council may have regarding various items in their proposal. Mayor Jabbour commented that he would not be in favor of a card access system, noting that Pase 13 ORONO CITY COUNCIL ^^NUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 11,1999 they are expensive and experience mechanical problems. Jabbour stated that a one-way driveway is probably the best solution to limit the amount of trainc and to alleviate the safety concerns raised by having to make two left-hand turns. Jabbour remarked that this issue could perhaps be revis ted in one to two years Sansevere stated that he would like to sec some type of guarantee that this road is only being accessed by Club members and not guests of a wedding party, for example, or other major social event that is held at the Club. McCarthy noted that the Club does not host very many weddings and that their proposal will not cause a major influx of people on this road Mayor Jabbour noted that the original proposal from Woodhill Country Club did propose a one-way system. riuit suggested that a cooceptust metier, be .made outlining the various conditions that the City is proposing to impose and then Woodhill Country Club will have an opportunity to review that motion before the next City Council meeting. Flint moved to conceptually approve Application (f2484, Woodhill Country Club, 2 WoodhiU Road, and to authorize City Staff to draft a resolution for City Council considerate n at their May 24,1999 meeting, subject to the following items that are outlined In Bruce Malkerson ’s May 4,1999 letter to the City Council: Item O, The Club shall install a gate across the road which shall be locked at all times (this is Club's request numbers 1 and 2 with a clarification), except when used as follov/s: A. Use of the road by emergency vehicles (police, fire, ambulance and utility). (This is Club's request number 3. page 1. B. Use of tho road for transporting Club tractors to and from Long Laka for repair. (This is Club's request number 5, page 1). C. Use of tho road tor general access if Woodhill Road access to County Road 15 is temporarily blocked (subject to reasonable notification to the City and the affected neighbors), but only during the period of such temporary blockage. (This is Club's request number 6. page 1). D. Use of tho road under the terms of that certain Easement Agreement, dated October 6,1987, between the City, the Club, and MSM, which benefits one residential lot if County Road IS access is blocked. (This is Club's request number 7, page 1). E. Usage of this access road is to be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m., to 8:00 p.m. The above approved uses would be called “Basic Rights," a term used by the Club. The City would reserve the right to review the permit periodically to determine what problems there were in the prior years and the City would maintain a right to modify the permit or. add conditions, as allowed by Section 10.09, Subdivision 6,B. On page 2 of the application, the Club stated the City can delete the following uses from the 1968 conditional use permit The following uses however, are not part of the 1968 Pace 14 ORONO CITY COUNCIL minutes of the special city council meeting OF MAY 11,1999 conditional uit parmit. In any event the Club can always apply for an amended conditional use permit in the future to include these items the Club agrees should not be part of any conditional use permit at this time. 1. Conversion of the Woodhill Avenue occess into the main entrance for Wooonili on a permanent basis. 2. Woodhill Avenue as an entrance or exit by delivery, taxi, service, or other commercial vehicles. 3. Woodhill Avenue as an entrance or exit by the general public. 4. Woodhill Avenue as an access at time periods other than those allovrcd in the Basic Rights defined above. 5. Expansion of Woodhill’s west driveway between the mainten.ince building and V/oodhill Avenue. 6. Bituminous paving of the driveway abutting Woodhill Avenue. 7. Signage concerning Woodhill on Orono Orchard Road. The right of access to the Woodhill property exists Independent of any conditional use permit process under the terms of the Easement Agreement. If all access from Woodhill to County Road IS is permanently blocked as a result of either Highway 15 alteration or improvement or because of the railroad right-of-way, the Club must apply for a conditional use permit so the City can decide if such use Is warranted and If so, what conditions must be imposed in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens in the area and the users of the roads. Item H: 1. Access on the Club's driveway will be for members only, and only on the basis of one way, from west to cast. 2. The City will monitor periodically and will have the right to modify if peak usage exceeds 100 trips per day. 3. The Club should install two-way stop signs at the intersection of Woodhill Avenue and Woodhill Ridge Road. 4. The Club will need to install speed bumps as determined by City Staff. 5. The access road should be bituminous within the public right-of-way. The City will review the permit after one year to determine what problems the*' were, and the City will maintain a right to modify the permit or impose additional cond.*; ns allowed by Section 10.09, Subd. 6, B. Second by Sansevare. Pace 15 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 11,1999 Malkerson commented that there Is no way to prevent any person from utilizing this access when the road is opened, and recommended that a card system be required. Mayor Jabbour stated that he is not in favor of a card system due to malfunctions. Jabbour noted that the City will do periodic traffic counts and can review this conditional use permit if the traffic counts exceed the allowable limit. Malkerson staled he would tike an opportunity to comment on these issues after the resolution is drafted. Mayor Jabbour commented this motion puts the burden on the Country Club not to encourage use of this road by all visitors to the Country Club. Mayor Jabbour noted that it is bad public policy to prohibit the general public from using a public road and that any member of the public should be entiiled to traverse down Woodhill Avenue but not all members of the public should have the right to gain access to Woodhill Country Club. Malkerson inquired whether commerciai trucks wculd be Lmited. Flint answered yes. VOTE ON ABOVE MOTION: Ayes: 4. Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *(43) Declaration of Exccss/Surplus Property Flint moved, Kelley seconded, to declare Excess/Surplus Property: the weter pressure tank from the Highway 12 water plant, and three used police squads; #170 1993 Crown Victoria, #175 1996 Crown Victoria, and 8176 1996 Crown Victoria. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Peterson moved, Sansevere seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 11:43 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4. Nays 0. Pace 16 MA.LKERSON G I 1. L I L A N D MARTINiir SitiVC ISOO ATftT To«ca BOI MAAOUtTTt Ave-^ue M I N N e A A o k I «, M I «l N C « O T • SS40Z-3209 Tek«A»*0*iC 6I2-344.IIII r*esiMitc 6IZ-344-I4I4 Druce D M^lWcrion. E»q Direct Diil(612) 344-1699 May 4.1999 Mayor and City Council City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Re; Woodhill Country Club - Residents on Wocdhill Avenue To be Heard on May 11. 1999 Dear Mayor Jabbour and City Council. A. Introduction . I represent Shelly and 3cny Storch, Jane Delaney. Reed Larson, and Charles and Marla Mailc. They arc Orono residents who live on Woodhill Avenue who would be diiectly and advciscly impacted by any temporary or permanent use of a proposed newly constricted across road by Woodhill Country Club (the "Club”) which exits upon the quiet, dead-end residential street that provides the only access to their homes The purpose of this letter is to provide an oveiview of U'.e relevant facts and applicable law related to the issues presented by the Club’s application for a conditional use permit for the proposed use of this proposed access road Before proceeding, my clients asked that I thank you for having required last year iltat any proposal for access by the Club should be addressed in the context of an application by the Club for an amendment to the Club’s existing conditional use permit (issued in 1568). As we know, at the Council meeting on May 26, 1998, Mr. Dayton, as President of the Club, stated that he could sec the direction that this matter was going and asked that the City Council take no further action He stated that the Club would proceed to try other traffic control measures at the intersection of County Road 15 and Woodhill Road, which is the access the Club, and return to the Council at a later date. The Mayor and City Council also stated that the Club could hire an off-duty police officer at the Orono rate for other cities, which is approximately $39 per hour. Mr. Dayton stated that 2N2S Mayor and City Council May 4,1999 Page 2 the Club would proceed with the hiring of an ofT-duty policy ofTiccr during the rush hour period, if needed. 1 do not believe the Club ever did so. Instead, unfortunately, the Club chose to serve a Complaint and Petition for Alteinative Writ of Mandamus against the City on July 1.1998, and sought a Court decision that the Club need not obtain any permits of any kind from the City to build the access road and to use it as the Club deemed appropriate. Fortunately for my clients and many others who would be adversely affected if the Club prevailed, the City vigorously defended its right to requite the Club to use the conditional use permit process to see if access of some type should be allowed Tlic Club has finally submined an application while still claiming it has a right to do whatever it wants as outlined in its allegations in the Complaint. It is unfortunate that this application must now be reviewed and acted upon while the litigation is still pending, albeit temporarily on hold by the Club. In most other cities, I would be afraid that in such a situation, the City would capitulate to the demands of a litigant m its subsequent deliberations. I have no such fear in this case Additionally, since my clients have personal and business relationships with members of the Club, no one wants to be in this situation I am sure all parties wish they could turn back the clock of time to a date before May 5. 1998 (when the Club built the access road) and start the process over in a different way. However, my clients have no choice now, as was the case last May, but to try to protect their children, themselves and the neighborhood from the proposed use of tiic quiet, narrow, poorly paved road serving their homes, by numerous vehicles coming to and from the Club. B. Preliminary Review of the Facts . 1. The Club was built in approximately 1915 to 1917. 2. Tlte main acccs.s to the Club was provided by a road (Woodhill Road ) constructed to County Road 15. 3. That road has adequately served the Club since then. 4. 1 do not know what Utc zoning was for the Club’s property at the time of construction. For now I will assume that there was no zoning ordinance then or that the zoning ordinance permitted construction of the Club. 5. At some point, a narrow dirt way was established by the Club which led to Woodhill Avenue. No one seems to know when it was first used by the Club or whether the necessary zoning permiis were obtained. The way was used rarely through the years. 6. On May 23, 1968 the Trustees of the Club indicated that the Club decided to bar 3M2S Mayor and City Council May 4. 1999 Page 3 vehicular access to its property from Woodhill Avenue (see Response No 17 by il.c Citj to the Club’s Request for Admissions) The Club then applied for a conditional use peimit on May 31. 1968. On September 9, 1968, the Village of Orono approved a conditional use pei mit for non- conforming uses for 150 acres of the Club and the conditional use pemtit was issued on September 13. 1968. The hand drawn map attached theieto docs not show any ptoposed use of Woodhill Avenue. This lack of connection is confirmed by Response No 13 by the Cit> to the Club’s Request for Admissions. 7. Apparently at some point the zoning ordinance was amended to allow golf courses as a conditional use permit in this district. However, the Club has never applied for a conditional use permit for the entire 214 acre site, including use of any proposed access road to Woodhill Avenue. 8. Tlie Club has fiom time to time applied for conditional use permits for specific new buildings and/or uses on the piopeny which were processed as conditional use permits by the City. However, the Club has not sought a conditional use permit for the propertN as a uhole (214 acres) or for this proposed access road The Club is now seeking a conditioiul use p^'rr.it for the proposed access road to service the entire 214 acre site 9. Prior to 1978 the Club had closed and not used the w.ay mentioned above. In May, 1978. the Club opened the gate to that way and thcie were mimcious problems in my clients’ neighborhood relating to speeding cars, noise and safety The City Council resiewed the issues on November 14, 1978. The Club thereafter locked off the wav from fuiihcr \chicular use in the fall of 1978. In 1980, the Club decided to keep Ure way closed and it has been closed since 1980 other than possibly to drive a tractor do%vn it in 1990 and again in 1997. so the tractor could be driven to Long Lake for repairs (sec deposition of Richard Ficdtickson, the golf course Club s superintendent from 1989 to the present) From 1980 until presently, the pathway was used otherwise only for bicycles and pedestrians 10. In 1988, the Club applied for and was granted a conditional use permit for a maintenance building on top of the hill overlooking Woodhill Avenue. At that time leprescntativcs of the Club represented to the City staff that the way to the west to Woodhill Avenue would not be opened. Jeanne Mebusth stated in her deposition on page 95. Part of my review would have to know if they ’re going to use Woodhill Avenue for access to that maintenance facility. That would be very crucial thing. Tliey told me no. All access would come from the cast from the existing road system they have. I said fine. Now I wanted to gel into the temporary uses. So. was it going to be used during construction. No. 26C:5 Mayor and City Council May 4.1999 Page 4 11. In early May, 1998, the Club expanded Uie way into a wider gravel load, removing numerous trees and vegetation and gra\ eling the area No pcunits were sought by the Club prior to the work. The Club did not apply for a conditional use pcrniii for tl;e consUucMon of the gravel road or a permit to extend the gras el road onto a public street C. Discussion of Relevant Parts of the Club’s Application The Club, in its application, ptovides it? version of the history of the ownciship of property, permits for the Club, special assessments, and historical ,isc of the way to Woodhill Avenue. A review of the depositions in this case and the City ’s Responses to Request for Admissions and Answers to the Club’s Interrogatories shows that the City and Club do not agice on the relevance and veracity of many of ’’facts" alleged by the Club in the application The Club can debate what arc the facts for some time However, what is not debatable is that the Club must o...tain a conditional use permit and other permits to construct and use a access road to Woodhill A*'cnue, for one of several different reasons: 1. The 1903 conditional use permit did not jhow » cr„ •• tmn to Woodhill Avenue and it did not indicate the public would be using Woodhih Av... ic 2. If it is found that the Club did obtam some sort of approval for access to Woodhill Avenue, the Club lost that use due to the non use of the way to Woodhill Avenue for at least the period from 1980 to the present (if not before 1980). Tire City Code states in Section 10.09 “Subd 9. Conditional Uses: Lapse of Use Should a conditional use permit lapse or cease for a peiiod of six (6) months, future use shall be in conformance with the terms of the Zoning Chapter unless such lapse oi cessation is determined to be due to illness, natural disaster or acts of war ” This purposeful lapse of use was repeatedly reinforced by lire Club, including the representations made by the Club to Ms Mebusth in 1988 related to the conditional use for the maintcirance building 3. In any event, the proposal now by the Club for permanent vehicular use of this proposed access road for the entire Club area of 214 acres is a dramatic expansion over the very limited prior use and represents the very reason why such uses need to be treated as conditional use permits Instead of focusing on disputed history, tire City correctly is focusing on the standards in its ordinances. There arc two real but unspoken reasons for the Club’s desire to open the 2602S Mayor and City Council May 4, 1999 Page 5 vehicular access to Woodhill Avenue for its members and guests First, the Club jclicves Woodhill Avenue would be more convenient for some of its members and guests The members and guests may be able to save a minute or two during rush hour traffic times on County Road 15. However, convenience is no: a lest under the Crty's ordinances Secondly, the Club by enga-ng m this access fight m Court has painted itself, it thinks, into a comer If at some point the Club loses the access onto County Road 15, on a temporary or permanent basis, the Club wants to make sure th.rt the Club’s actions now will not limit the possibility of the City ’s .approving full vehicular access onto Woodhill Avenue in the future. The Club’s fears arc unfounded since the City always retains the right to grant permission to access a public road under appropriate conditions Indeed, if the Club lost all access to County Road 15 at some time m the future (which is hiehiv unlikely), the City would want to provide a new replacement access to the Club Such a new replacement access may be legally required However, tliat is not the issue befotc the City presently. To provide comfort to the Club, the City Council need only resetsc the ripht to revisit the access to Woodlnll Avenue in the future if conditions wairant it. D The Staadaids_foiLLSSu;n2 a Conditional Use Peimit The approval of any application for a conditional use permit or amendment thereto must meet the standards of the City Code. The Club h.is not and can not show that it iiv.ets the applicable tests. Xesu “That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives m the Zoning Chapter and the purpose of ih- distnct in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan ” Section 10.09, Subd. 6. A. I The Club and the area adjacent to Woodhill Avenue which will be impacted are zoned RR-IB. The objectives of the RR-IB zone are as follows "Subd. 1. Purpose. The “RR-IB” One Family Rural Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of low density residential development and limited agricultural activity.” Although golf courses arc a conditional use permit in this district, the use of a residential road such as Woodhill Avenue for commercial pu.T>o5cs as proposed by the Club obviously does not fit with low density residential uses or agricultural use. Any application for any after the fact permits by the Club for permits to use tltis newly 2M2S Mayor and City Council May 4, 1999 Page 7 Private diivcways shall be subject to accesi permits according to the classification of the abutting street. Maxiinum service 1 residence tv pical 9. Orono Orchard Road, which services WoodhiU Avenue, is a scenic p.arkvvay. Page 7-16 states: High volume through traffic and commercial traffic is not appropriate on scenic parkways ... l£5l2 “The: the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under v^hich it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public hcaith. safety or welfare, or materially injurious to propcr.ies or improvements in the vicinity.” Section 10 C9. Subd. 6, A, 2. Tltc increased commercial traffic on Woodhill Avenue, a residential street, will obviously be dctnmcntal to the public health, safety and welfare of those living in the area and their guests, including but not limited to the fu e children living there. The enclosed report bv Mr Benshcof. a traffic consultant, confirms that conclusion. Summary The above sections of the CMP and City ordinance clearly do not support, and in fact oppose, any temporary or permanent use of Woodhill Avenue to provide access to the Club A recent change in state law makes it illegal for a city to grant any permits for a use that is contraty to a city's comprehensive municipal plan. I understand the City Council last year denied an access to a residential street for another golf course for similar reasons. E Other Applicable Citv Ordinances 1. The Club must also obtain a permit from the City before i: can constr iti or reconst ruct any driveway, or any driveway approaches, or curb cuts (Section 6 05) To do so without a permit is a misdemeanor. The Club has proceeded to do so without such a permit The ordinance provides that a permit may be issued if the resulting use would not impose an unreasonable hazard to the public and if the other requirements are met. The Club is clearly a business. Section 6.05, Subd. lOA slates: 2M3S Mayor and City Council May 4, 1999 Page 9 6. The intersection at Orono Orchard Road and Count)- Road 15 is already dangerous, and will become more dangerous w ith more traffic from the Club, because of the curve in the road to the west, limiting visibility 7. The Club’s access onto County Road 15 is safe. tnar. ihe use of Wcodhill A\ cnue and/or the intersection of Orono Orchard Road and County Road 15 because A. The Club members are familiar with its use. B. County Road 1 5 at that location is straight and tlierc is better MSibility C. There arc no children in the immediate aicn or homes facing upon th.u intersection. D. At County Road 15. there is an existing eastbound left turn lane into the Club and there will be westbound right turn ne into the Club E. Woodhill Avenue is inadequate :*such use for reasons discussed above. 8. Any perceived problem at County Road 15 for the Club members or others using County Road 15 can be addressed in several ways, including but not limited to A. Moving the temporar visual barriers; D. Lowering speed limit on Co ’inty Road 15 during construction; C. Club’s hiring of a flag person or off-duty policy officer during peak traffic hours, if ever needed; D. Members learning to access Club during non-rush hour. E. Adding cautionary signage. G- Inihe_eveDt tbe Ci^’ Council Oecides_to approve the Vehicular Access then .lie Council should limh the Use as follows . The Club shall install a gate across the road which shall be locked at all times (this is Club’s request aumbers I and 2 with a clarification), except when used as follows; A. Use of the road by emergency vehicles (pc lice. fire, ambulance and utility). (This is Club’s request number 3, page 1). 26023 Mayor and City Council May 4.1999 Page 10 Q. Use of the road for transporting Club tractois to and from Long Lake lor repair. (This is Club’s request number 5, page 1). C. Use of the road for general access if Woodhill Road access to County Road 15 is temporarily blocked (subject to reasonable notification to the City and affected neighbors), but only during the period of such temporary blockage. (This is Club’s request number 6. page 1). D. Use of the read under the terms of Lhat certain Easement Agicemcnt, dated October 5, 1987 between the City, the Club and MSM, which benefits one icsidential lot if County Road 15 access is blocked (This is Club’s request numbei 7, page 1). TIk only request of the Club which must not be approved is number 4 that states “Woodhill Avenue access shall be available for entrance and e.\it by Woodhill meivbers and invited guests between 7.00 a m and 8.00 p.m. during the days tliat Woodhill is open ” The above approved uses would be called “Basic Rights.” a term used by the Club. Tlie City should limit the permit for one year to detemiine what problems there were in the pnoi year and the City should maintain a right to revoke the permit or add conditions, as allowed by Section 10 09. Subd. 6. B. On page 2 of the application, the Club stated the City can delete the follow ing uses from the 1968 conditional use permit The following uses however, arc not part of the 1968 conditional use permit. In any event the Club can always apply for an amended co.nditional use permit in the future to include these items the Club agrees should not be pan of any conditional use permit at this time 1. Conversion of the Woodhill Avenue access into the main entrance for Woohili on a permanent basis. 2. Woodhill Avenue as an entrance or exit by delivery, taxi, service, or other commercial vehicles. 3. Woodhill Avenue as ar entrance or exit by the general public 4. Woodhill Avenue as an access at lime periods other titan those allowed in the Basic Rights defined above. 36025 Mayor and City Council May 4.1999 Page 12 Council believes that those members need a more convenient acce:<3, tl'.en hmil that access to a one way up the access road, since the exiting to the west from the Club on Woodhill Avenue at County Road 15 is an easy exit and there is no need to use Woodhil! Avenue 2. The gate at the access toad sliould be a caid access gate so only Club niembeis can use it, and so the Club’s records of the use can showr the extent of such a use and by whom, and the gate reduces speed. 3- The use should be limited to 20-30 car trips per weekday (Club’s estimate) and 50 car trips per weekend day (Club estimates 50-60). This is also the estimate piovidcd by the Club’s Uaffic consultant and is the basis for the consultant ’s statement that such use would not be harmful. 4. Tlic Club should install tlucc way stop signs at the intejsection of Woodhill Avenue whcie it extends to the south 5. The Club should install three speed bumps along the Woodhill A\ enuc These aie used eifeclively in Minneapolis in residential areas Snow plows have no problems plowing over them. Posted speed signs are inefTeclivc 6. The access road shou ’d remain gravel to assist m slowing cars down The City should limit the permit for one year to dclciinine what problems there were m the prior years and the City should maintain a light to revoke the permit or impose additional conditions, as allowed by Section 10 09. Subd 6. B I If the Cuv decides to allow Access in both directions to a greater degree, then the Cit\- should do so only as follows : 1. Access only between 4.00 p.m. and 6 00 p m. on weekdays in tlic summer since tliat is the rush hour time period on County Road 15. Few members access the Club during morning rush hour. Even in that situation, there is a left turn lane when heading cast at the cnuancc to the Club at County Road 15. and thctc is little oncoming traffic from the east. ‘Tlie access from the east is always an easy right turn 2. The gate at the access road should be a card access gate so only Club mcntbeis can use it. and so the Club’s records of the use can show the extent of such a use and by whom. 3. The u^e should be limited to 30 cars per day (one trip in, one trip out per car " 60 trips). The Club’s traffic consultant assumed that is the maximum use. 2603S lllliitBa ......... BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES. INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS ---------------- 10117 0(CELSIOR BOULEVARD. SUirETWO/HOnONS. MNS5343/(612) 23MCCf/FAX (6123 23A1671 May 4, 1999 Woodhill Avenue Residents c/o Mr Charles Mailc 1260 Woodhill Avenue Orono, MN 55391 rrci'-;-::? t!iY 0 5 K99 Git f LttwitO HOg^fonx 98-39 RE; Updated Traffic Review of Possible Access Connection to Woodhill Avenue from Woodhill Country Club Dear Residents; purpose This letter is to update the review we performed about a year ago regarding the traffic impacts of the access coimection that Woodhill Country Club has proposed to establish to and from Woodhill Avenue. The results of our prior review were documented in a letter to you rlatcd May 26. 1998. Recently, the Woodhill Country Club submitted to City of Orono an application for a conditional use permit amendment. The two principal purposes of this amendment are; l)to acknowledge certoin basic rights of access for the Country Club to Woodhill Avenue and 2) to impose certain restrictions and conditions on the Country Club's proposed use of an access connection to Woodhill Avenue We have carefully reviewed the Woodhill Country Club'a current application In addition, we have reviewed the letter submitted by Edw'ard Axt of the Parsons BrinckerhofTfirm to James McCarthy of the Lindquist ft Vennum firm dated April 30. 1999, which documents a traffic study performed by the Parson firm of the proposed /access connection to Woodhill Avenue In c\’aluating the traffic impacts of the Country Club's application, we also have accounted for the following items; information that we established a year ago, current observations on Woodhill Avenue and at the intcrscaion of County Highway 1 5 and Woodhill Country Club Road, and information from Hennepin County regarding improvements to County Highway 15 The results of our current traffic review ire presented in the following sections; • Insufficient study regarding adequacy of accer ^ on County Highway 1 5 • Negative impacts caused by Country Club use of Woodhill Avenue • Possible option of one-wsy in only access • Recommended conditions if City Council approves access • Conclusions Woodhill Avenue Resident hUy4. 1999 INSUFFICIENT STUDY REGARDING ADEQUACY OF ACCESS ON COUNTY HIGHWAY IS In niy earlier review letter to you dated May 26. 199K. we raised a serious issue tlut the Country Club had not submitted to the City prior to that date any report justifying their proposed access to Woodhill Avenue For land uses like the Couiury Club that generate significant traffic volumes, wc indicated that when an access change is proposed, it is sundard practice to complete a traflic study to address the needs and implications of such an access change. Five key questions which need to be addressed and which I stated in my May 26. 1998. letter arc • What arc the principal issues and needs influencing the potential change in access? • What arc the possible solutions to fulfill the needs? • In evaluating the candidate solutions, what factors are particularly important to address in terms of potcnUal impacts on users of the development, on nearby property owners, and on the public roadway system‘s • What arc the advantages and disadvantages of the candidate solutions in terms of the previously identified factors? • Can any of the candidate solutions be implemented in a nunner to benefit users of the development and to avoid significant negative impacts on nearby property owners and/or the public roadway syst’m*^ If so. what is the preferred solution? Materials included with the Country Club’s cunent application, including the trallic study report by the Parsons firm, provide a partial response to the above questions. These items, however, fall far short of a complete response to the questions listed above Three serious weaknesses of the traffic comments provided by the Country Club arc 1 . The Country Club’s application does not acknowledge the benefits that will be accomplished to their access on County Highway IS through the improvnnents presently being constructed on County Highway 15. These improvements include an eastbound left turn lane and a westbound right turn lane so thit all motorists turning into the Country Club from County Highway IS will have a protected turn lane 2. Neither the Country Club’s application nor the Parsons report provide any actual data or technical analyses regarding the level of service for their users to gain access to County Highway IS at Woodhill Road In other words, they have not documented whether serious delays actually arc encountered in gaining access to County Highway 15 during any particular hours or days 3 . The Parsons report refers to traffic counts conducted on Woodhill Road at the end of September and beginning of October 1998. It b important to lecognizc that this is an off-peak period for the Country Club. As such, wc believe that it is invalid to rely upon such off-peak data for the purpose of evaluating the impacts of the proposed access to Woodhill Avenue Woodhilt Avenue Residents Miy 4. 1999 NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY COUNTRY CLUB i:SE OF WOODIIILL AVENUE The Country Club's application includes llicir estimation that their traffic use ofWoodhili Avenue "will be in the range of 20 to 30 trips per day on weekdays, and possibly 60 on weekend days in the summer months of June and July." Page seven of the Parsons report corroborates the preceding weekend projections through their statement thatit is therefore estimated that no more than 60 trips (i e 30 members per day) would use the Woodhill Avenue access...." In our judgment, the Club would have to exercise very Stringent controls to limit the usage ofWoodhili Avenue to the volumes cited in their application. The reason for this comment is that their projected volume usage represents only five to eight percent of the total daily trip generation for the Country Club. Thus, for purposes of addressing the impacts of the Country Club access on Woodhill Avenue, we have utilised the Club's projectiotu that the volumes on Woodhill Avenue would increase by 20 to 30 vehicles per day on weekdays and by 60 vehicles per day on weekend days in the summer Considering that Woodhill Avenue presently serves just six homes, the effects of th- Country Club access would be to cause a 50 percent increase in the total volume using Woodhill Avenue on weekdays and to c.ause a two-fold increase in the volume on weekend days In our judgment, this expected magnitude of traffic increase would cause noticeable adverse impacts for the existing residents served by Woodhill Avenue. In this regard, we take exception to three points expressed on pages 8 and 9 in the Country Club’s application, which suggest that no traffic difficulties would be experienced. These three points and our re.sponses are as follows: a) Tht two rtsuknces located at the intersection of Orono Orchard Road and Woodhill Avenue have a limited impactfiom the restoration of the Woodhill Avertue access. The driveways for these two homes arc on Woodhill Avenue Their ability to use these driveways would be impacted by the motorists traveling to and from the Country Club Further, the safety of these re.sidents to walk or bicycle along Woodhill Avenue would diminished. b) The entrance from the Woodhill Ridge private road onto Woodhill A venue docs not pose any significant traffic hazard To the contrary, we believe that a serious safety hazard would exist because extensive trees and brush obstruct sight distance in the southeast comer of this intersection. c) HTii/c pedestrian or bicycle use by children of the public street will expose the children to a greater level of traffic on Woodhill Avenue than is present today, the level of trdfic is substantially less than the level of traffic usually encountered on residential public street in Orono and elsewhere. Thl s comment overlooks the point that Woodhill Avenue is just wide enough for two traffic lanes and does not have a sidewalk or bike path. The Club’s application and the Parsons repon conflict with each other regarding the width ofWoodhili Avenue. The application indicates that Woodhill Avenue is 22 Woodhill Avenue Residents May 4. 1999 feet wide, whereas the Parsons report sutes that the width is 24 feet, nine inches. In any event, the width of Woodhill Avenue is not sufficient to accommoditle a motorist traveling in each di.'ection plus t pedestritin or bicyclist traveling in one direction POSSIBLE OPTION OF ONE-WAY IN ONLY ACCESS Our preferred outcome at this time is the tame as expressed in our May 26.1998, letter, namely that no access for the Woodhill Country Club should be approved on Woodhill Avenue at the present time. One reason is that such access would cause negative impacts on W'oodhill Avenue. The second reason is that the Country Club has not presented a factual analysis which demonstrates that the access on County Highway 1 S docs not meet normal performance standards and which demonstrates that access on Woodhill Avenue is the most prudent solution iO provide adequate access for the Country Club LC m spile of the preceding points, the City Council is inclined to consider potential access for the Country Club on Woodhill Avenue, wc would raise the possibility of one way in only access Two pnncipal characteristics of this option arc a) The tralHc impicu on Woodhill Avenue would be just half of the impacts with fijll two-way access. b) One-way in only access would meet the principal need expressed in the Country Club's application and in the Parsons report, namely to accommodate persons coining to the Club from the north on Orono Orchard Road. If access w*ere available via Woodhill Avenue, these users would not have to turn left onto County Highway 15 at Orono Orchard Road and then turn left off County Highway IS at Woodhill Country Club Road. The return movement for these users could be accommodated readily without using Woodhill Avenue by making a right turn onto County Hghway 1 S at Woodhill Country Club Road and then another right turn onto Orono Orchard Road RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS IF CITY COUNCIL APPROVES ACCESS As previously expressed, wc believe that the most prudent action at the present time would be to maintain the current prohibition regarding Woodhill Country Club access on Woodhill Avenue However, if the City Council is inclined to consider some access arrangements, h is highly important to establish a scries of conditions that will limit the negative impans on Woodhill Avenue. If the City Cenmeit is inclined to approve a one way in only access, we would recommend that such approval action be contingent on the following conditions; 1 . Woodhill Avenue shall not be used as the main entrance for the Country Club. 2. Woodhill Avenue shall not be used as an entrance or exit by delivery, taxi, service, or other commercial vehicles. |ih rWAJl. Woodh.lI Avenue Residents May 4. 1999 3. Woodhill Avenue shall not be used as an entrance or exit by the general public. 4. Use of the Woodhill Avenue access shall only be allov^’cd during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m 5. The Country Club shall not expand its west driveway between the nur'nlenance building and Woodhill Avenue 6. The Country Club shall iwit install any bituminous piving on its driveway connection to Woodhill Avenue. 7. The Country Club shall install a card controlled gate system on the driveway conneetion to Woodhill Avenue, which limits access to card holders and which records every vehicle using the driveway. 8. On a monthly basis, the Country Club shall furnish to the City a complete t.nd accurate report from the card reader system, wliich documents the actual number of vehicles using the driveway each day of the month 9. If the avenrge weekday use exceeds 1S vehicles per day or if the average weekend day use exceeds 30 vehicles per day, the Country Club commits to initiating immediate actions to reduce volume usage to the limits of IS vehicles per day on weekdays and 30 vehicles per day on weekend days 10. The City shall review the conditional use permit granting this access approval on an annual basis. If the Club’s usage of the driveway exceeds the limits defined in condition 9. on two or more months or if other problems develop, the City has the full and complete authority to impose other conditions or to revoke the access permit and completely prohibit the Country Club from using Woodhill Avenue 11 The City shall install two bituminous speed humps on Woodhill Avenue, with the costs to be reimbursed by the Country Club. We would suggest using the City of Minneapolis standard, which is a hump three inches high, 12 feet long, and across the fUll width of the roadway. The most westerly hump should be 250 feet cast of Ofono Orchard Road, ond the second hump should be 250 feet farther to the east. 12. The City shall install a stop sign on eastbound W'oodhill Avenue at W’oodhill Ridge. 13. The Country Club shiJI install “do not enter” signs on the driveway withi.'i their site to clearly inform Country Club users that the d.'ivcway cannot be used for exiting purposes. 14 The City shall implement the following three changes to enhance the safety for rcsidenU traveling westbound on Woodhill Avenue to Orono Orchard Road: Trimming the branches that overhang the westbound portion of Woodhill Avenue fiom the evergreen trccs fur the home at 190 Oiono Orchard Road Installing a stop sign in the northeast comer of the Orono Orchard RoadAVoodhill Avenue intersection for westbound traffic on Woodhill Avenue. Trimming the brush for a distance of about 10 feet in the southwest comer of the Orono Orchard Road/Woodhill Avenue intersection Woodhill Avenue KesidenU May A 1999 If the City Council is inclined to approve some arrangements for two-way access, changes arc needed to four of the preceding conditions plus one new condition should be added as follows; 6. This condition specifics no bituminous paving of the driveway connecting with Woodliill Avenue. If two-way access is appiovcd, we would recommend bituminous paving to the eastern edge of the City riphi-of-way This recommendation to extend the bituminous paving to the cast is made in order to prevent the tracking of gravel into the Woodhill AvenucAVoodhill Ridge intersection 9. If the average weekday use exceeds 30 vehicles per day or if the average weekend day use exceeds 60 vehicles per day, the Country Club commits to initie! ig immediate actions to reduce volume usage to these maximum levels 12. The City shall install stop signs on eastbound Woodhill Avenue and on the westbound driveway at the Woodhill Ridge inlcrseclion 13. This condition would need to be deleted. IS. At the expense of the Country Club, the City shall clear the brush in the southeast comer of the Woodhill AvcnucAVoodnill Ridge intersection for a distance of about 2S feet from the intersection in both the cast and west directions. CONCLUSIONS Through the updated traffic rc\icw presented in this letter, I have attempted to express our continuing concerns regarding adverse impacts that would occur on Woodhill Avenue if the Woodhill Country Club is allowed to establish an access connection to this local roadway. Given these negative impacts and given the lack of sufficient documentution from the Country Club that the Woodhill Avenue access is necessary, we continue to favor an outcome whereby the Country Club is not allowed to gain access to Woodhill Avenue. If the City Council is inclined to approve some access arrangements, wc have presented a series of conditions that we believe arc necessary to avoid serious ’ impacts on Woodhill Avenue Let me know if you have any questions about items addressed in this letter. Sincerely, DENSflGOF &SOCIATF-S. INC. mes A Denshoof totrl p.ar? LINDQUIST & VENiVUM p.l l p. «iOC!OSCtNtt« NOrvufi^ 1*1'Oty eoSoj*MEcM»^S»«tr» iKKX- sy vesHovii^vffiStN^n^ V<^so^«S&«o;-2305 600 S’«*c» S-tr JtJS Tf.e*«csr 8ij.37i.iju Oew/t« C ^*wooec2cj.540t FAJt 613 371.3J07 1CkC»~OS( 303 Sri-Mcj Auowncvs At Um iarnriP McC»ilhy (6I2)}7|.J338 jpvtsnhy^lindquiti com April 16. 1999 DELIVERY VIA MESSENGER Mr. Michael Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 RE: WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB Dear Mike. I am enclosing several items to supplement the Application of Woodhiil Country Club to amend its 1968 Conditional Use Permit. Enclosed is a description of the amendment request and following surveys and maps: 1. Survey of Woodhiil Avenue access as of August. 1998 (three (3) large and fifteen (15) small copies); 2. Maintenance Facilil, Plan, dated September 26. 1988, showing maintenance facility and surrounding road (three (3) large and fifteen (15) small copies); 3. Survey of the north half of Section 2 showing entire Woodhiil Country Club area prepared by Hennepin County General Services Department (three (3) large and fifteen (15) small copies); 4. Section map of Woodhiil Country Club area with drawing to show approximate location of internal driveways and buildings. The application and supplemental materials have been submitted, although I have not yet received a signed agreement with Cliff Greene concerning the agreed terms on which the trial was postponed. Cliff has, however, made a verbal assurance that the terms are acceptable. The application and supporting materials are submitted subject to the receipt of the signed agreement concerning the postponement of the trial in the lawsuit. Doc«UI}2O0M i.- }•» ‘I ♦ M . i i LINDQUIST & VENNUM p li p Mr. Michael Gaffron April 16.1999 Page 2 If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 371-3238. Very truly yours, JPMc^db Enclosures cc: Mark Albrecht Edge Jackson Larry Ackman DotfllUWOVt LINDj3UIST & VENNUM p.l.l.p. James ^ McCarthy iJiwM As part of its agreement that the following types of access to WocdhIII Avenue can be deleted from the 1968 CUP, WoodhIII requests that its 1968 CUP be amended to require further review by the City of Orono or further amendment of Woodhill's conditional use permit in the following instances: 1. Conversion of the Woodhill Avenue access into the main entrance for Woodhill on a permanent basis. 2. Woodhill Avenue as an entrance or exit by delivery, taxi, service or other commercial vehicles. 3. Woodhill Avenue as an entrance or exit by the general public. 4. Woodhill Avenue as an access at time periods other than those allowed in the Basic Rights defined above. 5. Expansion of Woodhill's west driveway between the maintenance building and Woodhill Avenue. 6. Bituminous paving of the driveway abutting Woodhill Avenue. 7. Signage concerning Woodhill on Orono Orchard Road. Woodhill further requests either amendment to the 1968 CUP or acknowledgment by resolution that the right of access to the Woodhill property exists independent of any CUP process in the following two circumstances 1. Under the terms of the Easement Agreement. 2. If all access from Woodhill to County Road 15 is permanently blocked as a result of either Highway 15 alteration or improvement or because of the railroad right-of-way, the right of reasonable access to the Woodhill Property is required and is not subject to revocation through the CUP process. DESCRIPTION OF DRIVEWAY, GATE AND SIGNAGE A gravel road bed from the end of the current bituminous paving on Woodhill Avenue to the Woodhill maintenance building has been in existence for over 100 years. Between the Woodhill property lino and the current asphalt, the road bed is approximately 60 feet long. The road bed has been refreshed with gravel and bladed with varying degrees of frequency over the past 100 years. Last May, Woodhill refreshed the entire west driveway and gravel portion of Woodhill Avenue with two to four inches of Class V gravel. The gravel was placed only on lop of the pre-existing road bed. Two chain posts were removed and the road was cleared of vegetation and overhanging branches. Minimum sight lines were cleared. Woodhill did not change the grade level or location of the 100 year old gravel road bed. Doc«ll>3l02\l The following safety measures have been, or will be. implemented: 1. Stop Sign - Westbound 2. 10 Mile-Per Hour Speed Limit - Signs In Both Directions 3. No Left-Turn Sign - Westbound Signs 4. Gravel Paving 5. New Gate 6. Sight Lines 7. Landscaping 8. Uniform Hours A stop Sion is placed on the westbound lane at the point where the gravel portion of Woodhill Avenue meets the bituminous portion of Woodhill Avenue. A no-loft turn sign was placed to indicate no turns onto the private road of the Woodhill Ridge development. A 10 mile per hour speed limit sion will be posted in both directions. Woodhill believes that the reduced speed limit is an appropriate safety measure, as arc the stop signs and no-left turn signs. gravel will be maintained on a regular basis and will provide adequate road structure for the limited amount of traffic anticipated for this access point. This typo of gravel paving has been utilized at this exact location for equal or greater levels of traffic for many decades. the Woodhill property ten to fifteen feet cast of the Woodhill property line. The gate will be dual swinging and will bo locked in the center. The lock device can bo utilized by emergency vehicles. Both the post and the gate will be constructed of a sturdy material to provide adequate security. Covering materials for the gate will be chosen to blend in with the surroundings. Sight Line Cleaning and Landscaping will be undertaken as necessary, but not In a way to attract increased use of the back entrance. Since afler-dark use is not contemplated, no additional lighting of the area is proposed. Woodhill proposes that the access be open during uniform daytime hours . Regular daytime hours will promote safety by creating uniform expectations for neighbors and members. Such hours will minimize turnarounds. They will not require neighbors or residents to consult watches and calendars when using Woodhill Avenue, If the City believes it desirable to have different or additional signage, different paving of Woodhill Avenue, or different paving of the west driveway between the Woodhill maintenance building and Woodhill Avenue, Woodhill is willing to discuss such alterations to the existing driveway and street. DotflllJIOM ZONING STATUS Woodhill Proporty currently zoned an RR-1B and was formerly zoned R-1BB. Ever since the adoption of the current zoning district system in the City of Orono. golf courses and country clubs have been conditional uses in the RR-1B (formerly R-1BB) districts. On adoption of the new zoning system, Woodhill applied for and obtained a conditionai use permit In 1968. The 1968 CUP is attached as Exhibit 1. The 1968 CUP placed no time period and imposed no conditions other than operation as a golf course and country club. All current and former city staff and the council member who moved the 1968 CUP agree that the Woodhill permit was for a permitted conditional use. ngj a non«conforming use. The CUP permit shaws both the Woodhill Road access to County Road 15 aod the west driveway access to Woodhill Road. (Robert Searles. the Orono council member who moved to grant the 1968 CUP. testified that he knew and used Woodhill Avenue, believed that Woodhill Avenue access to be part of Woodhill’s CUP application and Intended the CUP to allow unrestricted use of the Woodhill Avenue access.) The 1968 CUP to operate Woodhill Country Club as a golf course places no limitation on the use of the yyest access to Woodhill Avenue. The “use" authorized by the 1968 CUP - golf course and country club • has never lapsed and the 1968 CUP remains in full force and effect. Various levels of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic on Woodhill's primary and secondary access have not caused the 1968 CUP to lapse. Neither the 1968 CUP nor any Orono ordinance places any minimum level or frequency of pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicular traffic necessary to retain the right of access recognized in the 1'J68 CUP. Since 1968, Woodhill has obtained additional coruJitional use permits for the construction of three new structures (tennis courts, maintenance building, and a pump house) that were not shown or included on the 1968 CUP application (unlike the Woodhill Avenue access) and a land alteration permit in connection with work on a driving range. The driveway on the Woodhill property that runs west from the maintenance building to the western property line of Woodhill Country Club Is not a "private road" under the Orono ordinance. It is simply a driveway located on Woodhilfs property. The driveway abuts a public street. Doc* II1JI02M r WOODHILL AVENUE: A PLATTED AND OPENED PUBLIC STREET FROM ORONO ORCHARD ROAD UP TO THE WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY LINE. This street was initially platted and opened as a public street in 1887. The eastern 150 feet of Woodhill Avenue has always curved to the south outside of the 1887 platted right-of-way to avoid a steep hill. Although not in the 1887 plat, this portion of V/oodhill Avenue has been a dedicated and open public street since it was dedicated by common law by the prior owners of the property. John Pillsbury and Alfred Crosby. (Affidavit of John Pillsbury.) Once the street was dedicated and used, it became an opened public street that can be closed onjy by public vacation proceedings which have never occurred. To the contrary, in 1987. this common law dedication of the last 150 feel of Woodhill Avenue was incorporated into a formal plat, extending in a triangle line from the original 1887 plat up to the Y/oodhill Country Club property line. The City of Orono has a duty to maintain a platted and opened public street and abutting land owners have a property right of access. In 1988. Woodhill Avenue was widened and paved. The parcel of Woodhill Country. Club abutting Woodhill Avenue (PID No. 02-117-2312-0001) was specially assessed $9,464.70 by the City of Orono for the improvement and the bituminous paving of Woodhill Avenue. Since state law flatly prohibits the imposition of special assessments on parcels of land that are not benefitted by improvements, the Woodhill property is deemed by law to be benefitted by the Woodhill Avenue paving. HISTORICAL USE OF WOODHILL AVENUE ACCESS For many years Woodhill Avenue, formerly 'Hamlet Street." was the only public street access to the farm property now utilized by Woodhill (the original farmhouse and barns were located in the general vicinity of the current barn and maintenance building) Since approximately 1917. Woodhill Avenue has served as the secondary access to the country club. The primary traveled access is from Woodhill Road to County Road 15. From 1917 until 1980, Woodhill Avenue was used regularly by club members, guests, employees, and service and delivery vehicles. Over the years. Woodhill has had various types of gates on its west driveway, which have been opened and closed at various times. Since 1980, WCC has voluntarily limited access to pedestrians, bicyclists, and very limited vehicular traffic (maintenance staff and maintenance equipment). In 1980, a new chain was run between new concrete posts which were placed to allow vehicles to pass if the chain was removed. When Woodhill voluntarily imposed the limitations on vehicular traffic in 1980, the President of Woodhill wrote to the City of Orono as follows: Doc« UI3I0M There are no reasonable alternatives to addressing these safety concerns, other than through the long-used secondary access at Woodhill Avenue. The drngers associated with Highway 15 arise not just from the construction activity, but will c<..ntinue after the road is improved. The improved road will attract more traffic which travels at a higher rate of speed. In terms of secondary access to a public street, Woodhill Avenue is the only available access. On the east, north, and south, the Club is land-locked by railroad tracks and highways. On the southwest and west sides. Woodhill Avenue is the only point where the Club owns property that abuts a public street. There is no other location that Woodhill could use without having to acquire property rights and build a road. In contrast. Woodhill Avenue is a century-old road that abuts the Woodhill property. Given the historical use of the road. Woodhill has a constitutionally protected property right of access to Woodhill Avenue. The driveway on the Woodhill property and the public street abutting the property can be used without any purchase of additional property. Woodhill Avenue also provides the shortest connection to any public street. Acquisition of property and construction of a new road through a different neighborhood would disrupt more homes and create greater construction problems than the removal of the chain on the century-old access at Woodhill Avenue. The membership size and activity level at Woodhill Country Club have not changed greatly since the issuance of the 1968 CUP. Family memberships are kept at 400. which was the approximate membership size in the 1960's. Many members do not actively use the club facilities. The popularity of golf has increased, however, there is a decrease in tennis activity. Horse-riding and skeet shooting have been eliminated at the club. Social activities remain approximately the same. Woodhill has fairly limited social use of the club facilities In comparison to other country clubs. For example, parties including non-member invited guests are currently scheduled on only 14 of the 153 days in the five-month period between May 1 and September 30.1999. Use of the Woodhill Avenue access will be made almost exclusively by those members whose homes are geographically located to the west and north of the club. With tho westward expansion of the suburbs, more members now live to the west and north of the Club than in previous decades. The maximum number of active members who live In this limited area would utilize it on any given day is unlikely to ever exceed 50. Most days, the number of active users is more limited. Woodhill estimates that traffic will bo in the range of 20 to 30 trips per day on weekdays, and possibly 60 on weekend days in the summer months of June and July. This number will be reduced in May. August, and September and will be greatly reduced during the periods of October through April. The Club is closed during the month of March. The restoration of dual access for vehicles to the Club will improve overall safety for Woodhill Country Club members, their guests, residents surrounding the Club, and the general public. Currently, all traffic from the country club (members, guests, employees, and service and delivery vehicles) is routed along Woodhill Road which Dac«IMJIQM also serves 11 families (compared to 6 homes on Woodhill Avenue). It will improve traffic safety for everyone on County Road 15. it will also greatly increase traffic safety for those members who live to the west and north of the Club. As discussed below, it will not create any substantial traffic impact on Woodhill Avenue. WOODHILL AVENUE CAN SAFELY HANDLE THE LIMITED TRAFFIC FROM WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB The anticipated level of traffic on Woodhill Avenue will be less than the traffic during the many decades Woodhill Avenue was a gravel road. During those decades, there was no hour limitation and no limitation on commercial or delivery traffic. It was used by members, guests, and employee families who lived in two homes on the Woodhill property near Woodhill Avenue, and their guests, as well as by numerous delivery and service vehicles. Including large oil delivery trucks, food trucks, and septic tank trucks. The conditions proposed in this application severely limit the scope of the access. The 22' wide bituminous paved Woodhill Avenue is more than adequate to handle on additional 20 to 60 trips per day. Woodh!ll Avenue is wider than and paved as well as Woodhill Road that currently carries all club vehicular traffic. The anticipated traffic from the country club on Woodhill Avenue is not appreciably greater than the traffic on Woodhill Avenue at the time the three houses with driveways directly onto Woodhill Avenue were built. Indeed, there was probably more traffic at that time from the barn, horse stable, skeet range, and employee houses. This Is particularly true of the Wood's residence, which was built in the late 1950's. The two residences located at the intersection of Orono Orchard Road and Woodhill Avenue have a limited impact from the restoration of the Woodhill Avenue access. Approximately the same number of cars would pass by these residences since the persons who will use the Woodhill Avenue access currently pass by those two houses on Orono Orchard Road to and from County Road 15. There are currently three homes located in the Woodhill Ridge development that have dnvoways that access the private road, which In turn intersects Woodhill Avenue. The distance from the garage of the cul-de-sac (Mailio residence) to the Woodhill Avenue intersection of the Woodhill property line is only slightly less than the distance from Orono Orchard Road to the Woodhill property line. Given the large lots and long driveways of the three homes in the Woodhill Ridge development, these houses will have no club traffic directly in front of their houses. Given the location, width, and length of their private road, there is nnorc than adequate distance to enter and exit their driveways safely without encountering any traffic from WoodhUI Country Club. The no- left turn sign currently placed on Woodhill Avenue and the natural flow to Orono Orchard Road should prevent any use of the private road by WoodhUl members. DSC* imiOM Furthermore. Woodhill will provide periodic reminders to dub members concerning the traffic rules and safety concerning the Woodhill Avenue access. The entrance from the Woodhill Ridge private road onto Woodhill Avenue does not pose any significant traffic hazard. The 10 mile per hour speed limit, gravel paving, and stop sign will slow and then stop all traffic exiting from the country club. These three homes would yield extremely limited number of trips per day from the private road onto Woodhill Avenue. If the Woodhill Ridge owners desire, the intersection could be turned into a three-way stop sign, although it is undear that additional stop signs are desirable. Two neighbors have voiced concern about their school-age children. The large lot size, long driveways, and the long private road place an adequate distance between any Woodhni Country Club traffic arut the children in the immediate vicinity of their homes. When children proceed down their driveways and private road to the intersection with the public street, the stop sign, reduced speed limit, and no-left turn provide greater protection than found in most intersections of driveways or private roads with public streets. While pedestrian or bicycle use by children of the public street will expose the children to a greater level of traffic on Woodhill Avenue than is present today, the level of traffic is substantially less than the level of traffic usually encountered on residential public streets in Orono and elsewhere. Traffic levels are not greater than the historical levels of Woodhill Avenue prior to the 1980 limitations on vehicular use of the access. While the anticipated levels are greater than they had been during the more recent years, the projected traffic level does not constitute a high level of traffic for a residential, public street. The openir^ of the access should have no effect on the level of traffic on Orono Orchard Road. Most of the anticipaled usage the Woodhill Avenue access will have will come from members who would otherwise drive on Orono Orchard Road to and from County Road 15. DocflimOM '.•■j' 03 i'» V‘«» ■ • * pmnmmm 510 Fnt A mu * No»n •rMcAvr^ir 5u.» 530 O'"! tAM^woFs. MNSU03 C12 371 04*3 Far 612 371-4410 ■ V;V?r April 30. 1999 Mr Jarnes McCarthy Lindquist & Vennum 4200 IDS Ceniftr 00 South Eight Street Mmrieapoiis. MN 55402-2205 Re V/oodhili County Club Trallic Access Dear Mr McCarthy. Parsons Bnnckerhoft. Inc is pleased to present a trafLc study exam-mng • e imoaci cn irat'.c patterns and traMic safety by WooOhiti County Ciub s proposal to resto'e regular veh cu ar access to Woodhill Avenue The mlormation ccntamed m the trallic study was obiamed from on* Site observations, the City of Orono. Hennepm County. Minnesota Departnnent of Transportation. Woodhiiis proposed amendments to its i960 Conditional Use Permit. V/oodhiil’s By-Laws. Collin & Gronberg Inc engineering plan dated 4/23/99, and accepted principles of trait c engineering Our report provides a review and summary of the • Existing Access Description and issues • Woodhiil ■ s Proposed Use of its Secondary Accesu to Woodhill Avenue • Traffic and Safety Impacts of Proposed CUP Amendment SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS Woodhill County Club s CUP amendment proposal wiH hove a minimal impact on Wocdniii Avenue and tne Woodhill Ridge devcicpmeni it will improve safely for Woodhill fam iics and overall improve traffic safety m Orono. on Woodhill Road. Woodhill Avenue. CR 15. and Orono Orchard Road EXISTING ACCESS DESCRIPTION AND ISSUES The Woodhill Cour>try Club is served by two access pemts The scutn access (Woodh-ii Road) IS the mam entrance to the Cub The west access (Woodhill Avenue) has been a secondary access since the club was built m 1915-^917 A history of the club s use is contained m Woodhill s CUP application The access has not been used for regular vehicular traffic since 1980 Unlike mosi county clubs. Woodhill has a very delmed set of rules on rrembersn.p s-20 and use of me dub outside of family social occasions Family memberships have been limited to about 400 for decades, resulting m less daily activity and special socai activities than rrx}st clubs As described m this section, the dub places signiticar: constraints on members using the dub for any political or business entertainment purposes These limitations result in relatively lower levels of traffic in and out of me club SSXi WoodhiU mornd Geometries Woodhiti Road is a local residential roadway connecting Wood^lU Cojniry Club and CR 15 over a d'Siance ol approximately 1200 Icct WoodMiii Road serves e'even losideniial homes and is me mam entrance to me Woodr>ii' Country Club i r« road*av 15 paved, curvilinear in nature, with a width varying Irorr. 18 ‘ 4 ' t o 21'6 Tialtic Voiuncs Woodhiil Road trallic volume counts were taken by the C-ty of Orono on Friday September 25th through Sunday September 27**’. Tuesday Scpiember 29*’ through Wednusday September 30*. and Thui^sdoy October 1“ through Friday October 1998 1 he trallic counts indicate an average weekday tratlic volume ot 20 to 40 vehicles per hour on the roadway During the weekend. traMic averages around 25 voliicies per hour The exceptions were a short spike on Thursday night when 160 vehicles used the roadway m one hour (6 00-7 00PM). and on Saturday night when 65 vehicles in one hour (7 30-0 30PM) used the roadway This increase m traffic correlated to a weddmg reception being held at the club We have been informed that the dub s 1999 socmi event calendar indicates this type of event will occur approximately 15 times betvioon May 1 and September 30 The club ‘ s bylaws place unusual limitations on usage for business and cvic purposes Business and political entertaining is prohib ted and cvic and non-profit functions require executive committee approval Policy »1 purposes The Club prohibits the use of its facilities tor commercial or political Policy 02 . With prior approval of the Executive Committee, a civic or non profit organisation may on occasion use the Club tacihtios for social purposes it sponsored by a Family Member Even including these higher usage periods, average weekday traffic on Wooclmii Road was approximately 400 vehicles, and average weekend traffic was approximately 500 vehicles this number will be gre.«'iy reduced dunng the wmte' months of October through Apni. with the club being closed m March Intersection with CR 15 Woodhiil Road s intersection with CR 15 is located on a generally levei segmeit of CR 15 Hennepin County is in me process ol upgrading CR 15 Irom a two-iane roadway to a two-lane roadway w4h a two-way center left-turn larie and ngnt-tuming lanes at driveways and roadways In addition to the widening. CR 15 is being redesigned with super elevation around the Slight curve near Woodhi’t Road (source Hennepm County DPW) As a result. Woodhiil Road Is being raised by approximately one foot Because of me adjacent crossing of the railroad tracks, which fixes the roadway elevation, the combination ol widening and raising CR IS increases the slope of Woodhiil Road a: its approach to CR 15 This creates the non-optimum situation where the vehicle must wait tor a gap m traffic on the Ov»r o Doalurjf 0/ upgrade of a hill The s tuai'cn restricts the e* ting vehicle's ime of sight duo to the iftchr® cf the vehicle and may resir ci acce'cration during snow ana ice conditions Fnrwr^ncv Accpsft /ssrjos Woodhiii Road a'so serves as the enty access comi to the 11 res dentiai homes ar.o Woodhiii County Club for emergency vehic'es This r«bu ts m several safety prob ’ems unique to Woodhiii Road • Woodhiii Road ts crossed by rai ’road traces which arc cccasionai'y biochetl by r-iow movmg (10 mph) trams twice a day. e nmalrng any emergency response possibilities until the tra>n passes • Trams using the railroad trac><s have occasionally de'a led ana b’ccKed access Any derailment can block access to the eleven herres and county c uD for several days • Emergency veh'cle access to the Country Cub could be cut off by an accioeni along Wocdhi:i Road The distance from CR 15 to inc areas most likely to tiave h ner" d lor emergency medical care or f<re suppression would be difficult to roach effectively m a blocked condition • While Woodiiiil Road meets AAS hTQ A Policy on Ceomeinc Design of Hylmnys and Stfcor minimum res'dentiai sueei gu doimcs of 18'. mo roadway s widtt^ • (sections of 9 ' lane width) could block emergency vehicle access lo me Counuy Club in a stalled vehicle situation particularly m winter s^cw storage coniiitioni; Woodhiii County Club is served by Long l ake Fire Deparlmenl and Ambulance located northwest of the dub at the intersection of Th 12 and Brown Road Emergency vehicles do not currently have any alternative access Woodhiii Avonuo Woodhiii Avenue has been a secondary access smee the c'ub was buii'. m I9f 5-1917 Since 1980. the access has been used for uansporiation of club m.amtenance oquipment to 'ong lake, but has not been used for regular vehicu ar traffic Pedesfrian and bicydn access has a'ways been mamfa nod Gccmcirics Woodhiii Avenue 'S approximately 875 *eet m length and serves as a local public street lo SIX residences and the western access to the Woodh ii Count-y Cicb The roadway s generally level and stra ghi m nature, with a slight bend m nght-ol-way a'lgnmont approximately 200 feet Irom its eastern term nus at mo Wocdniti County Club properly line A private residential roadway to the south -o ns WooohiT Avenue approximately 90 leot west of me Woodh II property ime For a maior.ty of its length the roadway traverses a wetland, and no driveways exist or are poss-bie Woodhiii Avenue is approximately 24 ' 9 ' m w dth throughout its 'engm Nca' me intersection with Orono Orchard Road the roadway widens lo 25 2 ' belore Uaung into the intersection Woodhi ’i Avenue s 3' to 5 wider than Woodniii Read (18 4 ' -2i ' 6 *) and approximately the same width as Orono Orchard Read (25 ‘ 2 ') between CR i5 and WcxxJhiH Avenue Ov*r a Cantwry •/ WoodHiii Avenue was substantially improved m 1980 when tne Woodhiii Ridge aevetopment was built Woodhiii Avenue was wdoned from a '20 fool graded and 16 foot bituminous surface ' (l9B7Bonestroo Roseno Repon on Woodhiii Avenue Street Improvement^ to 25 ‘ in width and an asphalt base Traflic Volumes Woodhiii Avenue serves approximately 60 vehicles a day (based on national averages of 10 tnps/househotd) The City of Orono performed a traffic count o.i December 12. 1998. indicating an ADT of 47 vehicles, confirming the genera! traffic vo'umes on the roadway Hennepm County traffic mapping moicates Orono Orchard Road has a traffic volume of approximately 1800 vehicles a day Intersection with Orono Orchard Road The *T * inter*ectionisstop-signcon:roilertfor Woodhiii Avenue only The stop sign is located on the felt side of the approach to enhance is v s b'lity to approaching vehicles To conform to h/anual on Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD) guidelines. Woodhiii‘s CUP amendment recommends a second stop sign on the nght s de of the roadway Orono Orchard Road is signed lor 30 mph and follows a generally curving alignment Orono Orchard Road is 25 2 " wide south o' the inip'cecticn. widens to 40 3 " north of the intersection, and located on a 66 loot of right-of-way To the north of the intersection, there is a clear distance of approximatc'y 400 feet and to the south there is a dear distance of approximately 200 feet The 200 feet can be enhanced to 300 feet by removing five feet of overgrown vegetation m the public right- of-way These distances are withm the required stopping s>ght distance as contained m the Policy on Gaometric Design of Highway and Street published by the Amencan Association of Stale Highway and Transportation Officials for 30 mph and roadways with a 5% downgrade To produce conservative estimates, the calculated distances assume a wet roadway surface and a vehtcie with worn tires The slopping sight distance allows a vehicle on Orono Orchard Road to stop prior to Woodhiii Avenue County Road 15 OR 15 serves as the area s primary east/west roadway and connects communities along the north shore of Lake Minnetonka and further west to TH 12,1-394 and the Twm Cities to the east The speed limit is 50 mph at Woodhiii Road Geameincs The roadway is presently under construction, and will be expanded from a two-lane roadway to a two-lane plus two-way center turnmg lane roadway. In the westbound direction, nght-turn lanes will be added at Woodhi:i Road. Russel Avenue, and Orono Orc hard Road Following construction, the roadway will be signed for 50 mph at Woodhiii Road and transition to 35 mph at Orono Orchard Road Traffic Volumes Average daily traffic volumes on CH ib have increased from 13.000 vehicles in 1978 to approximately 21.000 vehicles in 1998. an increase of 60% in traffic over the last 20 years, or a growth rale of approximately 3% a year Over a Oantury of Bnati^arUisi eaeaUeaoe Future traffic volumes op CR 15 oast of Orono Orchard Road are predicted m Hen-^epm County’s long-range Transpoaation Sysiem Plan (TSP) to oe aoDfOximately 24 500 vehicles by the year 2010. and app'ox mateiy 27,000 veh-des m the year 2020 The 20 year projection constitutes a 30% increase 'O traffic over exist.ng volumes Using Mn/OOI btaie A d Design C'lteria gu ceimes. roadway between 15.000 to 30.0000 veh-c'es per day are typically built with four travel lanes To reflect the limited access nature of CR 15 east of Orono Orchard Road and the env ronmontai constra nts. the roadway has been redesig'^ed as a s-rgie through lane m each direction, with a center left turn lane for a inree lane cross-sect on Intersection with Orono Orchard Rojj The intersection of Orono O'Charo Road is d fficuii lor vehicles on Orono Orchard Road and dangerous fer through traffic on CR 15 because of (1) sight lines. (2) speed of traffic and (3) traffic vofurnes The intersection of Orono Orchard Road and County Road 15 has safety limitat-ons because the sight distance between me norili on Orono Orciiard Road and me west cn Cnrjnty Highway 15 is reduced by the curve on County Road 15 Hennepin County has recognized the situation py planning to sign CR 15 for 35 mpn m this area (source Hennepin County DPW) However, absent constant enforcement traffic is likely to exceed the limit, based on the 50 mph iir^it between the 1-394 exit and Woodhili Avenue on the similar CR 15 roadway cross section, tre improved pavmg cf CR 15 and CR 15 ’ s proximity to a freeway exit ramp In addition to sight distance restrictions and traffic speed, the 6C% increase m traff c along County Road 15 over the past 20 years has resu'ted m extensive delays for vehicles entering or exiting County Read 15 a: Orono Orchard Read a'^d created a diUicull left turn situation The increasing traffic foi'owmg reconsuuct'on of CR 15 w<il increase vehicle delay between Orono Orchard Road and CR 15 Levels of Service (LOS) lo' Orono Orcfiard Hoad left-turning vefndes are presently at LOS F during the weekday AV and PM peak hour periods and summer weekends LOS F indicates the»e are msuMicient gaps of suitable size to allow a side street maneuver to safely cross through mo CR 15 tra ’fic stream in this case, Orono Orchard Road traffic on average waits over a minute for a gap in CR 15 traffic to turn left As traffic continues to increase and gaps n tra'fic decrease, drivers will lend to make crossing maneuver ^ ol CR 15 that may comp'omise the " critical gap * safety arrxjunt. resuH ng m CR 15 iraific unexpectedly slowing oowri by applyir^g their brakes and increasing the chances of accidents Unsignaiizcd intersection LOS grades are estabi sfied by Highway Capacity Manual. produced by the National Cooperative H.ghway Research Program and the Federal Highway Admmistrat.on Grades run from “A’ (little or no delay) to "F (very tong delays - demand exceeding capacity) Woodhili Country Club members who live west and rxjrtn of the Country Club must new use the Woodhili Road access Under the existing access structure, these members currenfy take Orono Orchard Road to Ccuoty Road 15 Tney then make a left-hand turn on to County Road 15 and anoiher lett-har>d turn from County Road 15 onto Woodhili Road In exiting the Club, they make a nght-hand turn onto County Road 15 foUowed by another right-hand turn onto Orono Orchard Road The approximately 30 turning maneuvers per day per direction at this intersection resulting from Woodhili members Ovr ti Cantury fn§lnm9rlnf Xx9rlt*,ic« add 10 the dangers and increase delays, both lor Woodhiii members and for the genera* public driving on County Road 15 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB ’S CUR AMENDMENT PROPOSAL In Its proposed amendment to its 1960 ConCiiional Use permit, Woodhiii Country Ciub has proposed reestablishmo regular vehicular iraHic on ns Woodhiii Avenue access in connection with this proposal. WoodhiH Country Club has proposed the following configuration 1 A gravel driveway approximately 20-22 ' in wioth from its maintenance buiidmq to the existing bituminous pavement on Woodhiii Avenue 2 A gale at the western edge of its property to be closed when access is not available 3 A 10 mile per hour speed limit Signs in both direcliotts 4 A no left-turn sign at the intersection of Woodhiii Avenue and the private road to the Woodhiii Ridge development 5 A stop Sign for westbound traffic on Woodhiii Avenue at the intersection of the Woodhiii Ridge development 6 A stop sign for easibound traffic on Woodhiii Avenue at the iniersection of the Woodhiii Ridge private road, with a stop ahead sign placed m advance lor eastbound Woodhiii Avenue motorists 7 A stop sign on the nortn side of Woodhiii Avenue at the intersection of Woodhiii Avenue and Oronc Orchard Road for westbound motorists 0 A painted bar line on me western end of Woodhiii Avenue to indicate the stopping position at the miorsociion of Woodhiii Avenue and Orono Orchard Road, together with lane division line 50' feet back from the bar line Woodhitt proposes the following restrictions on the use of its Woodhiii Avenue access 1 The hours of access will be limited to 7 a m to 0 p m on the days that Woodhiii Country Club is open The Club is open 6 days a week, oeing closed on Monday (unless Monday is a holiday, m which case it is closed on Tuesday) it is closed during me month of March No coTTwrercial. delivery taxi, or service vehicles will be permitted access Woodhiii will permit use of the Wooohill Avenue access only to rrHjmbers and invited guests during tne hours described above Access by emergency vehicles will be allowed at aH limes General use of the access will be permitted if the access to County Road IS IS lemporari y blocked TRAFFIC AND SAFETY IMPACT OF PROPOSED CUP AMENDMENT Tratfie Vitiumaa Traffic counts were taken by the City of Orono on Woodhiii Road m September and October of 1990 The counts indicated weekday volumes of no more than 400 vehicles, and weekend counts of no more than 500 vehicles Ov»r m Century oi Based on the existing roadway system, and the metropoiilan area *s population. CR 15 and Woodh'ii Road wcuid be the pi^elerred access lor a maiority of me ctuo s memoe'S and visitors Under Woodh ii' s proposed CUP amendment, au trucks, service, de'ive'y taxi and commercial vehicles will rerriam oo Woodhiii Road Tne dub estimates approximately had (50%) oi tne weekday and weekend ventc'e trips are visitor, statt. o' service trips that will not use the Woodhitl Avenue access Based on the club’s membership I'St. no rrxxe than 25% of Woodhiii members live west and north ol the dub and would possibly travel to and from home via the Woodhiii Avenue to access the dub 01 me 250 member related weekend trips. •! is therefore estimated that no more man 60 trips (i c 30 members per day) would use the Woodh'il Avenue access with no access to Woodhiii Avenue proposed atter 0PW Woodhiii Avenue Homdwoy Copacity Woodhitl Avenue has suificient roadway capacity to accommodate the increased traffic II IS wider thar> Woodhiii Road mat currently cames all Wocdhiii country Club lraf^c and It IS me same paved widih (24 ♦) as Orono Orchard Road mat carries 1000 vehicles per day While it is not uru 'ual lor iwo-iar^e roadways to carry 5 (X)0 or more vetvcies per day. residential streets typically are lower volume streets and are classified on it>e basis of moir access ana daily traff'C Historically. Woodhiii Avenue has served as a res-dcntiai subcoucctor st'eet serving b( *h residential properties and the club Average daily traffic capacity for these sireetf. IS defined having 1000 or less vehicles per cay (source Residential Street 2'*' Ed. American Society of Civil Engineers and National Associaiion of Home Builders ) Presently. Woodhiii Avenue is serving as a residential access street, which, m the hierarchy of residential streets based on traflic volumes, are the lowesl-order and carry 250 vehicles or less per day on pavement widths between ?2 and 24 (source Residential Street 2^ Ed. American Society of Civil Engineers and National Association of Home Builders ) Woodhiii Avenue 's potential increase m traffic from 50 60 vehicles per day to approximately 100 to 120 vehicles per day «s we*i withm both the roadway '& capacity and present ciassilication based on traffic volumes ana roadway widin intoraoetioH Capmeily Four intersections will experience slight changes m traffic volumes as a result ot tt^s restoration ol regular vehicular access to Woodhii Avenue The first IS the Woodhiii Avenue and Woodh ii Rioge private road intersection, which is presently under unsupen/ised control The three-legged intersection is proposed for all- way stop control to limut soeeds and reflect the sight distances restrictions from Woodhiii Ridge Under stop coriroi. the intersection will ope'aie at a LOS 'A' i ndicatmg no vehicle delays or queuir>g at the mterseaion Uniform hours ot access (7AM to 8PM) are proposed lof me Woodhiii access The uniformity of hours w li reduce the chances of members inadvertently trying to access tt>e dub white the access is c osed and w.li create uniform expectation of usage by Woodhitl Ridge and Wooohiii Averuie residents The second is at the Woodhiii Avenue and Orono Orchard Road intersection, where approximately 30 vehicles per day will turn left from southbound Orono Orchard Road and approximately 30 vehicles per day will turn right from westbound Woodhiii Avenue. Over a Century With lh« proposed recommendation, no capaoty or sight distance constraints were tdentifted at the intersection There will be no increase d traffic on Ororto Orchard Road Since the vehicles using the Woodhiii Avenue access would normally travel Orono Orchard from CR 15 The third intersection is at CR 15 and Orono Orcnard Road, wn cn w>ii eipenencc a slight daily decrease (approxHnateiy 30) m both southbound left turnmg movements and westbound right turning movements The reduction m cross-movements wrii increase safety tor both CR 15 and Ororx) Orchard Road vehicles There wilt be a slight decrease m traffic on Orono Orchard Road from CR 15 to Woodhiil Avenue It will also greatly increase safety lor Woodhiii members who currently are reou red to maWo left- turns onto CR 15 The fourth intersection is at CR 15 and Woodhi!i Road, where a s m.iar reduction (30 trips per day) m both easlbound lett-lumng novemenls across CR 15 and southbound nght-iuning nxtvements onto CR 15 will occur The reduced coniucts wilt improve safety lor CR 15 vehicles, a-'d significantly improve safety lor Woodhiii members who are currently required to nrtaHe the turn on and oH CR 15 (50 mph) Gmonftrie Dmsign l»8um» Wnodhill Country Club and Woo{3h<ll Avenue The design of the driveway on the Woodhiii property and of Wooohiii Avenue Imm me Woodhiii Country Club property line to the current asphalt pavement does not present any iratfic safety or design problem The roadbed is me same grade and width as the road in place and used lor many decades The engineering drawing prepared by Co’lin and Gronberg shows a gravel surface from the maintenance building lo the property ime and from the property line to the existing asphalt on Woodhiii Avenue Gradients on local streets should be less than 12 percent except m unusual cundiiicns (source Pesidential Street Edi The grade on the Woodhiii Avenue public right ol way from the slop sign to ll've property iir.e is approximately 3% Trie grade from tno stop Sign to 160 leoi east is approximately 5% On the Woodh it property between the maintenance building and the property ime. there is on 50-60 fool section of me driveway that has an approximate 11-12% grade Given the posted speed limit (10 mph). gravel pavmg (which slows down trallic) and approximate 160 loot distance from the western end of this dnveway section to the stop sign, this g^ade section does not create any trallic safely concerns at the Woodhiii Ridge private road intersection or on the driveway Woodhiii Avenue As presented in the Comparison of Access table below, the Courvry Club s Woodhiii Avenue access provides a wider roadway surface, fewer driveway locations along its length, and connects with a roadway with lower speeds and traffic volumes man me present Woodhiii Road Ovt r a Centyry ol tdytlenrm ~ above While CR 15 is bemg improved, the 'new ~ CR 1S will stai present the senous problems for club members that can be easily resolved through restoration of the secoTKJary access Woodhill Country Club owns the property abutting Woodhiii Avenue and has an existing driveway connected to Woodhiii Avenue Tnere is no other pomt on me Woodhill property where Woodhai owns property abutting a public street Nor is there any location where acquisition oi property, even il possible, would result m a better location lor a secondary access pomi Woodhii is bounded by railroad rights of way and highways on the east, north and south Wetlands, existing homes and the goil course limit access ponts to the west Woodhill Avenue is the shortest length of road and is where the public road access has been located for over tCX) years Neither Lyman/Smith Avenues nor Dickenson Street can serve as either realistic or preferable allernaltve routes CONCLUSKNI Implementation pi Woodhill’s CUP amendment proposal would have a positive impact on traffic design and overall traffic safety m the Woodhill Avenue. Woodhill Ridgr' private Road. Woodhill Road. County Road 15. and Orono Orchard Road area The proposed use of Woodhill Avenue access would enhance traffic safely al Woodhill Road. County Road 15. and Orono Orchard Road by reducing unnecessary and potentially dangerous traffic turns to and from County Road 1S The proposal wouio enhance the safety of travel tor the families who are members of the Club and live west and north of the Club, and ihe general public on CR 15 At the same time, the proposal is structured to have minimal impact on Woodhiii Avenue and on the Woodhill Ridge private development The proposed type and volume oi traffic IS well below the traffic capacity that Woodhiii Avenue can safely accommodate On balance the traffic impact on the City of Orono is favorable and will increase traltic safely m the City and will improve traffic flow The west access will also provide a needed altemali*.*? eccess lor emergency vehicles and will enhance overall safety for families and club members m the area Please feel free to contact me at (612) €>77>1205 to further discuss these or other traffic issues related to the CUP amendment Siixiereiy. Parsons Brinckerhoff Ouade & Douglas. Inc ^(LccAii^./U^r- Edward W. Axt. Jr P E Senior Transportation Engineer Owcra Cuturv/ • I believe the members of Woodhill Country Club are responsible and caring people. C However, the fact is the dub has a liquor license and there are events when alcohol is served, later night hours kept and larger numbers of people. The barn located directly over the hill has been remodeled and it is my understanding that the dubhouse is being renovated. At this point or>e does know how those improvements would affect the number of events or increased late night traffic after any events. Having to contend with late night traffic exiting the club would be disturbing and change the charader of the neighborhood and surrounding area. It does not differ much from the recent decision the council made to not allow a liquor license (or the Navarre Lanes location. One of the reasons cited was not allowing that "kind of traffic” through a residential Orono neighborhood. 1 Just recently the city had a traflic counter across Woodhill Avenue from noon on a Friday to noon on the following Monday. I would like to say that the traflic count is better than rK)thing. but certainly cannot be considered an accurate count of cars since Watertown Road Is closed to Orono Orchard Road due to Highway 12 construction. I close in saying thank you for protecting and preserving the character of Orono neighborhoods in the past and hope that you continue to do so in the future. Sincerely, Jane Delaney _____ / W WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB ICO WCX>nMILL ROAH WAY2ATA. MINNESOTA t))9l-«l7S 9S2A7Min March 12.2004 Jane Delaney 13IS Woodhill Avenue Wayzaia. Minnesota 44391 Dear Jane. 1 am writing to let you know that Woodhill Country Club will be approaching the City of Orono this spring to request changes to our Conditional Use Permit to allow two-way access to the club on Woodhill Avenue. We are in the process of notifying all users of Woodhill Avenue of our intentions. It is our intent to open communications with our neighbors to assure you that we are aware of your concerns about the Woodhiil Road and. to work toward providing our members who are Orono residents safe access to and from Woodhill. We are initiating this action as a result of the ever increasing traffic on County Road IS and the increased risk it poses for our members entering and exiting the Club property. If you have any specific concerns or questions regarding our plans or would like to discuss this matter in person, please feel free to give me a call at 952.473-1493, Edge Jackson at 9S2.473-6415 or Mark Albrecht. General Manager, at 9S2.473-7333. We hope to renuiin conscientious neighbors who are concerned for the safety of all. Sincerely. C^yM&ie ' President Woodhill Country Club I * *.'A. U . i 4 i t 3^' cityofc ^oak ) February 11.2004 Mike Galfron, Zoning Spedatist City of Oropo 2730 Kelley Parkway P. O. Box 86 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gafiron: It is our uiKlerstanding that Woodhill Country Club may request that Woodhill Avenue be made Into a two-way thoroughfare. We have no p.*obtem with that effort and are therefore supportive of their request at this time. Slrnserely. William W. McGuire. M.D. Nadine M. McGuire 315 Woodhill Road Wayzata. MN 55391 _- —^ UnitedHealth Group Oavid J labbtn Ga ^-ai Coar^ & S«veM » M'W.TTrjO ?9t0 ften «vVrt l*\i M-i-aionia MN »jSW3 M y ’ -rc irj r^' ?>• !r»u , ► ia March 10.2004 Mike Gaffron. Zoning Specialist City of Orono 2730 Kelley Parkway P. O. Box 86 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gaffron: I understand Woodhill Country Club is contemplating a request that Woodhill Avenue be converted to a two-way thoroughfare. On behalf of United Healthcare Insurance Company, owner of a home located at 1250 Woodhill Avenue, I am writing to advise you United would not object to the change to two-way status and is supportive of such a request. Very Truly Yours. United Healthcare Insurance Company .op> ------------■ David J. L Assistant S ubb^ / Se</eUfry FW: Orono Counts Mik« Oaffron From: Grog Gappa Sant: Tuasday. June 15.2004 6 09 PM To: Ron Moorsa; Mike Gatfron Subject: FW: Orono Counts —Original Hessage — From: Kellogg, Tom P [mailto:tkello9g9bonestFoo.com ] Sant: Tuesday, June IS, 2004 3:31 PM To: Greg Gap^ Subject: FW: Orono Counts Greg, Attached ara 2 fHas with the counts for WoodhDI Road and Woodhtll Avenue. The count for Woodhill Road was taken just south of the property line of the Country Club, on the north side of the tracks. The Woodhill Avenue count was placed between the first two pnvate driveways So. the traffic from the western private driveway is not included In the recorded volumes (unless they went east) Call me with any questions. «Woodhlil Rd N of CSAH 15 - 2(X)4 AOT.pdf» «WoodhilI Ave E of Orono Orchard - 2004 ADT pdf» Thanks, Bryant Ficek Bonestroo Rosene Andertik & Associates, Inc. 2335 West Highway 36 St. Paul. MN 55113 Direct: 651-604-4886 Fax; 651-636-1311 bficek@bonestroo.com II 6/17/2004 WOODR'iLL AVENUE EAST OF ORONO ORCHARD ROAD Time Frune: June 11-14,2004 City: Orono Counter BJl BRAA T>pe DirectioiMl nice I39-04000 Eesibound Traffic Westbound Traffic Suning Time June 11 Friday June 12 Saturday June 13 Sunday June 14 Monday Hourly Average June II Friday June 12 Saturday June 13 Sunday June 14 Monday Hourly Average 2Way Average 12:00 AM I 00 AM 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 6.00 AM 0 8:00 AM 9.00 AM to 00 AM 11 00 AM 12:00 PM 1.00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM IT I 6:00 P* 1 7 00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10 00 PM 11:00 PM ■ r............ 3 2 2 1 0 I 2 0 0 0 _____________ •r- •! Tools 8 BoneelroQ, Roeene, Andedft. and AaaodalM. Ine.6/15/2004 lUNOATfrSmOflM )■ 82II72XMMB9 PROrADOR IMO WOOOHIUAVB OWIUNAME CRMMAIIE TAXfAV» CHARLES W A MARIA CMAILE MAME/ADOR IJR)MOOOWaAVE WAVZATAMH 55J9I Jt 02II72U900I3 PROEAOOR MADORESSWASSKJHH) OWNERNAMC LUCYCMrTCHEU.ETAL taxpayer LUCYCMITCMEU. NAME/AOOR Y»00DHIU. ave WAYZATAMN SSJ9I 31 0211723310040 fllORAODR I20S DOCENSOHST ownername amylklaersrjokmwaw TAXPAYER AMYLRLAERSAJOHHIUAeRS Na ME^AOOR I20S OICKB4SOW5T WAYZATAMN JS39I 31 O2H7233J0047 RROP AOOR 430 ORONO ORCHARD RO S OWNER NAME KEYW GARNETT TAWAVER KEVIN GARNETT NAME/AODR 601 CARLSON PKWY 4613 NAME/ADDR JJW5 99 021.723410001 taxpayer CHRISTOfHER R VOURATM NAME/AODR 700 WU5IDE OR W WAYZATAMN 55391 99 0211723410007 PROP AOOR 700 CORD NO 1 5 OWNER NAME THE NATURE CONSERVANCY TAXPAYER NATURE CONSERVANCY NAME/AOOR 1313 STH STS E SUITE 314 MPLSMN S54I4 Nfit 1 , 31 0211723240010 PROPADOR 355 WOOOHILLRO WAYZATAMN 55391 31 0211723110002 PMPAODR I230 DCKEKSONST____ OWNERNAME WWMCOU»E0NMM^RE taxpayer wwmcouirernmmccwre NAME/AOOR I230OCKENSONST WAYZATAMN 55391 31 02II7233I004I PROPADDR 559 RUSSEUAVC OWNERNAME J PMCALPINRM MMCALPIN taxpayer R)*« ^ * »*'C»«LLE M MCALP.-N NAME/ADOR 559RUSSEUAVE WAYZATAMN 55391 II 0211723310049 PROPADOR 1225 DICKENSON ST OWNERNAME S M YOUNG TRUSTEE W/L EST taxpayer PAYBUIKE NAME/ADOR 1225 DICKENSON ST WAYZATAMN 55391 31 02II7234I0002 PROP AOOR 995 EOCEWOOO HILLS RD OWNER NAME MARY ItANHE V ROWEN taxpayer MARY JEANNE V BOWEN NAME/AOOR 135 LITTLE HARBOUR cN NAPLES a 34102 99 0211723410009 PROPADOR TOO KILLSlOfi ORW OWNER NAME CHRISTOfHER R VOUKATH ET AL TAXPAYER CHRISTOPHER RVOILRATH NAME/AODR 700 HILLSIDE OR W WAYZATAMN 55391 34 021172)240012 PROPADOR 1245 WOODHtUAVE OWNERNAME W W MCGUIRE A N M MCGUIRE TAXPAYER WILLIAM A NADINE MCGUIRE NAME/AOOR I245WOOOH1UAVE WAYZATAMN 55391 39 021172311000) PROPADOR 490 RUSSELL AVE OWNERNAME JOSEPHINEBCARPENTER taxpayer X3SEPHINEBCARPLNIER NAME/ADOR PO BOX 659 WAYZATAMN 55391 31 O2II72J3I0O42 PROPADOR 569 KEENEAVE OWNERNAME OONALOE A JOANNE K DAVIDSON TAXPAYER OONALO E A JOANNE K DAVIDSON NAME/AODR 569 KEENE AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 31 02!1723310050 PROPADOR ZWWOODHiaRO OWNERNAME 20MNC A LOIS AOMALIEV taxpayer JOHN C a LOS a OMalley NAME/AOOR 290 WOOOHILLRO ATAYZATAMN 55391 39 02II72J4IOX3 PROPADOR 1045 EOCEWOOO HILLS RD OWNERNAME ► ATHARINE K JACKSON taxpayer KATHARINE K JACKSON NAME/AOOR 1055 EOCEWOOO HILL RO WAYZATAMN 55391 39 0211723410009 PROPADOR 39 ADDRESSUNASSICNED C WNER NAME HE7INEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH TAXPAYER HE2INEPIN CO REGIONAL RRALITM NAME/a DDR 417 STH ST N *320 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55*01 C'- . J •'j lUNOAn-yMoo* 31 02II72341000I fROTAOM 5JI RUSSEUAVE OWNEKNAME TEIOTHV WKNUTSON TAXTAVEK ‘nMOTOYW KNUTSON NAME/AOOE 531RUSSEU.AVE WAY2ATAMN 553*1 3t a2ll723«3000« mOPAOOE EDGCWOOOHItUW) OWNER NAME ANNELRITS TAKfAYER ANNE URSEN SIMONSON NAME/AOOR 106SEDOEWOOOMILURO WAYZATAMN 551*1 It 02117230000* mOf AOOR 31 ADDRESS WASSWNEO OWNERNAME THE NATURE conservancy TAKRAV01 NATURE CONSERVANCY NAMETADOR 1313 3TN STS E SUITE 314 MFLSMN 55414 31 02II7234300IS fROTADOR I205 SHOREUNEOR OWNERNAME JAYMlACKLEY ETAL TAXEAVER JAY E MARY JACKIEY NAMEIAOOR 1205 SHORELINE dr WAYZATAMN 553*1 31 3511123340015 PROPAOOR 1150 LYMANAVE OWNERNAME MTSWEB«YACCSWEENEY TAXEAYER MICHAEL A CAMILLA SWEENEY NAME/AOOR 1150 LYMANAVE WAYZATAMN 553*1 30 3311023410024 niORADDR 1200 LYMANAVE OWNERNAME RRO«SONALKOIESON TAXRAYER JUCMARDRALBAKOBSON I200LYMANAVE WAYZATAMN 553M HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 31 02II723420002 PROPAOOR 1033 EOOEWOOOHILLSRO OWNER NAME D ELOREDCE JACKSON III ET AL TAXPAYER OEAKK JACKSON III NAME/AOOR lOJSEOCEWOODHIlLRO WAYZATAMN 33)91 30 02IIT23420005 reOPAODR 323 WOOOMKLRO OWNERNAME OINAJPAULUCa TAXPAYER CINAJPAULUCCI NAME/AOOR J20WOOOMILLRD WAYZATAMN 333*1 31 02II7214JO0II PROPADOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNERNAME CITYOFORONO TAXPAYER CITYOrORONO KAME/ADOR POROX44 CRYSTAL BAY MN 53123 31 02IIJ23430023 PROP ADOR 1103 FERNOALE RD W OWNERNAME C J R0 EOOSTLEY TRUSTEFS TAXPAYER GARY ER CHERYL JCOSTLEV name /ador M’ oarefoot beach blvd mm BONJTA SPRINGS FLA 34114 )t »l 1123340010 PROPAOOR 1220 LYMANAVE OWNERNAME JOHN 0 Hlt«lCKER ET AL TAXPAYER JOHNQMlX«CK£R name /ador 1220 LYMANAVE WAYZATAMN 53391 31 33111234)0020 PROPAOOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSKJNEO OWNERNAME BURLWOTONNORTHERNRY TAXPAYER BNRSAMTAfERRCO NAME/ADOR PROPERTY TAX OEPT POBOX901M* PORTWORTHTX TflOl 3t 02M 72342000) PROPADOR 4J0 WOOOHILLRD OWNERNAME RF PETER ROSENBERG ETAL TAXPAYER CF PETER ROSENBERG A NAME/ADOK CEClUA H ROSENBERG 430 WOOOHILLRD WAYZATAMN 533*1 3t 021172)420006 PROP ADOR 30 ADDRESS UNASSJCNEO OWNERNAME THE NATURE conservancy TAXPAYER NATURECONSERVANCV NAME/AD0« IJI3 3DISTSE SUITE 314 MPLSMN 33414 Jl 021112)420012 PROPADOR 3t ADDRESS UNASSKJNEO OWNEtNAME WOODHIUCOUNTRY CUJB TAXPAYER WOODHia COUNTRY CLUB NAME/AOOR 200WK)OOM»LLRD WAYZATAMN 33)*l 30 021172)4)0026 PPOPAODR 116$ ferhdalerdw OWNERNAME BCBOWMAN IIA M J BOWMAN TAXPAYER MARY J A BRADLEY C BOWMAN II name /ador iiosfernoaurdw WAYZATAMN $3)*l 31 33111234)0004 PROP AOOR 30 ADDRESS UNASSCNCO OWNERNAME STATEOFMINH TAXPAYER ONR HEAL ESTATE MCMT NAME/AOOR ATTN DEBBIE CURTIN 300 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL MN S5IS5 )| 3)11023430020 PROPAOOR 1170 LYMANAVE OWNERNAME RICHARD R A LYNN R PHILLIPS TAXPAYER RICMARD R A LYNN R PMIltlPS NAME/AOOR 1170 LYMANAVE WAYZATAMN 553*1 PACE 4 J ’■a i rv RUNDAn:yMn>M M lsni3)«N819 ■MRAOM It* LVMAMAVE JWNERHAME KCSMOWABLSNOW rAVAva 4MADOH IISBLVMAHAVfNUB OH0MOMH am 31 ]3Mt234M0N mORAOOft iiaoobessumasswheo OWHEBMAME CTTYOfOAOHO TAXPAYE* OTYOfOW)HO 31 3SIIU3MOOM PRor aodr m adobess uHASSiCNto OWNEAMAMC MfNNtfINFOWtHtOLAND TAXFAYER HWNtfWFOWWTtOLAHO NAM£/A0M FOASALETOAOiACENT name /aoua ^^o^^owheronly ft 33lin344000l mOrAOOR 50DWAYIATA1LVOW 3WNEANAM6 CITYOEWAYZATA tAXTAYOl name /adm siowayzatablvow WAYZATAMM 353*1 ft oiim»4«»> „O<N£M.C0MO0NAUWAUni NAMI/ADOR 41T5THSTN«J0 NAME/ATOR 33401 30 0211723140014 PAOPAODR 31 ADDRESS UNASSKJNEO OWNER NAME HEHNEFINC0RECK>MALRR AUTM OIRNERNAME „£coNAL RAAUTM TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 4I7 5THSTN4330 MINNEAPOUSMN 33401 imTinfTHATTICFAmltP^yg;g^^*”i^'y,^TeONTHERHXM)S OFMY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF.^^^ THIS DATE ON THE RECURU \ mri[ in MEMOBANDtJM D«t»: To: Froa: RE: June 17.2004 Planning Conunission Janice Gundlach. City Planner^ M4-3024A: OnilMncc RcvbioB Coaceniteg Acceaaory BaiMtaga and Stracturei oa **Hirough Lots** Zoning OrdinuKC Section 7S-143I prohibits placement of any building on a *ihrough lot” without obtaining a condition^ use permit. The Ontinance does not specify conditions that must be met in order to receive approval of a conditional use permit through lots have at least 2 frontages staff has required that the accessory structiuts meet principal building setbacks in an effort to reduce negative impels that could arise with enforcement of the accessory setbacks alone, which means a building or structure could get as close as 10’ from a lot line. This is the only requirement staff has recommended when a conditional um permit request is made. Attached is a Zoning Ordinance Amendment which eliminates the conditional use permit requirement if the building or structure meets the principal building setbacks. The Ordinance revision also requires discretion of the Planning Director on whether other negative impacts could arise depending on the lot. This could simply mean that additional screening would be required in conjunction with construction of the building or structure or a full Planning Commission review should the Planning Director deem necessary. Staff Rccoaimeadatioa Recommend adoption of the attached Zoning Ordinance Amendment eliminating the Coodifional Use Permit requirement for accessory buildings and structures on through See. 7S-1431. CeadiiioMl uc permit rcqeirtd. All accessory buUdings and itnicturcs on through lou located in R disiricu shall f muifi a rtTrP^****-‘***T—^ meet the follnwiny requirements: 1 Thf hlildiP" ^ structure shall meet the principal build ing setbacks that_ag ‘ 7^230 78.255. 78.305. 78-330. 78-350. 78-370. 78- 7g.420.78-444. 2. adjacent neighbors or public riaht-of-wav result in the PliyynVfnl *1k ^««*ding or smicture. determined at the discretion of the Planning Director. .h. Pi«..n» Pifwiw (ktntniw imt i»CT *2 ihfyt twiwi jttnicture of mav be permitted bv conditional us e permit if the Plannmtt no negative impacts result in the placcinent of the building of jttmcture. The Planning CommiMion mav apply reasonable conditions as part of the wprayiL MEMORANDUM To; Chair Mabusth and Planning Commissioners From; Mike Gaffron, Planning Director Date; May 2^2004 Subject;#04-3024B Proposed Zoning Code Amendment; Section 78*1577(C)2a - Reconsider 5 acre requirement for storage of vehicles >14,000 lbs. G\’W AIlKkl A - Ron Moorse Memo to Council 5-17-04 with MPG .Memo Attachment B - Zoning Code Section 78-1577 (as amended 11-24-03 via Ordinance «4, Third Series) Discussion The City Council has asked that the Planning Commission consider heilicr it may be appropnatc to revise the 5-acre minimum lot size requirement for storage of large vehicles, under the recently revised “Exterior Storage in R Districts” ordinance. The 5-acre standard was put in place to ensure the ability to provide adequate separation, buffering and screening of large vehicles fiom adjacent properties. The code as wTitten requires that velticlcs exceeding 14,000 lbs. GVW stored outside must meet a 50' setback from lot lines, must be fully screened (“not visible") from adjacent properties and streets, and any maintenance of the vehicle must occur within a building. The basis for the current ordinance is to protect our neighborhoods from the noise, vibration, odor and general visual intrusion and disruption caused by the comings, goings and storage ofvcry large vehicles. Council has expressed a relatively strong degree of support for the ordinance as-is, but is concerned about the impact of the ordinance on those properties w ith existing large vehicles stored on lots less than S acres. Council has suggested a few options to make the ordinance less onerous for su :h situations. These include ; Revising the code to allow such vehicles to be stored on lots of2 0-4.99 acres in area only if stored in a building; or Granting a lot area variance for outside storage for pre-existing situations on a case by case basis; or . “Grandfathering" existing situations but not allow ing new on«. Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation as to whether the onfinance diQtdd be revised. Staff Recommendation This has been published for a Public Hearing for June 21. Planning Commission should hold the Hearing, then discuss whether the code should be amended, and if so, recommend any appropriate conditions to be incoiporated into the ordinance. TO: FROM: Mayor Petenoo and CouBcil Membos Ron Moocse, City Administraior DATE: May 17.2004 SUBJECT: The Parking ofCommcrdalVahklaa in RcaldcBtial Zones. In late 2003, staff recommended adoption of an amendment to the City zoning code related to the paiidng of commercial vehicles on residential propeity. This ordinance was needed to tqpdate the City's peikiiv rqjulatkms to reflect the diaiacter of development occurring in the City's two acre lesideDtialdiMicts. The former ordmance allowed parking uses diat could have very negative impacts in twcHoe subdivisions. Because the new ordinance restricted the parking of commercial vehicles, it has the potential to cause some hardships for those who have been parking commercial vehicles in two> acre residential zones. The Council has heard from one set of neighbors regarding the new ordinance. One neighbor has InHirtwH rhe ordinance will cause a hardship to him. The other neighbor is looking forward to relief from the negative impacts of the commercial vehicle. The fi***«*«*k from tiu* of neighbors has caused the Council to review the ordinance to ensure h is providing necessary and useful regulations. Although the ordinance does have a bearing on a lnnp<rt«mlmg ditptite between the two neighbors, it is important the Council focus on the ordinance, and not on the dispute. The first step is to make a determination about whether the ordinance is meeting a need^ and is meeting tb*r need in a reasonable and effective way. Attached is a memo from Mike Gaffion providing background regarding the ordinance. L MEMORANDUM To: From: Due; Sttbject: Ron Moorse, City Adminisirator Mike Gai&on. Planning Director January 9,2004 Background Regarding Vehicle Storage Ordinance During suntmer and fall 2003 staff and Plamnng Commission worked on an u^idate and revision to the vehicle storage ordinances. This was in large part due to the obvious long-s landing need for an ordinance that would address contemporary issues as Orono has changed and developed from the primarily 'lakeshore cabins and farms’ character of the 1960s to a more 'urban lakeshore and large-lot suburban* mode. This was a natural next step following the Boat Storage ordinance of 2001. While it would be incorrect to suggest that the vehicle storage ordinance was solely a direct response to the Timm/Hagen situation, that situation did provide an immediate focus point fo: discussions However, vehicle storage has been an ongoing issue for certam properties throughout Orono for many years, and the Hagen/Timm situation is not by any means the first or only instance of large vehicle activity that has caused or has the potential to cause problems m a neighborhood. Other existing current examples include: - Stubbs Bay Movers activity (non-confomung use on Old Crystal Bay Road) • Vem Hubbell Excavating on Watertown Road - contractor whu stores his trucks and sometimes dumps excess loads, on this residential property; few if any past complaints, but new- neighbors are going to be building expensive homes in the woods just east of his operation... • Kim Edwards - landscaping business on Woodhaven Drive • Sporadic truck storage at Hannings on Co. Rd 6 • Lawn guy across from Sansevere • Truck storage (rental space) at a detached garage on Russell Avenue - Tree Care guy east of Hwy 12 just north of Luce Line • (Thuck Henke in Navarre - Dick Ledstrom - all kinds of vehicles and stuff stored at property abutting north end of Lurton Park property - Vacuum trucks, railroad salvage business... • Rossing sons tree/firewood business on Cygnet Place - Trucker at 4575 Wayzata Boulevard (south of RR, parks semi trailer/tractor on site) • and we can probably find a few more if we think bard enough... The revised ordinance establishes ceitain performance standards for keeping a large vehicle (in excess of 14,000 lbs GVW) as follows; a. Minimum lot size S acres. ^ b. Property owner must be vehicle owner or operator. \ c. Vehicle must be set back 50'from property lines. d. Vehicle must not be visible from neighboring properties and public street, vcfeclauve screening is preferred. e. Maintenance of vehicle shall occur within an enclosed building. t The vehicle shall not constitute a nuisance at any time. g. In shared driveway situation. City must have signed agreement of all drivew ay users. At Icait two of the above-noted examples, besides Timm/Hagcn. arc shared driveway situations... Following is a brief description and justification for these standards: • The minimum lot size restriction was established because the impacu of large vehicles are minimized, and the ability to reduce those impacts is heightened, with larger properties. Our 2-acre neighborhoods should not be subject to large vehicle impacts. - Requiring ihc property owner to own/opcratc the vehicle ensures that the extent of commercial activity is probably going to be limited to a home occupation type use and not to some higher form of conunercial storage. - The 50' setback is a minimum separation distance that may reduce the visual/noise/odor impacts of a large vehicle being stored on a site. It matches foe 50' principal structure setback for the 5-acre zone. The requirement for screening to hide foe vehicle from view from neighboring properties and roads is an attempt to maintain the residential character of neighborhoods. - Large vehicle maintenance outdoors can be noisy and disruptive, probably much more so than car repair. Requiring it to occur in an enclosed building helps to minimize the disruption due to sporadic banging, etc. - Public nuisances are dealt with in Section 70-4 as follows: (a) It is unlawful for auy person to nMiauin a pnblic nnlsaace by Us act or faDurc to perform a Icfal dney. For pnrposes of tUs section, a p'lbfic nnisnnee shall be defined as any of the followlog: (1) Maintainlag or permittiDg a condition which uorcasonnbly annoySt Injures or endangers Ihc safety, hcaltb, morab, comfort or repose of any considerable Dnmbcr of members of the public; (2) latcrfcriag with, obttructiag or rcnderlog dangerous for passage any street, pnblic right-of-way or waters nied by the pnbbc; or (3) Aay other act or onlsiloii declared by law to be a public nubaace. (b) It b unlawful far any penou to perab real property under hb control to be used to maintain a public nuisance, or let the property to another knowing It b to be so used. It it questionable whether the storage of a large vehicle would rise to the level of a public nuisance, as it impacts only a small number of members of the public. £ Camotnff a folding structure, mounted on whegls and for travel. recTcation «nd vacation uses, also called a pop-ua caiQQSL ^ Motor horn* means a portable, temporary dwfllinz to be used for travel, recreation and vacation, constructed as an integral part of a self- propelled vehicle. Pickup eooek camper means a structure designed to be rr.ounted on a as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreation and vacat;*»n. ^ Travel trailer means a vehicular, oortabie structure built on a chassis, designed to be used as a temtx)rarv dwelling for travel, recreational and vacation uses, permanently identified as a travel trailer bv the mamifacturer of the trailer. (2.) Special Mobile Equipment means every vehicle not designed or used primarily for the transportation of persons or property and only incidentally operated or moved over a highway, including but not limited in- ditc^ digging eompment. moving dollies, pump hoists and other ^^^ell^ drilling equimnent. street sureoing vehicles, and other machinery such as asphalt spreaders, bituminous mixers, bucket loaders, tractors other than tnick-tractors. ditchers, leveling graders, finishing machines, motor graders, road rollers, scarifiers, earth-moving cQuipment. The term does not include travel trailers, dump trucks, truck-mounted transit mixers, truck-mounted feed grinders, or other motor vehicles designed for the transportation of persons or property to which machinery has been attached. (3 ) Utility Trailer means anv motorless vehicle, other than a boat trailer or persotud watercraft trailer, designed for carrying of snowmobiles, motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, or property on its own structure and for being drawn bv a motor vehicle but shall not include boat trailers, a trailer draUi ’n bv a truck-tractor semitrailer combination, or an auxiliary axle on a piotor vehicle which carries a portion of the weight of the motor vehicle to which it is attached. (b > Parking of recreational Qompinfl vehicles, mobile homes and utility trailers shall be regulated as follows: QJ Tt i< tyUwfiil for anv person to park a mobile home or recTearinna^ vehicle upon public property for human habitation-!- a waapt in a licwwd a obile home pa rk w publiely owned a are fgWHmdi Tt is unlawful for anv person to park or store a utility trailer, mobile hotpc. The alriiliaa language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Page 2 of 6 r vehicle in «nv wsidati—• “R" district for more than 24 houw. fxcgpt in a side or rear vard at least five feet from anv property ling. jt nyijawftil to use ■ mobile home or recrealional eomPUiK v»Kjrii» fiyy i^timan h^hitation on tnv private proDcrtv for more than 72 a Dcnnit from the citv- fc.^ Vehicle stof All vehicle narked or stored on anv property within the Citv <hall nn«>pKl> mnA currently licensed. The parking of vehicles. Other than recreational vehicles, in “R** districts i« regulated as follows: QJ p^rifit^p <;>f vehicles, other than recreational vehicles, with a nxaximum Ttm^ Vehicle Weight fGVW> of 14.000 pounds or less is allowed in all ••R" districts. Parking of vehicles in “R” districts in excess of 14,000 lbs GVW requires each of the following conditions be met: Minimum lot size of S acres> ^ Property owner must be vehicle owner or operator. c Vehicle roust be set back 50 feet from property lines. 4^ Must not be visible from neighboring properties and public streets, vegetative screening is preferred, Cj ^Ajpt^niince of said vehicle shall occur within an enclosed buMoL £ pip vehicle shall not constitute a nuisance at anv time, and. gj In a shared drivewav situation^ the Citv must have on file an agreement signed bv all current driveway users (d.) Boats, unoccupied boat trailers, and boats on trailers shall be subject to the following storage requirements when not stored for commercial purposes: (1) Licensing, operability and restorations All boats stored outside on a residential property shall be licensed to the ON^ner or occtqrant of the property. All boats stored on a prope^ shall be in operable condition, except that inoperable boats under active restoration may be stored on a property for not more than two years, the intent being to discourage the longterm storage of inoperable boats on residential property. (2) Principal residence required. No boat shall be stored on a property or on a The lilalMii lanfuafe is deleted: the undeHined language is inserted. Page 3 of6 FILE 004-3025 ^ «16.2C04 Page ^ of 4 Dad AppUcaitofl RcccWcd: 05-19-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 0M7-O4 60-Day Review Period Eipircs: 08-OJ-04 From: Date: Subject: Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Melanie Curtis, City Plannci|jjj| June 16.2004 04-3025, Darrell & Kahn Anderson. 925 Old Long Lake Rd, - Variance • public hearing Zoning District: RR-1B. One Family Rural Residential District. 2-acre minimum Lot Area; 1.23 acre (53.578 s f.) Dry buildable excluding road - ± 1.12 acres Application Summary: The applicants arc requesting front yard and side yard setback variances in order to rebuild a home on their property. The variance requests consist of. (1) A side setback of 7.9* where 30’ is required to allow their existing foundation to remain during the rebuild of their home. (2) A side setback of 20* where 30*is required for the construction of their new residence. (3) A front yard setback of 40’ from the defined from lot line (33 ’ from the center of road) where a 50’ setback is required. Stt^f Recommendation: Planning Department Suff recommends denial of the variances as requested as there is no hardship to support the variances. Hardship: Staff does not find a hardship to maintain and create new substandard side setbacks in conjunction with the rebuild of this property nor for any proposed additions Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 18-1. Dcrinitions Public road means the entire area dedicated to public use, or contained in a plat, an casement or other conveyance, grant or by adverse possession, to the city or other governmental body, and sh^l include but is not limited to roadways, boulevards, sidewalks, trails, alleys and other public propeny between lateral property lines in which a public roadway lies. NMiere traveled public roadways exist in a location not shown on the platting map, the right-of-way shall not be less than ten feel wide on each side of the actual paved or traveled roadway surface. (Code 1984, § 6.01; Ord. No. 77 2nd series, § 1,1-8-1990) Sec. 78-420. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: r FILE M4.3C28 Jun* 16 20C4 Pag* 2 0(4 Lot Area (Kf«S) LotWidm (feet) Ffo«Y«<l (feet) Side Yard (feet) i Side Yard Aejactnl to I Street (feet) RcwYvdtfeet) 2 200 SO 30 Iso 50 Sec. 7S-140S. Noaeacroacliments (6) In side yards only, no accessory smicture shall be closer than ten feet from any fide lot line. Sec. 82-2. Dcflnitions Property line means the boundary lines enclosing a lot, parcel or tract of land. Regardless of the legal description, the property line to be used for purposes of compliance with chapter 78 and this chapter shall be the ordinary high water mark of any lakeshore, the edge of the right-of-way, the edge of any public or private roadway, or the edge of an adjacent lot or outlot LUt of Eahibits A. Application B. Ha^hip Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Plat Map showing 66’ right-of-way E. Buildable Area F. Proposed Plans and Elevations G. Photos H. Aerial photos I. Property Owners List J. Plat Map Backgrouad The applicanu are the o\%ners of 92S Old Long Lake Road. Currently the property is being used as a rental property, however, the owners would like to rebuild a home on the site and change this to their primary residence. At the pre-application meeting with City Staff the applicants were informed of the required 30’ side setbacks and were advised to redesign their plans to meeting those setbacks on both side lot lines as the proposal would be reviewed as a rebuild. The property o>^ners feel that there is hardship due to the relative narrowness of their lot - compared to the depth - that the house they are proposing is the most efficient use of the property and decided to go forward with their variance request. During the review it was noted that the applicants used the edge of the paved road to define the front lot line, this is inconect, and as a result a front setback variance of 40* is proposed rather than 62* as shown on the plan. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot AreaAVidth; RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87.122 s.f (2 acre)200* Actual Dry buildable exclusive of road * 48,740 s.f. = 1.12 acres 100 ’ FILE FOA-SUK Jj««« 16. 2004 p*et3oi4 Satbacks: RR-IB Required Exiitint Prooosed 50*45'40' Rear 50 ’400*400 ’* West Side 30 ’7.9 ’7.9 ’ East Side___________30-64.5’20* Siructural Covermtc: Tntat I.At Area Total Structural Coveraec 53.578 s.f. (1.23 acre)Allowed; 8.036.7 s.f. (15%) Proposed; 4,931.5 s.f. (9.2 %) Dry buttdabU cxclodiag road - ± 1.12 acres Side Yard Setback Variance . The existing home is set back 7.9’ where 30’ is required from the western side property line. The applicants are proposing a large addition, which staff has reviewed as a rebuild due to the sire, and would like to use the existing home and maintain the sub-standard western side setback. Additionally, the applicants arc proposing an eastern side setback of 20’ where a 64.5’ setback currently exists and 30’ is required. They also proposed a 40’ front yard setback where 45’ exists currently and 50’ is required. The property to the east is owned hy the DNR and no homes will be built on the site. With the DNR property to the east and the existing home on the western lot it appears \}\»t the proposed home will have little impact on crowding and light and open space. However, a home could be constructed on the western lot 30’ from the propeny line ^ the setback between those homes would be 37.9* where 60’ is required, thus increasing the appearance of density on these lots. The proposal is for a total structural coverage of 4,931.5 s.f. which is below the 15% limit; however, there are four accessory structures on the propeny. City Code allows a lot of this size (1.12 acres) one oversized accessory structure up to 1,000 s.f. and a total of all accessory structures on the property of 2,000 s.f.. However, three of these accessory buildings are nonconforming with respect to setbacks. Front Setback Variance . r i. For zoning purposes the publicly used and maintained roadway has been deleted from the lot area calculation. The City is unaware of any dedication or existing easement for the road. Per Municipal Zonmg Code SecUon 18-1, the defmiUon of public road. ^Where traveled public roadways exist in a location not shown on the platting map, the right-of- way shall not be less than ten (10) feet wide on each side of the actu^ paved uaveled roadway surface.” Also, per the Municipal Code Section l8-ldefinition of “property line”, “Regardless of the legal description, the property line to be used for purposes of compliance with the Zoning Chapter... shall be....the edge of the right-of-way...". In this case, as shown on County Plat maps, the right-of-way of Old Long Lake Road has long flLEa04-302S iun« 16.2004 P«fl«4ol4 been esublished at 66* or 33* firom the centmUae, so the front lot line must be 33* from the centerline. Hardship StaleMcnt Applicant has completed the Hardship Documenution Form attached as Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Aaalysis im etiuUMif afpUcmHons for Mftener. tho PUutmbtt Commbatom tkoU cotuUtr t*o tffoet of ia« proptoi varlmctf upeti tko hooUh, i^otp oni wtifort of tht community, existing end onlk^ted tnfpc condUont, Ught ondoir, danger of fire, rhk to tkeptMk safety, and the effect on vahicf of property In die smrronnMng area. The Planning Commdulon shall consider recommending auroral for variances from the literal praotslans of the Zoning Code in Instances where strkt enforcement weald cause undue hardship because of circumstances unifue to the MMduel property under consideration, and shea recommend approval only when it Is demonstrated that such actions will be In beeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that with respect to maintaining the nonconforming west side setback and creating a nonconforming east side setback and a nonconforming front setback there is no hardship to support these variances. A reasonable home can be configured to best maximize the allov^-ed buildable area. The allowed buildable area is 40’x 410*. Additionally, staff feels that as the applicants are rebuilding their home there is no hardship to allow the nonconforming accessory buildings to remain in their nonconforming locations. Issues for Consideration • Planning Commission should discuss the status of the non-conforming accessory structures, especially the most southerly one located over the western property line. • Is there a har^hip to allow the side setback to remain nonconforming with the rebuild of this home? • Is there a hardship to create nonconforming east side or front setbacks? • Are there any other issues or concerns with this r^yplication? Staff Rccomniendalion Plaiming Staff recommends denial of the side and front setback variances for the rebuild. A City of Orongr, ^•Oft. O Variance Appli^ipTb 1 Q ^a»<f 0 StTMf Atidnss. 2750 Ke.ley Pirkway Orono, MN SS3S6 Asplicatlon# 0*-\ ~30^S* Date Received. Main g52-24«-4603 fax 952-249-4613 Mailing Addraas P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55322-:066 Amouftt Paid. ^ t cC'j C'j cJQ Staff; Fee:S6Q0 Renewal: S303 Afte'-the-fact. Si.230 Do.sie Fee Tt*is application form must be completed in full. Ap; cant will bo notified within IS days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATiON: Site Address: c/ ps" Property Identification Number (PIN); rt/7 - n ■ 23 - W -c'r c (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): t2/Hn □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: IS Residential □ Other __________________________________ Zoning District; / Q_____________ I. APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal na~es and mantal status reauired for *.>ach interested party) Name:E ^ -iM.y Phone (home); tc/c:i) nt r:\ tctyu.Phone (work); Address:2.C/ ti/ 4t/.i u'x .1 Ll-l..;. /*•. /J7/t /-^S"/V Email:U't\r-. mt Onrrtth ^ »nr 0i c^»n ' Fax; OWNER INFORMATION: (Comolete legal names S'd mental status required for each interested party) Namei \ t\ ,0^ 0* * \ 1 I' .«i /. . 1 h Phone (home):Phone (work); Address: Email;Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost Describe the request in detail (attach additional shents if necessary): T/ie irT ely> .1 Th t p Tc %2rococ fv. .'-^o h A ^ai* rf A t-4^ - W ^A VQ Cc'TTi^ y 9 f 7*>i# ^e f./rt.tfA y 1^ frt /eemi0 a ft, r it irffy.f/ti y ... j r( m r. fit? tfant" A .S "tAmi Ai.tr. t ' 1 nte t tha na_^2iii.iZZ—itc—jflici.fl—fc<d«.Z!^L^jL_££iia£.^ c •/^ Ct’/A/igA- ^ «>i f'eia - ,\i ( • /ft a f mC A ±t_ v/fl. >.V>» nSt ^ ^^ i€ ^ A^ruK.iMit0 r .f fe*i.Aa»y ±a.2Q fedt ff/iTi y..Luut^rJLUsuja^ hetrtm ,r et'.jy aittJ .; f ru^i ---------- f yAia c.^. ■ ' ' " " is. ■C, JC SaAi’ r/J.. r^iA^fU ... nTU»m. r. * >t • < 4m.x^rtc^r ef tha <uX.^^h-a-ac^ StAxraA CM-X-A:r amA i.. X3%iX. iS- J:^^r^pCAte^-fh .’A aAunMJT.jC fXir-X-AUm _l ^ / r . REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date In order for your application to be processed. □ □□ □□ Pre-Applicatior. Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Owners List - owners v/ithin 150* of the subject creperty. labels and plat m.ap List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance Government Center. A-603 300 South 6^” Sfeet, Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 Original CeniFicate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations Also provide one copy 8.5' x 11* or 11“ X 17" for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet) Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11* or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8 5" x 11" or 11" x 17"). Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project • APPLICANTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Plann.rg Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time rot covered in the org nal fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. Applicant's Signature Applicant’s Signature Date: Date;. / (■'. /r- U OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to th.s application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consuitants. agents. Commission & Council Mem.bers fer purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner ’s Signature Owner ’s Signature:/C-././ Date Date: <•-/ <i - c / (/ Applicant must have all subm.ittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are normally 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 representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. W+tBfTft HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM Page I of 3 This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An apolication will rcl ta considered conplete or placed on any meetn; agendas until this fcrm is complete and submitted to the City. __________________ P/ nncsota State Statue Section 394 27. Subd vision 7 requires that a hardship de demonstrated in order for a variance to be gra. .ted. Th® ‘•ardsh.ip must to unique tr the propercy as variances run w'th the lartd ard rot the la*.d cwner. Personal and eccn^^miz situations are not considered valid hardships. In order fer an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Counc.l a hardsnp having ment must be demonstrated. HOW DO I TROVE A HARDSHIP? Tnis form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance will a*fect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points l.sted below and answer them as clearly as pcssib e Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the C ty rece ves % w“it is used in determn rg a denial or approval recommendaticn If you leave so.meth.mg out ;t w I ret be cons dered Please address each of these hardship criteria as they re’ate to the request (sor^.e may not apply): 1.■The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under cerdit ons ai'cv.ed by the official centre’s " it r ^ ^ \ t /. r ‘Tne plight cf the landowner- is due to c rcums’i-.oes unique to *'.s property ret created by the lancov^ner ’ 77-! Ic.'* re.C !er f C J________ fh ^ J« .'•.I , 1'C.Zr*r * ■C rf Irr ■. ■i^ “Tr.e variance, if granted, will not alter the essent al character of the iccai.ty ’ I Tl^* e .It I fut Pr.'T .! f s.‘ »/’■> .» Ul' r'f.r tf th ^ ttjH • ^ Li *h ^ 4 ^ h 4 . r1 m la “T*. J f... h .*• J!• : ‘l' .1 ^___________________^■ S "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.* '•“f i Pa*c2of3 5. "Undue hardship also includes, out is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.05, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter/ 6 *The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a vanance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the ejected person's lar d is located." TSt M Xc.lf ./i»f .’f / > CiC Cr^.i K.-.I f A/ • — r/ t ^ t .• ■ r r .»>1 , "The Board or Council may perml as a vanance the temporary use cf a one-family dwell.ng as a two-farr.ily dwelling * -i^. {// - r.../r.iy -ri*!/«*#SY W ^ ii ^ ^• f •%/>«ci_#* -f// r?y- 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property " ' f i" ^ C f‘1^ A r ^ €\^ r» tfy 0. *,a____ ^ ________ 9. "The conditions do rot apply generally to other land cr structu'cs in tne d.strict m which said land is located." 1 /* ,» tA. / .- .t ^ J r.\ ^ ^ ^ ff / f.-- 1.A f/ t .. f 10. “The grant.rg of the app icaton is r.ecessa.7 for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantal property right of the applicant.* TV*«- ’j ,-.J .<>i A.i- V.»%, .. ^ ^ rn <0 ff j 1. ^ 1 ^ s__if* It* f f- fi*n /„iT 7" T- * r *r>r> Sttf.th ,t fit.» n n e t.tt it\r.w^t*e In., .! V fjL»~r Lr "The gra.nting of the proposed variance v/ill not in any way impair health, safety , cc.r.fort. morals, or in any other respect be conp-a^ to the intent of the Zoning Cede* / 0,3,‘^t fdt'fii’ii i/V>- r >■> .< 7*' C h «>.• f'ff\r-i¥ r /% r t 'it ft.’ »• ^ h c* Sir—c'^^rf JiAt r tn rrAjtj^C ^ Tj,> *t ,. ,t¥ e e^.t Tit^ f ti*t f’Pte rTr*.c>**»'e n r ^ jut-Hi Page 3 of 3 *The granting of such vaHanca will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alieviate demonstrabie hardship or difficuity.* p/...•Tk^. ri>a let ft fArf Y:.i C. I ^Y-.1 ^■ / fU*;Vg.Vi^ry_ Tk-s ^ »'••/*• ■'*■•< J^r c.^/'cf.na rTitf hAfJtkifyS et r*i < Cttif^mrS c/ 4k.x Hardship Statement Should you feel the hardship cannot fuHy be described in the above criteria, descnbe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following tines (attach additional sheets if necessary): .I *•/■».'»v"' ct,tit .*i f 4ti. .• n ■ n , » Kj* *i ««Alt** r ri. <U »■ /V r . U < L « ,lJ kk^ ejktiJ ■f’U.t /./ g*.r k Ik* i_jL ..A* la, r k'l,.,,..-. t-Jf" .kTk.tt- Jl2jia32£S-I A tf.» fit G^a,4:a..C t am r i,.L' ^ .»€ / •* y/tt< titi. # o A AIT ^%jx 'w^ V N 89*52'00" E©cwi6ir c A 148.09 %<T% If OLD LONG LAKE ROAD D-toISway \ ----------------------------------- .CCMTtRLtC OF LONG LAKE ROAD AS TRAVELED (FORMERLY CO. RO. NO. 27) r J 48.55 \ Kl AQOCT* OAM Hi 04tiarrC' • C A MM Uip.IMC L4lt 1349 *w a • • n -------I \M.. V\ (kdj J-' ^3 %$mmr • mu \-............\ ---------------------------------------c WWA- »--<»/- cxannurt er nnivc? rsi DARRELL E. ANDERSON til TKt It 1/4 er Itc 3S*t;»>0 RtKjicrjc cevMTT. uumnoTA I ii H»>iK WMOfc I laJLATi^J> .r gnH\MT I> 1L©IM@ IL^CCl-' ®(^©IM©-, r •*.. r”- ewi&ir t= CPTJO.V f UPPER LEVEL PLAN 7ES ssu^^r mr -i m o CO ortH :: »?e* NORTH CFRONT) VIEW scAie-i/Jt-'L’I' v« * .VA.> /; {» 'i \y •r• '.C s* .'t i':- I I i. 0 r } •I * •<- ) Vv* 4 r 6XHlft«TO Hennepin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department IO,3S118234100<».;;''CvS;: • rt\mttdtt»hmC»r>Ooualr.9ndS$^nmfm;»orib»»»ndapmt^^ FILE *04.3026 Jw"« 15 20:4 Pag* • 5* 5 Dale Application Received: 05>I9*04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 06-IO-04 60*Day Review Period Espires: 08*I(MM Chair Mabusih and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Melanie Curtis, City Planner jj^ June 15,2004 04-3026, Anthony Sequira with Rightway on behalf of David Pomije. 801 Tonka wa Road • After-the-fact variance • public hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre minimum Lot Area: 3.6 acre (155,771 s.f) From: Date: Subject: Application Summary: The applicant is requesting after-the-fact lake setback and 0-75’ hardcover variances in order to rcconst*uct (and reconfigure) a deck The application consists of the following; 1 . Hardcover within 0-75* of 1 1% or 3,464.3 s.f.. 2. Lake set back vanance to allow a deck setback of 39* where 75 ’ is required and 49’ currently exists (hou.se). 3. Bluff impact zone encroachment of 25*. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Stall recommends approv al of the after- the-fact lake setback and hardcover variances. Hardship The location of the existing home, replacement nearly in-kind of a pre- existing deteriorated non-conforming deck Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Bluff means a topographic feature, such as a hill, cliff or embankment, having the following characteristics (An area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance of 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff); (1) Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; (2) The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high w ater level of the water body; (3) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary* high water level averages 30 percent or greater; and (4) The slope must drain toward the water body. Bluff impact zone means a bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff. Bluff, top of the. means that point on the cross section of a bluff below which the slope 5 L- file •04-3026 Ju-« 15.2004 Pfgt 2 ef S becomes more than 18 percent and above which the average slope for a distance of 50 feet or more is 18 percent or less. Sec. 78-1279. Placement of structures on lots. (I) Structure and on-site seuerage system setbacks fin feet) from ordinary high water level Public Witer Structure ScMige Treetment Clissincation UnKMCred Sr*cred Sv$tcm NE 150 150 150 RO too :s T5 CD 75 75 75 Tribiitir>too T5 73 (2) Additional structure setbacks The following additional structure setbacks apply. SetC*c» frerr. i S«tb*ck ( .1 feet) 1 Top of blaff 30 Unplaned cemeier>SO feaertl, tuic or counn and local public and pnvaie roadi ___ (3) Bluff impact zones Struemres and accessorv’ facilities, except stairways, landings and lock boxes, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed. located or constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. List of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Survey and Resolution 3191 from 1992 approval E. Proposed Plans and Elevations F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations G. Property Owners List H. Plat Map I. Photos Background David Pomije is the property owner of 801 Tonkawa Road in Orono. In October of 1992, a previous ov ner received hardcover and lake setback variances in order to construct a kitchen addition with a second-story. At that time the hardcover level approved within the 0-75’ setback was limited to 11.2%. The applicants were required to remove equal 1i 25C4 P»8t33<5 amounts of hardcover for the 90 s.f. of hardcover they were proposing to add to the 0*75’ setback zone. Tnesc removals u-ere completed and the hardcover remains as it was approved in 1992. ('see Hardcover Variance section for more details.) Most recently the current owner began a project to repair roned decking in order o assure the safely of the structure As the repairs progressed it was apparent that the “repair ” of the existing deck was resulting in a total replacement. It was at that lime that the contractor A'as notified by Bruce Vang. Orono Building Inspector, a permit would be required. After researching the file it was determined that, as the deck was non- conforming in location and hardcover, variances would also be required. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot AreaAVidth; LR-IB 1 Lot Area 1 Lot Width 1 Required 1 43.560 $f (1 acre)i 140- ! Actual 155.7-1 $f (3 6 acre)390 * Setbacks; LR-IB Required Etitling Proposed Lakeshore i> 75'49' (house)59 (deck) 1 Rear ! -'O' 1 Nonh Side 30- I 1 South Side 30- 1 1 Average Lakeshore No neighboring homes ’ Structural Coverage; Total Lot Area 1 Total Structural Coverage 3 6acre(155.77| $.f)I N.A - The propcrr> exceeds 2 acres ’ Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover 1992 Varunce Approval Proposed Hardcover C-75 3l,l29 8 if Osf (O*-.) 3.464 3 1 f • (IM%)11 4.121 8sf (I3 2?S) 75-250 71.277 If.17.806 I f (25V.) 11.658 Osf (16 4 V.)NA i No Change 250-500 53.356 6 I f 16.009 s.f (30V.) 14.646 sf (27 4 S)NA No Change * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds ritE *:4.3C2« Ju-« ^5 2»» P«;e 4 sf 5 Bluff Setback This property has a lakcward s!ope which rises more than 25 feel above the OH\\X and rises 10 a height of 35 feet in a horizontal distance of 40 feet, which results m an average slope of 87%. Since this exceeds 30%. it drains to the lake, it is dcfimtely a bluff and the deck encroaches into the “bluff impact zone" (the bluff itself plus 20* back from the top of the bluff) and encroaches into the required 30 ’ bluff setback for structures. The house itself is located within the bluff setback zone and encroaches into the 30 ’ setback for structures on bluffs Lake Setback Variance Approximately 60% of the existing home :s located within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Mirmetonka. Due to this, any deck constructed lakeside would need a lake setback variance. Also, there is minimal usable yard on the lakeside of the home apj .matcly 15*18 feel prior to the top of the bluff. The deck w ill provide a safe place for the property owners to enjoy their lake view immediately outside their home The deck, as opposed to a patio or lawn area, will have railings providing security near the 87% slope Hardcover Variance In 1992 the previous owners, in conjunction wait variance approval, were required to remove 90 s.f of hardcover. The Council at that time felt that there was no hardship to permit a variance to increase the 0-75 ’ hardcover level. Since that time, the existing path to the lake has been upgraded to a 4 ’ stone paver path with stairs which provides a safer path dow-n the steep slope. Thus, staff has determined that the hardcover calculated in 1992 did not include this c.xisting path and makes it appear that the 2004 hardcover calculation is 2% higher than in 1992 The path hardcover accounts for the additional 2*-o. not an increase in the size of the deck Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation form attached as Exlubit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding "Jic application. Hardship Analysis In considering application* for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger offire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that due to the existing location of the home there may be a hardship to allow the deck to be rebuilt. Additionally, the deck prov^cs a safe “yard" area for the riLE *C4-3cn Jji-« *5 20:4 PaseSc'S Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission feel that there is hardship to rebuild the deck to the same size as it s%-as before? 2. Is the deck "necessary"? Does the Planning Commission agree with staffs conclusion that a deck is the safer alicmaiive on this property due to the proximity to the bluff? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the af)er*the*fact lake setback, bluff impact zone setback, and hardcover variances. City of Orono Variance Application Sfre*r4^c?'S55 2^53 Ke: ey Pa*<way Orcnc. VuS 55356 War. 952-2A=-ftS:: ‘ax 952-24=-c5*S t/aiUng AdC'ess PO Box 66 C“,5:a. Ba, 55323-:C63 Aoo catic-i n C'‘'^-'SC2. jj^ Da:e Receiveo An^sur: Pa.s A32.cc ^ ^ Sta*f Fee ss:3 Renewal. S3:C_______________ ■-;-A‘Te‘3!«^yfa ^ SV2:C Dc^z e 'ee T^s appioaten •arm tjs*. Oe cen-pteted in fji;. Apo'oant \w:: 5e rp!»’ep *t,*''i tS days as to ve stat.s c‘ t-e appticaten Incomplete applications will net be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: ft?l Property Identification Number (PIN). _____________________________________________ (Attach legal description to app'icat’or if net rc -ced cn the survey.) Cate Property Acquired (rn^tn/year): ________□ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: )b Residential □ Other _______________________________ Zoning District L^\ Pd___________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Comp ete legal na-es and rrantai status reouired fo<^ eac** interested pat.) Name: ^7XA(l.fY4i^ * cnone (home) -J^i6______ Phone (work) -i^3zL. J4t Address; ^ Email. (^t^*t^r’,yy/err- 6 OWNER INFORMATION: (Comp'ete legal narres a*d rra-ta: status -esL: red ‘cr eacn .r.ta*estec party) Name Phone (home) Address: ^ Email: Phone (work) ^rC ~ __________ c/uwp -r=r iJs-i DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cosf S Describe the request in detail (attach add.tiona: sheets if necessary); ______________________ >$^30 20 • ' . • Ji. . REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date n order for you' application to be processed. □ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City F anner. C Completed Application Form □ Completed Hardship Documentation Form □ Certified Property Owners List - cv..-,ers within 150' of the subject prope'ty. !abe s and plat mao List, labels and map may be obta red from. Hennepin County Department of Finance. Governm.ent Ce"te'. A-603 3C0 South 6*'“ Street. Minneapolis, telephone 512-348-5910 □ Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed sur.eyor), m.eeting ail the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations Also provide one copy 8.5 ’ x 11" or 11 ’ X 17" for reproduction. Zj Completed hardcover ca ’cu ’at'on v.o'ksheets (as prov.ded v/ithin the variance packet) □ Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations Prov'de one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" X 17“ for reproduction. □ Sketches or plans of f.oor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5“ x 11" or 11 * x 17"). □ Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scepe of the project • APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay addit.cnal fees (staff lim.e net covered in the original fee payment) and/cr consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and cert.fies. that the informaiicn supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge The applicant recognizes that hc/sho is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. Applicant’s Signature' App'icant’s Signature; t regard! Date Date OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby ackncv;Iedges and agrees to this application and fur.her authorizes reasorab e entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Membe'S for purposes of investigation ^d verificatioa^f this request Ovmer's S gnature Owner’s S'gnature. on and verihcation^f Cate Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Comm..ss:on Meeting Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each m.cnth Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduleo meeting, please make arrangem.cnts to have an authorized representative aUend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. •? t'. t3 Page I of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An acc' ca: cn Wilt net be cens de*ed cams’ete c* c’aced an any r-eel 'c ager.aas u*': i f.is fo*rr -s complete and submttec to tr.e C.;y t/ nnesota State* Statue Section 23^ 27. Swbdtvislan 7 requires that a r.a'csn p be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. Tnc hardship must be ur que to the property as variances run v/th the land and not the land owner. Persona! and eccncm^c s>tue!'cns are not considered vshd hardships. In o'der for an application to be hea*d by the Piann.ng Ccrr.mission and City Counc-1 a hardship having merit must be demo.nslratec HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This fo'm. has 12 points outT.ing t.ne bas s C ty staff uses to determ ne if a harosn p exists and how the variance v/ill affect the surrounding community To prove a hardsh p address a!l the relevant points l.sted beiow and answer trerr. as dearly as possible Since you are reouesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The info-mat.cn the C ty rece ves s what is used ir ceterm r ng a denial or app'cval recomme''dat.cn tf you leave someth -g cut it w n net ce cers de'eo Please address each of these Hardship criteria as tney relate to the request (some may not apply) 1. *Tre property m questipn car.rct pe put to a reasp^ab e use if used under conditions al’cwed by the o*ficial centre's." Page 2 of3 ‘Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access tc direct sjniight for solar energy systems. Variances sha'I be granted fo* earth sheltered ccr.strjction as defred in Minnesota Statutes, Sect on t16J 05. S-td 2 v.hen in harmony with this C**apter ‘ •The Board cf Appeas and Adjustments or the Council may net permt as a variance any use mat is not perm.tted under this Chapter for procety in the zone where the affected person s lard is located * •Tn.e Board or Council may perrr.rt as a variance the tempeary use of a one-family dweilmg as a two-family dwelling * ‘The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or im.med ately adjoining property * •The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the d st' ct m which said lard is located.* •The granting cf me application is recessa'v fer me preservation and enjoyme-t cf a substantial p'opony right cf me applicant.* •The g'anting of the proposed variance will not in any way mpair health, safety, com.fort. morals, or in any other respect be contrary tc the intent of the Zoning Cede- 73^/3 // A/fr- J5 tial. ^*»t- T- k Pages cf3 “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a conven'ence to tne appltcart. but is necessary to aiiev.ate demonstrable hardship or o ffjculty r>Hr ^ Hardship Statement Sho-!d you feel the hardship cannot *jHy be described in the abcve cntera descnbe t‘'e unique hardsh.p, practical difficulty or unusual property cone tions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements m the following lines (attach adc>tional sheets if necessary) jY^ssnaeO ^SLS^ 7/A .L.'•-it- 3 )} ■; L EKHTB. ITC- jTtlS tnq Shor^ln»-'X \ ltlon-929.41 \\ -0« 4sM , W'\\vV ''^T'VO** oreq— •Vifl- A • 'A •' “....... V 75‘~250‘ hardcover zona V y^r«ra^lnlng '\ ' \ / \ M « r \ - »r^ r«lolnln9 - *• ** «* f* '¥m POOL r«lolnli»9 MBtHETONKA f .» .* .^0 \ \V. V *.\\ IPtANTER C-V1? //&'y^////?my//^^ '// \ \ r^hlnf %> rtloinlng- SCALE '/iL\Xi^S ^/Vrjjjyifthg 46.0^ \ li»9 Shofrtn#-^ •tlon-929.41 '^;i';!Y;'V^V - \ '^TT'yo** or«o^^ 75 ^250* hardcover zone \KE f r«toinln9 MINNETONKA SCALE AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 217 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA SST"' I hereby c me or un« Load y..r» ti__\e_ exHiH>lT D CITY of OROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L NO.3191 A RESOLOTIOH GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) FILE «1765 WHEREAS, John E. Moore (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 801 Ton)cawa Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit "A" attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8j and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to pernit the construction of additions to the existing residence, such additions constituting additional structure and hardcover in the 0-75' lakcshore setbac)c zone where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed. Minnesota: 1. 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1765. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family La)ceshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Conutission reviewed this application on Septersber 21, 1992 and reconur.ended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: a) Approximately 6C% of the existing house and dec)c is located in the 0-75* setbac)c zone. b) A proposed )citchen addition is proposed to extend an exterior wall approximately 5' nearer the shoreline than that existing wall of the house, yielding a 49' lakeshore setbac)c instead of the existing 54* setbac)c Page 1 of 7 r 6. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _________ at that location. Adjacent portions of the house currently exist as near as 44' to the shoreline. The interior layout of the house nakes it difficult to expand the kitchen area without encroaching into the 0- 75* setback. c) The proposed second story addition above the existing master bedroon^ which is 60* from the shoreline# will create no additional hardcover and will merely cr '»te new structure above the existing footprint. d) The increase in 0-75* hardcover as a result of the kitchen addition is 90 s.f. or an increase of 0.3% hardcover in the 0-75* zone. There is no extraneous hardcover in the 0-75* zone that could be removed to result in no net hardcover increase. At their October 12, 1992 meeting the City Council determined that no net hardcover increase in the 0-75* zone was justified. The api^licant subsequently agreed to concurrent removals of f0+ s.f. of sidewalk in the 0 —75* zone to result in no i.et hardcover increase above the existing 11.2% level in that zone. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission# reports by City staff# comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions# light# air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant# but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 7 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3191 CONCLDSIOHS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municioal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8: and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to perr.it the construction of a 90 s.f. kitchen addition located 49* fron the shoreline and a second story above the existing raster bedroom located 60' from the shoreline, constituting a structure and hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where structure and hardcover is normally not allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone is limited to 11.2% as shown on the site plan (Exhibit "3" attached). Hardcover removals are required as shown on Exhibit B. The current property owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased above the currently approved level in the 0-75' zone, and any proposed improvements on the property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City. Such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removal as a condition of this resolution must be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. 2. All excavation work in the area of the kitchen addition shall be by hand methods rather than by heavy machinery. Proper measures shall be taken to protect the steep banks from erosion or vegetation disruption. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and m.ust be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 26, 1993). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a m.isdemeanor. Page 3 of 7 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3191__________ The undersigned epplicant has readr understood and hereby agrees to the teras of this resolution and on behal.. himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain o- title o- the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council cr. this 26th day of October, 1992. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of October, 1992, by Barbara A. Peterson t Dorothy M. Kallin, Mayor 6 City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. 9 USDA S. VEE KOTAB* PUtLiC . W.VNESOTA MENNEPiN COUNTY My camr«<,aon POrM a>uai J. Notary Public Page 4 of 7 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.3191 STATE O? COUNTY OF ) ss. ) day ofOn this before me appeared the persoTvTkl instrument, and acknowledged that (their) free act and deed. rXcih^ ^escri-feed 2n and w^.o executed the f ■ co):nty, personally me to be oreccing (they) executed the same as NOTARY PUBLIC QD.&y- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ' BS . \ COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ________________ <iay cf ________________» Ise-cre me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the persor.(s) describrd in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 7 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. gECAL DESCRIPTION ?^rakr«ph.'.l z^that pare o£ Lot 1.^ Auditor ’s Subdivision Number.217,; Hen-nepla-dlourtey,. Minnesota lying southeasterly of a line parallel wlch* and 300.'fe6C southeasterly, measured at right angles from the northwesterly line of•said Lot 1 and lying northerly of the following described IIne-cowlt; ‘ . Beginning at- a point In the northeasterly line of sald Lbc- I distant 12Q feet northwesterly, measured at-right angles from the southeasterly line of said Lot; •thence-southwesterly parallel wieWthe southeasterly line of said Lot-, 251 feec';'ithericc southwesterly deflecting to the left at an angle of to the shore of. Lake Minnetonka and there terminating, according to the plat thereof on file ot of record in Che office of the Register rf Deeds In and for said County. Paragraph 2: All that part of Lot I, Auditor's Subdivision Number 217 . Hennepin County., Minnesota lying Nortnwcsterly of a line parallel with and 300 feet Southeasterly measured at right angles _ from Che north westerly line of Lot 1 and lying Southeasterly of a line drawn parallel with and 200 feet Southeasterly measure^ at . right angles from the Northwesterly line of said Lot I, acc-rdlng to Che plat thereof on file or of record In the office of the Registrar of Deeds in-and for said County. r i4(Wpil COtCr^C *'••*' yi —o. Fo&ti^»g riin. W6'* 0€Cp ^ \/ ^'' f,oy^ Jlx?. ^oac*c\ s •=A p.- ^y 10 'tfrg;a^ X~S-j<Z Ak^iNC 1 i • , ■ ■ \fl 1 i “ .....1.1.--,-.-U \ 6oU. C^fttn^c \ 5#rt* pc/ p6s‘V \ K\oo^«- \ 6rrCul« /' \ Je.j+ 12^*+ Sec-u-cd,- >TV err ■cr*‘^‘^ • AouS^ G«u.n..S I ouS^ $ irentui \ \ \ Ka*»^c/5 j 1 ilC7-r:"i- j.. ^tr*jimt ■f*f.«l€4^ OBC Oea^ J poxt ccJar OecK'^^j <f '•'/5l<« X'-'f pyf ceAr^^ “7- 17^ Z<' J"— PO' / /O* 7" fPBL 7^if <?^c/|y#'/i K - •. \••:::.. • . vv,; . *V v-' ; •. ' '•:.••: • «•. • :.f jM-flt-ZN4 Sl:f4u or<in OF OfONO • ShTBACKZONE: (CIRCLE ONq^ MSZ24I46II EXlSnWQ HARDCOVgft iM ynkiK CALCU^TWN VWR^HEET T*w f.ooi/cbi F-rn SOCMOOO* Q^thB(T~ f A. H oum B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. PaihVDeck F- Landacape Undortam By Plastic G. Retaining WaOs H.CHher total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE *•-------------------------♦ e PROPOSEP HARtXSQV^yt IN A Hours B. Oarage C. Driveway 0. Sidewalk E. Patlo/Deck F Landscape Underlain By Plastic O. Retaining Walls H. Other total HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE • B 2.g ,S.F. ,S.F. S.F. .S.F. S.F. -^£Liii_S.F. - - - - - -.S.F. .S.F. .S.F. ,SF. 51.01 .S.F. _s%! /2.a^ .S F. A 3ZL___% .SJf. S.F. .S.F. .S.F. .S.F. .S.F. S.F. SF. .S.F. .S.F. .S.F. .8.P. ..S.F. A -.SJf. B L <-1104 I|!|4m FrM-€ITY OF OOONO ____ HARDCOVER SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7T EXI8TINO HARDCQVEP ihi A H oum _______________ * ♦t! CALOILA^p HS224M4II 7-MF F.001/001 F-m •N WORKSHEET **®-«00* 500-1000* MO3.07 B. Oarage C. Ortvmy D. SidewaHc fc»JciegT^ ~ E Paiio/Deok F. Landacapo UndorMn ByPtastic 6. Retaining Wails KCNhar X X X X X X X X X total hardcover in zone total property area in zone_ proposed hardcover im tone K House ♦ B B. Garage C. Driveway 0. Sldewtlk E PaOcVDedc F. Landscape Underieln By Plastic O. RetaWng Walt KOtfier X X X X X X X X X total hardcover in zone total property area in zone .S.F. .SF. 31L p5 ^3« e --------------------.5>! Z2SI.iL ^SJF. ,Si=. _S.F. _S.F. -.SF. «S.F. .SJ». xlOO 7/zy7,tD sp a —2S2L_.% .S.F. .S.F. .S.F. S.F. ^SJF. __S.F. -SJ^. _8.F. _SJ*. ♦ B XlOO .Si'. .S.F. A .Si'. B r-ZM4 0I:I4m Froa-<ITT OF 0«MO setback ZONE: (CIRCLE On S EXISTIMO HARDCQVgft iia A. House calw ^tion ^^heet 500-1000* B. Garage ________ C. Driveway Gf^y^CZ<SDrivewi(v ________ 0. Sidewalk (<fda6Ki_ask2c5) E- PaiiQ/Decfc F. Landscape Underlain 6/Plastic G. ReCainbtg Wals X X X X X X X X X K Other (^>a*jis <ccigr^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE PROPOSED HARQCO\/gR in zpMg A House B. Garage C. Driveway 0. Sidewalk E. PalkVDecfc F Landscape Undeitain ByPlasOe G. Retailing Walls KOther ♦ B X X X X X X X X X total HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B Z^.QI _S.F. _S.F. 73/7^ 'tA 7V/. nzRo.ik^ .Sj:. .S.F. .SJJ. S.F. ___S.F. __.ST. ___S.F. ___S.F. ___S.F. _SF. iss£s_zsf: s .S.F. .S.F. .S.F. .S.F. _S.F. .S.F. .S.F. .£F. .8.F. .8^. XlOO .S.F, A .8.F. B RUN DATE . WnM M MII72J:I00M rRORADDR WO PARTENWOODRD OWNEANAME tOOERI f MOCSON HI TAXfAVM ROeERTf JACKSON IM NAMF7A00R WO PARTEWWOOO RD LONGUKEMN linNNHPIN OMINTY PROrf.RrV INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPFJiTYOWNIRSUSr fAf.t 2 u niojwlocm PKOfAlMJR IW PARII.NWUOORI) UWNLRNAMC RAJIIUMUOLni TAXPAYER ROBERT I « lOYC E P lUJMIMH IJI NAMOAODK IWPARTLHWOOORO lONUUVKEMN »JM )« OllWJUIOOlO PROPADOR Wi PAKIENWOODRO OWNI R NAME MARY JANE SAEAR lAXPAYER MARY JAHI SAEAR NAMUADOR WJ PARlEHWOOll RO LONCIAKEMN 55)M M MIITJUIOOII PROP AOOR }• ADDRESS ^ASSIGNED OWNER NA -4E MARY JANE SAEAR TAXPAYER MARY JANE SAFAR NAME/AOOR WJ PARTENWOOO RO lONTil^KEMN 55m U MMOUIOOI7 PROPADOR 960 PAR 11 NR000 RO OWNER NAME ITiUt J RENNER TRUSTEE TAXPAYER OtSltNSRUDRSJSirNSRUI) NAMr/AODR 960 PARTENWOOO RO lONOIAKEMN SMTA OF TIIK IIEMMEP1N COUNTY TAXT’AYER SERVin^: nElPARTMWrjTOTTIE BEST OF MY KNOWLF.OC.E ANDBEI JII OAl I;<r-2-oy C') r-7- ITl:m yv. . ^ ^ - <'” /^. S'fe- y ‘•rV i. r f‘‘ •-V;-^^ Ifc JL^, 4 r^i'- .^_ - ;•. k.wggr~. ■ ••iak s, (/1 ■•■j ^nW4 ;'- •• V .;• : Mti .11 "II ! •iS’ii ag!ip»' iC' .y - * - • f-. . .• •' <>^' ' ’' '-5 i#iw: V'V ' V # # V'^ ■ ».' 'lit'—^ X>« ■^,11 ■ ■ ■'*& . ■■; A.'- fl I iAr^-: • ' ' 'U • JR “ i’.fc it .^: ■ .. '...iK^l^g^iS: ■n;<u yw^' !l m%»Zi •uau» • ■ !*-<• • J V . -•* < ^vl&iii-'' 4 3 .1’ »^J.- r'r ^ -' • ’ **. ^':{P -f'^: .V ^ i.fV; .' .7'' .t • &'7/r-„ ^ /• V.* ••' .. *■ ' ■ M43037 June 21.2004 Pa|i I of7 Daft Application Received: 1-24-04 DaU Application Considered as Complete: 5-21-04 Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Janice Gundlach. City- Planner^ June 16. 2004 Subject:04-3027, Drcnshcll Development do Bill Coffman on behalf of Thomas James Properties, LLC do Charlie James, SW comer of HWY 12 and Old Cry stal Bay Road, Sketch Plan Review Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR - IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre minimum) Includes 2 separate parcels: Parcel 1 - PID 3311823240002:15.004 acres. No address assigned Parcel 2 - PID 3311823240003: 1.811 acres. 425 Old Crystal Bay RD (lot areas according to Hennepin County* Records) Approximately 875’ at Old Crystal Bay Road Approximately 450’ at Highway 12 I A.mlication Summary: This is a sketch plan for a 50-lot residential plat of property • the southwest comer of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12. The proposal : development of a horse-shoe shaped roadu*ay system with access off of Old ciystal Bay Road. The property is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and will be served with public sanitary sewer and water. The site is extremely flat and open w ith a wetland comprising approximately 4 00 acres of the total area of the plat. An existing single family residence exists on the 1.811 acre piece, which is proposed to be removed. The other existing single family residence at the comer, 595 Old Crystal Bay Road, is not part of the plat. Siajf Recommendation: Wliile no formal action is required, thi.t memo will provide a number of issues for discussion or to be addressed when the formal application is submitted. List of C.\hibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Survey Illustrating Proposed Subdivision Layout Exlubii C - 5 Proposed Individual Site Plans & Illustration of Proposed Gathering Spaces Exhibit D - Proposed Preliminary Plat (50 Lots on 4 Blocks) Exhibit E - Community Management Plan RE: Subject Property Exhibit F - Aerial Photo Exhibit G - Photo of Similar Development in Plymouth (The Reserve) Exhibit H - 2004 Fee Schedule H04-3027 June 21. 2004 Page 2 of 7 Background The City currcnlly is under a moratorium for any development of 2 units per acre or more. This project is being allowed to undergo the sketch plan process only. No formal application will be accepted until the moratorium has lifted. The Council has indicated that allowing this sketch plan to proceed through the process may help the City better understand what changes need to be made to the Zoning Ordinance to be prepared for this type of development. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Conformity’ with 2000-2020 Orono Community Management Plan The property is guided for a mi.xture of urban single and multi-family residential uses at a density of 2-4 units per acre. This plan proposes the maximum 4.0 units per acre. The property is located within the MUSA and is intended to be served with public sanitary sewer and water. The CMP notes that the “Preferred Development Option” would be a mix of '/} unit per acre single family residential including 4 unit per acre towiihouse development. 'Hie applicant's plan proposes all single family lots ranging from S.8S5 to 14,922 square feet in size, where the average lot size is approximately 8,500 square feet or less than 1/5 of an acre. The plan as proposed does not meet the preferred development option noted in the CMP. It should be noted that the recommendation in the CMP regarding development of this site assumed concurrent development with the Dumas Apple Orchard property to the west. Relationship to Surrounding Development This property abuts Highway 12 to the north and Old Cr>stal Bay Road to the cast. An existing single family residence is located to the northeast comer of the proposed plat boundary’. Right-of-w’ay owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation exists to the direct south which consists of the Highway 12 B>'pass cunently under construction. Abuning the subject property to the west is the Dumas Apple Orchard property comprising over 50 acres with ap|voximately 1.'3 of it consisting of wetland. This property is also guided for a mixture of urban single and multi-family residential uses at a density of 2-4 units per acre Conformity with Zoning District Lot Requirements The property is in the RR - IB. One Family Rural Residential District, which allows for single family residential uses with a minimum lot size of two dry buildablc acres. The applicant has proposed a plan following CMP recommendations at 4 units per acre, which would require that the property be rezoned. It is preferred that the property develop under a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Lot Lay out and Lot Standards Currently, there arc two base lots, both in common ownership, which would be expected to be combined with the plat. The individ»ial lot lay out is shown in Exhibit D. The applicant has proposed 5 different building types illustrating how the lots would be developed. The building footprints range in size from 1,744 square feet to 1,964 square «04-30J7 J hm21.2004 Pigc3«f7 feet, all sho\^ing 3 stall garages located in front of the home. Staff has noted below several issues to be considered with this proposed layout: Setbacks The plan indicates that the setbacks will be as follows: • Front: 25’ (measure from curb not edge of ROW) • Side (at garage): 6’ • Side (at house): 10* • Rear: c Abutting Hwy 12: 50 ’ o Abutting Hwt 12 B>pass: 30’ o Abuuing Old Crystal Bay Road: 35* o Abutting Wetland: 0 measuring from 35’ buffer Staff finds that these setbacks arc minimal. For example, the front yard setback should be measured from the edge of the right-of-way (or front property line) not the curb, and in cases where a sidewalk is proposed from the edge of the easement (if not included in the RO>\0- This ensures visibility along the road should large vehicles be parked in the driveway It also ensures that vehicles will not overlap into area used for snow storage. The current plan is showing approximately a 13’ front yard setback when measured from the edge of the right-of-way. Under this setbaek a large vehicle has the potential to overlap into the right-of-way by 8 ’. Staff would recommend that a revised plan incorporate a 30’ front yard srtWk measured from the edge of right-of-way and/or sidewalk easement. Also, the side setbacks proposed differ between the garage and the house The garages arc proposed to be in front of the house at a setback of 6’ to the side property line In some cases there will only be 12’ between neighboring garages. The reduced setback for the garages may interfere with the property’s ability to maintain its own drainage. A 10* side yard setback (proposed for the houses) is considered minimal for the construction of drainage swales. StafT w ould recommend that a minimum of a 10’ setback for both the garage and house be incorporated into any revised plan. The applicant should also consider tuck-under style garages in an attempt to increase setbacks and create a more usable yard. The rear yard setback proposed may also not be sufficient. For example, the rear >ard setback to Old Crystal Bay Road is 35’ where to the Highway 12 Bypass setback is only 30’. Realizing there is a significant grade change between Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12 Bypass, the noise factor may cause similar problems due to the speed at which cars will be traveling Staff would suggest that an increased setback to the Highway 12 Bypass be considered due to the unknown negative effects that may occur once the bypass has finished construction. The Planning Commission may also want to consider implementation of buffer yards on all lots abutting right-of ways. This would require additional feet for rear yard setback to allow for construction of a berm and still provide room for a usable rear yard. L- •04-3027 Jum2I.2004 Page 4 of 7 Lastly, many of the lots propose a building pad that almost maxes out the buildablc area of the lot (For example, lots 6 and 7 of block 1, lots 4-8 of block 2, lots 1-5 of block 3 and lots 12. 16, 18 and 24 of block 4). More importantly, many of the lots abutting the v^-etland in the rear would have virtually no back yard as the building pad bumps up to the edge of the wetland buffer. A result of these two factors is the future owtier’s inability to construct an addition or even a deck in some cases, as well as providing no rear yards for outdoor enjoyment. Overall Site FunctionaUty and Visual Appeal Because of the nature of the setbacks proposed, the largest gap between houses would be 16'. This would be the distance from the comer of the garage to the comer of the adjacent home. In some cases, this distance is 12’ if the garages arc back-to-back (For example, between lots 12 and 13 and 21 and 22 of block 4). Coupled with a 25* setback proposed to the edge of the traveled road creates a t\pe of development not currently existing in Orono. The Planning Commission should discuss this issue and determine what impacts result with the close setbacks, both visually and functionally The applicant has proposed 3-siall garage on all lots except lot 4 of block 2. Some garages are side-load where others are front-load. The lots that show a side-load garage show driveways that overlap onto the neighboring property. The applicant should determine if all the lots, in this particular layout, can support a three stall garage. The Planning Commission should also discuss the site fimctionality and any visual appeal issues with the garages being proposed in front of the house. Overall, staff feels the lot layout may be too intense. The applicants arc proposing to maximize the 4.0 unii/acre dcruity with single family lots. Staff feels the concept of providing this t>pe of housing product in Orono is positive, however, maybe not throughout the entire site. The Planning Commission should discuss the CMP recommendation for mixed housing txpes and a 2.5 unii'acre density and dctenninc if this proposal meets the intent of the re-guiding Road Layout and Standards The proposed road layout consists of a horse-shoe system with access onto Oi l Cry stal Day Road, a minor arterial, where the two ends terminate at tlic western boundary of the property. The proposed road is 26’ in paved width located within a 50’ platted conidor. It can be assumed to be public due to the large number of units that potentially would be served by this access and a future access at Highway 12 once the Dumas property develops. The applicant's intention with the dead ends at the western boundary of the plat is to provide access for the future development of the Dumas property. Staff feels there is some risk in allowing this property to develop, specifically the roadway system, without at least thinking how the Dumas property might develop bearing in mind the intentions with the CMP. The CMP has guided both properties for the same mixed use at an ideal overall density of 2.5 unitsacre. The Plaiming Commission may want the applicant to demonstrate how the Dumas property might develop to illustrate that the roadway system proposed makes sense. •04.3027 June 21.2004 Petes of? The applicants have also proposed gathering spaces within the roadway system. Staff will discuss these gathering spaces in more detail later in this report, however the locations of these spaces within the public right-of-way is not ideal from a maintenance and safety standpoint. Park/Trail Easement or Dedication Needed The CMP docs not indicate any future trails along Old Cry stal Bay Road or Highway 12 where the subject property abuts. A trail is proposed to be constructed within the applicant’s property connecting to the southwest comer of Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road, where the trail on the cast side of Old Crystal Bay Road can be easily accessed. There is also a trail access point at the development's Old Crystal Bay Road access. The applicants have proposed an interior sidewalk sy stem on the east side of the proposed horse-shoe roadway system with connections to the gathering spaces located within the right-of-way. The Planning Commission should discuss what kind of trail system they’d like to sec within the property and connections to the trails e.xisting outside the property boundaries. A wetland, comprising approximately 4.00 acres exists in the west half of the property. The current design of the lots gives half of the homes the visual amenity of the wetland. The Planning Commission may want to discuss if this is the best use of the wetland or if a trail, or some common space, could be included next to the 35 ’ wetland buffer in an effort to create a more user-friendly common gathering space The applicants have proposed two gathering spaces located withm the right-of-way. Within the gathering spaces the applicants have proposed sand boxes, benches and connections to the trails proposed. Staff feels the site should provide some type of common space, however the proposed gathering spaces are somewhat isolated due to their location within the right-of-way. Staff wx)uld suggest that the applicant consider implementation of a small neighborhood park w ith play ground equipment that possible abuts the wetland. Tlic Planning Commission should speak more specifically to what type of common space they’d like to sec within the development, bearing in mind the number of units it would serve. Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed Due to the density proposed, staff would conclude that the roadway sy stem would be publicly owTied and maintained. The City would also require standard perimeter and drainage easements around all property boundaries as well as tonscraation and flowagc easements over the delineated wetland. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements Dcvelormcnt of the property will require creation of NURP ponds to collect stormwater generated from the development of the property. The proposed plan show, the creation of two ponds adjacent to the wetland. The property will also be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee. Based on the proposed density, this fee would be S4,860/acrc under the 2004 Fee Schedule La. •04-3027 June 21.2004 Pege 6 of 7 Utility Locations and Availability The property would be served by public sewer and water. It is assumed that all other utilities will be underground aitd located within the right-of-way. Lakeshore Proximity and Conformity w ith Shoreland Regulations This property is not located within the Shoreland Overlay District and is therefore not subject to hardcover or lake setbacks. It should be noted however that the Dumas property to the west is located within the Shoreland Overlay District and hardcover standard wili have to be reviewed at the time of development. This may have an indirect effect on how the applicant proposes to develop this property. Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted As mentioned earlier in this report, the City will require a Flowage and Conservation Easement over the wetland designated on the site. The applicant is advised to avoid any impacts to wxtlands which can be avoided by proper site layout The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MC>M3) is the City's LGU for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act rules. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts The site is extremely flat and open however, the developer would be encouraged to preserve as much existing vc';?tation as possible, especially along existing Highway 12, the Highway 12 Bypass and Old Crystal Bay Road. The Planning Commission should discuss berm <uilding and further vegetation requirements along the north, south, and eastern lots lines in an effort to reduce any negative impacts, such as noise, that result from heavy levels of traffic. Issues for Discussion 1. Although the plan proposes 4.0 units per acre, are the goals established under the Community Management Plan addressed? 2. Could the City benefit from a development, such as this? If so. should the entire property be developed in this manner, or should this 13 acres incorporate more than one style of houses? 3. Is the issue of mixed use of single family residences and towTihouses addressed? Should this property development under one single use? 4. Should the City allow the property tc he developed without developing at least a “vision" of how the Dumas piece to the west might be included'’ 5. If the Dumas property develops a townhouse use, are there possibilities for negative transitions through this proposed development? 6. Arc the setbacks proposed reasonable? Can the site support 50 single family lots? 7. Should the developer be encouraged to develop a plan that includes townhouses MI4O027 J hm21.2004 Pagt7*f7 along the adjacent right-of-ways and develop single family lots in the interior? 8. Should the wetland be treated as an amenity to be shared with the entire development? 9. With development at a density somewhat new to the City; to protect the aesthetics of the existing rural development, and also to protect future owner’s of these properties, would specific exterior finishes for the buildings help lessen the density impacts? 10. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Summary The goal of this review is to provide the developer with an overview of the pertinent City ordinances and how they affect the proposed plat, and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposid. The above “Issues for Discussion" reveal a number of issues with the proposed plat and should provide direction to the applicants regarding the plat. Planning Commission should review ’ each topic and identify any issues to which the developer should pay special attention. exhibit a Application^^ O-f ~ 7 Date Recoivod CITY OF ORONO • GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION C PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 0<:^D C.\2.MSrAt. /hy^f) 12. Type of Applicat'on to be Fiied Pc-r^ ~~ ' Properly Identification Number (p.l.p.) 33-//&-13 cv gtc«g or<^j APPLICANT_ _ Name^ o^t/j^HtrLL. Oc t/cca p^nr/^/ C/o Ccpk/m-i/^ Phone (home)______________Phone(work) Address t^OSZ. ^ ' " 2o«:- d’cOi . City 5r Rca,’. i~4, i j^D 3/3- Phone (home) Address z./sou 7 Date Pra^dy Acquired __________ I (do) Qon^also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - Phor»a (work) '~f ^'L-9'0/ co Chv jykCctSfc.z (month/year) . S600.00 Residential Accessory Use . $600.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) . $600.00 Guest Hous^Guest Apartments . $600.00 Duplex Credlt/3!dg . $600.00 Commercial/lnduslrial Use . $600.00 Land Alteration + Permit -------- Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Gradi.ng and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining v/alls vdthin 75* of lakeshorc - PPD/PID - see Fee Schedule ----------$250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original applicaton) _____ After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS .. $600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (”♦• consultant fees) ,$600.00 Vacation . _ $600.00 Easement Vacation __ $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _ $600.00 RezonIng (PUD • refer to fee schedule) $600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ^ $100.00 Appeals other - see Fee Schedule* i iS~0 <^{/isTOri for/J IIH 0Za/l9Bd CU-1 !imr?Z5!4 CNoiio io Aii>^Ji ■diprg mi-u-tpn r REQUI^D SUBMITTALS 1. ^ Completed Application Form. 2. Aj/a Describe request in detail. 3. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Henneph County Deparjr.cnt of Finance. Government Center, A-6C3 300 South S’" Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612-343-5910). 4. Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. 5- Attach legal description to application if not Included on required survey. 6- ^^Topographic survey (existing and proposed conteurs) if land alterations Involve changes In elevation (grades). 8. 9. List of the legal names (Include marital status) of all persons with an Interest In the property. This would include name(s) of appllcant(s) if not current /ownor(s). V ^ Construction plan. If applicable (sec staff for requirements). 5/r/2-"#^ cYa As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of a.ny other persons you wish notified of this appi.ealion. ‘tOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff vriil require scaled drawings of all documents, plans, etc. tc be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete If the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Departnentthat Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:___________________________Oate APPLICANTS SIGNATURE The applicant hereby ag.'oes to provide all Information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by cricinal fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred In review of this application, and certifies that the Information supplied j^|^cn5o^ to the best of hismer knowledge. Applicant's signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this appPcalion and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date ^pEe»nt must hav# aD subnJta:$ Into ths Dty offees 25 days before the Planning Commissdn Mtetin;. Plarunlng Commission MeeSrsi art held on the third Ktondey of each month. Appficanti must be present at as scheduled review meeUngs of the Planning Commission and CouncH. If an applicant Is unable to attmd ■ scheduled mee^, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend In yocr place and advise the BuUdtng & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. IIM OZO/iOl d IM-i iiirsmsi^CIOO do UI>«Ji *<IS:rQ »ooz-zz-<m .L IPUN SUICMAXYI IPAHIQHO SUICICARYl IHOTCSI 1% % 4 ■ !»«««# ft ««ftf •*•§♦ » A# t*f •» •.* t ttf •< •* C«*V^ *•• t.^ •• ft m Ml I Jw 3 • M •«• I «« t *•«.« «•%?« 4 ^J^" EXHIBIT B BRENSHELL DEVEU)I>MENT,U jC tT ■oMracHAMPan liaBP^w utmmwnm omtA’oi OK.ETCM »*U^M REVIEW AnUl22.2004 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD PARCEL on.owo. N/fiM LANDFORM ^sssusr -tsrsamcr. nm—wrMnnA> BCAU rtrr C2.1 EXHIBIT C Q (I>aUlLS>'va r-<pe s o EML-4«aSED GATHEfglNO SPACg 1 ^1 ji 1 cat i:—B—j O Bwi’»D.NCa Tr«S C Q BU’LDNS TY»fO o Sw»Lg:scj *rps E 4 KAU n rtn BRENSHELL DEVELOPMENT. LLC MO4«L*«0 fTlCCT fT •OKifAC*AM%ar» •tAjtr «MM*art i^«P r=?cs “'Iar “‘^“‘ =.~‘ •.*r.-j=5=ri=*-==rsr SICETCH rL/M>4 REV1BW Antl2Z20(M OLDCRYSTALBAYRD PARCEL OR.ONO. ivirM LANDFORM o»Ara: C2.2 ioasi EXHIBIT C I Q BUIL3-VJ S Q ENLA'^SED fiATnEWNG SPACE tr 1' J 1 ^ J $ «•« -----------K--------- 0 FVi'_C.NCt Tr*»E c 0 Tr«E D 0 g^*LC.\^ -VPS E 0 PVt.AgQEP r^ATMER'Sa SPACE, 4 W X4U t% rtrr BRENSHELL DEVELOPMENT. LLC «uauu.o«ncxT rr naircvA w» an 0«'»«>*Dk 3K.ETCH rUiNN Review AnU72.20(H OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD PARCEL OU.ONO. IS/IIM LANDFORM *sxr=r. C2.2 ISTAKDARC rASEUEKTSanBHMB ■ area SVMMAR7I INOTCSI !■ iis:2: -.it tt- -I- -?■ ^.?ii V;5 itinm J- •-« « ««■ » ««~* r<o>^ ««• V «• t?S;£r£ri:^ S-—- r.^-4 9 M IM sc&ut tH mr EXmBlT D BRENSHELL UDTLOPMENT.LLC «u(UKLA« rvrr fr toPi r*CA«MPimn Ob\ftP«fl «Af i' r=*I' csrv«*v> !r=’.'r.’as^5‘4=i=sr — &K.ETCM ^l.>»ts: REVIEW AnU.22.20O* OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD PARCEL ORONO. r./ir.j LANDFORM rUUMMV»v C5.1 L EXHIBIT E 6TH AV. N. Lake Classen WAYZATABLVO. 2 KELLon SiteO ------ \C JSm At I PROPOSED HIGHWAY 12 Parcel Group 3^ C jty Of Long Lake WAIERTOWN RO V J! Parcel Group l G-aW Pp*•yvv .«»* P-4 au.*«ur, •• » k' le .w‘»«r atkeeii •-• J>~» ^ «k • k'tr^ '•**»■* "*a »•<«< y«M»t •»•••» ^jk ' • par-kp » 4Vp»V« PfcaLSfegP-L- ■«.•■ iakfora^.P^kArk**-# :*.»v-k —J-. taw««G.«eP«< •»« » -^» •••^■» P* ' * (Pw^oS^Paa tae-k-pa) aMkiakM PM'>a*a-a-. •.«>><• aknatepk. ,•/4 .•» «fp Parcel Croup 3: »a« a^ VapkPp* |•♦^;. l"P» »^.'#a • /»• » J ta-<k<» P ' aw a* > •*••« "Hill- rr " r »k*«-a-* , .-»aa •»«•» » *• a * »•♦% >• J > .*•♦ ip •»"• Cowwnerctal Area Between WiHoi«r Dr. arid Brown RJ • _____ • «rv]«rV<« L eiai»e ^ « Highway 12 Areas Proposed for Change City of Orono Minnesota MAP 3B- V *v/ CMP Part 3B. Land Use PUn Table 3B-5b: Areas Proposed for Higher Denslt}- Residential Development - Site B Site Description: SITEB (Parcel Group 2, Map 3B-7) 55 acres located bets^een Highway 12 and the Burlington Northern Railroad property, abutting and just west of Old Crystal Bay Road. Property mc.udes S separate tax parcels with S existing residences plus outbuildings, and is currently zoned for single family rural descloprrent at a density of I unit per 2 acres. The new Highway 12 route is planned to abut the south side of th-s property, paralleling the railroad track.______________________________________ Site CharfeHriHjgii Gross site area east of major wetland: 51 acres t Area of additional wetlands in east half of six: - 4 acres * Area to be lost due to Hwy 12 b>pass . iJLlSga 1 Net dry buildablc for development: 49 acres t Easterly 23 acres is relatively r.at with high-watertable soils and interspersed wetland pockeu Not easily developable with septic systems. .Mostly open fields that have been fanned previously. Westerly 30 acres has 5V#-15% slopes, eventually dropping a total of 50' down to major wetland basin Soils art bener suited for use of septic systems, but slopes may be a factor for individual sites This area is more wooded and conuini apple orchard. Site B Rcsidtniial Development Options: Dfniitv parameter Dwelling t’n.iti Density This site has a number of factors which make it u..attractive for 2-acre rural residential development as cunently zoned, including Location between two highway corridors is not conducive to rural development . Location across from Industrial Park is rot conducive to rural development Six abuts one of the busiest intersections in Orono. • East half of sue is poorly suited for development with septic systems Current 2*acrc zoning l6-liL’niU 0.3unit4ae (septic systems) 2-acrc zoning 23*22 Units 0.4 uniu'ac (sewered, standard plat) 2*acrc zoning 24 Units 0.5 ur.its.ac. (sewered. PRD) t*acrc zoning 42-44 Ur.i'.s O.S units'ac (sewered, standard plat) l-acre toning 47-4S Uniu 0.9 units ac (sewered. PRD) l/2*icre zoning 50-85 Uma I Sumaac (sewered, standard plat) lf2*acre zoning 93-100 UniU l.Sunitsac (sewered. PRD) 3 onit/ncre PRD 140 L'nitt 3.0 units-ac. Municipal sewer and water are relatively available as compared to most other areas cf the City , the site is adjacent to exisrmg MUSA and is a logical MUSA expansion poJiL This site has direct access to arena! and collector road sysi and is relatively near urban services as compa.vd to mos. other areas of the City Furthermore, this site U separated from existuig rural neighborhoods by the Orono Schools, by existing wetlands, by the existing railroad, and by existing and future road railroad comdors. Because of these separations, development at higher densities will have little impact on adjacent niral character neighborhoods._________ Preferred Dcvelonment Option; Mil of 0.5 units'ac SFR & 4 unitvac townhomei 120 Units 2.5unitsac. City of Orono Community Manngemcnt Plan Scpttwbcr 2000 Page 3B-35 r? 'i: [ • '■ . * '■‘*Y 1 •? I . ■I ' r ' -/.<; -rrr< r-* .*» • -? ■• ,i.r -■ft ■. • ; I. *'•■ - ; • ' • -'t r"-% V ZONING APPUrATIQNS fCONT.^ STORM WATKR AND DRAINACF TRUNK FEES Ajiptlfahlj CjMie Scrlion See. 14 2X1 Him 14-2X7 \ Storm water trunk fees apply to ne%v development and rtdevciopmcnl of ciivling proper lies and prn> idr fundint; (or (lie «lnr ni water intraslnirlurr nrrrvtary to serve the Cily. The trunk fee is based on the land use and arrea|>c of (he properly heinc developed. An equivalency factor multiplier is assi|;nrd to each land use type, with a 2-aere residential lot considered as the standanl in the City vvilli an er|ulvatrnev factor of 1.0. *1 he table below lists (he storm water trunk fees per acre for the various lonine districts and land uses in the Cily, with a base fee of S2.700 per acre. 2003 Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fees New Dcvrlopmenl 1'runk Fee/ Unit Hvr Acre Single Ftouly Residenlial 5 Acre /.one (1)S2.I60 Single Family Kesideniial 2 Acic /ame *2.700 Suigic Family Rcsidcniial 1 Acte Zone 11,*I0 Single Fanniy Kesidinlul *.'• Atie Zone 14,0*0 Multi Family Rcsulenoal 4 Uniti/Acic ot Ixis 14.X60 Multi l-amily Hcsidi'nlial Gtcalcr than 4 Umis/Acie lS.f.70 CiNiuiKicul or lraluvlii.il V..4M) t •) ttufTfr faerrinn (ititiKiHW l-ni the 5 ioe mning JiOiKl.aiulAluM ot uplo MnSof IK. Itunl Ice lt» iSc ka will be (Uiraeii tiw ilic pocenupr of Oic ba pculctuvl by pc<in«lri anVee dranage w»j bi.(lti cascnvnn Theae bullet eatetiKnl aicat vball renuin at a naiMci< tondaion (}| Maiitwin i Tee lor ike S acic roning < .tinci. an/ Ira (icredinf 7 0 (041 acics Mctud>n( wet'and. Shall be rha'rrat j maimwm iiuok fee ct(tat mi ihe tnmk Ire lor a 7 0 act, iwiiil .SimIi ha »l.j' .m<Mi cl>(ililc lia the up Mi S<i% ftdwciwvi niMcit Ml (I) above, sir h tedm law haled nn Ihc pnrcnUgt ol 7 0 acics ikal is placed m bulIW rasenaall (I) Mavireimktc l or Ike 7 acre ft«in( diiuals. any ka ocie<li»( 4 U ('lat aim UHluil.ni laeltrHl, ihall be ctuigrd a miiiinuni liu«k Ice 0|ual lu Ihc bunk Ice lir a 4 0 ac>e patcel^ Rcdcveinpiuciil projects will he ileiiiied as niiy project In cither remove and replace ciivlini: slriicliircs or to eidarcc ctivliii|; alrucluics. These projects sviil he charged a portion of the base trunk fee adjusted fur Ihe area ot espansion ot impervious surface above the ciisliiig condllions. I he table below lists Ihe base trunk fee based on Ihe area of impervious surface etpanvian and adjiislcd for the l)peof land use. Tlir Itnnk lee shall be determined by multiplying the appropriate fee by the acreage of the development tile. Area a' Impervlaus Surfarc Residential Rrdcvciapment ar Espansion CoBunertial ar Industrial Etpanslan of Esisling Uevciopmeni Redevetopmenl ar Espansion of Editing Trunk Frc/Acre Development Trunk Kee/Acre 0-1 (MM) Square l ed S'iSU *2.270 1000-2000 Square Feet SI.S90 S4.il* More than 2000 Square Fed S2.700 S6.4I0 r*ig S H S 2004 Fee Schedule-Page 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #01-2671 AUSTAIR AND KAREN JACQI ES, Continued) 2001, the application was delayed when septic sites could not be located. In 2003 City sewer became available to the site and. subsequently, the applicant activated the application for a new home construction. GafTron indicated the property is not located within the Shorcland Overlay District and therefore is not subject to hardcover restrictions. GafTron reported the proposed plans meet all other zoning requirements c.xcept for lot area, referring to the Lot Analysis Worksheet included in the agenda packet. He concluded that a valid hardship exists and that the lot IS a legal loiHif-record. that a home existed thae for many years pn»>r to its demolition in 2001. and that there are other properties along the same stretch of Old Long Lake Road which are under the 2 acre requirement so It IS in keeping w ith the neighborhood lot sizes. GafTron slated staff supports the tut area variance GafTron e.xplaincd access to the house is from Old Long Ijike Road with a proposed second access, requmng the Public Services Director's approval The garage is facing the side lot line with a 30'setback required, leaving about a 25’ apron upon a slope that is a potential concern, pahaps needing a retaining wall which by code must be at least 5* from the side lot line, and there are some existing trees to contend w ith if moved to the left. GafTron advised drainage would have to be controlled in this area as the neighbor’s house is near-by GafTron encouraged the Planning fommission to considsr shifting the house site lo the west lo make the easterly side lol less of a dift'icult area. In addition and not pan of this application, the applicant is proistHing to construct a 30’ \ 18’ pool to be located 15’ from the east and south lot lines which meets code requirements. The pool plan includes a terrace patio that will require retaining walls ranging from 1 ’ to 6’ in height, y from the lot line. He indicated a screening or .safety fence aKivc the wall* will probably be placed by the property owners resulting in a potential visual impact equivalent to a building wall as much as 12* high. 5’ from the rear lot line, though not required by City code Gaffton advised that the City docs nut have established setbacks friKTi the Luce Line nght-of-way and the proposed pool liKation is only 40’ from the Luce Line Me pi'-nted out that a greater side lot setback and Icss-visual impact to the neighbors w oulJ occur w ith a site plan that was shifted to the west. Chair .Mabusih invited the applicant. Alisuir Jacques, to comment. Mr. Jacques advised that the house's position is not yet finalized and they arc convideriiig a number of factors, including the neighbor’s interest relative to the driveway locat;on ('hair Mabusth a»ked for public comments Matt ‘vherek, 625 Old Long Lake Road, adv ised he is the easterly neighbor lo the subject property and is not opposed to the residential construction, and has reviewed the applicant’s plans. He explained his residence was built in 1956 and was situated to maximize nature enjoyment, upen space and to envure projnrr surface w ater drainage to meet code It is located on a nsc in the N'W comer of the 1 5-acre lot. sloping down to a low marsh on the east. Mr Sherck stated the applicant’s plan for the garage and dnveway encroaches into the 30’ side yard setback in the very comer closest lo his residence rendering his home and garage almost to town hoiiK staiu.s. not to mention serious questions about effects of water and drainage lo his home and the mar<h. He concluded that the applicant’s house garage driveway location would destroy the ambience and secmsion of the land enjoyed by he and his family as well as lowering the re-sale value of hts home and property by situating the most highly traveled, noise-producing portion of any h' me. the driveway and garage, directly upon his property line. Page 2 0140 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. RL_ (4. MI-2671 ALISTAIR AND KARE.N JACQl'ES, ronlinard) Mr. Shcrek explained he re%iewed the Orono Community Management Plan and read several par.igraphs into the record that he felt captured the core values expressed throughout the entire CMP Section 3. Environment Protection Plan. The Natural Setting. “ ...the foremost goal.** CMP. Foundation, re; Rural Densities. **. no new development encroaches upon i»s neighbors open space activities.” Harza Study. Wetland Definition, re concern that it is not a wetland. “ .no development will be permitted to adversely impact its neighbors or the City by changing drainage patterns or otherwise adversely impacting storm water drainage.” Mr. Sherck asked the Planning Commission to view the proposed vanance application in light of the Community Management Plan and planning goals in the above-cited excerpts. In his opinion, the application goes against those core values, would negatively alter the drainage patterns to his property and the marsh located on his property by increasing the hardcover on the subject property as well as impacting his family's enjoyiment of natural amenities w hich they currently enjoy Mr. Sherek asked why the garage and dnseway mu.si be placed directly on the property line and wiihin the 30* side yard setback when there arc other location alternatives. Mr. Sherek restated that he is not opposing the variance and welcomes a residential biwlding but has a problem with the garage and ptxil liKated on the lot line. Plamiing Commissioner Bremer amved at 6; 15 p m Chair Mabusth asked for further public comments. Ms. Su‘m Thompson. 685 Old long Lake Road, the property just to the west of the subject property, indicated she reviewed the arpheant's plan and. as shown, it does not affect her property a; all but in a broader perspective, she felt there is so much negative eflcct to the neighbor to the cast of the subject property, that she would welcome the subject house garage driveway to be moved westerly in order to maintain neighbiirhood relationship She comm.nted that it insinuates an impact on the neighbors to ihc east in such a si^ificant way. noting spring run-off can affect then basements and knows it would more significantly affect the eastaly neighbors Mv Thompson recommended the applicant move the hou.se site to the west to relieve vignificant negalive impacts to the easterly neighbors. Chair Mabusth asked for adoitional public comments. There were none. Rahn asked if the applicant had any comments after hearing Mr Sherek's and Ms Thompson s concerns. Rahn acknow Icdgcd the appli.'ation is for a lot area vanance but if it does in fact result in drainage issues, the Planning Commission is not compelled to recommend approval of the application Me sUled it would be beneficial to all to have a site plan of exactly where ihe pool and house wuuld be constructed and then to get accurate neighbor comments Mr. Jacques repealed that no exact house site has been selected yet and explained i.Vcy were trying to accomplish the lot area vanance first, followed by the building ^nnit prtxcss The house was situaicsl as easterly as it is shown on the vanance application because when planning was started they did not know if there was a wetland to the west. Subsequently, tests were conducted and .Mr. Jacques advised that there arc no wetland impacts to the west of the proposed house site. He offered to move the hou-c site westerly to more centrally locate it on the lot and stated they had no objection to moving the proposed house :iie. Chair Mabusth opened the discussion to Planning Commission iiKmbcrs. Page 3 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (4. MOl-2671 ALISTAIR AND KAREN JACQL ES, Contioued) Fntzlcr asked who did the wetland testing. Mr. Jacques replied it was done about 1 ' i years ago and did not remember the name of the testing company, but that an accredited wetland tester did it and that he thought a report w-as submitted to the planning staff. Gaffron responded he did not recall seeing a wetland report in the city's file. Using E.xhibit G.. he pointed out an apparent drainage way mid-way between the e.ustmg house site on the property and the neighbor to the west, and. if m fact, the area was not wetlands, then there would be no issue of wetland impact If. however, there is wetland up to the %8* contour, there appears to be substantial room to mov e the house site westerly. Gaffron concluded he did not see a (wtential wetland impact and concuned it was logical to more centrally locale the proposed house site. Jurgens asked for clarification of the required wetland set back dimension and it was pointed out the w etland set back is 26’. lie also asked if the .Minnesota Department of Natural Resources must review the application due to the proximity to the Luce Line Trail. Gaffron advi>ed the .Minncsoia Department ol Natural Resources received Oronu Planning Commission agendas and notifies city staff w hen they have questions or comments on any applications Me advised no comments were received from the Minnesota IXrpartment of Natural Resources on this application Jurgens questioned the prtKess following granling of a lot area \ariance and review mg the proposed house location on the lot. Gaffron explained site drainage issues are reviewed when the applicant applies for a building permit He suggested the Planning Commission could add a condition in recommending approval of the lot area v ariancc that centrally locates the house However. Gaffron noted that if the applicant were not agreeable to that condiiion. It would not be enforceable. Mr. Jacques stated that he was willing to accept the condition of centrally locating the house and pool. Chair Mabusth summan/ed that centrally located the house and pool liKation results :n a larger setback than the proposed location at the side yard setback and 15' pool rear yard setback Chair Mabus'h called foi further public cunui>ents There were none Jurgens moved. Leslie seconded, to recommend approval of Application «01-267l. Alistair and Karen Jacques, 645 Old Long Lake Road, granting a lot area variance to permit construction of a ness residence on an existing lot which Is 1.022 acres in area when 2.0 acres is nurnial'v required, with the condition that the proposed bouse/garage/poo I is more centrally Incaicd on the lot than that shnssn on the variance application. VOTE; Ayes 7, Nays 0. Fnt/lcr inquired about a trailer that may be on Jacques' property .Mr. Jacques indicated he was not aware of any trailer behind his shed .Ms. Ihumpson responded that it was on her property Gaffron advised Applicatiwt aO 1-2671 will be scheduled for the June 14.2004 City Council session. Pi^e 4 of 40 L- MINXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY P. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. 5. #04-2974 Rf:LLVNCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP. ~STONEBAY MARKfl^rTl^E ~ MV Ql’ADRANT HWY 12AMLLOW DRINT, COMMERCIAL PCD DE\ ELOPMENT CO.NTLMATION OF PI BLIC HEARING (6:28-6:59 p.m.) John Trautz. Reliance Development. Vickie \’an Dell. Landform Engineenng and Mike Spina. Amcon Constniction. the applicant's representative^, x^cre preMrni. Gaffron reported the receipt of the Waiver of Further Renew of the Orono Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the propo^d Commeicial PL’D Development from the Metropolitan Council on May 17.2004. completing that par, of the applicatuin The Comprehensive Plan Amendment w ill be brought to the Citv ’ Council for final action GalTron advised rev ised plans were submitted to the Cfy on May 7. 2004 subsequent to recommendations made to the applicants by the Plan-ing Commission on April 19. 2004. He outlined several facets of the revised commercial site plans, relemng to the Staff Report, dated .May 13, 2004: I Conformity with Comprehmsive Plan - Stall believes the current proposal generally meets the parameters established in the CMP amendment for development of this site. 2. Conformity to B-6 PL’D Standards A. AlloH fd Csei. The proposed buildings and site la>out would reasonably accommodate many of the uses on the proposed list of allowable uses B / gy Area and If idth. Required area and w idth for B-6 are 2 0 acres and UHV. TJic proposed preliminary plat creates two lots: Lot I - 1 98 acres 370*. and I ot 2 = 1.71 acres and I3> . Both lots arc sligntly undersized in area; however, the site at 3.69 acres is limited by having no additional land av ailable Staff recommends approval of the lot area and w idths as proposed C. Setback requirements and cor.formitv were includcu m the April 15 memo, indicating that all setback requirements are met except for the west side setback for the westerly retail building, which is proposed at 20' rather than 35*. Staff recommends approval for this 20' setback as discussed in the April 15 memo. The setback vanance allows additional green space on the east end and also diH-s not cause the crowding effect because there arc no buildings to the west to have visual crowding impacts D [)rainaj>f. Ibe drainage plan is in place as part of the Stonebav subdivision with all drainage from the site going to the adjacent regional pond. ' L. Suilding Ht iuhf. U-6 height limit is 30’. The Walgreens building has a roof peak height o* .78 3" for the bulk of the building, and 32 ’o" for the entrance comer •parapet' roof peak. The retail buildings have a basic height of 24 -8'’ with gable peaks extending to 33'-4 5" high Staff recommends acceptance of these heights as proposed as they ».bstantially meet expectations F Oaffron illustrated the building layout and refened to I xhibits L2.1 and L7.1. the landscaping plans and details for this property These plans meet the general B-6 guidelines in terms of required infotnution detail. The applicants indicated in their revised narrative that the proposed landscr mg exceeds the requirements of the B-6 District. Gaflfon stated the building layout a^omplished a number of city goals, mcluding improv ed landscaping areas inside _____________________the parking lot with a changed number of green spaces. He commented that a Page 5 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (5. «04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. LLP, Coatinucd) critical landscaping area is behind the buildings because of the ex'sting and under- construction tovkTi homes across Kelley Parkssay The landscape plans \sctc submitted to Phil Carlson of DMInc for resness and comment His comments arc attached as Exhibit K and arc summarized as follows: 2. Plans appear to meet the B-6 landscaping requircn.cnts. 3. Imgatiun of all landscape areas w ill be required and must be shown on final plans 4. Performance bond (letter of credit) will be required 5. l oading area screening at rear of buildings is adequate but could be beefed up Gaffron pointed out boulevard trees as well as shrubbery , with substantial areas of low bemiing and vegetation. He referred to the agenda |iackct matenals containing cross-sectional \icw s to gi\e ' the neighbonng properties to the north will vicvs of what 8. t bound and nnif mounted mechanical equipment appears to be .iiicqualely screened Parking area island just outside Walgreens entrance dixws should be vegetated (llowcrs or shrubs) rather than simply concieic Add sidewalk connection fn in Willow 12 intc'^section to Walgreens entrance Gaffron explained that while there ate a number of sanable-pasement style conr.eciions. Phil Carlson of DSU, Inc. points out the advantage of having a pedestrian connection that docs not lorcc mosement across the Willow entrance but would bring pedestrians across the parking lot in a m«ire direct path It would result in a loss of one parking stall ti> make the pedestrian crossing but parking space calculations ate actually • 1 parking space above the requiremoni Gaffron illustrated the additional detail pros ided regarding screening of trash facilities at the rear of the buildings shown in Plan Sheet L2 1 and the two C ross-Section Exhibits He expre.ssed that staJTbelieves the screening hniks adequate but it could be beefed up a bit. G. An hili\ lurat Standards .Applicant lias adviMx! that lie w ill work w ith the City to piovide a face brick color acceptable *o all parties. Applicant has provided samples of building exterior material samples for revew and approval, incorporating darker colored brick. Revised elevations of the two westerly retail buildings have been submitted, and they appear to incorporate a variety of architectural features m common with the Walgreens building 3. Additional Site Plan l lcnients A Pede\tricn Aaey\ Gaffron reiterated the recommendation for a more direct designated pedestrian connection to the Walgreens mam entry from the Willow Drive and should be incoriioratcd into the plans. H > ehh le ( ircutafion. Gaffron reponed that Sheldon Johnson, Omno's traf..*. consultant with Boncstioo and Associates, reviewed the latest revisions and indicate^ ,o stalTthat the layout IS acceptable and that his prior recommendations regarding traffic circulation have been incorporated uito the plans. The nght-in. nght-out access to WiP'sw has been refined to meet turning ra.hus standards, and should function adequately He ii ws'mmends. and suff concurs, that signage be installed warning drivers cnterir..; th • Walgreens dmc-ihru from the west to yield to. and watch for. incoming vehicles at ihc right-m. right 'ut. Page 6 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6 00 o'clock p m. (5. #04-2974 RELIA.NCE DEVEI.OP.MF.NT COMPANY, I.EP, Conilnucd) C. Required Parkins. Gaffron pointed out lhal in accordance w.th past Planning; Commission ducussions, the proposed 150-staII number exceeds by one stall the requirements established for the site in terms of accepting Walgreens bO stall need and the remaining rctai: at the City requirement of I stall per 150 s f. of net retail space. Even if a stall IS lost to provide the suggested iKdestnan connection from Walgreens to the Willow 12 comer, the parking needs »ill be met Staff recommends approval of the parking plan as designed. D. l.ot Corerace. Ciaffron refened to numerous pnor Planning CommisMon discussions regarding where there is a substandard lot created and applying the 15".. lot coverage requirement as required ? y Code Section 78-140.) which limits lots of 0-1 09 acres in area to I5 “i> lot coverage by structures lltc subdivision of the subject properly results in the following: - Lot I (86.268 s.f or I.9S acres! is proposed with buildings totaling I.U9.M) s f or l6.I1o coverage - Lot 2 (74.428 s f) is nroposed with buildings totalirg 14,820 s f or 19 coverage - Overall coverage of the 3 (i9-acrc site is proposed at 17 9"o. not including freestanding trash enclosures Ciaffron supplied information on the small number of developing or redeveloping commercial sites in Orono that were subject to the 1 5 “o lot coverage requirement. These include Service htK) on llwy 12 (0,96 acres. 26 l"o lot coverage) • pre*e.xis:ing site C'ulver's in Navarre (I 52 acres. 20 2"o Uit coverage) - pre-existing site Snyder’s in Navarre (I 9 acres. I4“* lot coverage) - pre-e\ist;itg site Wagner Rental in Navarre (1 2 acres. 12 “o lot coverage) - prc-eMstin-: site The dental office on Kelley Parkway was a pre-existing 2 0-acre lot and not subject to the lot coverage limit It has about 18"o lot coverage CialTion >tated that from staff s perspective the overage above the 15"» is not an issue here and appears to be reasonable given the limned amount of Mte He lecogni/ed the ('ornmunity Management Plan lefercnces holding to the I5 ”o limit but saw few potcrtial problems a.v the C ity has so few sites zoned for commercial uses tlut Ik lecomiiiciided iiuximi/iiig rather than underutili/ing the site He spoke of a balancing acf and needing to have balance when applying requirements with the Community Management Plan s goals and (Kilicies. I areeii Space. Under the current projnisal with the elimination of ptmif-of-parking', gteer -pace on the site will K- 26‘’«. which meets the 25'^o goal F- l otflini! Bert/1% and Trash t ndoyures. I ocation and details for loading berths and trash handling facilitie-. mcli'dmg cro>>->ectional views, were provided and shown on the phns G. Sianaye, The two pnmary monument signs are proposed at a dimension of lo high and 14 -8 " wide, exceeding the 10* width recently adopted for monument signs (See L.xhibit N. Ordinance No 6. Third Senes), including the pillar- The building wall signage appears to he cvinsis'ent with what would be expected for a algreens and a small retail center and meets aide standards The Stonebay .Monument at the comer of 1 2 Willow is acceptable to staff as designed. Page 7 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (5. I»04.2974 RELIANCE DE\ tLOPMENT COMPANY, LLP. CoBlIiitted) • Message Board. Orono codes prohibit the use of illuminated scrolling or flashing reader boards such as that proposed for the Walgreens monument. Staff early on suggested to the applicanU that the Walgreen signage not include a manual reader board, as they tend to be poorly maintained. Since then, it has been suggested that an Illuminati message board such as that proposed, but with only one message change per day and no flashing, sciollmg. etc would be more aiiraciisc than a manual board. Gaffron commented that the problem w ith albw mg the illuminated board as proposed is that it could require ongoing monitonng. and that once it goes up. ever>- other retail business in town w ill want one. but without the limitations. Approval of this one would set a negative precedent. He slated it would be an enforcement issue and potentially could see many other applications for an illuminated reader board sign from the Navarre area and llwy 12. At this time staff recommends that the illuminated board not he allowed, and that if a message board is proposed that it be a manual Kiard UehliHB. Gal Iron referenced the extenor parking lo: lighting plan shown on Sheet L2.I in the packet. It shows the standard box-type, downcast lighting fixtures but docs nut specifically show whether any building-mounted lightmg is proposed Staff recommends asking the applicant for this information. Also, Gaffron observed there is a fairly standardized lighting style for Stonebay Development and here at the commcicial comer there IS a question of w hether to have a more decorative fixture given this is intending to set the tone for the Stonebay residential development. EneineeHns Manm City Engineer Tom Kellogg provided his comments in Exhibit G dated Apnl 28.2004. He has also reviewed the .May 7.2004 plan set and his comments remain unchanged. His recomiTKndations relate pnmarily to mailers that will be addressed during the final plan stages of development. 4. I’rcliminary Plat Gaffron illustrated the two-lot layout resulting from the lot subdivision with separate ownerships. Walgreens' parcel and the parcel with the other two retail buildings 5. Rezoning Gaffron advised that the draft rezontng ordinance for the site has yet to be prepared by staff, but will be prepared for Planning Commission review at its June work .session prior to final Council action. GaiTron staled the Planning Commission had about 8-9 remaining issues to address: 1. Address approv al of the lot area and w idths as proposed, as well as the lot coverage issue. 2. Address approval of the w est side setback for Retail Building A. 3. Address acceptance of the ISO-stall parking proposal 4. .Address any remaining landscaping issues or concerns 5. Address the signage issues and ftexibilitv request. 6. Address height of buildings. 7. Address any concerns regarding facade coloranon or materials. 8. Address whether buildmg-mounted lighting is proposed. 9. Any other issues for eonsideration. Page 8 of 40 IL MLNUTES OF THE ORONO PI-ANNTNG COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (5. «04-2974 RKLIANCL DKVKLOP.MtNT COMPANY. LLP, Continued) GafTron recommended approval of the proposed Commercial Site Plan subject to the \ ar.ous recommendations in the text of the May 13.2004 Staff Report. Any motion to recommend approval should address the remaining issues, and prosidc clear direction to the applicant. Gaffrun believed the application is ready to be forwarded to the Cit>' CourKil subject to Planning Commission recommended conditions for approval Chair Mabusth asked the applicant if there were any questions to stuff, to Shelley Johnson, Engineer or Phil Carlson. DSL). Mr. John Iraute staled they are in agreement with just about everylhing identified by staff as outstanding issues. He accepted the 10* w ide requirement for the monument signs and the manual reader board. Mr. Trautz asked the Planning Commission lo consider not identifying the space in front of Walgreens ’ entrance as a landscaped area but as a walkway to the building's access point. He indicated landscaping features would make it more difTicult for patrons to enter the biiildinu and proposed some other treatment, such as painting Kempfasked if this area was raiM.*d .iKise the parking lot level Fntzlcr asked if a curb is proposed Mr. Trautz explained the area is flush to the parking lot surface and could be constructed with colored asphalt or stamped concrete. It provides an easy way for pedestnans to get to the Walgreens front doors. Frilzler asked for clanfication that it would not become a space for promotional 'sandwich* boards Trautz stated that there would be no st'^nage in this area Jurgens suted he assumed the area is not raised because of handicapped parking requirements, but a raised area could help guide traffic. He asked for information about how the transition occurs from parking lot to pedestnan walkway. Ms. Vicki Van Dell. Landform Engineering, explained the area is flush to the ground w ith vertical bollards at the front. Gaffron illustrated the Walgreens* access point and the 20* \ 20* area in quesrion Jurgens clar«ficd the area will not be raised and w ill have no curb along the face of the building and questioned if there w ill be bollards all the w ay down the length of the building. Ms. Van Dell explained there would be tw o bollards in front of the handicapped stalls, another one on the next stall oxer, and transitions .iito a full curb mg the rest of the building length Bremer commented that she had no problem with the proposed access area Rahn concurred stating it makes it easier to traverse mto the access point for Walgreens. Mr. Trautz exhibited the finished palette of exterior colors and distributed the samples to the Planning Commission. Page 9 of 4U MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (5. N04-2974 RELIANCL Ui' TLOP.MtNT COMPANY, LLP, CooUnucd) Mr. Mike Spina. Amcon Con>n jwtton, explained then- goal i^-as lo be consistent but not identical among the buildings. The bnck \snll match the Walgreens buildmg. fascia colors is ill be similar to Walgreens but the avknings will not match Walgreens. He stated their goal was to keep the building scale down to residential- tNpe scale with tlie gable grooves and some other building features. Chair Mahusth summanzed that the two retail buildings will base different c.Menuts than Walgiccns. Mr. Spina agreed somew hat. clanf>ing they will look difTerenl enough but not identical so it would not look like one big broad deselopmcnt. Kempf asked w here the blue color would be used. Mr. Spna tned to e.splam where the blue would be used and pointed out areas on the building elevation where the awnings are above the w indow s and doors. Rahn asked fur mrormation alMiut if tlie brick extends up to the gables. Mr. Spina showed on the building elevation where masonry or bnck will be used, pointing out the blue awmng above the glass, clanfying n>of and fascia colors, too. Chair Mabusth provided a copy of the McuopoliUn Council lencr. dated .May 14.2004. regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Stonebay Outiut A - Waiver of further review to the applicant. Chair Mabusth asked for additional Planning Commission comments concerning the extenor. She asked for their opinions if it does meet the established crilena. Rahn and Kempf concurred that it does meet the established cnicna. Mr. Traul/. referred to the issue of whether building-mounted lighting is proposed. He staled it is intended to have building-mounted lighting but had not provided the City w ith any samples Mr. Spina .nicnected that it was genencally desenbed in the submitted drawings elevations. It will be more a decorativT lighting, it will be completely cut-off and shielded with no projection of luin/ontal light Chair Mahioth asked the applicant if they heard GalTron's comments concerning the t>pc of lighting proposed for the light poles as not being warm and residential as in the rest of the Stonebay IX*vcIopment Gaffrun clarified that the ofl'icc area m the Stonebay Development docs use box-tvpc lighting, lie brought up the matter for discussion of whether to match commercial haling with the residential area, or lo match with what IS along the street or the site intenor. Chair Mabusth asked for information on the approved lighting for Kelley Parkway. Gaffron described it as somewhat screened but more visible and decorative. Ms. Van Dell clarified the lighting is spaced every 15* which is more residential and uses smalla scale, residential-type fixnires. Page 10 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 17.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (S. M4-2974 RELIANCE DEV’ELOPMENT COMPANY. LLP, Coniiancd) Mr. Tmutz added that commercial lighting needs are diflerent from residential and require more light intensity for safety. Because they want a higher light level in the commercial area, they proposed the box-type lighting as installed on the medical building. Leslie agreed with Mr. Trautz' comments, explaining his office is in a situation is here lack of lighting creates employee concerns. Jurgens asked if box-t>pe lighting is proposed for the office buildings and suggested differences in lighting styles might be desirable. Bremer commented that wnth Walgreens being open 24 hrs day there is a need for more light and perhaps different styles of lighting could be proposed, one for the residential side and one for the commercial Kempf stated that function comes first and the box-type lighting is the most appropriate t>pe throughout the parbng areas. However, he asked the applicant if they could tie in the lighting st> le from the residential area along Kelley Parkway and possibly around the edge of the parking area. Kempf funiter commented it is not neces.sary for the office area to be similar to the retail area, as the office area is with the City Hall area. Ms. Van Dell observed that upon review of the lighting plan that once building lights are shown on the rear of the buildings and acluaily show the locations of the Kelley Parkway fixtures, rear lights may not be needed at all. She adsnsed they would review this again Chair Mabusth asked the applicant if it does not w ork, did they have a problem w ith using a more complementary, residential-type light fixture on the north side of the property. Mr. Trautz pointed out that if the goal is to match what is on Kelley Parkway and it i> a residential-type light, many more lights fixtures would he necessary to get the correct light level. He commented he was not sure how to answer Chair Mabusth's question yet. Leslie pointed out there is a fair amount of screening between this development and the street, assuming the combination of the berm and tallw trees, and he advised he w ill request more trees to be included, that there will not be a direct, visible conflict between box-type lighting and the Kelley Parkway lighting fixtures. Kempf asked staff where the lighu arc located on Kelley Parkway, one or both sides of the street Gaflron confirmed the lights on Kelley Parkway are on both sides of the street with regular spacing. Fntzlcr asked for clanfication that if the Kelley Parkway lights were sufficient, no new lights would he on the buildings. Ms. Van Dell clarified that building lights will remain but there may not need to be additional lot lights. Bremer asked for information about the location of employee entrances. Mr. Trauu explained the service entrances are on the rear of the buildings. Gaflron recommended that functional lighting is needed at the rear of the building but does not have to be nearly as intense as the parking lot lights. He indicated he expected to see downcast box lighting fixtures on the rear of the buikluigs. Page 11 of40 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.in. <5. M4-2974 RELIANCE DE\'ELOP.MENT COMPANY, LLP, CoallaMc^) Chair Mabusth inxnted public comments at this time. Hcanng none, she closed the public hearing at 6:S9 p.m. She asked if the applicant had any further comments at this time; Mr. Trautz indicated there were none. Chair Mabusth directed discussion to the Summary of Remaining Issues to Address as outlined earlier by Gaflhin. t. Address approval of the lot area and viidths as proposed, as \s ell as the lot coverage issue. Chau Mabusth indicated this matter had already been fully discussed in prior discussions. She extended ■ thank you to Ms. V’an Dell uho prepared the Stonebay .Marketplace Narraiixe. 2. Address approval of the west side setback for Retail Building A. Chair Mabusth asked for confirmation from staff that the adjoining property to the subject property’s uest side currently is oivned by MnDOT and thereforr .s considered a side street requiring a 35’ building setback. Gaffron confirmed this information and added that in the future the MnDOT property with the storm water pond may become County or Orono property, which would nuke the subject property line an interior side instead of a side street, reducing the required setback from 35’ to IIV. Chair Mabusth asked w ho would be responsible for mainuuting the sitting areas proposed for Outlot B Gaffron replied that the applicant property owners ultimately are to be responsible as it is actually a part of the Stonebay Marketplace development, even if the improvements are on public land, and recommended the responsibility be stipulated in some form of written agreement. Chair Mabusth asked the Planning Commission if there were any problems w ith the proposed 20’ side yard setback. There were no objections. 3. Address acceptance of the 150-slall parking proposal. Chair Mabusth stated she was satisfied with 144-stalls as the applicant has demonstrated tlKy have met the B>I standard of 1 stall per 150 s f of net retail space, acknowledging that one stall may be lost with the pedcstnan walkway proposed by Phil Carlson. DSU. ‘There were no Planning Commission member objections. 4. Address any renuining landscape issues or concerns Leslie pointed out comments from Phil Carlson. DSC. including 'beefing up’ vegetative screenmg of loading areas, E.xhibit K. .Ms. Van Dell responded that there are exisiuig deciduous trees along Kelley Parkway and where there are trash enclosures very large evagreen trees are proposed to screen from the street, both on the west and middle retail building, as well as for the back of the pharmacy. With the proposed screenmg, Ms. N'an Dell stated they thtnk this IS adequate. Mr. Trautz indicated he did not oppose landscaping in the back to screen from residential. Leslie stated his pnnapti concern w as to screen the residenual from the commercial. Rahn commented the goal it to 100% screen Kelley Parkway from the trash dumpsters. Page 12 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONTDAY, MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (5. #04-2974 REUANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, CoatUmcd) Ms. Van Dell explained that are some smaller shrubs wth smaller deciduous bushes wth spacings of evergreens, and also some smaller shrubs with deciduous trees proposed. She acknow Icdgcd there would be a few- spaces to see through but not in the areas of the trash enclosures. Chair Mabusth inquired what will be the finished ele\-ation and how many feet will it be raised, commenting that the site is so level now. Ms. Van Dell explained that the ditch will be filled in and sodded, and building's final elevation w ill be about 24' w ith a final elevation of about 19' at Hwy 12. This w ill result in some gradual rise in elevation On the west side behind Retail Building A there is a drastic drop, down and around the curve and there will also be some reuining walls on the southwest comer. Chair Mabusth asked if there was still standing water in the ditch Ms Van Dell slated there was and explained that the development proposal includes a storm water pipe to move the sionn water faster to the pond. Chair Mabusth invited further questions, comments or requests from the Planning Commissioners. There were none on this issue. 5. Address the signage issues and llcxibility request Chair .Mabusth asked the applicant to explain their request for flexibility. Ms. Van Dell explained the request is for 62 s.f sign face area compared lo the 50 s.f maximum requirement in a typical B*I District. It will allow their sign face to be 10' wide and adequate space for up to three tenants on the retail sign and an illuminated message board on the pharmacy sign. Chair Mabusth confirmed that 62 s.f area request is the same for the Walgreen's sign w nh the reader board Mr. Trautz stated their signage request is substantially below the total signage allowed. Chair Mabusth concurred. Chair Mabusth asked the iqjplicant if they would reduce the sign width to 10'. Mr. Trautz and Ms. Van Dell agreed the sign width would be reduced to 10*. Gaffron pointed out the new sign ordinance allow s a 10' maximum w idth and also requires it to be framed. He asked Mr. Trautz how they proposed to design the sign wit...n the 10* maximum w idih Mr. Trautz stated it was important for the sign panel itself to be 10' x 6'and the sign cabinet itself could be mounted on a base, or framing could be added beyond the 10' x 6' area. Gafiron pointed out the new ordinance requires the framing and cap to be incorporated in the maximum sign width. Chair Mabusth asked the Planning Commissioners for their opinion on recommending approval of a sign width variance for the two monument signs, because the StoncBay sign, toully 40 s f. meets requiremcnu. Rahn staled as long as the sign proposaU meet the total aggregate square foouge requirements he would rather see something more appealing like the proposed sign. He also stated he preferred the illuminated reader board Page 13 of 40 MINUTES OF THE OROKO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (5. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMft:.NT COMPA.NY, LLP, CoDtinacd) as It IS more modem looking as long as there is an agreement it will not scroll, blink or flash and only be changed once/day. Chair Mabusth asked if there had been an illuminated reader board approved in Orono for a church. Gaffron advised that there u-as no approval for a church to have an illuminated reader board. He expressed his concerns for allowing an illuminated reader change with capability for changing as a continual enforcement issue, as well as training needs for subsequent Walgreens* managers, and that other businesses may seek to have this type of reader board, too. Gaffron suted. though, he believes an illuminated reader board does look better than manual reader boards with loose lettering. Bremer asked Mr. Trautz if Walgreens would consider a manual reader board Mr. Trautz replied that most Walgreens stores hasx manual reader boards currcnily. Jurgens cans-eyed his reservation with manual reader boards in rebtion to vandalism, as the signs are often low to the ground. Gafinm and Curtis indicated in their concurrent review of the new sign ordinance requirements that the 14’ width will be fine with expected revisions in the way it will be InuiKd. the total of 10* maximum height to the lop of It should be maintained, and the sign copy face can not be greater than 75* ■ of sign square footage. They clarified that the previous reference to max width w^s mcorrect. The maximum height is 10*. there is no maximum width. He asked for direction on whether to permit the illuminated reader board and what conditions may be appropriate. Chair Mabusth invited public comments and acknow ledged there were some audiciKe members nodding in agreement w ith the illuminated reader board discussion. Rahn agreed with allow ing an illuminated reader board w ith a message change once day and docs not move, scroll, blink or flash. Chair .Mabusth suggested a condition to add to limit its frequency of change or limits of lines of text. Frit/ler questioned Gaffron if there is any pri^lem to set a condition that pernuis an illuminated reader board in relationship to the square footage of the lot. such that a property may be loo small to permii such a sign. Curtis confirmed that sign square footage per site is dcicnnincd by each foot of frontage now by Code, but the prohibition is for flashing illuminated signs Gaffron added that in Nav arre there are large sites with multiple tenant buildings. He suggested that the condition of sign changes restricted to only one time'day could be added to subsequent sign approvals. He emphasized it would be a difficult enforcement issue if allow ed. Gaffron mentioned the issue of visual impact, pointing out that currently in the Hwy 12 Orontv Long Lake area there is only one illuminated reader board and about 8-10 manual reader boards. Leslie observed that he saw a Walgreens store in Eden Frame that had an electronic, illuminated reader board that seemed not to be changing so frequently as to unsafely divert drivers' attention. He stated he would support an illuminated reader board sign but it should meet the new sign code. Mr. Trautz stated the 10' x 6' dimension w*as important and asked if it could be 4' off of the ground. Page 14 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17.2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (5. #04.2974 RELIANCE DCVELOr.MilNT COMPANY, LLP. Caallaacd) GafTron responded that he thought it uoutd be possible but asked the Planning Commission for direction if sign variances became necessary. StafT stated that «nth a PUD application, flexibility could therefore be addressed. Chair Mabusth asked for information about plans for temporary sigiuge and how this will be controlled. Gaffron explained there is a city code for temporar>' signage but it is dilTicuIi to enforce He recommended that temporary signage condition(s) be added to the PUD approval documents. Mr. Trautz asked if a special permit is required to put up temporary signs, such as a banner It was confirmed that a special permit is required from the City. Mr. Trautz indicated that after ‘grand opening* banners, they intend to not allow any other temporary signs in the retail center. Gaffron concluded the city concurred with that approach. Chair Mabusth asked for any further comments on signage. There were none. 6. Address height of buildings. Chair .Mabusth coiKurrcd with staff recommendation to permit the 32'6‘* height for the entrance comer ‘parapet' roof peak, exceeding the B-6 height limit of 30‘. as well as the retail buildings' gable peaks extending to 33 ’4.5” high. She acknowledged allowing such heights as an architectural feature may be done in a PUD and Orono has allowed similar height increases in the PUD fur the office buildings. Fntzlcr asked if tlicre is any mechanics housed m the gables. Mr. Trautz ad\ ised there were none Rahn pointed out th-* gables are a sloped roof design with shingles. 7. Address any cimcems regarding facade coloration and nulsruls. Chair Mabusth asked Gaffron to clarify if the final approved PUD application should refer to specific building materials. Gaffron indicated the final PUD dix'uments would refer to the building nvatcnals shown this evening by the applicant. Mr. Trautz cautioned lliat the specific buildings matenals shown might not be in slock or asailable when needed. By consensus, it was agreed to allow use of an ‘equi\-alcnt ‘ approved by a three member city committee. Mr. Spuu stated that all shown building materials are currently available. 8. Address whether building-mountcd lighting is proposed. Chau Mabusth concluded the issue of building-mounted lighting was already addressed. 9. Any other issues for consideration. Chair Mabusth asked if there are any other issues for discussion. Kempf questioned if resolution was reached about requinng residential style lighting along the sidew alks coming up to Hwy 12 on the east side from Walgreens and along the pond area, as it is a more park like setting. Chau Mabusth asked what would be the function of such lighting and how much lighting the resideiKcs prefer across the street. Page IS of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (5. i04-1974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, Cootlaacd) Kcmpf stated a box-type fixture would not be w anted there and it would serve an aesthetic purpose, loo. Fntzler stated he support additional or upgraded lighting along the pond area, but did not see a need for it on Willow Dn\e. Ms. Van Dell explained what is shown on the Lighting Plan, concluding there is no need for additional lighting as It adequately lights the path along Willow Drive to Hwy 12 as w ell as the trail going around the pond If the lighting fixture w ere required to be changed, it would be only for aesthetic purposes. Chair Mabusth asked if there would be mounted lights on Retail Building A. Ms. Van Dell replied there may need to be for the potential patio area on the west end of Reuil Building A and for safety reasons on the path going to Kelley Parkway. She pointed out there are two fixtures, both on the door and the southwest comer to well light the area. She stated it has upw ards of 6-foot candles illumination and does not go below 1.5-foot candles. Ms. V'an Dell advised the lighting would go in as needed, depending the tenant. Chair Mabusth asked for any further comments Rahn asked Gaffron to explain when structural coverage requirements apply to retail uses, given the dental office example. GaBron indicated the denul office site is 2.0 acres and structural coverage requirements only apply to sites 1.99 acres or less. Rahn suied that compared to the Culm's site in Navarre at the 20T % and this application at 17.9** o (combined), w here Culver's site is usually very crow ded as an over utilized site, his concern is to prevent crowding on the subject site. Chair Mabusth noted the structural coverage issue is only being applied due to the subject site's subdivision. Rahn replied that users will cross lot lines between Walgreen's and the other retail buildings and he sees n as more of a bulk and mass issue. In the structural coverage comparisons brought by staff. Rahn expressed his concern that it would become a traffic nightmare. Kempf commented that the Culver's site has a gas station and Snyder's drugstore to contnbute to its traffic issues. Rahn acknowledged the site layout contnbutes to traffic problems on the Culm's site. He restated he wanted to express his concern but may sttU be in favor of the application. Chair Mabusth pomted out the staff, eonsultant engineer and planner appear to be satisfied with the structural coverage issue. Chair Mabusth asked for final issues to be discussed. Chair Matesih Moved, Fritilcr sccoadcd, lo rcconiMend approval of Appikatioa #04-2974 **SloacBay Markccptace,** N*W Qoadraat Hwy 12/WIMow Drive for proposed CoMMerdal PUD Remolag, CoMMcrdal SRt Plaa aad two lot PreMadMry SabdMaloB of Stooelay Oaflot A, ackaowledgln appUcaiioB does aol meet the aodcriyiag B-6 2.0 acre lot coverage reqalrcmcats with certala approved B-1 allowable ates aad accepilag lat coverage as follows: - Lot I (04,241 sX or 1.90 acres) Is proposed with boUdtogs totaHag 13,930 t.f. or 14.1%coveragc. • Lot 2 (74A2ftX)bpropoaadwMlbaildliv totaHag 14420 tX or 19.9% coverage. • Overall coverage of tbe 349-acre sHe la pra pa ae d at 17.9%,aa(iadadiagfrccstaadlagtrasb cadosarca; sabjcct to tbe fbltowtag: Page 16 of 40 MINUTES OF TIIE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (5. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, Coalistted) • rctara of tkc applicatloa lo tlw arxl Ptaaalag Coamiissioa work Mstloa for farther review ■ rctara of the draft rdoaiag ordiaaacc for the »Me to the Jaac 2004 Plaaalag Cooiaalssioa aMctiaf ■ refara of the ilsaagc afrermcat lo the aext Ptaaaiag Coaimittloo work »c%%k»o • all resolved bsanoaUiacd la the Staff Report, May 13,2004 aad the prcccdiag Ptaaaiaf Coaiarfadoa adaatet. M$. Van Dell qxtestioncd if ihe illuminated reader board was being recommended. Chair Mabusth concluded it was a consensus to allow the illuminated reader board with no flashing, blinking or moving mesvagev to he changed only once day but must meet Code requirements. Mr. Trauu asked for clanfication of the continuing process and if the applicant w ill need lo aiiend further Planning Commission meetings. Gaffron e.xplained the process, and that the draft PCD rc/onmg ordinance will return to the Planning Commission work session and to the June2004 Planning Commission meeting for final review and approval. Chair Mabusth asked staff to provide the Planning Commission with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment text approved by the City Council. Cuffron clarified the City Council will review the Commercial .Site Plan and Preliminary Plat subdivision, and that the draft rezonmg language will be reviewed at the Plarming Commission and forwarded lo the City Council for final approval. Mr. Trautz suggested the city attorney should review the minute record, draft PUD language with staff and not to have the agrccmuit returned to the Planning Commis.Mon for additional review. Gaffron stated that if the Planning Commission is comfortable w ith review ing the draft re/oning ordinance at the Planning Commission work session m June 2004, it could be fonvarded directly to the City t ouncil for ihcir first meeting in June 2004. VOTE: Ayes 7, .Nays 0 6. #04-3002 GAL LAND IMTSTMENT. LLC, 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE, CONDITIONAL I SE PERMIT. PUBLIC HEARING (7:36-7:45 p.m.) Mr. Tim Guilfoil. G&L Land Investment. LLC. 740 North .Arm Drive, applicant, was present Gaffron explained the applicants requested amending their onginal vanance request, which was recommended for denul by the Planning Commission on Apnl 17.2004 and said denial recommendation w as informally agreed to by the City Council on Apnl 26.2004. to a conditional use permit to allow land alterations within 75' of Ihe 929.4'elev^tion of Uke Mmnetonka. The applicants will remove the exisimg boathouse and restore the existing slope, including construcuon of boulder reuming walls and vcgeuiivc cover Gaffron refcrKd to the recommendation mcluded m the Enginea's comments, dated .May 12.2004. and included in the agenda packet. He emphasized the vegetative screening of the reuinmg walls is key as without adequate screening the retaining walls will appear to be 18 feet Ull from lakeside. Mr. Ouilfoil stated they have the same goal to rmnimize the impact of the retaining wall and committed to vegcuuon at least 4 feet tall, and will attonpt to create four shorter walls, if possible, as it is to everyone's benefit Page 17 of 40 r L. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (6. WM-3002 G&L LAND I.NVESTMENT, LLC, Coniiaucd) Mr. Gtiilfoil conPinncd that ihc accrssor>- structure near the street has been remo\ ed a-» of this date and ajpeed to grant an easement to the City for sewer maintenance purposes. GafTron reported the City located and staked the sewer line, which is located approximately 1 Ak»: off the front line of the boathouse and about 6 to 6 5 feet deep Due to the close proximity of the line to the boathouse, the Public Works department has requested that they be irifonned of the date of demolition and that they be present on site at the time of demolition. Staff recommends this is included as a condition of approval for land alterations GafTron .r * ica».*d $*aff recommends approval of the conditional use permit application w ith the conditions identified on the statf memo. May 4.2004 Chair Mabusth asked for public comments There were ni>ne. Fntzlcr asked if there were plans for removal of the c.mcretc and debns on the shoreline to be removed when the boathouse is derrwlishcd and remov ed Mr Ciuilt*»il aJv ised that it is their intention to rip rap the shoreline area appiopnately Rahn asked to have the rav me area cleancd*up as well Mr. Guilfoil indicated they would clean up and remove whatever is on their property. including adding new nprap on the shoreline l.eslie asked for clantication of when the boathouse is scheduled to be removed, referring lo prior discussions of winter removal to avoid over-land nsks to the buned sewer line .Mr. Guilfoil explained the boathouse is tentatively set lo he demolished on May 19, 2004 ilowever, plans tor removal of its debris and the c.xisting shoreline riprap are not complete, and il may be the nprap installers will remove the debris at the same time, probably in the winter months l-esllc moved. Kempf seconded to recommend approval of Application 1104-3002, C:4kl. I.and Inveslmeat. LLC, 740 Nortli Arm Drive, amending the original variance request lo a conditional use permit to allow land alterations within 75* of the 929.4* elev niion of Lake .\linnclonka in accordance with Ihc submitted plan, recommending more trees be added lo the plan; including approval of a hardcover varinnee to the hardcover within the 0-75* lone associated with the siairwav and boulder w alls per the proposed plan, aad iacorporatiag the follow ing stipulations: I. The existing boathonsc be remosed prior to commencement of work. A Public Works employee is present at the lime of demolition of the boathouse. A silt fence is erected 5* off the staked sewer location where no land alteration nctisily will be allowed, except for re-segctalioa of the boathouse site. The sih fence shall rcmalauatU the laadseaping at been fully installed Implementation of the recommendations of City Engineer. Tom Kellogg regarding the rMatateg waU bank reslomlion project as tbied in the letter dated .May 12,2004. Current ravine and shoreline debris/rip rap be removed from the site. 2. 3. VOTE; AYES 7, NAYS 0. Gaffron adsisrd the application would be orwarded to the May 24.2004 City Council meeting NEW BUSINESS 7. W4-3006 AI'LIK CO.MPANY ON BEHALF OF BARTHOLOMEW’ AND ELIZ.ABETII T. BLTZER, 2625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PCILMIT A.ND VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING (7:45-7:54 p.m.) Bcuy Buizcr, 2625 North Shore Drive, applicant, was present. Page 18 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m S. D04-3007 Harold and Mildred Bower, 192S l.akeMrw Terrace, \’ariance and Aroendmenl lo Cil>- Wetlaad Map. The applicant was not present. There were no public conunerts BreoMT moved. Chair Mabnsth seconded, lo taMe Appileattoo iKM-3007 Harold and .Mildred Bower, 192S Lakcvlew Terrace. VOTE; Ayes 7, Nays 0. 9. 004-3008 Stevea VaJek and Ralph Palmer, 4720-4750 Tonkavirw Lane. Lot Liae RearraaRrmcniv. Pnbllc Hearing (7:57-8:04 p.m.) Steven Vaick. 4720 Tonkaview Lane, and Ralph Palmer. 4750 Tonkavicw Lane, appllcunl^. were prcM-m. Kempf stated for the record that he has a business relationship with Steven N'alek. though it has nothing to do with the issues at hand, he will abstain from discussion and the sole. Curtis introduced the application for re-plat approval to create three (3) lots where five (5) lots (four tax parcels) currently exist. Currently, out of the lour existing lots only one meets the area and w idth requirements of the LR-1B Zoning District. After the re-plat. Iw o of the three lots w ill meet Zoning Ordinance regulations with respect to area and width. The propos^ New Lot 2 at 0 8 acre will meet 80*li of the lot area and at 132* w ide will meet over 80% of the lot w idth requirement. Curtis recommended approval of the subdisrsion of the ic-p1al with the stipulation that the existing driveway at 4720 Tonkaview Lane be abandoned and relocated entirely w ithin the property boundaries of this lot. She advised no park fee or stormwater trunk fee would be required because the re-plat results in a reduction of the number of lots rather than lot creation. Stev'en Valek. 4720 Tonkaview l.ane. expressed his intention was to straighten lot line between Lots I and 2 and using some of Lot 4 and also to get a permit for a garage, though because the dnveway would need to be changed, he is not seeking a garage pcnnit now. He explained that where the existing house sits and w here the current dnveway lies appears to be the most attractive to the property. Mr. Valek stated he is try ing to get Lot 2 as close to conforming as possible but has no cunem intention to build on it. Chair Mabusth a.skcd Mr. Valek what his plans were for Lot 2. Mr. Valek levpunded he will continue to live in his house and has no immediate or future plans for Lot 2. Ralph Palmer. 4720 Tonkaview Lane, concurred with Mr. Valek's comments. Mr. Palmer stated it is an advantage to have the lot lines straightened and to create one lot from the existing tw o lots Chair Mabusth asked for public comments There were none Bremer asked for information about a similar application before the Planning Commission from about one year ago. Gaffron advised there one a lot line rearrangement for property across the street that required some easement revisions. He stated the main concern is at point of property sale because the Lot 2 may become less valuable with a permanent dnveway easement miming across it. Gaffron suggested a condition placed on the existmg dnveway at 4720 Tonkaview to be abandoned and relocated entirely within the property boundaries of the lot upon sale of Lot 2. .Mr. Valek asked how this would affect Lot 3 if he built on Lot 2 and kept the dnveway on Lot 2. Gaffron explained the driveway would need to be abandoned and relocated only if persons other than Mr. Valek owihk I Lot 2 or Lot 3. Page 20 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o’clock p m. (9. N04-3008 Stcvrn Vairk and Ralph Palmer, Conlinucd) Mr. Valek stated he would accept the dnveway condition and would deal with the potential of moving the dnv'cwny at a future time Bremer moved, l.eslie seconded, to recommend approval of Application (t04-300M. Steven X'alek and Ralph Palmer, 4720 and 47S0 Tonkaview, respectively, to re-plat five (5) lots (four tax parcels) existing lais to create three (3) lots with the stipulation that the existing driveway at 4720 Tonkaview Lane should be abandoned and relocated entirely within the property boundaries of this lot. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0, Abstain I. Gaffron advised the application would be forwarded ;o the June 14. 2004 City Council meeting 10. 004-3009 JAMES AND DARCY LOFFLER, 1690 SHAD>AVOOD ROAD. VARIANCE. PCBI.IC HEARING (8:05-8:32 p.ro.) James and Darcy I olTler. applicants, wac present. Gaffron acknowledged receipt of a letter from John and Joan Fit/patrtek. PIO Shadswinxl Road, dated .May 12. 2004, which supptsrted the variance request to e.xcecd the 25% hardcover rcquirenwnt Gaffron mtroduced the application for a hardcover variance to construct a new residence on the property. Other vanances that are needed for the proposed plan include 1 . Lot area (0.37 aere where 0.50 acre required, does not meet 80"i rule) 2. Lot coverage by stmcturcs is proposed at 1 6.3"o where only 1 5”o is allowed as the recent sursey work is show mg the lot is actually smaller than the 1986 survey. 3. 75-250' Hardcover (Proposed *4.297 s f /lO.lOOs.f m zone ■ 42.5"i where 25“o is allowed) Gaffron noted the site has an older home on it situated within the U-75’ setback, with a detached garage also m a non-confomiing location I he applicant intends to remtne all existing strviclures and the new house will meet average setback and 75' setback, as well as all other required setbacks GalTron explained that neighboring homes' are liK'atcd just 55' from the shvircltne, so the applicant would potentially be deprived of lake views as the new home is moved closer to the road to reduce hardcover Moving closer to the road also negatively alTccts the average setback line for both ncighKirs. changing it to make their home less confomimg. Gaffron recommended approval of the lot area vanance, denial of the lot cov erage v-anance and to approve some degree of hardcover variance m the 30-3 l*ii range raihcr than 42"« as proposed. From suff s perspective, there is some hardship to support approval of a modest variance based on the lot shape and tlic need for a backup apron to allow forward vehicle movement onto Shady wood Road Gaffron mtroduced the issues for Consideration as listed m the Stall Report, dated May 12. 2004 He also confirmed that the Planning Commission and applicant receiv ed the full set of pages for the May 12. 2004 Staff Report. James Lofner. applicant, introduced his w ife. Darcy, and Jeff Schneider, architect for the applicants, stated that as of today's surveyor re-measurement the lot area is 16.723 s.f.. which is 0 1 acre larger than before. He expressed appreciation for the opportunity to share their view s of the existing property hardships. .Mr Loftier staled they are trying to build a reasonable property and working with the ordinances, indicaimg it is not possible to build a master bedroom on the first floor as the house plan is not large enough and they cannot build more than a two-car garage due to hardcover restrictions. He illustrated that by moving the house further Page 21 of40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (10. MM-3009 JAMES A.ND DARCY LOFFLER. Continued) back from the lake to reduce dn\e«ay surface produces very restricted lake view's due to the shape and length of the lot. Bremer asked Gaffron how the newest survey information affects the lot coverage and hardcover percentages. Gaffron indicated there is a difference of about ISO s.f for lot coverage. He estimated that hardcover percentages may be similar to those mcluded in the May 12. 2004 Staff Report which is still about 1100 s.f. less than proposed. Chair Mabusth suggested the applicant consider the City’s minimum standards fur hardcover in order to reduce then proposed hardcover. Rahn pointed out the plan shows a 13’ driveway w idth and turn around seems excessive deep like more for parking use Both of these features could be reduced to reach ihe hardcover standard. Fntzler asked if straightening the driveway would improve the tardcover percentages. Gaffron summarized the affects of a number of the suggestions such as tapenng and narrowing the driveway, reducing the tum-around area, and moving it next to the garage would reduce the hardcover percentage. It was discussed whether a detached or attached garage would be a positive hardcover feature, it was a con.sensus the attached garage was more in keeping with the neighborhood construction Bremer indicated the Planning Commission members are sticklers on maintaining the I5°o lot coverage by structure percentage and asked if the applicant could reduce the structure m/c to conform to the standard. .Mr. Lofflcr responded tficy had already reduced the structure size to the 15"« lot coverage standard but the recent survey iiKasuren.cnts reduced the lot size so the lot covaage percentage increased. He indicated they were wilhn., to reduce the structure size to meet the 15*» lot coverage standard Gaffron clarified the Planning Commission needed to determine the percentages acceptable for hardcover based on the need for a back-up apron, for lot coverage based on the lot shape, and if some variance credit should be given for moving the structure back from the existing house site at about 55’ to the 75’ lot setback standard. Fntzler commented that moving the structure funher bock by 10’ or 15’ does not have a big impact Rahn stating he believed the house is already sining far back of the average lakeshorc setback and does not need to be further back. He iummanzed that a square footage number is needed, that the lot covertige by structure percentage shtiuld be 15 wiui a minimal width driveway befoie a Planning Commission recommendation can be made. Chair Mabusth concurred w ith Rahn. indicating the matter should be tabled until funher information is relumed to the Planning Commission. Mr. LoIRct asked if the Planning Commission would make a recommendation based on the sun eyor* measurement as of today. He sated that based on the surveyor's figures he would accept 15*/« lot coverage for the stnKture and will minimize and reduce hardcover. Page 22 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (le. N»4-3009 JAMES A>D DARO' LOFKLER, Coattaacd) Rahn tumman/cd the Planning Commission uas seeking a 1 5'o lot coverage by structure. mini;ni/?*ion of all hardcover to the recommended standards of 3’ sidewalk. 8’dnveway. 8'x8‘ turnaround or whatever is stipulated m the code for a tuma: ound on a county roadway Chair Mabusth asked for the standards to be provided to the applicant. Chair Mabusth asked for other comments. A public member. Henry Lamiarz. proposed consideration of allowing a driveway with two hard surface tire Uacks to greatly minimize hardcover. Gaffron responded this option has maintenance problems as dtKs driveway pavers and that property owners become unhappy with them and pasx them os-er. resuhing in full coverage anyssay. Therefore, the City's hardcoscr ordinance d»>cs not permit the option of stnps or pavers. Leslie interjected that the stnps can be installed but will result in no reduction in the hardcover pcrcentaee Chair Mabusth a^ked for further public comments, there were none Chair Mabusth asked the applicants if they have received enough guidance to revise the proposal Gaffron summarized that based on the surveyor’s measuienKmis received at the nM.*eiing. the lot coveia're by structure is 2508 s.f and the direction is to minimi/e sidewalks and dnveways but is not able lo determine the hardcover percentage at this time. Gaffron indicated the application could be relumed to the Planning Commission on June 21.2004. and with a Planning Commission recommendation, the matter could likely be scheduled for the June 28. 2004 City Council meeting. Hremer suggested the applicants should make the structure even .smaller to reduce lot coverage to less than I S% to make an impact on the hardcover percentage. Fritzler moved, Bremer seconded, to table Application 0O4-3OO9, J.-imes and Oarey l.»nier. 1690 Sbady'wood Road, requesting a hardcover variance to construct a new residence on the properly, and other variances for lot area and lot coverage bv structure. VO I E: AvesT.N'av 0. Chair Mabusth recessed the Planning Commission at 8:32 p.m. for a short break and reconvened at 8:44 p m. 1 1. #C4-30I2 R0<;ER D. O'SHAl GILNEJV.SY, 1265 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD. \ ARIANTES AND tO.NDITlON.VL ISE PEK.M1T, PUBLIC llEARJNt; (8:44-9:37 p.m.I Curtis explained the applicant’s requesi for three variances and two conditional use permits in order to construct a boardwalk to the shore ending in .v landing, to cor.sttuct a wire mesh fence along Brackett’s Point Road, to grade, fill and construct a retaining wall in the floodplain and to cons*.ruct chimney s 40’8 ” where 30’ IS allowed. She noted there was change tn boardwalk width from 6' to 4’ boardwalk width, which will result in a reduction in the hardcover pcrccniagcs from 550’ to 438 s f. yet to be confirmed. Curtis advised that the city received two letters from neighbors that arc requested to be read into the record She pointed out the Issues for Consideration outlined in the Suff Report, dated May 3. 2004. C’uitis concluded by recommending the following ApprovTil of the conditional use pemui to allow chimney heights of 40’ 8" where a 30’ ma.ximum is normally allow cd. Approval of the variance and conditional use permit for construction and fill w ithin the fioodplain incorporating the recommendauons of the .MCWD and the City Engineer. Denial of the hardcover vanance for 438 s.f. of hardcover within the 0-75* setback zone. Denial of the variance to allow a fence within 75 ’ of the lake. Page 23 of 40 MINXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 17.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (11. 004.3012 ROGER D.O'SHALGHNESSY.CoatlMcd) Chatr Mibusth questioned it the applicant recet\’cd copies of the tw o neighbors’ letters and Curtis confirmed the letters were prosided to the applicant. Chair Mabusth read into the record the following two letters: a. Joann Jundi, Southways, 1400 Brackett’s Point Road, dated .May 17, 2004 b. James & Beverly Nyxe. 1280 Bracken ’s Point, dated May 14. 2004 Roger O'Shaughnessy, 126S Bracken's Point Road. advi»ed he spoke with Joann Jundt on May 17,2004 and told her that his engmeer is confident the stormwater runoff panems will not change, though may change temporarily during construction and that the design is intended to allow the same amount of flow as currently. He asked the City Engineer to confum their storm water calculations. Curtis mdicated the City Engmeer has seen the plans but his comments has-e not yxt been returned Chair Mabusth asked if this application would be reviewed by the MCWD and Curtis indicated that it is under MCWD review ’ Mr. O’Shaughnessy acknowledged that the neighbors* letters, as well as comments he received from Pillsbury ’s. about the trafTic at the dnvewTiy entrance. He described the heavily overgrown hedge that cunrcntly encroaches ont< Brackett's Point Road. He explained their landscape plans will have plantings about 7-10' back from the road and can taper the planned vegetation to create a good view from driveway entrance for improved safety. He assuied the Planning Commission he did not want to construct anything that was not safe arid will rely on his landscape architect and the engineers to create a safe design. Chair Mabusth indicated the Public Serv ices Director as part of the public roadway would review the new driveway access. Mr. O'Shaughnessy commented on the boardw alk idea and his interest in restonng his lakcfront to a more natural environment with tall grasses and other features, including an elevated boardwalk allow ing plantings underneath the boardwalk so as not to be wading through the ull grasses when walking through it. Aller rc? Jmg Curtis' stafT report, he asked his landscape architect to consider more mitigating features, including some spacing between decking boards and less width to reduce the sire, and pulling the landing back from the shorelme to allow some plantmgs to improve view ability from the lake. He acknowledged he understands the concept of the boardwalk runs contrary to code and docs not claim a hardship due to the flat elevation of his lot, but expressed his excitement to restore the lakcfront to natural vegetation as a Lke stewardship project rather than to mow the law-n to the lakcfront. Mr. O'Shaughnessy explamed the purpose of the fence on the road is not to close off the property but mainly to provide an option to have a dog to help control the Urge flocks of geese on the property. He pointed out the proposed mesh fence location intended to be buned instead the vegetation. Mr. O'Shaughnessy asked the Planning Commission to consider the boardwalk not as hardcover but as an environmenul design feature compatible with the City’s ultimate goal to havx a community not developed fully at the lakcfront Chair Mabusth asked for information about the proposed water treatment beds. Mr. O'Shaughnessy explained the tall grasses tend to trr it the surface water as it flows to the lake and dramatically drops organic matenal levels into the lake. and. that the tall grasses do not require herbicides or fertilizers so are environmentally fncndlv. Chair Mabusth asked for public comments. There were none. Leslie asked for mformation about the proposed guesthouse and requirements for a conditional use permit. Page 24 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (11. MM-3012 ROGER D. O'SHAL'CHNESSY, CoatiMMd) Mr. O'Shaughnessy explained they eliminated a detached guesthouse and now are proposing an anached guest accommodations with no kitchen in it. It is only bedrooms with a family/Ii\nng room area and a cabinet for a coflec pot or whatever, and not intended to be a kitchen. Chair Mabusth stated she did not think the guest rooms meet the City's entena for requinng a conditional use permit. Gaffron concurred, as long as there is no kitchen and it is attached to the mam residence. Jurgens referred to the Jundt letter and its concerns about too much drainage and asked for information about the potential Hoodmg area Mr. O'Shaughnessy stated that when he spoke with Ms. Jundt she expressed concern for too linie drainage. Curus explained Ms. Jundt is concerned about walls or berms blocking surface drainage. Jurgens asked the applicant to explain the proposed tile collection system. Mr. O’Shaughnessy pointed out the low point on Brackett's Point Road, at about 931 5’ or 931.8’. noting the lakefront elevation is 931.0’ resulting in very linle slope. He explained the drain tile would assist in moving w*ater mto the permeable soils. There is a break in the berm at a point w here the warn comes across the road nomully. He suited they will not be accelerating the water at all and the addition of walls and the little berms will not change the water flow. Mr. O’Shaughnessy advised that he sent copies of his plans to the names on the Property Owners List anached to his application. Chair Mabusth indicated the City Engineer and the MCWD would review the applicant's siorm water management plans. Bremer initiated discussion on the safety issue raised m Ms. Jundt's letter and asked the applicant if he had this reviewed by his consultants. Mr. O'Shaughnessy stated he had not had a traffic engineer look at it. though his ai«.hiiect and landscape architect believe the plans will provide good visibility at the driveway entrance. He offered to move the dnvxw ’ay if a more safe location is determined, thou^ he w ould prefer to keep the driveway off the eastern edge to mainuiin pnvacy. Kempt commented about the traffic created by sightseers traveling on Bracken's Point Road although they travel slowly, about 5 mph. He also pointed out that the tree uimmers recently had flaticncd the sill fencing on the subject property and this needs to be attended to. Mr. O’Shaughnessy suted he contracted with the firm who removed the former house U) mainUin the silt fencing. Chair Mabusth asked for a description of the proposed mesh fencmg material. Mr. O'Shaughnessy commented that he did not really like the mesh*st>-le fencing anyway and. if the fence were approved, he would prefer to a more open and accessible stxle fence. The primary intent of the fence is for a dog and for privacy and safety. Chair Mabusth stated her support for the praine restoration along the lakefront. Jurgens asked about the purpose of the dO’S” ull chimne>’s. Mr. O’Shaughnessy explauied the chimneys are for fireplaces but his request to the architect for a ’collection of conages on the shore ’ was the basis for the house ’s contemporaiy design. Page 25 of 40 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 17.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (II. #04-3012 ROGER D. O'SIlALCKSESSY, CoatUiMcd) Chair Mabusth opened discussion of the four parts of the application: 1. Conditional use permit request to construct chimneys 40'8" in height where 3U' is allowed. Fntzler commented that the height requirement should be conformed to Kempf pumted out the build'ng design is low and very respectful of tlic neighbors ’ views 2. Conditional use permit and variance to allow grading, filling and retaining wall construction within the (loodplam. 3. Hardcover x'anance for 438 s f. of hardcover within the 0-75' setback zone. Chair Mabusth asked how long it would take to complete the planned restoration. Mr. O'Shaughnessy replied that It look about three (3) years to be established in his previous experience in Menominee. Wl. Chair Mabusth asked the elevation of the proposed boardwalk. .Mr. O'Shaughnessy explained the average elevation is about 2 5' and w ill be 4' wide with spacuig to allow light and precipitation to get through to the under plantings, acting more like a natural landscape than a hardcover feature Rahn pomted out that if the boardw alk is joined to the house and is not considered landscaping and is over 30" It will require railings according the MN Building Code. It was suggested the boardwalk could be stepped- down right at the house before it reaches the 0-75* setback and could follow the property's contours. Bremer stated she liked the idea of the boardwalk but could not support it. referring to prior applications for watkw'ays to the lakefront. unless it can be shown the reduced width at 4' and there actually w ill be growth underneath it. Gaflron asked the applicant if the nature of the 0-7S* zone such that it cannot be walked on due to soils and moisture. Chair Mabusth advised that boardwalks were permitted if the property owners could not get access to the lake. Rahn mdicated that an area with tall grass is not a hardship in the way that prior applications were allowed due to wet soils. He stated he did not support a landing or decking at the lakeshore. as this would be inconsistent w ith prior decisions. Mr. O'Shaughnessy responded ihat he did not know if it w as needed for access over wet soils, but it may be more an architectural feature for access through the tall grasses and to avoid ticks in the grasses. GalTron indicated that the restoration area may be a Type 1 wetland, lie acknowledged that current Code does not provide any incentives for this kind of proposed restoration and that the Planning Commission should consider discussing the issue of granting some incentives to encourage such lakeshore restorations and natural, unfertilized buffers at a future date. Mr. O’Shaughnessy added that the boardwalk and landmg would also have been convenient for hts two handicapped employees. Ms. Susan Steinwall encouraged the Planning Commission to consider their proposal for a non-impervious surface as meetuig the Code's uitent to elimmate hardcover m the 0-75' zone and the gam is tremendous w hen restonng lakeshore. She commented that the watershed distncts and many cities support natural restorations and buffers along the lakeshore. Page 26 of 40 MINXTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. 12. MM-3014 TIMOTHY POWERS, 3210 NAVARRE LANE, VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING (9:37.9:55 p.m.) Lyim Powers, 3210 Navanre Lane, applicant, wr i present. Ganion presented the application for a 24.5' rear >-ard setback \-anance when 30 is normally required and 24.5* currently exists m order to construct a seconid story abo\-e the existing first story residence, and to add two garage stalls. The application is for a remodeling of the existing structure and not a rebuild, and submmed an opmion that the existing foundation will support the 2"* story addition. The existing garage is 24 5' from the rear lot line, and is proposed to be expanded eastward at that same setback. Gaffron adsised the applicant proposed to remos-e the existing shed in an cflbri to decrease the non<onforming rear yard. He pointed out the adjacent lot to the north is the neighbor most affected by the nonconforming rear yard setback, however, the applicant's rear yard is acting as that neighbor's side year, where a 10* setback would nomully be requir^. Gaffion indicated staff recommends approx-al of the rear >'ard setback as submined, including the removal of the existing shed. He adsised there were no hardcoxer issues to be addressed. Gaffron noted that if ui the future the applicant wants to install the circular driveway it would require the Public Scrxices Director review- and approval. Lynn Powers, applicant, explained the architectural plans do show a more formal entry with a circular driveway but that is not being requested at this lime. Chair Mabusth advised that three curb cuts on a smaller property might be difficult to acquire permits. Ms. Powers replied that if the circular dnxeway becomes impossible than perhaps a walkway could be considered Ms. Powers confirmed they were advised the existing foundation can support a second story addition as it has good footings. Chair Mabusth invited the public to comment. Julie Copeland, 2180 Kenwood Way. stated she is the neighbor to the rear of the subject property. She indicated she is about 60' from the house and privacy is her primary concern. With a second story addition, she explained she would be more exposed, and noted that her side >Tird is where she plays with her dogs. Ms. Copeland asked for information about whether there will be a fence, what type of vegetation will be used, what type of rooms will be on the second story and that the property is being impruxed for mxestment purposes, but that she plans to remain. Ms. Powers confirmed that it is an investment property. She explained they intend to put up a nicer fence than what IS there currently and will try to accomm^ate any issues of privacy. The second story mam view will be to the front not to the rear yard. Ms. Powers stated the second story would have a master bedroom with bath, a walk-m closet, another bath and a smaller bedroom. The part of the house facing Ms. Copeland ’s property will have smaller windows, about 24.30" in size. She also suted the existing shed and deck w ill be removed Chair Mabusth asked for further public comments. There w ere none Fritzler oNived, LesUe seconded, to rccommeod approval of AppttcalloB «04-3014, Timothy and Lyaa Powers, 3210 Navarre Laae, graallag a rear yard setback variaacc to allow a rear yard setback of 24.5' whea 30* U aoramlly rcqalrcd aad 24.5’ carreiMly exists ia order to coastrtKt a secoad story above the cxlstlag first story, aad to add two garage staUs, aad to recoauMMl approval of tbc plaas as sobmitlcd, lacladUig the reowval of tbe cxistlBg sbed. Page 28 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (11. M04-3015 ROBERT LtND O.N BEHALF OF WILUAM AND BONMBEL BYERS. Continued) Curtis recommended the following approx-als: 1. Approval of the average lakeshore setback xwences in order to add a balcony to the second story of the eastern side, and to remos’c U?c front deck, change the rooflinc and add a w itch's hat feature to the w estern portion of the lake side of the home. 2. Appros’al of a side setback variance m order to construct an open balcony over an c.xistuig sitting room w'h^ roof currently exists 26 4’ from the property line where 30' is required and 26 4' setback currently extsts. 3. Approval of the conditional use pemut for lakeshore alterations. Heav>' dut> silt fence with steel t* posts should be iitstalled along the shoreline once construction begins to pro:.ct the exposed slope The silt feiKe should be maintained throughout the construction process and remain m place until the slope IS stabilized and vegetation is established. 4. Implementation of the recommendations of the Ciiy Engineer. With respect to the hardcover variance to allow 28.31% where 29.48% exists and 25% is allowed Curtis recommended that the Planning Commission deny this wiance and ask the applicants to reconfigure the proposed driveway (or other hardcover) to meet the 25^'o hardcover requirement. Robert Lund, architect for the Byars' project at 1389 Orono Lane, illustrated the site's constraints, emphasizing the following. a. The existing 4<car garage at the north end of the property’ on Orono (.ane is over the property* line and needs to be removed. He pointed out that if the garage w ere moved just south of the 50' setback off Orono Lane it would increase hardcover in the 75'-250' setback zone. b. The vegetation on the lot's western side effectively screens the western house (neighbor) from the Byars' property. c. The topographic features constrain the driveway and parking layout, as there the proposed dnveway leads the level area to be used for parking. d. The well location is within the level area proposed for parking Mr. Lund asked the Planning Commission to review the project as a whole, recognizing that the garage is proposed for the 75’-250' setback zone and its drastic mcrease of hardcover burden in that zone. He explained that currently there is parking for four cars in a garage in the 250'*5(X)'setback zone and surface parking for four cars within the 7S*‘250' .setback zone. What the applicant is proposing is to reduce the garage from a 4- car garage in the 250’-500' setback zone to a 2-car garage within the 75'-250 setback zone and reduce surface parking for four cars to only three cars. To accomplish this. Mr. Lund explained a lot of groundcover would be removed on the eastern side, on the southern side and the existing dnveway and parking along the northeastern portion. Overall, he stated that hardcover would be reduced in tiK 250'-S00'setback zone by 1,064 s.f. reducing hardcover m the 7S'-250' setback zone by 310 s.f. and there is really no hardcover change to the 0'-75' setback zone. Overall hardcover reduction for the project is 1.374 s.f.. structural coverage is reduced by 109 s.f. and the hardcover for the lot as a whole remains essentially the same by increasing lO.S s.f. In addition, Mr. Lund pointed out the owner's strong environmental concerns and proposes to construct a ram garden to handle surface water run-oiT in the 0-7S' setback zone that should more than handle the extra amount of run-off brought on by the proposed hardcover mcreases. Giatr Mabusth asked for public comments. Mr. Byars, applicant, explained their attempts to reduce hardcover by reducing from the four car garage to a two car garage and removal of the back stoop and fnmt deck. He added there is a need for some surface Page 30 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 17.2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (13. MM-30IS ROBERT LU.ND ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM AND BONMBEL BYERS. Coailnvtd) Bremer commented the due to the nature of the lot and house site, there results in a long dn\way. and wondered if the 2S% hardcover standard can be met on such a property. diair Mabusth added that Orono Lane has limited on-street parking resulting in surface parking spaces on the property. Rahn asked if there is a possibility for the garage to be pushed closer into the side >*ard lot line. Mr. Lund replied that such a shiH of the garage would put it in front of the dining room making a darker interior. Bremer clanfied that Rahn mtended the shift to be on the east side to allow more turn around capability in front of the house Mr. Lund indicated the proposed garage location is at the 30* side yard setback. Rahn expressed that it may be a better situation to allow a side yard sanance in order to meet the hardcover standard. Mr. Byars commented that the neighbor to the east probably would not like to have the garage mo\ed closed to the side yard. He agreed to narrow the dns-eway width but the property needs some surface parking Bremer suggested the lum around be relocated and the driveway narrower. Jurgens asked for information about the lakcshore and wondered if the plan is expanding the area. Mr Byars explained the proposal adds 6-8' for the ram garden before the shoreline. Curtis confirmed the ram garden feature is not part of the current application, except for the grading, filling and alteration of the ice ndge. Mr. Byars acknowledged that even with the driveway width reduction it is unlikely the application will meet the 25“<i hardcover standard, and that means he may have to refigure the house dimensions. He would prefer to try to revise his plan to get to the 2S”/» hardcover and not to return to the Planning Commission. Chair Mabasih moved. Raha seeooded, lo rccomacad approval of AppUcalioa MM-3015, Robert Lmid for William and Boanibel Byars, 1389 Orono Lane for Ibr following: a. Approval of the average lakesborc setback variaaces in order lo add a balcony to the second story of the eastern side, and lo remove the front deck on tke lake side of the borne aad replace it with a garden and a macb smaller deck, change the roofltne and add a w hcb*s bat feature to the western portion of the lake side of the korae. b. Approval of a side setback variance in order to construct an open balcony over an existing sitting room where roof currently exists 26.4* from the property line where 30' U required and 26.4* setback currently cxisti. c. Approval of the conditional use pcrail for InhcshorcallcraliMnwIiUB 75'of Ike OHWL in order lo repair an k« ridge and crantc sediment catching rain gardens. Heavy duty sill fence with steel l-posls should be installed along tbt shoreline once construction begins to protect the exposed slope. *rhe slit fence sbonid be mai ntained tkrongbont the coastroedon process aad remain in place nntll the slope b stabiRied and vcgclatinn b establbbcd. d. Implementation af the recommendations of the City Engineer; Page 32 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. aad, to rcco«mcBd dcaial of a hardcover variance to reduce the existing 29.48*/« hardcover within the 75*- 250’ rone to 28Jt*.« where 25V« it normaiiy ailowed and to atk the applicants to reconfigure the proposed driveway (or other hardroveri to meet the 25% hardcover requirement VOTE: Ayes 7, Nay 0. 14. 404*3016 HENRY LAZNIARZ OF WAYZATA DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT. 120 BROWN- ROAD SOUTH* SI’BDIMSION. PUBLIC HEARING (10:29-11:02 p.ni.) Gaffron presented the proposed 7-Iot residential plat (PRD) of property abuning the Luce Lme Trail and Long Lake Creek. This property was the subject of extensive reviews by the Planning Commission and Cou.ncil during the period 1999-2001. A vanety of schemes ranging from 4 lots to 7 lots had been proposed, but the ultimate result was dental based on the lack of suitable access to the site. The proposal includes a pnvate cul- de-sac road that accesses from Brown Road South. The proposal includes obtaining municipal water and sewer from the City of Long Lake. Legal actions taken by property owners, the Van Eeckhouts. resulted in findings filed on May S. 2004. City Anomey Tom Barren reviewed the findings and concluded they indicate the existing access easement does not provide suitable access meeting all regular City requirements for subdivision. However. Mr. Barrett suggests that the City prweed with review of iIk application through the preliminary plat approval stage. If the developer ultimately cannot meet the conditions imposed by the City for final plat approval, final plat approval will not be granted. In staffs opinion, the property is a candidate for development as a PRD. due the physical nature of the property. There are only 14 non-wetland, dry buildable acres that are proposed to ^ subdivided into seven (7) lots. The seven home sites are proposed to be clustered within an area roughly 300* by 50U*. on the high knoll in the westerly quadrant of the property. Gaffron indicated the proposed uidividiial lot lines will go all the way to the property boundary and emphasized that no open space outlois are proposed. This is not typical of what the Planning Commission has seen in prior approved PRD's. where there were outlot open spaces Gaffron pointed out that with a larger, open space outlot. the perceptions of trespass are different than w hen the area is in individual lot ownership. 1 he issue of individual lot ownership vcr.sus larger open space areas owned in common is one that the Planning Commission needs lo dciennme. Gaffron advised the proposed PRD for residential purposes would be m conformity w uh :hc Community Management Plan (CMP) as long as density standards are met, that is. a density at I unit per 2 acres He anticipates the perceived density* of the clustered, compact layout of perhaps 2 units acre with individual lots that actually range in gross area from 1.05 acres to 3.90 acres. Gaffron advised the individual lots do not meet all lot size or setback requirements of the R-l B District The proposed 35* front and 10' side setbacks are typical of Orono's 1 acre zones. Gaffron observ ed that the proposed site layout and lot standards makes more sense than pnor submittals as it no longer proposes long, narrow back lot necks with poor dnvew ay patterns Now it is a v*ery clustered, compact development. Gaffron referTed to the MnDNR comments in Exhibit H. supporting the conservation area and expressing reservations about individual lot's pnvate access to the Luce Line trail. Gaffron continued he review the significant Subdivision Review points addressed in the Staff Report, dated May 14, 2004. noting lU highlights. Included are 7 Issues for Consideration to be addressed by the Planning Commission and providing direction to suff and the applicant. Gaffron indicated that any recommendauon for Page 33 of 40 L MINUTES OF THE OROKO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (14. M4.3016 H£.NRYLAZ.MARZ.CoBtiwMd) ipprox’al should address the Issues for Consideration the staff recontmendation. as found on Page 8 and 9 of the Suff Report. May 14.2004. Henry Lazniarz. applicant, conveyed that there is now an easement agreement w.th the Mary Dunn for road access to Brown Rrad. The agreement has been submined to the Dunn's. Tom Goodrum. Schocll and Madson. planner for the applicant, explained that in an effort to preserve the property physical amenities and to create a residential enclav’e wnth clustering the homes, the house pads are SO* X 80' and are expecting estaie>style homes to built. Mr. Goodrum commented the laytMit features a massed relationship and docs not now force additional homes next to the two back to back homes on the south. He expressed the plat layout was redesigned to accommodate the neighborhood and the Planning Commission's concerns from earlier meetings. Trees loss will occur but is focused into one area with the clustering of the home sites and are looking to plant boulevard trees and providing perimeter screening with trees looking both inward and outward. He indicated the 18*'o slopes though not very lung provide a natural setting fur walkout style houses. Mr. I.azniar7 added the road placement is proposed where the existing driveway is now to mmimi/c site disruption. Mr. Goodrum concluded by stating the house w ill be custom-built and sensitive to the site, noting the grading plan shown probably is exceeding what will occur. Chair Mabusth asked for information about the final slopes behind the house pads. Mr. Goodrum explained there is a 6’ drop over 50* distance which is a 12“'. slope. Mr. Lazniarz assured the Planning Commission that even though the plans indicated house pads 50' x 80* as a conservative example, he expects no actual house to be constructed to that size. Mr. Lazniarz added their intent is to maximize the space between homes. It was confirmed that only one principal stnicture with attached garages are proposed for the site. Chair Mabusth invited comments from the public. Kevin Bigelow. 32 Apple Glen Road. Long Lake, questioned if the plans still propose using their dead-end road. Mr. Lazniarz confirmed the PRD only proposes the extension of sewer and water from Long Lake. Chair Mabusth offered Mr. Bigelow a copy of the Staff Report, dated May 14.2004. for more information. Doug Coleman. 140 S. Brown Road. Kallestad Acres, asked for confirmation of the proposed rear yard setbacks. It was confirmed there would be a 50' rear yard setback to the Kallestad Acres lots and at least 75' setback to creek. Sandy Coleman, 140 S. Brown Road, Kallestad Acres, asked if the existing home would remain. She w as told that the plans mdicated the existmg home would be kept on site. Mr. Lazniarz stated the sewer and water easement will be run down the easement w ith Dunn’s and it w ill be provided sewer and water as part of the agreement. Mr. Coleman asked for more information about the removal of trees and final slopes at the knoll. Mr. Goodrum explained that from the Kallesud Acres property there is a 50 ’ setback and no grading is expected within this sedack. so that no trees will be aflccted within 50 ’ of the Coleman’s lot line. Page 34 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONtMISSlON MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (14. INM.3016 HENRY LAZ.MARZ.ConllBMcd) Mr. Lazntirz continued that each lot vk'ill be custom graded to minimize the loss of trees and he committed to planting trees along the dn\-e>vay to make it a tree-lined road and to replace trees lost on house sites. He repeated their intention to minimize impacts to each site. Jim Dunn, speaking for Mary Dunn, remarked the agreement has not >'ei been reached as Mr. Lamiarz stated. It IS under consideration and not yet signed. Chair Mabusth asked for further public comments. Mrs. Coleman asked for further confirmation that there the houses proposed uill be 50' back from her property line. Mr. Lazniart responded that the setback is 50’ but the houses will not be positioned at the setback, resulting in potentially more distance, up to about 100* to the Coleman’s propcrt>- line because the 'nouses will be closer to the proposed sU. c’ Chair Mabusth closed the public heanng. Chair Mabusth led the Planning Commission is discussion of the following Issues for Coiuideniion 1. Does the Planning Commission agree w ith the use of the PRI) subdivision method for this property? It was a consensus that the PRD subdivision meihod should be used for ihis property. 2. Should the areas to be pre erved via conservation easements, be in an Outlot. or merely as an casement within each individual property? Chair Mabusih commented that to be consistent with pnor Planning Commission decisions, outlets owned by a homeowners asstK'iaiion were created. Gaffron concurred and explained that in standard subdivision plats usually individual lou were created wi*h a wetland easemert. He advised that within an outlot the City can put whatever conditions easements is deemed necessary. Bremer asked for information about why not have an outlot versus individual lot ownership; GafTron responded that with a homeowner’s association managing an outlot thae is greater recreations use by more people than if it is individually owned and had potential trespass issues Bremer commented that she would not support a path to the Luce Line Trail. Chair .Mabusth concurred with Bremer and thought there may be problems with people trespassing from the Luce Lme Trail mto the subdivision area. She suggested the Parks Commission should look at the proposed plan pnor to Planning Commission action to asceruin if they have an interest in a walking access to the creek and Its c.xisting bndge. .Mr. Van Ecckhout mtet}cctcd that m the winter skiers use the land but in the summer there are very few . Kempf suggested the Planning Commission focus on one issue at a time. He stated he liked the idea of a laigc outlot used as a shared amenity managed by a homeowmers association Kempf noted the matter of pedestrian access perhaps should be left lo the Parks Commission for review and decision Jurgens commented that with a large outlot it may create one giant access to the Luce Line Trail. Gafhon asked Fritzler about his experience .. iih obscrv mg wmla skiers use on the former Ski Tonka slopes since he lives across the Luce Lme Trail. Fntzler replied there is more snowmobilcr use coming off the Luce Line ndge and running up the hill and not from the owners or residents. It creates a spot where there is no enforcement. In the summer, there had been some dirt bike use some while ago but not recently. Also, horseback nders usually stay on the limestone or horse trail. Page35of40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (14. N04-3016 HOKYLAZMARZ.Continiied) Chair Mabusih asked Mr. Van Ecckhouts about his experience with ihe snowinobileTS going on the propertxv He replied there are very few and it is post No Trespassing Mr. Goodrum commented that as an outlot no one wil! feel ovsnership of it and believed individual lots prox'ided more control of the area. Rahn concurred that individual loi ownership is belter than an outlot design Chair Mabusih polled the Planning Commissioners; individ.ial lot ownership received 5 supporters, outlot design received 2 supporters. Chair Mabusih expressed she supported the outlot design to have better controls and enforcement than indnidually owned lots 3. What t>pc of Luce Line access should be allowed (in terms of pathwass. elcf.’ This issue was referred to the Parks Commission before the Planning Commission w ould make a decision. 4. Does Planning Commission accept the proposed lot sires, configurations and setbacks'^ Chair Mabusth stated she would not accept the lot lines as shown as she supports an outlot la>out. l urthcr. she commented that she did not think each lot had to a certain square footage area but in an attempt to minimize impacts on the surrounding areas building pads could be created within the setbacks to adjacent parcels, such as in the Northgate subdivision. She concluded that the proposed layout looks more like a standard subdivision than a PRD. There followed general discussion about whether the proposal should be looked at as a standard subdivision with individual loi ownership, and what makes the proposal a PRD. Bremer commented that clustering the houses creates a more environmentally design without huge lawns. Mr. Goodrum indicated that the 12 acres of conserv ation and dedication of the area betw een the creek and the Luce Line Trail arc features that make il a PRD Gaffron referred to the PRD standards in E.\hibii N-1 and read the standards into the record. He summanzed that a PRD is not required to have an ouilui for open space but requires open space dcdicaticn m some form and that a PRD can be done under the Code due lo a property unique charactcnsiics. He staled there is nothing wrong w ith the proposed Ia>‘oul if structured conectly hut it in undojhtedly one of the most unique subdivisions done in a w hile because it is proposing clustering of the houses and its physical features fur possible public amenities on ihis property Mr. Lazmarz pointed out that on a plat in another city, th *y proposed conservation easements desenbed as drainage utiliiv’ casement on each lot with a metes and bo^ids description and with monuments to mark the easement crossing each propertv- line. This t>pe of easement w ould be filed with the chain of title and the association covenants would stipulate what can and cannot be done within the conservation easement. Gafiron added the City Attorney should review the vanous methods for drainage and unlit> easement and conservation casement and if these easements meet the open space requirement for subdivision. Mr. Lazniarz ofTcred to provide easement language from the City of Minnetonka as an e.xample for review. GafBon stated the Cit>’ has standard language for conservation and flow age easements over wetlands and asl nl what the Plannmg Commission would want to allow on the slope or dry areas. Page 36 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (14. N04-3016 HENRY LAZNIAKZ, CoBliaued) Mr. Goodrum explained his experience with ihe Cuy ofMinneionka and homeowner association on what is allowed in the conserx’ation easements. He summanzed there is a full range of w hat may be allowed or restricted, such as no remosBl of trees, no removal of dead brush. rcmo\*al of fallen trees may allowed as well as buckthorn, foot paths may be allow ed and some restricted access as a measure of pure con .Tv ation. It was a consensus that no structures, no fencing, no tree houses, no bridges, no storage, no lugging or cutting of trees, no keeping of animals, no motor vehicles, no boats would be allow ed in a proposed conserv ation casement. Gaffron asked for a consensus on ihc lot si/es It was a conMrnsus that the proposed lot sizes were acceptable. S. Does Planning Commission feel that slopes of greater than I8?b should be protected from land alteration for this development? If so. a very* different layout might result. Chair .Mabusth commented that to develop this property would require land alterations of the 18"b slopes. Mr. Lazniarz reiterated that huusing costs will maintain smaller than proposed house pad sizes and this will minimize slope impacts It was a consensus to not prohibit land alteration of slopes greater than 18*/a. 6 Is Planning Commission comfortable with moving ahead wnh ih'% review given that the issue of access to Rrowii Road is still unresolved? David McCuskey. Shorewood. annmey for David and Connie .McCuskey. 130 Brown Road .South, advised the McCuskey ’s property had a lO'road and utility easement over it in favor of the City lie questioned if this casement is proposed to be used for the pnvate roadway. Chair Mabusth responded that an existing 40’ casement granted to an individual for access to the subject property, and there is also the 10’ wide along the 40’ easement. Gaffron confirmed the 10’ city easement is proposed to be used in combination w nh the 40’ casement Mr .McCuskey asked if the City Attorney concurred with using a public easement m combination with a pnvate road Gaffron indicated staff will confer with the City Attorney to confirm these facts and asked for Mr. McCuskey ’s phone and address to advise h*m of the City Attorney’s opinion. Mr. Lazntarz confirmed the pro, oscd 24’ private road is situated within the 40’ casement within the total 50’ width. Gaffron indicated that normally the City prefers roadways to be centered w nhin the easement due to snow storages needs, etc He summarized the question if the 10’ public easemem can be used by a pnvate developer for pnvate road purposes and there needs to be resolution of the question Gaffron introduced a concept whereby the portion of road from Brown Road to the subject property becomes public road. He indicated more discussions arc needed on this is.sue Chair Mabusth asked to discuss the road w idth issue, stating that if the spint of a PRD is to minimize ii.. jct. would more trees uc lost with the 24’ road width section Mr Lazniant indicated the proposal includes curb and gutter but stated they are open-minded on whether the road would be an urban or rural road section design. Gaflron indicated the City Engineer should look at this and provide a recommendation Chair .Mabusth questioned the Planning Commission is there is enough resolution on the mam access to the property for voting at this meeting She suggested the Planning Commission wan for the Parks Commission to comment on the access to the Luce Line Trail. Gaffron mdteated that the Parks Commission may look at this matter at its meeting on the first Monday in June 2004. He also suted the road access issue could be addressed as part of Final Plat approval L Page 37 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEI TING MONT)AY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (14. MM-3016 HENRY LAZ.MARZ, CoBllBOcd) Leslie asked if the Parks Comnussion recommendation on access to the Luce Line Trail w ould actually alTect the site lot layout. Bremer did not support that a point access to the Luce Line Trail be approved w’Th the PRD and therefore it W’as not r.ccessary to go through the process of Parks Commission rc\iew. Rahn commented that the access issue is not something needed to be determined but left to the individual lot owner to determine. Chau Mabusth responded that it is a matter of access control is an individual lot owner creates an informal path to the Luce Line Trail. It wns pointed out there arc only three lots abuitmg the Luce Line Trail. It was a consensus to not stipulate any point access Bremer BMved, RahB sccoBdcrL to recomoMBd approval of Application 404-3016 for Preliminary Plat - Planned Residential Devetopment (PRD), Henry LaaniarrA%'ayiata l>cslgn and Development, 120 Brown Road Sonlb for a proposed 7>lot residential plat of property abnttlng the Luce Line Trail aad Long Lake Creek, sabject to the foUowing stipulations: a. Approving the site layout and lot standards, lot coaTirnratloB aad setbacks b. Reqairing a conservation easement to match the ntlHty/dralnage easement as shown c. Requiring no Joint access point to the Luce Line Trail d. Rcsoh-iag the legal issues resulting from the private road and assuring real access to the property, Inctudiag ntiliaatioa of the lO'pnbUc easement e. Requiring a Phase 1 archaeological survey be completed prior to Final Plat Approval VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 2. Chair Mabusth expressed her opinion that she agreed w ith all issues except for the format of the PRO She supported designation of an open space ouiloi w ith credit for the area based on the outlet area and all of the dry buildable area instead of individual lots. Kempf stated he agreed with the entire proposal except that if it were an outlet with neighborhood responsibility for the area he expected the neighborhood would evolve differently from individually owned lots. 15. MM-3017 SPRI CE HILL PROPERTIES, INC., 3775 BA^ MDt ROAD, VARIANCES, PI BLIC HEARING (11:42-11:50 p.m.) Dave Thorp. Spruce Hill Properties. Inc., applicant, w^ present. Curtis explained the application requesting hardcover, lake setback and rear yard (street) setback vanances in order to do an extensive remodel, which consists of renovating the first floor and re-constructing the 'A story above. She recommended approval of the application and plans as submitted due to the hardships inherent to the configuration of the property, ir pumcular. the shallow’ lot depth and size and location of the existing home on the lot Malt Cookson, Spruce Hill Properties, agreed that the shallow nature of the property makes limited buildable area, as the lake yard setback and front yard setback overt ip. He stated the hoax now siu on the most conforming location on the lot meeting the 30'side yard setback. The proposed remodel is on the existing foundation and slightly reduces the amount of existing hardcover. Further, he suggested they could reduce the cemem pano to the setback of the deck, reducing it about 6* back. Dave Thorp, Spruce Hill Properties, commented that the deck is essential to the property. Page 38 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONTDAY, MAY 17,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (15. ••4-3017 SPRUCE HILL PROPERTIES. INC., CoaliHvcd) Chair Mabusth pointed out the existing patio landing is cracked and suggested it be replaced. The applicants indicated it is proposed to be replaced. Chair Mabasth laoved, Kempf seconded, to rccomiiiead approval of Applicatioa M14-3017, Sprace Hill Properties, to grant a hardcover variance to permit lets than 3.8% hardcover within the 0-75* zone when 0% ta normally allowed aad 3.9% cnrreatly exists (removal of 7.5* x 2.5* chimaey shaft) and when added to the 75*-250* mae alowaace yields total hardcover of less than 30% doe to the redaction in size of the patio by abant 6*, to grant a lake setback variance to pcimii stnictnre within 75’ of the lake and to grant a street yard setback variance to permit a 22* setback when 50* is normally required and 22* currently exists. She commented that this is certainly a hardship lot. Chair Mabusth asked for public comment. There were none. VOTE; Ayes 7, .>ays 0. Curtis advised the applicant to mark up the proposed patio removals on ihe application and provide ihc square foouge measurements and return them to the City for inclusion in the approving resolution and site plan, and that a new suney is not required. 16. ••4-3021 CITY OF ORO.NO. ZO.MNG CODE REVISIONS SECTIONS 78-72, 78-281, 78-282, 78-283-78-1279(6), 78-1405,78-1432, ALLOW ADMINISTRATI\ E APPROVALS AND REMO\X DUPLICATE LANGUAGE, PUBLIC HEARING (11:51-11:54 p.m.) Chair Mabusth moved, Leslie seconded, to rrconunend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments fur Sectloas 78-1405 Entrance Monuments, 78-72 Administrative Approval. 78-282-300 Deirtrs Duplicate Language. 78-1279 (6) Administrative Approval and 78-14342 Accessory Buildings. Chair Mabusth asked for public comments. There were none, VOTE; Ayes7.Na)sO. PLANNING COM.MISSION CO.\t.\lE.*VrS 17. REPORT OF PLAN*NTNG COM3IISSION REPRFSFNTATIVFS ATTENDING CITY COUNCIL .MEETINGS APRIL 25,2004 AND .MAY 10.2004. Kempf reported on the May 10. 2004 City Council meeting he attended CialTron added that Big Island access application w as approved and the MCWD is requ* ;ng filing of an easement declaration that is yet to be determined. Leslie reported on the April 26. 2004 City Council meeting, noting that the Valerius coffee house application discussion emphasized the need for proof of hardship that was echoed by the Plarming Commission discussion and recommendation. As a new Plannmg Commission member, he thought this was confirming to w hat the Planning Commission’s goals are for granting hardship variances. He explained the City Council action took out the parking spaces on the Valenus application. Page 39 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. It. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Chair Mabusth led a general discuuion about the Planning Commission starting time of 6:00 p.m. and whether there was any interest m setting a later starting time as Planning Commission Bremer cannot arrive at 6:00 p.m. due to her work/commute time. Bremer indicated that she generally amves by 6: IS p m. There was a coaseasus to make no chanfe in the starting time. Chair Mabusth expressed a need to schedule a general discussion of the code issues nith boardwalks. Chair Mabusth advised a party to honor fonner Planning Commission chairpersons is tenutively set for early in September 2004. Following brief discussion, it wu a consensus to set the party for the September 19.2004, the 3*^ weekend. 19. APPROVAL OF APRIL 19.2094 PLANNING COMMISSION MINtTES Raho moved. Chair MMNulh sccoadcd. to approve the Mlaalcs of the April 19.2004 Plaaaiag Coa»isaioa Mcdtef. VOTE: A)ts6.NaysO.Ahstatal. 20. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COITNCIL MEETINGS ON MAY 24.2004 AND JUNE 14.2004. May 24,2004 - J. Marc Fnttler June 14.2004 - Jeanne Mabusth Ganron announced the next Planning Commission workshop is set for Wednesday, June 3. 2004 at 5:30 p.m. ADJOirRNMENT BreoMT maved, Lerilc icconded, la ad|aani the Plaaaiag CaaMalHiaB Mcctiag ai 12:04 a.m. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 a.m. JcMM MabvMht Chair Pase40of40 I A* tt,. - !..vA ' h Ido -i i:>^75 'v: ,ti,»,') V " Wwf i--.- ■*<®rrs!*rt, ^ ■! V.vf rr^ssii Sll «« ;; dili^ .» i if , -:^ Crystal Bay Villages Orono. Minnesota BRENSHELL development landform 1 Old Crystal Bay Road •V a- - t feias HP 0 ^r “\ ._-A • 1 f m^»:^ ik Site Plan I >• £ o» o o c a z / j^i^y. yjj Site Plan iNDFCMlM •«««•••*• e»e«*4e Old Crystal Bay Villages Orono, Minnesota BRENSHELL DEVELOPMENT Sections I !» ?■ . 1 ) ' abr> : '• Section A-A’ 0.3 1 f : 5: ‘ * *' 8, 1• * ' H 'im 11« 1 ! 3 !i 1 1-^**»—• 1 i-ir*' P 'n/x - V'3'^'■1 1^,.^ IT1 t ill ( / / ' •4.1 «%«!<• !%••*• Section B-B' Old Crystal Bay Villages Orono. Minnesota BRENSHELL OEVELOPMEMT Perspective ^ ji yi i.* .jji1 wm fiw illlilyi^i^^^^^S^Bill^^S t vll^c^jr. 'i!^^ lULy^ - r..'^ ■ Jj ».'’«^-'-*-C . I/- >r V ;» m.M J ►-/ t- ' '} •f !' t"?, Old Crystal Bay Villages Orono. Minnesota BRENSHELL DEVELOPMENT ■ "mC * ^ ' 'v.;r|!|i''*'Ti ^'4£ ■#«r ^■» :i Perspective! .4br »<A »*/ ^ V !iV UK. i'l! 'smm’ ^ *1 ,«\ if, ■i:s£sl2r .. Ij^'f ;«|Vf _/i[ lapB. P'n« ‘•— ^-k V^ 1^1 .andform Old Crystal Bay Villages Orono, Minnesota BRENSHELL DEVELOPMENT House Types I OPTION A - Crystal Landform • •••4e«e Old Crystal Bay Villages Orono, Minnesota BRENSHELL DEVELOPMENT f * ai tf-V/uii House Types I OPTION A2 - Lafayette - ll . ^■' ----- ^JrmtuK •rrriiz.r:^ 1 .T ♦ — ♦------- ANDPORM Nfe«e#e««e »•—xe Old Crystal Bay Villages BRENSHELL DEVELOPMENT Orono. Minnesota I I I I I House Types I OPTION B - Robinson i j ,-^v ■^3^ ■ 3^ l,jL lii .......................4^' .^------ - - .... /iNDPORM Old Crystal Bay Villages Orono. Minnesota BRENSHELL DEVELOPMENT House Types I OPTION B2 - Carson VDPORM Old Crystal Bay Villages BRENSHELL DEVELOPMENT Orono. Minnesota House Types I OPTION C - Gideon i "If** iWdtoiim Old Crystal Bay Villages BRENSHELL DEVELOPMENT Orono. Minnesota I 1 r M^iiii^ 5il=lfe iramM W«4 >»»»*♦ »•—«H i Old Crystal Bay Villages House Types I OPTION D • Halsted :T-' V X.' BRENSHELL development Orono. Minnesota u.A Harrison mORM House Types I OPTION D2 - Harrison I —• '4 <■ Old Crystal Bay Villages BRENSHELL DEVELOPMENT Orono, Minnesota