Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01-16-1984 Planning Packet
mmm le Road - Permit. Wayzata >errait. li ttee. ft . «■ ■:.%’mmn v' m -v^v -,:7,v vcyff Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator January 12, 1984 #804 Painter's Creek Development Corporation - Subdivision, Conditional Use Permit for PRD and Rezoning Existing Zoning District - RR-IA ~ 5 Acre minimum lot zone Area - Dry land - 66,6 Wetlands - ^ Total - 72,6 Acres Density ratio - Units per dry acres Required (per RR-IA) * 1 per 5,12 acre, 13,32 units per 66,6 dry acres Proposed (per RR-IB) = 1 per 3,33 acre, 20 units per 66,6 dry acres LIST OP EXHIBITS Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit K Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M Exhibit N • Application - Conditional Use Permit - Rezoning - Application - Subdivision - Plat Map - Property Owners List - Hennepin County Department of Transportation Report - Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Report - Comprehensive Plan Section - State Statute 462,357 - Zoning Section 32,510 - 520 - School District Map - Landscape Plan - Pattern of Neighborhood Development 40 Acre Radius -• Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1983 - Preliminary Subdivision Packet A) PRD/Subdivision Review The applicant proposes a PRD subdivision of 20 lots, all lots or ownership units with an average area of 2+ acres. The subdivision has been classified as a PRD although there is no clustering of houses. Each lot contains an individual or separate building site and suitable area for both principal and alternate sites. The On Site Septic System manager confirms suitable tested areas in each proposed unit confirming either shallow trench or mound system. He will not be able to confirm the systems designs for some of '• •• . ation - Rezoning s per 66.6 r 66.6 dry - Rezoning portation Report it 40 Acre r 21, 1983 lots, all ;res. The sre is no : separate alternate >le tested h or mound for some of rmirn the questionable lots until he goes out on the site and makes the necessary soil borings. . ^ understand why the subdivision has been designed in the current format based on the many needs of a rural subdivision. If present format we would have a patch work design of Duilding pads, principal and alternate septic site pads for 20 residences, etc. My question to the Planning Commission is how to assure that each unit provides suitable area for a building site and what will the setbacks be from each lot line - side - rear- front. Section 38.610 states that lots in a PRD need not adhere to minimum lot size requirements for each building site. The building pad has not been desinated - what are feasible setbacks for the rural 2 acre zone? severly configuration I note several Lot 1, Block 1 - divided by a drainageway b) Lot 9, Block 1 — drainf ield located on too severe a slope — site^ appear to be suitable flat area for building c) Lot 10 - drainf ield located in drainage area lot divided by drainageway. d) Lot 11 - no suitable area for building site. e) Lot 13 - no suitable area for building site. p Lot 15 - drainfields located close to proposed drainageways - building site limited. g) Lot 16 - building site limited h) Lot 1, Block 2 - building site limited. Building pads should be designated on a revised plan once preferred setbacks are established from ownership lot lines. alignment. The engineer's report will provide LTtroi^ P*^°P°sed road design, drainage, erosion Po^ViirVhh * The engineer s report will be presented at our meeting. lot. 1, iS: "V”"i feet of right of way. We will hold to a 33' dedication. The three review the proposed access t .•••; - • f -Vr-: ■■r I I mm V.t.*; W 5V: i*ia add rev app dis fac sch Rez nei cur COIT re' wi re un is Co f r ap th ov d€ and makes the in designed in division. If work design of pads for 20 sion is how to Lding site and rear- front, to minimum lot ng pad has not il 2 acre zone? I note several svere a slope - 1 for building m lot divided site. site. to proposed sed plan once 1 lines. as part of the e at 28* width th'iun radius of will provide nage, erosion : our meeting. lding areas of ■o give County additional 7 1. The three oposed access T':-• .--V j': - |||■^|«| I \±..x:z The Watershed District's report and requirement for additional information will be transmitted to the applicant. Permi review is required. The City will ask for no revisions or new plans from the applicant until the tezoning issue is resolved. Review exhibit J. The property is divided ® /district boundary line. The 2 staged subdivision design takes this fac^intoSdl^allon- Staff has ^earned that it is Impossible to ask school district to move boundary lines if it means loss in tax base. Rezoning - I have been informed that the neighbors will be out “ neighborhood meetings are being held this weekend ± current proposal. It is my understanding that the neighbors are in complete opposition to the rezoning. Issue for consideration during rezoning review. a) Should the area to be rezoned include the 3 one acre sites surrounded by project. b) Is 2 acre zoning consistent with pattern of sorrounding development. c) What kinds of issues are valid in this type of review 1. public health, welfare and safety 2. dimunition in property values 3. consistency with intent of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Planning Commission should listen and be prepared ® recommendation. Upon a recommendation will bring the rezoning portion of the application to the Council for review and action. I cannot see doing any more detailed review of a unit PRD nor asking for major revisions in plans until the rezoning issue is resolved. Review exhibits G, H & I. I have enclosed sections of the Comprehensive Plan dealing with land use for the rural area^ Sections from the State Statutes and Municipal Code to assist in your review. determined necessary for a "legal" homestead site. . /'i ¥ ' i k £ mmg X' "‘a iX. Ifi-r L-xEk:- B mi h <■ > :x 5^ ?rA:' “i,., c- 11t Hi Planni Counci the qu> PRD su rezoni please Code, (revie by pro Planning Commission Action - Table all action on the review o£ the PRD subdivision until Council makes a determination on the zoning. Advise applicant that the question of the illegal division will be resolved at the time the PRD subdivision is acted on by Planning Commission. Planning Commission must make a recommendation for proposed rezoning. Whether you decide to approve or disapprove the petitionr please use findings based on criteria from Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, pattern of existing development surrounding subject property (review exhibit L) , comments of neighboring property owners affected by proposal. .-f •y .j Wff- f •> > *r= - ’ if-A../» 7/ v>; i'M. HgH exhibit HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 935-3381 January 6, 1984 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Zoning Adninistrator City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth: ^@HDW[1 -91984 CITY OF OM Proposed Plat - "Painters Creek" CSAH 84 NE Quadrant of McCaulley Road Section 31i Township 118, Range 23 Hennepin County No. 1148 Review and Reconroendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County reviw of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and found it acceptable with consideration of these conditions: The Hennepin County Transportation System Study recommends CSAH 84 be returned to municipal Jurisdiction. •For future imfwxjveroents to CSAH 84 the develc^r should dedicate an additioral 7 feet of right of way along CSAH 84, making the right of way 40 f^eet from the center of CSAH 84. ^Yhe three proposed access points onto CSAh 84 are acceptable to Hennepin County. These locations were reviewed in the field by Mr. Ron Bastyr of R. Bastyr & Assoc, and Dave Zetterstrom of Hennepin County. -Any new access onto a County road requires an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning any construction. See our Traffic Division for entrances permit forms. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer Ms. Jear January -All pre pennit drainaf Mainter -The de^ right < anes M Chief, JMW/LDU IT @dDW[l -9I9M .■I Y OF OiiC •A\ > » e County review of at and found it H 84 be returned to tte an additional 7 I feet from the ,o Hennepin County >f R. Bastyr & Ln County entrance fision for entrances UNTY loyer ,,^1 1, I Ms. Jeanne Mabusth - 2 January 6, 1984 -m proposed construction within County right of way requires p^it brior to^^nning construction. This includes »«t is not ^o, drSnage and utiliS construction, trail development, and landscaping. See our Maintenance Division for utility permit forms. -The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within Crunty right of way. Please direct any response or Questions to Les Veigelt. Chief, Planning and Programming JMW/LIM:pl MINNEH WATERS P.O. Box 387, Wayzi •OMO OF MANAGCRS: David H. Cochran, Pres. • Albert January Ms. Jean Zoning A City of PO Box 6 Crystal Re: No. Dear Ms. The Minn comments The prel streets adequate 1. 2. 3. 4. Out Exi Exi Hyd vol 5. 6. Pro Dra dra Please b formally Should y Very tru EUGENE A Engineer Clifford approved utility t limited to, aping. See our on within County - exhibit WATCRSHCO lOUNOARY MIIUIMEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 lAKC MINNETONKA NOANO OF MANA6ENS: Otvid H. Cochran, Prc«. • Albert L. Lehman • lohn E. Thomas • Michael N. Carroll • Camille D. Andre January 3, 1934 tf‘ t V* I • f . I * ‘ V J ! j'xN J < :*! * • il • ' . *• v' » »< Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota JAN-5lPni J e • 4 . •I f » « A V ■ p'T A ♦ ’ * \ 55323 Re: No. 804, Painters Creek Development, Corp. Dear Ms. Mabusth: The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is in receipt of your request for comments regarding the above mentioned subdivision. The preliminary plat proposes to drain stormwater runoff from the public streets and lawn areas to the wetland located on Outlot D. In order to adequately review this proposal, the applicant must determine the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Outlet size and invert elevation for the wetland outlet. Existing wetland normal water level. Existing wetland 100 year high water level. Hydrologic calculations to determine the change in runoff rates and volumes as a result fo the proposed development. 5. Proposed wetland 100 year high water level. 6. Drainage easements for the wetland area, storm sewers, and overland drainage courses. Please be advised that no construction is authorized until the District has formally reviewed this proposal and a permit has been issued. Should you have any further questions or problems, please advise. Very truly yours. EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES Engineers for the District Clifford Raep k: .1 0 ' V 1 • ■ iJik i§Sim USE URBAN IN Orono•s to conti in the C availabl from ext office b URBAN ED The Oron Highway land nec The area transpor contiguo should t URBAN RE RURAL LAI RURAL REi Rural r< with a B total n\ total ri one unil of wetl< which ii this rec J The planr dwelling systems. the natuz the prese populatic system. ■y/i'-nnM • “‘‘I I'l * i <•! 1C 9 swing: t has -••' - JM.A [rx IW : 'r e1;is ;e;i Uli mm '$rrim 1; m;'/. f:-:-- IP LANl^^E exhibit JUNE, 1980 URBAN INDUSTRIAL LAND USE Orono's Indust.rial Park along Highway 12 west of Long Lake is planned to continue as the only appropriate area for industrial-type activity 1*^ the City. Adequate transportation including rail facilities are available as is municipal water and sanitary sewer. The area is remote from extensive residential development. Accessory functions such as office buildings will be permitted in the industrial area. URBAN EDUCATIONAL LAND USE The Orono School District Campus on Old Crystal Bay Road between Highway 12 and Sixth Avenue North is planned to continue as the only land necessary or appropriate for high density educational facilities. area is central within the school district and is served by adequate transportation, water and sewer. Sufficient land is available in one contiguous piece for^^all necessary facilities and for any future expansion should that ever be required. URBAN RECREATIONAL FACILITIES 'Ics ,Urban paries, trails, and open space are not indicated on the Land Use Plan b^ause the planned facilities are all relatively small neighborhood or mi^-parks which are immediately accessory to the overlaying urban res^ential land use. The only recreational facilities identified in the urban area are swimming beaches and lake access points which attract a significant number of urban residents. I RURAL LAND USE RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE Rural residential development will be limited to single family dwellings, with a minimum dry-buildable lot size of at least two acres. When the total number of forecast rural households (1267) is divided into the total rural acreage of Orono (6960 acres), the gross rural density becomes one unit per seven acres. This is a reflection on the extensive amounts of wetlands and public open space that occupies our rural service area, which in turn is a primary reason why extension of urban services into this region is impractical and uneconomic. « e J The planned rural density of at least 2.0 dry-buildable net acres per welling will permanently support on-site water supply and sewage treatment systems. The planned rural density will not overload or adversely affect the natural wetlands and storm water filtration system so necessary to the preservation of Lake Minnetonka's water quality. The resulting population densities will require no major changes to the public road system. CMP 4-27 IN"' b-' t-: land use The planned rur the historic ch large enough to uses. Because planned rural d( economically coi This preserves land, as well c! Orono residents Certain restric because of the Minnetonka, ste characteristics public services improvements in water sewer and will be subject addition to the Orono's rural r dwelling per tw environmental ii services. Oron the established unit would dest; maintain their i RURAL RESIDE This is the to be permai Area. No ri two acres ei housing clus nay include allow, provi to these req rural resided Although t for the er is planned in this ar quasi-agri minimum lo concerns hi JUNE, 1980 Lake is planned 1-type activity acilities are he area is remote ctions such as rea. lad Ibetween ue as the only onal facilities, served by adequate vailable in one any future expansion on the Land Use ' small neighborhood iverlaying urban IS identified in the t 'which attract a e family dwellings, acres. When the vided into the >ral density becomes extensive amounts iral service area, lan services into e net acres per ’ and sewage treatment or adversely affect I so necessary to The resulting the public road LAND USg EXHiB'7 JUNE, 1980 1^1 density should maintain to the greatest extent possible ’ economxcally competitive with urban development in other suburban areL land owner's rights to use and/or develop his Oron^ resident^! choice of lifestyle possible for residential development will be imposed Minn.nnvf . existence of numerous wetlands and drainageways to Lake Minnetonka, steep slopes, soil type variations and. other natural characteristics. These restrictions will minimise the need for expensive public services such as municipal sanitary sewer, municipal water ma-ior inters!*"*® transportation, and most important, public'storm wJirbe"^bi^c? facilities. All rural lands abutting lakesSore addition ^ the same protective restrictions as urban lands in addition to the lower land use density of the area. Orono's rural residential density will not be increased to less than one dwelling per two dry-buildable acres because of the potentially adversr environmental impact and because of the increased need for costly urban the eHailis^rr:* density will not be decreasL belLthe established average because the resulting increase in acreaae oer RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 1 DWELLING PER TWO ACRES residential density developed and planned A«a permanently self-supporting in all of Orono's Rural Service Area. No rural density will be allowed greater than one unit per hoLi^r^'T^* for those existing residences in existing rurH housing clusters as identified in the CSPP. New rural developments alLi clustering when environmental and site conditions ?“^srr:qu!rement::"*“ conforms typical tww. acre rural residential density is appropriate is nia Rural Service Area, the northwest corner of the City is planned for a lower density of one unit per five acre^ tL citizen. qCasJiL“:uitu«l“.ct*'‘ttt°"*\^®w"“ intensive rural and rnus, historic land use and not environmAnf-ai concerns have determined this land use classification. CMP 4-28 ii i.. a i! "V V h % It ■ 2 A h ■.G, ZONING 7474 to report on the proposal within nod as may be designated by tiu d the requirements of this subdt «idoptcd by two-thirds vote di*. 'hen m its judgment it finds that Jerty or capital improvement has ^TION; zoning. the purpose of promoting the re. a municipality may by ordi- ber of stones, size of buildings ^h m<y be occupied, the size 5 tribution of population, the uses . residence, recreation, public d for trade, industry, residence Tins ilf/ '“PP'y conservation.’ldD.485, access to direct siin- 116H.02, Hood comrol « nd procedures regulating such construction as defined in sec- ill other zoning ordinances pro- ns may divide the municipality and area. The regulations shall tructures or land and for each the regulations in one district nance embodying these regula- ,^shall consist of te.xt and maps, t Its zoning regulations to unin- Its limits in any direction, but ting regulations; provided that nave boundaries less than four ng Cl land on its side of a line nicipalities unless a town or gulations. Any city may therc- ame e.xtcnt as if such property county or town board adopts a c area. after the adoption of a land ' • for the purpose of carrying a\ prepare a proposed zoning "ith Its recommendations for ons 3. 4 and 5, the governing ^ two-thirds vote of a" its I*’e or amendment thereto shall e.-’eon by the planning agency pee and purpose of the hear- 1 the municipality at least ten lendment involves changes in »ess. a similar notice shall be ing to each owner of affected min 350 feet of the property of giving mailed notice, the . L 8^1?.■if.•• !'■ EXHIBIT 7475 HOUSING, RKI)KVELOI»MENT. PLANNING. ZONING 462.357 person responsible for rnailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the naines and addres.ses of owners. A copy If ,hc notice and riist of the ownep and addre.sscs to which the notice was sent shall be at Si^^d U) bv the responsible person and shall be made a part of the records of the > r " The failure .0 give mailed m.dce indivSual'^loperirowtr/. or d^- eus f Te notice shall not invalidate the proceedings nrmirtev'i in the ply wilh this subdivision has iH-en made ' , An timendmeni to a zoning ordinance mav be initi aled by the governing body, the planning agency or bv oe ilion of , property owners as defined in the zonim» "orTrin in'r-o a ^ affected ated by the planning agency shall be referred lo'thp iil " .^>riendmenl not inili- one. for study and remrn and may no be tctc, J« unlii it has received the recommendation of the nbm”' ^ governing body posed amendment or until 60 Zs h rclle^rom “"r the amendment without a report by the ph'X agency^^ ' subdi'sl?n app^roTe'; o/'the nisrcrtsfl^i'^^ zoning ordinance shall be nade in conformance with this sccihl!l'h‘^l”'"r 'r “ there shall have been filed in the office of the citv nlri- ^ -section but only after owners of two-thirds of the sev^r "l deser nt l^ “ feet of the total contiguous descriptions of^real cst:-te*^held b\Mhc^sm^^ any party purchasing any such contiguous propcay wh^ Vne ve- - the request, and after the affirmative vote in f-ivnr fhnrJlr u ' preceding members of the governing bodTof any such ci s TheS -till ^f‘’r ornVtLt::n^“X'acr ^4^fs?,i°^. t shall report in writing as to whether in i« on!H!on'IiI''""**'°'' P'smning board body in'’any case areSeU^n^Wy'^dat r.oX ov hearing published notice shall have bln gi^n"'irfdadv circulation at least once each week for ihr,.^J^.r “ “ newspaper of general ing. which notice shalUla^e The time o ^4 . Pci“r'» such hear- shall have reported to the govcling bod^S ihlcdv iK°ffo?- I""'"*'J^Uons in wriling " ^ ^ ^ findings and recommen- nciustments has the foil.,wing powls’S ?4;^cuo th?Ll„torl„rce ““ any «de,.4c’<|uiremem'41is^^^^^^^ " “ »" ««>' i" nffic..., the elnforc™lulrtl"zo‘4ngl;:Zancr'' “'"’‘■'-'^ntive nance iiT“,lr„4;Xrthdr'':l‘?^''-''r'™"’ “'"i" 'h« ordi- list...... v,u.,„ *.„■ „■ ,tr, "S,:;;.,*; V k 462.358 HOI defined in : The board be, may nc nance for p board or gc porary use erning bodj ances to ins Subd. this state tl be excluder tial surrour fewer ment permitted si Subd. town, muni state license physically h dential use zoning auth assure prop tions shall imposed on same zones, and safety c the physical hibit resider single famih Hislon 4; 1973 c 53 s 42,43 462.358 PF LATIONS. Subdiv Sul general land, to affordab provisioi playgrou nance ai procedui iations r to, certa each cla< A mun regulations t any direction vided that wl than four mi distance fron the applicatii tory, upon th iIN« 462.357 records to iind a list of Jd to by the iroccedings. :fects in the attempt to lay be initi- of affected It not initi- , if there is rning body m the pro- jference of ions of this nents to a only after sent of the within 100 e owner or preceding rity of the Jy of such lew zoning mission or tea of the Jinance or ffect when ins of real ig of such ing board governing immunity, nducted a of which i>f general >uch hear- iring. and reommen- pcals and t any rea- peals and ice: 1 error in nistrative the ordi- hardship deration, lions will hardship for solar action as • ^ Pi i k(~ SI fm m •462.358 HOUSING. REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, ZONING HOUSING, REDE’defined in section 116H.02, subdivision 3. when in harmony with ih#* .*•The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing bodv asbe, may not oermit as a varianrp nnv thm u ® casebe, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted nance for propeny in the zone where the affected person’s land is localcd^A; board or governing body as the case may be, may fiermit as ^va ancel^^ porary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling The hn.ra erning body as the case mav hr» m-iv- __ware or anccs to insure ''.•1 this state the case may be may impose conditions in the grantinp compliance and to protect adjacent properties. * Subd. 7. Permitted single family use. In order to implement the »v.r ^ itate that mentally retarded and physically handicapped persons .hW be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances from the benefits of normal tial surroundings, a state licensed group home or foster home scr\tnJ^^ fewer mentally retarded or physically handicapped persons shall be permitted single family residential use of property for the purposes of 2oni« * Subd. 8. Permitted multiTamily use. Unless otherwise provided in town, municipal or county zoning regulation as authorized by this subdivitiftT^ state licensed residential facility serving from 7 through 16 mentally retards * physically handicapped persons shall be considered a permitted multi-famih^ dential use of property for purposes of zoning. A township, municipal or co^ zoning authority may require a conditional use or special use permit in orders assure proper niaintcnance and operation of a facility, provided that no cooT tions shall be imposed on the homes w-hich arc more restrictive than ihott imposed on other conditional uses or special uses of residential property in iW same zones, unless the additional conditions arc necessary to protect the heihi and safely of the residents of the residential facility for the mentally retarded « the physically handicapped. Nothing herein shall be construed to exclude or w». mbit residential homes for the mentally retarded or physically handicapped fros single family zones if otherwise permitted by a local zoning regulation. History: 7965 c 670 s 7; 1969 c 259 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7: 1973 c 3791 4; 1973 c 539 s 1; 1973 c 559 s 1.2; 1975 c 60 s 2; 1978 c 786 s 14.i5^^Exl9m: S 42,43 462.358 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION; SUBDIVISION RECl- LATIONS. Subdivision 1. [ Repealed, 1980 c 566 s 35 ] Subd. la. Authority. To protect and promote the public health, safety, ud general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic, and safe development of ff j agricultural lands, to promote the availability of housiof affordable to persons and families of all income levels, and to facilitate adequate provision for transportation, water, sewage, storm drainage, schools, parka, playgrounds, and other public services and facilities, a municipality may by onfi* nance adopt subdivision regulations establishing standards, requirements, and procedures for the review and approval or disapproval of subdivisions. The rego* lations rnay contain varied provisions respecting, and be made applicable only to, certain classes or kinds of subdi’/isions. Th.. regulations shall be uniform fot each class or kind of subdivision. A municipality may by resolution extend the application of its subdivision regulations to unincorporated territory located within two miles of its limits in “•faction but not in a town which has adopted subdivision regulations; pro* vided that w’here two or more noncontiguous municipalities have boundaries Ic® than four miles apart, each is authorized to control the subdivision of land equal distance from its boundaries within this area. However, if a municipality cxienih the application of its subdivision or zoning regulations to unincorporated terri' tory, upon the petition of any county board or town board affected by the subdi- . .M or zoning regulations, a jointmember committee with one me and county governing bodic Ij 1 ^ before the joint board adopts sul jifivislon regulations under section two miles of the city located wi bodies to serve as the governii rtior purposes of sections 462.35'» which the municipality has exu Subd. 2. [ Repealed, 1980 c 566 Subd. 2a. Terms of regulations.' rfitions may address w'ithout limit —mivement of lots, structures, pub and gutters, water supply, storm mJ other utilities; the planning and • ^ protection and conservation of flo ioo, energy, air quality, and geolo| require that subdivisions be con lone exists and its zoning ordinano iftial controls and the comprehensi ■0 classes or kinds of subdivisions it ^comprehensive plan and the purp ntk'*’ of agricultural lands The regi permits for any tracts, lots, o ipproval has not been obtained. The ondition its approval on the consti declric, gas, drainage, and water f; aents or, in lieu thereof, on the rec ccttified check, irrevocable letter o' mrety and conditions sufficient to a: inprovements will be constructed or the municipality. The regulations tr.. ipproval on compliance with other r< sons of the regulations and to exe< lenns and conditions of approval. ’ Bents and conditions by appropriate Subd. 2b. Dedication. The regt loo of any proposed subdivision b< public use as streets, roads, sewer; ■Iter drainage and holding areas c ■tots. In addition, the regulations m; proposed subdivision be dedicated t jj*s, playgrounds, trails, or open S| •bosc to accept an equivalent amoi wAe portion required to be dedicai ^ fair market value of the land no •y cash payments received shall be •cd only for the purposes for which reasonable portion to be dedica ^ce, park, recreational, or comn: proposes to reserv'c for the subdi\ determines that it will need to acc l^led in this paragraph as a result o % ^ j B1 -4 ■m t'rf m ■ y 32, ment th< held tht A notic« be publ: than tei the day in disti a simile nor mor« ing to < wholly c the amer notice, any app: of ownei and add] to by tJ records to indir not inv« to comol (Amend ec \/^ 32. An amenc action c Planninc« their oi to be cl Commissj study ai Council Planninc days ha\ ment v/il (Amended 32. (Repealc 32. may be c shall cc rezoninc ment of or in pt fr:>r, th« nt-ii evic by the I (Amendec UK HOUSING, REDE’ I or zoning regulations, a joint ' member committee with one m< and county governing bodic dsion regulations under section I two miles of the city located wi • bodies to serve as the governii \ox purposes of sections 462.35" t^efore the joint board adopts su' s which the municipality has extc Subd. 2. ( Repealed, 1980 c 566 Subd. 2a. Terms of regulations.' ns may address without limit ivement of lots, structures, pub and gutters, water supply, storm ither utilities; the planning and • rotection and conservation of flo energy, air quality, and geolo{ require that subdivisions be con > exists and its zoning ordinano il controls and the comprehensi lasses or kinds of subdivisions it >mprehensive plan and the purp • of agricultural lands. The regi ermits for any tracts, lots, o val has not been obtained. The lion its approval on the consti ic, gas, drainage, and water f: ; or, in lieu thereof, on the rec ed check, irrevocable letter o' r and conditions sufficient to a: ivements will be constructed or lunicipality. The regulations m. ival on compliance with other r< of the regulations and to exe< and conditions of approval. i and conditions by appropriate Subd. 2b. Dedication. The regt )f any proposed subdivision b< : use as streets, roads, sewer* drainage and holding areas c In addition, the regulations mi ised subdivision be dedicated t , playgrounds, trails, or open S| c to accept an equivalent amot t portion required to be dedicai lir market value of the land no ash payments received shall be only for the purposes for which (asonable portion to be dedicz , park, recreational, or comn: ►ses to rescue for the subdh mines that it will need to act I in this paragraph as a result o ■ -r ^ T I i'i 's. IP / ll Hir ^ , jv- I* . mm EXHIBIT 32.510. Public Hearings. No zoning ordinance or amend ment thereto shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the Planning Commission or by the City Council. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of th<=* Citv not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the day of the hearing. When an amendment includes changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the day of the hear ing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property ov.’ners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provded a bona fide attempt to comply with this section has been made. (Amended Ord. 170, 10-10-74) /32.520. Initiation of Amendments to Zoning Ordinance. An amendment to a zoning ordinance may be initiated by: (1) action of the City Council; (2) a recommendation of the Planning Commission; (3) !iy petition of the owner(s) of their or adjoining property, the zoning of which is proposed to be changed. An amendment not initiated by the Planning Commission shall be referred to the Planning Commission for study and report and may not be acted upon by the City Council until it has received the recommendation of the- Planning Commission on the proposed amendment or until 60 days have elapsed from the date of reference of the amend ment v;ithout a report by the Planning Commission. (Amended Ord. 170, 10-10-74) 32.535. Amendments: Report to Council. (Repealed Ord. 170, 10-10-74) 32.540. Denial of Applications. Rezoning applications may be C lied by motion of the City Council and such motion shall constitute a finding and determination that the proposed rezoning is not in the best interest for the physical develop ment of the City. No application which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six (6) months tr-op. the date of said order of denial, except on grounds of nvV evidence or proof of change of conditions found to be valid by the Planning Commission. (Amended Ord. 170, 10-10-74) amend- as been Council. shall less : to anges or less, ) days hear- tuated ich ed may use resses ers tested of the d notice e shall tempt 4 \ :N : :-i . ? / in. iS *2 ^ It ^ ^ 'S ^ x^v ?^ s {-r^T *- i. r. Im./ . pwj sS r-i>..-TT.' : m r-.v , :•■• 'l* ■ 7*^- W-:r :' wmm i ^ >ti>h.'V. ¥'>4 /,1 _^_ J ‘y. u\ mi EXHIBIT I 1 1 ^1 ( 1 •A i 1( 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 . •• f-1 . !.f ‘■t. i ■i n M- • ;’i t r I MINUTES OP THE ;ainters OPNENT 4680 BAYSIDE H SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN R| r J l.l X / 1 X U X ■4 ■ , ) i ■>1>1 * i '1 *♦ ■ ih" Hi % EXHIBIT MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 1983. PAGE 12 {AINTERS CREEK ^OPNENT 4680 BAYSIDE ROAD SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW John Burrell, Jeff Martineau, Bruce Lange and Ron Bastyr were present. David Dunn of 4740 Bayside Road and Robert Olson of 4645 Bayside Road were present from the audience. Ron Bastyr stated that Mr. Burrell and Mr. Lange are the owners of the old Ski Tonka site. Bastyr stated there would be 20 single family homesites. Bastyr stated that a rezoning would be necessary from the current 5 acre zoning to a 2 acre zoning, with each house averaging 3.4 acres each. Bastyr stated that the minimum lot size would be 2 acres excluding wetlands. Bastyr stated that there would be substantial berming and planting along the two through streets to create a wooded, natural environment. Bastyr noted that covenants to restrict the new houses in size, color, style and texture would be taken over the site to limit the homes that will be built there so they will fit in with the natural surroundings. Bastyr noted some common areas which each home would own one twentieth of the common area. Bastyr stated that the two through streets would be blacktopped (which accesses have been preliminarily approved by Hennepin County) and required that they be public roads. Bastyr stated that the drainf ield testing and design has been done which went well and should have no major problems. Bastyr noted this project would be done in two phases. Jeff Martineau noted that this is a unique piece of property and that a PRD would enhance the site. Martineau stated that there are two different school districts involved, the Orono and Mound School Districts. Sime asked if an association would maintain the common areas or keep it wild. Sime asked if there was to be a Homeowners Association would they consider private roads rather than having public roads. Ron Bastyr stated yes that there would be a Homeowners Association with a one twentieth interest in the common areas. Bastyr stated that they would prefer public roads. t' Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that in rural areas that the City has to hold strong to all private roads based on the current budget. Mabusth noted that private roads in rura3 areas are consistent with the long range planning setforth in the Comprehensive MINUTES OP I #801 PAINTER (cont.) *3.PAGE 12 Lange and Ron 0 Bayside Road :e present from Mr. Lange are Bastyr stated iites. Bastyr isary from the Lng, with each ft stated that res excluding re would be :he two through environment, the new houses be taken over built there so surroundings. ich home would Bastyr stated e blacktopped y approved by hey be public Id testing and should have no ►ject would be ique piece of ce the site, ferent school Mound School a in the common ire was to be a sider private B a Homeowners erest in the would prefer :hat in rural o all private sth noted that tent with the Comprehensive n f'.K - Sli 1 ij* ^ 4 ■ it. .'v.. f . I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OP NOVEMBER 21, 1983.PAGE 13 #801 PAINTERS CREEK (cont.) mmimmm '^hat it mentionedponding, .Does that mean dredging? Zoning Administrator Mabusth advised that thi= improvement would requite a seoarat. t! ^ permit review a separate conditional use malor To\!L‘''wfth"''the%'l°"1 *’« solved. ^ problem would have to be retonfng and^h\'’Vubdil ‘iVion'!* Adams nohaa he too was in favor of the application. a:c^unrj;LrthU waVdeT^"!,’’®®" would be placed all alonn that plantings development. Bastyr stated^ that''" th®"'°''“®5® *"’® Kelley asked how much dirt would he « j u were they going to put it? ° moved and where t. ...a f s.r."„r:.7 bS Adams asked how large the pond would be? islands*'in Vhe^^center"* '''’''®® *J“®tters with two starting in the spring. ®‘'’®' °ne Chairman Rovegno noted that a conservaMmay have to be taken over « nservation easement proposed densi ty ‘o assure the Zoni] Area Appl. List Exhil Exhil Exhil This at 26 of tl direc shou] I ha\ alter the i shoul is se meets requi 5 acr of ap soils drain Staff findi and t to th A C 4. D. P PAGE it mentioned edging? dredging the ere. that this ditional use lat he had no Lit that his o support an lid have to be avor of the pplication. t have any lext meeting in. stated that side of the taken into t plantings ouflage the would be 1 different d and where le would be treet would rs with two ne would be I phase one n easement assure the TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator January 9, 1984 SUBJECT: #805 John Hallson, 2^40 Watertown Road Preliminary Subdivision Zoning District - RR-lB Area - 10+ acres Application - Subdivision - Plat - 2 lots List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Survey This plat involves a lot split of the Hallson property located at 2640 Watertown Road. Both lots satisfy the lot standards of the RR-IB zoning district. Access to both lots will be directly from Watertown Road. The Public Works Coordinator should review the proposed access location for Lot 2. I have reviewed the soil testing report submitted for an alternate drainfield site for the existing home. Based on the information submitted, a mound system would be necessary should the existing drainfield ever fail. The existing system is seven years old, appears to be functioning correctly, and meets current code requirements. The proposed Lot 2 is not required to have testing done at this time since it exceeds 5 acres in area. A review of the soil survey indicates presence of approximately 50% Hamel Loam Soils and 50% Hayden Loam soils. Hayden soils are generally suitable for trench or drainfield systems. Staff recommends approval of the two-lot plat of John Hallson, finding that all lot standards of the RR-lB zoning district and the Orono On-Site Septic System Code have been met subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of Lot 2 access location by Public Works Coordinator, John Gerhardson. 2. Dedication of 33’ of right of way for Watertown Road. 3. Payment of Park fee of $100.00 for residential Lot 2. 4. Dedication of drainage and utility easements on the plat. trator located idards be iator in 1 on issary j system f, and i not ;eeds i presence >am or lallson, :rict subject id. 2. if iS 111 CO• i k i ^V •*,l of \ ^....... • iinMii......mill I____ Mr. Bigham walls with: submitted • 1) Originc plan fi The current crumbling s extensive t yards of fi It appears is to be p which will of the lak The Plannim the necessa] code. Staff recomi application along the 1« in the Zonir Ciso EAST « > •3.:TO; FROM; DATE; SUBJECT; Planning Commission Members Michael P, Gaffron'^ Assistant Zoning Administrator January 13, 1984 #758 - James Bigham - 1545 Long Lake Boulevard - Conditional Use Permit - (Portions of which are After-the-Fact) Mr. Bigham has expanded his application to include additional retaining ^ survey and design plans have been submitted (see attachments). Please refer to the following items; 1) Original application, request and amendment to same and original site plan from Mr. Bigham, dated May 25, 1983 & August 19, 1983. 2) City Engineer's comments dated September 14, 1983 3) Zoning Administrator's memo dated September 15, 1983 4) Planning Commission minutes dated September 19, 1983 5) Notice of Planning Commission action dated September 26, 1983 6) New survey and design plans The current proposal includes the removal of two existing sections of retaining wall and replacement with somewhat more yards^of^fiii*^'^*^ retainxng walls, and placement of an estimated 150 cubic MMSMmS: J7 -A J.... f ■ #758 - James January 13, 1 Page 2 In addition, variance to r> subject to th' 1) Decreases 2) Improved . 3) Improved < 4) Improvemei Environmei Approval subjc 1) Soil eros: along lak< No runoff strator ird - Conditional le-Fact) lal retaining lave been } items: I original site l983. 1983 ections of h somewhat more lated 150 cubic 11s where fill han exists, rea within 75' future erosion. ermit by making 460 of the zoning use permit ning walls itions stated i f 4 dl 4 .Ai mwm m rr\:^ #758 - James Bigham January 13, 1984 Page 2 In addition, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and variance to replace and construct additional retaining walls as proposed subject to the City Engineer's review, and based on the following findings: Decreases potential for bank erosion Improved access to lakeshore 3) Improved quality of runoff into lake 4) Improvements are consistent with intent and objectives of the Environmental Standards of the Comprehensive Plan Approval subject to the following conditions: 1) Soil erosion controls (hay bales) to be installed prior to construction along lakeside edge of the areas to be regraded 2) No runoff may be diverted over property lines is w ,1 im . i id XT ■' i R ■ f rsf' V, •> t'-*' 'fi EXPLAIN Y I am struc built to le to war to en help south veget total both drive lake. total CONDITION I use lake the w there terra* vive . changi prevei adjac« As I have I needed < build the both my n< lake accei do they cc in genera] permit and as proposed iving findings: the o construction y ■ '-f. ' '■ -!-:w wn *■ * a ■ • 'y-im Ik,. p- J'.’S*- ii ;w M EXPLAIN YOUR REQUEST AND REASONS FOR THE SAME; I am requesting permission to allow me to keep the retaining walls I have con structed on the east edge of my property, adjacent to my garage and porch. I built these retaining walls to accomplish two basic goals. The first goal was to level out an area which was previously sloped from the edge of my driveway towards the lake. I wanted this area flat for appearance's sake, as well as to enable me to better use it. The second reason I built f walls was to help eliminate a drainage problem which was occurring both to the east and south (lakeside) of the area that I have terraced. Neither grass nor other vegetation, other than weeds, would grow in this area because of the almost totally shaded condition that exists there. Because of this and the steepness, both to the east and south, the water running from the street and onto my driveway and down this area was washing the soil away and towards and into the ; lake. The building of the retaining wall has eliminated this runoff almost totally. CONDITIONAL USE AND OTHER; I use the area adjacent to my garage for both a walkway to my yard on the lake side of the house and as an area for keeping my two boat trailers. In the winter months, I keep a boat on one of the trailers and leave it parked there and I store the other trailer empty there. I also intend to use the terraced level furthest east and south for planting shrubbery which will sur vive in the heavily shaded conditions that exist there. I do not intend to change the use of the area with these walls, except that I will be able to prevent or control the runoff to such an extent that the soil from the area adjacent to my garage and porch will no longer end up in the lake. As I have explained in my correspondence with the City of Orono, I did not know I needed a permit to build the retaining walls that I have built. I tried to build the retaining walls in such a manner that they would be unobjectionable to both my neighbors to the east, as well as my neighbors who use "Ivy Lane" as a lake access. The retaining walls do not obstruct anybody's use of Ivy Lane, nor do they contribute to or increase any erosion problem to Ivy Lane or my property in general. #758 I walls I have con- age and porch. I The first goal was Ige of my driveway sake, as well as walls was to :o the east and grass nor other te of the almost t and the steepness, st and onto my awards and into the s runoff almost ly yard on the it trailers. In leave it parked :end to use the ■y which will sur lo not intend to rill be able to .1 from the area t lake. I did not know :. I tried to objectionable to Ivy Lane” as a of Ivy Lane, nor le or my property 58 S J I- I- m. •■•4 I * 4 m I*' 'i ’ ■ 9 I .IIMIIIII IIMi 1.1, illll III...UPgjiiiBBgSS; J uAl A i-J 0 ?>// <od^ MfA-o.' Ity 0 ^l^^>!£Lciy iSc:"ki<c5t- i^(f-Cc-/\ -c^^Ci 4t^ A4^ '4 6 K <=> 4 tj A,<r^ ^ S^lC ■v\ i * \leJ~nk i y*^ /lju' ^ecz^Cif y.'l4si-' ijy^44 ^c/f'U^x Ify j(p U''3x J .aydf e^' cM^yy' < \jL- Ci'tZp/^ yc\^Uyt ]yf~' y yL 'jii .U^ cr^<L Xr l-t :'/ IS/ / '•y<-Pl e'4 -> '’=- y . ur ' -LpP . A^yij] lyy /<^' ^ ■? - pyJUi^P vfoJj ■ "' A-Wy pr o'v^- / ' ' P APx Mu. fXxs-y<y d y-^- 1 ^''Of o ti-'<^ Cc*/y/p // ^L, •• » -'■A r ' t'y¥‘- ___ ' y li4/C'^'' ^ -iJKvli ^ :-e/ M^'l'y^i jLa^ ct oj^^ ^U Jj^(P^~^ 'y\}^^ Si.^^jiy^^^Jly-'J^ ^^r^jLt£^‘ Jt'i^Jik . tuT^^ jl ‘tf02^i^> '7t^- }o i/.i^L Hicy yw. ^r.. -w - , h- (jlAi,' . Lir^^ f ^'^jL^i f^'(- ^pd . / <ovd^ (/'dr^ ’ :;[;f\Jl^’ <<yC(yld cd//^' ^ <;wr V/hd^^ d d'^dLy' utuid c^vd/ ad/<rk/ (f^ -<^dcdl AAl^ y^AT yjjdJ^ tid\ y'^^td oyf- y dli^^ -f/ypwy . pKfiCy^■^Jji^Jt' 't. y ' • ,-•• Jy- 41^ iH ■■ <:-;r m kir &04Miwk 2335 10. *t^ Si. Paml, ^inmut Pimmf 6/2-636- MHWmtU /-30t Septeml City oi Box 66 Crystal Attn: h Re: Fll Jan Dear Jc We have ovmer e We woul to the patio £ The ren any gre move th If you Yours V BONESTR caO. Glenn R GRC:li End. 69A7b ijL^ XH' c -^*1 .-tf {h.^ %L /-, • ?1 . ->^ ".' y ti m ^ J^^«-' ^2^LaO*J[^^ .i: I. <•■'. f '‘^/■ r m. V V.4 >' h'ivi Roh^uUoo., Ro4jbm, ^Hd€fUiA A /ti4aeiaiu, 9i QtmiulUn^ ^1 2935 W. *1*t!ttk 36 Si, Pmmi, MSSffS PUf^mm* 6t2 - 636^4^600 MH%UUU t-SOO-622-6513 Otto C. Bontsiroo, P.£. Robert W. RoMene. RE. Joseph C. Aodertik, RE. BrottfonJ A. Lemberg, RE. Rtchard E. Tyrner, RE. James C. Oison, RE. *» '‘---w September 14, 1983 ‘ ■ ' - • • ■••; .% i /'-I ^^5—^ I “ -o ’ i/ / / r*-^ t Cietia R. Cook, P.E. Keith A. Cordon, P.E. Thomas E. Noyes, P.E. Richard W. Foster, P.E. Robert C. Schunicht, P.E. Marein L. Sorvala, P.E. DormIdC. Bargardt, P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Mark A. Hanson, P.E. TedK. FiekJ, P.E. Mkhaet T. Rautmann, P.E, Robert R. Pfefferk, RE. V / a. Erickson / ^ \fLeo M. Paweiskv City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 r. -• / ; \/Lto M. PtwHsky I ^ .1* /'/ Harlan M Olson ^‘983 /'7 ■/••7‘••7/ ( .U'.'!''7' /..'7-rw';**■•-••• .• *..r • . •* ■•• • f >^ ^ \ • * T ;u I Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth ^—4 Re: File No. 139-758 James Bigham Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the retaining wall encroachment on Ivy Lane by the property owner at 1545 Long Lake Road. We would recommend as a minimum that the northeast corner area be removed down to the existing grade and the drain pipe be directed out the south end of the patio area onto the owner's property. The remainder of the wall does not effect the present use of the easement to any great extent and could be left In place provA» ed the owner agrees to re move the wall at some future time as requested by the City. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. >c £LUU. Glenn R. Cook GRC:11 Enel. 6947b TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJEC Zon inc Applic Bighani the Ci some t i given ■ask th as to The wa The wa at' the two dr« the ro< The C the c a pro] and hi not a and tl The Cj desigr for yc sec tic draina of the on not ask th Bigham lakesho I would the lak' located If he di must be be reau. t f Ir".........../ }]fLtoM. FawHsky ; ; J Markm M, OUon f / Ckmm #r. Cook, P,E. Keith A. Cordofi, P,E. Thomas C. Soyt$» P.C- Kkhard W, Foster. P.£. Kohert C. Schaakht, P.E, Marvin L. Sorvata, P.E. DomM C. Bariordl. P E. Jerry A. Bourdon. P.E. Mark A. Hanson. P.E. Ted K. Fkkt. P.E. MkhaH T. Baatmann. P.E. Bobert B. Pfefferte. P.E. yChartes A. Erkkson ! I ’ .’I ■ le property removed down \ end of the iasement to rees to re- a>-- - - - - - -- ■ ^ rz r,: '• ml m t i IJ JVJt mi TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabusth September 15, 1983 #758 James Bigham, 1545 Long Lake Blvd Use Permit - After the Fact - Conditional Zoning District - LR-IA Application - Conditional Use Permit - After the Fact - Required for erection of retaining walls per 31,700 portions of which are located within 25' public access. Bigham constructed the retaining walls in the fall of 1982 and <Jiscussion with applicant about its removal as to the dLposition^of^the^structu^ ^ decision ;”is„ tne roof. These pipes drain onto Ivy Lane. The City has held off with the review of this application awaitina the completion of a variance application by the applicant for ^ his home. The City can delay nrLngL has scheduled the application for review. The delays were not caused by the applicant but rather by negative septic tests and the need to perform additional septic test. ^ ^ desian*'of*^th£"r££,‘’^® reviewed the location, construction and esign of the retaining walls. His recommendation is enclosed section^nf^^^?!^* Briefly, he recommends that the boxed upper drfinaL i containing the drainage pipes be removed and o^ ^oticrthan/tii long as the owner is placed«ev 4.K ft.some future date, the City may have toask that the retaining wall be removed. Bigham appears to be planning additional alterations in his lakeshore yard - more retaining walls within ^forLong laL suggest that Bigham expand his application to include locaJld^n I survey""' retaining walls be not Wish to include the lakeside retaining walls he r-o ®.^^vised that a separate conditional use permit will^ be reauired at a later date. wiii r. y ■ f" ■ r'e‘Ty> ■ - j ■-mr.f.' L mm m ■ ■ ■ ■ #75 Con Pag If Com; STA To . Big: witl 1. 2. 3. 4. i onditional t - Is per located f 1982 and its removal gham was ication to a decision ' in length. Dxed section contains other from ation awaiting Leant for no longer slays were sptic tests :tion and > enclosed ted upper )ved and lainder is placed j to in his >ng lake. ' include f walls be walls, he t will #758 James Bigham Conditional Use Permit Page 2 If Bigham does not wish to expand the application, Planning Commission may act on current application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To approve an after the fact conditional use permit for James Bigham to permit portions of the retaining wall constructed within Ivy Lane to remain subject to the following conditions: 1. Upper, separated box section to northeast corner to be removed. 2. 3. 4. Foundation and roof drainage to be directed away from Ivy Lane and redirected onto driveway. Owner placed on notice that portion of retaining wall that remains in Ivy Lane right of way may have to be removed in the future at the request of the City and at owners expense. Owner must sign off on resolution that will contain "hold harmless" wording to protect the City from any liabilities resulting from structures within Ivy Lane. A? Il ■Vi 4 ■X-i: .45/ A--. MINUTES OP #781 ROONE ^5^ JAMES I 1545 LONG Li CONDITIONAL I ! :tec'. Ltions: LI i at MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COM-USSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19. 1983 PAGE il #781 RODNEY BURWELL JANES BIGHAM 1545 LONG L/.:\E BLVD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT **■ ■.' f-:’ ' 4.Entire improvement program consistent with the environmentalstandards of the Comprehensive Plan. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Designate area to be rip rapped prior to work. 2. Obtain DNR permit for permanent dock and rip rap. 3.Hay bale dikes to be installed prior to be^lltered"^*^ lakeside edge of the ridge to 4.Filter fabric and fence post erosion control dike to be installed when concrete stairs and retaining wall at east shoreline removed and fill placed on the area. r v- v^** 5. Supplemental vegetation to be planted. Sime seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (1) McDonald voted nay because she felt that such an M?nn!r grading would be detrimental to Lake Minnetonka. McDonald noted that the City would be in the’fut’u7e alteration was present. Bigham stated that he th2f^ retaining wall without the knowledge taoL*^an^7®‘^ f permit. Bigham stated that he was red w« a -?tere ®‘9ham noted that therevere erosion problem and that if he hadn't va?H/hn7? wall that he wouldn't have ayard/hill left. Bigham noted that he built the wall so that It can have plants in it and made it as natural andThVt harm to Ivy bineand that he has had no complaints* Albee which clearly Unlit objection because Ivy Lane is a public access and not Mr. Bigham*s property Mrs Aihlf Biahfl donated to the public not for Bigham s private use and that Ivy Lane is the onlv access to the lake in that area. Kelley asked if there is City sewer there? ^ lane - ' 1 f «r ■il f M ■ '■d i.- f: il ii V- V^ '-1 3 -V MINUTES OF THE ^758 ^AMES BIGI REPRESENTATIVE ATTEND COUNCIL OF OCTOBER 11, APPROVAL OF M 983 PAGE ii nsistent with environmental Ian. conditions: prior to work, ck and rip rap. Led prior to the ridge to >n control dike 5 and retaining fill placed on inted. 5 (1). that such an mental to Lake City would be ind alteration ^ated that he the knowledge that he was red ed that there if he hadn't >uldn * t have a 5uilt the wall it as natural rm to Ivy Lane which clearly is a public • Mrs. Albee ublic not for 5 is the only lere? a fire lane .1. i: -4 a- m MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1983 PAGE 12 AMES BIGBAM REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 1983 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Adams stated that they could relocate the drain tile and that it would still run down Ivy Lane. Bigham noted that he has had problems with Mrs. Albee in the past. Rovegno asked why the City Engineer requested taking off the northeast corner of the retaining wall? Mabusth noted that that a specific section encroached is too far out into Ivy Lane and that drainage tiles drained out onto access causing an even greater erosion problems. Bigham stated that John Gerhardson, Public Works Director, stated that he would probably just have to take down the ex. box and that he can't see why he would have to remove that portion. Bigham advised the Planning Commission that he wished to amend his application to include replacement and new wall construction within 75' of lakeshore. Mabusth advised that additional information would be required. Planning Commission suggested tabling the applica tion for further information. Bigham stated that there was a time concern because he has to replace his drainfield and that once the drainfield is installed that no trucks can go back there. McDonald moved to table pending further information as follows: 1.City Engineer to explain his reason for his requesting the removal of the northeast corner of the retaining wall. 2. City staff to check to see that Mrs. Albee has removed the concrete blocks placed on her shoreline, Kelley seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0) , Callahan volunteered to attend the Council meeting of October 11, 1983. Goetten moved to approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 15, 1983, as submitted. Rovegno seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). ■ ^ f of OI St Office Box 66 -Crystal Bay James Bigham 1545 Long Lake Long Lake, MN notice of plan Date of Meetin 7Votes: Planning Comma * mI I Apprc Apprc Apprc Deni; Tabl' Tabl No a NOTES AND SPE conditional u retainincT wal apniication p designates ex 2) Show exist be removed or (anchoring m€ Applica ■ ■ > Applica additic meetinc for th€ In all cases requested ir or the City If the appl contact the If you de£ they are £ 983 PAGE 12 the drain tile f Lane. with Mrs. Albee equested taking lining wall? tion encroached drainage tiles n even greater , Public Works )ly just have to see why he would n that he wished replacement and lakeshore. rmation would be ng the applica- ncern because he that once the cks can go back tr information as reason for his theast corner of ; Mrs. Albee has placed on her Nays (0). luncil meeting of ming Commission ni tted. , Nays (0). 1# :*-c- ' -'s.- •.V s ?■ •TV*, »■* WYof ORONOm Control No. ^ Om« Bo* e6.C.yslol Bay. Mianosola Variance conditional Use Permit James Bigham 1545 Long Lake Blvd Long Lake, MN 55356 ; subdivision, preliminary Date of Notice notice of planning commission action 9-19-83__ _ _ _ _Date of Meeting __ 7 ForVotes:Against Planning Commission recommends the following: /^pprovsli As sul3n\i'ttGd rnfor:tri:n"reguired before Council meeting Denial: For reasons notedDenial: For reasons "“ted information from applicant 7“ Tabled: Pending ^^.,3 or further Planning Commission Tabled: pending review by others, or tu study No action required f--" 4-rt r,rmr reouest to amend your original notes and special comITIONS ,l^iacement^l-t«^^ , ronditional .use permit appHc 77:~;;:i^mmission ""^t table vour_ retaining walls within ^a es o- -y 1— ^ .„ro vour sury^ - - --- T of additional information,;-1) wa^e t>uj=-1- - - - application pending -- - - - - - - - - - - - fmm lakeshore; 2) Show existing and proposed- - - - - - -;-“ — well structure he removed or filled in; 4) Show cross se^c^on of retain^- - - - - - - (anchoring method, etc) Applicant-s next scheduled meetihg is confirmed as: Planning Conunission Council i.-: • ic i.:, ■: : •' „.xt ...tin, i; additional inforra^ation. Deaoline for November 11, 19b7 October 7, 1983 ; or - - - - - -meeting is -- - --- - --- -— for theJ.W1. ^1— November 21. 1983- - meeting. In all cases, the application must be continued with the submittal of requested information within — ^ _ _ _ _i 4-"Urr^thfctty"wiirconsider ^he^FFTI^on as formally withdrawn. If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please contact the Zoning Administrator.intact tne ^onxny -- - - - - - r 4-vr^ r^ff-ioial Planning Comjnission Minutes If you desire certified copies zoninc Secretary upon reviev; they arc available from the Building ana Zoning Sc.re. y -4 i t 11 \ \ —I r I \ ■:U 1 Use Permit n. Preliminary ^-26-83 cil meeting >m applicant I Commission \0nd your oriQinal : 4-wr> existing _ mngf table your oiivo your survey rom lakeshore; 111 material shall 1 structure_ _ _ _ eipt of 1983 983 littal of awn. n, please njnission Minutes ipon review I V .‘‘it y ; 't'' ■Mi iTji -■^ • 1 r I ‘ \ \ 1 1 ■ .1 ' i 1 1 >5 £55 I ■ ji- oX >~ < n vi\ • • • » m>3 *L . V-ti t •^.i. hi & j I-:*. iJt ■y i ■ m. R.i - ' : ■ 1 WM rar^:. ■ Exhibj Exhibj Exhibj Mr. Ac No ini materi The zc 31.70! not a Based are G] ground At sue the Mi I wou] submit Be Oe < UJ <0 -I in 3 n O OD (O UJ o 2 in S^ 5in O ■ -t ^ ‘fi V) SI • • £ltr/ 2 - 4. I - r tfi y»'- ♦jv- \ ’ ”’1 TV ' W TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Conunission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator January 11, 1984 #803 - Timothy Adams - 1810 West Farm Road - a Conditional Use Permit - Dredging (Wildlife PoiC^ Application - Create a wildlife pond on Lot 18, Block 1, Farm at Long Lake List of Exhibits Exhibit A -- Application Exhibit B - Location Sketch Exhibit C - Site Plan Mr. Adams proposes to excavate a wildlife pond at 1810 West Farm Road. No information as to total area, shape, bank slopes or amounts of material to be excavated or filled, has been submitted. The zoning code sections pertaining to this project include 31.700 and 31.705. Section 31.831 does not apply since the location proposed is not a designated wetland. Based on the soil survey and the topography at the site, soils probably are Glencoe silty clay loam with seasonal water table near or at the ground surface. At such time that the application is complete, it will be submitted to | the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to determine if a review is required. I would recommend tabling this project until the following items are submitted for review: 1. Design plans showing the total area and amounts of material to be removed, excavated, stored, filled, or graded. 2. Bank slopes, contours, design depth 3. Any other design information needed to show compliance with USDA-SCS Wildlife Wetlands Habitat Standards and Specifications. j Administrator rm Road - a Wildlife P01Q6 L, Farm at Long Lake West Farm Road, amounts of elude 31.700 and ion proposed is e, soils probably near or at the be submitted to a review is required. wing items are material to be ance with USDA-SCS ions. Planning Commission Thomas J. Jacobs, Building Official January 9, 19B4 #808 Gary Nunnally, 3844 Cherry Avenue - Lot Area and Lot Width Variance Zoning District - LR-IC Application - Renewal lot area, lot width and hardcover variance Lot Area - Required 21.780 sf Existing llf29B sf Variance 10»4B4 or 48% Lot Width -Required 100* Existing 50* Variance 50* or 50% Hardcover -Allowed Proposed Variance 1,B87 sf 2,253 sf 366 sf or 20% List of RxhibitS- Exhibit 1 - Application Exhibit 2 - Property Owners List Exhibit 3 - Plat Map Exhibit 4 - Survey Exhibit 5 - Proposed Plans c.r-si Pvhihit 6 - Orono Council minutes ^ o oi Exhibit 7 - Orono Council minutes 7-10-79 »-h<a existinu cabin and accessory The applicant -icic square feet of hardcoverstructures with a new h°use totaling 1515^squar^^^ (1278 square feet for house, 237 ^ serve the proposed house commission determined if a variance would have to bewith tuck-under garage a hard„^^^^^^ and garage appeared a minimal considered. 1515 square r already limits the lake view amount. The required i i na house on each side. To move the improvement over the allowed amount. This application has been submitted to PIanning^^^^^^^ rppfol^al^Soti ule%"f %Te%^ar^^no Changes in the application from the June 8, 1981 application. v'r>d i'* t'- i It: r. w.. Kjr; #808 Ga Page 2 January Staff I Staff I hardco\ 1. Loc set 2. No 3. Pre 4. Th€ 196 Such a[: 1. Ope 2. ApF 3. Pri mus n-.» -hm -li . ; ;,#i Lot Area and Lot [cover variance n and accessory »et of hardcover )pen deck). The e proposed house ► uld have to be 3peared a minimal ts the lake view ide. To move the in further view >ff Cherry Avenue Ld still bring the mission and Council fi, 7) and received pplication from the I .. .... liiiilil -r—>. w »;HIIGlHnr-k^— #808 Gary Nunnally Page 2 January 9, 1984 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the approval of a renewal lot area, lot width and hardcover variance based on the following findings: 1. Location of existing abutting lakeshore houses within 0-75* setback area - limiting lake view of proposed house. 2. No adjacent land available. 3* Proposed plan cuts down on land to be disturbed on property. 4. The proposed application has been approved by Council in 1979 and 1981 - same codes were in effect. Such approval is based on the following conditions: 1. Open deck must meet the 75' setback from lakeshore. 2. Applicant limited to 2253 square feet of hardcover. 3. Prior to issuance of building permit, shed and existing structure must be torn down. ' ^ ■ * 4 i ‘t INSTRUCTIONS: 1. 2. m . ‘:i ::C-. mm i m > - pm PROPERl Legal dcaei APPLICA 3. OWNER N. Date Pr I 4. AGENT 5. NOTICES 6. PRESENT 7. PRESENT 8. DESCRIB C Describ width and hin 0-75* property, n 1979 and str ucture '■■fxS'. .•V * ■n.'t 'i j.f LAND USE PLANNING ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 473*7357 EXHIBIT 1 iF oO O INSTRUCTIONS; mm •m i. ■ V • 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Please first read the attached Information Sheet. Complete Items 1-13 (Type or Print). If needed, attach letter or other Information to better describe your request. Incomplete applications will not be accepted. 1. PROPERTY ADDRESS Legal deacrlptloffi shall be shown APPLICANT ,1.™ Survey, ~Exhlbl^3 one If Applicant Is not owner, explain 3 • OWNER Name Phone Mailing Address Date Property Acquired 7^ I ^1^9^ (do not) also own ofher adiaceni AGENT A^l-------------------------- ____________ (Monch/Tear) adjacent parcels of land Phone Firm Hailing Address NOTICES Should be sent to:Applicant JL Owner Agent PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT L ^ LIST OF EXHIBITS Description Initial Application must Include: 1 2 3 Application Form Property Owners List Certificate of Survey Fee Receipt #7}/^//- Date Received By Staff Information 4 ___ Plat Map 5 ____ Inventory 6 ___ Staff Connents Ocher Tnfonnatlon 7 8 9 10 PRESENT USE Realdentlal (Other) ---------------------------------------------- Vacant Land _____ Vacant Bulldlngfa) X Occupied Bulldlng(a) 1 I \*» / I jAN ~ 31984 CITY OF ORONO DESCRIBE REQUEST ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST __ ..t.bll.h new u.e __ continue or expand exlatlng u.e ^ build new __ add on __ remodel Describe request in detail: je —^ ■Ff n hv -r- fc ”:5 ■JL lf|m ^ d* M CL • tilgo k“- § Ulm £ § M r CO tt M O .j u.z cr.M oc Ul oc oUl a V O H >.S fc 0^ Z Q. Z Ma UJ iUl K)e> CM V CM UJ H < O a 0 Ul m .1 V < m a I- CM UJ I UJN X z •KUO Ul 1 -i CO UJ 0^2 K» O U. O lU s- >- to a CM o: I Ul X •K U -J < •- UJ •J u M M-Ogg I <0 COm COK> < < q: ft CD O o u £ CM Ca 0 O Ul > in < in >- m ft CM ft 1 UJ X^ o I X o : CO ft I e ^ UJ < CM X« CO «s u 4 CO m M 4 in o ft ft I m ft C (o O < ft CoO Z UJ « < >- " X ft < Luql UJ a 3 H O n X - <ft < : CD Q. O H LIST OF EXHIBITS Deierlptlon Initial Application must include: Application Form Property (Vners List Certificate of Survey Fee Receipt JA. Date Received By Staff Infonnatlon Plac Map Ocher Information a6j6XllO i m-wr •Lfii^Hxa I J h ■r.:\ V J :■ IT '•-i J . ». ■ ■■'^^- ^•* * m V.- I / <=: jf,i'Sr-•S™te- ,4»-' •* ♦• • 4 % • » • U; . % I • . « t -i*. V -.r .*• 9 < » I •#»* r •-• */ 4 #;. % $• •:*r i* • •• V Certificate of Survey • ^^IJIRIT for F, A. Kelson, CAn••<,••.•/ of Cot 10, Block 3» CxycU:i Bay View .’ Hcnr.epin County, Hincesoto Ik - # I. r • • ♦• {Eynm^T-•. *rTT- — - —'-'TV I < t .-.r••:»;? 5 • <* V — —*>o * s * >»I, »v prcpc9cJ t^4>lis‘c. ' •; ^p««0r4i:‘ Z37 / % /t.• J ? /* » • ; • . J. » ».»* ,i‘ LS •• > lif s* t : ■ Certificftte of Survey'; 1 hereby certify Is , f- *c true and correct roprcKcn^-c. U' •• tior. rof L rurvey of thv> boun-» .; deriec of Lot 10, clock 3,. . Crystal t:;y Vi^jw/and tJio ’ .. location of all e;d.alir.g build- ‘ • Un"s tr.creor,. It ioocs »;ct"pur- i port to show other improveroents f m .'or erxi:oQc}iiac!nts . '.f i 1^1 r' • a**'**: • * i *• • *. . . ;. • -. sj -rt# " ?• •: r:i:> • •» •«.:v * .’.•i /'M«r I 11961 i J: I ,-CITY OF ORfiNO ; /V >*■***»*— V = 40* C-7-79 Iren r.'irker Loruo;i H. Coffin . t *-4 ^Alvii; *i. header • Ka»,» i c.id,.’7p jLand Sun-’cyorc or.:! : la :n-rs • . '• ?Lor.f. LtirC, )-ilru;cco*va -• • « .* r I. •_*_ ■;•] St,I 1 %isr r V ♦ t iT- « < •' ■‘.W ::*■ -. ! '• •••. . ‘••.4 f .. • . > . • . i *■'. r*‘i‘ ■ • i'i. ■’*'■' —I*-' • ^ •'•5 » • - • '••. t’ •••■ ' A » • • • . * A ’ f;♦. .>■■•• « - ••• ••*■•. » j ; f. ;.; •; f « I V. • .* A ,yiS “"i« • ;vyV= <v',‘ •I v'i Vj;* V V/;.. v; .*• \ • .',h i ■ \ t i . ' \ t • ». t :\'i^ ;:;:#'isi* i.f r. ^- L‘vy#H.fid«iSL» ■I ••■* ' Ail ■• •••' ' •/r '^>;w, •r. *; »• .** •I *v *. .* *• - *•• b -. #**• • •• *•• t \ V«: V-*.'V{ »'‘cv •'■ » • ' ^' I j ■' ,■:■:•• • ■■■•<*'i#' ■- ■■■ • 5 v;;a#: '• ■ JT' '■ 'Ss'c/iHkjS .';■: it '.V ; .. -v.* ■• ‘..•;-‘5 ••. •■ '■-. ' ' S' *1 v. J . ** mJk A m#>.•* **, . 1. < ^ ''' . ' *’ ♦ \ . ^ . V;V : ^ . t - V . ; ■ ■•...•: '• ■ -^ ■ I- % . •* ■•.'V*' *.' ■ lA W ii^ ’ F.--;►‘-I, ■■;-'■'vi'■i^;. I®Mi i f > I. V 4 1 * (i-4 H/- ■\ i 4 ■C: y. I )< Vi 't I* V • ' :■*• :• ■% ' r. ;■: ^: ■/.■■- ■•.•; ■ ■ -^ V • ' I , i !' •• *;.' -A • .r vv'*-M■r:‘-'•^^v*■ .**%■' t I \' •. / •/ —A •. 'I / v\ V \ / .. 0 / \ ^0 / // \ I \I \ \ / ^0 i * V > / ’ V > • • . Aai* »- r Ij / y / /* *•r. • / .// \ / / S '• / //\ / a' V » i s' » 4 *' i M. * ¥ % •*- 4 • # • %-•• , - 4 •* . W*I X 'S % N ■%^ \ h \ ' N N \r-. \ V • X ¥ 7t^ d •' if.4-,.4'I . ■* r : i • 5 ) H ^ 4 I . .* .^:. j.' ii'-. irf;., //4XT4 I ' \ ^'■'s5>'.: b 1 ■ ,?f?s Ut* •• t ■j.' Ji ■d^ '4*- w rr-i REGUIAP Mayor Va at this Mrs. Els that cou at 2256 Mayor Va for safe the agen Paurus m #1282 A Subdivis Wolsfeld Zoning A< with the Robert G Mayor Vai a resolu' of the p; adjusted area in < a 2 car extensioi Motion: Zoning Ac with the Jack Dav: Mayor Var the varie that the Motion: Zoning Ac with Citi H. WeisSi Hurr move of the Ve of the sii No struct than the Zoning Ac: with Citv Nunnally Paurus me the Gary No one pr r.”fS1 ♦ * ««• «i •~ \vV .:i.*S. ^ ! V : / • •'• • *-m •r*- f (1 i!^ •\H * ^ I i^.. i‘ .V V-ffc m <y. ft.'!'V•>. 'fr^ <■ \^'i.4^-'*• .,••mmMREGUIA>' J^EETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL JUNE 8, 1981 Paqe 5 Mayor VanNest asked for any public comments at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mrs. Elsie Weiss asked if there was anything that could be done to clean up the eyesore at 2256 Shadywood Road. , Mayor VanNest directed Tom Jacobs to check for safety and welfare and it should be on the agenda for the next meeting. Paurus moved Hurr seconded to adopt resolution #1282 A Resolution Approving A Metes and Bounds Subdivision and Lot Line Rearrangement for Gordon Wolsfeld. Motion: Ayes <4) Nays (0) JAMES F. ALLENBURG Zoning Administrator Jean Mabusth reviewed with the City Council the Variance for Mr. Robert G. Bredsen 1410 Rest Point Road. #607 VARIANCE ROBERT G. BREDSEN 1410 REST POINT RD. Mayor VanNest moved Paurus seconded to have a resolution be drafted subject to the approval of the Planning Commission that the house be adjusted in such a way that it puts the patio area in 40' setback and that it at least have a 2 car garage and that the minimum garage extension into the 40' setback. Motion: Ayes (4) Nays (0) Zoning Administrator Jean Mabusth reviewed with the City Council the Variance for Mr. Jack Davis, 1345 Vine Place. #610 VARIANCE JACK DAVIS 1345 VINE PLACE Mayor VanNest moved Paurus seconded to approve the variance for 20' road setback on the condition that the garage door face away from the street. Motion: Ayes (4) Nays (0) Zoning Administrator Jean Mabusth reviewed with City Council the variance of Mr. Donald H. Weiss, 2245 Shadywood Road. #611 VARIANCE DONALD H. WEISS 2245 SHADYWOOD RD. Hurr moved, Hannah seconded, to recommend approval of the variance subject to terms with the removal of the smaller shed; and cease using the rear access. No structure shall be located nearer front lot line than the principal building; Motion: Ayes (4) Nays (0) Zoning Administrator Jean Mabusth reviewed with City Council the variance of Gary Nunnally 3619 North Shore Drive, #613 VARIANCE GARY NUNNALLY 3619 NORTH SHORE DR. Paurus moved VanNest seconded to approve the Gary Nunnally variance. Motion: Ayes (4) Nays (0) No one present from North Star Marina.NORTH STAR MARINA DOCK LICENSE 1981 1-:^ -f i V,.' •• 'r li® P •r ‘Ki i V.; • 'K‘ « RECULAR MEET Council Meet Mayor Van Ne approve the 3844 Cherry ^ recommendati( Nays (0). Mr. Alan 01s( record the rc dated June 2: The Planning .he hardcovej Nyguist, 143: that the pro^ area cannot c of existing I Council Meeti: Massengale mo\ variance reque Park Road, pei of June 25,*19 Mr. Glenn Cc Mr. James B1 from Bruce M at the ring for the Luce Mr. Glenn Coc Council with of the ring r Mr. Glenn Coi from the Sta regarding pr< of Highway #; Discussion f( that are proj was that one and one throi to handle tr« District will August 27, IS ■..mm.■pp->mm^ ' " ' Paqc 5 C COMMENTS F. ALLENBURG VARIANCE IT G. BREDSEN REST POINT RD. VARIANCE DAVIS VINE PLACE VARIANCE D H. WEISS SHADYWOOD RD. VARIANCE NUNNALLY NORTH SHORE DR. STAR MARINA LICENSE 1981 ■^V V. .;- • I % * V.' 4 ;j *:v \a:": RE^ITLAR MEETING OF THE OROMO COUNCIL, JULY 10, 1979 Council Meeting - July 10, 1979 Page 15 VARIANCE 3844 Cherry Avenue (Continued) ■•» t I .•»U / t ^ i . • entered into therecord the reconnendations of thr^aniina • ■ VARIANCE dated June 25, 1979, which state; Coirunission, 1432 Baldur Park Road #487 John NyquistPlanning Coranission rcconunends approval of che hardcover variance application of Mr. John -hlt^the nrn^ Baldur Park Road, on the condition ^hat the proposed accessory steps from the dinina =I°ser than 43- access (front line of existing home) to the lakeshore. Council Meeting - July 10, 1979 EXH(E/T aune 1979. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0), Mr. Glenn Cook, city Engineer, discussed a letter to from Brule tlalklrfo^ °®P^^hment of Natural Resources, lora J.,uce (lalkerson concerning the Luce Line trail fo^ thi lIII proposed parking lot LUCE LINE TRAIL cl^lil”with°a' Engineer, presented the Citv onhl^rif -construction PROGRESS REPORT from°thl"stlll'of^M^ Engineer, presented plans proposed changes at the intersection of Highway #12 and Old Crystal Bay RoaS! HIGimAY #12 & OLD CRYSTAL BA:-T ROAD PLANS 0^ .1' y-t ■h r- ■■ ; concerning the number of lanes S.5SJS',S"S l*: August 27 1979 o * P'lblic information meeting onnugust 27, 1979 concerning the proposed project. 1 M : : i Plannin Sub) the C( east c HighWc (Maple (const three Medina the owi two or unreco: The di' the ta: recomitu subdivj the fo] Lot 1 Outlot H Outlot B Willo vised tha plication The r< the creat. The large] designatec in the res m Page 15 ICE Iherry Avenue nued) mi PI W CE aldur Park Road yquist mi i w ' NE TRAIL iimh S REPORT ^ 1 #12 & OLD BAY ROAD PLANS pi fe::-' . "•% IkHi ..r f ;T -r»*r *i^ Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator January 10, 1984 #806 Willow Properties - yfinn u Preliminary Subdivision W^yzata Blvd. - #807 Hennepin County - 2600 Wavzata Biva Rezonrng - Conditional Use P.rlut Wor^se'ssion Planning Commission action - sketch olan • direction to applicantr. no 2 ~ conceptualPPiicants - no formal action required. A) Subdivision - Sketch Plan/Work Session Highway 12 for a library to serve Crystal Bay Road and (Maple Plain, Long Lake^ Medina anA^o^ central Hennepin County (construction to begin sometime Orono), The new library three satellite Ub?a?y unltHn^Sonf replace ?he the owner/applicant presets Lr vlur^Lv^ Willow Properties;two or three lots. The applicant hL a f Proposed plat for unrecorded deed of some 20 acres hea t^''^®®'’ ® via an the has never been approved bftSe'’r't® ^"a^**® ’°'s- reco^enleS'tL^the ^®" ^®®PP“tioned on thf^arcfls! %tl«“as subdivision appLcationr^'^L'c^'L^^^^Sf^®-^®" - ^hllr cSrr“nt"= the following parcels: ^PPl^-cation will involve ^tiot B : 40°?ab'sV“" Properties property owned'by Yngve, Yngve 6 Pazendin Vised\hat the'^ltherowSirmuIf a?s^s”““?t °®^"® *'®® been ad- plication for subdivision. current ap- the c^eat!:i":f°^he'’approxfmri"'?" specifically with The larger parcels p?oposer?or 2"*=® <=he librLy designated as individua'l outlots fna^fu ?®''®l°P«>ent will be^ in the resolution approving the final platf*^^*"^® ^®=°9"ited -,^.1 I Ij V-. '• :;7VVt M 't'‘■i t4^- '^4 -iiit Planr Janua Page T Drive utili of Lo- fees J subjec B) R€ Th reside use is Distri permit The pr commer' guide1 Janui cons: to aJ theii futui poseo easie hensi velop to St Staff for 1 The B~4 zond until th property A pu division use perm JAM:jl Properties zendin ith sed M % M l?.i- ■ i II .u„ 5m ,>'v Vi vf»•?*•■ :l f( il ■■m ■ :■■■■*•// v-t h" /• >i. Vi.* Planning Conunission January lo, 1984 Page 2 Drive, Old Lystal lav <3e<Jication for Willow utility easements will be delionftid® ^2. Drainage and of Lot 1. I would aig^ suggest walvill^^'i f fees based on the unioue Payment of park subject property? ^ Purpose and proposed use of th^ B) Rezoning/conditional Use Permit - work Session residential. The only’^zonilg district thatrural use IS the B-4 Conunercial Zon^ permits a library District. The use trilly'“?„?"oTv?f BustlLs permit. Hennepin County has aollil^ f ? conditional use ® property is served with sewer anrt required rezoning, commercial can be supported lill ® rezoning to guidelines set forth in the Comprehenl?^! the P0ssibili?5®^f®|^^dilfcommission to allow a library use with residential zone their concerns on the issu*a n*: use permit. They based future development of the lelideltiar® setting in\he^ posed amendment to the RP-1b^« corridor. The pro- easier to support with findings lifted°lh^ ®®®tion will be hensive Plan. New perform-nr-f throughout the Compre- veloped for library^use wiSil the"r®''^l '’®''e to be^^de- to standards establislld forchl^lhe? ‘ ®i"ilar “^th surrounding citierald^®' research centers. B-4 zolinralllrili?® ?^|?uPde?ay®ol° ”'®®*^ f ^ standards of the until the action meeting of Pehr??l ?? W'depth site plan review property will be collll^f February 21st when the zonLg 0^111 <Uvi^i^n"!’\^"zSl?li"?-rfi^^.®'=^f Vl®<^ for the proposed sub use permit for library use at'thTle^l^^l’^^rMS^ ^°e"^fn1?"®^ JAM:jl f,. h. n% j-1* ■ it.mmi.-. % I HENNEPIN City Counc At their C informatic Central He the Hennep Long Lake, for consol in a new b Drive or 0 supplied b prepared ii County Libi of Coramiss section of site for tl participat( further th« making thei It was agre site and tti Until the p no action a 18 months t cc:E. F. R Hennep i, Robert I S. MarkI Reading r Willow rainage and lot lines 3f park the limum rural I library ^1 Business il use rezoning, oning to e broad City. ticil at the mmission Idential zone They based ting in the The pro- » will be Compre- > be de- similar ch centers. I zoning meeting. ds of the plan review ing of the 3 sub- iditional iting. "■'r. V\ i •#f ■0-«. "It il i4a •r- I ■t i i iw, ir% • -mmm HENNEPIN COUNTY LIBRARY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES RIDGEDALE DRIVE AT PLYMOUTH ROAD 12601 Ridgedale Drive . ^ Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 (612)541-8530 - 4: ri - *•»! sO December 19, 1983 City Councils in Maple Plain, Medina, Independence, Orono and Long Lake meeting the Hennepin County Library Board reviewed regarding the provision of library service tHhe tho M.n area which includes your comraunity. At present three small libra^leflocated ‘ It was agreed that the mo«;t imnnrfanf county Board of Commissioners site and th!t fu? her stSdJ J?he aJanah?! ® 9“°'' Ss H- Sincerely yours. Raymbnd O'Connell', 'r President cc:C. F. Robb, Jr. Hennepin County Library Board Robert H. Rohlf, Library Director S. Markham, Property Management Reading File HENNEpim r^niiMTv •; - *:• iS ’t*. « 'V. iM A It-' -r IMb-Wk.'... iPibi.•mj* .H.1*1; P- i h.--" %•* • e . % • • • I . •• ••••• • •a. • • t . • 2 B . .• • 1 • \ a^\ :> ... ,.v.. •; -» ' - “"-. .'v'A.trd*. ... >' •6. h: ■ -• . i .: ...... wf'n.. ^ KU • » * . • . ' 4,V... •• r < V ^ 9a. a.. 4 - V- JL- •• m ^ • • • • • • ••V '.y ^<-X . .a. .•- ^;• • • •• / t •4‘• ...a^ • €• -7t^ i V 4.1 i; '^r^r^k .. •* A JFFICES •sent, in in calls ated f Willow criteria ction in y Board he inter- ture d study s before Commissioners. od library done, library, next J; il - 61984 j CITY OF ORONQ - ZiSlC nofcth lO't: r • ^.*; /j*Wl f /4c t£ ' K s' _____ 3/r.5i •1 r mji :.’v‘i£• . .. . • . • • • - 0:• ) Ui 5T ' IMl -61984 ZG3A. ~ ZiSlC .* • • V. •. •• •• “ * I OFCTH -lOO __________ zzJUSi'LtS. Ui.91 ?• ‘ 1 * :r’= 4 ■^i 4 •^:.. I* 44 ll' ElXMlBIT cr*nv- t 1 j.'^i - 3 ;■•' ■ CITY OF ' f v f i \ * • * • M » V.- ) \ \ ‘ i 11^——II •a^rV A.^s'z^{eS,^zs^ /. /./. O Af^'< S-7£>as--^ ir^ i.<i S07 I _ . v^</r • • /\z * ^ N.--c • AlC ■ I nJ ♦ ;“TL *'• ^ I - -2c‘ :_________! X* IV . .• zy • 25 no 1 ♦——. 1II----11 1 ^ 1 1 --------11 c:i-------------1 1 i »T* ♦V'', ____KKJJLthC Os fO.'xr?-?*.'^ETH I VO I L^Dim(^ m • 2 VO.' i'j j , \ \.1.scH<=^\e Hfi. ■’5 I . 4 i V n r.; - -■■1; ■ t \ I hi .’y I'fS-vi*'* '^jSiBsnlb * m K/ • . -r . ,v..rU;s »»*■=! '* li- ■ ■: - :• V-. ■ ->‘ i.. * •■ bv •di f 1 r>" u— ___-fc •A LI© JAN - 319?:’ QIJY OF ORONO _ ^00 ; r r P<hrb(LX VBRBATUM ON PAINTERS CREEK DEVELOPMENT CORP. REVIEW AT PIANNING COMMISSION MEETING OP JANUARY 16, 1984. McDonald - Listen... Zoning Administrator Mabusth - You are talking about a different feasibility study that goes down County Road 84. Mabusth the City is not aware of any feasibility study for this area. McDonald - There is a booklet on it also. Zoning Administrator Mabusth - The City is doing a feasibility study near the Stubbs Bay area. McDonald - Thats exactly true..l will say one thing. . that when you talk re zoning and development with the Metropolitan Council you do start waiving some flags and it does say sewer and services, and we have learned this and that is why the 5 acre was taken into consideration when it was done to begin with. .1 was here at that time and its to offer the people a rural area when you come to live in Orono and there is a need and I*m sure the lots would sell at 5 acres. Chairmadam Goetten - Is there anything new that the public would like to offer at this time. - I *m not really clear on the proposed - why do they need so many houses? They can still make the same amount of dollars witii the 5 acres. Bastyr - Thats not true, not true at all. We've done some studies at looking at larger sites and have found that larger sites in this area would not be saleable. When you look at the improvements that have to be made, things like putting the streets in, cost of the land and the carrying costs, it does not make it feasible. Rovegno - Have you estimated the costs of these improvements? Bastyr -Yes, engineering and attorney fees and soil engineering fees at perhaps $50,000; streets themselves approximately with storm sewer $100,000; land costs in excess of $500,000; and.. Rovegno - Just the improvement costs a couple hundred thousand dollars which is $10,000-$15,000 per house. Bastyr - When you look at 5 acres the whole concept goes out the window. Goetten - Any one here that has anything new to offer at this time? Man - Derming? Bastyr - Berming along two looped roadways, in between houses, in between existing family homos, so we would be looking at berming wherever necessary to accommodate the privacy between the proposed homes, the existing homes. Man - Height of the berming? Bastyr - There again it would vary in some cases 4-6 feet would be sufficient and in other areas maybe a size 8 feet. Also plantings above and below that - all dependent upon the purpose it would serve. Man - The loop nearest to you (Bastyr) who owns that property? Bastyr - That would be a common ownership-owned by the people in the development. Each household owning i/20th of the common spac ^ - as well they have common space at the lowest end of the hill. Man - Is that land in addition to the 3.3 acres to the lot? Bastyr - Thats considered in the 3.3 acres. Man - So then they really don’t have a 3.3 acre lot. Bastyr - Not the lots themselves, but when you consider the open space and common area it would be 3.3 acres and that does exclude the 6 acres of wetlands. Man - Can they put playgrounds and tennis courts in the open space. Fritzler - Again I can foresee one thing, that if this becomes common property very soon that the people forget that is common property and they want it treated as private property. I can relate this to the Circle in Casco Point which is public property but everyone treats it as private property. Parking for the derelicts, the boats that get stored during the wintertime, and then the police department still gets calls on who is going to take care of their cwn private little whims. Woman - when will you decide on this? Goetten - If there are no other comments, 1 would like to close the public hearing now and move on to discussion among the Planning Commission Members. You are welcome to stay. Rovegno - Maybe I have a question that Gloria can help us with. You were here when this was rezoned to 5 acres. McDonald - Yes. Rovegno - It appears that alc.ig Bayside Road rJiat these houses have been here for awhile on small lots relative to the zoning district. Can you tell the P.C. how the decision was made to zone that 5 acres and for example not to zone south of Bayside to 5 acres whicli is 2 acres. Half the 1 DUses... McDonald - Its very diffi cult to take three houses in a row that are an acre a piece and try to make them into a five acre plot a piece, thats an obvious answer. Secondly, there is a need for a hobby farm type of thing in a quasi-agricu 1 ture in Orono. This was a need and it was recognized and all these people are good examples of the need. Ah.. The Met Council when you do have small lots, you do need sewer and services, and looking at that (the proposed plan ) i t does look like a St. Louis Park or Plymouth or where you have development in row houses, even though you’ve got all that common area. You lose the effect of your horse and 3 1/2 chickens and 1 goat , whatever your allowed out there, which is what people want— Ii 4 4 if we take this away and wo don't offer it here (Orono) we have just become a Plymouth or St. Louis Park and have lost the rural character. I'm concerned about this in just another side is the pollution in Painters Creek. We've got to protect the area and watersheds of this area and just that itself is enough to stop anything less than 6 acres. I have a real difficult time feeling sorry for someone economically in a development. I feel that our City is for us and we're here, for someone to make an additional money r I have diff iculty with that. I hope that helps you. Adams - f I have listened very carefully this evening and have sensed that there is a great deal of opposition on the part of the people that live around the area. Put I personally still like the looks of the development, I can imagine that someone can come in there and meet the letter of the law for 5 acre lot sizes and that the end result would not be as nice as I think this developnent will be. I think that it will be quite well screened and that the extra 7 houses rea 1 ly won' t be noticeable. So I feel myself in a minority point of view right now. I still think its a nice development. McDonald - Its nice if you took out every other house, it would still be a nice, so I guess (laughter f rom the crowd) so I mean I would 1 ike you to explain why you feel we should put more there even though the people don't want m.ore there. Adams - I think that the natural setting of the property is such that the berming and the tree planting, I think that you could live across the street from the property and really not tel 1 that there were 7 extra houses - whether there is 13 houses or 20 houses - I don't think that anybody in the immediate area is going to be aware of it except for the fact, like you say, that these houses will not be hobby farms. There won't be horses and goats there, there is going to bo a 1 i 11le more traffic then if there were only 13 houses, but I don' t see that its a hardship for anyone around there. McDonald - But you and I don’t r;ave to look at the houses across the street. Goetten - What he is saying is that he doesn't think that there are going to be many people that are going to be...(interrupted by McDonald) McDonald - But that one person, who is here, and they bought the property knowing that the property is 5 acres and they bought it because of that, they don't want..(interrupted by Adams) Adams - I'll give you an analogy of my own neighborhood, I lived next door to an area that was open for about the first 15 years that I lived there. I had 10 acres next to me undeveloped, and I loved it. If it was entirely up to me I would have loved to have said there will absolutely bo no development of that land. The area was developed with a one acre minimum lot size - there' is several houses out there - and low and behold now that its nearly completed I find that I like it. McDonald - Oh sure, we get used to everything every once in a while. But the thing is, the question I wanted to ask you is when you bought the property how was it zoned? Was it zoned 1 acre and you knew that there might be houses around you, right? 4 i Adatns - To tell you the truth, I didn’t know. McDonald - So your concern wasn’t the total wilderness whore some of these people went out and bought for that reason. Adams - Probably rot. Goetten - I’d like to be very honest to tell you that when we had the last P.C. meeting and Ron was hero, Ron shared the proposal that he had, I think speaking for most of us on the P.C. , I thought he did a terrific job, very well done and I had not foreseen the opposition from the neighbors and of course that concerns mo greatly. I have to tell you that I have never seen such a well designed plan since I have been on the P.C. I can see that all of you have a great deal of concern if this should be rezoned and that has :o effect my opinion on the outcome of this will be. Its always diffl*^Uit when all of you are emotionally involved like all of you are, and as lynn (Adams) said many times it comes out beautifully. I don’t thiriM any of us on the P.C. or those of the Council would want to go against the neighbors because if your unhappy then some other action wi 11 occur and I don ’ t thi nk any of us want that. i think if it does not happen and this does not go through, I do feel in a way, that I guess I will be concerned as to what will be proposed in the future. I think that this was very well done and I don’ t feel that that is too many houses for the area. As I say I have a great concern what would happen to that property in the future. You never know. And sometimes when something is as well done as this, you think maybe I should think twice about it. As 7. say, I guess I felt that this was very worth while proposal and now I do have misgivings because of the way most of you do fe-^l. So at the moment, I guess I am a little undecided. Kelley - How big are the building envelopes themselves, average size? Zoning Administrator Mabusth - Thats what I was trying to say when you get into a Planned Residential Development. Actually those building envelopes are 2+ acres, youi not really looking at a residential lot for a 2 acre zone, we * re looking for ownership uni ts for a way to devise the ownership for alternate and principal septic system. It certainly is not a formal residential plat of 3+ acres per unit. Its 20 units with building sites and septic sites tied into an ownership pattern and all the commons area to be shared. And thats where the 3+ unit density comes from. But oddly enough, each one of those . . .with shaped ownership is 2 acres or more. Some is steep slope. Kelley - I guess my point of view is when we initially saw the sketch plan at the last P.C. meeting, I was overly impressed also for the development of the property, however, one of the reasons why I sought the job on the Planning Commission was to keep Orono the way it is, the way I want to see it in the future. 1 guess after hearing the concerns and stirring some of the reasons why I sought the job on the P.C. and what I thought Orono should be, I have difficulty with the density of the housing in that area, along with the citizens that are here tonight. Rovcgno - I have a question for Jeanne to start with. We haven’t had a rezoning actually in cin awful long time. Mabusth “ We have had them but not as.. i .juita Rovegno - As close as I can tell, the only finding that needs to be made is to deny the application is "that the proposed rezoning is not in the best interest of the physical development of the City". Is that the current state of the..theres no place else to look. Mabusth - Its a_ _ McDonald - I think precedent is number one. MaDusth - You know she has just mentionea what I was going to tell you all is that is now accepted in the books - precedent setting. My question to you now is how do you turn down future rezoning applications - say if you building in your barrier, north of the luce line, but how do you turn down other applicants and there will be other applicants, those who come to you and ask to rezone south of the luce line. McDonald - Well I thought I heard him say also that he wants to do this again, heard that. Mabusth -* No..No McDonald - I heard that - You heard that too - See 1 heard it, 1 don't hear these things Jeanne. Mabusth - What he meant there is not in this City, he represents.. Man - Let him say what he meant. McDonald - Yeah. Martineau - I tell you why I said it. He wants the developer who I have become to know personally and respect in the last year, prides himself on doing something in right way. The reason why he had said that to me was because he does not want to come into Orono, put something that is ah..50% when it can be 100% and build that type of reputation. He has done a number business developments in the Minneapolis area that are substantial that I won't go into. McDonald - What City? For instance.. Martineau - He has not done, and that is why ho has appointed Ron Bastyr who has done a number of planning projects in Orono, however he was the developer of the Guadalahara's Restaurant in the Minneapolis area. He prides himself on doing it the right way and prides himself with this reputation and expects to do it the right way. Not to say that he is going to try to rezoned next door. Goetten - In other words he would like to come before US again with some future project sometime. McDonald - And the right way now is 5 acres and how to we deal with this land in a 5 acre zone and how do we place the houses... ibog Hovegno - As long as we are on the subject, the property owners list shows Ski Tonka, Inc. - Your application shows Painters Creek Development Corporation and John Burrell as -v.ier. Bastyr - There was a one acre site that he purchased from Ski Tonka. Man - When did the change in ownership occur? Bastyr - Within the last year. Rovegno - It says November 15-1 just kinda like to know who the players are - now is it John Burrell who has fee title to property or is it Painters Creek. Bastyr - John Burrell has fee title. Painters Creek Development Corporation is John Burrell is President of has got a purchase agreement with John Burrell. In other words, its a transaction between his corporation and himself. Rovegno - Then is Painters Creek Development Corporation is a MN corporation. Bastyr - Yes, I think so, 1 would have to check on that. Goetten -Ron, could you see the people that you are representing here this evening, looking at anything with less density than what you are proposing. Bastyr -We have discussed this and they feel that if this package is not put together then it will be sold as a block package. In other words, they will put the whole property up for sale. Goetten - Again. Bastyr - Yes. The unfortunate thing here is that if it was to remain 5 acres and this development proposal is not allowed, the way that it would be developed would have to be something totdly reversed of what is proposed now. First of all you wouldn't get the amenity package and secondly, you would have it done in awkward shaped parcels and driveway easements to cut the cost of the roaclways down. So what you would have is about the same development at least appearance from the roadways and from the other homes, with the same number of homes, but it would not be done aesthetically like we feel that, we can do with the 20 homes. Man - Thats a self on your part. Bastyr - Thats exactly right. McDonald - Yeah, right, apparently you don't even know - these are going to be sold as individual l ots so we don ' t know what they are going to look like. Bastyr - v;ell, I did work on the original plan for this also and I know some of the lots did conte off ... sc what you would probably end up with is some driveways off C.R. 84, some driveways off McCulley Road and you would probably see virtually the same number of houses on the hillside.. Rovegno - At least seven less. i McDonald - You would also have less cars, less people, less services and less chance of the sower and the Met Council saying ”My God what is Orono doing". You know.. Rovegno - Jeanne, could you comment on using 84 and McCulley Road as accesses, um your talking 300* lots on just a square - so you would have one driveway every 300* or a double driveway every 600* feet. Which the City would probably prefer. Mabusth - Shared, you bet. Rovegno - As far as the planning point of view, separate and distinct from our zoning rules and the rest, I guess I *m kinda in a quandary about the whole thing. Mabusth - What is your question, your problem? Rovegno - This is a real attractive plan, certainly not the same as the rest of the neighborhood out there, but it really is a nice p*an. McDonald ~ (LOUDLY) Well it is a nice plan - you could put in 50 more homes and it still would be nice. (Laughter from crowd) Really it would thats not the point. Mabusth - Are you saying that you like the fact that ail lots are served by interior roads. Rovegno - Yes, and they curve and linear and they use the land and they stay away from steep slopes. All the stuff that the City likes.. Goetten Mabusth - All the things in the new subdivision regulations. If indeed you look at five acre zoning and you say take away the loop road, put up a cul de sac, one or two cul de sac roads, you would have two phases again, the larger lots. There are all kinds of ways it can be done. It can be done. I think Ron has done it before himself. Ican*t remember what the road was like Ron. Ron has dealt with this property with Ski Tonka and other investors. It never came before the P.C. and was never a formal plat. It was how many lots, that first one? Bastyr - I can show you the lots that were added if that will help... Mabusth - It was not a very attractive plan. Bastyr - Here you have the amenity package thats . . . adding 7 lots and one other house. They would still plan for all the houses to be placed on the ridge. First of all these 4 houses..... TAPE 2 Bastyr ~ The remaining houses on the ridge line would be there any ways even if they proposed the 5 acre zoning. So by giving up the PUD they are giving up the amenity package just by losing the houses that people can't see anyway. I guess wc feel that this site is so unique in the fact that its by itself. The only additional lots that we are asking for are the ones that can only be seen by lots that are lesser in size than the ones we are I I R>o c k' proposing. In return for that, we are offering a very large amenity package and we feel that this is the way the development should be done and we feel that its the best development for the City of Orono. We are adding seven lots, lots that nobody is going to see; lots that we feel are necessary to make this thing feasible. McDonald - Feasible, what? I mean why Bastyr - This might be able to be done some 5-TO years from now. McDonald - I mean you could do it tomorrow - keeping in with the ordi nance, right? Bastyr -We could but we wouldn’t for two reasons. First, we don't feel that larger lots are saleable at a price that we would have to give to make up for the cost of the development. Plus the cost of engineering, plus the cost of the improvements. McDonald - its an economic situation, right? Bastyr - Totally, McDond • 1 its real hard to deal economics when you sit at this level representing these people. Ah one thing that I should really tell you is that when we do get these developments coming before us they always start out with more lots and then eventually its worked down and it gets to be a workable plan . An example was Navarre area . It came to us wi th many, many houses and doubles and finally it got done where it was reasonable. Bastyr - l would say that in this case, we felt that we wanted a top notch development and we didn't feel that we come in proposing more lots than we thought v;as feasible, we felt that wo should come in with the proper amount the first time, try to express to you that we want a to do a first class operation, here. And we didn't feel that we could do that by adding 3 or 4 lots that we figured on using. Adams - Jeanne would you comment on the fears/concerns about sewer, possible for the Met Council to impose sewer. Is it Mabusth - Not unless you have ..well it wouldn ' t be the Met Counci 1. . I don ' t think that i ts the Met Council that does that. . I have just given the Chairmadam a section in your Comp. Plan that reviews the philosophy that was really adopted somewhere in 1974-75 when the 5 acre zoning district was formulated. I think Diann, that you should really read it. I Goetten - Section from Comprehensive Plan for rural residential one-dwelling per five acres: "Although the typical two acre rural residential is appropriate for the entire rural serv'ice area, the northwest corner of the City is planned for a lower density of one-unit per five acres. The citizens have a traditional desire for more intensive rural quasi- agricultural activities which require and support the larger minimum lot density. Thus historical land use and not environmental concerns have determined that land use classification. 1 I Section from Comprehensive Plan : "Rural residential one-dwelling per two acre. This is the typical rural residential density developed and planned to be permanently self supporting in all of Oronc*s rural service area. No rural density will be allowed greater than one unit per two acre except for these existing residences and existing housing clusters as identified in the CSPP. New rural development may include housing clustering when environmental and site conditions allow provided the overall density within the development conforms to these requirements". So really in effect you have one supporting it and .. Mabusth - The two acre density is based on the environmental concerns. .no where in the rural area will this City ever go below 2 acre, thats what they feel you need for an on-site septic system housing separation, rural quality. Bur it also says in the north section of the City where the 5 acre zone is established is based on historic that the neighbors want and they have respected that. So given land use patterns sure we had some of those one acre patterns scattered around, but basically you look at the pattern of development in the northwest corner its large lots, hobby farm, greenhouses. Historic, its patterned by the land use pattern. Environmentally its no problem and its really no danger for 2 acres. We can't go on saying we* re going to bring sewer if we go to 2 acres, the majority of our rural area is based on 2 acres. Two acres is fine, your not in environmental danger extending sewer at that point, and we* 11 go on record for that. Your 5 acre zoning District war established historically, its the taste for what the people want. This came out in the year of the rezoning in 1974-75. Goetten - I also would like to read for the record a letter from the assistant director of land stewardship from the nature conservatory (see letter attached). Rovegno - moved to table the conditional use permit and the subdivision application since t^»ey both are meaningless until we find out whether the Council is willing to resolve this. On the rezoning issue, I*d like to note for the record that this is perhaps the most complete and certainly one of the most thoughtful plans that T have seen in the years that I have been here. It addresses all of the things in the zoning code that we tend not to get on applications which I for one always get upset about. However, this is a 5 acre zone its something very special and I' ve been trying to find some reason to say wo should do one thing or the other. .This is a very nice plan but its not the same as the rest of the neighborhood. This isn't a planned residential area of Orono - its a rural area - its kind of hap hazard and this is a different kind of character. Further I can't make the finding that it is in the best interest of the physical development of the City which is the only standard that we have in the zoning code. On those basis I move to recommend denial of the rezoning but further ask the applicant to continue with this type of plan and to come up some where along the lines of this so that it does meet the zoning standards because this is the kind of care and development that we would like to see. Mabusth - But the amenities is what he has been trying to say. You can't have the amenities with a 5 acre zoning, (interrupted by McDonald) McDonald - Hold everything there is a motion on the floor. I'll second the motion. L_... BIEW 7 /o Goetten Goetten Rovegno - Thank you so much. (laughter in the crowd) “I'd like to open this for discussion. I don't think there is a need for 8 miles of road, take out some of the berming and maybe we could even make some allowances for the number of trees. McDonald - Maybe a ski place too. (laughter from crowd) Rovegno - This planner is very creative and maybe he can do some of those things, 1 tor one if we were down to 4.85, not setting an absolute, one wouldn' t be too disturbed. Goetten - As a point of discussion, the windy roads referring to the new subdivision regulations which encourage this type of road. They like the loop road...(interrupted by McDonald) McDonald - We should deal with this because we have another public hearing. Goetten - I don't need your help. I'll call for the motion. Adams - ^to separate the motion. One to table the PRD and deny the Rovegno - I'd happily separate the motion. McDonald - Of course, 1*11 second. Goetten - I'll call for the motion on the denial of the rezoning. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (1). Goetten - Motion for tabling of the rest of the application. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). McDonald - Do you want to give us a minority opinion? Adams-One additional comment, that I have to add, is another factor that the P.C. perhaps overlooks at times is the need for reasonable development in Ore o. Other agencies in Orono, specifically the school districts, that are specifically interested in reasonable, rational, well-planned developments to increase the number of students that they have available so that they can offer a comprehensive plan or comprehensive course selection. And I cite that just as an example. I think that quite often we are quite bicsed in keeping Orono at the lowest possible density and I don't think thats alv^/ays in the best interest of the Community. McDonald - To answer that..i would say Adams “ You don't have to answer that. McDonald - I would say... Goetten - That doesn't require an answer. I I i: ■ 1 (2. U McDonald - The projection that we have given to the Met Council about what our population in Orono will be like 10 years from now, and thats taking into considertion that we utilize the lots that exist.... Adams - Is this a normal deal to have an answer to a minority opinion? McDonald - Well its just for the benefit of the people of the City. Adams “ Is this a normal deal for someone to answer a minority opinion. McDonald - Thats just for the benefit of the people of the public. Goetten - When would this come before the Council. Mabusth - First of all you voted to table the PRD and Conditional Use. It wi 1 go to Council the first meeting in February. Goetten - You are all welcome to attend that meeting. Mabusth - February 13th which will go as a denial recommendation. McDonald - We are just a recommending body the Council has the final say. We send it to the Council and they decide what they v;ill do. Hi" il Wi ifri 11^ .. ill' i inij »■'! iim'p [H Irll -I? / II !H I ni Ih iff i I h - I iVl-ls 'lin.'u; } j i?‘ ! !|l!fflrnl;[ii t t ' iHiJ I,r .■hi ;::L ■ ill I''“ih i « Hill I /■ ' Him i iiiir 3 Ij-i !| iii! 11 ;i !;[• f • " UI ijiin *¥r!!{;'{i lilf'feili'.n., I i afO f 1 !jil ! ‘ Mri'l' 'ii li.l jj Hi (Iff It if •• llir : i ii : I U \ 111 ! Vi f ' ' ' •S*' I imm ' ifil'l I' ?|i > .s fiiii'll ,nI 'i -f itl ‘ 1 if « 9 |{ I ' i •4m M r ! ii' !f j * ii 1 Mi1 i 1 \i! i i ' t:v I ! ■I Iii”I' lli' LONG LAKE COMMUNITY LIBRARY SITE <i: t=? L: 1 li I irVAE • ^ % Ar* \ #807 •»«« m * BUVO.U.8. HWY. IS HfNNfPtN county PCPAnTMCNT Of PNOPfPTY MANAGiAGCMfNT